Talk:List of royalty by net worth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Why is the Crown Estate listed as a source of income for Queen Elizabeth, when she receives no income for it? --86.150.153.20 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, Elizabeth's number is WAY high compared to what Forbes (supposedly the source here) estimates - $650 million rather than the billions on this page. The Crown Jewels and various palaces are not her personal property, so I don't understand how she got such a huge boost on the list. Baseballbaker23 (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you as well, Queen Elizabeth's income is no where near what is on here. The money that is on here $14 B., is money that is in-trust for the British nation. Not her personal wealth. Her wealth is only etimated at $400 M. as of 2009. According to the NEW Forbes richest royals list.

This has never made any sense to me; Queen Victoria was receiving £400,000 per annum (Wilson, 2003, p.360) a truly gargantuan sum, and Prince Albert, at least £30,000 per annum (Wilson, 2003, p.55). A fortune consolidated from an income of this size would have placed Queen Victoria amongst the wealthiest in the British Empire. Contemporary Royal finances would stem from this period. Most of the large aristocratic fortunes were targeted, then legislatively destroyed (only one has really survived – Westminster) with legacy, succession and estate duties - inheritance taxes, all of which, a Royal fortune was immune from. Such a fortune would also not have paid any income tax. The Queen ought to be worth, excluding both the Royal estate and Duchy of Lancaster, somewhere in the vicinity of £3.7 billion pounds today, and if she is not, then some serious fiduciary questions (about mismanagement, and possibly fraud) might need asking.

Ref: Wilson, A.N. (2003). The Victorians. London: Arrow Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.93.60.223 (talk) 06:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

King of Spain

I've found this source [1] and I wonder if that would be a credible source to use for The King of Spain's inclusion in the list? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No, internet forums aren't reliable. Blogs, self-published sources, and wikis are also unreliable. However, news agencies, books, websites published by recognised authorities, and official sites are all fine. There's more information at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, but what I've just said is the gist of it.

One problem arises because we don't know the relevant position of anyone beyond number 15, i.e. where they are in the list after that. I think the way around that is to create a separate section after the list where details of other royal finances can be given without giving them a ranking. DrKiernan (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 21:15, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger

I support merging this article into List of heads of state and government by net worth. That page covers all the same people, and then some. There is no need for two lists to separate royals from commoners, which is a distinction that gets muddled when you include emirs, maliks and so forth that do not translate nicely into Western terms. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree. This page is for royals whether they are heads of state or not. That is why the Aga Khan is on this page, and not the other one. The two groups are not the same: not every royal is a head of state, in fact, the vast majority are not. DrKiernan (talk) 11:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DrKiernan, this page should have it's own page as there are many royals who aren't heads of state The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

non-head of state Royals

Should we include or have a separate list for Royals who aren't currently head of state of their country or are subnational monarchs (examples. Constantine II of Greece or Maori King Tuheitia Paki)? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep it as a list of royals, rather than have separate lists for royal heads of state. However, mentioning that some of them are heads of state is relevant information, so maybe that should be introduced somewhere, either in prose as an introductory paragraph or by some marker in the tables? DrKiernan (talk) 11:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, let me rephrase that. Should Royals who are not currently reigning be included? (like Constantine II) The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think they should. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with The C of E. God Save The Queen!: Greece has no King or Prince and it is misleading to suggest so. stagarz 14:05, 03 June, 2010 (UTC)

Just one Minor Detail, my username is just The C of E, God Save The Queen! is my sig which I just tagged on. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Pope

I've found this source [2] that suggests that The Pope has a net worth of $571,704,953 but I'm not sure if it would be a good enough source to use to place The Pope in the list but I am going to include it unless someone can give me a reason not to The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it says the net worth of the Archdiocese of Boston is that much. I suspect that the net worth of the Pope is nil. The last pope didn't have any personal property, and I think it's generally accepted that none of them do. They give up all possessions when they're elected. DrKiernan (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Pope's give nothing up. Some of the Pope's have been nobles and own quite a bit, and I forget exactly how much, but the Pope makes over US$1 million a year in salary, to pay for personal expenses. Since the recent Pope's have been career priests, they tend to own little in property. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 00:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mess cleanup

I don't know who made all these major changes to the page but they've left it in a real state. They've left countries out, titles out and I think we've lost a few of the Royals in the list. All these have left the page of a much lesser quality that what it originally was. While I'm in favour of the Forbes mentions being nullified, We do need to maintain the sources of wealth and the separate list for non-reigning monarchs. So What I'm going to do is undo all these major edits so we can start again and this time only have the Forbes influence toned down. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If you are for the Forbes mention being nullified, why re-add it? I removed the Forbes mention, and there is no need to rank them, which will cause only more work later if the ranks change and it is disingenious to give an absolute number when non-sovereign royals rank higher than many. THe Forbes list was the richest sovereign royals, which this list is not, and those that are sovereign may be found at the wealthiest heads of state list. Why have a duplicate of that list, minus the presidents? Seems redundant hat way.

Also, I did not delete any titles, there was no section for titles to begin with. I removed the section about the source of the wealth, because many of them are generic, naming a company, oil, or "various", and was only wasted space. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the Forbes list is for Sovereigns because it includes the Aga Khan and Al Maktoum (who is ruler of Dubai, but Prime Minister and Vice-President of the UAE). DrKiernan (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Even less reason then to have a separate section for the Forbes list. If we can find other sources for entries other than Forbes, that is no reason to ostracize them. Side note, each of the Emirs in the UAE is sovereign, they just pull their resources together for national defense and foreign affairs; strength in numbers and all. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a way we can keep this list like this but lessen the influence of Forbes without mucking up the page again. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Current sourced list" is not right, as two beneath are also sourced. Those unsourced need to be removed anyways, and having a separate list of unsourced entries is against Wikipedia policy. Just have one list, there is no reason to exclude some because Forbes did not publish them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well, Why don't we try Reigning monarchs in one list and non-reigning monarchs in the other and adjust the leads accordingly? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what the list of heads of state and government by net worth is for, though? How many specialized lists must we have? One for royals that are heads of state, one for heads of states that includes royals, one for royals not heads of state, one for royals both heads of state and not? It is easy enough to cross reference this with that, or just click on each person's name to see what their role is exactly. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK

Well, I suppose that would be OK but of course it's not the role, it's the title that becomes an issue if you do that. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In the title section (which shoudl be restored) it can be noted who are pretenders to the title, so that sovereignty and legal recognition does not become an issue. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 17:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that looks like a good idea. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Royals?

The term "royals" is naff at best. Is there a compelling reference for this neologism? --Nick Bell (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a standard term used by the source. It isn't a neologism; it's been used as a noun since at least 1440 according to the OED, which also gives representative examples of modern use by Cecil Beaton, James Lees-Milne and The Independent. DrKiernan (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

OK - not a neologism; but OED lists it as a colloquialism, other than a Middle English reference from 1573 (With the quene Anne in tombe of marbel stone, Full royally arayed as royals) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBell (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)--Nick Bell (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Beatrix is worth a bit more than 200 million: http://www.quotenet.nl/Nieuws/Oranje-boven-koningin-Beatrix-hard-op-weg-naar-1-miljard-26031 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Numtek (talk • contribs) 18:49, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Updating

Hello everyone. I think that the article needs updating because the ancient king Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud is no longer a king. Regards --Eclipsis Proteo (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Update - it seems like soneone took a single article in Forbes from 2011 and created this page. The people and their wealth is out of date and it all seems pretty unsubstantiated. Isn't it just a candidate for deletion?Zero1zero2 (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Indian king's royalty

Why Indian king is not in the list??? SREERAJFRMINDIA (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Because King George VI is deceased. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)