The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #881  
Old 02-13-2015, 09:42 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
The Duchies were specifically split off from the precursor of the Crown Estate to provide the private income of the monarch and the heir to the throne - separate from the official expenses of the government, including the monarch that are funded by the Crown Estates as such.


To put them back together would undo about 700 years of history and tradition and wouldn't really save any money as the same amount would still have to be given. The Sovereign Grant doesn't cover the official expenses of many members of the family nor does it cover the private expenses but ... having only one 'fund' would lead to greater allegations of the taxpayers paying for their luxurious lifestyle rather than being able to separate what the taxpayers pay and what comes to them as landlords etc and thus from the duchies.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #882  
Old 02-14-2015, 12:39 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
Of course they are not funded from the state. But it would be more straightforward and some would say fairer to fund the monarchy in its entirety (including all the personal expenses of all family members) from the Crown Estates. The revenue from the duchies could be used to fund other worthwhile causes.

Once upon a time all the Crown Estates and revenues from the duchies were the income and property of the royal family. Over the years, things changed with the institution of a constitutional monarchy and agreements were reached between the government and the royal family on how things shall be. We've just seen the latest in the Sovereign Grant and how the Crown Estates funds the working side of the monarchy from the yearly profits excluding the Prince of Wales and his family. As I see it now, the Duchy of Cornwall can and does support worthwhile charities, provides income to the Prince of Wales and his family (which he pays taxes on like every other British citizen). Through these monies that Charles receives from the yearly profits (correct me if I'm wrong on this angle) and using his own pension from the Royal Navy, not only does Charles support the working roles of his family but also has established over decades many, many trusts, charities and patronages and causes all geared to benefit the people and the country they live in. Although the Queen and Charles receive income from their duchies, the duchies themselves are entities separate from the Queen and Charles and are not totally under their control. More importantly, the Queen and Charles voluntarily pay taxes on this income back into the tax collector's pot. I find it kind of amusing when people say the royal family is funded by the taxpayer and it only cost a taxpayer X amount of pence a year. In this regard, even the Queen and Charles pay into this fund. I would bet my last sloppy joe that the amount they pay in taxes far surpasses the amount in taxes paid by the average taxpayer too.

The British royal family has their own personal wealth which has nothing to do with the monarchy through inheritances, trust funds, investments and land holdings and who knows what else. I'm sure many very healthy investments have been made over the years and none of them would be penniless and on the dole so to speak should things change and the UK becomes a republic.

ETA: Ok.. The duchies provide private income. Got it. Still a bit fuzzy here as I just woke up from a long nap to rest up for a good night's sleep.
__________________

__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #883  
Old 02-14-2015, 04:19 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
The income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are the private income of the monarch and heir. They are not funding from the state. Why should they be added to the cost of the monarchy?
Because the profits of both Duchies are enjoyed by the Royal House and not by the Exchequer on behalf of the British Nation. It is the same as there would have been a charter saying: "Any profits from the sale of London parks go to the maintenance of Prince George". This money will be missed by the Exchequer or the City of London and so then taxpayers are indirectly funding Prince George.
Reply With Quote
  #884  
Old 02-14-2015, 04:23 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
However taxes are paid on the income of the Duchies - just as say the Duke of Devonshire pays taxes on the income his holdings earn.
Reply With Quote
  #885  
Old 02-14-2015, 04:23 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
[...] but when Prince Charles is able to spend £1m a year on gardening a year this is unnecessary luxury. [...]
The Duke of Cornwall employs dozens of staff, whom in turn support their families thanks to the entrepreneurship of the Duke. Without the Duke willing to maintain a large garden, these specialists would sit home and depend on hand-outs.
Reply With Quote
  #886  
Old 02-14-2015, 07:52 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,745
Quote:
Originally Posted by angela View Post
B and E should move out of St James Palace, drop their titles and privately fund any security they feel they need. Then no one could say anything about their idle lifestyle.
If I'm not mistaken, Andrew pays out of his own private funds the rent at St. James Palace along with footing the bill for their security. No part of Beatrice's or Eugenie's lifestyle is provided by taxpayer's monies whatsoever.

There is no reason for the girls to drop their titles. It is theirs by the circumstances of their birth as princesses of the blood royal.
__________________
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. ~~ Ralph Waldo Emerson ~~
Reply With Quote
  #887  
Old 02-14-2015, 08:39 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,386
And from where does Andrew get his funding?
Reply With Quote
  #888  
Old 02-14-2015, 08:54 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
And from where does Andrew get his funding?
From the private funds of the Queen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Because the profits of both Duchies are enjoyed by the Royal House and not by the Exchequer on behalf of the British Nation.
It is taxed private income, and has nothing to do with the state, the Exchequer or the nation.

Further the profits are not "enjoyed by the Royal House", but by the Queen and the Prince of Wales and families respectively.
Reply With Quote
  #889  
Old 02-14-2015, 09:21 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,386
And the Queen, King George VI and his predecessors get/got their funds from..?

Look, I'm a monarchist, and I do know all about the Sovereign Grant and before that the Civil List, about the Duchy of Lancaster and (for the Princes of Wales) the funding from the Duchy of Cornwall. Also before that, the arrangements made by King George III to remit his debts.

The Royal Family have to be paid somehow, and of course arrangements have to be in place for that, with which I have no disagreement.

However, I do think that it flies in the face of reason to assert,as some do. that the wealth of the royal family (in monetary terms; I'm not talking about jewellery, art treasures or anything else) doesn't ultimately depend upon the tax paying population of Great Britain, however indirectly it is derived.
Reply With Quote
  #890  
Old 02-14-2015, 04:59 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
And the Queen, King George VI and his predecessors get/got their funds from..?

Look, I'm a monarchist, and I do know all about the Sovereign Grant and before that the Civil List, about the Duchy of Lancaster and (for the Princes of Wales) the funding from the Duchy of Cornwall. Also before that, the arrangements made by King George III to remit his debts.

The Royal Family have to be paid somehow, and of course arrangements have to be in place for that, with which I have no disagreement.

However, I do think that it flies in the face of reason to assert,as some do. that the wealth of the royal family (in monetary terms; I'm not talking about jewellery, art treasures or anything else) doesn't ultimately depend upon the tax paying population of Great Britain, however indirectly it is derived.

Their private wealth, like other aristocrats, has come from generations of past wealth by their ancestors. Those other aristocrats have large landed estates - similar to the Duchies - but that fact is ignored. The Duchies are the size they are today because past holders of the Duchies have increased them over time or made good decisions about their development - just as other landed aristocrats made good decisions. Their private income thus has come about the same way as other wealthy Brits.

Charles paid tax on the Duchy of Cornwall as soon as he was old enough to decide to do so. The Queen had to be forced to do so in 1992 as her father had negotiated a 'no tax' deal with the government in 1936/7 and prior to that the holders of the duchies had paid the appropriate levels of tax.

The money depends on taxpayers only to the extent that the income of anyone who owns property that they rent to other taxpayers depend on taxpayers. A lot of the income from the duchies comes from rental income, both rental homes and office buildings, as well as farm land.
Reply With Quote
  #891  
Old 02-14-2015, 05:33 PM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,386
Victoria was quite poor when she came to the throne as George IV had left the royal coffers in a diabolical state (though William IV was quite thrifty he didn't really repair the damage). No great wealth there.

Only an inheritance from a miser named Neild allowed Victoria and Albert to build Balmoral in the early 1850's, and it was only the careful nursing of Duchy of Cornwall money for his eldest son by Prince Albert that enabled Sandringham to be built.

The Queen's private wealth is unknown but was estimated in 1971 to be £2 million, consisting mainly of the estates of Balmoral and Sandringham and some investments. George VI had to pay his brother out for those properties in 1936, leaving him quite short of money, so I don't know where the myth of this enormous wealth of the BRF comes from.

Andrew's wealth has been estimated as about $83 million in some lists. Even if grossly exaggerated (and I believe it is) most of Andrew's ready money won't have come from the Queen Mother's inheritance, so where does it come from? Generous friends, perhaps?

Beatrice and Eugenie will be the recipients of Andrew's wealth whether it derives from friends or inheritance from his mother. That inheritance isn't likely to be hundreds or even dozens of millions of pounds, however.
Reply With Quote
  #892  
Old 02-14-2015, 08:14 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 515
I can see no reason at all why the entire BRF (including a salary for the Queen and PoW) shouldn't come from the Sovereign Support Grant. There is no need for the income from the duchies to fund the royals as well. They could be merged with the Crown Estates.Members of other royal families either receive a stipend from the govt or are funded by the monarch.
__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
  #893  
Old 02-14-2015, 08:57 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
The Sovereign Grant is only to cover the official expenses and the maintenance of the royal palaces. It would have to go up considerably to give the family a 'private' income or salary as the Grant barely covers the costs it is supposed to cover now. BP for instance was around 30 million pounds BEHIND in its maintenance about a decade ago and there hasn't been that amount of money poured into BP since so it is probably around 60 million pounds.


If the current 35 million pounds is also to cover their private expenses it will have to be at the cost of either maintenance or official work - such as people's salaries that are paid from the Grant now. Not to mention the people currently employed via the Duchy incomes who would have to lose their jobs as that money wouldn't be there to pay them either.
Reply With Quote
  #894  
Old 02-15-2015, 02:07 AM
muriel's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,509
Quote:
Originally Posted by royal-blue View Post
I can see no reason at all why the entire BRF (including a salary for the Queen and PoW) shouldn't come from the Sovereign Support Grant. There is no need for the income from the duchies to fund the royals as well. They could be merged with the Crown Estates.Members of other royal families either receive a stipend from the govt or are funded by the monarch.
I guess the monarch always has the option of scrapping the arrangement relating to receiving the Sovereign Grant, and have the income from the Crown Estates revert to the Monarch.
Reply With Quote
  #895  
Old 02-15-2015, 02:24 AM
wbenson's Avatar
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: -, United States
Posts: 2,546
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
I guess the monarch always has the option of scrapping the arrangement relating to receiving the Sovereign Grant, and have the income from the Crown Estates revert to the Monarch.
The Sovereign Grant is established by an Act of Parliament, I believe, so even in the absence of the constitutional principle that the monarch doesn't make such decisions unilaterally, it could not legally be overturned by the monarch acting alone. I think the Sovereign Grant Act ended the ritual that, at the beginning of each reign, the new monarch would have to be advised to hand over the Crown Estate again.

Also, the revenue from the Crown Estate was never used solely for the operation of the monarchy. Before the agreement that created the Civil List, the monarch was responsible for finding the money for much of the domestic governance of the country. In practice, the Crown Estate hadn't generated enough income to cover these expenses for many years, and the monarch always received a grant from the Treasury to make up the (substantial) difference. The surrender of the Crown Estate was a practical change, to allow the Treasury to handle all of the fiscal matters from the beginning rather than requiring the King to figure it out each year separately.

If the Queen was to somehow overturn the long-established policy and law, then she would presumably also be responsible for personally paying for things like the salaries of judges, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #896  
Old 04-01-2015, 09:05 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 8,908
Quote:
Author David McClure pored over the royal finances to calculate the Queen’s true worth for Royal Legacy, the first full-length book on the regal balance sheet for 20 years.

He puts the figure at around £300million, less than the £330million attributed to Her Majesty by last year’s Rich List.

Ex-Reuters journalist McClure said: “To be fair, there is an element of guesswork in all lists of the mega-rich since without access to their bank accounts or tax returns valuers can do no more than speculate about the exact size of many hidden assets.

"But I think it is fair to say that the Queen is not as wealthy as is often made out and could be viewed as asset rich and cash poor.”
More: EXCLUSIVE: The Queen is cash poor: Her £300million wealth tied up in assets | Royal | News | Daily Express
Reply With Quote
  #897  
Old 04-02-2015, 02:23 AM
JessRulz's Avatar
Administrator
Blog Editor
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,688


More information about McClure's book - including the article he has given TRF - can be found here:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...4-a-38391.html
__________________
**TRF Rules and FAQ**
Reply With Quote
  #898  
Old 04-05-2015, 04:10 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,172
I was shocked to learn how little the Queen's staff is paid. In most -if not all- Continental monarchies the staff is indexed with the general annual pay-rise for civil servants. The head of the salary administration of the Swedish Royal House Service will earn the same as the head of the salary administration at one of the ministerial departments in Stockholm. The chauffeurs of the King of the Netherlands will earn the same as the chauffeurs driving ministers, officers, diplomats, etc. in The Hague. The greenkeepers maintaining the gardens, parks and forests of the Grand-Duke of Luxembourg will earn the same as their colleagues working in the public services of the Grand-Duchy. It surprises me that the salaries paid at the British palaces are so out of line with general salaries paid elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Reply With Quote
  #899  
Old 04-05-2015, 05:10 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 13,214
Why do some people insist on making comparisons between monarchies? They are all different because their government's are different, what they have to pay for themselves and what the state covers is different, the laws regarding work and pay rates are different.


The British royal family do things there way and it seems to work for them.


The other families do things their way because it works for them.
Reply With Quote
  #900  
Old 04-05-2015, 05:22 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
Why do some people insist on making comparisons between monarchies? They are all different because their government's are different, what they have to pay for themselves and what the state covers is different, the laws regarding work and pay rates are different.


The British royal family do things there way and it seems to work for them.


The other families do things their way because it works for them.
It is very natural to make comparisons between the monarchies. What else is there to compare them with? With Obama or Merkel?

It is interesting to learn how the various monarchies work, what means they have at their disposal, what the similarities and the differences are, how the structures are working (or not working), etc. It is very natural to compare the ceremonials, the splendour, the jewels, the carriages, the personalities. It is interesting to compare the public outings, the interaction and the relationships between the various monarchies. The forum is FULL with polls about who is the most popular, the nicest, the best dressed, the best bejewelled, the most genuine, etc. A poll can only exist by making comparisons.

Now it was in the news on the Continent: the Queen pays "appaling low" wages which reportedly start at £14,400 per year (below the living wage). Apparently the Queen i.c. the Royal Household, i.c. The Royal Collection Trust are not in the position to pay more. It is only natural to see how this is arranged in other monarchies. How do they pay their staff? There are only two handfuls of monarchies, you know...

__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, civil list, finances


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Royals & Nobles and Wealth, Costs and Finances kcc Royal Life and Lifestyle 447 Today 05:52 PM
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 175 05-27-2021 02:16 PM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 118 07-16-2019 03:30 PM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Austria and Germany 12 12-30-2007 03:35 AM




Popular Tags
america archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian baby names british british royal family british royals camilla camilla's family camilla parker bowles carolin china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house commonwealth countries crown jewels customs daisy doge of venice duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style genetics george vi gradenigo gustaf vi adolf harry and meghan hello! highgrove history hochberg house of windsor jack brooksbank japan japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos książ castle liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor line of succession list of rulers monarchist movements monarchists mongolia pless politics prince harry queen consort queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry royalty of taiwan speech st edward suthida swedish queen taiwan thai royal family tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:40 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×