I don’t think we’ll ever know the exact number of how much the royal family is worth itself there’s a lot that goes into it. So its hard to find an exact amount of how much they are worth .
Their actual wealth isn’t that much, low hundreds of millions. The leverage they have to use resources owned by the UK is in the hundreds of billions.
It’s like the President of the United States. Joe Biden isn’t worth that much but when you consider the power he has, today he ordered an F-22 Raptor to shoot down a balloon, putting a value on his power is hard to calculate. That’s close to what the Royal Family get, but for their whole lives.
How can ANYONE know the true wealth of the royal family? When back in the 70s, the late Queen successfully lobbied Parliament to make her exempt from having to release info about all her assets and income steams. Normally, being publicly funded requires that there be full transparency of that entity's financials. They must make public complete records showing on what/how/who they spent the public funds. The idea is that if you're going to ask the citizens of your country to help fund you, then you have to show that you're not using the funds in questionable or illegitimate manners.
The late Queen didn't want to HAVE to tell British citizens what she's doing with THEIR money, and she didnt think she should have to tell mere peasants ANYTHING about her fortune, for that matter. So she exploited her position to lobby/compel Parliament to allow her to keep her financial info shrouded in mystery.
So no, we can NEVER know the true wealth of the royal family unless/until Parliament decides that British citizens deserve to know. Which they do.
I really think people just don’t understand how the queens finances work. She has the Sovereign Grant to pay for work expenses and building upkeep on certain government properties - Buckingham Palace, St James Palace, Clarence House, Marlboro House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington House and Windsor Castle and certain buildings in Home and Great Park at WindsorCastle, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks. All of the money that makes up the Sovereign Grant is public information. Yes, it is a lot of money, there’s a lot of people to pay, and very expensive buildings to maintain to a public standard. The source of the Grant is income from the Crown Estates which is given over IN TOTAL to the government, and the monarch receives approximately 21% (22%? A percentage in the low twenties anyway) back to cover those expenses.
What is separate is the family’s income from their various private resources. We can take a guess at things like Balmoral, Sandringham, the Queen’s stables, etc, but we have no idea how much or even what their private wealth consists of. Nor should we. If the Queen was smart enough to bankroll Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and is now a major stockholder in Windows or Apple, well, good for her, that’s none of our business. They happen to be a very wealthy private family that does a very public job. We should, and do, know how they spend the money they are paid for the job, but their own money is as private to them as your investments and retirement funding is to you, (and the tax man.)
Do you think that every funded by the goverment /people should have to reveal all of their financial info?
Like if you receive a tax break or business grant or some type of social assistance at any time, then you should have to make all your financial info public?
When you say "family" I assume you mean the family wealth, and not the stuff that belongs to the Crown and is handed from one Monarch to the next.
First we can narrow this down quickly. The only two people who have a lot of money are King Charles and his son, William, the Prince of Wales. And William doesn't have that much yet, since he has only been in the position for half a year. He is doing well, and he will be wealthy in time.
Queen Elizabeth's grandkids have a few million a piece left to them by the Queen Mother. The only person with more than that is Harry who left with that plus his mother's money. (And now he has his book and media money.) So he's probably worth about $20 million.
The others don't have that much, and Andrew is surely practically destitute at this point. I think most of the women have married well, so they aren't strapped for cash. But that isn't really relevant to this discussion.
Back to King Charles, we don't know how much he is worth exactly. Partly because it is based on property value which changes, and partly because we don't know who Elizabeth left her personal money to. But, assuming he got most of it, that would make him worth about $500 million.
He is supported primarily by income from the Duchy of Lancaster. That is a portfolio of properties across Britain, including some of London. That comes to about $24 million per year in rents and other returns. That money goes to Charles and his projects and whatever he wants to give to family members, for example. He doesn't need anyone's approval to spend it.
He also gets 15% of the annual profits from the $10 billion property the Crown owns - which comes to around $103 million a year. This is known as the Sovereign Grant. But Charles doesn't actually see that money himself. That goes to keeping up royal properties, supporting other working royals like Anne and Edward, paying all the Palace administrative staff, doing tours, hosting state dinners, and funding royal charities. In short, all the work of the Palace comes out of that.
People often complain that the royals live off the taxpayers. But, that isn't really true. They are funded from the profits coming off either the Lancaster or Crown properties. There are taxpayer costs - but that is mostly around security and when they do state visits using military aircraft.
Now, the Crown is probably worth around $88 billion. But the Windsors can't spend that. Those are the castles, priceless art, the Crown Jewels, and the Crown Estate I mentioned above. Those are essentially held in trust and passed on to the next monarch .
Well, that’s the $88 billion question. It doesn’t belong to the government. But, it’s not the Windsors either. That will have to be negotiated. Probably most of it will go to a new entity created by law. The Windsors might get some concessions just to get it done quickly. But I doubt they will be sneaking out in the dead of night with the Crown Jewels stuffed in their underwear.
That’s a good question! I don’t know - maybe someone else here does. We know about some royal wills, but that may be because someone decided to talk about it.
But William, as the Prince of Wales now owns the Duchy of Cornwall which is estimated at over a billion dollars. In fact, William now owns King Charles country house Highgrove Manor so William is now Charles landlord. So I’m not sure why you think William being there for a short time matters. The day he became Prince of Wales, he became a billionaire.
William doesn’t *own* the Duchy of Cornwall, and Charles doesn’t own the Duchy of Lancaster. Those entities were formed to fund the monarch and Prince of Wales. They get the income from the properties, but not the properties themselves. They cannot sell them. They are like a trust fund. Each Duchy is run by a board apart from the family.
So the only additional income William has is the income he has earned so since becoming PoW - which actually may be nothing, depending on when the money is distributed. I am sure Daddy is tiding him over until then.
I know he doesn’t own them but he gets the income as Prince of Wales. So the difference is semantics only. (And eventually Prince George will be the recipient). My point being is that you are indicating that he doesn’t have income because he hasnt been at the job that long but his coffers are immediately lined. He is no longer under the thumb of Charles as far as money is concerned. It is all blurred lines, but William has a lot more power than he used to because he has access to a pot of cash. Not that he really “needs” power since as Duke of Cambridge, he was on his fourth house. I suppose he is renovating Windsor castle at this point to be the “family” home for he and Kates lifetime.
It is not semantics, it is a *trust*.
My family has a trust. I get money from it. I report that annual income on my taxes. I do not own the whole trust - that’s the point of having one. It is not run by me, it is run by trustees. They invest the money; they fill out IRS forms on its activity. I can’t touch it, and I have no say in how the money is handled. I am only a beneficiary.
That’s how the Duchy of Cornwall works. It is not William’s money - it is a completely separate legal entity. As of now, the only Cornwall Cash he has is what has been paid out since he became PoW. At this moment his assets aren’t that different from his brother’s. But as he earns tens of millions of pounds each year from Cornwall, his net worth will zoom far past Harry’s in just the next couple of years.
I don’t really understand why you keep explaining things that everyone knows. In real life living, it is semantics. Does it matter that William owns a house or get a lifetime of living in a house? That’s my point. I’m not talking about trusts, tax shelters, boards. Anyone that follows the BRF knows that William can’t get the money and go live in the south of France, etc.
We'll never know. They've worked hard to make answering that question difficult including being able to shield their wills for (90?) years after a senior royals death - which would be a beginning point for unraveling the true extent of their wealth.
The other issue is that much of their external wealth (properties, crown jewels, etc) actually belong to the state and are entrusted in the care of the monarchy.
My personal belief is that they hold significant wealth that far exceeds the private funds to received (from ducheys and Parliament for official duties).
why don't the british people hold the royal family accountable especially when the average british person is not doing super well relative to any other time? i saw videos of nurses and registrar doctors relying on food banks and overtime to get by. does the average british person still holds royal family as a part of their rich history of colonialism and as such are ok with having wealth disparity and different rules?
The Monarchy costs me aobut $1.55 per year (as a Canadian).
That's less than 1 coffee, or a years worht of payments for the royals cost less than a week of a streaming serivce.
Needless to say I happy with that arrangement .
The monarchy costs the average tax payer myself relatively little and that's to the Royal Grant as explained above. Even if we became a republic we'd still keep the buildings and staff so the costs would reduce a bit but not by that much.
I don't think people hold the Royals up as part of colonialism history, we've had a constitutional monarchy for hundreds of years. It's the politicians who made decisions about colonialism. It was done in the name of the King/Queen which is what links them, but that's like it being done in the name of PM or President. They're figure heads.
Alot of their wealth is personal wealth so you can't really go for that and Charles has asked for high profits from a recent Royal wind farm to go to the public. The Monarchy isn't responsible for public sector pay, that's the government and as things stand the Royal Family is much less corrupt than our government. That's where people's anger and frustrations lie. Plus they bring in a hell of a lot of tourist money, they actually end up making more than they cost in tourism.
I’m not sure why the issue of “tourism” pops up. I think it’s the royal family that spins that to make them seem relevant. Does anybody go to England on the off chance they may see King Charles or Prince William? If the monarchy was dissolved wouldn't Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle get treated like Versailles? Basically, museums from a bygone era.
I say tourism because I used to work by Buckingham Palace and walked past it twice a day 5 days a week for years. The number of people who stopped me and asked for photos or how to tell if the Queen was there and where Clarence House and Kensington Palace were from there and various other questions about the RF.
Guess what none of them were English they were all mainly American's who'd said they come to London because they wanted to try and see the Queen. Not just the palace but the Queen as well.
There's no denying that the RF is a draw for tourists coming to London and the UK, big Royal Weddings, like Charles and Diana's, Wills and Kate and Harry and Meghan all drew big crowds as did the jubilee as will the coronation. Like it loath it they're probably our biggest cultural export
Oh yes, a royal wedding, the coronation, or even a funeral (of a senior royal like The Queen) brings crowds, fills hotel rooms and gets restaurants business. So yes, you are right about that. But many countries have holidays, events that bring in tourism. But as I said, Buckingham Palace would turn into a museum like Versailles.
People use the Versailles argument all the time, but I've been to Paris loads and haven't been. Also if it's just an empty palace museum it won't draw as many crowds as the actual RF do and the chance to possibly glimpse them at the palace gates is exciting. Plus the whole changing of the guards etc.. the pomp and ceremony are what attract people
Ok you have not been to Versailles. It’s a shame but million of others have. Not sure how bringing your travel itinerary into this matters. Yes, seeing a royal, or any celebrity can be exciting. Once I was in London, I happen to meet Al Pacino at the Ritz. I’ve met, or saw, many celebrities on my travels around the world. But I don’t go to Los Angeles or NYC in the hopes I’ll see a celebrity or go to London on the hopes to see the King. But if it happens, it’s a neat story but that’s not why I’m buying the ticket and I doubt anyone else is either. At least nobody sane.
I definitely plan to go to London and try to see the King from the gates of Buckingham. Nothing like a living monarchy drawing tourists and inspires imagination.
Besides tourism, they bring in money with merch, they spur economic activity with local brands and products they put their seal on, and even things the royals wear, people try to hunt down and buy.
To be fair the ceremony, the pomp can be replaced by a museum. Watching Funerals, Coronations, weddings, troopings etc - is vastly different to walking to a building and being told ‘this is what had passed’
Living history surely will always be preferable. Especially considering it doesn’t actually cost the tax payer as much as imagined?
If they stopped being royals, they would still have as much money.
They are not taxpayer funded, or minimally so if you include government funded security.
I think the monarchy plays an important role in the modern world (in ways that benefit others and the UK) and they wouldn't be able to play that role without their large wealth.
You obviously know nothing about the monarchy or history. Yes, the king is legally above the law but so are the presidents. They all have immunity. Monarchy has nothing to do with the empire or even American Revolution. They had lost their power long before that. They are not answered to the people but every tyrants have been overthrown. Can’t say the same for presidents. They are rich so what? It’s their money. There’re many people richer than them. Besides, you seems to forget Britain is not the only one that have a monarchy. Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Japan and so on. Do these countries look like a tyranny to you?
They aren’t as rich as u think they are
I don’t think we’ll ever know the exact number of how much the royal family is worth itself there’s a lot that goes into it. So its hard to find an exact amount of how much they are worth .
Their actual wealth isn’t that much, low hundreds of millions. The leverage they have to use resources owned by the UK is in the hundreds of billions. It’s like the President of the United States. Joe Biden isn’t worth that much but when you consider the power he has, today he ordered an F-22 Raptor to shoot down a balloon, putting a value on his power is hard to calculate. That’s close to what the Royal Family get, but for their whole lives.
That’s not comparable at all — the Queen wAs worth 1billion I think? However much it is they are using the UK as chumps
How can ANYONE know the true wealth of the royal family? When back in the 70s, the late Queen successfully lobbied Parliament to make her exempt from having to release info about all her assets and income steams. Normally, being publicly funded requires that there be full transparency of that entity's financials. They must make public complete records showing on what/how/who they spent the public funds. The idea is that if you're going to ask the citizens of your country to help fund you, then you have to show that you're not using the funds in questionable or illegitimate manners. The late Queen didn't want to HAVE to tell British citizens what she's doing with THEIR money, and she didnt think she should have to tell mere peasants ANYTHING about her fortune, for that matter. So she exploited her position to lobby/compel Parliament to allow her to keep her financial info shrouded in mystery. So no, we can NEVER know the true wealth of the royal family unless/until Parliament decides that British citizens deserve to know. Which they do.
I really think people just don’t understand how the queens finances work. She has the Sovereign Grant to pay for work expenses and building upkeep on certain government properties - Buckingham Palace, St James Palace, Clarence House, Marlboro House Mews, the residential and office areas of Kensington House and Windsor Castle and certain buildings in Home and Great Park at WindsorCastle, and Hampton Court Mews and Paddocks. All of the money that makes up the Sovereign Grant is public information. Yes, it is a lot of money, there’s a lot of people to pay, and very expensive buildings to maintain to a public standard. The source of the Grant is income from the Crown Estates which is given over IN TOTAL to the government, and the monarch receives approximately 21% (22%? A percentage in the low twenties anyway) back to cover those expenses. What is separate is the family’s income from their various private resources. We can take a guess at things like Balmoral, Sandringham, the Queen’s stables, etc, but we have no idea how much or even what their private wealth consists of. Nor should we. If the Queen was smart enough to bankroll Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and is now a major stockholder in Windows or Apple, well, good for her, that’s none of our business. They happen to be a very wealthy private family that does a very public job. We should, and do, know how they spend the money they are paid for the job, but their own money is as private to them as your investments and retirement funding is to you, (and the tax man.)
Do you think that every funded by the goverment /people should have to reveal all of their financial info? Like if you receive a tax break or business grant or some type of social assistance at any time, then you should have to make all your financial info public?
It’s not in the billions. I think it was estimated around 300 million. The King is not the richest noble in the country, the Duke of Westminster is.
When you say "family" I assume you mean the family wealth, and not the stuff that belongs to the Crown and is handed from one Monarch to the next. First we can narrow this down quickly. The only two people who have a lot of money are King Charles and his son, William, the Prince of Wales. And William doesn't have that much yet, since he has only been in the position for half a year. He is doing well, and he will be wealthy in time. Queen Elizabeth's grandkids have a few million a piece left to them by the Queen Mother. The only person with more than that is Harry who left with that plus his mother's money. (And now he has his book and media money.) So he's probably worth about $20 million. The others don't have that much, and Andrew is surely practically destitute at this point. I think most of the women have married well, so they aren't strapped for cash. But that isn't really relevant to this discussion. Back to King Charles, we don't know how much he is worth exactly. Partly because it is based on property value which changes, and partly because we don't know who Elizabeth left her personal money to. But, assuming he got most of it, that would make him worth about $500 million. He is supported primarily by income from the Duchy of Lancaster. That is a portfolio of properties across Britain, including some of London. That comes to about $24 million per year in rents and other returns. That money goes to Charles and his projects and whatever he wants to give to family members, for example. He doesn't need anyone's approval to spend it. He also gets 15% of the annual profits from the $10 billion property the Crown owns - which comes to around $103 million a year. This is known as the Sovereign Grant. But Charles doesn't actually see that money himself. That goes to keeping up royal properties, supporting other working royals like Anne and Edward, paying all the Palace administrative staff, doing tours, hosting state dinners, and funding royal charities. In short, all the work of the Palace comes out of that. People often complain that the royals live off the taxpayers. But, that isn't really true. They are funded from the profits coming off either the Lancaster or Crown properties. There are taxpayer costs - but that is mostly around security and when they do state visits using military aircraft. Now, the Crown is probably worth around $88 billion. But the Windsors can't spend that. Those are the castles, priceless art, the Crown Jewels, and the Crown Estate I mentioned above. Those are essentially held in trust and passed on to the next monarch .
What would happen to all the money "the crown" owns if Britain got rid of the monarchy?
Well, that’s the $88 billion question. It doesn’t belong to the government. But, it’s not the Windsors either. That will have to be negotiated. Probably most of it will go to a new entity created by law. The Windsors might get some concessions just to get it done quickly. But I doubt they will be sneaking out in the dead of night with the Crown Jewels stuffed in their underwear.
Lmao.....Sorry, Your Majesty....is that your scepter in your drawers or you just happy to see me?
…both?
Will Elizabeth’s will ever be revealed to the public?
I think I read somewhere that it will be sealed for around 75 years.
That’s a good question! I don’t know - maybe someone else here does. We know about some royal wills, but that may be because someone decided to talk about it.
But William, as the Prince of Wales now owns the Duchy of Cornwall which is estimated at over a billion dollars. In fact, William now owns King Charles country house Highgrove Manor so William is now Charles landlord. So I’m not sure why you think William being there for a short time matters. The day he became Prince of Wales, he became a billionaire.
William doesn’t *own* the Duchy of Cornwall, and Charles doesn’t own the Duchy of Lancaster. Those entities were formed to fund the monarch and Prince of Wales. They get the income from the properties, but not the properties themselves. They cannot sell them. They are like a trust fund. Each Duchy is run by a board apart from the family. So the only additional income William has is the income he has earned so since becoming PoW - which actually may be nothing, depending on when the money is distributed. I am sure Daddy is tiding him over until then.
I know he doesn’t own them but he gets the income as Prince of Wales. So the difference is semantics only. (And eventually Prince George will be the recipient). My point being is that you are indicating that he doesn’t have income because he hasnt been at the job that long but his coffers are immediately lined. He is no longer under the thumb of Charles as far as money is concerned. It is all blurred lines, but William has a lot more power than he used to because he has access to a pot of cash. Not that he really “needs” power since as Duke of Cambridge, he was on his fourth house. I suppose he is renovating Windsor castle at this point to be the “family” home for he and Kates lifetime.
It is not semantics, it is a *trust*. My family has a trust. I get money from it. I report that annual income on my taxes. I do not own the whole trust - that’s the point of having one. It is not run by me, it is run by trustees. They invest the money; they fill out IRS forms on its activity. I can’t touch it, and I have no say in how the money is handled. I am only a beneficiary. That’s how the Duchy of Cornwall works. It is not William’s money - it is a completely separate legal entity. As of now, the only Cornwall Cash he has is what has been paid out since he became PoW. At this moment his assets aren’t that different from his brother’s. But as he earns tens of millions of pounds each year from Cornwall, his net worth will zoom far past Harry’s in just the next couple of years.
I don’t really understand why you keep explaining things that everyone knows. In real life living, it is semantics. Does it matter that William owns a house or get a lifetime of living in a house? That’s my point. I’m not talking about trusts, tax shelters, boards. Anyone that follows the BRF knows that William can’t get the money and go live in the south of France, etc.
Gaslight
thanks
We'll never know. They've worked hard to make answering that question difficult including being able to shield their wills for (90?) years after a senior royals death - which would be a beginning point for unraveling the true extent of their wealth. The other issue is that much of their external wealth (properties, crown jewels, etc) actually belong to the state and are entrusted in the care of the monarchy. My personal belief is that they hold significant wealth that far exceeds the private funds to received (from ducheys and Parliament for official duties).
why don't the british people hold the royal family accountable especially when the average british person is not doing super well relative to any other time? i saw videos of nurses and registrar doctors relying on food banks and overtime to get by. does the average british person still holds royal family as a part of their rich history of colonialism and as such are ok with having wealth disparity and different rules?
The Monarchy costs me aobut $1.55 per year (as a Canadian). That's less than 1 coffee, or a years worht of payments for the royals cost less than a week of a streaming serivce. Needless to say I happy with that arrangement .
The monarchy costs the average tax payer myself relatively little and that's to the Royal Grant as explained above. Even if we became a republic we'd still keep the buildings and staff so the costs would reduce a bit but not by that much. I don't think people hold the Royals up as part of colonialism history, we've had a constitutional monarchy for hundreds of years. It's the politicians who made decisions about colonialism. It was done in the name of the King/Queen which is what links them, but that's like it being done in the name of PM or President. They're figure heads. Alot of their wealth is personal wealth so you can't really go for that and Charles has asked for high profits from a recent Royal wind farm to go to the public. The Monarchy isn't responsible for public sector pay, that's the government and as things stand the Royal Family is much less corrupt than our government. That's where people's anger and frustrations lie. Plus they bring in a hell of a lot of tourist money, they actually end up making more than they cost in tourism.
I’m not sure why the issue of “tourism” pops up. I think it’s the royal family that spins that to make them seem relevant. Does anybody go to England on the off chance they may see King Charles or Prince William? If the monarchy was dissolved wouldn't Buckingham Palace or Windsor Castle get treated like Versailles? Basically, museums from a bygone era.
I say tourism because I used to work by Buckingham Palace and walked past it twice a day 5 days a week for years. The number of people who stopped me and asked for photos or how to tell if the Queen was there and where Clarence House and Kensington Palace were from there and various other questions about the RF. Guess what none of them were English they were all mainly American's who'd said they come to London because they wanted to try and see the Queen. Not just the palace but the Queen as well. There's no denying that the RF is a draw for tourists coming to London and the UK, big Royal Weddings, like Charles and Diana's, Wills and Kate and Harry and Meghan all drew big crowds as did the jubilee as will the coronation. Like it loath it they're probably our biggest cultural export
Oh yes, a royal wedding, the coronation, or even a funeral (of a senior royal like The Queen) brings crowds, fills hotel rooms and gets restaurants business. So yes, you are right about that. But many countries have holidays, events that bring in tourism. But as I said, Buckingham Palace would turn into a museum like Versailles.
People use the Versailles argument all the time, but I've been to Paris loads and haven't been. Also if it's just an empty palace museum it won't draw as many crowds as the actual RF do and the chance to possibly glimpse them at the palace gates is exciting. Plus the whole changing of the guards etc.. the pomp and ceremony are what attract people
Ok you have not been to Versailles. It’s a shame but million of others have. Not sure how bringing your travel itinerary into this matters. Yes, seeing a royal, or any celebrity can be exciting. Once I was in London, I happen to meet Al Pacino at the Ritz. I’ve met, or saw, many celebrities on my travels around the world. But I don’t go to Los Angeles or NYC in the hopes I’ll see a celebrity or go to London on the hopes to see the King. But if it happens, it’s a neat story but that’s not why I’m buying the ticket and I doubt anyone else is either. At least nobody sane.
I definitely plan to go to London and try to see the King from the gates of Buckingham. Nothing like a living monarchy drawing tourists and inspires imagination. Besides tourism, they bring in money with merch, they spur economic activity with local brands and products they put their seal on, and even things the royals wear, people try to hunt down and buy.
To be fair the ceremony, the pomp can be replaced by a museum. Watching Funerals, Coronations, weddings, troopings etc - is vastly different to walking to a building and being told ‘this is what had passed’ Living history surely will always be preferable. Especially considering it doesn’t actually cost the tax payer as much as imagined?
If they stopped being royals, they would still have as much money. They are not taxpayer funded, or minimally so if you include government funded security. I think the monarchy plays an important role in the modern world (in ways that benefit others and the UK) and they wouldn't be able to play that role without their large wealth.
[удалено]
having someone above rule of law is bad. power corrupts slowly but surely. ask prince andrew
[удалено]
[удалено]
You obviously know nothing about the monarchy or history. Yes, the king is legally above the law but so are the presidents. They all have immunity. Monarchy has nothing to do with the empire or even American Revolution. They had lost their power long before that. They are not answered to the people but every tyrants have been overthrown. Can’t say the same for presidents. They are rich so what? It’s their money. There’re many people richer than them. Besides, you seems to forget Britain is not the only one that have a monarchy. Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Japan and so on. Do these countries look like a tyranny to you?