Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
:previous:

Surely something needs to be done to provide affordable housing for needy tenants. And the royal firm should take a leading role in advocating for cost-effective relief for renters and taxpayers.

However, I do not like the way the Sussexes' renovation of Frogmore Cottage is being cited as some kind of problem for taxpayers. Did these complaints and investigative reporting about royal finances occur when Apt 1A was renovated for the Cambridges at a higher cost than the renovation of Frogmore Cottage? I'm sure there was complaining in some quarters, but not to the extent we are seeing surrounding the Sussexes and Frogmore Cottage renovations.

The fact is: Harry and Meghan have spent their own money to furnish their living quarters. They do not own Frogmore Cottage. They benefit from the renovations, but the property itself belongs to the crown estate and the renovations will ultimately benefit not only the Sussexes, but the crown estate and future generations of royals.

The cost to taxpayers is minimal per taxpayer. The economic benefits of the royal family to Great Britain are substantial. The marriage of Meghan and Harry has brought millions in tourism dollars to Great Britain, and huge interest in British life and culture, and indeed in the Commonwealth and in charitable organizations supported by the Sussexes, which are benefiting from donations extended by Sussex fans across the world. The South Pacific locales where H&M toured have also benefited via worldwide exposure and increased tourism dollars.

Sentebale, The Invictus Games, and the Hubb Community Women's cookbook Together brought in the most money to the Royal Foundation last year (according to the recently released audit). In fact, the cookbook brought in 57% of all funds, yet somehow the Sussexes are being maligned for the Royal Foundation split and for the renovations needed to Frogmore Cottage?!

Furthermore, none of the royals are responsible for the management of the Crown Estate, especially not the Sussexes.
 
Last edited:
MaiaMia_53 said:
:previous:

Surely something needs to be done to provide affordable housing for needy tenants. And the royal firm should take a leading role in advocating for cost-effective relief for renters and taxpayers.

However, I do not like the way the Sussexes' renovation of Frogmore Cottage is being cited as some kind of problem for taxpayers. Did these complaints and investigative reporting about royal finances occur when Apt 1A was renovated for the Cambridges at a higher cost than the renovation of Frogmore Cottage? I'm sure there was complaining in some quarters, but not to the extent we are seeing surrounding the Sussexes and Frogmore Cottage renovations.

The fact is: Harry and Meghan have spent their own money to furnish their living quarters. They do not own Frogmore Cottage. They benefit from the renovations, but the property itself belongs to the crown estate and the renovations will ultimately benefit not only the Sussexes, but the crown estate and future generations of royals.

The cost to taxpayers is minimal per taxpayer. The economic benefits of the royal family to Great Britain are substantial. The marriage of Meghan and Harry has brought millions in tourism dollars to Great Britain, and huge interest in British life and culture, and indeed in the Commonwealth and in charitable organizations supported by the Sussexes, which are benefiting from donations extended by Sussex fans across the world. The South Pacific locales where H&M toured have also benefited via worldwide exposure and increased tourism dollars.

Sentebale, The Invictus Games, and the Hubb Community Women's cookbook Together brought in the most money to the Royal Foundation last year (according to the recently released audit). In fact, the cookbook brought in 57% of all funds, yet somehow the Sussexes are being maligned for the Royal Foundation split and for the renovations needed to Frogmore Cottage?!

Furthermore, none of the royals are responsible for the management of the Crown Estate, especially not the Sussexes.
Click to expand...

I agree that the journalist seemed to be jumping on the bandwagon by mentioning Frogmore Cottage. But other than that it is more balanced than most. The journalist makes clear that the Queen has no say in the running of the Crown Estate and he gives credit to Charles and William for raising the issue of affordable housing.

There were plenty of articles complaining about the cost of renovating both the Cambridge homes. I also doubt this article has been inspired by the recent furor about the costs of Frogmore. Investigative articles like this are usually worked on for weeks if not months before they see the light of day. The timing of its publication may be linked to the release of the Royal accounts but I doubt the investigation itself was.
 
The Guardian is a republic leaning newspaper and some of our media owners are too (eg Murdoch) so we might expect them to scrutinise the monarchy & its income source. It seems like a fair article overall & I suppose it's obvious they'd mention the latest housing expenditure.

The Crown Estate provides the treasury & the monarchy with an income but the big problem with all of this is that many people don't see the benefit in their own lives. The last few years have seen public services cut to the bone & people on low wages and/or in insecure employment are on very tight budgets. It's easy to say that the monarchy brings revenue back into the UK but a lot of people will say that it doesn't filter down to them personally. They see the BRF living in multiple luxury homes while they struggle to pay rent & know they'll never own any home themselves. It's a huge, complex topic & I'll stop there before venturing into politics.
 
I read that the Duke of Edinburgh still receives his £375,000(?) a year despite being retired. Is this true?
 
I read that also somewhere recently but can't remember where, but I take it with a pinch of salt as since the Sovereign Grant was started I have not read anywhere about parliamentary annuities, which were listed in previous financial reports.
 
According to the government’s official website:

“A Parliamentary annuity for HRH The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh will continue.”

“This allowance is to meet official expenses incurred in carrying out his public duties in support of The Queen.”
 
Last edited:
tommy100 said:
I read that also somewhere recently but can't remember where, but I take it with a pinch of salt as since the Sovereign Grant was started I have not read anywhere about parliamentary annuities, which were listed in previous financial reports.
Click to expand...

Is the parliamentary annuity in addition to the Sovereign Grant then ?
 
The Duke of Edinburgh’s annuity is in addition to the Sovereign Grant.
 
tommy100 said:
I read that also somewhere recently but can't remember where, but I take it with a pinch of salt as since the Sovereign Grant was started I have not read anywhere about parliamentary annuities, which were listed in previous financial reports.
Click to expand...

It was reported in the articles about the recent annual financial review. Haven't read the review so I can't say it was in that but reporting on it mentioned the DofE continuing to receive an annuity.
 
This is just my personal opinion but I honestly don't think there's enough money on this planet to compensate Philip for the unwavering support and the many, many things he's done and accomplished over the 67 years he's been the "strength and stay" of the monarch and service to Crown and Country.

In fact, I'd even suggest that the word used for his service is actually "priceless". ?
 
Two royal weddings at Windsor, Louis’s birth, and Charles’s 70th birthday led to a boom in visitor numbers to royal residences and sales of memorabilia in 2018-19, the Royal Collection Trust’s annual report shows today.

The Queen's official residences attracted a record 3.3 million visitors over the past financial year, compared with 2.96 million the year before.


Via Kensington Richard Palmer Twitter
 
As a follow-up to the discussion about the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall in the case there is no duke of Cornwall (which would happen if the eldest living son of the monarch and heir apparent are not the same person), the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011 made a few changes.

5. Duchy of Cornwall
The Duchy of Cornwall is a private landed estate created by Charter in 1337 when Edward III granted it to his son and heir, Prince Edward (the Black Prince) and all his subsequent heirs. It provides each Duke with an income from its assets. The current Duke is the Heir to the Throne, HRH Prince Charles.
The estate comprises primarily agricultural, commercial and residential property, in addition to which the Duchy has a portfolio of financial investments. The Duchy consists of around 52,971 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of England. For more details, please visit the official website for the Duchy of Cornwall.

Under the Sovereign Grant Act:
* a grant is to be paid to heirs to the throne who are not Dukes of Cornwall to put them in a similar financial position as if they were Dukes of Cornwall; this means that in future daughters of the monarch, as well as younger sons, could benefit
* if the heir is not the Duke of Cornwall and is over 18, the heir is to receive a grant based on Duchy revenues; the Monarch (who in these circumstances becomes the Duke) receives the Duchy revenues, and the Sovereign Grant is reduced by an equal amount (so in effect, the heir would receive the Duchy income)
* if the Duke of Cornwall is a minor, 90% of the revenues of the Duchy go to the monarch and the Sovereign Grant is reduced accordingly
Click to expand...
Source: Sovereign Grant Act.
 
:previous:

Indeed, that is why many say the heir to the throne will receive the duchy revenues, since even if it is not the technical truth, that is the effective outcome under the Sovereign Grant Act.

Here is the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011; note that any heir to the throne will receive the revenues, whether or not he or she is a child of the reigning monarch, such that unless the law is changed, if Prince George is childless then the revenues will be directed to Princess Charlotte when her brother is king.
 
Rudolph said:
The Duke of Edinburgh’s annuity is in addition to the Sovereign Grant.
Click to expand...

Is that the last vestiges of The Civil List, the funds for HRH The Duke of Edinburgh? I remember something about this. IMHO, he has earned it many times over.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
:previous:

Here is the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011; note that any heir to the throne will receive the revenues, whether or not he or she is a child of the reigning monarch, such that unless the law is changed, if Prince George is childless then the revenues will be directed to Princess Charlotte when her brother is king.
Click to expand...

Does it also mean that if George become king before he's married or has child(ren), Charlotte will receive the revenues until he has child(ren)? (A scenario similar to Edward VIII and Duke of York)
 
Last edited:
yukari said:
Does it also mean that if George become king before he's married or has child(ren), Charlotte will receive the revenues until he has child(ren)? (A scenario similar to Edward VIII and Duke of York)
Click to expand...

That will depend on what the act looks like then. Currently the act specifically refers to 'Her Majesty' and so would have to be re-done when there is a King.

If an act is to refer to a monarch of either gender the act tends to use the term 'the monarch' while this act only refers to Her Majesty.

That presumably is because the Crown Estate still has to be signed over at the beginning of each new reign and so a new Sovereign Grant Act will need to be negotiated at that time (even if only in 'theory' while in practice the existing act simply rolls over.

It the terms of the current act do apply then Charlotte would receive the income as the heir, I think, but not directly as Charles does now. As Charlotte, or any female, wouldn't be The Duke of Cornwall, the income from the Duchy would be invested to the monarch, the Sovereign Grant reduced by the amount of the Duchy of Cornwall income and the treasury then pay the heir (note the treasury and not the Crown Estate). That would be interesting as they would never be able to say 'no taxpayers money' as they can now.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
Currently the act specifically refers to 'Her Majesty' and so would have to be re-done when there is a King.
[...]
That presumably is because the Crown Estate still has to be signed over at the beginning of each new reign and so a new Sovereign Grant Act will need to be negotiated at that time (even if only in 'theory' while in practice the existing act simply rolls over.
Click to expand...

Under that interpretation, the Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 which reformed the laws of royal marriages and succession to the crown would also need to be re-done.

The official guidance posted by Somebody indicates that is not the interpretation of the legislators:

Under the Sovereign Grant Act:
* a grant is to be paid to heirs to the throne who are not Dukes of Cornwall to put them in a similar financial position as if they were Dukes of Cornwall; this means that in future daughters of the monarch, as well as younger sons, could benefit
Click to expand...


yukari said:
Does it also mean that if George become king before he's married or has child(ren), Charlotte will receive the revenues until he has child(ren)? (A scenario similar to Edward VIII and Duke of York)
Click to expand...

Correct, as the Act says "any person who is the heir to the throne" would receive the grant equal in amount to the revenues.
 
Last edited:
Iluvbertie said:
the Crown Estate still has to be signed over at the beginning of each new reign and so a new Sovereign Grant Act will need to be negotiated at that time (even if only in 'theory' while in practice the existing act simply rolls over.
Click to expand...

1 This is my understanding as well although I can see how a different interpretation can also be drawn from the wording of the official government guidance on the act.

2 I suspect that the wording will be changed to "heir apparent" at some point. Granting an heir presumptive 20 million a year for some unknowable period would be unprecedented. Such an individual could amass a very considerable fortune over a decade or more & then be replaced by an (infant) heir apparent.

3 On a separate but related issue - does the heir even need to have 20 million (15 net) a year? It is a huge amount of money.

4 How are other heirs apparent funded? Are they given such a large amount per year?

5 With regard to the thread on the Sussexes the point I was trying to make is that any part of the surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall should not be utilised to fund overseas relatives. I believe that this goes against the spirit of what the proceeds are supposed to be used for.

6 Since the duchy is crown land it belongs to the state (even if owned, but not in a personal capacity, by the present duke) & therefore the public have a legitimate interest in its affairs.

7 The structures, privileges & practises of the Duchy of Cornwall are not already without their critics. Any funding of the Sussexes from duchy resources could open a can of worms.

8 Much (most?) of the accumulated wealth (ie in the bank so to speak) of the Prince of Wales derives from having the income from the duchy minus

Official expenses
Tax at either 25 or 50 % (dependent on marital status) on the remainder

He has been in receipt of these amounts annually since 1968. What happened to the duchy income before then who knows? Maybe it was put aside for Charles to inherit at 21 but that is unclear.

It’s therefore not unreasonable for there to be a public interest in how this accumulated “private” wealth is used. It’s a grey area best left unexamined if you’re the Prince of Wales.

This is not conjecture - It is well known that the former Prince of Wales built up a sizeable fortune out of the duchy.

10 Both Lancaster & Cornwall are crown lands. Crown lands belong to the state. They are not personal property. The proof of this is very simple: in a republic of Britain they would not be owned by the former royal house.

Here's the latest accounts. Obviously you may not find everything you're after.;)

https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/...18/07/2018-DoL-Annual-Report-and-Accounts.pdf
https://duchyofcornwall.org/assets/pdf/DuchyOfCornwallIAR2019.pdf
 
Last edited:
Durham said:
1 This is my understanding as well although I can see how a different interpretation can also be drawn from the wording of the official government guidance on the act.
Click to expand...

But as a matter of pragmatism, an interpretation that is at odds with the explicitly stated intentions of the Parliament and Government isn't likely to gain traction.


Durham said:
2 I suspect that the wording will be changed to "heir apparent" at some point. Granting an heir presumptive 20 million a year for some unknowable period would be unprecedented. Such an individual could amass a very considerable fortune over a decade or more & then be replaced by an (infant) heir apparent.
Click to expand...

I don't see a considerable fortune as more of a necessity for an heir apparent than an heir presumptive. In fact, there are higher odds that a Princess Charlotte who is heiress presumptive to a childless King George would be old enough to require funding for full-time royal duties and financially supporting her own children or grandchildren, compared with a child or grandchild of King George who is heir apparent, who would have higher odds of being single or not (yet) a full-time working member of the family.
 
Tatiana Maria said:
But as a matter of pragmatism, an interpretation that is at odds with the explicitly stated intentions of the Parliament and Government isn't likely to gain traction.

I don't see a considerable fortune as more of a necessity for an heir apparent than an heir presumptive.
Click to expand...

I do your understand your first point & I don't necessarily disagree that much.

Your second point - I do agree in this sense - an heir apparent doesn't need such a large income either. What is the funding of other heirs?
 
Not sure if it will go anywhere, but the House of Lords is currently considering a Duchy of Cornwall Bill, in order to:

"Amend the succession to the title of Duke of Cornwall; to remove various powers, exemptions and immunities from the Duchy of Cornwall; to make provisions relating to the Treasury Solicitor and any solicitor or attorney appointed in the affairs of the Duchy; and for connected purposes."
 
Is this a private members bill I wonder? There have been others in the past.
 
Gawin said:
In other words this bill probably won't go anywhere?
Click to expand...

Yes I'm sure that's the case. Private members bills are about 90% unsuccessful. That's to do with the parliamentary time they have allotted not the subject of the bill. The vast majority of legislation is government led.

Under a different (non Conservative) government who knows. Don't be misled by its failure though, the questions are unlikely to go away, that's clear when you read the debate. And this is the Lords, far less adversarial than the Commons.
 
Last edited:
Sun Lion said:
A long, but easy to read, article from the last 24hrs.

"Royal Flush ...The royal family has more than doubled its income ...yet tensions in the family over money remain"

Royal finances expert David McClure, author of the forthcoming book, "The Queen's True Worth", is quoted.

https://members.tortoisemedia.com/2...gn-wealth-fund-queen-and-charles/content.html
Click to expand...



This is a heavily biased, one sided and factually inaccurate article that really has nothing to do with Royal Wealth and Finances but all about pushing his new book.

It’s a shame this person can pass as an “expert” when most of the posters on this forum know more than he.
 
Lumutqueen said:
This is a heavily biased, one sided and factually inaccurate article that really has nothing to do with Royal Wealth and Finances but all about pushing his new book.

It’s a shame this person can pass as an “expert” when most of the posters on this forum know more than he.
Click to expand...


Mr McClure’s book is not mentioned in the article as far as I can see Lumutqueen.

He did not write this article.

Two other people wrote this article.

In a couple of places they quoted David McClure.

I pointed out in my post that he has a forthcoming book, “The Queen’s True Worth”, as I created a thread for this book yesterday.

You have mis-directed your criticism of the article by singling out Mr McClure, who did nothing but provide a few quotes to the actual writers of the article.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Marengo
Royal Wealth and Finances 2: Sep 2022 -
Replies
17
Views
2K
Somebody
Somebody
Somebody
British Royal Family and the Media
Replies
0
Views
349
Somebody
Somebody
LadyFinn
Crown Princess Victoria & Prince Daniel's Official Visit to UK: Nov 29-Dec 1, 2023
Replies
17
Views
3K
LadyFinn
LadyFinn
Marengo
Questions about British Styles and Titles 3: Aug 2023 -
2 3
Replies
78
Views
8K
Tatiana Maria
T
Marengo
British Royal Family Current Events 11: Sep 2022 -
7 8 9
Replies
250
Views
12K
An Ard Ri
An Ard Ri

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom