Royal Wealth and Finances 1: Ending 2022

[tommy100]

It will be interesting to see what levels the Sovereign Grant goes back to when the BP refurb is paid for. The RF seem to go through periods of either chronic under or over funding IMO.

 

[muriel]

It will be interesting to see what levels the Sovereign Grant goes back to when the BP refurb is paid for. The RF seem to go through periods of either chronic under or over funding IMO.

My understanding is that the Sovereign Grant has been settled at 15% of the annual profits from the Crown Estate, with certain "stabilisation" features to prevent major fluctuations from year to year. There is an incremental allocation to fund the one-off refurbishment of BP.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

This is a heavily biased, one sided and factually inaccurate article that really has nothing to do with Royal Wealth and Finances

Can you name an instance of a factual inaccuracy in the article?

I have read the article and it is certainly about British royal wealth and finances.

 

[Lumutqueen]

You have mis-directed your criticism of the article by singling out Mr McClure, who did nothing but provide a few quotes to the actual writers of the article.

I think you’ll find I have not misdirected any of my own criticism, thank you.

He is quoted in the article as being an expert, I believe as I wrote, there are better people in this forum who are greater experts than he.

As to the no mention of his book, there doesn’t have to be a mention. The fact you yourself made the connection that he has a book coming out and suddenly appears in an article supposedly about royal wealth and finances, is enough to show it’s a targeted attempt to link the two.

Can you name an instance of a factual inaccuracy in the article?



I have read the article and it is certainly about British royal wealth and finances.

I think this point makes my argument quite clear;

“In other words, the Queen is flush with cash.”

We’ll agree to disagree on the contents of the article.

 

[Pairs of the Realm]

I don’t know if this could be a bit off-topic, or at least strayed from the discussions about finances of the senior working royals, but I would like to seek help regarding this matter.

Most of BRF royal watchers are aware that the Snowdons (David and Serena) announced their intention to divorce. A lot has been going on in my mind especially on how they intend to split their assets. Serena comes from a wealthy landowner family while David worked his way up to establish his business, but at the same time his company had to be bailed out from different firms and partnerships - some of them quite shady (such as a brother of the former Malaysian Prime Minister who was involved in a big financial scandal and another is a former Putin ally).

I’m afraid I’ve been reading a lot of stuff from the Daily Fail, erm, Mail - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...html?ico=amp-comments-viewall#article-8016005

It’s hard to get more visible and public sources about the Snowdons’ money. David did inherit a lot from his late mother, Princess Margaret, as well as the Queen Mother’s. He also inherited a portion of Lord Snowdon’s money (£3.2 million divided between his 3 legit children and 1 son out of wedlock), and the photographic company Armstrong-Jones Ltd, managed by the 3 legits (David, Sarah, Frances). As well as the £10 million worth of the house his late father lived to be held in trust for his children, as the Queen bought it for him as part of the divorce settlement from Princess Margaret. And perhaps the late 1st Earl may have claimed expenses in the House of Lords?

Does anyone know how expenses in the Lords work? Peers are entitled to claim as much as £300 per day. No wonder a lot of peers get flak for just attending the Lords to pick up the cash.

I don’t think I should meddle in this but what are your thoughts on David’s approach on money? He seems to be a not so good investor and his solution is to sell off his parents’ soul, erm, heirlooms LMAO.

Would Serena get a share of her father’s inheritance once the Earl of Harrington passes away, or would everything go to her brother?

How does Snowdon’s photographic estate work? Do they make a lot of money when magazines use his photos? For example, Vanity Fair recently featured Princess Anne in their cover for May 2020, and the photo was by Snowdon.

 

[Tatiana Maria]

I think you’ll find I have not misdirected any of my own criticism, thank you.

He is quoted in the article as being an expert, I believe as I wrote, there are better people in this forum who are greater experts than he.

As to the no mention of his book, there doesn’t have to be a mention. The fact you yourself made the connection that he has a book coming out and suddenly appears in an article supposedly about royal wealth and finances, is enough to show it’s a targeted attempt to link the two.




I think this point makes my argument quite clear;

“In other words, the Queen is flush with cash.”

We’ll agree to disagree on the contents of the article.

Thank you for the clarification, but I cannot agree that "the Queen is flush with cash" is a factual inaccuracy; by any measure she has more cash in reserve than the average British citizen.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree that citing the sources of the information reported changes the topic of the article from royal wealth and finance.

 

[Sun Lion]

I don’t understand your thinking on this at all Lumutqueen.

 

[Sun Lion]

Thank you for the clarification, but I cannot agree that "the Queen is flush with cash" is a factual inaccuracy; by any measure she has more cash in reserve than the average British citizen.

Yes, we will have to agree to disagree that citing the sources of the information reported changes the topic of the article from royal wealth and finance.

Appreciate your common sense here Tatiana Maria.

 

[Mbruno]

My understanding is that the Sovereign Grant has been settled at 15% of the annual profits from the Crown Estate, with certain "stabilisation" features to prevent major fluctuations from year to year. There is an incremental allocation to fund the one-off refurbishment of BP.

Hasn't it been raised recently to 25 % rather than 15 % of the surplus revenue from the Crown Estate?

 

[Lumutqueen]

Hasn't it been raised recently to 25 % rather than 15 % of the surplus revenue from the Crown Estate?

Since 2017/18 it’s been 25% yes.

 

[muriel]

Hasn't it been raised recently to 25 % rather than 15 % of the surplus revenue from the Crown Estate?

Since 2017/18 it’s been 25% yes.

As I understand it, that incremental 10% is the funding for the repairs and renewals works at BP.

 

[Durham]

Anyway as an aside having read earlier comments - Harry's inherited wealth derives ultimately from surpluses from the Civil List or the duchies built up in the C20th century. Cash savings then invested & reinvested over decades. As well as not paying income tax for a significant period. That's where the monarchy's "private wealth" comes from. Both Balmoral & Sandringham (their "private" estates) were bought by Victoria from savings from her Civil List transferred to her privy purse.

In short Harry like the rest of them is the beneficiary of a system that supported the royal family from public funds for decade after decade.

Happy to continue the discussion in the finance thread if anyone is interested.

 

[Curryong]

Queen Victoria used part of the inheritance left her by a wealthy miser to build the 'new' Balmoral.

https://theroyalfirm.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/the-miser-the-queen-and-balmoral-castle/

Since it was considered a personal inheritance, the money was Victoria’s to spend or invest as she liked. The Queen first ensured that Neild’s servants were taken care of and increased their inheritance from £100 to £1,000 each. Victoria then repaired the roof and installed a stained glass window in the church where Neild was buried. Once these obligations were fulfilled, Victoria used £31,000 of her private inheritance to purchase and remodel the Balmoral estate for her family.

 

[victor1319]

Queen Victoria used part of the inheritance left her by a wealthy miser to build the 'new' Balmoral.

Ahhh, this is, how they paid for it! Thank you very much, Curryong, for this find!

I was always wondering: Were the Windors much richer in the recent past? How did they purchase and/or built things like Balmoral?

Today, as the building costs are much lower, one wonders, how Meghan & Harry will finance their mortage and back then the Windsors did built holiday homes like this? But here is the answer: An inheritence from outside the family! Very interesting!

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Ahhh, this is, how they paid for it! Thank you very much, Curryong, for this find!

I was always wondering: Were the Windors much richer in the recent past? How did they purchase and/or built things like Balmoral?

Today, as the building costs are much lower, one wonders, how Meghan & Harry will finance their mortage and back then the Windsors did built holiday homes like this? But here is the answer: An inheritence from outside the family! Very interesting!

A lot of the wealth we see were gifts. Think about the enormous Greville Bequest, looking like the royal family being buried under jewels but many of these "just" come from a commoner bequeathing it to them. Not to mention Arab rulers showering British royals with diamonds or even an European monarch giving a top-breed stud horse as gift, see https://blauwbloed.eo.nl/fileadmin/.../5/csm_Elisabeth-paard-beatrix_71c8638930.jpg

 

[Durham]

Queen Victoria used part of the inheritance left her by a wealthy miser to build the 'new' Balmoral.

https://theroyalfirm.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/the-miser-the-queen-and-balmoral-castle/

Since it was considered a personal inheritance, the money was Victoria’s to spend or invest as she liked. The Queen first ensured that Neild’s servants were taken care of and increased their inheritance from £100 to £1,000 each. Victoria then repaired the roof and installed a stained glass window in the church where Neild was buried. Once these obligations were fulfilled, Victoria used £31,000 of her private inheritance to purchase and remodel the Balmoral estate for her family.

Have a look at this twenty page academic article that explains in very great detail how Victoria came to the throne with nothing & died a very rich woman. She did this by banking surpluses from the civil list & the Duchy of Lancaster.

£ 1'300'000 in total

The article goes on to say that Victoria's private secretary told the Prime Minister's (Gladstone) private secretary that £400'000 from these savings had been spent on the "purchase, rebuilding & expansion of the Balmoral & Osborne estates".

The article also explains the context (urban growth) within which the income & value of both duchies increased exponentially during the C19th.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/263978...c1357d17dcdbf48&seq=21#page_scan_tab_contents


Her descendents did exactly the same & built up a large fortune in the C20th century.

The last Prince of Wales did the same from duchy surpluses.

The present great wealth of the royal family is incontrovertibly based on this type of activity.

And of course income tax was not paid by the monarch for nearly sixty years.

It is clear that the royal fortune is derived directly from state largesse. It is not a criticism of the institution to be open about the origins of its great wealth.

 

[Mbruno]

Have a look at this twenty page academic article that explains in great detail how Victoria came to the throne with nothing & died a very rich woman. She did this by banking surpluses from the civil list.


https://www.jstor.org/stable/263978...c1357d17dcdbf48&seq=21#page_scan_tab_contents


Her descendents did exactly the same & built up a large fortune in the C20th century.

Probably true, but she was not the only royal to do it. Isn't it also what the Orange-Nassau family did in the Netherlands and also got quite wealthy in the process?


In fact, I don't think it is either legally or morally wrong to save on a state-provided income and invest it wisely if that is what they did. If anything, the fault lies with the government(s) of the day for not realizing they were overpaying the Royal House.

 

[Durham]

In addition this practise of transferring savings from the civil list & the duchies had its critics at the time. An anonymous pamphlet circulated entitled "What Does She Do With It?".

 

[Durham]

Probably true, but she was not the only royal to do it. Isn't it also what the Orange-Nassau family did in the Netherlands and also got quite wealthy in the process?


In fact, I don't think it is either legally or morally wrong to save on a state-provided income and invest it wisely if that is what they did. If anything, the fault lies with the government(s) of the day for not realizing they were overpaying the Royal House.

Yes I agree with your point about the government

I have to disagree about the morality or ethics of it. Any surplus should have gone to the government in my opinion.

 

[Mbruno]

Yes I agree with your point about the government

I have to disagree about the morality or ethics of it. Any surplus should have gone to the government in my opinion.

But you can look at it in a different way as I hinted, i.e., that there was a surplus because the Royal Household was efficiently run and kept its expenses down.



Putting it in another way, if I live a frugal life and am good at saving money, does it follow that I should take a pay cut to break even rather than invest what I was able to save?

 

[Durham]

But you can look at it in a different way as I hinted, i.e., that there was a surplus because the Royal Household was efficiently run and kept its expenses down.



Putting it in another way, if I live a frugal life and am good at saving money, does it follow that I should take a pay cut to break even rather than invest what I was able to save?

I don't see the equivalence I'm afraid. I could understand any savings going into some sort of fund for future contingencies (as indeed did happen towards the end of Victoria's reign when there was a period of deficits) but not forming part of a private fortune to be passed onto future generations.

And it wasn't all to do with economies anyway. The Lancaster surpluses were to do with the growth of urbanism. That's just good luck.

 

[tommy100]

I think its hard to look back now and say things were wrong by our standards now. The current sovereign and her advisors make a very distinction between public and private, there we historical anomalies but if we held everyone to that standard maybe even I'd be a millionaire today ??


Not to get off topic, but no royal finance reports yet? I'm sure Covid has had an impact but don't we usually get them July time?

 

[Durham]

I think its hard to look back now and say things were wrong by our standards now. The current sovereign and her advisors make a very distinction between public and private, there we historical anomalies but if we held everyone to that standard maybe even I'd be a millionaire today ??

There was criticism at the time but yes I take your point about not judging the past by present day standards. As I say it's not about making a judgement but rather being honest about how the royal family became so wealthy in the C20th.

As you know there is a lot of comment about the "private wealth" of the royal family on this forum as though it has nothing to do with their historically uniquely privileged position. That they can do what they want with their wealth. Well yes they can but I'm sure that they at least are sensitive to its origins & use.

 

[Mbruno]

There was criticism at the time but yes I take your point about not judging the past by present day standards. As I say it's not about making a judgement but rather being honest about how the royal family became so wealthy in the C20th.

As you know there is a lot of comment about the "private wealth" of the royal family on this forum as though it has nothing to do with their historically uniquely privileged position. That they can do what they want with their wealth. Well yes they can but I'm sure that they at least are sensitive to its origins & use.

But then the whole story has to be told from the beginning. The civil list was not a privilege or a favor to the King, but compensation paid to the King for having transferred the Crown Estate (his formerly private wealth) to public ownership and surrendering its revenue to the Treasury. In a way, it was money that the State owed to the Royals and not the other way around.


The Duchies are in a different category as they have always been private estates.

 

[Durham]

But then the whole story has to be told from the beginning. The civil list was not a privilege or a favor to the King, but compensation paid to the King for having transferred the Crown Estate (his formerly private wealth) to public ownership and surrendering its revenue to the Treasury. In a way, it was money that the State owed to the Royals and not the other way around.

Ah but didn't the monarch pay for some of the government? We could always reverse the agreement but I doubt the monarch would agree. Not now.

Besides the crown estate is not the "private" property of the monarch as an individual.

 

[Osipi]

Ah but didn't the monarch pay for some of the government? We could always reverse the agreement but I doubt the monarch would agree. Not now.

Besides the crown estate is not the "private" property of the monarch as an individual.

When you look back at history and wealth, there was a time (and in a lot of places there still is) when even "old" money looked down their noses at "new" money. Generation after generation of people raking in the riches all of a sudden were confronted with the industrialist that overnight built a fortune and they just "weren't the same blood" as those having "old money".

Wealth does strange things to people. Everybody wants it and when they get it, they have to be the top of the heap. Wasn't a prime example of this Mohamed al Fayed and his many, many attempts to buy his way into British elite society?

 

[Denville]

When you look back at history and wealth, there was a time (and in a lot of places there still is) when even "old" money looked down their noses at "new" money. Generation after generation of people raking in the riches all of a sudden were confronted with the industrialist that overnight built a fortune and they just "weren't the same blood" as those having "old money".

Wealth does strange things to people. Everybody wants it and when they get it, they have to be the top of the heap. Wasn't a prime example of this Mohamed al Fayed and his many, many attempts to buy his way into British elite society?

Tha'ts not the point.. the point is that the King had his estates and was expected to "live off his own fortune" as the ruler... but as society became more complex and the King was not the actual ruler any more, things became more complicated.. and the Crown Estates which were meant to supply the King with his income to rule with, were turned over to the actual Government and he got back an allowance.. ie teh Civil List...
Some might say that in this case, since the money was for the King as ruler, any surplus should go to the Government.. I think a middle ground is possible.. that a certain proportion of savings should be passed on to the Govt.... but a proportion could be kept by the Monarch. It has nothing to do with "Old money and new money".

 

[Eskimo]

It was much easier for them to build private wealth in those days. Multiple non-family inheritances, no taxes, pretty much every member of the extended family on some sort of parliamentary allowance etc. etc.

In this day and age, there’d be uproar if they got non-family inheritances, they have to pay taxes and have to support extended family members from private funds. Thus, the saving are not as great as they used to be.

 

[Mbruno]

It was much easier for them to build private wealth in those days. Multiple non-family inheritances, no taxes, pretty much every member of the extended family on some sort of parliamentary allowance etc. etc.

In this day and age, there’d be uproar if they got non-family inheritances, they have to pay taxes and have to support extended family members from private funds. Thus, the saving are not as great as they used to be.

Sound management still makes a difference though, Just look at how the Duchy of Cornwall has thrived under Charles for example. I am not so sure William will be able to keep up when it is his turn.


It is interesting that we were discussing education of royal princes in another forum and how princes in the continent study international relations, law or political science whereas William majored in Geography after starting out as an Art History major. But one thing that was not mentioned is that William also took a short extension course afterwards in Land Management (or something like that), which is very telling to me. It shows that, in addition to his state role, the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, is not that different from other senior peers in the UK with big rural estates, with the only difference being that his estate as the Duke is one of the biggest of all !



That is rather unique to the UK nowadays, I think, because , other than in Sweden, where the RF also manages the Steanhammar and Solliden estates, we normally don't think of other European royals as landowners with rural estates.

 

[Somebody]

Sound management still makes a difference though, Just look at how the Duchy of Cornwall has thrived under Charles for example. I am not so sure William will be able to keep up when it is his turn.


It is interesting that we were discussing education of royal princes in another forum and how princes in the continent study international relations, law or political science whereas William majored in Geography after starting out as an Art History major. But one thing that was not mentioned is that William also took a short extension course afterwards in Land Management (or something like that), which is very telling to me. It shows that, in addition to his state role, the Prince of Wales, as Duke of Cornwall, is not that different from other senior peers in the UK with big rural estates, with the only difference being that his estate as the Duke is one of the biggest of all !

That is rather unique to the UK nowadays, I think, because , other than in Sweden, where the RF also manages the Steanhammar and Solliden estates, we normally don't think of other European royals as landowners with rural estates.

According to this BBC article at that time it was a 10-week Agricultural Management course specifically designed for the prince - which included 20 hours of classes a week (some one-on-one others with PhD students) and several field trips. But I agree this is very specific for the British heir and not that likely for the continental heirs.

In addition to Sweden, it might be relevant to know that the Dutch monarchy has 'Kroondomein Het Loo' - although it was handed over to the State in 1959 it contains the provision that the crown has 'right of use' meaning among other things that the profit (of 2/3rds of the area) goes to the royal family - another condition was that if the family would ever cease to reign over the Netherlands it is to be returned... So, while managed by the state, they do have a say in it (as is evidence by the yearly comments on 'why does the king close of the area for several months?!').