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.
The Dutch are only "most expensive" because they are the "most transparent". All possible costs, from the official website to the royal flight, from the King's treasury office to the guards outside, from the maintenance of the palaces to the royal forestry, all possible costs are enlisted. Before that these costs were fragmented over many departments in the State Budget, which is still the case in many monarchies. An intelligent person calculating what the upkeep is of Europe's largest palace (Madrid), the various other residences like El Pardo, Zarzuela and Marivent, the royal flight, the transportation, the security, etc. will conclude that the ultra-low "costs" of the Spanish monarchy are only because a lot is not included at all. The same counts for the British monarchy: the revenues from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall should be added to the costs of the monarchy. After all these incomes go to the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and not to the British taxpayers.
 
It seems unfair that in this day and age, that individuals should be given access to more money in a year than the average person will earn in a lifetime. I realise the royals have to be funded adequately, but when Prince Charles is able to spend £1m a year on gardening a year this is unnecessary luxury. It would be fairer to merge the two royal duchies with the Crown Estates.
 
It seems unfair that in this day and age, that individuals should be given access to more money in a year than the average person will earn in a lifetime. I realise the royals have to be funded adequately, but when Prince Charles is able to spend £1m a year on gardening a year this is unnecessary luxury. It would be fairer to merge the two royal duchies with the Crown Estates.

I dont know where this figure comes from but this amount would mainly be staff, including overheads such as NI and pension. The gardens are open to the public and are extensive. It might also include those market garden areas that produce stuff to sell in the local shop.

So I suppose he could cut back as you suggest and then he would get criticised for making people redundant.

EDIT: Also meant to add that it supports apprenticeships
 
Last edited:
It seems unfair that in this day and age, that individuals should be given access to more money in a year than the average person will earn in a lifetime. I realise the royals have to be funded adequately, but when Prince Charles is able to spend £1m a year on gardening a year this is unnecessary luxury. It would be fairer to merge the two royal duchies with the Crown Estates.

Along with cepe's post, I'd like to add that the gardens oi Highgrove not only are open to the public for tours as stated, but I believe the gardens also provide the resources that go into the items sold by the Duchy called Duchy Originals. Charles has pretty much made Highgrove to be a working example of sustainability. Although his income is provided by the Duchy of Cornwall, he voluntarily pays taxes on what he receives as does the Queen with the Duchy of Lancaster. Charles is also a very astute businessman and probably has made investments that have served him well over the years.
 
Highgrove has its own product line in its shop (I recently bought some things on-line) including toiletries and honey/jams etc, some of the ingredients of which come from the Highgrove estate and surrounding areas. Profits from the sales from Highgrove (along with the Duchy) all go to The Prince's Charities.
Personally, the more money spent on staff, such as gardeners, the better - it is employment for people, staff wages are taxed, staff spend money on consumables that are taxed and it all ends up in government spending again.
 
The same counts for the British monarchy: the revenues from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall should be added to the costs of the monarchy. After all these incomes go to the Queen and the Prince of Wales, and not to the British taxpayers.

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?
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
[...] 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.
 
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.
 
And from where does Andrew get his funding?

From the private funds of the Queen.

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...

:flowers:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom