Trust Funds for the Queen's Children and Grandchildren

[yvr girl]

Does anyone have any idea what has been set up for Ann, Andrew and Edward? Will they end up like the Kents and Gloucesters - forced to sell homes because they can't afford them any longer? Fergie seems to indicate that Andrew doesn't have much money, but I find that hard to believe. I can't imagine the Queen not taking care of her children. I know Prince Charles has nothing to worry about.

 

[selrahc4]

Well, the current Kents and Gloucesters are grandchildren of a sovereign, not children. There would be natural dilution of funds through splitting between heirs and unforeseen inflation, unless the families were especially fortunate in investments and/or income-producing ventures.

I'm sure the Queen's children are well provided for by her, and with an eye to future generations as far as the future can be anticipated. But it would be normal that the same thing might happen to the next generation as did the Kents/Gloucesters.

Sarah probably implies that Andrew can't provide what his daughters need and that they depend on her just to aggrandize herself. You don't see Anne or Edward and their families hurting, do you? Andrew would be the same.

 

[princess olga]

Fascinating topic - not only re the British Royal Fam, but all the others as well.

While I realize full well that the last people probably we should ever feel sorry for are the privileged blue bloods, it always seems so, well, unfair to me that the siblings of the oldest child and heir to whichever throne, that the siblings seem to end up with the shorter end of the stick.

It makes me wonder if there might be special arrangements in place that these families have for these kinds of situations. Talking about one's love life these days is less of a social taboo than discussing one's finances - heck, I already don't ask my friends what they make for salary etc, let alone that I know how i.e. Princess Michael makes ends meet besides selling the occasional book and selling her 'pile' in the country.

I remember that Constantijn of the Netherlands, second in line to the Dutch throne (I mean de facto, until Amalia'd turn 18), once remarked that he has to work for a living. While that may be a slight exaggeration, the fact remains the Dutch taxpayer doesn't give him a penny. Same perhaps later with i.e. Harry of England. And already with Zara, Peter, etc etc.
Fascinating topic because there is a circle of folks who are closely related to the people occupying the throne, but who have to pay their own way to the party. And how do they manage to do that? Or are some of them de facto 'poor' in comparison and do they just keep up appearances, which seems quite an expensive proposition?

 

[branchg]

All of The Queen's children have trust funds, as do her grandchildren. They are designed to provide an income, but are not likely to generate huge amounts of money individually. Once Charles becomes King, the Queen Mother's fortune (about $10 million in trust) will be distributed directly to her grandchildren in equal shares.

The fortune of the Sovereign is generally accumulated for the next Sovereign in order to preserve the financial independence of the monarchy.

 

[Duchess]

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the sovereirn's fortune looked at in 2 aspects: her private fortune and the monies accumulated through the public? her private fortune is split according to her own wishes but aren't the assets that belong to the crown passed on only to the heir?

 

[HRH Kimetha]

What an interesting subject. I keep hearing about the Queen's personal wealth at about $2billion. How accurate would that be?

 

[branchg]

The Sovereign's fortune is limited to the personal property of The Queen, including her jewels, the Royal Art Collection, Balmoral, Sandringham and her private investments. These are estimated to be worth approximately $650 million in total.

The rest of the fortune belongs to The Crown and is considered to be in trust for the monarchy. Although technically, the Sovereign is entitled to the Duchy of Lancaster revenues, the royal palaces and aircraft, these assets are granted by Parliament's consent for use by the Sovereign.

 

[Duchess]

The Sovereign's fortune is limited to the personal property of The Queen, including her jewels,... .

you've probably answered this before but here goes:

isn't jewelry given as official state gifts, the property of the crown? i'm assuming when you say "jewels" you're referring to items that she's purchased privately or have been passed down from family?

 

[branchg]

All gifts of jewelry remain the private property of The Queen until she designates them otherwise. As a practical rule, she is very likely to leave any jewels given to her by other heads of state (the Saudi diamond necklaces) or governments (the Coronation Aquamarine Parure from Brazil) as part of the Crown Collection after her death.

All of her other jewels have been handed down and are inherited by the next Sovereign as their personal property.

 

[Elspeth]

Does that include the jewels designated by Queen Victoria for use by future Queens?

