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.
Well the Prince has had his own consultancy business for years and the Princess writes books so unlike the other royals they have been able to legitimately make their own money.
 
A very long article from the Telegraph:
SNP members vote to stop Royal Family's source of public funding
SNP members have overwhelmingly voted to stop the Royal Family’s public funding after hearing how the Queen is “purring all the way to the bank.”

Julie Hepburn, the Nationalists’ political education convener, told the party conference in Glasgow that the Sovereign Grant system was “the equivalent of the Royal Family winning the lottery every single year.”

She argued that the £76 million the Royal Household received last year was “a good rate of pay for charity work” and the money could instead be spent on mobility scooters.
Click to expand...
Don't make me laugh.


Ms Hepburn, who is the wife of Scottish Employability Minister Jamie Hepburn, told the conference: “It’s basically the equivalent of the Royal Family winning the lottery every single year.

“No need for the Royal Household to play Euromillions, with the Sovereign Grant Her Majesty is purring all the way to the bank.”

She claimed “there can be no moral justification for giving just one family over £70 million” at a time of austerity and urged delegates to take a step back “and see how ordinary people are being shafted by a rich elite”.

Arguing that the Sovereign Grant was “a symbol of everything that is rotten at the core of the UK’s political system”, she said that in an independent Scotland all people would be treated as “valued citizens, not subjects.”
Click to expand...
For the 1000th time (and as Dickie Arbiter and the other royal experts/commentators tries to tell them), this isn't a private salary for HM or the royal family. And are they really so ignorant, or are they just trying (as Arbiter and others says) to get attention? I think it's both.

Some questions from me to these people - If we stop royal funding and stop paying for tours etc:

1. Who should then pay for the head of state's staffers, engagements, state visits (which the Queen no longer does because of her age), entertainment, uppkeep of palaces etc? Things the state also pays for when you have an apolitical president.

2. Who should pay for royal tours (which the government ask them to do) and royal engagements etc?


In an apparent reference to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Alison Thewlis, the Glasgow Central MP, said that Theresa May congratulates Royal couples who are having a third child but condemns poor people in the same situation by cutting their tax credits.
Click to expand...
So prime ministers should not congratulate when the eldest son of the heir is having a child? Is she serious.


Speaking after the vote, Jackson Carlaw, the Scottish Tory leader, said: “This is unsurprising given how extreme and out-of-touch so many elements of the nationalist conference delegation are.

“What they need to remember is people in Scotland like and respect the Monarchy, and would disagree entirely with the conclusion of this vote.”

Derek Mackay, the SNP’s Finance Minister, said the resolution does not change SNP policy that the Crown Estate’s proceeds should be spent in local communities.
Click to expand...
It's not just the SNP, just take a look at the Labour MP Emma Dent Coad (who was discussed in the Harry thread), because she's even worse when it comes to spreading lies about royal funding/spending. And she's now paying the price in living with death threats after the horrible things she said about Philip, the Cambridges and Harry.

Am I against criticism of the royal family? Of course not.

As everyone here knows, I adore the Queen and I am a great admirer of Charles and a big fan of William and Kate. I am also (like 70/80% of the UK population) a big supporter of our constitutional monarchy, but I respect those who think it's wrong to have an unelected head of state.

What I don't respect is lying manipulating ignorant bullies sush as Graham Smith, Kevin Mcguire and Stig Abell or crazy psychopaths such as Russell Brand or the thugs in Daily Fail comment section. They (the DF trolls) are (as I've said many times on these threads) a bunch of racist, sexist, homophobic, ignorant, sick, spiteful bullies who hates everyone. And they represents a very tiny minority of the UK public, and many of them are from other countries.
 
Last edited:
The financial arguments always make me sigh. A republic -with a ceremonial president as in Italy, Germany etc. - will cost roughly the same: palaces will need to be maintained by the state, state visits will be hosted, cars, airplanes, staff etc. etc. The SNP knows very well that the 78 million will not go to the private bank account of the queen.
 
Last edited:
Well geeeze. I wonder who would really come out ahead if the SNP got their wish and a deal was struck that they'd do away with the Sovereign Grant, let the BRF live as they choose to without any obligation to the public and oh wait... there's more... return the Crown Estates and the Royal Collection and the Royal Archives and everything representing the British Royal Family back into their own private bank accounts.

I don't see *that* idea going over too well at all. :D

ETA: Almost forgot the best part. The government would still have to pay for the politicians to do all the tours and the engagements and all the good stuffs Royal Norway mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Royal Wealth and Finances

Lady Byrd Johnson had Secret Service protection for 60 years. What do you think that cost the US tax payers. My cousin worked in a restaurant in Austin that she frequented. It was a small tactical army in bump f*(# West Texas for a woman who’s dead husband had not been in office in 40 years. Think “Guarding Tess” with a nicer Tess.
 
tommy100 said:
Also don't forget that whatever the royal ladies wear I personally doubt they regularly pay full price for their clothes. It wouldn't surprise me if some are borrowed and the rest discounted to some degree - you only have to look at Jane Taylor milliner's website to see how much it makes of the coverage of Sophie wearing their designs - even stating - "Indeed, the Countess of Wessex has exclusively worn Jane Taylor’s designs since 2009, at such occasions as the Royal Wedding of Kate and William, Ascot, when representing the Queen in Scotland and at many other Royal events and engagements." I am sure some sort of deal has been done that gives Sophie a discount at least. What they wear is not a sign of their wealth but their status and connections as royalty. Also remember this - Sophie probably gets a similar if not same deal as Anne in terms of expenses etc - Anne does not wear high fashion with regular new outfits, Sophie does. Its not a criticism but I think if you compared them just on wardrobes it would appear Sophie was wealthier than Anne which I highly doubt is true.

Beatrice and Eugenie are clearly well provided for financially but they also benefit from being the granddaughters of a Queen and the daughters of a Prince. They, and I have to say IMO Beatrice especially noticeably, use these connections to enjoy holidays on yachts, private islands etc, living a millionaire lifestyle without necessarily needing to be millionaires themselves.
Click to expand...

I read royals aren't allowed to accept discounts.
 
Paradise Papers: Tax haven secrets of super-rich including the Queen exposed | The Independent
Millions of pounds of the Queen’s private money is invested in offshore funds in Caribbean tax havens, a huge leak of financial documents referred to as the “Paradise Papers” has revealed.

The documents show that the Duchy of Lancaster, which manages investments for the Queen’s £520m private estate, invested around £10m in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda-based funds.
Click to expand...

I wonder who decided to do away with the British protected offshores.
 
Last edited:
From the Guardian: The offshore Queen

 
Its may be embarrassing but it is also entirely legal. It happened some time ago and it is a v small amount.

She also voluntarily pays tax on her income.
 
The media:
1. Almost all British news-websites is (of course) covering this, and many of them goes tabloid.

2. Even the Telegraph site: ''Paradise Papers: Queen and Bono kept money in offshore funds, leaked files reveal''.

3. And Royal Central, which has become more and more anti-monarchy after Charlie Proctor took full control of the site, asks on twitter: ''Is The Queen Really Above The Law?''

4. And here's some of the front pages:

The Telegraph:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/XVFSPgOxSZ27iMrHKDcK_Daily Telegraph.JPG

The Times:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/kyBcr9sRtaOQvPYPNKXW_The Times.JPG

The Daily Fail:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/GeBNP9YzTDeGmwYi5ugC_Daily Mail.JPG

The Express:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/EBGglv3kR7vejQVcsBZU_Daily Express.JPG

The Mirror:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/JWWHLemHSPig0pclvXCg_Daily Mirror.JPG

The i paper:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/m9ilMujR7yFaV7WkdosA_i.JPG

Metro:
https://storify.com/services/proxy/...cloudfront.net/EtGWo3MdT8HVOnxwCZRA_Metro.JPG

Some facts:
1. This has nothing to do with the Queen.

2. She or the courtiers don't run the Duchy.

3. The Duchy of Lancaster is administered by it's Chancellor and the Duchy Council.

4. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (MP and Chairman of the Conservative Party Patrick McLoughlin) is appointed by the monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister (in reality, that's means that the Chancellor is appointed by the PM).

Read here: http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/our-people/chancellor-of-the-duchy-of-lancaster/

5. The members of the Duchy Council (those who really runs the show) is appointed by The Queen on the recommendation of the Chancellor (in reality, that's means they are appointed by the Chancellor).

Read here: http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/our-people/the-duchy-council/

6. As the Duchy is an inalienable asset of the Crown held in trust for future monarchs, the present monarch is not entitled to the portfolio's capital or capital profits.

7. The Duchy is not subject to tax.

8. The net income of the Duchy is paid to the Privy Purse, the private income of the reigning monarch (the Duke of Lancaster). She has voluntarily paid both income/capital gains tax since 1993 (when she in reality was forced by a then anti-monarchy press to do so).

9. If you reads some of the headlines, then it looks like some of the money that the Queen receives was invested offshore and that a small amount of it ended up in the company behind BrightHouse, a chain accused of irresponsible lending, and Threshers, which went bust owing £17.5m in UK tax.

But that's wrong.

About £10 m of the Duchy's money was invested offshore, not the money given to HM.

10. But thanks to the British media, people now thinks that the Queen personally invested some money from her private fortune (she did not) or that she personally invested some of her income from the Duchy (she did not) or that she personally manages the Duchy of Lancaster (she does not).

What the more serious royal experts/commentators says:
1. They are defending the Queen and says that this has nothing to do with her.

2. Roya Nikkhah said (the same as me and others) on Sky News this evening. She said: ''The Duchy of Lancaster provides the Queen with a private income, but she doesn't manage it, she dosen't personally invest in a portfolio. It's run by Duchy Council and those Councils is appointed by the government.''

What do I think about this?
1. I've never been more pissed off with the media than right now.

2. And as a royal commentator on twitter wrote it:

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
Misinformed People are using this confidential information out of context to smear the Queen’s good name.

3. And as another person on twitter said, this is a complete non story when it comes to the Queen.

4. But the republicans (including David McClure, the guy who wrote the ''Royal Legacy on the wealth of the House of Windsor'' book) and some ignorant people are now turning on her as never before.

5. She was barely touched by the media during the 50s 60s 70s and 80s (other times, yes I know), she was touched twice in the 90s, but not in the 2000s when she was praised by the press as now other for her 80th birthday.

6. The media's praise for her was even greater for her Diamond Jubilee in 2012, the longest reigning monarch thing in 2015 and her 90th birthday last year. I've never seen so much praise for a head of states or other persons before, and she deserved it.

7. But they've also shown that they are not afraid to go against her anymore. They tried to drag her into the Scottish independence referendum in 2014 and the Brexit thing last year, and they treeted her like crap with that nazy salute thing in 2015.

8. Will this affect her personal popularity? I don't know, but this must be awful for her, and as Roya Nikkhah said on Sky News: ''I think the Queen (quite rightly) will be pretty furious seeing this headlines across all the papers on monday morning.''

9. And as others have pointed out, she is 91-years-old.
 
Last edited:
I agree with you. Most articles are calling the Duchy of Lancaster the Queen's 'private estate'. I wouldn't call it that. That implies that she personally owns it (similar to Sandringham) which she does not. It belongs to her solely as monarch and, as you say, what she can do with it is limited.
 
10 million pounds is a 'small amount'.

I think most people would regard that as a great deal of money.

I also think it is horrendous that she had to be forced to even voluntarily pay income tax. Until her father negotiated that little scheme the monarch's entire income was taxed the same as everyone else but George VI negotiated a deal whereby he didn't have to pay income tax so he could have the money to pay Edward VIII for Balmoral and Sandringham. The Queen then simply carried on - crying poor all the time as well.

I am pleased that we are finally seeing some of the things she has been doing with her money - moving it offshore to avoid paying tax on it - and it isn't even hers but the Duchy of Lancaster's which surely should be invested in the UK for the benefit of UK citizens.
 
For the average person yes it’s a lot of money but for the Queen it’s not that much at all. We need Harry’s engagement so the press have something to write about instead of our Queen
 
Iluvbertie, what are you talking about!

1. Read my above post!

2. The Duchy is administered by it's Chancellor (chosen by the PM) and the Duchy Council (chosen by the Chancellor), not HM or the courtiers.

3. The net income of the Duchy is paid to the Privy Purse, the private income of the reigning monarch (the Duke of Lancaster). She has voluntarily paid both income/capital gains tax since 1993 (when she in reality was forced by a then anti-monarchy press to do so). And most importantly it's not those money who was invested offshore, so this has nothing to do with the Queen at all. Blame the PM/government and those who run it.

royal rob said:
For the average person yes it’s a lot of money but for the Queen it’s not that much at all. We need Harry’s engagement so the press have something to write about instead of our Queen
Click to expand...
1. Again, it's not the Queen's money that was invested!

2. Read my above post (where I go into detail).
 
Last edited:
I agree that this isn't necessarily much to do with the Queen personally, but I don't think the decades of obfuscation by the palace regarding the nature of the official and private finances are going to help one bit. This has always been one of the dangers of relying on these byzantine, antiquated revenue sources. If nobody understands how they work in good times, they're certainly not going to understand in bad times either.
 
Last edited:
JSH said:
I agree with you. Most articles are calling the Duchy of Lancaster the Queen's 'private estate'. I wouldn't call it that. That implies that she personally owns it (similar to Sandringham) which she does not. It belongs to her solely as monarch and, as you say, what she can do with it is limited.
Click to expand...
1. In the headlines? Yes.

2. Inside the articles? No.

3. Most articles says something like this: ''The Queen does not manage the Duchy of Lancaster's investments, which are decided by a council, and pays tax voluntarily on any income.'' (From the Telegraph article.)


wbenson said:
I agree that this isn't necessarily much to do with the Queen personally, but I don't think the decades of obfuscation by the palace regarding the nature of the official and private finances are going to help one bit. This has always been one of the dangers of relying on these byzantine, antiquated revenue sources. If nobody understands how they work in good times, they're certainly not going to understand in bad times either.
Click to expand...
I don't agree!

1. The Sovereign Grant is given to the Queen (in reality to the Royal Household) to run/fund the monarchy/Royal Household.

Not confusing at all, but the press (deliberly) constantly describe it as the Queen's private money.

2. The income she receives from the Duchy of Lancaster goes to the Privy Purse (the monarchs private income), most of those money is used to fund official/private expenses of other Royal Family members.

Not confusing at all, but some in the media (deliberly) describe the Duchy as the Queen's private fortune.

And (again) thanks to all those who used the thanks button on my two previous posts! ?
 
I question the media so splashing out while citizens or organizations use perfectly legal instruments to manage their wealth. Either something is against the law or not. I find all this pretty questionable. Are this the same media raising their voices about protection of privacy?
 
Last edited:
:previous:

Isn't it about time that someone or some company start investigating the heads, CEO's and such of the media for all the laws that they break? How can this be that the media thinks it has the right to print whatever they want, the lies, the assumptions, the innuendos, the gossip that they make up for whatever reason, the lies, the rumors with out any proven facts here........what is wrong with this picture? Are people so afraid of the media that they continue to let them do as they please? Why isn't there someone very wealthy person out there not afraid to take these id..ots on and give them a dose of their own medicine and investigate them and their reporters for a change. Isn't it time to turn the tables so to speak and let the media fall on their own papers for a change........what am I missing that this cr*p keeps happening again and again year after year?:bang:
 
Last edited:
The financial arrangements of the rich and famous are of little interest to me - it's all far too complicated to be fully understood and believe me, in any event the average person rich or poor will be trying to find some way or another to avoid paying fully for something, somewhere, somehow - whether that's tax, getting something cheaper than it's worth or buying a product made overseas instead of at home - believe me we're very good indeed about that!

As regards the Queen's investments, it's up to the Government to ensure that laws are in place to protect the country's assets gained from Tax.
 
:previous:
I most certainly do agree with your comment and understand it yet is it okay and right for the media to print lies and try to stir up trouble for the monarchy? IIMHO this is not just about money being somewhere regardless of who has control of it, this is IMHO about wanting to bring chaos to the monarchy and try to bring it down. Not only that but this is *insulting* and very *disrespectful* to HM in making it seem like she is a thief in hiding money. We know the public are plain stupid and dumb most of the times, they believe anything and everything in print, few ever take the time to really look at any issue even when voting for crooked politicians. Just because there is *freedom of the press/speech* does not make it right or lawful to print something to cause trouble that could promote crowds who can and will most likely become violent. Isn't there something about being responsible even for the media and laws that they also have to follow? I think this issue of money is just the beginning. Am I getting off topic here?
 
Jacknch said:
The financial arrangements of the rich and famous are of little interest to me - it's all far too complicated to be fully understood and believe me, in any event the average person rich or poor will be trying to find some way or another to avoid paying fully for something, somewhere, somehow - whether that's tax, getting something cheaper than it's worth or buying a product made overseas instead of at home - believe me we're very good indeed about that!

As regards the Queen's investments, it's up to the Government to ensure that laws are in place to protect the country's assets gained from Tax.
Click to expand...
1. Again, it is not the Queen's investments.

2. Read my 3 previous posts.

And now back to what the newspapers writes:

As one can see in the below Telegraph article, the headlines now says that Jeremy Corbyn has asked the Queen to Apologise.

The Queen should say sorry for her offshore investments, says Jeremy Corbyn

But did he said that? No, he didn't.

He said:
The Labour leader was asked by The Telegraph at the CBI conference "Should the Queen apologise for her private estate making offshore investments as revealed in the Paradise Papers".

Mr Corbyn told business leaders: "Anyone that is putting money into tax havens in order to avoid taxation in Britain, and obviously investigations have to take place, should do two things - not just apologise for it but also recognise what it does to our society.

"If a very wealthy person wants to avoid taxation in Britain, and therefore put money into a tax haven somewhere, who loses? Schools, hospitals, housing, all those public services lose and the rest of the population has to pay to cover up the deficit created by that.

"We simply have to challenge the culture that there is something clever about avoiding taxation. Taxation is what gives us ambulances...

"We all have the responsibility to pay for it. It undermines everyone of us here, who pay our taxes properly and diligently, we are undermined by this kind of evasion. It must stop."
Click to expand...

Then his advisers saw the headlines and said:
A spokesman for Mr Corbyn later tried to say Mr Corbyn had not called for the Queen to apologise.

He said: "Jeremy did not call for the Queen to apologise but said anyone who puts money into a tax haven to avoid paying tax should, and that they should recognise the damage done by avoidance to society. Labour is calling for a public inquiry into tax avoidance."
Click to expand...

And as I and others ask ourselves: What the heck is the Queen going to apologizing for?

1. The Duchy is administered by it's Chancellor (chosen by the PM) and the Duchy Council (chosen by the Chancellor), not HM or the courtiers.

2. The net income of the Duchy is paid to the Privy Purse, the private income of the reigning monarch (the Duke of Lancaster). She has voluntarily paid both income/capital gains tax since 1993 (when she in reality was forced by a then anti-monarchy press to do so). And most importantly it's not those money who was invested offshore, so this has nothing to do with the Queen at all. Blame the PM/government and those who run it.

And then we have some very ignorant politicians (on both sides), who don't know the facts:
The Queen's £10m tax haven scandal shows One's cash is orfshore (and in Threshers and BrightHouse) - Mirror Online
But some said questions will asked about whether the monarch should be investing in offshore finance. Labour MP Grahame Morris said: “This is shameful. I’m appalled by these revelations.

“Even if it was the Duchy of Lancaster investing the money in the Cayman Islands, it is ultimately the Queen’s responsibility to ensure her investments are carried out responsibly. I don’t think the British public will be impressed.”
Click to expand...
1. If you are appalled, then do some research and blame the people that needs to be blamed, the government and the Duchy Council.

2. It's not the Queen's personal money/fortune, so it's not her responsibility at all.

3. No, thanks to the (deliberly) ignorant press and people like you, the British public won't be impressed.

What do I think?

That this is becoming more and more ridiculous.

And read my 3 other posts where I go into detail about the Queen's official/private finances.
 
Last edited:
This has nothing to do with HM specifically but is part of a much larger expose of the very rich and who has money in tax havens rather than pay tax in their countries along with the fact that some of the companies used have actually ripped off a number of people.

The Queen has come up simply because she is one of the very rich who is putting money in these places but she is not the target at all.

Here in Australia, this morning, there is more on Michael Hutchence's estate - he died 20 years ago - but the manager of his estate and records etc has also been named as someone who was doing this same thing with Hutchence's money.

This is from the Paradise Papers which followed on from the Panama Papers which were released last year.

There are people around Trump also mentioned along with Apple as a company and Bono etc

No one named has denied the reports. We know the Queen won't but no one else has which leads to the belief that these papers are in fact the truth of the situation - as was shown with the Panama Papers last year when again no one claimed they were false.

These sorts of exposes all started with Wikileaks of course - people believing that the general public have a right to know what the rich and powerful are doing with their money, other people's money and the decisions they are making about all sorts of things.
 
Last edited:
To those who argue that the queen is not at all to blame; do you really think that the council would not listen to her if she had specifically asked not to invest the Duchy's money in tax havens?
 
TBH i don't think this fuss will last long, already the media are starting to focus on the fact Lewis Hamilton used legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes on a private jet. I suspect in a few days more revelations will have come out and will be the focus of the media's attention.
 
Iluvbertie said:
This has nothing to do with HM specifically but is part of a much larger expose of the very rich and who has money in tax havens rather than pay tax in their countries along with the fact that some of the companies used have actually ripped off a number of people.
Click to expand...
Agree that this has nothing to do with the Queen. I (in my 4 posts) and some people on Twitter have tried to explain this more than once today.


Iluvbertie said:
The Queen has come up simply because she is one of the very rich who is putting money in these places but she is not the target at all.
Click to expand...
1. The Queen has come up because the media are trying to drag her into it.

2. And again, she hasn't anything to do with those money that was being invested.

3. Read my posts.


Somebody said:
To those who argue that the queen is not at all to blame; do you really think that the council would not listen to her if she had specifically asked not to invest the Duchy's money in tax havens?
Click to expand...
It's not her decision. The Queen is a constitutional monarch and the Duchy (who provides HM with her private income) is administered by it's Chancellor (chosen by the PM) and the Duchy Council (chosen by the Chancellor), not HM or the courtiers. How many times do I have to say this.


tommy100 said:
TBH i don't think this fuss will last long, already the media are starting to focus on the fact Lewis Hamilton used legal loopholes to avoid paying taxes on a private jet. I suspect in a few days more revelations will have come out and will be the focus of the media's attention.
Click to expand...
Let's hope you're right!


More from the politicians:

Charlie Proctor‏ @MonarchyUK
BREAKING: Shadow Chancellor @johnmcdonnellMP asks if the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster will apologise to The Queen over #ParadisePapers

As someone pointed out on twitter, it was in fact Labour who had the Chancellor of Duchy of Lancaster when this investment was made in 2005, so I think that MPs on both sides should be a bit careful with what they are saying right now.
 
Last edited:
ROYAL NORWAY said:
It's not her decision. The Queen is a constitutional monarch and the Duchy (who provides HM with her private income) is administered by it's Chancellor (chosen by the PM) and the Duchy Council (chosen by the Chancellor), not HM or the courtiers. How many times do I have to say this.
Click to expand...

Your message is loud and clear. However, there are multiple angles to this. For now, I take it as that you think that the council would completely ignore anything that the queen might suggest... as she formally has no control.

I beg to differ, while the queen is not in charge, I do think that if she would suggest certain things (such as: please do not invest in weapons or try to avoid investing in companies that seriously damage the environment) they would heat her advice. Whether the queen has ever suggested anything like that, I don't know but I do think it would be a possibility...

The world is not as black and white as you seem to suggest: there is formal authority and informal influence - and the queen has a lot of the last. I am not blaming HM as it could very well be that she was not aware of the use of tax havens by the Duchy of Lancaster but I do think that she has her ways to address this now she is aware.
 
:previous:

1. The Queen is not a type of person that will tell a government chosen Chancellor/Council to do or don't do something.

2. And it's in fact as black and white as that, and most experts/commentators agrees.

3. And most articles says the same: The Queen does not manage the Duchy of Lancaster's investments, which are decided by a council, and pays tax voluntarily on any income.

4. And as Roya Nikkhah said (the same as me and others) on Sky News yesterday: ''The Duchy of Lancaster provides the Queen with a private income, but she doesn't manage it, she dosen't personally invest in a portfolio. It's run by Duchy Council and those Councils is appointed by the government.''

5. So as you can read: The Queen is not involved in the Duchy's investments, and almost every article says that she wouldn't have known anything about it.
 
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
351
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