I’ve participated in several “Megxit” threads and the information provided in them is very informative and interesting. But, as is usual, I have questions.
It has been said that some of the Queen’s wealth comes from “Crown Properties” which she controls simply by virtue of being the monarch. She may not alienate, sell, or otherwise dispose of them as they are for her (I presume in fee tail) and her descendants as members of the crown.
Posters also talk about certain private property that they own. Harry, for example, received money in inheritance from Diana after her death, and presumably Diana received that money from Charles in the divorce settlement.
My question: how do royals obtain privately owned property? AFAIK, they are not paid a salary for their work. And if we just bootstrap and say that they inherited their private property from their ancestors, doesn’t that mean that at some point in history they assumed/declared/conquered private property from the people of the UK? Does their “private property” descend from the conquest of William I in 1066?
Replies are always appreciated and thanked even though I might not always specifically say it.
ETA: And if this needs to be moved from GQ, then I have no objection, as I am asking a question, but might later have an opinion.
They could also have bought whatever property they have and received gifts, like anybody else. This includes both movable items and real estate. Some of the income they get will be liquid enough to save or invest if they so choose.
And the presumption that any and all money Diana had was from the divorce settlement ignores that she wasn’t born from an egg found under a bridge. While the money she made from her own work before getting married wouldn’t be much, she could have inherited from her own relatives, received gifts and so forth.
Not even the Hapsburgs married nobody but Hapsburgs.
The Queen and the Prince of Wales sort of do. They receive private incomes from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (big land holdings) respectively, and while both income sources are mostly used for official expenses, the remainder goes into their pockets.
But after that, their private property is exactly what it’s called. The Queen, for instance, owns two high-profile private estates (Balmoral and Sandringham) but her books are completely closed, and the size and scope of her private wealth is not released for public consumption. There are a lot of estimates floating around.
The other members of the family get trickle-down wealth from all of this (gifts, inheritances, rent-free or below-market housing, etc.), in additional to whatever they marry into or get from business on the side. Sometimes their wealth doesn’t quite cover their lifestyle, so there are occasional stories about the Queen’s cousins moving into smaller premises or auctioning off the family silver.
Again, correct me if I am wrong, the Queen has never had a “real job.” If she privately owns Balmoral and Sandringham, she inherited that, correct? How was the original title vested in her ancestors?
To the prior poster: I’m not doubting that people can get their own gifts and inheritances, but it seems that the royal family: 1) cannot profit off of their names, so that would be unlike U.S. Presidents who get wealthy by going on the speaking tour, or 2) they can have no outside careers, so I am not being misogynistic by saying that Diana didn’t get her money from an outside career.
Is it simply a function of the fact that their daily expenses are paid for, their trips are paid for, and everything is paid for so that any little scrap that they have received over the centuries have matured by the function of interest into large sums?
IOW, if absolutely everything I have has been paid for by the taxpayers, and that was true of my family back ten generations, then every bit of money I’ve received (from gifts or my 5th great-grandfather’s non royal wife’s inheritance) has been invested for those centuries and is worth bajillions today?
None of that money was spent on food bills, blacksmith bills, utility bills, mortgage payments, student loan payments, etc. so it all just sat there and accumulated?
How did Hugh get so rich? He inherited his billions from his Dad the 6th Duke, who got his money from … (did you guess?) … the 5th Duke.
UIAM, the 7th Duke is also the 19th Baronet Grosvenor but his long-ago ancestor the 1st Baronet already had a beautiful home (Eaton Hall). The first Google hit for one of his ancestors shows me
And where do you think Charles Koch gets the money for his … [checks forum] philanthropic work? He inherited it from his father.
If you own land in Pennsylvania, you probably bought it from somebody who {bought it from somebody who} [repeat as necessary] … bought it from somebody who bought it from William Penn who was given the land to satisfy debts owed by a certain Charles II King of Scots and English.
I do realize that the 1649 case Anonymous Executioner vs. Charles Stuart Dei Gratia did have an effect on the property rights of William Conqueror’s Heir, but afore-mentioned Charles II who handed over the entirety of Pennsylvania was the very son of the losing defendant in Executioner vs Charles Dei Gratia, so not all their property had been forfeited!
Do people want to confiscate the huge wealth of the Grosvenor Dukes of Westminster? Are all those Pennsylvania land deeds invalid? Charles II acquired his right to Pennsylvania as a result of his descent from a certain William nicknamed the Conqueror.
Yes. And of course William himself acknowledged ancient tenancies that arose long before 1066.
Unlike the Grosvenors or the Kochs — who are allowed to keep all their billions — the Heirs of William Conqueror have turned over almost all their wealth to the benefit of the British people, in a long series of Acts until they’re now left with a relative(!) pittance, and Parliamentary approval is needed even to spend much of that pittance!
I am not particularly a fan of royalty nor of massive inherited wealth, but I think it’s confused thinking to say that the Royal Family is living at taxpayer expense … unless you want to apply a similar term to other inheritors of vast wealth.
BTW, both Balmoral and Sandringham were inherited by her uncle (the one who abdicated and became Duke of Windsor), presumably as eldest son. Her father had to buy those estates from him.
Queen Victoria purchased Sandringham for her eldest son, the future Edward VII, in 1862, from Charles Spencer Cowper, who had in turn inherited it from a London merchant. Victoria paid £220,000 for the estate, an amount some commentators have thought exorbitant. Edward and his new bride extensively redeveloped the estate over the years; in fact, they had the original house pulled down and completely rebuilt. The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall probably paid for most of the work, but some was a gift. For example, the Norwich Gates, the huge wrought-iron structure on the main entrance, were a wedding gift to Edward and Alexandra from the people of Norwich and the County of Norfolk, funded by public subscription.
Balmoral had been purchased in 1852 by Prince Albert from the heirs of the second Earl Fife; being in northern Scotland, it was much less valuable and he paid only £32,000. (He and Victoria had been leasing the estate for several years prior.) Again, they pulled down the old castle and rebuilt, probably mostly funded from the Duchy of Lancaster.
Certainly not every part of their living expenses has been paid by the taxpayers (at least not directly). The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are intended principally as income-producing estates, providing monies to support the royals. That income pays the food bills, the blacksmith bills, and the other living expenses of the monarch and the heir, along with whatever other family members they choose to support. The utility bills of the private estates such as Balmoral or Highgrove are also paid from private monies, although the utility bills of the occupied royal palaces such as Buckingham are paid from the Sovereign Grant (taxpayer money). In the early part of Victoria’s reign, for example, she received the income from both duchies (Cornwall’s income went to the monarch when there is no Prince of Wales, and the majority even today goes to the monarch when the PoW is a minor.)
There are properties in the portfolios of the duchies that have been owned by the royals for a very very long time: some of the manors of Lancaster, e.g., have been owned by a royal since they were forfeited to the Crown at Simon de Montfort’s death in 1265. Others are more recently acquired: Highgrove House, the country estate of the Prince of Wales, was purchased in 1980 by the Duchy of Cornwall from a private owner, its purchase funded by the sale of several smaller properties.
Over the years, the duchies have grown by inheritance, purchase, forfeiture, etc. (Even today, for example, the estates of those who die without identifiable heirs in the County of Cornwall pass to the duchy, although in recent years those sums have been donated to charity.)
I think you don’t appreciate just how much the Queen inherited, and how much that inheritance still generates income. I recall reading that she’s the largest private landowner in New York by virtue of her investments - which may be fake news, but at least hints that she’s a serial investor.
Of course, none of this is public record, but you shouldn’t underestimate the accumulated wealth of the landed aristocracy. Money and land make more money, it’s not just a line on a balance sheet.
(Oh, and Diana, lest we forget, was the daughter of an Earl with a large estate still in the family. She would have inherited from her own wealthy family, not just through divorce).
Getting back to the OP, I think it may be a useful mental tool to think of the Crown Properties as a trust fund with a number of restrictions on them and the monarch as the executor of said fund.
When the Royal Family is referred to as “the firm” and the Queen is said to be one of the richest women in the world - that is from her (and her ancestors’) income over the decades / centuries from things like the Duchy of Lancaster, suitably invested everywhere. Some heritage buildings she lives in (Buckinghan, Windsor) do not belong to her personally, but she is responsible for some of the expenses. The costs to keep up the pretense of royalty - footmen, fancy coaches, the crown jewels, parades of uniformed royal guards, repairs to Buckingham Palace, etc. - are paid for by the country because they relate to her duties as head of state.
Keep in mind that personally, she is not extraordinarily extravagant. We don’t hear of her buying giant yachts or personal helicopters, not just because she doesn’t have to. She just doesn’t. (I recall some press noise back in the 1980’s that she had to update the Royal Yacht’s toilet system to a holding tank before it was allowed to visit Canada - old boat!) She doesn’t buy fancy personal houses all over the world (plus, there might be political implications if she did). She does not go on expensive vacations - most of her trips are work, paid for by the state or the host.
Yes, but I imagine racehorses in Britain probably don’t compare as an expense to a 200-foot yacht with helipad, like some uber-rich. Especially, she owns farms in Britain where she can keep them. And within Britain, they don’t need to be flown from A to B.
Essentially, the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Duchy of Cornwall are property estates ring-fenced by law to support the monarch. The Monarch (and the Prince of Wales) can’t sell, give away, etc the land and other assets involved, but they do receive the income generated from the assets. They use this to discharge the expenses of the offices they occupy; the surplus is theirs to keep. Assets acquired out of that surplus are their private asets. So their private fortunes, and the assets representing those, have been built up by the accumulated surpluses they got from public funds. Sandringham House and its estate is a private asset of the Queen, acquired by inheritance, but its original purchase and subsequent development was all funded with money received from public funds.
Those surpluses are magnified by the fact that the Crown Estate and the Duchies do not pay tax on their income or gains. This enables them to make much larger distributions to the monarch and the Prince of Wales than they otherwise would, and this results in much larger surpluses, after defraying official costs, for the private benefit of the monarch and the Prince, and so larger accumulations of private fortunes. (Plus, until relatively recently, the monarch and the Prince also did not pay income tax on the surpluses they received.)
So their private fortunes are derived ultimate from public funds which were never granted to them outright, but which are attributes of the public offices that they occupy. And their private fortunes have been hugely magnified by sweeping tax exemptions which, of course, increases the tax burden for other taxpayers.
I think Balmoral and Sandringham would count as extravagances. Both are vast estates employing numerous staff, and many of the revenue sources open to other landed estates - e.g. tourist accommodation, renting out shooting, event management and catering - are not available to them.
I’ve heard someplace that she has a horse farm in Kentucky, so there are expenses associated with that. And even then, if there’s a big horse race in North America or the Middle East, her horses will need to be flown there if she wants to compete.
Well, as a teenager during WWII she served in the auxiliaries, though she aged into it only in the last year of the war. I would count that as a real, albeit financially irrelevant, job.
It’s also a working estate that sells the farmed goods it produces, rents out several properties, and is involved in several business partnerships. https://sandringhamestate.co.uk/about-us/farming
I don’t understand. The estates went with the title(s). So I assume that in fact it’s the other way around, the government took possession of them when originally they were the property of the title holder, under the peculiarities of British peerage law. I assume it’s the same way for most other titles which still include the land holdings? (entail or fee tail)
OTOH, as pointed out, a lot of pomp and circumstance comes with the job. Here in North America the papers like to trump about (sorry) when some president or prime minister redecorates the official residence or orders new china for an extravagant amount. There’s a lot of money spent on show that they wouldn’t have to if they were living like Warren Buffet instead of being a running spectacle. That’s part of the job and it costs money.
But then we’re back to the simple argument “why should they inherit riches when we have none?” which has fueled revolutions over the centuries - not usually to the benefit of the complainers.
There’s been plenty of threads here about the subtle role that the monarch can and often does play in moderating British politics. I prefer that system in Britain and here in Canada to the spectacle of say, Italy or Israel where the head of state is a recycled politician and the presidents of both countries have been charged with political crimes in the past.
No. The estates don’t go with the title; the Duchy of Cornwall continues to exist (and to operate, and to generate revenue) even when there is no Duke of Cornwall, which frequently happens. (There was no Duke of Cornwall between 1936 and 1952, for example. And the Duchy of Lancaster exists even though there hasn’t been a Duke of Lancaster since 1413.
In theory, all land in England was held, directly or indirectly, under a crown grant. In the pre-modern period this was pretty real, to the extent that if you fell foul of the law and fell out of favour with the king you might be stripped of your lands and titles, and the land might be retained by the crown or granted instead to someone then rising in royal favour.
But even if lands and titles were granted simultaneously, they might not be tied together, and it’s possible that a title might become extinct for want of male heirs, while the lands owned by the last holder of the title might pass to more distant relatives.
It’s also the case that, more and more, titles tended to be granted to people who already had lots of land so, again, there would be no enduring connection between the land and the title.
There tended to be a strong preference for keeping land and titles together; land was the primary source of wealth and therefore whoever inherited the title should also inherit the land, so that he could live as a duke (or whatever) ought to live. But they could be separated and, as the modern era progressed and land became less significant as a source of wealth that happened more and more often.
So, right: the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster: You are quite right when you say . . .
In the case of the crown, it’s more than just pomp and circumstance; the revenues of the crown estates and the Duchy of Lancaster were attached to the crown so as to pay a wide range of expenses of the executive government (carried on by the King and his ministers) so that the executive had a source of revenue which was not dependent on Parliament. Of course, this is no longer true, and it was never true for the Prince of Wales and the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. But the principle is still that funds are allocated by law to the crown/the Prince (whether that’s the Sovereign Grant provided by Parliament or the revenues of the various estates we have been talking about, payable by law to the monarch/the Prince) so that they can discharge the expenses of being monarch/Prince in a proper style.
But the very fact that the royal family has built up a large private fortune tells you that the money was not all spent on running the court and discharging the expenses associated with kinging and princing. This was perfectly lawful and proper; the monarch was entitled to whatever surplus was left over, could keep it as their personal property and could spend or invest it as they wished. Indeed, this is still the case. And it does raise the question of whether this is how it ought to be; shouldn’t the crown be just another department of state, with the monarch and, if appropriate, other royals, paid a prescribe salary or allowance, and any surplus of revenue over expenditure belonging to the state rather than to individuals as their private property?
Different issue. You could retain the monarchy while revising its financing arrangements so that they don’t subsidise the creation of private fortunes.
Plus, don’t delude yourself that retaining the monarchy secures you a better class of person in and about the head of state; the crimes with which the Duke of York is currently being associated may not be political crimes, but I don’t think the British should derive too much comfort than that. And the distinction you point to may simply suggest that, where crimes are committed by those in high places, republics tend to be better than monarchies at enforcing the law against those involved.
The Sovereign Grant (and before that the Civil List) is the fund supposed to be discharging the expenses associated with kinging and princing: running the royal palaces and offices, paying the Household officers, royal travel, etc. The Duchy of Lancaster was supposed to pay the personal expenses: food, personal servants, etc. (In olden times, the lands of the Duchy literally grew the food and provided wool for cloth, but cash income has been the norm for some centuries now.)
Keep in mind that Victoria was the first monarch to have a large surplus, or to have a private fortune to leave to her heirs. In part, this was because her spending habits were far less than that of her uncles: her major building projects at Balmoral and Osborne were completed early in her reign, she did not have extravagant hobbies, and particularly after the death of the Prince Consort in 1861, she did not entertain much, so she could bank a surplus every year. Then too, her fortune grew because other people gave her stuff. The miser John Camden Nield left a half million poundsto Her Most Gracious Majesty in 1852; the princes of India showered her with gifts. The present queen’s favorite tiara is called the Girls of Great Britain and Ireland Tiara because a committee identifying themselves as such gave it as a wedding gift to Queen Mary in 1893; the Greville Bequest was an enormous haul of jewelry left to Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother in 1942.