 

[Warren]

The Crown Jewellery

Excluding the Crown Jewels (ie the jewels in the Tower) there are just two categories: Jewels left to (or given to) the Crown by Queen Victoria, Queen Mary and King George V; and the rest, which are private property.

source: Suzy Menkes, "The Royal Jewels", Third edition 1988, Appendix A 'The Crown Jewellery'.
Menkes has given her sources as Twining Papers, Goldsmith's Hall Library; and The Royal Library, Windsor.

...................................................................The Crown Jewellery

Jewels left to the Crown by Queen Victoria:
The Diamond Diadem of George IV
Brilliant Regal Tiara (made in 1855 to hold the Koh-i-noor; diamonds remounted for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's Crown; the four detachable anthemions from the Regal Indian tiara later forming what is now the Countess of Wessex wedding tiara)
Regal Indian Tiara
The Timur Ruby
The Diamond Collet Necklace
Two Diamond Collet Necklace
Diamond Fringe Necklace (stones from George III)
Duchess of Kent Amethysts
three Bow Brooches
Queen Victoria's Sapphire Brooch
Presents from the Prince Consort. These items were all left to Edward VII by Queen Victoria in her will, to be considered "as belonging to the Crown and to be worn by all future Queens in right of it", being bracelets, brooches, pins, and a Scottish pebble set as a brooch.
A collection of jewelled cockades, girdles, swords, orders, rings, bracelets, brooches, earrings, opals, pearls, mementoes, minatures etc etc.

Queen Mary gave to the Crown:
3 Indian armlets (1912)
Indian diamond, pearl, emerald and ruby necklace (1926)

Ring sent to Tower by Queen Mary 1919 and added to the Regalia:
Sapphire ring with ruby cross and diamonds given to Queen Victoria by her mother the Duchess of Kent in 1838

King George V gave to the Crown:
Snap of the Indian necklace (see above) made of a ruby ring given to Queen Victoria by a Maharajah.

Based on this list, and assuming it is largely accurate, the vast bulk of the Windsor jewel collection is private property, and strictly "hands off!".
x

 

[branchg]

Some additional pieces were probably designated by Queen Mary in her will as belonging to the Crown to be worn by Queens in right of it, but we don't know for sure.

 

[Claire]

I don't know if the royals have trust funds in the same way we see American trust fund babies as having trusts. I believe that they were all given shares which matured at various stages of their lives.
There is also a big difference in what the royals have and will never have. When George VI dies, he left money in trust for Anne and Charles, not Andrew, Edward, Sarah and David simply because they didn't exist. A lot was made in the 1980's when the Queen brought Diana shares in the Royal Mail. It can only be guessed that various royals own shares in other companies' worldwide and nationally.
I was once told that the arguement behind the Prince of Wales ownship of his estates was that he must collect enough money to look after the royal family in his care. I don't think the Queen ever had the benfit of those estates.

I also doubt the Queen will divide her estate equally.
Prince Charles, William and Harry have no need for it and she will pass it down to the other royals, who will probably have to pay double the amount in inheritance tax anyway.

 

[selrahc4]

The Queen will leave the bulk of her estate to the next sovereign as has been the case for years and years.

 

[Claire]

The Queen will leave the bulk of her estate to the next sovereign as has been the case for years and years.

Sorry, problem of translation - estate in our legal term means material wealth (money, bonds and stocks), not property.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

I was once told that the arguement behind the Prince of Wales ownship of his estates was that he must collect enough money to look after the royal family in his care. I don't think the Queen ever had the benfit of those estates.

Besides the Duchess, William and Harry, who else in the Royal Family does the Prince have in his care?

 

[Iluvbertie]

Besides the Duchess, William and Harry, who else in the Royal Family does the Prince have in his care?

At the moment no one officially but he will also be responsible for wives and children of William and Harry during the lifetime of his mother.

 

[Warren]

In 2005/2006 the Prince's income from the Duchy of Cornwall was £14.1 million, and £10.8 million after tax.
There will be no need for the Waleses to watch the pennies, and in any case William and Harry have their own considerable fortunes.

 

[selrahc4]

Sorry, problem of translation - estate in our legal term means material wealth (money, bonds and stocks), not property.

I also meant money, bonds, stocks, and other personal property in my post, along with real estate. She will leave most of all of these things to the next sovereign. There are two reasons: Tradition and the fact that inheritance left from sovereign to sovereign is exempt from inheritance taxes.

 

[branchg]

William and Harry are both receiving a considerable amount of money from their trusts and are no longer supported by Prince Charles.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

William and Harry are both receiving a considerable amount of money from their trusts and are no longer supported by Prince Charles.

According the Prince Of Wales website, he does support the Princes in personal staff. This is according to this statement about his expenditures, "personal expenditure includes the salary cost of 21.7 full-time equivalent staff, including personal secretaries, a chef, grooms, valets, gardeners, farm staff and estate workers, and staff for The Duchess of Cornwall and Prince William and Prince Harry."

 

[kelly1972]

It looks like William and Harry will receive a considerable amount of money when they inherit their mother's estate. But, What about the other royal grandchildren? Is there trust funds set up for them as well. I'm sure Peter will inherit Gatcombe Park as well as his mother's estate. What about Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise? Do they have trust funds as well? This is a great thread! Thanks for starting it.

 

[HRH Kimetha]

Doesn't Gatcombe belong to Anne already?

Their fathers probably put up trust funds for them as maybe the Queen when each were born for education, personal funding etc.

 

[kelly1972]

I'm sorry HRH Kimetha, I meant when Princess Anne dies Peter will probably inherit Gatcombe Park. Yes, Princess Anne does own it. It was a wedding gift from the Queen to her and Mark Phillips when they got married. Sorry again for the confusion in my post.

 

[branchg]

The Queen set-up trusts for each of her grandchildren (except William and Harry) to provide for their education and expenses.

 

[kelly1972]

Does anyone know at what age they receive their trust fund? If it is at 21 than 2 of her grandchildren have already got it then. I wondered if the Queen did set up a trust fund. Thanks for the answer branchg.

 

[branchg]

Does anyone know at what age they receive their trust fund? If it is at 21 than 2 of her grandchildren have already got it then. I wondered if the Queen did set up a trust fund. Thanks for the answer branchg.

Well, based on Sarah's divorce settlement as an example, Beatrice and Eugenie are the beneficiaries of a $3 million trust set-up by The Queen, with the income accruing directly to them after 25.

 

[Elspeth]

Charles gets nothing because he will inherit the vast majority of his mother's personal fortune as the new Sovereign. William gets very little because he will become The Duke of Cornwall and have a sizable income from the duchy. Harry is provided for by his Spencer trust and his mother's legacy.

I think this was also pretty much the case with the way George V left his money, with his eldest son not getting much if any legacy because he'd had money from the Duchy of Cornwall and would have access to the money from the Duchy of Lancaster as well as the other personal property of the sovereign. It seems to have been reinterpreted more recently as George V writing his eldest son out of his will because he didn't trust him, but I think it's pretty much standard procedure for the sovereign (and other close relations) to provide for the younger children who don't have that ready-made source of income like the new monarch does.

 

[Lumutqueen]

... the Palace will probably have to decide: support minor royals forever, or make peace with their business deals.

Beatrice and Eugenie have a trust fund, it is theirs to use as they wish and when they wish. William and Harry and presumably Zara and Peter had one as well, W&H have their mothers benefits to hide behind and Z&P have no royal title to criticise over. Beatrice and Eugenie are between a rock and a hard place, one they have not chosen to be in nor can easily get out of.

 

[Diarist]

Beatrice and Eugenie have a trust fund, it is theirs to use as they wish and when they wish

A nice idea, Lumutqueen, but we actually do not know this. Under English law, Trusts are private and the terms of the trust are governed by a Trust Deed, which is a private legal instrument. Generally, there are two elements to a trust, income and capital. There are very often restrictions on the use of both income and capital. It is common with some trusts to prevent the beneficiaries accessing the capital until they are 25 years old or so. We don't know what the terms of Beatrice and Eugenie's trusts are. There may well be strict clauses about use of the money - athough thanks to Sarah, we know that apparently the restrictions on the use of trust income were lax enough to allow Sarah to 'leech' [as the papers put it] off her daughters' trust funds. I believe Lord_Royal is a solicitor; perhaps he could help us with English Trust law if he drops by here.

Hope some of this helps,

Alex