The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1501  
Old 09-25-2020, 12:21 PM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by AC21091968 View Post
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.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1502  
Old 09-25-2020, 12:41 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,774
So it’s been confirmed Charles stopped funding the Sussexes in March.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1503  
Old 09-25-2020, 02:27 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACO View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1504  
Old 09-25-2020, 10:17 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,460
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1505  
Old 09-27-2020, 12:45 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1506  
Old 09-28-2020, 07:32 AM
MARG's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand
Posts: 9,889
Erm, what State Assets would those be?
__________________
MARG
"Words ought to be a little wild, for they are assaults of thoughts on the unthinking." - JM Keynes
Reply With Quote
  #1507  
Old 09-28-2020, 09:48 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1508  
Old 09-28-2020, 01:52 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by MARG View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1509  
Old 09-28-2020, 02:14 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,534
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1510  
Old 09-28-2020, 02:43 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,652
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/u...y-b572508.html
Reply With Quote
  #1511  
Old 12-09-2020, 06:50 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,460
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-will...-costs-1553132
Reply With Quote
  #1512  
Old 12-09-2020, 09:51 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,874
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?
__________________
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
  #1513  
Old 12-09-2020, 03:21 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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-will...-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.
Reply With Quote
  #1514  
Old 12-09-2020, 03:31 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 16,874
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/public...-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?
__________________
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
  #1515  
Old 12-09-2020, 03:50 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,534
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1516  
Old 12-09-2020, 08:29 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 454
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.
Reply With Quote
  #1517  
Old 12-11-2020, 12:55 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
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-will...-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.
Reply With Quote
  #1518  
Old 02-07-2021, 08:24 PM
AC21091968's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2020
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1,460
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/...box=1612710609

Link to the Queen's consent series (with three articles): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...queens-consent
Reply With Quote
  #1519  
Old 02-08-2021, 03:03 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 11,323



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.
Reply With Quote
  #1520  
Old 02-08-2021, 03:12 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Location: Midlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,652


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/commenti...queens-consent
__________________

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 09-20-2021 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 american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british british royal family buckingham palace camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles charles china chinese colorblindness crown jewels customs doge of venice dresses duchess of sussex duke of sussex elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones genetics george vi gradenigo harry and meghan hello! henry viii highgrove history house of windsor hypothetical monarchs japanese imperial family japan history jewellery king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor medical monarchist movements monarchists monarchy mongolia names nara period plantinum jubilee politics prince harry prince of wales in jordan queen elizabeth ii queen victoria royal ancestry solomon j solomon spanish royal family st edward sussex suthida tradition unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales welsh


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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