Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
You're absolutely correct. The bill for overseas travel for any RPO is submitted directly to the Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard. Its where their paychecks come from also.

It is also that department that sets up the guidelines of what is expected as far as accommodations, travel, expenses and how many hours on the job allowed.
In a few places that I've read, even if Harry's RPO flew with him to Toronto back when he was visiting Meghan, his RPOs (there's always more than just one) couldn't just stay at the motel at the end of the block but was required to be put up in a hotel meeting the standards set.

Its kind of amusing but I remember reading in a few places where the royal was accommodated overnight simply (a tent or friend's home) and the RPOs stayed at a 4 star hotel.

Its not the royal that calls the shot on this.
I feel like some people overestimate just how much “free stuff” the royals get. When Will and Kate went to NY in 2014 it was St Andrews who accommodated then besides the security. Even on royal tours I don’t think the country accommodate EVERYTHING.
 
Proves that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. :D

Foreign tours are requested government to government and the host country does provide mostly for the main essentials for their visiting guests. When there are certain factors that figure in, for example, President Trump and Air Force One, the cost of the transport is relegated to the US government along with the cost of everything from the Secret Service to the designer M&Ms on board Air Force One. This is a good article that relates to the costs incurred by Trump's short visit. Scroll down to the area talking about Air Force One.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...RGAN-close-personal-Donald-Air-Force-One.html

For the British royals, what needs to be paid for that the host country doesn't pay for such as wardrobe and other things, the Queen subsidizes expenses through the Sovereign Grant with the exception of the Cambridges and the Sussexes. Theirs are covered by The Prince of Wales.

The British royal family does not accept freebies whatsoever. Everything cost related to them are published in yearly reports which are usually found in this thread.
 
Proves that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch. :D

Foreign tours are requested government to government and the host country does provide mostly for the main essentials for their visiting guests. When there are certain factors that figure in, for example, President Trump and Air Force One, the cost of the transport is relegated to the US government along with the cost of everything from the Secret Service to the designer M&Ms on board Air Force One. This is a good article that relates to the costs incurred by Trump's short visit. Scroll down to the area talking about Air Force One.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...RGAN-close-personal-Donald-Air-Force-One.html

For the British royals, what needs to be paid for that the host country doesn't pay for such as wardrobe and other things, the Queen subsidizes expenses through the Sovereign Grant with the exception of the Cambridges and the Sussexes. Theirs are covered by The Prince of Wales.

The British royal family does not accept freebies whatsoever. Everything cost related to them are published in yearly reports which are usually found in this thread.

So whenever the royals go on tours it’s the government who pays for their hotels their meals their transportation? I don’t think I understand what you are trying to say. Sorry. Well one time William went to a wedding somewhere and I think he and his staff came up with meeting the president and basically got the whole thing for free the airfare the accommodations ect... do royals cheat the system like that?
 
:previous:
Well one time William went to a wedding somewhere and I think he and his staff came up with meeting the president and basically got the whole thing for free the airfare the accommodations ect... do royals cheat the system like that?


Hi Kitty1224, Would you happen to know when and where this wedding took place and which president William reportedly met with before/after the wedding? ?
 
What I've described in my previous post was how those official foreign tours the British royals take on as representatives of the Queen. Its not up to the royals themselves to pick and choose. A government of country will request a visit to the government of the UK's Foreign Office and then the request given to the Queen, herself, and from there, they decide who fits the bill the best to do the visit. The Queen no longer does any foreign travel or tours so she sends a representative(s).

A lot of times, things will be planned to include more than the "official" representative roles. For example, Harry and Meghan's recent tour of Down Under. Harry was slated to be in Australia even before they announced an engagement because of his involvement with the Invictus Games (which is under the umbrella of the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex). This wasn't part of the "official" tour and in fact, the "official" tour part came about as it made sense if Harry and Meghan were going to be Down Under, why not make the most of it.

In the case you presented of William attending a wedding and also meeting with a president, I think that its more of grabbing an opportunity rather than cheating the system. William is going to (for example) Tasmania for a friend's wedding. Like with Harry and Meghan, it provides an opportunity to also have a "soft diplomacy" meeting with the president of Tasmania. Making the best of the time allowed.

This happens all the time. The finances of it all is worked out. One thing though is that all the British royals consider what they do for the Queen or for their charities and organizations as "work" and are funded as such. They, also, are not above for paying their own way for their own private travels. Everything though that is "work" is itemized and accounted for and made public each year.

