Earl and Countess of St. Andrews and Family News 1: September 2003-

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.


Apr 14, 2003
San Diego
United States
Does anybody have any pics of the Earl and Countess of St. Andrews and their children? Thanks.
From Corbis-


  • Earl_of_St._Andrews.jpg
    24.7 KB · Views: 15,120
  • Earl___Count._of_St._Andrews.jpg
    41.9 KB · Views: 19,700
Last edited by a moderator:
The countess of St. Andrews and her brother in law, Lord Nicholas Windsor.


  • ENG_Kent1.jpg
    16.8 KB · Views: 19,298
The St. Andrews family lives in Cambridge. The Countess is a professor of history at St. John's College, Cambridge University.
Hi! Just wanted to know... Since the Earl of St. Andrews and Lord Nicholas Windsor are not on the Civil List and do not need to do public engagements, how do they support themselves (especially the former who has a family)? Does the Countess work/have a job? I know Lady Helen Windsor was fashion ambassador (or something like that) to some known fashion designers.... :flower: Thanks in advance...
I think that people often forget that the Windsors are an incredibly rich family (like all famous dynasties). They simply don't have to work, anything they do they do out of their own choosing. All this pleading poverty I simply don't buy!
The Duke & Duchess of Kent have had money problems for over a decade. They've been selling jewels and art to help out. They sold a tiara, and she has sold two works of art she inherited from her father. Their children have all worked. The youngest works with some company and is involved with an organisation that in centred around King Charles I. The elder son lives and works in Cambridge (IIRC, his wife works at the Uni). Helen stopped working earlier this year to focus on her daughter, but she worked for Bulgari and Armani. Her husband runs an art gallery.

The Queen's estimated wealth is 250 million pounds ($375 million), and most of that is in objects (land, jewels, cars, horses, art, etc) rather than cash. They are nowhere near as wealthy as ppl like to say they are.
Yet why do the Kents have so called money problems and the rest of the Windsors don't? On The Queen, Her wealth is very, very debatable by the simple fact that no one knows exactly what She owns, what She doesn't, all of Her properties, etc. Buckingham Palace will not release such info, so we don't realy know how much She is worth, but it is no doubt that She is one of the richest women in Britain if not the world.
Yes, I think the Queen is one of the richest women in England as well, but even though she is the sovereign, I don't believe she is the richest. I mean...J.K. Rowling last time they reported which was about a year ago (and she's released a book since then, and she makes money every day from all the Harry Potter stuff....) had about $380 million, which was more than the "estimated" worth of the Queen, but like you said, we'll never know the true worth of Her Majesty...so who knows. But God Save Her! I love Her Majesty, who cares about the money. :)
Originally posted by OniMichi@Dec 18th, 2003 - 10:47 pm
Yes, I think the Queen is one of the richest women in England as well, but even though she is the sovereign, I don't believe she is the richest. I mean...J.K. Rowling last time they reported which was about a year ago (and she's released a book since then, and she makes money every day from all the Harry Potter stuff....) had about $380 million, which was more than the "estimated" worth of the Queen, but like you said, we'll never know the true worth of Her Majesty...so who knows. But God Save Her! I love Her Majesty, who cares about the money. :)
you're right about it!

HM Queen more money than Author you know that!

Sara Boyce
It's actually not that hard ot figure out how much the Queen has. The palaces and Windsor belong to the crown. The Royal Collection belongs to the Crown. The Crown jewels belong to the Crown.

Sandringham and Balmoral belong to Elizabeth. She inherited some art - not much that's noteworthy - from her parents. She got some jewels from her parents and family members. The land Sandringham and Balmoral sit on is worth a lot, but the amount is decreasing because of the agricultural depression currently going on. Her stock portfolio is worth an estimated 80 million pounds - $120 million. It may produce $12 million a year, but the stock market's down, so she's not getting that amount right now. She's paying for all of her family except for her husband, eldest son, and his children out of her own pocket - over $1.5 million per year. She had to pay her mother's debts of about $6 million. She doesn't have a lot of cash, she has a lot of stuff. And Buckingham Palace has been more forthcoming about her wealth than most ppl think.

The Queen's personal income, derived from her personal investment portfolio, is used to meet private expenditure. Her Majesty's private funds, as for any other individual, remain a private matter, but the Lord Chamberlain said in 1993 that estimates of £100 million and upwards were 'grossly overstated'.

The Windsor Private Estate and Royal Farm do not make any money for The Queen but are a net outgoing. Ventures such as the Windsor Farm Shop, launched in October 2001, provide employment locally and support the agricultural industry. Any profits from the Farm Shop will be used to support the running of the Royal Farms and Private Estates.

The Queen owns Balmoral and Sandringham, both inherited from her father. She also owns the stud at Sandringham (with a small amount of land in Hampshire). Her Majesty owns no property outside the United Kingdom. 

Estimates of The Queen's wealth have often been greatly exaggerated, as they mistakenly include items which are held by The Queen as Sovereign on behalf of the nation and are not her private property. These include Royal Palaces, most of the art treasures from the Royal Collection, heirlooms in The Queen's jewellery collection and the Crown Jewels. The 'inalienable' items held by Her Majesty as Sovereign, rather than as an individual, cannot be disposed of by The Queen and must pass to her successor as Sovereign.


The Sunday Times writes

Her Majesty's generosity knows no bounds. In December, she agreed to pay £1m in rent from her own funds to allow Prince and Princess Michael of Kent to stay on in their apartment at Kensington Palace. It is also likely that she paid off the £4m overdraft of her mother, who died last year. With the death of her sister, Princess Margaret, as well, 2002 was a sad year for the Queen, brightened only by the golden jubilee celebrations. The Queen's actual bank balance might come as a shock to many people - it has never been as high as is generally believed. We assume that much of the Queen Mother's residual estate will have gone to the Queen, 77, but such asset wealth - maybe £15m - will not have made up for any falls in the Queen's investment portfolio, and we cut that to just £80m. Her personal properties, Sandringham, Balmoral, the royal stud and one or two houses, add £70m. Her own personal art is worth just £2m, against the £10 billion in the crown's hands. The royal stamp collection, jewels, cars and horses, plus the Queen Mother's legacy, should take her to £255m, but we lop off £5m for the cost of the Kents and clearing the Queen Mother's overdraft.


The Kents have had money problems for decades. When the current Duke's father died in 1942, his widow was forced to sell some furniture, there was another sale in the early 1960s. The duke and his siblings sold some of their mother's jewels to pay death duties in 1968.
Not sure about the Worsley fortune. Didn't the Duchess inherit some money from her side of the family?
I don't think the Worsleys have a lot of money. They certainly never appear on the annual Rich List. She definitely inherited two original drawings/sketches from Joshua Reynolds -- she had to sell them for money in the past decade. Her parents apparently gave her a tiara for a wedding present, they may have given her other jewels as well. But she is one of four children, and her eldest brother would have inherited the majority of whatever the parents left. Her other two brothers may have inherited more than she did, as well.
I can't believe so many people out there believe the propaganda. The fact is that the royals are so wealthy they put out hard luck stories to disguise the true extent of their wealth. Going way back Prince Philip was painted as "penniless", Princess Marina "peniless" (did you ever see the furs she was draped in way before she married Prince George?) I'd also like to add that the Kents own substantial quantities of faberge. Faberge eggs alone were going for £10 million a piece in the late eighties.What are they worth now? If they were even worth exactly the same now the sale of only two would net them £20 million. Come on, think about it.

P.S. Can I also add that Lady Helen's decision to accept a free Armani wardrobe each season and get paid to wear it need hardly be attributed to a need for money. Most people would accept that kind of "work" no matter how much money they had.
The Queen's Faberge eggs have been appraised at 3 million pounds each. That sounds right because *a Faberge egg* sold a few years back got about $4.5 million. *According to documents released in 2002 (after the 30-year rule on government papers expired), the Queen inherited the modern equivalent of 30 million pounds from her father.*

Philip had less that $75 in his account when he married. His father was living off a mistress in Monte Carlo and his sisters were either dead, married to Germans, or widowed. His mother was living a hardly grand life in Greece (the Greek royals have never been wealthy, and they were in exile too often to build up a nest-egg to fall back on). He had little more than his title, looks, and naval salary to recommend him as a future consort for EIIR. One of the reasons the courtiers didn't like him was how poor he was.

Marina was a model for Mainbocher, the designer. Of course she wore nice clothes -- he provided her trousseau (which otherwise her parents would have had to pay for) for free in return for her wearing his wedding gown. After George died, she didn't get any money from the Civil List until 1952, because of the War. George VI had to meet their expenses. Her daughter wore hand-me-downs from Elizabeth and Margaret. And her younger son wore the Gloucesters' cast-offs.

Even the most impoverished of royals in those days had furs. Upper-middle-class people had furs in those days, too. I've got a pic of my great-grandmother (who was the wife of a farmer) wearing a fur stole -- it doesn't mean they were wealthy. Far from it.

The Kents don't own any Faberges that come from the RF because Mary left all of that to EIIR, and its now in the Royal Collection, and can't be sold to earn cash. If they do own any Faberge, it would be from Marina's family, and Marina's mother lost her money during the Russian Revolution.

Lady Helen was essentially a model for Armani. She wore his clothes, helped him publicise his line (I didn't think it needed any more publicity, but according to him it did), and attended his parties, and she was paid for it. But she stopped doing that around the time her daughter was born, because she wanted to spend more time with her children. She did the same job for Bulgari, but they cancelled the contract because of financial difficulties. She used to wear Calvin Klein for money before she wore Armani. There's an article in Vogue magazine from a few years ago where she talks about how she and her siblings knew they would have to work for money.

The ppl at the Times get paid to dig up how much money ppl have. The Guardian newspaper, which hates the RF, broke the story about the Duchess of Kent selling her inheritance. The Kents have sold at least one necklace, one pair of earrings, and one tiara. A brooch passed down to Marina from the Tsar hasn't been seen in decades and was probably sold (it was the nicest brooch the family owned, so it's unlikely they just "aren't wearing it"). Princess Michael of Kent has been rumored to have sold the diamonds in her tiaras and replaced them with paste. The Michaels house is heavily mortgaged against assets, and she complained publicly that since they would have to leave KP, they lost their planned source of retirement income (they were going to sell it to their son for 3 million pounds). Even the Queen Mother had to sell a parure given to her by Queen Mary, and she died several million pounds in debt.

The Kents had to sell their country estate, Coppins, because they couldn't afford it any more. They then rented Anmer Hall at Sandringham, but gave that up in the early 90s. Crocker End was given up by the Kents in the mid-to-late 90s. The Gloucesters have had to move out of their country home and rent it because they couldn't afford the upkeep. Hardly the actions of ppl with money.

Even Princess Margaret's children aren't well-off. Margaret died with around 7 million pounds worth of stuff, 40% went to taxes. The rest to her kids. She handed over some of her stuff before she died, like her house, but David sold the house and bought another one so he didn't keep any profits from it. Serena's father has money in property, but her brother's the heir, and she's not likely to get much of it (Diana's only got 5 million pounds, against her brother's 97 million). David has said publicly that they aren't as rich as ppl think they are (in an article in the Telegraph this summer). Sarah's husband was middle-class, and both Chattos seem to be doing the struggling artists-thing.

Until you can provide credible evidence for what you're saying, you're going to have to accept that ppl will believe what ppl whose entire job depend on them digging this stuff up have said.

Which dynasties are amazingly wealthy?

The Dutch family proved to Forbes that they only have $240 million. The rest is in trusts and foundations and is for the benefit of the monarchy rather than the family, so the family can't sell any of it for cash.

The Swedes had $20 million before the Stock Market began wobbling.

The Danes have less than $15 million. They have to pay inheritance taxes on whatever they pass down, and the family has a bad habit of dividing the stuff among heirs (most of their best jewels belong to branches who aren't even in line to the throne because they divide so much).

The Belgians have $11 million, but that doesn't include their private property, so it would be cash and stocks. They have a small yacht, a house in France, and some art.

The Norwegians are said to have $140 million in London property from Edward VII, but that's impossible because the same 10-20 families have owned London property for generations and didn't begin selling until the 1950s, after EVIIR was long dead. They may have a bit in jewels, art, and stocks, but they don't have it from London property. I think they own several of their residences, and they seem to own the yacht, which would definitely contribute to the rumor.

The Liechtensteiners are the wealthiest Euro RF. They got around $4-5 billion. Most of its in their art collection, but they also own land in Austria, and a finance group that's doing very well.

Luxembourg is said to be rich, but the family has only ruled for 113 years, and probably didn't bring massive amounts from Nassau. There was the Russian connections (Adolph kept some of his first wife's dowry), but the Revolution would have wiped out some (if not all) of that. The Bourbon-Parmas aren't rich (the current head of the family is living off his children's gifts to him). Josephine-Charlotte wouldn't have inherited the same amount as her brothers, and she is one of 6 kids on top of that. Maria Teresa's family is said to have been wealthy, but not wealthy enough to make them second to Liechtenstein. Both Guillaume and Jean worked. Guillaume stopped after his car accident, but Jean still does. Guillaume's father-in-law was the wealthiest man in France, but his wife had several sisters who would have inherited, too. The country has a lot of banks, but that doesn't mean that the family is profitting. Of all the families, the Luxembourgers are the hardest to qualify in terms of wealth.

Monaco's got $3 billion.

The Greeks live off Marie-Chantal and hand-outs from Greek shipping tycoons.

*The Spanish were in exile for a while, and weren't drawing much money at the time. They don't own the palaces, or art. They own their jewels, and received a yacht as a gift. They are thought to be the poorest of the reigning royal families.*





The Duke of Kent is on the Civil List. So he does get some income. The Earl of St. Andrews worked for Christie's Auction House in London before he became a stay at home father. His wife works as a professor of history at St. John's College, Cambridge. Lord Nicholas Windsor is patron of the Saint Charles the Martyr Society.

It is Prince and Princess Michael of Kent who have had the majority of money problems. The Princess complained for years because they were not on the civil list. Prince Michael's income comes from some of the charities with which he is patron or president. The Queen pays their rent at Kensington Palace. The Kents are known to have struggled to keep their small estate Nether Lypiatt Manor in Gloucestershire.
It depends on who they are as to whether they're richer than their parents and grandparents. The grandparents probably weren't subject to income tax (depends on the age of the royals here), and death duties.

None of the Euro royals compare to the Middle Eastern royals. The Middle Eastern royals own the oil that sits under their countries. Brunei is wealthy too, but that's not the Middle East.

Money problems is relative. The Kents and Gloucesters have nowhere near the amount the Queen has, simply because it's been used over the years (their fathers died in 1942 and 1974) and they haven't been able to add to it. The Queen has the Duchy of Lancaster to help her out, but even that wasn't enough, hence the civil list rise of the 1970s. Much of the Lancaster money is spent on her relatives (she pays for her children except for Charles, and her cousins out of the Lancaster money) and on her two houses.

The Queen Mother received money from the government, from her own stocks and inheritances from her husband, and had Charles adding to her staff's wages (she thought what she paid was a living wage, but it was decades behind), and she was still in debt when she died.

The Gloucesters aren't as bad off as the Kents, but they can't afford 2 residences any more. I think Alice has given everything she owned to her son already -- she certainly isn't using it anymore. The Gloucesters haven't had the financial difficulties of the Kents for several reasons. For one thing, Harry didn't die during the war, and kept drawing an income until his death. After he died, Richard and Alice began drawing incomes.

The Kents went 10 years on nothing but handouts and sales of their belongings between 1942 and 1952. When Marina died, her estate was divided among her 3 kids. So each kid got about 1/3 of what their parents had.

Kensington Palace is being paid for by EIIR, but the Michaels have to leave in either 7 yrs (from 2002) or 2010, I forget which (it should be in articles from *April* -- Tatler had a several-pages piece on the issue). The palace residences are free for family members -- they contribute about $9000 a year for maintenance. That's why the Michaels intended to retire to KP and sell their country house (according to Tatler for just under $5 million), rather than the other way around. But they won't be able to sell the house and keep the money now, because that was the deal struck in 2002. I don't know about Pss Michael selling her diamonds, but former staff have said it for a while.

That $1.5 billion includes the Royal Collection, which doesn't belong to Elizabeth Windsor. It belongs to the Crown, and she's allowed to use it. It's the same thing in that she doesn't own the palaces, the Crown does, and Elizabeth's allowed to use them. And the Royal Collection should be worth way more than $1.5 billion, with the Rembrandts, Canalettos, etc.

Unless the Countess of St Andrews' family is wealthy, the family will need incomes from working after his parents die. Whatever they leave (which won't be much) will divided among their 3 kids, and he's got a family to provide for. They'll also have to pay death duties. He won't inherit a landed estate, so he can't make a go of farming.

Lord and Lady Ulster will have to keep working, unless he plans to farm Barnwell for a living. But he has no training in farming, and would probably earn more as a high-ranking army officer, and she would earn more as a doctor. The Ulsters will have to share the Gloucester inheritance with his 2 sisters, and will have to pay death duties. But the Gloucesters should leave more than the Kents, simply because Gloucester didn't have to share his inheritance with any siblings.

Lady Helen worked because she and her husband needed the money from two incomes to live the kind of lifestyle they wanted. They may be doing better -- he's finally gotten a better gallery space. But the Bulgari contract was for about $750,000 a year, and that's a significant contribution to anyone's income. Her parents get around $300,000 a year for their expenses, and much of that goes on salaries, food, and other living expenses.
Prince Michael used to sit as a director on the boards of several companies to help make ends meet, but, according to some articles, he's lost a lot of those positions, and the money that comes with them.
Well, then they were inaccurate, because she couldn't have earned that kind of money from stocks *(she's had some real duds on the market)*, and her father didn't get that amount because he was the second son (and had 4 siblings to share with), and paid for Windsor and Marina. And her land is worth nowhere near that amount, especially not now, during the agricultural depression.

Elizabeth Mountbatten does not own the RC. Its in a trust, and she controls the trust.

Shaped by the personal tastes of kings and queens over more than 500 years, the Royal Collection includes paintings, drawings and watercolours, furniture, ceramics, clocks, silver, sculpture, jewellery, books, manuscripts, prints and maps, arms and armour, fans, and textiles. It is held in trust by The Queen as Sovereign for her successors and the Nation, and is not owned by her as a private individual. Curatorial and administrative responsibility for the Collection is held by the Royal Collection Department, part of the Royal Household.

The Collection has largely been formed since the Restoration of the Monarchy in 1660.  Some items  belonging to  earlier  monarchs,  for  example Henry VIII, also survive.  The greater part of the magnificent  collection  inherited  and  added to by Charles I was dispersed on Cromwell's orders during the Interregnum. The royal patrons now chiefly associated with notable additions to the Collection are Frederick, Prince of Wales; George III; George IV; Queen Victoria and Prince Albert; and Queen Mary, Consort of George V.

The Royal Collection is on display at the principal royal residences, all of which are open to the public.  Unlike most art collections of national importance, works of art from the Royal Collection can be enjoyed in the historic settings for which they were originally commissioned or acquired.  Much of the Collection is still in use at the working royal palaces.

The official residences of The Queen have a programme of changing exhibitions to show further areas of the Collection to the public, particularly those items that cannot be on permanent display for conservation reasons. The Golden Jubilee of Her Majesty The Queen will be marked by the creation of two flagship exhibition spaces at Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Loans are made to institutions throughout the world, as part of the commitment to make the Collection widely available and to show works of art in new contexts. Touring exhibitions remain an important part of the Royal Collection's work to broaden public access. 

Over 3,000 objects from the Royal Collection are on long-term loan to museums and galleries around the United Kingdom and abroad. National institutions housing works of art from the Collection include The British Museum, National Gallery, the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Museum of London, the National Museum of Wales and the National Gallery of Scotland.

The Royal Collection is the only collection of major national importance to receive no Government funding or public subsidy and is administered by the Royal Collection Trust, a registered charity.  The Trust was set up by The Queen in 1993 under the chairmanship of The Prince of Wales, following the establishment of the Royal Collection Department as a new department of the Royal Household in 1987. Income from the public opening of Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Holyroodhouse and from associated retail activities supports curatorial, conservation and educational work, loans and travelling exhibitions and major capital projects. These projects include the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire in 1992, the rebuilding of The Queen's Gallery at Buckingham Palace and the construction of an entirely new gallery at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.


The Royal Collection, one of the finest art collections in the world, is held in trust by The Queen as Sovereign for her successors and the nation. It is on public display at the principal royal residences and is shown in a programme of special exhibitions and through loans to institutions around the world. 


The Royal Collection is the only collection of major national importance to receive no Government funding or public subsidy.   It is administered by the Royal Collection Trust, a registered charity established by The Queen in 1993 under the chairmanship of The Prince of Wales.  The role of the Trust is to ensure that the Collection is conserved and displayed to the highest standards and that public understanding of and access to the Collection is increased through exhibition, publication, education and a programme of loans.

These wide-ranging activities are funded by monies raised through the Trust's trading arm, Royal Collection Enterprises, from the public opening of Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace and the Palace of Holyroodhouse and from retail sales of publications and other merchandise.  Current projects funded through the Royal Collection Trust include the major expansion of exhibition space at Buckingham Palace and at the Palace of Holyroodhouse to mark The Queen's Golden Jubilee in 2002.

The Royal Collection Trust determines how the income generated should be used in pursuit of its stated objectives.

The Trust's primary aims are to ensure that:
the Collection is subject to proper custodial control;

the Collection is maintained and conserved to the highest possible standards;

as much of the Collection as possible can be seen by members of the public;

the Collection is presented and interpreted so as to enhance the public's appreciation and understanding;

appropriate acquisitions are made when resources become available.
When something is held in trust, it's owned by the trust, rather than the individual. Trustees, who have the responsibility of maintaining the objects, have control over whatever is held in trust. So Elizabeth doesn't own the RC, because the RC Trust owns the RC. And the RC Trustees have the responsibility to maintain, exhibit, and (when possible), enlarge the RC.
Queen Mary did not leave all of her Faberge to the Queen. She left Princess Marina a substantial collection much of which was passed to Prince Michael. Princess Michael was, in fact, so impressed with her husband's collection that she designed a large glass topped coffee table, which stands in the centre of their drawing room at Kensington Palace, to house part of it. Indeed when questioned about how they could afford the £300,00 they required to purchase Nether Lypiatt Manor in 1980 a close friend of theirs remarked that two or three items from that coffee table alone would more than cover the cost.

P.S. Should anyone be interested there is a pictute of the Michael's sitting next to said table in the book "Inside Kensington Palace" by Andrew Morton.
NLM cost the Kents more than they could afford to pay. Charles turned it down because renovating the house was more than he could afford, and he has more cash than anyone in the family -- though he spends it like water.
Well Kelly, dosn't that tell you that the so-called "penniless Royals" are not as penniless as you suggest?
Top Bottom