Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[Elizabeth Harris]

Interesting

I was very surprised to read that Diana bancrupted Charles. Since the info came directly from Charles' financial advisor, it must be true. I wonder if Camilla signed a postnup.

As The Prince of Wales Charles only has the income of the duchy of Cornwall - the duchy's possessions are basically tied up in a trust, of which he is the trustee and has a right to all the winnings. Charles spends the winnings by paying for his and his immediate family's upkeep, giving money to charities or organizing events for his charities and by reinvesting the money into the duchy in order to secure the trust for the future heir to the throne.
He does not have his own wealth in terms of having savings or personal investments. He does not need to think this way, so why should he?

Edit: Just read the afore mentioned article and it seems he has managed to keep the trust fund of the duchy not only stable but to make enough money out of it to put a bit of as a personal fortune aside.

And I read, too, that his mother lent him part of the money Diana asked for. The queen, after all, possesses the personal wealth of the souverain and has money she can spent the way she likes beyond the trust funds of the duchy of Lancaster.

I'm not so sure though that Charles minded the money too much as he knew Diana then for quite some time and knew that she was not the one to get into debts easily. While she had been quite expensive in the first years of their marriage she had managed quite well to stick to the money she had inherited from her father's side and had lived within her income (or so I read in the books about the princess). Thus Charles could be pretty sure that most of the money would end up with his own heirs anyway one day - I don't think the chance was very big that Diana would not only marry again but become a mother again. She had reached a certain age and a certain position where returning to the confines of motherhood was probably not really attractive for a mother of two wonderful boys. (That's mere speculation, of course, but then there is a plausibility Charles thought about things like that). And it is usus in the aristocracy from which Diana derived to think foremost of family when it comes to will personal wealth to somebody.

So I guess it was not that big deal for Charles even though it hurts, of course.

 

[Henri M.]

I'm not aware about British custom, but on the Continent the standard marriage-on-conditions is:
a) the properties of the husband before the marriage
b) the properties of the wife before the marriage
c) the properties of husband and wife together, acquired during the marriage

In most agreements only c needs to be divided equally between husband and wife.
a) Prince William possesses 25.000.000,-- in private
b) Kate Middleton possesses nothing in private
c) William & Kate acquire 8.000.000,-- during marriage

If they are married on conditions, a and b will return to William respectively to Kate.
C needs to be divided between the two.
So Kate will get 4.000.000,--
And William will get 29.000.000,--

 

[seto]

I think I read that there was no prenup between charles and camilla. But I don't think they would need one as I don't think they would divorce no matter what happened.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I have read the same thing.

But as I have pointed out the pre-nup has no legal standing in Britian so why go through it if it won't necessarily be enforced anyway?

 

[Warren]

The material in the Dutch archives and other similar documents are more correctly known as 'marriage contracts', and should not be confused with the modern pre-nup.

 

[Skydragon]

I was very surprised to read that Diana bancrupted Charles. Since the info came directly from Charles' financial advisor, it must be true. I wonder if Camilla signed a postnup.

Do you have a link to this, as I can find nothing in my searches to suggest that Charles ever filed for bancruptcy or came close to it.

 

[Skydragon]

I'm not aware about British custom, but on the Continent the standard marriage-on-conditions is:
a) the properties of the husband before the marriage
b) the properties of the wife before the marriage
c) the properties of husband and wife together, acquired during the marriage

In most agreements only c needs to be divided equally between husband and wife.
a) Prince William possesses 25.000.000,-- in private
b) Kate Middleton possesses nothing in private
c) William & Kate acquire 8.000.000,-- during marriage

In most cases here in the UK, that would not apply. When agreeing a settlement, the judge has to take into account not just what each had, but if by the other being there, they were able to keep it.

i.e. The man owns a £500,000 house before they marry. The woman brings no money to the marriage, but pays towards the upkeep of the house. She gives up her right to be in employment to have his children, but continues to support him by encouraging him, accompanying him to events etc.
In this case she would be entitled to renumeration and a share in the property.

Prenups are still not recognised here as far as I know.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

Quote:
Originally Posted by branchg
...William and Harry are very wealthy, but most of their inheritance came from The Queen's pocket when Diana received her divorce settlement.

I was under the assumption that Prince Charles was the one who paid out the monies to Diana and not the Queen.

As The Prince of Wales Charles only has the income of the duchy of Cornwall ...He does not have his own wealth in terms of having savings or personal investments. He does not need to think this way, so why should he?

I don't understand why Charles hasn't invested in a savings or checking account above his portfolio. Doesn't he have a 401 or CD's in this modern age of financial management? Does any of the royals have any of these? I am somewhat taken back that savings/checking accounts are not considered smart in putting money aside for a 'rainy day'. Perhaps one day, the monarchy could become taken over by the anti-monarchists and put out to pasture and forced to leave behind the Duchies. When that is done, where would they get their money to live on? No savings/checking/401/CD's I don't believe is a good idea.

 

[Skydragon]

When that is done, where would they get their money to live on? No savings/checking/401/CD's I don't believe is a good idea.

As far as I know, all the royals have accounts at Coutts & Co.

 

[seto]

I would think he does have checking accounts and investments. They may not be talked about though.

 

[Skydragon]

The Queen is due to publish her annual public accounts revealing how taxpayers' money is spent by members of the Royal Family

BBC NEWS | UK | Queen to reveal royal spending

Royals cost each taxpayer 62p

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 62p per person last year - the same as the previous financial year, Buckingham Palace accounts have revealed

Royals cost each taxpayer 62p - Yahoo! News UK

Queen wants £1m for repairs as Buckingham Palace 'starts to crumble'

The Queen is asking for an extra £1 million a year to make Buckingham Palace and other historic royal buildings safe.

Queen wants £1m for repairs as Buckingham Palace 'starts to crumble' | News | This is London

- - - - - - -
Sorry ma'am, I think you should pay.

 

[Iluvbertie]

The Queen is due to publish her annual public accounts revealing how taxpayers' money is spent by members of the Royal Family

BBC NEWS | UK | Queen to reveal royal spending

Royals cost each taxpayer 62p

The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 62p per person last year - the same as the previous financial year, Buckingham Palace accounts have revealed

Royals cost each taxpayer 62p - Yahoo! News UK

Queen wants £1m for repairs as Buckingham Palace 'starts to crumble'

The Queen is asking for an extra £1 million a year to make Buckingham Palace and other historic royal buildings safe.

Queen wants £1m for repairs as Buckingham Palace 'starts to crumble' | News | This is London

- - - - - - -
Sorry ma'am, I think you should pay.

Sorry - can't agree with regard to BP. She doesn't own it. The repairs should be paid by the people who own it - the British taxpayers. The same with ALL the royal properties except Balmoral and Sandringham (plus the homes of the children of course).

Just because she lives there she doesn't own it. When I was living in a property owned by someone else and it needed repairs I didn't have to pay for it - they did. The same with BP and Windsor. If the parliament refuses to pay then they should state that the monarch really is the owner and make it clear that the parliament doesn't own these homes anymore.

You can't have it both ways - own something and then expect someone else to pay for its upkeep. If you own it you are responsible for its maintenance and repairs not the people you let live in it or use it.

 

[BeatrixFan]

Why can't people leave the Queen alone? She's such a lovely lady. Who cares who pays what? She's served us well, what's the big issue?

 

[Skydragon]

Sorry - can't agree with regard to BP. She doesn't own it. The repairs should be paid by the people who own it - the British taxpayers. The same with ALL the royal properties except Balmoral and Sandringham (plus the homes of the children of course).

If it and they were available to ordinary people, I could accept your argument, but we seem to pay for decor to whichever royals taste and upkeep of the properties anyway. Perhaps it is time to employ properly qualified staff that can deal with these things as they happen, not when the cost is likely to be (by some accounts) 3m.

Why can't people leave the Queen alone? She's such a lovely lady. Who cares who pays what? She's served us well, what's the big issue?

The big issue is asking for an extra million, on top of what the British taxpayer already pays for the upkeep of all these buildings. I find it somewhat insensitive when 1000's have lost their homes and all their goods due to the floods, that the queens advisors would even consider asking for another massive handout. Still, I suppose HM is unable to offer any financial aid for the upkeep of any of her 'homes', she must be down to her last million or 10!

 

[Warren]

Does the Prime Minister pay the maintenace and refurbishment costs of Number 10 and Chequers from his or her own pocket? Without taking the argument to ridiculous lengths, more people have access to Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle than have access to the homes in Downing Street.

 

[Skydragon]

True, but we already pay for the upkeep of all the royal buildings and proper forward planning should have avoided excessive extra amounts needed. Instead of redecorating for the nth time, shore up the facades!

The other thing to consider is that the occupants of No. 10 and 11 are voted in and while the PM and his minions may make a lot of money from their time in Downing Street, (they do pay tax on it), it pales into insignificance compared to HM's non taxable income.

Buckingham Palace is falling down - Yahoo! India News
The Queen receives 15 million pounds a year from the Department of Culture, Media and Sport, to pay for the maintenence of the Occupied Royal palaces.
The Queen's plea came as her annual financial report revealed she cost the taxpayer 37.3 million pounds last year

It is actually an extra million per year!

 

[WindsorIII]

This article covers more about the costs of Buckingham Palace, taxpayers, etc but also says that the most expensive one in the Royal Family is Prince Charles.

Did he really spend 2.9 million on travel expenses alone? What does the Queen spend?

Buckingham Palace crumbling as repair funds dry up

From correspondents in London
June 30, 2007 02:00am
Buckingham Palace crumbling as repair funds dry up | NEWS.com.au

 

[Skydragon]

This article covers more about the costs of Buckingham Palace, taxpayers, etc but also says that the most expensive one in the Royal Family is Prince Charles.

Thanks for the article. The difference is, to me, that Charles does contribute from his own pocket. The Clarence House restoration cost a total of 6m, but Charles did pay 1.5m towards the cost. He also earns money by careful investment of what he was given and pays tax.

If HM had said she needs an extra million per year and she intends to contribute half a million per year herself from her private funds, it wouldn't have seemed so bad.

 

[BMC]

The Queen is due to publish her annual public accounts revealing how taxpayers' money is spent by members of the Royal Family
BBC NEWS | UK | Queen to reveal royal spending
Royals cost each taxpayer 62p
The Queen and the Royal Family cost the taxpayer 62p per person last year - the same as the previous financial year, Buckingham Palace accounts have revealed
Royals cost each taxpayer 62p - Yahoo! News UK
Queen wants £1m for repairs as Buckingham Palace 'starts to crumble'
The Queen is asking for an extra £1 million a year to make Buckingham Palace and other historic royal buildings safe.
Queen wants £1m for repairs as Buckingham Palace 'starts to crumble' | News | This is London- - - - - - -
Sorry ma'am, I think you should pay.

HM is worth every cent. In fact I would say she is great value for the money!

I disagree about her paying for the repairs at BP. The Palace is provided as a resident for the Monarch by the Government. Therefore the Government should pay for maintenance & repairs whenever necessary, like any good landlord should.

 

[Skydragon]

HM is worth every cent. In fact I would say she is great value for the money!

I disagree about her paying for the repairs at BP. The Palace is provided as a resident for the Monarch by the Government. Therefore the Government should pay for maintenance & repairs whenever necessary, like any good landlord should.

It is not the government that ends up paying, it is the poor old British taxpayer. The country are not her landlords, tenants pay rent which helps with repairs, HM lives rent and tax free!

 

[wbenson]

It is not the government that ends up paying, it is the poor old British taxpayer. The country are not her landlords, tenants pay rent which helps with repairs, HM lives rent and tax free!

The situation with Buckingham Palace is exactly the same as if, for instance, 10 Downing Street or the Houses of Parliament were to be in disrepair. Would you expect the Prime Minister to pay or MPs and Peers to pass a hat around?

 

[Skydragon]

The situation with Buckingham Palace is exactly the same as if, for instance, 10 Downing Street or the Houses of Parliament were to be in disrepair. Would you expect the Prime Minister to pay or MPs and Peers to pass a hat around?

No it is not. The repairs to the buildings you mention are also paid for by the taxpayer, out of the money allocated for their repair, they appear to manage without asking for another million per year to deal with it.

For one of the richest women in Britain to ask for an extra million, on top of the 15 million she already receives is a disgrace. There are people in Britain at the moment, who have lost everything they own to flood damage, how unfeeling towards them is this request!

I can see why the support for a republic is growing in the UK, it would be a shame if the end of the monarchy is brought about by greed.

 

[BMC]

It is not the government that ends up paying, it is the poor old British taxpayer. The country are not her landlords, tenants pay rent which helps with repairs, HM lives rent and tax free!

I disagree. The country are indeed her landlords, they own the property and she works for them as well. Damned hard too, I might add. As for rent, the government collects huge amounts of revenue from tourists who journey to London just to see Buckingham Palace.

I strongly doubt that HM & her staff would make such a request if it weren't absolutely necessary. The timing might be off but when is there ever a good time to request extra funds for anything? Someone is bound to find fault *Looking at Skydragon*

 

[Skydragon]

I disagree. The country are indeed her landlords, they own the property and she works for them as well. Damned hard too, I might add. As for rent, the government collects huge amounts of revenue from tourists who journey to London just to see Buckingham Palace.
I strongly doubt that HM & her staff would make such a request if it weren't absolutely necessary. The timing might be off but when is there ever a good time to request extra funds for anything? Someone is bound to find fault *Looking at Skydragon*

A landlord is someone you pay rent to, which HM does not. I don't believe the government helps itself to revenue from tourists either, some may pay VAT, but no more than they would in their own countries. Most people tie in a visit to BP as part of a visit to the UK, believe it or not, there is more in the UK and London than just BP!

It is an understatement to say the timing is off!

I always find it rather sad when people resort to Personal digs, they are never a good way to get your message across are they!
Queen faces snub over £1m plea for crumbling palaces | the Daily Mail

Tight security for Queen Elizabeth touring Scotland

Police tightened security for Queen Elizabeth II during her tour of Scotland in response to a spate of failed car bombings in London and Glasgow, police said Monday

Tight security for Queen Elizabeth touring Scotland - Yahoo! News UK

 

[wbenson]

No it is not. The repairs to the buildings you mention are also paid for by the taxpayer, out of the money allocated for their repair, they appear to manage without asking for another million per year to deal with it.

For one of the richest women in Britain to ask for an extra million, on top of the 15 million she already receives is a disgrace. There are people in Britain at the moment, who have lost everything they own to flood damage, how unfeeling towards them is this request!

I can see why the support for a republic is growing in the UK, it would be a shame if the end of the monarchy is brought about by greed.

Yes, they appear to manage, but often they don't. All public buildings need overhauls sometimes. One of the "richest women in Britain" isn't asking for a million pounds to go and spend for fun, she's asking to repair a state-owned home she never wanted to live in. Had it been up to her, she'd be living (at least she would have when she had a young family) in Clarence House and driving down the mall for state business only. I think if it was completely up to her where she lived, she would be at Sandringham or Balmoral (which she funds herself) most of the time. She can't do that though, because it would be entirely inconvenient for the Prime Minister and other ministers to travel that far so often. She stays in Buckingham Palace because it's a convenient office, not because she knows she can do whatever she wants with it and let the people pay. People also seem to forget that the money that comes out of the Crown Estates also more than manages to cover this rather small (comparatively speaking) expense. If the monarchy ends, the Crown Estates also cease to give money to the taxpayers. After the treasury takes royal expenses out of that money in the form of the civil list, it all goes into the country's fund.

 

[Skydragon]

but if BP & other state owned places were wrecks no one would visit them

There are not just palaces and state owned buildings in London and the UK, a lot of people come for the nightlife, the theatre, the shopping, music halls, etc. Many of the castles in the country are falling down, it doesn't stop the tourists spending their money in the area.

Sorry if you think it was a dig- but it also shows you dont know me very well, I was just teasing

I don't know you at all!

 

[Skydragon]

People also seem to forget that the money that comes out of the Crown Estates also more than manages to cover this rather small (comparatively speaking) expense. If the monarchy ends, the Crown Estates also cease to give money to the taxpayers. After the treasury takes royal expenses out of that money in the form of the civil list, it all goes into the country's fund.

If the monarchy ends, HM would be subject to UK tax, which would more than cover any supposed shortfall. The civil list was stopped a few years ago.
She has offices and apartments for all the family at BP, private accomodation at BP, Windsor, Sandringham, Holyrood & Balmoral, to name a few. Careful planning instead of employing some of the sycophants that worm their way in, who employ someone else to advise them that they have been advised would save enough money to do the repairs.

I want to keep the monarchy, but a faux pas of this sort, can do irreparable damage.

 

[Duchess]

i can see both sides of the argument regarding the money requested to repair BP. i've visited London twice and absolutely loved it. it's amazing to see such history. here...if a building makes it to 100 years old it's considered very old but see buildings that are hundreds of years old is amazing. i know that BP isn't as old as some buildings but it would be a shame to see it crumble to pieces. perhaps the solution would be for both the gov't and the crown to share the expense??? after all, private home owners dont' get a lot of assistance from gov't (if any at all) for home repairs however, BP is rich with history and should be looked after.

 

[QueenMaharet]

On the subject of money....

Ok.....not to be a royal pain.....and not that I want to start this discussion again....but I wanted to throw my 1/2 penny into the conversation...and none of my friends in the "real world" care all that much about the Royal Family etc.

I think that the Government, via the taxpayers, should pay for the repairs. After reading the article, I don't think it is that much money to ask for. *holds up hand to forestall shouts* I know, I know. 1 million pounds is a butt load of money, for someone like me, who has about $200 in her bank account. As you probably notice, that is in American dollars, I live in America. Now, please don't tell me that because I'm not paying your taxes I can't possibly know what you are going through, and that your life is so miserable because you live in England and are going to be the ones to pay for this restoration/ work. Before you tell me that, have you looked at what MY taxes have paid for? I'll trade you any day. Of course though, I'm going to have complaints about my country, just as everyone has some complaint about wherever they are currently residing. No country is perfect.

Back to the reason I don't think it is that much money. Have you seen how large Buckingham Palace is? I mean have you really looked at it? Its huge! Are there larger buildings? Sure there are. But still! And this money isn't just going to BP, it is going for other places also.

As for the "There are people suffering" point, aren't there always? I am certainly all in favor for people with expendable money donating to charities and all around "sharing the wealth" but why just put the pressure on the rich people? Why not put pressure on your neighbors? I mean look at how much it costs to keep the royal family. 62p. Thats all. Now imagine if everyone were to put another 62p towards a charity, or towards those people that have lost their homes. Really, it isn't that much money per person! It only seems that the less fortunate are brought up whenever someone who has money asks for more. I find that to be really sad. If you think that someone deserves help, do something about it! Don't just whine about how those in power/ those who have money aren't spending it the way you want them too. You should hold yourself to the same standard. If you want to help, give up something that is a treat for you once in awhile, like a chocolate shake at McDonalds. Put that money towards someone who has lost everything.

Now, as for the Government via the taxpayers being the landlord thing....this is true for the most part. And if you look at the basic landlord tenant agreements found pretty much everywhere in the world, then you find that the landlord takes care of the building, not the tenant. Now, if there was damage caused by the RF specifically, then they should pay for it, not the Gov. However, if it is basic upkeep, (although some of this sounds like it is more than just basic) then the RF should not pay for it.

Another thing (my goodness you must being wondering if I will ever shut up!) So you can't go into this building that you technically own whenever you want. Are BP and Windsor Castle the only buildings where this is the case? It seems like there are plenty of Government owned buildings that you pay takes to upkeep yet cannot wander around in at your leisure. Are you complaining about those? No, you don't seem to be. Double standards anyone? So they live there too. Big deal. The Queen does a ton of work there! It makes sense for her to live there. I'm not sure how I feel about the no rent thing though. I haven't thought that one out yet.

Now, Tourism.......face it, London may have many great things to offer other that the Royal family, but that is what tons of people are there to see! I can get theatre here. I can get movies here. Is it better in London? Yep. But what I don't have here is your Royal Family. They are unique. Theatre and art is not. They are humans, and yes, there are other RF's, *gasp* but this is the BRF we are talking about. Which other family has given us this much entertainment? (Which, btw, is not why I like the Queen....I'm not in it for the entertainment value) But that is what a lot of people are interested in....


Have I covered everything? Probably not. Are there holes in my thoughts? Oh I'm sure there are. But I am not saying that what I've said is 100% right! I am not trying to be argumentative, which I can be, but thats not what I am doing here. I am typing my opinion, so that others can read it, respond, and a discussion can be had. So don't get all snippy about a subject that you will forget about in a few years just because you are the one paying the taxes. Don't yell at other people just because their thoughts are not the same as yours. Point out the things that are different and then go from there. If there is a fact that is blatently wrong, correct it nicely, not in a "Since you have a fact wrong your whole opinion is wrong" manner. No one knows everything. Basically I'm asking nicely, if I have any FACTS wrong, please correct them, with sources.

Oh! Forgot one thing! I think P. Charles spends waaaaaaaaaaay to much money.

^_^ *peace offering* Sorry if I have ruffled any feathers, it was not intentional. And I suppose that was more than 1/2 penny worth....it was more like $10 no?

 

[Skydragon]

No offence taken and my life in the UK is far from miserable.

Very many people, ordinary taxpayers have already contributed to the various funds set up for the flood victims. Many who are on the poorest wages have donated food, blankets or even house room to people affected by the flood.

It leaves a sour taste in peoples mouths when, with a crumbling health service, transport service & education system to name a few, they are being asked to give even a penny more of their money to one of the richest families in the UK. Just imagine what that extra million could do to improve schools and hospitals! With some pensioners living below the poverty line, shouldn't we be looking to pay them extra, many served their country in WW2. Service personel who are asked to give their lives for this country live in substandard housing, are they not more deserving of one warm, dry house in good repair.

Yes many tourists do go to see BP, so perhaps they should put a begging bowl outside the gates. Brits tend to go for some of the 'events', most of the time a large percentage don't bother.

If the place is that bad, set up a restoration fund/lotto ticket scheme. Why should taxpayers in Nottingham pay through their taxes, for tourists to see this building, or the queen to have her offices and during the week accomodation there. They rightly want the taxes they pay to improve their lives.

When you become a landlord you charge rent, to cover repairs to the property, therefore if you are not paying rent or tax you should not expect to get any repairs paid for. There was a big enough fuss when it was suggested that the Windsor repairs should be paid for by the taxpayer. Every time HM pleads poverty, the republicans gain ground.

I am happy in the UK and wouldn't contemplate leaving, I have always supported the monarchy and even though Charles uses 'tax breaks' to pay less tax, the majority of his spending comes, like many people, through careful investments and properly managed funds. The money he claims from the privy purse covers all travel costs incurred when the government asks him to represent them. Could he cut down, yes and he should, but what he spends is a drop in the ocean compared to HM and the hangers on.