One thing too that needs to be remembered is that with these British royals being full time working for the "Firm" and their charities, they do *not* get a paycheck at all from anywhere. They work for free. That's why the Queen has the Sovereign Grant and why The Prince of Wales subsidizes the work the Cambridges and the Sussexes do (along with their office and staff) from his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

And.....the Queen and The Prince of Wales pay income tax on their private income (the Queen's is the Duchy of Lancaster).

I'm no expert at all of this and there are many here on these forums that know much more than I do and will correct me if I'm wrong on anything. I depend on that. Its how I check off my "learn something new everyday" box.
:D

So... ask yourself a question. How many people do you know that would do the kind of things these royals do without a paycheck? Most people still believe that the British royal family gets money from a Civil List (or in other countries it would be called an apanage). Wouldn't it make sense that they do take advantage of what works to allow them to do what they do? At the end of the day, they work a lot for crown and country and its people but don't charge them a dime. :D

One more thing. It wouldn't have been William and his staff that would have come up with having a meeting with a president of a country. All of that would have been handled by the Foreign Office (government). Back in 2011 before William's wedding, William wanted to pay a visit to New Zealand and to Australia following the natural disasters in both countries. He couldn't just decide to up and go. He made his wishes known to his grandmother and it was worked out through the Foreign Office that then contacted the required countries and they issued the "invitation" to William. Then it would be an official visit as a representative of the Queen. William, at the time, was still in the RAF flying search and rescue and it just all fit that he would go. I remember this well because of one report that did come out from it. William met with some of the people that were severely affected by the disasters and talking with them, he said "Just call me William". ?
 
Last edited:
:previous:


Hi Kitty1224, Would you happen to know when and where this wedding took place and which president William reportedly met with before/after the wedding? ?
It was Kenya. I believe he attended a friends wedding.
 
What I've described in my previous post was how those official foreign tours the British royals take on as representatives of the Queen. Its not up to the royals themselves to pick and choose. A government of country will request a visit to the government of the UK's Foreign Office and then the request given to the Queen, herself, and from there, they decide who fits the bill the best to do the visit. The Queen no longer does any foreign travel or tours so she sends a representative(s).

A lot of times, things will be planned to include more than the "official" representative roles. For example, Harry and Meghan's recent tour of Down Under. Harry was slated to be in Australia even before they announced an engagement because of his involvement with the Invictus Games (which is under the umbrella of the Royal Foundation of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex). This wasn't part of the "official" tour and in fact, the "official" tour part came about as it made sense if Harry and Meghan were going to be Down Under, why not make the most of it.

In the case you presented of William attending a wedding and also meeting with a president, I think that its more of grabbing an opportunity rather than cheating the system. William is going to (for example) Tasmania for a friend's wedding. Like with Harry and Meghan, it provides an opportunity to also have a "soft diplomacy" meeting with the president of Tasmania. Making the best of the time allowed.

This happens all the time. The finances of it all is worked out. One thing though is that all the British royals consider what they do for the Queen or for their charities and organizations as "work" and are funded as such. They, also, are not above for paying their own way for their own private travels. Everything though that is "work" is itemized and accounted for and made public each year.

One thing too that needs to be remembered is that with these British royals being full time working for the "Firm" and their charities, they do *not* get a paycheck at all from anywhere. They work for free. That's why the Queen has the Sovereign Grant and why The Prince of Wales subsidizes the work the Cambridges and the Sussexes do (along with their office and staff) from his income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

And.....the Queen and The Prince of Wales pay income tax on their private income (the Queen's is the Duchy of Lancaster).

I'm no expert at all of this and there are many here on these forums that know much more than I do and will correct me if I'm wrong on anything. I depend on that. Its how I check off my "learn something new everyday" box.
:D

So... ask yourself a question. How many people do you know that would do the kind of things these royals do without a paycheck? Most people still believe that the British royal family gets money from a Civil List (or in other countries it would be called an apanage). Wouldn't it make sense that they do take advantage of what works to allow them to do what they do? At the end of the day, they work a lot for crown and country and its people but don't charge them a dime. :D
Sometimes it’s the foreign office themselves who request a country the royals should visit. Not always the countries itself asking for a royal visit.
Then why did St Andrews foot the bill for William and Catherine for the 2 day NY trip?

Basically what you are saying is that if for example Kate wanted to go to DC to go to a friends babyshower but don’t want to “pay for anything” the staff would come up with an intinerary and make it an official visit?

I must say the royals have it good then the celebrities because the royals don’t have to pay for anything for their “work”. Their private lives though is the same.
 
It was Kenya. I believe he attended a friends wedding.
Thank you. Yes it was in 2016. He did an engagement on behalf of his patronage Tusk Trust and met with the President of Kenya at the request of the British government. At the end of the visit he did attend the wedding of his long time friend Jecca Craig to Jonathan Baillie.



https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/03/29/prince-william-wedding_n_9565456.html


he Duke of Cambridge spent most of his Easter weekend in Africa for both business and pleasure.At the start of his four-day trip, the 33-year-old prince met with the President of Kenya, and spent time at elephant and rhino conservation Tusk Trust, a charity he is involved with.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it’s the foreign office themselves who request a country the royals should visit. Not always the countries itself asking for a royal visit.
Then why did St Andrews foot the bill for William and Catherine for the 2 day NY trip?

Basically what you are saying is that if for example Kate wanted to go to DC to go to a friends babyshower but don’t want to “pay for anything” the staff would come up with an intinerary and make it an official visit?

I must say the royals have it good then the celebrities because the royals don’t have to pay for anything for their “work”. Their private lives though is the same.

For one, it wouldn't be Kate's staff that comes up with anything. In order to have anything "official" and paid for by the UK government, it has to be approved by them. It has to be something that would be of value to the diplomatic angle, the aims and ways and means where the government wants to go and all that happy horse hockey.

The difference here too is that celebrities get paid for what they do. They make millions. The royals get paid zilch.

I've added onto my previous post too and explained things more.

This is a fantastic conversation, I think. One thing its made me realize is just how much of these royal's lives are public. Its what we see. We don't get reports on private trips and goings on that these people do in private as its actually their private lives and we *know* the British royals have drawn a thick red line in the sand on that that and hung a HUGE sign saying "Do Not Attempt To Cross".

Y'know, Harry and Meghan could have decided to walk away from it all, built a yurt somewhere in Africa and lived happily ever after if they chose to. This is where the sense of duty comes in. Duty is the main thing with the British royal family and not who pays for what and when. ;)
 
Last edited:
Sometimes it’s the foreign office themselves who request a country the royals should visit. Not always the countries itself asking for a royal visit.
Then why did St Andrews foot the bill for William and Catherine for the 2 day NY trip?

Basically what you are saying is that if for example Kate wanted to go to DC to go to a friends babyshower but don’t want to “pay for anything” the staff would come up with an intinerary and make it an official visit?

I must say the royals have it good then the celebrities because the royals don’t have to pay for anything for their “work”. Their private lives though is the same.

OK. There's another angle to this. If Kate were to do so in any way, shape or form that would get the government to "fork over the dough" for her going to a baby shower in D.C. there's a downside to it that Kate wouldn't really like too much. It would then be a public event and the Daily Fail would be following her like vampires for the "scoop". I don't think she'd like that too much. :D
 
Sometimes it’s the foreign office themselves who request a country the royals should visit. Not always the countries itself asking for a royal visit.
Then why did St Andrews foot the bill for William and Catherine for the 2 day NY trip?

Basically what you are saying is that if for example Kate wanted to go to DC to go to a friends babyshower but don’t want to “pay for anything” the staff would come up with an intinerary and make it an official visit?

I must say the royals have it good then the celebrities because the royals don’t have to pay for anything for their “work”. Their private lives though is the same.


It's not as simple as "a royal wants to do go on a trip for their personal life and therefore makes up a reason to make it an official trip so they don't have to pay for it." It's a lot more complicated than that.


Typically, there is no crossover between personal, private trips, and official ones, for the simple reasons of it makes finances tricky. British royals are even criticized if they leave an official trip to go directly to a personal one or vis versa (it happens sometimes, but is criticized), because of the financial issue.


There definitely are times when a royal says "I want to go to X place" or "I'm going to X place" and it's up to their staff to figure out if a trip is possible, or how to make the most out of a trip. This is what happened when William went to New Zealand and Australia in 2011 (he wanted to go there after the earthquake in New Zealand, and after getting approval and invitations from the governments involved, his staff planned a full tour), and what happened recently with Harry and Meghan's tour (Harry was going to be there for Invictus, and after getting approval and invitations from the governments involved, their staff planned a full tour). These times the bill is paid for by the governments involved (when British royals visit Commonwealth realms, but I would assume that when they're visiting countries that aren't Commonwealth realms, the British government pays)



There are also times, like when William visited Kenya for Jecca Craig, where the government will go "hey, you're going to place X, while you're there can you do this?"William's trip in 2016 was labelled a private one, so in all likelihood he was the one paying for it, not the British government. He met with President Kenyatta in the morning and had a discussion with him, but there's no reason to believe that the government paid for the trip as a whole just for one meeting.


The St Andrews' trip to New York was probably the first example; St Andrews invited the couple to attend a fundraiser and paid for their trip (not an uncommon thing to happen with high profile alumni), and the Cambridges told their staff that they'd be in New York for a few days and asked them to make a mini-tour of it.
 
How Much Is It Worth: First Year Edition
As there has been much discussion about the Duchess of Sussex’s total for 2018, we have decided to do investigate into what 2 other royals accumulated for clothing during their first year of royal marriage. We selected one royal from the same family (Duchess of Cambridge) and one from a different country (Princess Sofia).
How Much Is It Worth: First Year Edition — UFO No More
 
Again, the numbers are greatly skewed by the wedding bracelet and earrings, which many have speculated as gifts from Charles as Kate also debuted a bracelet and dearringn set at some point. I would also like to see the number of engagements conducted. If more engagements are conducted, then obviously more expensive overall.
 
Again, the numbers are greatly skewed by the wedding bracelet and earrings, which many have speculated as gifts from Charles as Kate also debuted a bracelet and dearringn set at some point.

The article discusses that possibility, and provides the number with their cost subtracted:

One factor that we have tossed back in forth as we have watched this number climb is that included in this number are her Cartier Reflection Wedding Bracelet and Earrings. The idea has been bounced around that they were gifts, possibly from Prince Charles (our friends at Meghan’s Mirror shared their thoughts on this here), which would see them removed from our tally because we do not include gifts from family members or Government Officials. However because the Palace has not confirmed them to be gifts we left them in. The earrings and bracelet carry a hefty price tag of 206,022€ ($233,000 USD) so if they were indeed gifts, her total spending would be 273,026 € ($286,278 USD).

I would also like to see the number of engagements conducted. If more engagements are conducted, then obviously more expensive overall.

Iluvbertie keeps a detailed count of engagements for the British royals.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/british-royal-family-engagements-2018-a-44171-13.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/british-royal-family-engagements-2019-a-45992.html
 
The article discusses that possibility, and provides the number with their cost subtracted:

Iluvbertie keeps a detailed count of engagements for the British royals.

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/british-royal-family-engagements-2018-a-44171-13.html
http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/british-royal-family-engagements-2019-a-45992.html

My point is, that’s buried deep in one place whereas everything else used the full figures without mentioning this. Especially in the introductions and charts. And I doubt many people that read that article will then go back years and look for the engagement.
 
My point is, that’s buried deep in one place whereas everything else used the full figures without mentioning this. Especially in the introductions and charts. And I doubt many people that read that article will then go back years and look for the engagement.

I read your first comment as referring to the numbers in the posted article itself as "skewed", as I am not familiar with the people you mention.
 
I have no doubt that millions of British people are ever so grateful for the millions of dollars M&H bring to the British economy.

In actuality, it's more than likely that many people in Britain and around the world lack knowledge of how much the British monarchy positively impacts the British economy (it's to the tune of billions annually).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In actuality, it's more than likely that many people in Britain and around the world lack knowledge of how much the British monarchy positively impacts the British economy (it's to the tune of billions annually).

I am a royalist but that does not mean all arguments "they bring billions in" or "they bring a positive vibe to UK Ltd" have any connection with truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please note that posts referencing Brexit have been edited or deleted.
 
Duc et Pair said:
I am a royalist but that does not mean all arguments "they bring billions in" or "they bring a positive vibe to UK Ltd" have any connection with truth.

Right, so here are more specifics that provide more verifiable specifics:

https://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money...uch-does-the-royal-family-cost-11363982445194

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/b...ar-boost-for-the-british-economy-2571849.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/meg...-bring-millions-to-the-british-economy-2018-1

http://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money/...al-family-boost-the-uk-economy-11364067030820
“While the value of the UK economy was put at nearly £57 billion in 2015 (vs the Windsor family's 2015 budget of £35.7 million), Brand Finance estimated that their net contribution to the UK economy for the same period was actually just £1.115 billion. This hardly insignificant figure is worked out after costs such as the Sovereign Grant, security, and upkeep of palaces is taken away… But regardless of whether it's gross or net income, it can't be denied that the royals definitely contribute to the UK economy in more ways than one. The two biggest ways are fairly obvious: Royal Tourism, and The Effect [of the Younger Royals, now including the Cambridges and the Sussexes].”

The current net contribution of the Windsor family to the UK economy has likely increased, especially over the past couple of years.
 
Capitalism vs. Royalty

In Capitalism everything is counted in money, even the value of a royal family.

Personally I think, this way of valueing a royal family is completly useless!

An example: The Danish Royal Family goes back to King Bluetooth, who was in his time rumoured, to be a descendent of the God Odin. So, they were always there, all the way back to the time of the Sagas.

Is that not an assuring thing? It went on and on and on! And god willing it will go on and on and on.

I think, this is the value of royal family: the continuity.

The British Royal Family goes far back too!
 
Right, so here are more specifics that provide more verifiable specifics:

https://home.bt.com/lifestyle/money...uch-does-the-royal-family-cost-11363982445194

https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/b...ar-boost-for-the-british-economy-2571849.html

https://www.businessinsider.com/meg...-bring-millions-to-the-british-economy-2018-1

How the Queen and the royal family boost the UK economy - BT
“While the value of the UK economy was put at nearly £57 billion in 2015 (vs the Windsor family's 2015 budget of £35.7 million), Brand Finance estimated that their net contribution to the UK economy for the same period was actually just £1.115 billion. This hardly insignificant figure is worked out after costs such as the Sovereign Grant, security, and upkeep of palaces is taken away… But regardless of whether it's gross or net income, it can't be denied that the royals definitely contribute to the UK economy in more ways than one. The two biggest ways are fairly obvious: Royal Tourism, and The Effect [of the Younger Royals, now including the Cambridges and the Sussexes].”

The current net contribution of the Windsor family to the UK economy has likely increased, especially over the past couple of years.




Just look to Germany, Austria, Finland, Switzerland, etc. and the question pops up where their royal families are which boost their amazing economic performance?

Just look to France, the world's tourist-magnet Number One, and the question pops up where the French royal family is which causes that French tourism dwarfs British tourism?

I think the choice for a monarchy is a case of the heart rather than a case of money. Because the economic arguments are rather poor. Will London really get less tourists when Buckingham Palace has been turned into a museum by lack of a monarch? Does Berlin suffer a shortage in tourists since they have exiled their Emperor?
 
Last edited:
...I think the choice for a monarchy is a case of the heart rather than a case of money. Because the economic arguments are rather poor.

I'm not sure the economic arguments are uniformly 'poor.' However, I agree with you that the British monarchy involves the heart, nostalgia, sentimentality, and a reverence for tradition and continuity, held by some members of the public more than others.

Will London really get less tourists when Buckingham Palace has been turned into a museum by lack of a monarch? Does Berlin suffer a shortage in tourists since they have exiled their Emperor?

Ah, in the case of the British monarchy, we may yet soon find out. As I've said, either way, the Windsors will not be adversely affected. They will simply be able to forego all of the government demands on their lives, and have more time to pursue private passions and to work on causes and/or careers that are important to them.

The government most likely will still have to find a way to cover a portion of certain royals' security costs, and arrangements will be negotiated regarding disposition and management of palaces and property belonging to the Crown Estate. Probably most of the royals will breathe a huge sigh of relief and do their best to fade from public view. They are independently wealthy.

Those royals who are engaged in substantial work on behalf of humanitarian and community projects and patronages, will also surely continue with many of their endeavors. But hopefully, certain aspects of overdone public pressure and public scrutiny will begin to cease.

Unfortunately, I'm sure the tabloids and reporters will not cease pursuing the royals and creating stories about their lives.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure the economic arguments are uniformly 'poor.' However, I agree with you that the British monarchy involves the heart, nostalgia, sentimentality, and a reverence for tradition and continuity, held by some members of the public more than others.



Ah, in the case of the British monarchy, we may yet soon find out. As I've said, either way, the Windsors will not be adversely affected. They will simply be able to forego all of the government demands on their lives, and have more time to pursue private passions and to work on causes and/or careers that are important to them.

The government most likely will still have to find a way to cover a portion of certain royals' security costs, and arrangements will be negotiated regarding disposition and management of palaces and property belonging to the Crown Estate. Probably most of the royals will breathe a huge sigh of relief and do their best to fade from public view. They are independently wealthy.

Those royals who are engaged in substantial work on behalf of humanitarian and community projects and patronages, will also surely continue with many of their endeavors. But hopefully, certain aspects of overdone public pressure and public scrutiny will begin to cease.

Unfortunately, I'm sure the tabloids and reporters will not cease pursuing the royals and creating stories about their lives.

Why would the royals be happy to fade in the background when their role is to be public figures?
 
The government most likely will still have to find a way to cover a portion of certain royals' security costs,

If the monarchy was eliminated in Britain, odds are slim that the government would continue to fund any security for them. They would be private citizens.
 
Its a mighty string of dominoes that would fall like the stones of Stonehenge if and when the British monarchy ceases to be. The government not paying for security for the royals would be the least of their problems, IMO.

Charles and Camilla could move to Italy where Charles could paint to his heart's content. Likewise so could the other members of the royal family. The government would have to negotiate with the the monarch just how to work it out with the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is defined as "The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.

Then there is the Royal Collection that would have to be dealt with. The Queen owns some of the collection in right of the Crown and some as a private individual. So much of what is contained within that Collection is deemed priceless and reflects so much British history.

Between the Crown Estate and the Royal Collection, its possible that the government could go broke just being able to retain a huge chunk of what is known and loved as British history.

Why would the royals be happy to fade in the background when their role is to be public figures?

Perhaps because those public roles have been expected of them from birth perhaps and not their own personal choices as a career and lifestyle? I've dug up an article you may find interesting dating back a few years when Harry talks to Newsweek about this particular subject pretty openly. It helps to see their roles and duties from their own perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rry-says-no-one-royal-family-wants-king-queen
 
Last edited:
Its a mighty string of dominoes that would fall like the stones of Stonehenge if and when the British monarchy ceases to be. The government not paying for security for the royals would be the least of their problems, IMO.

Charles and Camilla could move to Italy where Charles could paint to his heart's content. Likewise so could the other members of the royal family. The government would have to negotiate with the the monarch just how to work it out with the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is defined as "The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate.

Then there is the Royal Collection that would have to be dealt with. The Queen owns some of the collection in right of the Crown and some as a private individual. So much of what is contained within that Collection is deemed priceless and reflects so much British history.

Between the Crown Estate and the Royal Collection, its possible that the government could go broke just being able to retain a huge chunk of what is known and loved as British history.



Perhaps because those public roles have been expected of them from birth perhaps and not their own personal choices as a career and lifestyle? I've dug up an article you may find interesting dating back a few years when Harry talks to Newsweek about this particular subject pretty openly. It helps to see their roles and duties from their own perspective.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...rry-says-no-one-royal-family-wants-king-queen

Sorry but who cares if it has been expected of them from birth. I think their roles are unique and they can do a lot of impact in a good way.
 
Sorry but who cares if it has been expected of them from birth. I think their roles are unique and they can do a lot of impact in a good way.

I care- because in some ways it is crummy that much of their lives is preordained.
William did good as an air ambulance pilot and liked his job, but had to give it up. If he were in Eugenie’s position rather than the future King, he could still be doing that job.
 
Last edited:
Sorry but who cares if it has been expected of them from birth. I think their roles are unique and they can do a lot of impact in a good way.

I would think it does matter if they care. Take the example of King Edward VIII. He turned it all down and abdicated because he loved a woman that was deemed "unsuitable" among other various reasons. In fact, that's another area where the wealth and finances come in. As monarch, King Edward VIII inherited Sandringham and Balmoral as his own personal private estates (they still are the monarch's personal private estates today). After the abdication, King George VI had to negotiate and finance buying those properties back. .

https://www.quora.com/Why-was-Georg...dward-the-royal-residences-of-Balmoral-Castle.

Ever seen the movie "Dead Poet's Society"? Or know of parents that were very adamant of just how their kid's life was going to be from the moment of birth and the kid had to fall in line? Being a member of a hereditary monarchy with all its duties and roles and ins and outs is pretty much like that along with living a life in a fishbowl. Its not the fairy tale life of "happy ever after" just because of a title or castles and crown jewels. Anyways, I digress here as this is the royal wealth and finance thread.

The British royal family even should they be put out to pasture and the monarchy abolished, could very well continue with the work they're already passionate about. There just wouldn't be any court circular announcements or investitures or state banquets or Trooping the Color or any events that are associated with the monarchy. A whole lot of British traditions and continuity of the British heritage would cease to be as we know it now.

The bottom line is that it is just that not having a monarchy would drastically change a whole lot of things economically, hurt the things that seems to hold the people of the UK and the Commonwealth together in a common bond with their heritage and history and a huge sense of continuity through the centuries.

The taxpayer money would all go to politicians too. Now that's a scary thought! :D
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom