Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[Duc_et_Pair]

Thank you for the article. The Daily Mail has also mentioned it yesterday (or the day before).

Like a lot of newspaper publications, they seem to be mistaken on the how the sovereign grant works. The sovereign grant is NOT taxpayer-founded. It is the 25% (as of 2016) of the annual Crown Estate's profit. The rest of 75% goes to HM's Treasury in which the government (or more likely Chancellor of the Exchequer) can decide what to spend on.

The Queen will receive £86.3m from the taxpayer-funded sovereign grant next year for both official duties and palace refurbishment. Though Crown Estate profits are expected to be lower, she will receive the same in 2022-23, as under the 2012 funding formula, the amount can never go down.​

I apologise if I have been repeating the same sentence. These newspaper publication seriously need to get this thing right.

I am not surprised that the profit of Crown Estate has gone down due to COVID-19. Increase the number of tours in Buckingham Palace, other Crown Estate properties or even the Queen's private properties (Sandringham House & Balmoral Castle) is definitely not an option. In most cases, indoor tours cannot happen because of COVID restriction.

Like the article has mentioned, the income from Royal Collection Trust (RCT) and Duchy of Cornwall has also fallen.

I am not quite sure if the current Chancellor (Rt Hon. Rishi Sunak MP) will change the percentage of Crown Estate's profit that goes into the Sovereign Grant. I don't think increasing the rate greater than 25% will not sit well with the public. Conversely, I don't think Mr. Sunak will decrease the rate, given that George Osbourne (former Chancellor from the Conservative Party) increase it from 15%.

To the left or to the right, the Sovereign Grant, is public money as it flows from the Treasury, which dedicates funds to the Sovereign. Yes, it comes from the Crown Estate but instead of spending it to benefit the Nation (the aim of the Crown Estate), like funding the NHS or on public infrastructure, it remains a choice to spend public money for the monarchy.

 

[ACO]

So it’s been confirmed Charles stopped funding the Sussexes in March.

 

[camelot23ca]

So it’s been confirmed Charles stopped funding the Sussexes in March.

The Prince of Wales stopped using funds from The Duchy of Cornwall to pay the official expenditure of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in March, when they ceased to be working members of The Royal Family.

Whether Charles used any personal funds to help support his son and daughter in law beyond that time is a different matter, but also a private one.

 

[AC21091968]

I have posted something similar in the The Queen's True Worth thread of the Royal Library. Moderator: Please remove this post if it is considered off-topic.

Andrew Adonis, Baron Adonis (Labour life peer in the House of Lords) has tweeted out and tagged David McClure in response to the release of Royal financial report 2019-2020. He also mentioned about David McClure's book.

Andrew Adonis @Andrew_Adonis
The royal finances are deliberately opaque but @davidjmcclure’s new book shows that the monarchy enjoyed a bonanza from big increases in state support after 2010 plus historic Duchy of Lancaster & Cornwall revenues. These are gifted from the state & not ‘private’
7:40 PM · Sep 24, 2020·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/st...65121994608642

To which Graham Smith (CEO of Republic UK) replied

Graham Smith (not that kind of republican) @GrahamSmith_
Replying to @Andrew_Adonis and @davidjmcclure
Yep. The answer is a republic​

Baron Adonis has also tweeted a picture of an extract from the book, The Queen's True Worth and also gave his opinions on royal finances.

Andrew Adonis @Andrew_Adonis
The media & Parliament do a bad job of holding the monarchy to account for its huge revenues: the media only cares about the celebrity side while party leaders stop parliamentary scrutiny lest it be thought anti-monarchist (which it isn’t). @davidjmcclure’s book is timely
11:33 PM · Sep 25, 2020·Twitter for iPhone​

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/st...86258159341568

I am not quite sure if Baron Adonis is a Republican (Anti-monarchist). He is more widely known to be staunch Remainer, who strongly opposes Brexit.

From reading the tweets from these minor "Republican" accounts (who probably just spend all day trolling the Royal watchers and monarchist), they seem to want to Royal Family not to receive any Sovereign grant. I'm not quite sure about the incomes from Duchy of Cornwall, Duchy of Lancaster and Royal Collection Trust. Instead, they want 100% of the profit from the Crown Estate to go into the Treasury. They even want the state (or government) to take over and manage the Crown Estate to effectively "evict" Royal Members out of Palaces and Castles

Some of them have gone to the extreme of wanting to expropriate Sandringham and Balmoral Estates, which are the Queen's private properties. ?

 

[Durham]

The Prince of Wales stopped using funds from The Duchy of Cornwall to pay the official expenditure of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex in March, when they ceased to be working members of The Royal Family.

Whether Charles used any personal funds to help support his son and daughter in law beyond that time is a different matter, but also a private one.

Indeed but as has been noted on here before the "private" wealth of the Prince of Wales accrues from state assets.

 

[MARG]

Erm, what State Assets would those be?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Erm, what State Assets would those be?

The Duchy of Cornwall, which is seen as a Crown Body.

Give the animal any name, but essentially it is owned by "the Crown" ( read: the Nation ) and feeds the Prince of Wales.

 

[Durham]

Erm, what State Assets would those be?

Savings accrued over half a century from the Duchy of Cornwall. Both historical duchies are part of Crown Lands, along with the Crown Estate, that belong to the nation. As would be obvious in any future republic.

This has been covered on this thread before.

 

[tommy100]

I wonder if we will see a bigger drop in outgoings in some areas in the next years annual accounts, the financial year runs to March so I suspect in next years the travel bill, for example, may have gone down, given the family couldn't make many visits far and wide.

 

[Durham]

It will be interesting to see. As already mentioned up thread the Crown Estate's income has taken a big hit from covid.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...rus-sovereign-grant-royal-family-b572508.html

 

[Curryong]

Graham Smith of Republic has called out the 'obscene' cost of using the royal train for the Cambridges' tour. He states that previously trips involving the royal train cost more than £30,000.

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-wil...ain-tour-scotland-wales-obscene-costs-1553132

 

[Osipi]

If you ask me, the purpose of the visits, the reactions from the people they met and the different incentives they've highlighted far outweighs the cost of using the royal train.

What is the purpose of having a royal train anyways if it's going to be "too expensive" to even use?

 

[AC21091968]

Graham Smith of Republic has called out the 'obscene' cost of using the royal train for the Cambridges' tour. He states that previously trips involving the royal train cost more than £30,000.

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-wil...ain-tour-scotland-wales-obscene-costs-1553132

Perhaps Graham Smith should be attacking some politicians first in House of Commons, House of Lords, who claimed ridiculous amount of expenses and received high amount of salary despite hardly showing up to parliament (some are incompetent as well)

Let's not forget the UK's parliamentary expenses scandal at 2009.

Graham Smith is probably upset that he and his Republican friends cannot have their jolly Christmas in running down the Monarchy (despite previous attempts in The Crown) and so have to resort to attacking William and Catherine for actually doing their work. He is just nick picking at this point and don't even bother to understand the role of constitutional monarchy or sovereign grant. Mind you, he would be the first to complain if William and Catherine didn't do face-to-face engagements by accusing them for not doing anything.

 

[Osipi]

OK. So let me see if I got this right. Funding for the royal train comes out of the Sovereign Grant monies which is at the Queen's discretion on how it is spent.

"The Sovereign Grant covers the cost of The Queen’s travel on official engagements and travel by members of the royal family representing Her. Safety, security, presentation, the need to minimise disruption for others, the effective use of time, environmental impact and cost are taken into account when deciding on the most appropriate means of travel."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...11-guidance/sovereign-grant-act-2011-guidance

The way the politicians are moaning and groaning, you'd think the taxpayer had to dole out for the train expenses. The Queen decided it was appropriate to use the train for this tour and it happened. So... where's the beef?

 

[tommy100]

given that the royal accounts go from March - March and that there has likely been a huge decrease in royal travel expenditure with most visits cancelled the overall royal travel bill is likely to be the same or (more likely) even lower than last year so whats the fuss.

 

[Susan D]

The British public complain about the cost of the British monarchy and I don't take sides. It looks really posh to have a private train and it suited this public duty by the Cambridges.

 

[Durham]

Graham Smith of Republic has called out the 'obscene' cost of using the royal train for the Cambridges' tour. He states that previously trips involving the royal train cost more than £30,000.

https://www.newsweek.com/prince-wil...ain-tour-scotland-wales-obscene-costs-1553132

Well he would say that wouldn't he. To misquote Christine Keeler.

That said it is very expensive. On the other hand it's more environmentally friendly than flying.

 

[AC21091968]

The Guardian has written an article on the Queen's secretary and private solicitor to secure an exemption from companies bills and transparency laws. This happens after The Guardian has discovered letters from the National Archives. The Bill was drafted by then the Department of Trade and Industry in Ted Heath's government. I tried not to think about the timing of this article (69 years since the death of George VI and Elizabeth II's ascension to the throne), but I cannot help to think that since The Guardian is left-leaning republican/anti-monarchy publication, anything is possible. This article is one of the three Queen's Consent series (published on 8th February 2021), where The Guardian investigate into the monarch's secret influence over legislation.

Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth
Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news..._source=Twitter&utm_medium#Echobox=1612710609

Link to the Queen's consent series (with three articles): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/queens-consent

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The Guardian is trying to stir up a debate about the royal prerogative, but in essence I find it normal that the Queen wishes to keep her private wealth private indeed. No one is obliged to reveal all and everything to the neighbours and then the Queen should expose how much her private savings or her investments are?

I see The Guardian is walking around this particular question by focusing on the royal prerogative. But any head of state with a role the legislative process has the possibility to influence. The Queen can discuss every draft Bill with the Prime Minister during her regular audiences. It is up to the Prime Minister to do something (or nothing) with the Queen's remarks.

In this case Prime Minister Heath, and after him Prime Minister Wilson, took it for their political responsability and managed to get the Bill approved by Parliament. In Dutch we call it spijkers op laag water zoeken (looking for nails by low tide) which means: insignificant grounds for arguing.

 

[Durham]

Yes I agree it is more to do with The Queen's powers rather than her wealth

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not but it's related to the news about The Queen's private wealth. It's an interesting read but I lack the constitutional expertise to know whether the writer is off base or on target with their critique. Maybe another poster with more expertise could give their opinion.

We know The Guardian supports a republic but that doesn't preclude it from possibly having a good point about the role of the head of state & maybe about there being a need for reform.



https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent

 

[AC21091968]

According to this BBC article written and analysed by Jonny Dymond, Buckingham Palace has dismissed the claim by the Guardian that the Queen's secretary/advisors blocked government legislation

Queen shown legislation by convention, Buckingham Palace says
The Queen was shown legislation which may have forced her to reveal her private finances in the 1970s "by convention", Buckingham Palace says.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-5597519..._custom4=63EE53C8-69E5-11EB-80E9-2F4D4D484DA4

The BBC News UK's twitter has also released a tweet attaching this article:

BBC News (UK) @BBCNews
Claims the Queen blocked government legislation in the 1970s are "simply incorrect", Buckingham Palace says
7:43 PM · Feb 8, 2021·SocialFlow​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1358697858317312001

Yes I agree it is more to do with The Queen's powers rather than her wealth

I'm not sure if this is the right place or not but it's related to the news about The Queen's private wealth. It's an interesting read but I lack the constitutional expertise to know whether the writer is off base or on target with their critique. Maybe another poster with more expertise could give their opinion.

We know The Guardian supports a republic but that doesn't preclude it from possibly having a good point about the role of the head of state & maybe about there being a need for reform.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent

I think the BBC article also mentioned about the Queen's consent by Parliament and how it was always granted. The Royal Assent has not been refused since 1708, which is not mentioned in The Guardian investigation. And I'm not surprised by it, given The Guardian has been very critical of the Royal Family and its columnist being staunch republicans.

Papers published by the Guardian suggest the monarch's personal lawyers successfully lobbied to change a draft law to conceal her wealth.

The documents were unearthed as part of an investigation into Queen's consent.

It is a process where Parliament asks for consent when debating bills which affect the Crown's interests.

More than 1,000 draft laws have been seen by the Queen or the Prince of Wales before being approved by MPs as part of the procedure, the Guardian said.

Queen's consent is always granted where requested, the palace said.

The long-established convention sees the monarch asked to provide consent by Parliament when it is considering legislation "which would affect the prerogative or interests of the Crown", according to the Royal Family's website.

This process is separate to Royal Assent, where the monarch formally approves to a bill passed by Parliament for it to become law.

Royal Assent has not been refused since 1708.

This is a good get by the Guardian - shining a light into the always-sensitive interactions between palace and government as regards money.

The palace line on this is pretty simple - the mechanism of Queen's consent is a matter for government and discussions between the sovereign through her lawyers and government departments are a fact of life.

Getting first sight of legislation that may affect you is a pretty significant advantage for any monarch. Not because anyone thinks about a block or veto or a threat of it. But because then you get a chance to get your lawyers round early.

Why is the palace denying a threat of a block, something that no one has alleged? Because, says a source, the allegations put to it by the Guardian were broader than those that turned up in the story published yesterday.

It's not entirely surprising that given the consultation in these areas, the Queen would have something to say.

The Queen is not a normal citizen. The tone of the correspondence published by the Guardian is a little surprising - it suggests a degree of involvement that belies the palace's claim that the mechanism is simply a formality.

 

[victor1319]

A warm Rain for the Royals?

The German "Tagesschau", the German BBC so to say, has in it's news, that the income of the Crown Estate and by that the finances of the Royals, the Sovereign Grant, might swell up dramatically!
https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/royals-windpark-nordsee-101.html

The background of this story are drilling licences for oil and newly to be build offshore "Windparks" in the 12 mile zone of sea around GB, which is formally owned by the Crown, but who's income flows into the Crown Estate, from which the Sovereign Grant is payed to the Royals.

The Sovereign Grant is since 2017 25 percent, says the Tagesschau. What means, since the income of the Crown Estate might rise by 879 million Pounds, it would be a warm rain of 220 million Pound for the next 10 years.

Well, we will see! I would not be irritated, if the Sovereign Grant gets newly calculated...

 

[Claire]

I was watching a show about how the increase of Russian, Middle Eastern and American Uber rich in the UK will eventually lead to the end of the monarchy. Will see if I can share. The royals can simply not compete in the completion.

Essential the Uber rich - the billionaires and there about have became the new upper class which even the royals are trying to aspire too. The royals and the billionaires came friends - especially as the royals are lobbying them for money and the billionaires are now in the top schools in the UK - and get a taste of the lifestyle, which results in some royals leaving to seek the lifestyle themselves ie. Meghan and Harry or they befriend the wrong millionaires - ie Andrew.

 

[victor1319]

I was watching a show about how the increase of Russian, Middle Eastern and American Uber rich in the UK will eventually lead to the end of the monarchy.

But since at least 500 years are some bankers (Jakob Fugger, the Medici et al.) richer than the Monarchs! And since 500 years are the nobility and the rich inter-marrying - this is going on since a very long time. Look today: Habsburg-Thyssen, Greece-Miller and so on. It is, like it ever was!

 

[Denville]

But since at least 500 years are some bankers (Jakob Fugger, the Medici et al.) richer than the Monarchs! And since 500 years are the nobility and the rich inter-marrying - this is going on since a very long time. Look today: Habsburg-Thyssen, Greece-Miller and so on. It is, like it ever was!

The point is that now, some royals have left their "royal duties" life to pursue careers in commerce, with the aid of their "super rich" friends..or even worse have associated wiht veyr dubious people in order ot have money making opportunities on the side... . so IMO better to get rid of the monarchy if this continues to happen...

 

[padams2359]

The billionaires will not do away with the one group they aspire to become a member of.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

The point is that now, some royals have left their "royal duties" life to pursue careers in commerce, with the aid of their "super rich" friends..or even worse have associated wiht veyr dubious people in order ot have money making opportunities on the side... . so IMO better to get rid of the monarchy if this continues to happen...

The less core royals are no longer leading armies, no longer have a post in Government, no longer own lands which provide them with income, no longer are provided a taxpayer-funded income, no longer enrich themselves as abbot, bishop, cardinal or pope. So having a job or marrying a wealthy person comes handy.

 

[victor1319]

The point is that now, some royals have left their "royal duties" life to pursue careers in commerce, with the aid of their "super rich" friends..or even worse have associated wiht veyr dubious people in order ot have money making opportunities on the side...

It is, like it ever was! If one thing can be said, than, that the royalty of today is the best audited. the world has eveer seen!

 

[AC21091968]

A recent video by TLDR News (British Political youtube channel) on the Royal Family's finances and net worth. It mentions about how the net worth is difficult to estimate and the concept of Crown Estate (The Sovereign Grant is now at 25%). The video does mention about the republican vs. monarchist debate.

 

[Leopoldine]

I've been weaving in and out of this thread and I don't see a subject I am curious about.

I was wondering if senior British Royals control and direct their own investments. Does a senior Royal perhaps have less personal control the closer he/she is to The Crown? The Yorks seem atypical in this regard.