Royal Wealth and Finances 2: Sep 2022 -

[Marengo]

Arms of The United Kingdom​

Welcome to the thread Royal Wealth and Finances, Part 2

Commencing September 1st, 2022 ​

The previous thread can be found here
​

Please take a look at the
TRF Community Rules & FAQs
​

· Only pictures that you have written permission to share can be posted here. You can post links to any pictures.
· It's a copyright violation to post translations of entire articles, so no more than 20% of an article
text should be posted, along with the link to the original article.
· We expect our members to treat each other, and the royals and persons in these threads, with respect.
· The Report Post button is for reporting inappropriate content in a post if no moderators or administrators are online.
· Threads should remain on topic. Posts which are irrelevant or disruptive
will be deleted or moved by one of the moderators.

***​

​

 

[royal-blue]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but if a king term working royal such as Princess Alexandra or the Duke of Kent was to retire due to old age or I'll health, would they still be granted a grace and favour residence? And would their royal stipend continue?

 

[TLLK]

Not sure if this is a silly question, but if a king term working royal such as Princess Alexandra or the Duke of Kent was to retire due to old age or I'll health, would they still be granted a grace and favour residence? And would their royal stipend continue?

I certainly believe that there would be a residence for them and that the late QEII had likely ensured that KCIII would provide for her cousins.

 

[tommy100]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66045447

The Royal Household's official spending rose by 5% last year, to £107.5m, while its funding from taxpayers remained at £86.3m, annual accounts have revealed.

This meant drawing on reserves for what royal officials called an "exceptional period of transition" following Elizabeth II's death.

It was also confirmed the Duke and Duchess of Sussex have vacated Frogmore Cottage, in Windsor, Berkshire.

The accounts also show royal heating is kept at 19C - to cut energy use.


*But spending was almost £21m higher than the Sovereign Grant, with palace officials attributing the extra costs to:

-the continuing renovation of Buckingham Palace
-extra expenses for the queen's funeral
-the King's accession
-rising inflation



The full report can be viewed here:
https://www.royal.uk/sites/default/files/documents/2023-06/Sovereign Grant Report 2022-23.pdf

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Obituaries of the recently deceased Earl of Airlie, who served as Lord Chamberlain 1984 to 1997, contain some very interesting reading on how he spearheaded dramatic reforms to the British royal finances and organization in the 1980s and 1990s.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-earl-of-airlie-obituary-xg7v0nbjs (archive link)

[The Earl of Airlie] came to Buckingham Palace in December 1984 after running the merchant bank Schroder Wagg. He found an organisation burdened with outdated practices, symptomatic of which was the reluctance of his predecessor, the popular Lord Maclean, to discuss anything of significance on the telephone — Maclean preferred to commit it to paper and then dispatch the missive to its destination by a liveried footman.

[...]

He also found little to criticise in the private secretary’s office, which dealt with the Queen’s official engagements and her relationship with the prime minister and the government. In most departments of the palace, however, he detected a general lack of integrated long-term planning, and he decided to get the Queen on side and persuade his colleagues into accepting a corporate style of management.

Airlie’s long-term aim was to make the royal household master of its own destiny. Over the years it had been subsumed into the civil service and that, he said, was not a good thing. He told colleagues: “It is the job of the household to provide a strong, independent support and bastion for the sovereign.”

The household then employed more than 400 people and the maintenance of the palaces had been run for years by the environment department. The Queen’s collection of paintings and art treasures lacked staff and funding, and the office of the privy purse was having to cope with the effects of inflation and short-term cash injections, under the wary eye of the Treasury in Whitehall.

Airlie’s reforms transformed the creaky internal management, with resulting cost-effectiveness. The palaces regained control of their own maintenance and the royal collection, which had been run by the lord chamberlain’s department, became independent and profitable, mounting innovative exhibitions and starting social outreach programmes. For the first time in a century it was able to buy new works.

Airlie then started negotiating a new arrangement for the civil list (now the sovereign grant), the method by which the government reimbursed the Queen and other members of the royal family for the cost of carrying out public duties. In 1990 the drip-feed annual review, agreed in the 1970s, was replaced with a ten-year settlement which assumed an annual 7.5 per cent inflation rate. A side-effect was the avoidance of the perennial “Queen gets pay rise” headlines favoured by the popular press. Two years later, government financing of royal expenses was ended for all members of the royal family except the Queen, Prince Philip and the Queen Mother.

The civil list settlement was reached at a time when public and political opinion was out of sympathy with the Queen over her exemption from paying tax on her private fortune. She was expected to challenge any proposals to remove this privilege but in 1993, to the surprise of her advisers, she capitulated after the briefest of discussions. Airlie had prepared the ground by winning over Prince Philip, knowing well that as far as domestic issues were concerned the Queen invariably bowed to his opinion.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/obituar...ie-obituary-lord-chamberlain-queen-schroders/

When Airlie proposed a thorough review, the Queen gave him full authority to carry it out – effectively changing the Lord Chamberlain’s ancient ceremonial and non-executive role to that of chief executive. According to one of his successors, Airlie proceeded to “read the riot act” to department heads, telling them that they must work to budgets and co-operate with each other: “And that didn’t half rattle a few cages.”

His aim was to regain control of palace purse strings from the Treasury and to make the case for a more realistic Civil List income to fund royal activities; to do so, he had first to demonstrate that the monarch was running a tight ship.

To that end, he brought in the accountant Michael Peat (later private secretary to the Prince of Wales – Prince Charles, as he was then). Peat’s firm KPMG were already the Household’s auditors and they in due course produced a report proposing 188 reforms, ranging from rationalisation of staff dining rooms to preparations for the opening to the public, on a self-financing basis, of the Royal Collections.

[...]

Evident hostility to suggestions that taxpayers might foot the Windsor [Castle fire of 1992] bill confirmed how far the family’s popularity had withered: as Airlie also remarked, it was “the very nadir of our stock market”.

If Elizabeth II was largely credited with restoring royal popularity in her later years, Airlie helped her regain ground in the mid-1990s, both by persuading her of the wisdom of paying tax and meeting most of Windsor’s restoration costs herself, and by convening the “Way Ahead” group of senior family members and aides to discuss the future of “the firm”.

 

[royal-blue]

If William was to pass away while he is was Duke of Cornwall, what would happen to the proceeds from the Duchy of Cornwall? Would Catherine still be able to receive an allowance from it to fund the royal duties and lifestyle of herself and her children?

 

[SLV]

My guess is yes. George would be the new Duke, right? But he still a minor.

 

[wbenson]

If William was to pass away while he is was Duke of Cornwall, what would happen to the proceeds from the Duchy of Cornwall?

That money would go to the King, and the Sovereign Grant would be reduced by the same amount. George would then receive a grant from the Treasury. Until he's 18, it would be 10% of the proceeds of the Duchy of Cornwall. Afterwards, 100%. (Since he'd never be Duke of Cornwall, he'd never get it directly from the duchy.)

I think Catherine would be responsible for administering that 10% since she'd be George's sole guardian, but I imagine that she would have to go back to having her duties and living arrangements funded by her father-in-law.

 

[Iluvbertie]

My guess is yes. George would be the new Duke, right? But he still a minor.

No - in the scenario where William dies before Charles then George is never the 'eldest son of the Sovereign' and so would never be eligible to be the Duke of Cornwall or hold any of the Scottish titles.

To be Duke of Cornwall or Duke of Rothesay George has to met two criteria - heir apparent AND eldest son of the Sovereign. Fulfilling one isn't enough.

He would, though, inherit Duke of Cambridge as those titles have the standard remainder 'heirs male of the body'.

George III was in that situation and was never Duke of Cornwall and never had any of its income while the heir apparent after the death of his father.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

The above discussed arrangements are laid down in the Duchy of Cornwall's charter of 1337 and the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011, respectively.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw3/11/0
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/section/9

 

[Marengo]

An interesting article from the Gaurdian about the so-called bona vacantia.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens

Apparently in some parts of the (ceremonial?) county of Lancastershire people who die without a will or next of kin automatically leave their possessions to the the Duchy of Lancaster. The last ten years 60 million pounds were collected. The proceeds seem to go to various charities.

 

[tommy100]

Interesting indeed - the Duchy has its own webpage about bona vacantia, it doesn't mention the estate using any of the money on its own estate and properties.
https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/duties-of-the-duchy/bona-vacantia/

 

[Saragli]

I thought I knew royal greed – but King Charles profiting from the assets of the dead is a disgusting new low

"For decades, parliament has been far too lenient about the royal family’s finances. This avaricious practice needs to end"

The Guardian continues it's anti-monarchy campaign and they've found a particularly emotive issue. Whilst I don't think the monarchy should be punished for turning the two Duchies into financially successful institutions; I also don't think the RF should be given special treatment and exceptions.

The issue of bona vacantia will have to be addressed if it was announced that the practice would be to donate the proceeds to charity if in fact, according to The Guardian, they are being used to generate profit. It's not the monarchy's fault people don't have their finances in order for when they pass away, or have no next of kin, but the use of that money is certainly a sensitive subject.

 

[Alison H]

I live in historic Lancashire. No-one ever talks about bona vacantia. Yes, it exists, but the Guardian makes it sound as if it's a big political issue. I doubt that more than one person in a thousand has ever even heard of it.

 

[Saragli]

I live in historic Lancashire. No-one ever talks about bona vacantia. Yes, it exists, but the Guardian makes it sound as if it's a big political issue. I doubt that more than one person in a thousand has ever even heard of it.

Yes, much of The Guardians recent campaigns against the Monarchy haven't quite exploded politically the way they'd like, we'll see how this story settles.

Whilst I don't agree with The Guardians motives, they do bring up many good points and issues the monarchy should address for longevity's sake.

 

[tommy100]

And its not just limited to the Duchy estates and land. For the rest of the UK the money from bona vacantia goes to the government which spends it on “public services” so its not like the government give it to charity and the Duchy now doesn’t. (Tbh is it that different- the uk gov uses it to pay for services its already budgeted for, the duchy for work it would usually pay for)

Interesting how the Guardian’s latest claims there are questions over” the £14million” when the original article made it sound like much more than that.

Its always hard to overlook and see beyond the Guardian’s avowed republican stance when it comes to articles and issues like this.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

Royal biographer Hugo Vickers wrote a piece about wills of British royals for the Telegraph.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-f...eth-ii-aunt-kept-secret-prince-frank-of-teck/

Some excerpts:

[...] Up until 1911, it was only the sovereign’s will that was kept behind closed doors. That all changed due to the antics of Prince Frank of Teck, the wayward brother of Queen Mary (Princess Mary’s mother).

The gambler and troublemaker – he’d been expelled from Wellington College, Berkshire, “for throwing his housemaster over a hedge to win a bet” – had had an affair with society beauty Ellen, the wife of the Earl of Kilmorey, and thus bequeathed her the famous Cambridge emeralds in the will he wrote in 1902. (He died in 1910.) To cover up the scandal and recover the jewels, Queen Mary succeeded in getting his and all subsequent wills of extended Royal family members sealed.

[...]

While we do not know what is in most royal wills, in respect of the dispositions within them, we do know how much money they left in total, because that is published. For example, we know that Princess Mary [who died in 1965] left a total of £347,626, reduced to £328,224 after death duties, which works out at around £5.6 million in today’s money.

[...]

[Queen Mary] persuaded her son Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester, to appoint two of Queen Victoria’s spinster granddaughters, Princess Helena Victoria and Princess Marie Louise, as godmothers to his sons, William and Richard (the present Duke). As Queen Mary hoped, the princesses left their estates to the boys.

[...]

Some kept things blissfully simple. The Queen Mother, for example, left everything to Elizabeth II, who then distributed a selection of bequests to members of the Royal family as a way of saving death duties. Others, meanwhile, were just plain irritating: upon her death in 1959, Princess Arthur of Connaught, Duchess of Fife left the striking Mar Lodge estate in the Cairngorms to one nephew, Captain Alexander Ramsay… and its contents to another, the Duke of Fife.

[...]

One will that was emphatically blown open, however, was that of Diana, Princess of Wales, in 1998. Hers was made public by her lawyers at Mischcon de Reya, as it was deemed to be in the public interest – and by the time of her death, she was no longer technically a member of the Royal family. Her estate of £21,711,485 was largely divided between her sons, William and Harry with £50,000 given to her butler, Paul Burrell, and certain keepsakes to her 17 godchildren. Evidently there was controversy: the original plan was that all of her jewellery and 75 per cent of her personal belongings (“chattels”) be passed on to her two sons and 25 per cent to her godchildren, but her mother and sister challenged this in the probate court. In the end, the godchildren merely got “tacky mementos” (so the story goes), while her sons’ age of access to their inheritance was raised from 25 years to 30.

In earlier times there were monarchs who tried to alter the line of succession in their wills. Michael Nash, who has made a comprehensive study of them – Royal Wills in Britain From 1509 to 2008 – digs deep into the many shenanigans. Amongst other things, he tells us that Queen Adelaide’s will was deemed invalid when presented for probate, and that Elizabeth I and Queen Alexandra were so suspicious of lawyers that they refused to make wills at all.

[...]​

 

[Somebody]

Interesting how godparents are used as a way to enrich your family/children.