Talk:Finances of the British royal family

BBC Estimate

The BBC estimated the cost to the British Public of keeping the Royal Family to be £41.5M

I assume this is per year?Originalname37 (Talk?) 00:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

revised project templates on talk page

feel free to edit quality/priority scores.John Cross (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal wealth of the Queen...

Question... if Queen Elizabeth were to withdraw all the cash she has in any bank accounts, cash in any stocks, bonds, or other financial instruments she has, and sold off any assets which she has a legal right to get rid of (not counting the Royal Collection or other state-held assets which cannot be gotten rid of by her personally), how much money would she then have, roughly? Blozier2006 (talk) 04:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing from Republic?

I'm tagging this article for it's factual accuracy based upon much of the financial information and total figures apparently sourced from the Republic organisation, which for those who do not know advocate for the removal of the British monarchy. These claims against the official figures are hardly reliable sources coming from such a group, and need some good, neutral references either back them up or cite another figure. Hope someone has some better sources. QueenCake (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I also add that the estimation of Republic is compared to the official cost of the Spanish Monarchy of around 8 million. However the Spanish costing is the official one. This gives an inflated and political figure as the official Spanish figure should be compared to the official British figure of 8 million odd. I imagine that if Republic did their own estimate of the Spanish Monarchy it would be similar to the British one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.59.43 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

According to the royal website the expenditure of the royal household in 2011 was £32.1 million. This does not include money given back to the government from the crown estates etc. Link

I think most accurate way to present this section is to provide figures for the cost of the monarchy (clearly ranging from between £32.1million and £184million) and then offset it against whatever money the crown estates contribute. That way then it is an accurate representation of the "cost" of the Monarchy to the UK, with the reader understanding the true cost varies depending on source. --94.72.249.26 (talk) 11:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you should go ahead and make appropriate edits. DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I have made edits in line with the suggestion above. The article now mentions official reports and estimates by the anti-monarchy group, plus includes the profits generated and donated to the Treasury by land owned by the monarchy. --RB (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. I think that disputed tag can probably be removed with the addition of the official figures? DrKiernan (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

crown estates

I removed this bit

Notably the Crown Estates that consist of land owned by the Crown contribute all profit made directly to the Treasury and in the year of 2011 this surplus was a total of £230.9 million according to Crown Estate reports. Depending on which costing is used when profit from land owned by the Monarchy is taken into account the Monarchy generates between £46.9 million and £198.8 million profit per year for the British taxpayer.

because it has nothing to do with the finances of the Royal Family except in those parts where it is inaccurate. As noted on the website of the Crown Estates, the Estates are not the personal property of the Sovereign. The Sovereign and Royal Family are not entitled to the profits from the land - that money goes directly to the government. The only connection the Crown Estates have with the Royal Family is the historical one. Civil list payments, on the other hand, go directly to the Sovereign and are her personal property. They are an entirely different beast and it is wholly inaccurate to compare the two for the purpose of calculating a "profit"; it would be like saying that all of the UK's tax revenue counts as "profit generated by the monarchy" because it is collected by the Crown. The only government revenue directly generated by the Royal Family is that which they pay in taxes. --superioridad ^(discusión) 05:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

The Sovereign Grant will be about 15% of the revenue of the Crown Estate when the Civil List is abolished. The amount of money she gets will be directly related to the surplus of the estate. DrKiernan (talk) 06:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

While "the sovereign" does not own the land "the Crown" certainly does. "The sovereign" is the King or Queen in person, (in this particular instance, Queen Elizabeth. Should Charles ascend to the throne "the sovereign" would be King Charles etc), whereas "the Crown" refers to the office of the Monarch (i.e. the Queen/King as a notion not as a person). If you'd like any reading on that subject I'd be happy to help find some, however if you do not wish to research that you'll have to take my word for it.

The idea of the article is to highlight the cost of the monarchy to the British taxpayer. The monarchy as an institution owns the Crown estates, and the money from that is donated to the government. Without a monarchy, there would be no Crown Estates. As far as I am aware the Office of the US President doesn't own land, so anything the President costs is a straight up cost. The fact that the British Monarchy (as an institution, not a person) own significant areas of land and gives the profits from the land to the government is, in my opinion, notable. I do not know if other countries have similar arrangements, if they do not I believe it would be even more notable.

The fact is that the article in the past has been written with, from my perspective, a very anti-monarchist PoV. There is a lot about cost in there with very little on how much is estimated that the monarchy (again, the institution not the individual) brings to the country in terms of tourism for example. Likewise I think it is a bit hypocritical to remove a section on the basis that "the Estates are not the personal property of the Sovereign" [as they belong to the Crown] when the Republic figures include "Palace Maintenance" on property that also is not owned by the Sovereign and in fact includes loss of revenue on the Crown Estates.

My own personal opinion is that if the Republic figures are to be included the article needs to show the cost and contributions of the Monarchy (as an institution) in total (as the Republic figures do) or simply show the cost of Queen Elizabeth personally. For now I will leave the revision as it stands until I can see what some other people think on this (as perhaps the wording can be re-drafted). If not I will revert it back, the Crown and the Monarchy are the same constitutionally, government power derives from the Crown as the Head of State and therefore the lands belong to the Head of State (i.e. the monarchy). The Crown Estates are owned by the institution of the Monarchy in its constitutional role, not by the British taxpayer.--RB (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a question about the Crown Estate on Foreign Lands

As many know, Kevin Cahill has stated that the Queen, not as part of her official position, owns over 6 billion acres worldwide. My questions are twofold. First, does the Crown Estate run those lands? Second, does the queen derive any income from those lands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamall (talk • contribs) 17:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cahill is wrong. The Queen owns Sandringham and Balmoral but she does not own the Crown Estate or Crown Lands. They are owned by the governments of the respective realms. DrKiernan (talk) 17:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I would like to see proof of your assertions, especially regarding the revenue stream for Canada and Australia on the royal lands. Also, we know Harry went to the Caribbean for a visit. Are you saying that the Queen herself derives no compensation for ruling Caribbean nations? Why then was money spent on the documentary and why would the royal family bother to go to all that trouble?

See http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalHousehold/Royalfinances/Overview.aspx DrKiernan (talk) 20:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess we will never know how much, if anything, the Queen gets from foreign Crown Estate lands because the Queen does not allow an audit. However, some have said she has a personal fortune and personal business in excess of billions of dollars, not counting riches of her office. How can that possibly be proven one way or another without an audit? Without an audit how can anyone be authoritive?

She's audited every year, and the accounts are published. She gets nothing from foreign crown lands. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dr Kiernan, not everyone agrees with you. According to this article, the BOEN hides the Queen's investments, which I always suspected, simply because the Queen rules the Square Mile, bastion of investment hiding and tax evasion. http://www.countercurrents.org/venturini261211.pdf This is a wonderful article and should be in any reference to the Queen's wealth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamall (talk • contribs) 17:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And what makes that website a reliable source? It seems to be a quasi-news/conspiracy website with a certain agenda, and a brief look at that article makes it clear it's a very POV with no sourcing for most of the claims. I don't see any evidence the Queen has these billions of hidden wealth. QueenCake (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Even setting up vehicles for hiding money in the Square Mile is suspicious. Also, the connections of the Queen to folks on the board of Rio Tinto is suspicious. The point is, in the light of these revelations, for you to say the Queen only is worth 1/2 billion just doesn't wash. A full audit is the only way to know. You have no authority to claim the Queen has modest wealth without that audit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgamall (talk • contribs) 18:43, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, this may be believable for you but without verifiable reliable sources none of that has a place in Wikipedia. The burden of proof is not upon me. QueenCake (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The information that there is a connection between the Queen and secret bank of England accounts should be included in the narrative. Also the information in Forbes Magazine should be in the narrative about Rio Tinto. Then the readers can draw their own conclusions.

private sources of income

Aside from the Queen (who has the Duchy of Lancaster income and 70 million pound inheritance from the Queen Mother) and the Prince of Wales (who has the Duchy of Cornwall income), how do the members of the Royal Family support themselves? I know they recieve annunities for their public duties, which the Queen unnecessarily repays from her private income, but I'm not talking about their public duties. If the Duke of York wants to buy an ice cream cone, where does that money come from? Certainly not the taxpayer. Where do they get the money for birthday, Christmas presents? Clothing? I know the Queen bought Gatcombe Park for the Princess Anne for her wedding. Is it the Queen? 74.69.11.229 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Asking in terms of paying for an icecream cone is great. Was this ever resolved? JDanek007^Talk 09:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Finances of the British Royal Family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140202182554/http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2013/SovereignGrantAnnualReport201213.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2013/SovereignGrantAnnualReport201213.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100514044747/http://www.royal.gov.uk:80/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2009/HeadofStateExpenditure29June2009.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDiary/Pressreleases/2009/HeadofStateExpenditure29June2009.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Finances of the British royal family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130129110402/http:/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118144935/http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk:80/management-and-finance/ to http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/management-and-finance/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110501012839/http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/Overview.aspx to http://www.royal.gov.uk/TheRoyalResidences/Overview.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Finances of the British royal family. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903022316/http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm to http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/tce_faqs.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110901234209/http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us.htm to http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Reference to Prince Harry

Does the reference in the article to Prince Harry (who was single at the time of the cited reference) needs to be updated to the Duke and Duchess of Sussex now that he has married? Here's the sentence in question:

The Duchess of Cornwall, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry all have their official expenses paid from Duchy income, assisted by grants-in aid from the Queen.[22]

Citation [22]: "Who pays for The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry?". The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall Website. Retrieved 30 January 2014. →Lwalt ^♦ talk 17:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

An interesting question. The source that you mention appears to be the official website of the Prince of Wales, so I assume that it's kept up to date. Its webpage on this subject does not mention the Duchess of Sussex. This may be because the Duchess is funded via the Duke rather than being given her own individual funding. I can't find any sources that say explicitly how the Duchess is funded, so I don't feel comfortable saying that she is in receipt of Duchy income or grants-in-aid. The source cited still refers to Prince Harry by that title, so I assume we can still use it for him (the WP article for him is called Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex). Hence it seems more appropriate to me to keep the current wording until someone can find a new source that says something different. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Update – the source in question has been updated to say:

The Prince voluntarily pays tax, at the higher rate of 45 per cent, on this income. He chooses to spend the majority of his after-tax income to support his and The Duchess’s working activities and those of The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Sussex. The income also funds his personal spending.

Keivan.f (talk · contribs) has updated the article's text to include the Duchess of Sussex. - Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Lobbying and Legal Exemptions

Hi all I have added a section called Lobbying and Legal Exemptions. It was originally here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_II, and was the subject of a good-natured discussion. Most participants seemed content with my proposal to move the content here. I would welcome your thoughts. Sadgrove (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Repetition

Sections shouldn't be duplicated. DrKay (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, can you be more specific and tell me which parts are unsourced, which parts are wrong and which parts are repetitive? La coince (talk) 13:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@DrKay: No answer? La coince (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

It is patently obvious. DrKay (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Translation

Made a translation for korean version. Willing to translate continuously if the original information is modified Hyeok4230 (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect intro

the government doesn't support the monarchy with the sovereign grant, the monarchy takes a percentage of the Crown estates revenue and the rest is kept by the treasure. Why is this incorrect in this article? Jord656 (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2023 (UTC)