# Royal Wealth



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Langham, I have nothing against any of the royals as people. Prince Charles in fact stands out among them as one of the more down to earth, anchored, genuine individuals.
And granted, uses "his" money for many good purposes. 


But what I find ludicrous is that the Royal Family, through its national "company" has access to assets worth millions and earns and saves money from "its" estates and land. Yet still Liz & Phil need even more money from the govt in order to operate! 


The Royal Family should fund itself entirely via "its" estates and land OR should like other national institutions be totally govt owned and funded and as such any profit made from estates and land should go back into the company not be put into private bank accounts i.e. Charles' amassed fortune of circa 19 million.


As it is at the moment, it is an unfortunate mix of the two with some private money (earned via public assets) being used publically i.e. Charlies good works and some public money being used and saved privately. 


Leaving aside the issue of democracy, fairness, poverty, the haves and the have nots, it is plain for all to see that the financial set-up for the Royal Family and "its land ownership" is rotten from top to bottom.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I can see why some people might think this a muddled arrangement, but personally I can't think of it as 'rotten from top to bottom'.

It would seem churlish of the country not to repay the royals for their many self-sacrificing duties, performed entirely with the benefit of the country and Commonwealth in mind. We pay them - do you not think we receive anything back in return?

A further argument for paying them is that of our dignity as a nation. 

The only reason against the civil purse that I can think of is that it might make the royal family dependent on or beholden to the state.


----------



## Tilton (Nov 27, 2011)

Doesn't the crown estate trust produce more revenue for the treasury than is paid out to the royal family? As I understood it, the estate brings in a lot more cash for the government than the government pays to the royals.


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Langham said:


> 'rotten from top to bottom'.


Hyperbole for effect...mea culpa


----------



## Earl of Ormonde (Sep 5, 2008)

Tilton said:


> Doesn't the crown estate trust produce more revenue for the treasury than is paid out to the royal family? As I understood it, the estate brings in a lot more cash for the government than the government pays to the royals.


Good God, no. Far from it. This was one of the intitial points I made, the profit made by the various estates/duchies i.e. Cornwall, Lancaster within the Crown Estate (owned by the crown) goes into the Crown Estate's various bank accounts, it does not go back to the state. 
And the old chestniut of the "Royal family is great for tourism to the sum of XX billion pounds a year" has regularly been dismissed by the private sector as utter nonsense, as one cannot determine and financially measure why people travel to the UK and why they spend money there.

This makes for enlightening and shocking readng
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

As for the true cost of the Royal family, only the Sovereign Grant (which replaced the Civil List in 2012) is counted as costs. What is never included in the full cost of the Royal Family is the cost of military, police and the other emergency services' planning, preparedness and response operations in connection with royal safety, security, 24/7 guarding, visits, travel, and other events.

The outrageous part to which I referred earlier is that the monarch receives from the Treasury a stipulated percentage of the Crown Estate's annual net revenue (currently 15%), which in basic Enlgish means that the govt adds another 15% to the profit made by the Crown Estates, which is a considerable amount when you look at the millions in profit the Crown Estate makes each year.

I'm sure most Brits would love the govt to add another 15% to their net income every year, as would any private sector business.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Many of the costs you mention - security, travel etc, plus many others such as the upkeep of important historic buildings - would have to be borne whether we had a royal family or not, assuming we had some other form of head of state, perhaps like an elected president (in which case we would have the additional cost of their election).

Isn't it better there _is_ a Crown Estate - as it seems it pays, according to the Wiki article you reference, a significant portion of the cost of keeping the royal family? Unless the argument is that all property should be abolished, land has to be owned by someone; there are several other large holdings of property and land (eg the Grosvenor and the De Walden estates in London) producing large incomes that appear to be purely for the benefit of this or that noble family. Although if you consider it in the round, no doubt much of the money filters down and circulates across the wider economy via all the many businesses and people these estates employ, right down to the Earl's tailor and his wine merchant, not to mention corporation tax, income tax, VAT and excise all going to the Treasury.

It would be nice to have some control over all the things the government spends our money on as there are various things I would like to cut back on, in the hope of saving myself a bit of income tax, but there has never been such thing as a tax-cutting government in the UK, it seems.


----------



## Neill (Jul 10, 2013)

My understanding of Royal funding is as follows;

1. The civil list no longer exists, replaced by the Sovereign Grant.
2. The Queen is funded by a percentage of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster, the remainder goes to the Treasury.
3. The PoW is funded by the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall, he deducts expenses then pays tax on the remainder (admittedly the smaller portion).

Now I may be wrong, but I'd not pay heed to wikipaedia, I rarely do on anything. However, as a staunch monarchist, I believe the Senior Royal Family (QE2, DoE, PoW, William & Harry) represent very good value to the state, and whilst they live in privaledged circumstances in some ways, their lives are not their own, they have no choice, and an arduous set of duties to perform.

I would much prefer a constitutional head of state in the form of a Queen or King to a self- serving politician - the thought of "President" Cameron, Blair or, heaven forbid, Brown, makes me shudder. Whether or not the costs are met by the estates or treasury, I'm a supporter.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Last year's presidential election in Ireland showed the advantage of a monarchy. The "seven dwarfs" battling it out amongst themselves, slagging each other off, and having their dirty laundry aired in public, was something best avoided.
Perhaps the best man won, but maybe he was just the least worse option.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Earl of Ormonde said:


> Langham, I have nothing against any of the royals as people. *Prince Charles in fact stands out among them as one of the more down to earth, anchored, genuine individuals.
> And granted, uses "his" money for many good purposes.
> *
> 
> ...


Earl, it is rare that you and I disagree but, Charles has been proven repeatedly to be a swindler who makes dubious use of public assets. Here's but one example:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/15/prince-charles-tax-duchy-cornwall


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

So Charles' perfectly legal avoidance of corporation tax is proof that he's a "swindler"? We've been repeatedly told that tax "management", for want of a better expression, is perfectly respectable....


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Relying solely on the linked article, I don't even see much tax management (scare quotes removed). The rather amusing objection appears to be that Charles has stubbornly refused to incorporate the family estate despite the fact that incorporation would subject the estate to greater taxes. If Parliament doesn't like the exemptions available to unincorporated estates, it could repeal them of course. Until then, scolding Charles for not taking affirmative and otherwise unnecessary steps to disqualify his families' investments from lawful exemptions is kind of absurd. I have no opinion regarding whether Charles otherwise qualifies as a swindler, but nothing in linked article supports such an assertion.


----------



## Neill (Jul 10, 2013)

I second that Mike. 

If it's legal then it's not "swindling" in my view. The problem with tax laws is their complexity, allowing lawyers and advisers ample room to find loopholes (and earn healthy fees in the process). It could be so much simpler.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

The idea of a committee of British MPs having the temerity to grill anyone over their personal financial arrangements made me smile.


----------



## Neill (Jul 10, 2013)

Langham said:


> The idea of a committee of British MPs having the temerity to grill anyone over their personal financial arrangements made me smile.


I bet they wish they could get their "expenses" closer to those of Prince Charles!


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

To be honest i could not really care less whether charles is a swindler or not, as long as he doesn't cheat me! However he has been subject of several investigations concerning the duchy of cornwall and financial impropriety.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't really care for his biscuits very much, but other than that he seems sound.


----------



## Neill (Jul 10, 2013)

Langham said:


> I don't really care for his biscuits very much, but other than that he seems sound.


I don't mind the biscuits, but the bacon leaves something to be desired, and his Royal Warrant is with another producer!!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Bacon? Royal Warrants invariably boost the price of anything. Barbours for instance. I would be in despair if my butcher was ever granted one - not that it seems very likely...


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Langham said:


> land has to be owned by someone


Actually, as is the case in the United States, much of the land can be owned by the govenment and administered for the benefit of society at large. One can argue, as we do, whether the benefits are properly administered, but the underlying principal has worked well for much of our brief history.

I believe in some European countries, irrespective of owneship, the public has certain use rights, such as hiking in Sweden, or fishing under certain circumstances.

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Gurdon said:


> Actually, as is the case in the United States, much of the land can be owned by the govenment and administered for the benefit of society at large. One can argue, as we do, whether the benefits are properly administered, but the underlying principal has worked well for much of our brief history.
> 
> I believe in some European countries, irrespective of owneship, the public has certain use rights, such as hiking in Sweden, or fishing under certain circumstances.
> 
> ...


Here, that would require an extensive programme of nationalisation. There are some National Parks, but I believe they do not involve state ownership of the land, just certain planning restrictions.

Rights of way - footpaths and bridleways - are long-established and highly extensive almost everywhere in the UK. There is also a 'right to roam' in the countryside, so private ownership of land does not usually confer what might be regarded as a right of absolute and exclusive possession.


----------

