Costs, Income and Fortune of the Dutch Royal Family


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Although I am not a great fan of the prime minister, I have to admit that he has the rare gift of making any ride seem easy. But this one seems to be genuinely easy now D66 changed its tune.

IMHO it was a discussion "voor de bühne" as the whole proposal made no sense. I suppose the topic was also conveniently eclipsed by two other small scandals of yesterday: the D66 leader receiving an apartment from a diplomat and Wilders & his troubles in Rotterdam.

Thanks for providing a summary, Duc.
 
Has the restoration of the palace been left for too long or have there been problems?

I think it's a silly demand that the royals should pay income tax. Of their private investments and personal fortune, that's fair enough. But are they suggesting the royals should pay income tax of the money they get from the state? - Because that only means that amount will have to be increased proportionally.
 
Has the restoration of the palace been left for too long or have there been problems?

I think it's a silly demand that the royals should pay income tax. Of their private investments and personal fortune, that's fair enough. But are they suggesting the royals should pay income tax of the money they get from the state? - Because that only means that amount will have to be increased proportionally.

That is indeed what the Prime Minister says: at the one had the State gives a bruto amount and then it takes back taxes but then there will be endless hassling about taxt deductions: "Are the costs for Princess Beatrix' hairdresser deductible or not?" Etc.

Add to this: the King, Queen Máxima, Princess Beatrix and Princess Amalia can not get disability benefits, unemployment benefits, sick leave, a pension, name it all. They are simply incomparable with "normal" Dutch women and men.

The argument of the Socialist Party and D66 always was: "Everyone has to pay income taxes. To stress that, it would be a symbolic statement that also the King pays taxes, like everyone."

I must say, the idea is good, but the practical consequences are complicated. Another problem is that the general public thinks that "the royal family" (the brother of the King, his aunts, his cousins, etc.) "do not pay taxes" which is really not true.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for your reply. ?

And you are right. The various tax-deductions would IMO cause only more criticism. It's better as is.
 
The almost 300 pages long report "Het inkomen van de Koning" (the King's income) is in Dutch, via this link.

A summary:

1795
The Orange-Nassaus were forced into exile after the shockwaves of the French Revolution also reached the United Provinces. The new "Batavian Republic" confisquated the palaces and domains Het Loo, Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch and other domains and properties of the princely family.

1813
Prince Willem-Frederik of Orange-Nassau, the son of the last Stadtholder, became the Soeverein Vorst (Sovereign Prince) of the Netherlands.

1814
The "Constitutional Assembly" wanted to establish in the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the King should get an annual income of 1 million guilders "to maintain the resplendance of the Crown".

The Sovereign Prince however wanted to see an arrangement in which the domains, palaces and other properties which were confisquated in 1795 were involved.

For some reasons it was not practical to return the confisquated properties immediately and the "Constitutional Assembly" agreed that the King then would receive 1,5 million guilders as an annual income plus the right to request for a return of confisquated properties, which then would be re-calculated in the annual income.

(1,5 million guilders in 1814 contributes with 11,3 million Euro today - caculator).

1815
The Southern Netherlands and the Northern Netherlands were united. The King also became Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. Because of this the arrangement was raised to 2,4 million guilders. This corresponds with 17,7 million Euro today.

1822
King Willem I lifted the option for a return of the confisquated properties. The King accepted the return of certain domains in private ownership, as a result his annual state income was re-calculated with 500.000 guilders lower (to 1,9 million guilders). The income which these returned properties would generate formed the King's private income. The King used this new private income to invest heavily in new upcoming industries, at one side to improve the country's economy and at the other side in hoping to make good rendements on his investments.

1830
The rebellion of the Southern Netherlands led to the foundation of Belgium. (The Netherlands would only recognize the new state in 1839). By his own initiative the King lowered the annual income to 1,5 million guilders. This corresponds with 14 million Euro today).

1840
The Constitution was adapted after the definitive loss of the Southern Netherlands. The annual income of 1,5 million guilders, as set by the King in 1830, was now also written in the Constitution.

1848
The Constitution was completely changed: the absolutist monarchy disappeared, the parliamentary democracy arrived. The arrangements for the income of the King were drastically changed:
- the annual income was lowered from 1,5 million to 1 million guilders (this corresponds to 10,5 million Euro today)
- the King handed over the in 1822 returned domains to the State to establish the "Crown Domains"
- however no longer the factual owner, the King would enjoy the ownership rights of the Crown Domains
- the revenues from the Crown Domains would be seen as an additional income next to the annual State income (that is why the King accepted the lowering of annual the State income).
- at every accession of a new King, the States-General (Parliament) would establish a new annual income. This annual income then would remain unchanged for the whole Reign, to prevent annual (inconvenient) discussions in Parliament.

1849
Only one year after the drastic changes in the Constitution, King Willem II died. According to the new rules in the Constitution, the States-General had to establish an annual income for King Willem III. Because of the country's financial problems, the annual amount was set to 600.000 guilders, much lower than the 1 million guilders set a year earlier. This corresponds to 6,6 million Euro today.

1890
King Willem III died. The annual income for the new (underaged) Queen Wilhelmina remained unchanged on the annual amount which was set in 1849, namely 600.000 guilders a year.

1918
A new Constitution was needed because all adult citizens, both male and female, were given the right to vote and to be elected. The Government took this opportunity to propose change in the annual income. This was 600.000 Euro since 1849, meaning it has not been changed for almost 70 years (!).

600.000 million guilders in 1849 corresponds with 6,6 million Euro today.
600.000 million guilders in 1918 corresponds with 4 million Euro today.

So effectively in 1918 Queen Wilhelmina was 2,6 million poorer in annual purchasing power than her father King Willem III in 1849.

The Government proposed an annual amount of 1,2 million guilders for Queen Wilhelmina. And indeed, after a lot of discussion, the annual income for the Queen was set on 1,2 million guilders. This corresponds with 7,8 million Euro today).

1938
The Government found it no longer workable that the annual income of the King could only be vested at the start of each Reign. King Willem III started in 1849 and would reign for 41 years. In 1938 Queen Wilhelmina was in the 48th year of her Reign.The general standard of living had drastically improved, the annual inflation and pay rises were high. All this time it was impossible to adapt the income of the King. The Government proposed that no longer the income of the King was set by the start of each Reign but would be set via the annual State Budget. The States-General agreed.

1949
It became clear that the costs of the pensions of the retired staff were "eating" into the private fortune of the Queen. The States-General agreed with a proposal of the government to donate 7 million guilders as a contribution into a Foundation Pensions for the retired staff of the royal household, part of the general pension fund for the civic service. Queen Juliana would also donate into that Pension Fund. Argument: the staff of the royal household could not be considered to be "private personnel" as they were also subservient to a proper functioning of the office of state, the public function, which is the kingship. It was "undesirable" that the Queen had to pay from her own pocket for the functioning of an office of state.

1945-1960
The same argument for the retired staff of the royal household, was also used for the current staff, for the costs of transportation, for the security, for foreign travels, for the reception of (foreign) dignitaries. All these costs were subservient to a proper functioning of the office of state, the public function. Also here it was seen as "undesirable" that the Queen had to pay from her own pocket for the functioning of her official duties. So more and more costs were diverted to various departments like Foreign Affairs, Defence, the Interior, etc.

1952

The annual amount was raised from 1,2 million to 1,5 million guilders (this corresponds to 5,4 million Euro today).

1961
The annual amount was raised from 1,5 million to 2,5 million guilders (this corresponds to 7,2 million Euro today).

1966
The annual amount was raised from 2,5 million to 5,2 million guilders (this corresponds to 12,3 million Euro today).


1966-1972
In the 1960's the Netherlands had it's own Wirtschaftswunder, an economic boom. The wages and the prices spiralled. The Welfare Society made it's entrance. A giant gas field was found in the North-East of the Netherlands, resulting in an immense cashflow of billions.

The royal finances, despite the regular raises, lagged behind. More and more the Queen had to fill the gaps in her budget with private money. This was "undesireable" and also not sustainable as this would erode end exhaust the private wealth of the Queen. The Queen was no "ordinary Mrs" it was generally expected that she would live in a certain state, that "the resplendance of the Crown" was maintained.

1972
After a long process the current Financial Statute for the Royal House was approved:
- the King
- the future King
- the former King
(and their eventual spouses) receive an individual income from the state

These annual incomes have two components:
- a private income
- a functional income (to cover the costs for the execution of the royal dignity)

These annual incomes are indexed with the general pay rise for civil servants.

The costs of the palaces would remain with the State.

The State pays for the royal household, for the transportation, for the security, for representation, for communication: with other words, the whole execution of the royal function is financed by the State.
 
Last edited:
The Crown Domain
Kroondomein 1 belonged to the State (given by King Willem II in 1848) and existed in an investment portfolio as well 11.389 hectare of domains. Part of this domain included the Rentambt Het Loo (3.260 hectare, see Kroondomein 2). The King had the pleasure to receive the revenues.

Kroondomein 2 was given by Queen Wilhelmina to the State in 1959. It held the Rentambt Het Loo (3.260 hectare, already in use as part of Kroondomein 1) and 6.736 hectare of other lands bordering Kroondomein 1.

In 1959 Queen Wilhelmina donated Kroondomein 2 to the State under the stipulation that also here the King would have the pleasure to receive the revenues, alike for Kroondomein 1.Special remainder to this gift: in case of a republic, the State would return these domains to the royal family (or give a financial compensation).

These Crown Domains suffered losses in the 1960's, mainly because the royal forestry did cost more than it generated. Kroondomein 1 (the gift of Willem II) could compensate the losses with the revenues of their investment portfolio. Kroondomein 2 (the gift of Queen Wilhelmina) had no revenues from an investment portfolio to compensate for the losses. In fact Queen Juliana (in good times the reveiver of revenues) had to fill the gaps, year after year (around 500.000 guilders per year).

The State (the owner of the Crown Domains after all) was responsible. The Department of Finances suggested that the State would dissolve Kroondomein 1 and compensate the Queen for the loss of the revenues from that Domain. From the sources around Queen Juliana came the suggestion to dissolve Kroondomein II as well. The idea was that Staatsbosbeheer (the State Forestry Service) would purchase Kroondomein 1 and Kroondomein 2. It would become normal nature reserves under the management of Staatsbosbeheer. Queen Juliana would be compensated for the loss of the usufruct and revenues of these domains.

It was all more complicated than thought: it needed a change of the Constitution to get the Crown Domains out of the income of the King, which would require lenghty parliamentary readings and all the floodlights full on the incomes and wealth of the royal family. Inside the royal family there was also opposition against the willingness of Queen Juliana to dissolve Kroondomein 2 (opposition by Prince Bernhard).

Another complicated factor was that in Kroondomein 1 (the gift of Willem II in 1849) was the Rentambt Het Loo (a substantial part of that domain and included in the gift of Queen Wilhelmina of Kroondomein 2 in 1959) and it was all so entangled and complicated.

Finally in 1972 (together with the new Financial Statute of the Royal House) Kroondomein 1 became fully a "normal" State Domain (so no longer with revenues for the King). Kroondomein 2 (the gift of Queen Wilhelmina) was not sold, instead the management was optimalized, the processes were modernized and the perfomance improved. The revenues are used for the maintenance of the domain. Since then Kroondomein 2 is solid. (The resistance of Prince Bernhard against drastic plans by Queen Juliana worked here, we may say).
 
Last edited:
For some reason or another -visibility in the press being the most likely one- our warriors of democracy, the members of parliament, wanted to know if the King owned any stock of Royal Dutch Shell. Apparently they needed this information to debate the delving of gas in Groningen.

The answer came from the royal house themselves: they published on their website that the king does not own any stock in companies that use the predicate 'royal' . So that includes Royal Dutch Shell. The spokesperson of the RF adds that 'this is not a
recent development'.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2228167-koning-heeft-geen-aandelen-shell.html

What a relief, now this is cleared up we can all sleep assured. What a circus these people make of their jobs.
 
Unless Princess Beatrix and her sisters hold the bulk of the fortune, the myth is more or less blown up: no, the King does not own shares in Royal Dutch Shell, neither in KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, nor in Royal Philips Electronics, or in whichever company with the honorific "Koninklijke" (Royal).
 
Strange news: the costs of the royal family is estimated to be 6 times higher than the official number. It is not 60 million euros but 345 million euros.

https://www.parool.nl/binnenland/-kosten-koningshuis-liggen-zeker-zes-keer-hoger~a4595549/

This is the headline as presented in the press. But then the article continues: it is based on a calculation of the Republican Society. And the society itself acknowledges that they used 'creative calculation methods'.

And the creativity is mainly in the ludicrous assumption that the tax offices miss out on 192 million Euros of tax each year because the fortune of 12 billion Euros of the RF is exempt from taxes.

The society knows where the royal family is the weakest: money issues. So they do the populist thing, which is fitting for the times we live in I suppose.

They claim a republic is much cheaper, forgetting that the palaces will still be owned by the state & need to be maintained, there will still be a head of state that goes on state visits, that needs to throw banquets, that needs a staff, security, etc etc. But why let reality get in the way of your argument.

I am sure some of our wonderful members of parliament will gladly use this idiotic 'study' as a way to profile themselves & will ask questions to the PM about the matter. Most Dutch people who will hear about the news will read no further than the headline and assume that the whole thing is true.
 
For some reason or another -visibility in the press being the most likely one- our warriors of democracy, the members of parliament, wanted to know if the King owned any stock of Royal Dutch Shell. Apparently they needed this information to debate the delving of gas in Groningen.

The answer came from the royal house themselves: they published on their website that the king does not own any stock in companies that use the predicate 'royal' . So that includes Royal Dutch Shell. The spokesperson of the RF adds that 'this is not a
recent development'.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2228167-koning-heeft-geen-aandelen-shell.html

What a relief, now this is cleared up we can all sleep assured. What a circus these people make of their jobs.


Is Royal Dutch Shell listed under that name everywhere in the world ? That question matters to know whether the Royal House’s reply is deliberately deceptive or not.
 
Is Royal Dutch Shell listed under that name everywhere in the world ? That question matters to know whether the Royal House’s reply is deliberately deceptive or not.

It is listed on the Amsterdam and London Stock Exchanges as Shell.

Of course eventual properties can be given in ownership of a legal entity. Then, completely according truth, can be stated that the King has no intetests in Shell, KLM, Philips or other companies with the honorific "Koninklijke".
 
Last edited:
:previous:

That was indeed the more cryptic part for me too. Princesses Irene, Margriet and Christina & children have organized their money in the Lys fund, Stichting Royale, the Daffodil trust and the Crocus trust. It is possible that something simular happened for the main line.
 
:previous:

That was indeed the more cryptic part for me too. Princesses Irene, Margriet and Christina & children have organized their money in the Lys fund, Stichting Royale, the Daffodil trust and the Crocus trust. It is possible that something simular happened for the main line.

It is also possible that the royals have no shares at all but invest in private equity funds like Waterland or Egeria, or private investment funds like Robeco High Yield Bonds, Van Kempen High Dividend, Insinger-De Beaufort Gold, etc. So no oldfashioned shares in KLM, Heineken or Unilever, but as participants in equity or investment funds they are indirect investors indeed.
 
Last edited:
The almost 300 pages long report "Het inkomen van de Koning" (the King's income) is in Dutch, via this link.

A summary:

1795
The Orange-Nassaus were forced into exile after the shockwaves of the French Revolution also reached the United Provinces. The new "Batavian Republic" confisquated the palaces and domains Het Loo, Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch and other domains and properties of the princely family.

1813
Prince Willem-Frederik of Orange-Nassau, the son of the last Stadtholder, became the Soeverein Vorst (Sovereign Prince) of the Netherlands.

1814
The "Constitutional Assembly" wanted to establish in the Constitution for the Kingdom of the Netherlands that the King should get an annual income of 1 million guilders "to maintain the resplendance of the Crown".

The Sovereign Prince however wanted to see an arrangement in which the domains, palaces and other properties which were confisquated in 1795 were involved.

For some reasons it was not practical to return the confisquated properties immediately and the "Constitutional Assembly" agreed that the King then would receive 1,5 million guilders as an annual income plus the right to request for a return of confisquated properties, which then would be re-calculated in the annual income.

(1,5 million guilders in 1814 contributes with 11,3 million Euro today - caculator).

1815
The Southern Netherlands and the Northern Netherlands were united. The King also became Grand-Duke of Luxembourg. Because of this the arrangement was raised to 2,4 million guilders. This corresponds with 17,7 million Euro today.

1822
King Willem I lifted the option for a return of the confisquated properties. The King accepted the return of certain domains in private ownership, as a result his annual state income was re-calculated with 500.000 guilders lower (to 1,9 million guilders). The income which these returned properties would generate formed the King's private income. The King used this new private income to invest heavily in new upcoming industries, at one side to improve the country's economy and at the other side in hoping to make good rendements on his investments.

1830
The rebellion of the Southern Netherlands led to the foundation of Belgium. (The Netherlands would only recognize the new state in 1839). By his own initiative the King lowered the annual income to 1,5 million guilders. This corresponds with 14 million Euro today).

1840
The Constitution was adapted after the definitive loss of the Southern Netherlands. The annual income of 1,5 million guilders, as set by the King in 1830, was now also written in the Constitution.

1848
The Constitution was completely changed: the absolutist monarchy disappeared, the parliamentary democracy arrived. The arrangements for the income of the King were drastically changed:
- the annual income was lowered from 1,5 million to 1 million guilders (this corresponds to 10,5 million Euro today)
- the King handed over the in 1822 returned domains to the State to establish the "Crown Domains"
- however no longer the factual owner, the King would enjoy the ownership rights of the Crown Domains
- the revenues from the Crown Domains would be seen as an additional income next to the annual State income (that is why the King accepted the lowering of annual the State income).
- at every accession of a new King, the States-General (Parliament) would establish a new annual income. This annual income then would remain unchanged for the whole Reign, to prevent annual (inconvenient) discussions in Parliament.

1849
Only one year after the drastic changes in the Constitution, King Willem II died. According to the new rules in the Constitution, the States-General had to establish an annual income for King Willem III. Because of the country's financial problems, the annual amount was set to 600.000 guilders, much lower than the 1 million guilders set a year earlier. This corresponds to 6,6 million Euro today.

1890
King Willem III died. The annual income for the new (underaged) Queen Wilhelmina remained unchanged on the annual amount which was set in 1849, namely 600.000 guilders a year.

1918
A new Constitution was needed because all adult citizens, both male and female, were given the right to vote and to be elected. The Government took this opportunity to propose change in the annual income. This was 600.000 Euro since 1849, meaning it has not been changed for almost 70 years (!).

600.000 million guilders in 1849 corresponds with 6,6 million Euro today.
600.000 million guilders in 1918 corresponds with 4 million Euro today.

So effectively in 1918 Queen Wilhelmina was 2,6 million poorer in annual purchasing power than her father King Willem III in 1849.

The Government proposed an annual amount of 1,2 million guilders for Queen Wilhelmina. And indeed, after a lot of discussion, the annual income for the Queen was set on 1,2 million guilders. This corresponds with 7,8 million Euro today).

1938
The Government found it no longer workable that the annual income of the King could only be vested at the start of each Reign. King Willem III started in 1849 and would reign for 41 years. In 1938 Queen Wilhelmina was in the 48th year of her Reign.The general standard of living had drastically improved, the annual inflation and pay rises were high. All this time it was impossible to adapt the income of the King. The Government proposed that no longer the income of the King was set by the start of each Reign but would be set via the annual State Budget. The States-General agreed.

1949
It became clear that the costs of the pensions of the retired staff were "eating" into the private fortune of the Queen. The States-General agreed with a proposal of the government to donate 7 million guilders as a contribution into a Foundation Pensions for the retired staff of the royal household, part of the general pension fund for the civic service. Queen Juliana would also donate into that Pension Fund. Argument: the staff of the royal household could not be considered to be "private personnel" as they were also subservient to a proper functioning of the office of state, the public function, which is the kingship. It was "undesirable" that the Queen had to pay from her own pocket for the functioning of an office of state.

1945-1960
The same argument for the retired staff of the royal household, was also used for the current staff, for the costs of transportation, for the security, for foreign travels, for the reception of (foreign) dignitaries. All these costs were subservient to a proper functioning of the office of state, the public function. Also here it was seen as "undesirable" that the Queen had to pay from her own pocket for the functioning of her official duties. So more and more costs were diverted to various departments like Foreign Affairs, Defence, the Interior, etc.

1952

The annual amount was raised from 1,2 million to 1,5 million guilders (this corresponds to 5,4 million Euro today).

1961
The annual amount was raised from 1,5 million to 2,5 million guilders (this corresponds to 7,2 million Euro today).

1966
The annual amount was raised from 2,5 million to 5,2 million guilders (this corresponds to 12,3 million Euro today).


1966-1972
In the 1960's the Netherlands had it's own Wirtschaftswunder, an economic boom. The wages and the prices spiralled. The Welfare Society made it's entrance. A giant gas field was found in the North-East of the Netherlands, resulting in an immense cashflow of billions.

The royal finances, despite the regular raises, lagged behind. More and more the Queen had to fill the gaps in her budget with private money. This was "undesireable" and also not sustainable as this would erode end exhaust the private wealth of the Queen. The Queen was no "ordinary Mrs" it was generally expected that she would live in a certain state, that "the resplendance of the Crown" was maintained.

1972
After a long process the current Financial Statute for the Royal House was approved:
- the King
- the future King
- the former King
(and their eventual spouses) receive an individual income from the state

These annual incomes have two components:
- a private income
- a functional income (to cover the costs for the execution of the royal dignity)

These annual incomes are indexed with the general pay rise for civil servants.

The costs of the palaces would remain with the State.

The State pays for the royal household, for the transportation, for the security, for representation, for communication: with other words, the whole execution of the royal function is financed by the State.

Thank you for completely summarizing the report, Duc. You always produce terrific summaries and translations.

I am struck by the Dutch governments' structured and open approach to their work on the monarchy's institutional arrangements. Whether the allocations of functional costs, the upcoming marriages with Charles-Hugues de Bourbon de Parme and Mabel Wisse Smit, or the future title of Princess Máxima, it appears all questions were methodically vetted and examined and the public was kept informed.
 
The Dutch fintech company Adyen was introduced on the Amsterdam stock exchange AEX yesterday. The stock price doubled within a trading day.

Just before the company went to the stock exchange the princess sold stocks worth 43 million Euros. Her remaining portfolio of Adyen stock is now worth 160 million Euros.

Princess Mabel was one of the early investors in the company says the newspaper Algemeen Dagblad.

https://www.ad.nl/show/prinses-mabel-160-miljoen-rijker-na-beursgang-adyen~af14de74/
 
Last edited:
:previous:
several news outlets have been suggesting that it was the late prince Friso who invested in this particular company.

Yesterday the value of her Adyen stock was valued at 230 million Euros according to Business Insider.
 
Last edited:
Thank you for completely summarizing the report, Duc. You always produce terrific summaries and translations.

I am struck by the Dutch governments' structured and open approach to their work on the monarchy's institutional arrangements. Whether the allocations of functional costs, the upcoming marriages with Charles-Hugues de Bourbon de Parme and Mabel Wisse Smit, or the future title of Princess Máxima, it appears all questions were methodically vetted and examined and the public was kept informed.


There is one point I didn’t understand though. If the State pays directly for securiity, transportation, maintenance of the royal palaces, communication, and royal household staff, then what is the “ functional income” for ? Putting it in a different way, how does one differentiate “ private expenses” and “ functional expenses “ ?
 
There is one point I didn’t understand though. If the State pays directly for securiity, transportation, maintenance of the royal palaces, communication, and royal household staff, then what is the “ functional income” for ? Putting it in a different way, how does one differentiate “ private expenses” and “ functional expenses “ ?

It is all here,the english version:

http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl
 
Article 41 of the Constitution reads: "The King shall organise his Household, taking due account of the public interest".


This means that the King, Queen Máxima and Princess Beatrix have the freedom to spend the B-component ("functional costs') of their income to their wishes, as long as it fits in the "execution of the royal dignity".


All fractions in the Chamber accept that the King has to upheld a certain state ("to maintain the resplendance of the Crown") and that it comes with a price tag. For an example, the King decided to spend 1,2 million Euro to the restoration of the Glass State Coach (picture). A same amount is spent at the moment for the restoration of the Golden State Coach. It is in the King's freedom to spend this to these items. In his opinion these costs are justified and functional to his kingship.
 
Last edited:
Let,s rephrase it again: when Queen Máxima buys a new evening gown or a diamond necklace, is that consideted a “ personal expense” or a “ functional expense” ?

Let's refraise it again indeed..It Is All Here..Thank you.


www.koninklijkhuis.nl

and it is as Duc above explains as stated in the Dutch Constitution
 
It is all here,the english version:

http://www.koninklijkhuis.nl

Let's refraise it again indeed..It Is All Here..Thank you.


www.koninklijkhuis.nl

and it is as Duc above explains as stated in the Dutch Constitution

I do not see any stated rules to determine which costs are functional and which costs are private in the English version at least..

https://www.royal-house.nl/topics/finances-of-the-royal-house/the-king’s-budget

Let's rephrase it again: when Queen Máxima buys a new evening gown or a diamond necklace, is that considered a “ personal expense” or a “ functional expense” ?

Article 41 of the Constitution reads: "The King shall organise his Household, taking due account of the public interest".

This means that the King, Queen Máxima and Princess Beatrix have the freedom to spend the B-component ("functional costs') of their income to their wishes, as long as it fits in the "execution of the royal dignity".

All fractions in the Chamber accept that the King has to upheld a certain state ("to maintain the resplendance of the Crown") and that it comes with a price tag. For an example, the King decided to spend 1,2 million Euro to the restoration of the Glass State Coach (picture). A same amount is spent at the moment for the restoration of the Golden State Coach. It is in the King's freedom to spend this to these items. In his opinion these costs are justified and functional to his kingship.

Thank you! Have I understood correctly that the purchase of jewels, for example, would be authorized as a functional cost if and only if they were used in the monarchy's public functions?
 
I do not see any stated rules to determine which costs are functional and which costs are private in the English version at least..

https://www.royal-house.nl/topics/finances-of-the-royal-house/the-king’s-budget





Thank you! Have I understood correctly that the purchase of jewels, for example, would be authorized as a functional cost if and only if they were used in the monarchy's public functions?

What is functional or not, is to the own insight of the King, conform Article 41 of the Constitution, which states that the King organizes his own House. That is why some experts find the division in an A component (personal income) and a B component (functional costs) a bit artificial. Both A and B form the total income.

It must be seen as a contribution of the State to cover the fact that royals pay for costly things as new porcelain tableware, restoration of carriages, enlargement of the Royal House Archives, a private secretary, a private treasurer, etc. exactly because of the nature of their royal function.

When guests of state are eating from silver plates from William III & Mary, they are eating from family property so to say. In the 1960's and 1970's the lawmaker thought that these costs, which are unseparable for "the execution of the royal dignity", should be met.

We know that Queen Máxima ordered new settings to the jewels. We may assume these have been paid from the B-component of her income indeed. But it is also possible that the Family Foundation (the legal owner of the jewels, and which holds capital to maintain the royal patrimonium) paid for it. The King is the Executive of the various Foundations.
 
Last edited:
The Budget for The King 2019 has 60,8 million Euro reserved:



DIRECT COSTS (on the Budget of The King)

€ 5.800.000 for The King
€ 1.000.000 for Queen Máxima
€ 1.600.000 for Princess Beatrix
€ 18.200.000 staffing costs of the royal household
€ 9.500.000 material costs of the royal household
€ 800.000 use of state airplanes
€ 300.000 for fauna management at the royal domains
€ 80.000 visits to the Caribbean parts of the kingdom
€ 2.500.000 Cabinet of The King (= the official secretariate)
€ 1.900.000 Military House of The King (= military ceremonial)
€ 1.600.000 use of the Rijksvoorlichtingsdienst (= website, communications, etc.)
-----------------
€ 43.300.000



INDIRECT COSTS (booked in other Budgets)

€ 2.000.000 State Visits (Department of Foreign Affairs)
€ 15.700.000 use of royal residences (Department of Home Affairs)
€ 87.000 maintenance of the yacht of Princess Beatrix (Department of Defense)
-------------------
€ 17.800.000





No information is given about the costs of the security (department of Justice) because it is part of the general budget for all security operations (including the Prime Minister, diplomats, politicians with a risk profile, etc.) and is seen as "not desirable" to be precisely deducted by thirds.

https://www.koninklijkhuis.nl/onderwerpen/financien-koninklijk-huis/begroting-van-de-koning
 
Last edited:
Since it is so documented and clear and deductible, the critics are pretty mute. In the not so far past the costs of the monarchy were a hot potato, also because it was so spread in countless items on various departmental Budgets No one could make an account. With this transparency the initial shock was: what????! That much????! But now everyone seems used to that price tag for the monarchy and the shoulders are more or less shrugged. Of course it helps that consecutive State Budgets reported surplusses.
 
Is is the Dutch after the British monarchy in terms of most expensive?
 
Is is the Dutch after the British monarchy in terms of most expensive?


It is even THE most expensive, as lots of the British monarchy is officially "self-funding" via the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall etc, but of course that is indirectly taxpayer's money as well, as it does not flow to the NHS or Defense or Housing but to the royal purse.

But... a big but is needed here: the Dutch are probably the most expensive because they have listed all costs in a transparent and accountable way. Before this, it was a mystery how much exactly the monarchy did cost, as the accountability was spread out over various departmental budgets and diverse posts.

To my idea the Spanish monarchy (one of the cheapest with 8 million) is waaaaay more expensive. It is impossible that it is cheaper than the Dutch. But the accounting is totally different. By enlisting the palaces under the Patrimonio Nacional, by spreading all costs over countless posts in the State Budget, the desired result is: "Spain has one of the cheapest monarchies".

The same counts for the monarchies in Belgium and Luxembourg, etc. I would say: the Dutch are "the most expensive" because they are the most transparent in the costs.
 
Newspaper NRC Handelsblad claims that from 1982 to 2009 that state paid 320.000 Euros (per year) to the head of state (Queen Beatrix at the time) for the maintenance of furniture and art work in the palaces.

The reimbursements went on unhampered, despite the state taking over (buying) the furniture from the RF ánd with the obligation to maintain these pieces. That means that the state paid double for the maintenance. All without informing parliament.

In the 80-ties the state paid 20 million Euros to princess Juliana for the inventories of Palaces Noordeinde, Huis ten Bosch and Het Loo. In 2009 the state paid an undisclosed amount of money to the heirs of Princess Juliana for the content of Soestdijk Palace.

Permission to buy the content of the palaces was given in 1978 by then Prime Minister Dries van Agt (CDA). The reason was that a lot of the furniture was in a bad state - esp. in the palaces Noordeinde and Huis ten Bosch- and were unsuitable for representative functions.


https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/09/0...l-voor-onderhoud-inventaris-paleizen-a3972670
 
It is well spent. The furniture, tapisserie, curtains, carpets, chandeliers, candelabras, artworks etc in the palaces look spic and span. I have visited the Royal Palace in Brussels and there one can see worn out furniture, faded curtains, dirty tapisseries because there the resources are limited. Only the sun comes for free.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom