Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[Somebody]

1. 'Tell' and 'suggest' are two different things
2. Minority opinions are allowed
3. Nobody is contesting that
4. Again nobody contests that but formal and informal influence are two different things; you underestimate the queen
5. Repeating doesn't make it more true - and I even agreed that she most likely would not have known about it (she could have asked for the information and I am sure they would have happily provided it - I could very well imagine King Charles taking a stronger interest in these issues)

 

[wyevale]

If ones face is on the currency....

 

[Osipi]

Just a bit of a slant on the media and how they handle things. They are masters of the "twist me and turn me and show me the money". They are masters of turning a statement of truth into a leading statement that doesn't quite allude to a truth but is more like bait on a hook.

We've seen it often. Blaring headlines that state earth shattering news such as "The Queen refuses top chef's recipe at the Palace". This alludes to the fact that the Queen is in fact Mrs. McNasty at heart and insults a chef. Then, somewhere down the line in the article, the truth comes out. HM, The Queen refuses to eat garlic. She hates the taste and the smell of it. The top chef's recipe contained roasted garlic. The powers that be that surround the Queen know her well enough that she would never embrace something that contained garlic served at her table. So here we see a non-story draw people in mainly because the word "Queen" grabs attention.

This is basically what happened with the Queen and stories of the tax havens offshore. It wasn't too long ago that Sarah Ferguson made headlines with having financial woes along with other rich and famous people with these offshore financial investments.

Panama Papers: Sarah Ferguson, Simon Cowell and Heather Mills among celebrities named in leak

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

1. 'Tell' and 'suggest' are two different things
2. Minority opinions are allowed
3. Nobody is contesting that
4. Again nobody contests that but formal and informal influence are two different things; you underestimate the queen
5. Repeating doesn't make it more true - and I even agreed that she most likely would not have known about it (she could have asked for the information and I am sure they would have happily provided it - I could very well imagine King Charles taking a stronger interest in these issues)

1. Agree, but not her way of doing things (and thank god for that).

2. Of course they are, but those who say that she's done something wrong, don't know the facts. They (thanks to the British media) 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).

3. No, not here on TRF

4. But she hasn't any formal/informal influence of the investments. And that's not anything I'm saying, it's just the facts.

5. HM and Charles is very different, but Prince Charles being hands on with the Duchy of Cornwall is another thing than King Charles (apolitical head of state) being hands on with the Duchy of Lancaster. A hands on Duke of Lancaster is going to face much criticism, so I think he will keep a distance to the Duchy as monarch.

BTW, It's been interesting discussing with you! ?

The front pages are in - most of them have gone with somthing else:
Express:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/QRW6zsG2ShGgIggayz13_express.JPG

Metro:
https://d2kmm3vx031a1h.cloudfront.net/8sKlbobaSwSwoi7VoSPh_metro.JPG

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

See mondays front pages in post 1094:

DF article: Paradise Papers: Queen dragged into £10m offshore tax row | Daily Mail Online

Dickie Arbiter, the Queen's former press secretary, told MailOnline: 'The Queen’s done nothing wrong and she’s got nothing to apologise for.

'The Queen is being knocked to take the heat of others.

He added: 'The money has been invested by the Duchy of Lancaster – not her – and the money doesn’t go in her pocket’ and would be used for the upkeep of palaces and pensions for retired staff.

Mr Arbiter said her tax affairs being front page wouldn't be ‘uncomfortable’ for the Queen because ‘anyone with an ounce of financial nous knows profits coming into the UK from offshore is taxed at the full whack’.

 

[cepe]

the management of both Lancaster and Cornwall run on similar lines. The only control HMQ and Charles have is how they spend the income derived from it. No involvement in the capital.

HMQ uses part of the the income to support Anne, Andrew, Edward, DKent, DGlos and PAlex. Charles supports his children and last yr donated £11m (from memory) to his charities.

Both pay taxes

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

1. Yes, I know cepe. I wrote about it in posts 1094/1098/1100 where I go into detail about the Queen's official/private finances.

2. What I meant is that Charles is a bit more hands on (interested) when it comes to the Duchy of Cornwall than what HM is with the Duchy Lancaster.

 

[Skippyboo]

Charles definitely has more control of the Duchy of Cornwall than the Queen has with the Duchy of Lancaster. The Poundbury development has Charles’s fingers all over it. Charles picked out Highgrove and then got the Duchy to pay for it.

 

[Osipi]

There is a huge difference between Charles and his mother. Charles, himself, is an astute businessman and when suggesting purchases to the Duchy of Cornwall, he knows what he's talking about and most likely has come up with a business plan to back it up.

On the other hand, should Charles attempt to dip his fingers into horse breeding, training and such, his mother could run circles around him and make him look like the amateur he is in that milieu.

Its all in what a person has a specific interest and talent in. With the Queen, she can't feed anything apples or pet and groom a living animal in the world of high finance so it doesn't interest her overly much and she leaves finances to those that have been recommended to her to manage it.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Charles is (as I wrote in post 1115) more hands on with the Duchy of Cornwall than what the Queen (an apolitical constitutional monarch and a very different person) is with the Duchy of Lancaster.

But I don't think he will try to be a hands on Duke of Lancaster because then he's going to face heavy criticism from the media/politicians.

And since the Duchy is administered by it's government-chosen Council and not by the monarch/courtiers (with the expeption of the Keeper of the Privy Purse who is a member of the Council), King Charles woldn't have much to say anyway.

Read about the Duchies here:

Lancaster
https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/

Cornwall
Home | The Duchy of Cornwall

 

[PetticoatLane]

Why should the Queen of the Cayman Islands not keep some of her money in the Cayman Islands?

Total non-story.

 

[Dman]

Prince Charles has been added to the controversy-

https://twitter.com/x/status/927959740730232832

https://twitter.com/x/status/927960226397151232

 

[Rudolph]

Richard Palmer @Royalreporter
In response, the Duchy of Cornwall says Charles has no direct involvement in investment decisions and the Duchy derived no tax advantage.

 

[Spheno]

I want to share comment from another forum:


Posted by Guy Stair Sainty

This really shows a sorry misunderstanding of the purpose for such trusts and investments. It is also hardly irrelevant that the Queen is sovereign of the countries in which these investments are situated. Britain is the largest foreign direct investor in the US, British investors invest millions in businesses based outside the UK, operating a very wide range of activities. Companies with shareholdings drawn from multiple countries that are investing internationally will often be based off-shore but profits remitted back to the investors through dividends of share purchases will be taxed just like any other investment or earnings. High tax countries do not like low tax countries - in the US election campaign Hillary Clinton made vocal attacks on companies that redomicile in the Uk after acquiring UK companies because UK corporation tax is 20% as opposed to US at 35%. The Uk economy benefited and who was complaining about this in the UK? Most companies based in these so-called tax havens are pension funds, asset managers, etc but investing in multiple jurisdictions. The profits ultimately returned to the shareholders all attract tax at whatever rate the country applies tax.

Now the Prince of Wales is being attacked for a purported conflict of interest in which the Duchy of Cornwall (assets £900 million) benefited by a share sale that earned a profit of $200,000. Can anyone seriously imagine that the Prince of Wales would make public speeches in order to boost a share price in which a tiny proportion of the Duchy’s assets were invested?

One of the strangest aspects of this affair is the complaints about “secrecy” - UK private company accounts are public documents for anyone to see and these name directors and can show the shares held by directors. In the US, however, private company’s accounts are not matters of public record and US banks have strong privacy protections. Would the US be considered a “tax haven” or to being acting immorally?

I am listening to a BBC reporter complaining that he does not have access to see the accounts of Isle of Man account holders. I consider it a gross invasions of privacy for anyone to have a right to look at my personal finances and I would hazard a guess that most people would feel the same way. Why should the media know this? Especially the BBC where journalists were furious at the reporting of their inflated earnings.

The media comments I have listened to demonstrate little understanding of finance, investment or taxation. Tax competition exists and smaller economies, Ireland, Malta (for companies with non-resident shareholders), Luxembourg, Caribbean islands, etc, all have low tax rates because they want to be attractive to International companies and private investment companies. These companies then earn larger profits for their investors which, when returned, attract tax in the country of residence of the investor - if the “tax havens” (as they are mis-described) imposed another level of tax, this would reduce the profits returned to the country of the shareholders and reduce the final tax take.

Some EU countries (France, for example) have a very high inheritance tax, some other EU countries that may have high income tax rates (France has both, which is why so many wealthy French have left) have no inheritance or estate taxes. Taxes do affect behaviour but the EU allows anyone to live anywhere and many decide to move to countries whose taxation system is the most atttractive just as they might move to the country which has the best employment opportunities and highest salaries. Is there really something morally wrong with this? Personally speaking while I love France and French culture, I would not invest in French businesses; France is a country which punishes success. But I do invest in the UK which has relatively low rates compared with some other leading economies.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

This is not meant as a response to other posters, as I wrote this earlier today, but haven't had time to put it here before now.

The Queen:

1. Journalists who don't know the facts, continue to describe the Duchy of Lancaster as the Queen's private fortune, which is completely wrong - see post 1094/1098/1100.

2. Jeremy Corbyn was asked by the Telegraph yesterday about whether the Queen should apologise? His answer (which was taken as a yes) can be read in post 1105.

Later he called for an inquiry:
Jeremy Corbyn the great tax hypocrite | Daily Mail Online

Later he called for an inquiry ‘into all the revelations about the Paradise Papers’. Asked if that included the Queen, Mr Corbyn told Bloomberg: ‘Everybody. The Royal Household are subject to taxation... these issues all must be part of that.’

His comments came despite the fact that Labour-run Warrington Council bought an offshore company that owned Birchwood Park. Local Labour MP Helen Jones has said this would see the council avoiding £10million in tax.

3. Then royal commentators came out and defended her.

Dickie Arbiter to the DF:

The Queen’s done nothing wrong and she’s got nothing to apologise for.

'The Queen is being knocked to take the heat of others.

He added: 'The money has been invested by the Duchy of Lancaster – not her – and the money doesn’t go in her pocket’ and would be used for the upkeep of palaces and pensions for retired staff.

Mr Arbiter said her tax affairs being front page wouldn't be ‘uncomfortable’ for the Queen because ‘anyone with an ounce of financial nous knows profits coming into the UK from offshore is taxed at the full whack’.

Ingrid Seward to the Express:

“What nonsense. I think Jeremy Corbyn should apologise for even suggesting it.”

Victoria Howard wrote this great article (really worth a read), but she forgot to mention that the Duchy is administered by its Chancellor (chosen by the PM) and the Duchy Council (chosen by the Chancellor), which is a very important fact:
Queen doesn't run Duchy of Lancaster - off-shore investments are not her fault • The Crown Chronicles

Royal commentator Bradley‏ wrote this on twitter, as a response to the above article:

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
This is a great piece of reporting, unlike some who threw the Queen under the bus without a second thought. #ParadisePapers

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
Great piece Victoria, it’s good to see someone reporting facts and not misleading rubbish like the mainstream media.

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
The BBC’s coverage of the Queen’s involvement in the Paradise Papers has been misleading and deeply disappointing. #ParadisePapers

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
The misleading reporting by the mainstream has created a lot of hate toward the Queen which is reprehensible.

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
It’s great to see this piece reporting the facts instead of sensationalist headlines. I wholeheartedly support it.

4. Other people in the press have tried to explain since the news broke (as I did in posts 1094/1098/1100) that this has nothing to do with the Queen.

The Telegraph's Tim Stanley:

Tim Stanley‏ @timothy_stanley
An investment made in 2005, when responsibility for the Queen’s holdings fell under a Labour minister (he wrote that as an answer to another tweet who reported that Jeremy Corbyn wants the Queen to apologise for her advisors investing her funds offshore).

He also wrote this article:
This obsession with removing the privacy of the rich is misplaced anger*

When the Paradise Papers story broke on Sunday, I watched the BBC News channel engage in some flagrant editorialising. The Queen’s private estate invested a sum of money offshore in 2005, which prompted a chorus of “it doesn’t look good”. “Oh no, not good”. “Not good at all”. Well, as the nudist said to the dog walker, if you don’t like what you see, don’t look!

Before we get onto the question of tax privacy, let’s shoot down this absurd idea that Her Majesty is guilty of something. First, offshore investments are legal. Second, Her Majesty pays tax on all her income. Third, the cash that generates said income is managed not by her but by the Duchy of Lancaster, which is technically run by a member of the Cabinet known as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

In 2005, that would’ve been a Labour Party appointee. So, while the Left is thrilled at the prospect that Her Majesty is the pirate queen of high finance, blame lies not with the monarch but with politicians and speculators. If blame is the right word because, as I said, none of this was actually illegal.

And then the Telegraph's former George Trefgarne:

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
1. Media is uncritically reporting that the Queen has personally invested in some dodgy offshore scheme. This is rubbish

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
2. First of all it is the Duchy of Lancaster and its income is paid to Royal Household for official, not personal purposes

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
3. Second it isn’t a dodgy scheme. merely a private equity fund in which dozens of charities, including Oxford and Cambridge invest

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
4. Thirdly the Queen doesn’t make investment decisions, the Duchy is presided over by the Chancellor, at that time Alan Milburn MP

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
5. You can read it all here for yourself

https://twitter.com/x/status/927286347475415042

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
6. Finally, I don’t think these weird international consortia who get “leaked” data are proper journalists and shouldn’t be treated as such

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
7. The real story is who stole this private data and why is it being used to bully private individuals by the media?

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
8. It is true the Queen has private wealth, eg Sandringham but this is separate to the Duchy of Lancaster

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
9. Income from the Duchy of Lancaster is used to primarily to pay for members of Royal family's official duties etc not funded by civil list

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
10. Headlines should read "Labour minister oversaw small investment in private equity fund on which tax was paid to fund minor Royals"

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
11. But that wouldn't be so much fun for these fearless questers after truth

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
12. Also, by raising the Queen in this misleading way they create a public interest defence under data protection and privacy laws.

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
13. Royal Household should have done a better job of rebuttal and issued full and detailed statement. Via social media

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne 5. nov.
14. Correction, in 2000 most responsibility for Duchy of Lancaster affairs were delegated to a new board, so Alan Milburn not guilty

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
15. It is all explained in Duchy accounts here:

https://twitter.com/x/status/927303274520350720

And I agree with what he and some others writes on twitter: The Palace have done a very poor job in defending her. They should have issued a detailed public statement.

5. From me: I'm still angry that the Queen (aged 91) in her seventh decade on the throne got her reputation broken because of some ignorant people in the press.

And the suggestion that she should apologize is just ridiculous.

What shall she say? I'm sorry that the Duchy of Lancaster, which is administered by its government-chosen Chancellor/Council and not by me, has invested money offshore.

Charles:
Paradise Papers: Prince Charles lobbied on climate policy after shares purchase - BBC News

Prince Charles campaigned to alter climate-change agreements without disclosing his private estate had an offshore financial interest in what he was promoting, BBC Panorama has found.

The Paradise Papers show the Duchy of Cornwall in 2007 secretly bought shares worth $113,500 in a Bermuda company that would benefit from a rule change.

The prince was a friend of a director of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd.

The Duchy of Cornwall says he has no direct involvement in its investments.

A Clarence House spokesman said the Prince of Wales had "certainly never chosen to speak out on a topic simply because of a company that it may have invested in.

"In the case of climate change his views are well known, indeed he has been warning of the threat of global warming to our environment for over 30 years.

"Carbon markets are just one example that the prince has championed since the 1990s and which he continues to promote today."

1. I was just waiting for this:

2. I've not had the time to read so much about this stuff yet, but this doesn't look good to ordinary people who is reading the headlines.

3. We know about Operation London Bridge (the Queen's death/funeral) and Operation Golden Orb (Charles's coronation), but we didn't know that the BBC/Guardian planned Operation Bring Down The Monarchy.

 

[M. Payton]

We know about Operation London Bridge (the Queen's death/funeral) and Operation Golden Orb (Charles's coronation), but we didn't know that the BBC/Guardian planned Operation Bring Down The Monarchy.

Is this for real, the BBC/Guardian want to start something that would destroy the monarchy, destroy their country's history, their own heritage for what? Nobody dislikes HM that much right......and why? I am shocked to read this Royal Norway......

 

[Osipi]

I don't think there's an actual "Bring Down the Monarchy" plot brewing but sometimes it seems that way. The Guardian has always been kind of known for having republican leanings.

 

[ROYAL NORWAY]

Is this for real, the BBC/Guardian want to start something that would destroy the monarchy, destroy their country's history, their own heritage for what? Nobody dislikes HM that much right......and why? I am shocked to read this Royal Norway......

1. The ''Operation Bring Down The Monarchy'' thing was just somthing I came up with, but it really looks like that's the main goal.

2. The Guardian is a republican Newspaper, so no surprise there.

3. The BBC is often accused (by monarchists) for being anti-monarchy, while republicans accuse them of being the opposite.

4. Generally, I will say that the BBC is pretty pro-monarchy and wery pro-Queen when it comes to their coverage/documentaries during the Diamond Jubilee and her 80th/90th birthdays, but we had the Annie Leibovitz thing in 2007 and some republican coverage in the days before the wedding in 2011.

But that seems to have changed after that Duchy thing and even Nicholas Witchell (a very big admirer of HM) said live on TV that the offshore investment was embarrassing to her and that without even mentioning either of the facts (very unlike him).

5. Hopefully, this will blow over, but the damage is there.

And as royal commentator Bradley‏ wrote, the misleading reporting by the mainstream has created a lot of hate toward the Queen which is reprehensible.

 

[M. Payton]

Again I ask, why is the *Media* allowed to get away with this harassment of HM? Give me a break here.......no one can just go around the world and print lies and do damage to a person's life without something being done about it. And no one can ever make me believe that this will blow over for when things like this keep happening again and again well that is when things get out of control in life.........yes there is fire when I smell smoke, and this smoke is reaching across the pond so to speak.

So BP and the BRF will do nothing about this as always.........it is *Keep calm and carry on* attitude ..........sometime they should stand up and just fight fire with fire..........give as good as you receive I say.

Maybe some person in BP should put out a statement or something to clear this up.

 

[Osipi]

I think the adage "never complain, never explain" fits more into what is going on now. The more they would "explain", the more they put out there that can get twisted and turned around.

Besides, if all this has to deal with HM's "personal" and "private" income whether it was invested or not with offshore tax havens or by whomever decided to invest it there, its no one's business but her own. She owes no one an explanation nor does she owe anyone an apology nor does she need to account to the public each and every time she has a Big Mac attack.

Spheno posted a wonderful explanation of things a few posts up. Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

 

[M. Payton]

I just read Spheno's comment and yes it made sense yet my issue is with the media.......there are laws that protect a person's right to privacy and no one or no company can just go out and try to destroy a person's life or invade their bank accounts or life. What I see wrong is the the way the media is using the very people of the country to turn against the royal family. Not everyone is going to be bothered to learn or read about taxation or laws of privacy......most could care less for they just read headlines and don't do *facts*....that there creates the problems for HM and the firm. Can I go around and shut to the world I want to bad mouth someone say a president of my country without suffering the consequences.........don't think so for the FBI would be right at my door...........so what makes the media in England think they can get away with this harassment of the royal family. The Guardian Newspaper must be owned and filled with lots of Jealous id*ots who think they should be what....royal?

 

[VictoriaB]

The Guardian Newspaper must be owned and filled with lots of Jealous id*ots who think they should be what....royal?

The Guardian is a republican newspaper (not republican in the US political party sense). Their point is that they don’t think anyone should be royal. They would like to see Britain as a republic with an elected head of state. They are usually more cautious about criticising the Queen - she is so popular that she usually rises above criticism so they don’t seem to bother. Charles is their usual punching bag, I was wondering what took them so long to get around to him.

 

[M. Payton]

Thank you very much for explaining that to me, yet if they want to become a republic with an elected head of government and congress, then please do come to the US and live here and pay what we pay for almost nothing in return. I feel nobody has the right to ever attack another person in whatever way with lies to create trouble. These attacks on HM is disgraceful and disgusting to read daily.....and the people only read headlines, they don;t really look at facts or even want to get to involved yet arms will go up when they feel they are being taken advantage of. Jeremy Corbyn is one big troublemaker for HM and the family and wants to lead the way to being elected head of the country.

 

[JSH]

The article is valuing the institution of the monarchy including the Crown Estates. That is not the same thing as the royal family.

The article also says at the end that the cost to the taxpayers is 292M when, in fact, none of that comes from the taxpayers.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Here's an article that probably contains some errors regarding where the money comes from for Harry to conduct his royal duties and for his personal expenses:
How Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Will Make Their Money

Both William and Harry received investment money from their mother's estate up to when they each reached the age of 30. At that point, they individually received access to the $13 million each (10 million pounds) that had been in trust for them from Diana's estate. I believe that Harry used some funds from his mother's inheritance for Sentebale, his Botswanian charity. And both William and Harry likely also used some of their mother's money to launch their Royal Foundation project in 2009.

Reportedly, Prince Charles receives about $27 million (20.7 million pounds) from the Duchy of Cornwall profits annually (which includes monies from an investment portfolio). Prince Charles does not manage the Duchy, but he has access to its net profits and he pays tariffs on his annual profit, even though it's not required of him to do so. From what I've read over the years, Prince Charles is responsible for initiating projects that have benefited and expanded the Duchy's profits. The article states that Prince Charles pays for expenses related to his sons' royal duties (but I thought royal duty expenses comes out of money from the Civil List). Perhaps they mean that the Queen gives Prince Charles money from the Civil List to give to William and Harry for their royal duties. And then more than likely, the money Charles gives his sons from Duchy profits is used for their personal expenses (regular clothes, food, grooming & fitness, family expenses, personal travel, etc). I'd read in another article that Prince Charles gives both his sons around $750,000 each, every year from his Duchy profits. But that may not be accurate nor up-to-date.

The linked article also indicates that the Queen uses part of the money she receives from British taxpayers for the overall physical upkeep and maintenance of Kensington and Buckingham palaces, in addition to covering royal duty expenses for the 'official royals' who carry out public responsibilities. The royal security protection, I believe, also comes out of taxpayer money.

Meghan, of course, has her own money. I'm not sure how much she made when she first signed on to Suits. With the show's success, her salary apparently increased to $50,000 per episode at 10 episodes per season (according to the article). I read somewhere though that Meghan was making about $75,000 per episode by season #7. So her personal income was surely more than $500,000 annually, especially by 2014 when she'd started the Tig blog and it became a success. And then, she was also doing beauty and fashion modeling work, writing articles and doing interviews for publications, appearing on the Today show and other interview shows, and she had earlier done additional acting work in two Hallmark films during her off time from Suits.

And then along came the Reitmans contract, which also added to Meghan's bottom line. It's probably safe to say that Meghan was making well over $850,000 annually by the end of 2016, if not more. And she surely made lucrative investments as well. When you have money, your money grows if invested wisely.

So, when Meghan began closing down her career projects last year, she must have begun consolidating her income and investments to that point. She obviously must be receiving tax and financial advice from the best advisers who guide the British royals, unless she still employs her own personal financial and tax planners, which I would imagine she doesn't, ever since she moved from Toronto to London last November. Stepping into the British royal family, especially as an American, has a lot of very interesting moving parts to it.

 

[O-H Anglophile]

Here's an article that probably contains some errors regarding where the money comes from for Harry to conduct his royal duties and for his personal expenses:
How Prince Harry and Meghan Markle Will Make Their Money

Both William and Harry received investment money from their mother's estate up to when they each reached the age of 30. At that point, they individually received access to the $13 million each (10 million pounds) that had been in trust for them from Diana's estate. I believe that Harry used some funds from his mother's inheritance for Sentebale, his Botswanian charity. And both William and Harry likely also used some of their mother's money to launch their Royal Foundation project in 2009.

Reportedly, Prince Charles receives about $27 million (20.7 million pounds) from the Duchy of Cornwall profits annually (which includes monies from an investment portfolio). Prince Charles does not manage the Duchy, but he has access to its net profits and he pays tariffs on his annual profit, even though it's not required of him to do so. From what I've read over the years, Prince Charles is responsible for initiating projects that have benefited and expanded the Duchy's profits. The article states that Prince Charles pays for expenses related to his sons' royal duties (but I thought royal duty expenses comes out of money from the Civil List). Perhaps they mean that the Queen gives Prince Charles money from the Civil List to give to William and Harry for their royal duties. And then more than likely, the money Charles gives his sons from Duchy profits is used for their personal expenses (regular clothes, food, grooming & fitness, family expenses, personal travel, etc). I'd read in another article that Prince Charles gives both his sons around $750,000 each, every year from his Duchy profits. But that may not be accurate nor up-to-date.

I know there are others here that have more knowledge and can speak more accurately than I on this subject.

Prince William and Prince Harry have to live off the money left to them after their mother's death. I doubt they spent a lot of it to personally fund their charitable endeavors. They raise funds from donations to cover charity expenses.

At last report, Prince Charles covers his sons and Kate's working expenses from his Duchy income.

The Civil List ended in 2011. Now official expenses for the Monarchy are paid for from the Sovereign Grant. This money did pay for some of the expenses of renovation of Apt 1A and Anmer but not the personal interior decoration or some of the remodeling. The sovereign grant is also paying for the BP renovations.
There's info explaining what it covers at www.gov.uk

The Queen receives her personal income from the Duchy of Lancaster. She funds some of the working expenses of her other children and cousins from this income.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

Thanks @O-H Anglophile for pointing out some of those errors contained in the article, which was probably compiled on the basis of rumors and guessing. I'm no expert either, but I do find it all very fascinating. I had been reading Brian Hoey's book, Not in Front of the Corgis, which contains interesting details about the lifestyle of the royals beyond palace walls. The exact amount of wealth and full details of how all the monies are managed probably will never be revealed. Suffice to say that the British royals never hurt for money, albeit the minor royals must work for a living.

I also get the distinct impression that the British royals have always been savvy about protecting their wealth and guarding their personal well-being and family safety, and indeed historically salvaging their relevance as a monarchy. This was particularly necessary during the dark days of anarchy in the early twentieth-century, as well as mid-century when the institution was lurching into the modern era. The younger royals have struggled with the burdens of the institution and sought to find their own identity and purpose amidst the burden of royal traditions. It seems like they are winning that battle.

On the issues of money, Brian Hoey states that the Queen and her family are indeed frugal in overall practical management issues of running the palaces and trying not to waste money. However, that must be put in the context of the absolute riches they oversee. There is a reason why they refer to themselves as the royal firm -- it is a vast enterprise. And the Queen has always treated her role and duties very responsibly. Still, they are all used to enjoying the best that life has to offer, and so they spare no expense Hoey said re what they 'eat, drink, wear, drive and ride (meaning horses).'

I think that William and Harry are not as personally extravagant as their father, Prince Charles, in how they live. But clearly, they are all used to the best of everything, and don't have to worry about the mundane necessities of living.

You are correct about William and Harry having to raise funds to pay for the bulk of their charitable endeavors, but they may have earmarked at least a very small amount of their mother's money (in honor of her memory) to at least start some of their lofty charitable work. It has to have a jumpstart after all. And then of course, they have wealthy friends who likely chip in, and then the fundraising efforts. I'm not suggesting that they regularly dip into their inheritance funds. I'm sure they are scrupulous in their financial management with quite a bit of their mother's money invested for their and their individual families' future. I'd read that when they were young boys growing up, approximately $450,000 each of only the investment profits from their mother's estate were allotted for their annual personal expenses. That means Prince Charles has been freed up from having to pay for his progeny's total upkeep due to Diana's own personal wealth.

I'm sure Charles is otherwise generous in many other ways to both of his sons, as is the Queen, re personal gifts, personal vacation & travel, lodging. The Queen often bestows residential properties (i.e., Anmer Hall to William). We shall soon see if Harry and Meghan receive a country house property as a gift. From what I've read, it seems that everyone who lives at KP only have to pay their personal household upkeep expenses re food, household products, appliances, and perhaps a portion of decorating expenses. But maintenance work, painting, and structural issues at the palaces are taken care of by the Queen (maybe a combo of her own money and taxpayers money for structural and maintenance expenses). I wonder if any of them who live at KP have to set aside some of their personal money for utilities expenses such as electricity, gas, etc. I would imagine that the bulk of utility and maintenance is taken care of and that no one has to necessarily pay rent. The staff who work at the palaces maybe are largely paid via taxpayer money? It's all very fascinating. Even if the British public eventually decide they no longer want a royal family after the Queen passes, I do not see the younger royals putting up much resistance to public will. I don't think it will happen though, as the British royal family is more popular than ever, and the younger royals are doing so much good and building tremendous goodwill. In many ways, I think Meghan joining the family at this point in time is a fortuitous development as a symbol of diversity and inclusion (despite the smattering of jealousy, hate, and OTT criticisms we see online and in the media).

In any case, if the Republican view of royalty happened to prevail at any point, I think the royals would probably leave quietly, downsize in terms of the palaces (i.e., Buckingham and some of the other palaces would likely be operated as museums) while continuing to live their wealthy existences, only with more privacy. I would imagine that KP would be maintained by the royals largely as a private residential complex, as would Clarence House.

 

[Osipi]

In any case, if the Republican view of royalty happened to prevail at any point, I think the royals would probably leave quietly, downsize in terms of the palaces (i.e., Buckingham and some of the other palaces would likely be operated as museums) while the royals continue living their wealthy existences, only with more privacy. I would imagine that KP would be maintained by the royals largely as a private residential complex, as would Clarence House.

I enjoyed reading Hoey's book too.

Not to throw the thread totally off kilter but just want to clarify something you've presented. As far as royal residences go, the *only* properties that belong outright to the monarch are Balmoral and Sandringham. All of the other properties are held and managed by the Crown Estates.

 

[MaiaMia_53]

^^ Ah, thanks. There's a lot about the detailed operational aspects of the Firm that seem somewhat less knowable and mostly kept under wraps. Lots of negotiation and so forth would have to go on regarding th future of properties not right out owned by the Queen (should the Republican view somehow prevail after the Queen passes, which I doubt).

 

[Kitty1224]

Thanks @O-H Anglophile for pointing out some of those errors contained in the article, which was probably compiled on the basis of rumors and guessing. I'm no expert either, but I do find it all very fascinating. I had been reading Brian Hoey's book, Not in Front of the Corgis, which contains interesting details about the lifestyle of the royals beyond palace walls. The exact amount of wealth and full details of how all the monies are managed probably will never be revealed. Suffice to say that the British royals never hurt for money, albeit the minor royals must work for a living.

I also get the distinct impression that the British royals have always been savvy about protecting their wealth and guarding their personal well-being and family safety, and indeed historically salvaging their relevance as a monarchy. This was particularly necessary during the dark days of anarchy in the early twentieth-century, as well as mid-century when the institution was lurching into the modern era. The younger royals have struggled with the burdens of the institution and sought to find their own identity and purpose amidst the burden of royal traditions. It seems like they are winning that battle.

On the issues of money, Brian Hoey states that the Queen and her family are indeed frugal in overall practical management issues of running the palaces and trying not to waste money. However, that must be put in the context of the absolute riches they oversee. There is a reason why they refer to themselves as the royal firm -- it is a vast enterprise. And the Queen has always treated her role and duties very responsibly. Still, they are all used to enjoying the best that life has to offer, and so they spare no expense Hoey said re what they 'eat, drink, wear, drive and ride (meaning horses).'

I think that William and Harry are not as personally extravagant as their father, Prince Charles, in how they live. But clearly, they are all used to the best of everything, and don't have to worry about the mundane necessities of living.

You are correct about William and Harry having to raise funds to pay for the bulk of their charitable endeavors, but they may have earmarked at least a very small amount of their mother's money (in honor of her memory) to at least start some of their lofty charitable work. It has to have a jumpstart after all. And then of course, they have wealthy friends who likely chip in, and then the fundraising efforts. I'm not suggesting that they regularly dip into their inheritance funds. I'm sure they are scrupulous in their financial management with quite a bit of their mother's money invested for their and their individual families' future. I'd read that when they were young boys growing up, approximately $450,000 each of only the investment profits from their mother's estate were allotted for their annual personal expenses. That means Prince Charles has been freed up from having to pay for his progeny's total upkeep due to Diana's own personal wealth.

I'm sure Charles is otherwise generous in many other ways to both of his sons, as is the Queen, re personal gifts, personal vacation & travel, lodging. The Queen often bestows residential properties (i.e., Anmer Hall to William). We shall soon see if Harry and Meghan receive a country house property as a gift. From what I've read, it seems that everyone who lives at KP only have to pay their personal household upkeep expenses re food, household products, appliances, and perhaps a portion of decorating expenses. But maintenance work, painting, and structural issues at the palaces are taken care of by the Queen (maybe a combo of her own money and taxpayers money for structural and maintenance expenses). I wonder if any of them who live at KP have to set aside some of their personal money for utilities expenses such as electricity, gas, etc. I would imagine that the bulk of utility and maintenance is taken care of and that no one has to necessarily pay rent. The staff who work at the palaces maybe are largely paid via taxpayer money? It's all very fascinating. Even if the British public eventually decide they no longer want a royal family after the Queen passes, I do not see the younger royals putting up much resistance to public will. I don't think it will happen though, as the British royal family is more popular than ever, and the younger royals are doing so much good and building tremendous goodwill. In many ways, I think Meghan joining the family at this point in time is a fortuitous development as a symbol of diversity and inclusion (despite the smattering of jealousy, hate, and OTT criticisms we see online and in the media).

In any case, if the Republican view of royalty happened to prevail at any point, I think the royals would probably leave quietly, downsize in terms of the palaces (i.e., Buckingham and some of the other palaces would likely be operated as museums) while continuing to live their wealthy existences, only with more privacy. I would imagine that KP would be maintained by the royals largely as a private residential complex, as would Clarence House.

Wow very informative. I honestly believe they are the most well off compared to their European counterparts.

 

[muriel]

Wow very informative. I honestly believe they are the most well off compared to their European counterparts.

I suspect the Dutch are not badly off themselves!