Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rocketmom said:
I don't think this has been asked before. Do all Dukes receive an income from their duchy? I know Charles does from his but how about William and Andrew? Is that the advantage to being a Duke as opposed to a Prince? And why is Edward "just" an Earl instead of a Duke?
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between a Duchy and a Dukedom.
- A duchy is implies a territorial domain, within which the duke has actual land holdings.
- A dukedom is the title of duke, a rank of nobility, and is not necessarily attached to a duchy.

Currently, there are only two Duchies in the United Kingdom - the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Both are "Crown bodies', regulated by Acts of Parliament.
- The Duchy of Lancaster owns about 46,500 acres of land, including the Lancaster Castle. It is administered by The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is usually a member of the British Cabinet. The income generated by the Duchy goes directly to the Monarch of the time (incidentally, the Monarch has always been The Duke of Lancaster since 1413).
- The Duchy of Cornwall owns about 141,000 acres of land, which constitutes about 2% of the County of Cornwall. The Estate of the Duchy has lands elsewhere as well, including in Devon and Dartmoor. The income from the Duchy is meant to support the Heir Apparent to the Throne, and goes directly to him.

Currently, there are only seven Royal Dukes, of which only two, as mentioned above, have Duchies, not just Dukedoms:
- Duke of Lancaster (Queen Elizabeth II)
- Duke of Cornwall and Duke of Rothesay (Prince Charles)
- Duke of Edinburgh (Prince Philip)
- Duke of Cambridge (Prince William)
- Duke of York (Prince Andrew)
- Duke of Gloucester (Prince Richard)
- Duke of Kent (Prince Edward - the son of Prince George, Duke of Kent)

All non-royal Dukes have Dukedoms, but not Duchies.


In regards to Prince Edward, it was decided that he will only be an Earl, and not royal Duke, for the time being because it is anticipated he will eventually inherit the title of the Duke of Edinburgh from his father. If he were created a Duke at the time of his wedding, it'd mean Edward would end up with two Dukedoms one day.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, everyone, for your replies. I'm learning lots here.
 
Sovereign Grant Act 2011

One of the provisions of this act is that the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall go to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether he or she is the Duke of Cornwall.

Sovereign Grant Act: main provisions - HM Treasury

For instance, if the heir is the monarch's daughter, she won't be Duke of Cornwall (because only a man can be Duke of Cornwall).

Similarly, if Prince Charles were to predecease the Queen, William would be heir to the throne, but Andrew would be Duke of Cornwall (since the Duke of Cornwall is always the eldest surviving son of the monarch).

The new act ensures the revenues go to the heir, whether or not he or she is the DoC.

One aspect, however, struck me as odd. If the Duke of Cornwall is a minor, 90% of the revenues go to the monarch and 10% go to the heir to the throne. That's if the DoC is a minor: not if the heir is a minor. e.g. suppose the heir is the monarch's grandson, and the Duke of Cornwall is the heir's younger uncle, a minor. Even though the heir is not a minor, he would only get 10% of the revenues, because the DoC is a minor!

Makes me think they might have made a mistake.
 
The big mistake you are making is missing the fact that there are two criteria to be Duke of Cornwall not one.

To be DoC you have to be both the heir apparent to the throne AND the eldest surviving son of the monarch so Andrew can't be DoC while Charles, William, Harry or their descendents are alive.

If Charles dies William would become heir apparent although he wouldn't be the eldest son of the monarch but Andrew would be the eldest son but not Duke of Cornwall so no Duke of Cornwall would exist.

If William's first born child is a girl she won't be Duchess of Cornwall in her own right but will be heir apparent so her younger brother won't become Duke of Cornwall as he won't be the heir to the throne.

Charles is both heir apparent and eldest son of the monarch so he is Duke of Cornwall. William will met both criteria when the Queen dies and Charles succeeds but if Charles dies in the present reign there will be no Duke of Cornwall to replace Charles as no one would meet both criteria.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, I've now looked at the Bill itself (rather than the summary). The provision about what to do if the Duke of Cornwall being a minor comes first, and THEN comes the statement that if the heir to the throne is not the Duke of Cornwall, they still get the money that would otherwise go to the Duke of Cornwall, so I suppose that makes it clear enough that the same provision about the case of minority also applies to a non-DOC HTTT.

Ah well, good to know.
 
Ugh, this is going to become a big issue among the usual left-wing media and commentators. The government decided to replace the civil list and all those other grants and replace it with 15% of the CE's profits. The royal family have no control whatsoever over what the CE does. Due to the excellent management by the people who run the CE, they've managed to make bigger profits, even at a time of recession.

I'm sure the Queen will put some of this increase into the reserves to cover the possibility that the CE's profit falls, leading to the monarchy receiving less money than they require to fund the Queen's costs as head of state.
 
I think that's the plan anyway. That any surplus go away for rainy day. :flowers:
 
I've also heard rumours that the surplus might be used to start the renovation work that's required on Buckingham Palace in particular. They're going to think carefully about any long-term plans that they have.
 
The left will whinge about anything and everything in my experience. I personally think that this is a much better system for the Royal Family. Better to get 15% of Crown Estate profits than a lump sum that is fixed once a decade. If the Crown Estate can turn a profit in these economic times, I'm sure this arrangement will be quite good for all concerned.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think there should be another 10% allotted to go towards palace long term repairs, roofs, etc.
 
padams2359 said:
I think there should be another 10% allotted to go towards palace long term repairs, roofs, etc.
Click to expand...

That would be a good idea. I think everyone forgets that the Queen doesn't personally own Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and that simply keeping such residences in a suitable condition is very costly. But I still think by and large they get a pretty good deal under the new arrangements.
 
In relative terms they are still worse off than they were in 1992.
 
Well it's the time of the year where you'll hear the same complains about the "freeloaders" royals. Can't wait to see the usual Daily Mail article about this.

Anyway if the annual funding has indeed risen, the tax bill and the part given to charities rose too. But of course it's far less juicy...

The Clarence House's annual report is always interesting to read btw :

http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/content/documents/Annual Review 2012.pdf
 
What also won't be acknowledged by the critics is that the PoW and DoC conduct overseas visits at the request of the government. They don't just wake up one day and decide they'd quite like to go to South Africa next week. They go where they're told to go by the government and the Queen.
 
EIIR said:
What also won't be acknowledged by the critics is that the PoW and DoC conduct overseas visits at the request of the government. They don't just wake up one day and decide they'd quite like to go to South Africa next week. They go where they're told to go by the government and the Queen.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the government requests an increase in foreign tours, such as South Africa and the Middle East and unscheduled events like the death of another Saudi Crown Prince, costs will go up from year to year. Increases of this kind should not be looked at as a negative since they raise the profile and goodwill of the UK.
 
You're being far too logical, bert. Aren't you outraged that Charles is getting more taxpayer money when it could be used to pay teachers (even though we have an oversupply of teachers) or nurses (even though we have an oversupply of nurses)?

Just think what every British man, woman and child could do with the 3.5p that we each give to cover these expenses. :rolleyes:
 
Nico said:
And here we are. What a surprise !

Prince Charles' taxpayer funding increases by 11% in a year | Mail Online
Click to expand...

Sorry but I don't see the need for sarcasm? It's a news outlet reporting on a story, Charles' money has increased which is obvious beyond belief but it's a story.

There has been an additions to the Wales family, and William, Harry and Catherine have done a lot more work due to the Jubilee. It's not something surprising or newsworthy or even interesting but it's within the press' right to know about the monarchy's finances.
 
Daz_Voz said:
One aspect, however, struck me as odd. If the Duke of Cornwall is a minor, 90% of the revenues go to the monarch and 10% go to the heir to the throne. That's if the DoC is a minor: not if the heir is a minor. e.g. suppose the heir is the monarch's grandson, and the Duke of Cornwall is the heir's younger uncle, a minor. Even though the heir is not a minor, he would only get 10% of the revenues, because the DoC is a minor!

Makes me think they might have made a mistake.
Click to expand...

There's no mistake. It has always been the case the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall accrue to The Sovereign automatically if there is no extant Duke. For example, when George V died in 1936 and Edward succeeded his father as King, the revenues accrued to him along with the income from the Duchy of Lancaster.

When George VI succeeded after the Abdication, the Duchy's revenues again accrued to him as his daughter could not hold the Dukedom in her own right as a female. However, when Elizabeth turned 18, it was agreed a portion of the Duchy's income would be paid to her as the heir presumptive.

The new Act formalizes these arrangements to ensure the heir has an income to carry out their duties, whether they are male or female. If the heir is a minor, it makes sense a limited percentage would be paid to them until they reach a mature age.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but I don't see the need for sarcasm? It's a news outlet reporting on a story, Charles' money has increased which is obvious beyond belief but it's a story.

There has been an additions to the Wales family, and William, Harry and Catherine have done a lot more work due to the Jubilee. It's not something surprising or newsworthy or even interesting but it's within the press' right to know about the monarchy's finances
Click to expand...


Your comment surprises me. You know perferctly that the DM picked up this story for some controversial purpose and their headline "well those Royal tours and all Kate's dresses don't come cheap" is, well, quite sarcastic itself.

I agree with you that Charles's money rise is perfectly understandable but i'm afraid that the DM, as usual at this time of the year, will not see some logic into that and will prefere to please the "kill the freeloaders" department.
 
Lumutqueen said:
Sorry but I don't see the need for sarcasm?...
Click to expand...
I think the sarcasm is entirely legitimate. The Daily Mail publish this article in its current form to deliberately stir up its readers. They just want clicks on the article and comments at the bottom of it.

They choose not to mention that Charles raised £131 million for his charities last year, despite the longest and deepest recession since the 1930s. They choose not to explain that Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry have undertaken more overseas visits, not because they fancied it, but because the government asked them to. They don't point out that their overseas trips were over longer distances travelled during those visits or that within the travel costs there is the inclusion of part of the costs of their Spring Tour in 2011 (to Portugal, Spain and Morocco). Or that Duchy Originals has had a record year and has donated profits of £3.5 million to charitable causes in the last 2 years.

The DM are being disingenuous and selective in trying to paint this as typical Charles and his freeloader/parasitic ways, which is unfair.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess that depends on how you read an article, guess I have a more unbiased view of DM.
 
:hamster:I can see it both ways. Charles gets to deduct his charitable contributions on his Inland Revenue report, doesn't he?

Evidentally, it is easy to stir the pot with a true statement: "well those Royal tours and all Kate's dresses don't come cheap". They don't come cheap, do they?:hamster:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Royal Wealth and Finances 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
17
Views
2K
Somebody
Somebody
Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
367
Somebody
Somebody
LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -
2 3
Replies
78
Views
8K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
British Royal Family Current Events 11: Sep 2022 -
7 8 9
Replies
250
Views
12K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom