Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[muriel]

The Prince of Wales - A letter from Paddy Harverson, Communications Secretary to The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, to the Independent

letter from Paddy Harverson, Communications Secretary to The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall, to the Independent
4th July 2011
This is the text of a letter sent to the Independent by The Prince of Wales's Communications Secretary Paddy Harverson regarding misleading coverage of His Royal Highness's finances:


"Joan Smith's article "We are all in this together, but is Charles?" (30 June) and your news story of 29 June about the Prince of Wales's finances painted a misleading picture.
The Prince of Wales has 159 employees, of which the vast majority are either office staff who support the official duties and charitable work carried out by him, the Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, or garden and estate staff working on his farm and gardens (the latter open to public visits which last year generated just under £500,000 for charity). Much attention is focused on his personal staff. As it happens, he has two butlers and two valets; he needs two of each because, obviously, people can't work every day of the year.
Last year the Prince and the Duchess together conducted 751 public engagements and official meetings, organised and overseen by his office. Almost 100 of those engagements were in support of our Armed Forces. During the year, Their Royal Highnesses visited 102 towns and cities in the UK, they hosted 127 official receptions, seminars, lunches and dinners, attended by almost 10,000 guests.
That staff also work in support of The Prince's Charities, the 20 organisations the Prince has set up and inspires to help others in areas of youth opportunity, the environment, education, the built environment and corporate social responsibility. With the help of the Prince and his office, those charities raised £123m last year.
The Prince meets the cost of almost all of this work – and all of his employees – out of his own pocket, using his private income from the Duchy of Cornwall. Because the Duchy has no debt – it is run in a conservative and sustainable fashion – there isn't a need to cut spending in the way that many organisations in the public and private sector are currently being forced to do.
As for his personal spending, which you note increased last year by 50 per cent to £2.5m, almost every penny of that was spent by the Prince on making additional donations to charities.
You also note that the Prince claims a large part of his spending against tax as a business expense. This is true and entirely proper. His taxes, which are audited by the Inland Revenue, rose last year by almost £1m to £4.4m.
Paddy Harverson
Communications Secretary to TRH The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall

 

[muriel]

BBC News - Royal funding changes become law

Royal funding changes become law

The biggest change for 250 years to the way the Royal Family is financed will be passed into law later

 

[Lumutqueen]

The Queen's income frozen until 2015 - Telegraph

 

[PrincessKaimi]

On the relationship between parliament and The Queen:

Austerity measures and The Queen.

Looks like repairs on Buckingham Palace may have to wait - and that some of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's expenses must be paid now by the Prince of Wales.

Hope this is the right thread.

 

[padams2359]

I do not understand how many of the British people feel that they would be better off without the Monarchy. They are one of the few attractions to their island. I never heard of anyone going to Britain for the food. It is always something to do with the Royal Family. Aside from the Olympics, which are a random shot in the dark. No one can tell me that the country lost money from the last Royal Wedding, or any of the others for that matter. This is not including what an increase in unemployment would be caused if the Monarchy went away tomorrow, and everyone on the Crown Estates were laid off. Between the Crown Estates, and other events that are put on by the Royal Family, they generate substancially more income than they spend. Get with the program people, there is not much else that attracts people other than the Monarchy, and there is nothing wrong with that.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Getting rid of the monarchy wouldn't see the staff on the Crown Estates lose their jobs as that work would still need to be done e.g. the farmland of the Crown Estates would still be farmed. The government couldn't afford to lose that income and the bulk of the income of the Crown Estates does go to the government.

The attraction of the royals is that you might see one of them - although on my 18 trips to Britain I have only seen them twice and don't know anyone who has visited Britain to see a royal - but have visited to see their homes e.g. go in August/September to visit BP, but with no monarchy then they could see that palace year round and see all of it rather than just a small section.

The cost of the royal wedding was quite large in terms of lost productivity to businesses with two four day long weekends in succession while the wedding was a one day event. Having been in London for an event like that there was nothing much to make money on - e.g. accomodation - well I was going to be in London for that week anyway so no extra for that one day event, no food available to even buy in the crowd so had to take your own, no souvenirs available on the day so lost opportunity, cost of security - huge, as the bobby near us said those that were there had to do a double shift. They love royal occasions as they get double pay for one shift as it is overtime and one shift on normal pay - but as last year was a public holiday that was two shifts at double pay. Most of the souvenirs for the royal wedding were made outside of Britain so little profit for the nation, and the same with this year's Jubilee - the souvenirs are either so expensive as to be out of the price range of the normal person or made in China to be cheap enough to be made.

The royals cost millions of pounds a year in security and maintenance of the royal palaces, which aren't being fully maintained anyway but they don't bring in all that much. If there was no monarchy do you really believe that people wouldn't go to Britain to see the royal homes. The sheer history of the nation would see a similar number of people visit the nation to see the palaces, castles, churches and the scenery.

 

[EIIR]

The idea that tourists don't come to Britain to see the Royal Family, or Royal events, is clearly and demonstrably false:

Royal wedding leads to tourism boom - Telegraph

In April 2011 (the month of the Royal Wedding) an extra 350,000 visitors came to the UK compared to April 2010. Overall visits to the UK were up by 800,000 during 2011, with almost half of that increase coming in the month of April. That's no coincidence.

I'm sorry, but we just wouldn't see that kind of surge of extra visitors if the UK were a republic. Does anyone think 350k extra foreigners would come to the UK to see the inauguration of some politician they'd never heard of as British President?

With regards to visits to palaces etc. of course people would still visit them. But, lots of countries (most notably France) have much prettier, more remarkable palaces and castles than the UK does. What sets ours apart from France is that ours are still used, just as our Crown Jewels are still used, the thrones visitors see in the House of Lords etc. are still used. That all adds an extra something to British heritage that countries like France, Germany or Italy can't match.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Actually yes 350,000 could easily go for the inaugurations of Presidents over the years as they would happen more regularly than a once in a generation wedding. 100,000 every four years for an inauguration adds up to 600,000 every 28 years and weddings happen less frequently than that.

If you really don't think people would still go to see the palaces if no one was living in them you really do underestimate the pulling power of British history. No royals currently live at Hampton Court or The Tower of London and they are two of the most visited sites in the UK - because of the history of those places not that the royal family live there.

 

[EIIR]

No one from abroad would come to the UK for the inauguration of a President. Ask 1,000 Britons who the president of Germany or Italy is and I'd bet that 999 of them wouldn't have a clue. I'd say the situation would be exactly the same in reverse. To be honest, politicians are so detested, so reviled in the UK nowadays, I think you'd struggle to get 10,000 Britons to attend an inauguration, let alone 100,000 foreigners.

I'm not saying that no-one would visit the palaces or castles in a republic. What I'm saying is that the royal link, the living royal link, the idea that the Queen and her family actually use these places, that they're not just museums but family homes differentiates us from most of our European competitors.

Ultimately, the Royal Family help put the spotlight on the UK. During the royal wedding last year, all the major American networks, as well as hundreds of others from all over the world, decamped to London for at least a week leading up to the wedding. The UK got hundreds of hours of essentially free publicity, hundreds of millions watched Westminster Abbey and the Mall and Buckingham Palace and Hyde Park etc. etc. We got an opportunity to show London and the UK at its best. That simply would not happen if we were a republic. Without the Monarchy, we just become another declining European republic, basically indistinguishable from any other.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If the inauguration was done with the pomp and circumstance that the British put on they would go. Just because people don't go to others relates more to the way they are inaugurated rather than who the person is.

Lots of horses and carriages and a public swearing in from the balcony of BP would see the crowds come - done in private in the House of Lords no they wouldn't.

Afterall the reason the people go is the free entertainment - the spectacle not the event itself.

 

[Artemisia]

I have to disagree.
One of the attractions of royal weddings, coronations and even state funerals is that there are so rare, once in a life opportunity; if Presidents were inaugurated every four years, no matter what ceremonies accompanied those inauguration, it would be just another mildly interesting event on the calendar. Oh, and Brits probably would be laughing stock of the world for putting all the pomp and peasantry into an event that the rest of the world manages with rather less cost and same result.

 

[EIIR]

I agree Artemisia. In addition, I personally don't see that the British people would accept a major ceremony with carriages etc. for a politician who most people would see as 'on the make', a liar and probably corrupt. That's how just about all politicians are seen in the UK.

We're happy for the Queen, who has dedicated her entire life to serving our nation, to use the carriages and the State Trumpeters and so on. Some politician, whose strings are being pulled either by big business or the big unions? Not so much.

 

[tommy100]

As others have said the Royal Family brings in massive rewards (in terms of positive coverage but more importantly in terms of revenue) from overseas. I think one of the problems is that the British public don't always see that. Would the wedding of a political president or someone in his family bring in the extra revenue and coverage the Royal Wedding last year did? Absolutely not!
In addition I think that actually the number of visitors who would come and visit the Royal Palaces if we were a republic would probably decrease, how many of those visitors are from overseas? I bet a vast majority come because they love the idea or our monarchy and love the idea of "exploring their homes". Yes there may be more visitors at first but after a while people would start to ask they bother going all the way to the UK to see the place the Queen or William and Kate use to live, the Royal Family are constantly creating interest and desire to come and visit whereas once they are gone that would die off.

 

[EIIR]

I agree Tommy. Of course, it's not just weddings. It's birthdays and Jubilees, and the birth of royal children and Trooping the Colour for the Queen's birthday and even funerals. All of these things earn extremely valuable international press coverage for the UK.

I remember when William went to Australia and was being shown around Sydney Harbour on a boat in magnificent sunshine. The local officials involved, who are probably at best indifferent to monarchy, said they knew the TV pictures would be beamed around the world giving Sydney the kind of positive press attention that would be very, very expensive to buy. You can't put a figure on those kinds of benefits, which is why when people see that the Monarchy costs £36m or whatever it is per year they grumble about it.

 

[dbarn67]

Wealth of the British Royal Family estimated a $1 billion. The numbers from Beatrice and Eugene down seem a little high IMO.

INFOGRAPHIC: The British Royal Family Is Worth More Than $1 Billion - Business Insider

 

[Artemisia]

Actually, Beatrice and Eugenie's personal wealth is somewhat lower than I had expected. The Queen Mother left trust funds for all her grandchildren, including the Princesses; I thought the funds would have matured more. Of course, they'll inherit more from Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip.

The numbers for Prince William and Prince Harry seem about right (inheritance from the Queen Mother, Diana, and Earl Spencer), although I believe Harry's inheritance actually surpasses William's. However, I am very surprised at the purported wealth of Prince Edward, Prince Andrew, Princess Anne, and especially Zara and Peter.

 

[dbarn67]

I agree about Andrew, Edward and Anne etc.

 

[NGalitzine]

I always wonder how journalists come up with these numbers since such information would be very private to say the least. Royal wills are never published so we have no idea about what might have been inherited.

 

[Artemisia]

I always wonder how journalists come up with these numbers since such information would be very private to say the least. Royal wills are never published so we have no idea about what might have been inherited.

As far as William and Harry's personal wealth is concerned, it's actually a pretty easy calculation. They took into account money left to the brothers by the Queen Mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, Earl Spencer, and Lady Fermoy. I believe they got the sums wrong though, since by all accounts, Harry received more than his brother (since William is going to be pretty well provided in future as the Duke of Cornwall, and later - the King).

 

[Jacknch]

I always wonder how journalists come up with these numbers since such information would be very private to say the least. Royal wills are never published so we have no idea about what might have been inherited.

I quite agree. It's alright them saying "new research shows..." but unless they can elaborate on what the research was and how they obtained it any figures high or small are meaningless. You would need to look at bank statements (which are private), investment portfolios (which are private), personal effects such as paintings, jewellery, antiques etc and I can't imagine anyone being at a single royal home long enough to value all such material goods!

Several years ago the amounts for the Queen's children and cousins were said to be on average around £7m - £9m each. It was slightly more indepth in that it referred to Prince Michael of Kent having recently sold his house etc.

At the end of the day the figures could be in the billions and it wouldn't mean anything to me.

 

[Excalibur]

I was under the impression that The Queen Mother did not establish trust funds for William, Harry, or the Princesses, only for her grandchildren (except for Charles perhaps?). Would she not have assumed that her great-grandchildren would be provided for by their grandmother, The Queen? But of course, I have the potential to be wrong.

Thus William's and Harry's numbers would be from Diana and Earl Spencer and Beatrice and Eugenie's numbers from the trust funds established for them at the time of their parents' divorce.

 

[dbarn67]

I thought the Queen Mother's estate was in arrears when she died? So does that mean her bequeaths were not handed out or did Charles or the Queen pay off the debt?

 

[Artemisia]

William and Harry received inheritance from the Queen Mother, same as her other great-grandchildren.
According the her will, the Princes inherited about £14m in trust funds, with the bulk of fortune going to Harry. Upon their respective 21st birthdays, the brothers received their share of about £6m (I think it was £2m William, and £4m - Harry). When they reach their 40th birthdays, they'll collect their shares of the the remaining £8m.

Queen Mother's overall wealth was valued (at the time of her death) at about £70m. Of course, clever investments should have seen that sum doubled at the very least since then. Over 2/3 of the money was put into trust funds for her great-grandchildren.

 

[NGalitzine]

As far as William and Harry's personal wealth is concerned, it's actually a pretty easy calculation. They took into account money left to the brothers by the Queen Mother, Diana, Princess of Wales, Earl Spencer, and Lady Fermoy. I believe they got the sums wrong though, since by all accounts, Harry received more than his brother (since William is going to be pretty well provided in future as the Duke of Cornwall, and later - the King).

We only know the value of Diana's estate, and probably the other Spencer estates as they would have been probated. We have no idea how much the QM put in trust for her grandchildren and great grandchildren. The rest IMO is entirely speculation.

I thought the Queen Mother's estate was in arrears when she died? So does that mean her bequeaths were not handed out or did Charles or the Queen pay off the debt?

For tax reasons the trusts were established several years before her death, which diminshed her liquid assets.

William and Harry received inheritance from the Queen Mother, same as her other great-grandchildren. According the her will...

How do you know what the terms of her will was? Royal wills are not public documents in the UK. Anything left in a will to other than the monarch would have been taxable in the hands of her heirs.

 

[Molly2101]

I am shocked at Edward, Andrew and Anne's supposed wealth. I imagine they will inherot more once their parents pass but they have more than i thought they did. Did the Queen Mother leave Edward's children money? I know they were not born, or Sophie was probably not in Edward's life at the time of their creation, but surely she assumed Edward would have had children.

 

[Artemisia]

How do you know what the terms of her will was? Royal wills are not public documents in the UK. Anything left in a will to other than the monarch would have been taxable in the hands of her heirs.

I based my information on the report in BBC News.

Of course, since royals wills aren't available to general public, a lot of it may be speculation; nevertheless, the terms of the Queen Mother's will are generally agreed to be in these lines by all sources I've read.

 

[NGalitzine]

In other words speculation, especially since they seem to infer that some of her wealth came from accumulation of her civil list income. Unless royal wills and trust deeds are made public no one will ever know the true value of royal holdings or division of assets. Even less reliable than the annual rich lists compiled by The Times and Forbes.

 

[Rocketmom]

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?

 

[HRHHermione]

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?

No, of those dukedoms, only the Duchy of Cornwall has an associated income stream. And Edward is an Earl because that's the title he reportedly requested and because it's intended that he inherit the Duke of Edinburgh title when Prince Philip passes away.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Some Dukedoms have income attached e.g. Devonshire but the royal dukedoms don't have land or other means of income. Of the royal dukes there are only two with income attached - The Duke of Cornwall (Charles) and The Duke of Lancaster (The Queen). These estates provide the private income for there two individuals from which the other royal dukes are also supported.

Edward is an Earl because the intention is that, if the position arises, Edward will be given the title of Edinburgh after both his parents are dead and Charles is King but we will have to wait and see what happens with that title over the next couple of decades.