Should the Royal Family have to declare gifts

[Polka83]

I would be interested in people thoughts. Should the royal family have to declare gifts made by other states?

There is a Guardian article which says royal family agreed to declare gifts received over the last 4 years but they have failed to do so.

I understand that the royals will receive gifts from friends which don’t need to be declared, but what about gifts from other heads of states? It is unlikely that these gifts would come to the royals if they were commoners.

There are strict rules in how the royals should handle these gifts and if they belong to the state rather than personally by individual royals. For example, the Duchess of Sussex got £500,000 earrings from Saudi Arabia. How can we check if these rules are being followed unless they declare them?

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/oct/12/buckingham-palace-published-list-official-gifts-royal-family-king-charles

Which earrings? Some items, like the tiara Catherine wears a lot, were loaned for Diana's lifetime and then returned to the crown. I can't remember whether the Collingwood pearl and diamond earrings Catherine wears were a loan or not

A great source for this sort of thing is The Court Jeweller blog. She is really good at tracking where items are and who owns them outright etc.

In the latter case, how do you determine whether they’ve received a gift because they are a member of the Royal family then?

One sincerely hopes not!

Cha ching!

I don't think there is any evidence they don't honour the agreement. Just that the public records are very slow to appear. I agree that process should be speeded up but I suspect that the palace is still on dial up. (Not really but they do seem extremely slow to catch up with modern tech).

The Chagall bible was gifted to Prince Philip by Chagall himself before the rules about gifts came into force. They came in the next year which suggests the Bible left the monarchy in a difficult position which they recognised and brought in rules to cover future gifts.

Adding it to the national collection in recognition of the difficulties it posed might have resolved their dilemma.

There are no examples in the article of items which were gifted to the royals and which they kept against the rules.

There's a reference to further gifts with unclear ownership status:

Contacted by the Guardian, the palace declined to comment on the ownership status of the Chagall or more than a dozen other artworks that would appear to have been official gifts but have been exhibited as part of the Windsors’ personal or private collections

A little off topicbut I'm always fascinated by the banality of gifts exchanged between the monarch and the President of the US. With the world at their fingertips they exchange dvds!

That’s probably exactly because they want to avoid problems with the rules about gifts, MrsLeonFarrell!

I don’t know.

but MPs and royals aren’t comparable

MPs are elected to act in our best interests and must not accept gifts imo - just like other professionals

the royals essentially exist to be a net plus to our country - people love our history and millions of tourists come. Although they are representing us, they aren’t deciding policy etc

I shouldn't imagine there was anything like a physical ticket probably just rang up and asked if they could come

Very true, but still!

Sure. But you could estimate a value and declare it, as for e.g. Yvette Cooper is being criticised for not doing

Amusingly, it was last updated after the Paul Burrell trial for selling off Diana’s items!

Policies can be regularly reviewed with needing to be substantially updated - that is in fact quite usual.

@Serenster "In the latter case, how do you determine whether they’ve received a gift because they are a member of the Royal family then?"

Bottle of champagne on your birthday from Aunt Ann- OK not to declare.
Socking great diamond from another Head of Stare- not OK not to declare.

Anyway , isn't there a rule that anything over £150 needs to be declared anyway? Or did I make that up?

I don't think I mind either way. It's not something that bothers me - I don't know why!

As someone said, these gifts are often very banal, and as long as anything of artistic merit goes on public display from time to time, I'm happy. It's so weird that people give hugely valuable jewels to the RF - talk about coals to Newcastle! I'm guessing this is largely Middle Eastern potentates showing off, or wanting some kind of favour. That's the only issue for me - as long as the gifts don't influence policy in any way, and I don't see why they should. I think sensible people like the Obamas (and the RF when the situation is reversed) give a significant book, or similarly meaningful but not commercially-valuable item.

Yes, that’s what the guidelines say. But what if the head of State of the other country is a personal friend and you regularly holiday together (e.g the Spanish royals). Or you are related to the other Royals?

On that, Meghan taking Dianas aquamarine ring to Los Angeles probably is against the rules then, as the stone (clearly worth more than £150!) was a gift from the wife of the Brazilian ambassador. But it was seemingly treated as part of Diana’s personal jewellery collection.

I suspect that politicians don’t push this for diplomatic reasons. For example if a jewellery gift is made with blood diamonds, then morally the recipient should reject the gift but that could cause a diplomatic headache that politicians would rather avoid. The rejected gift giver would rightly point out the other jewels made from blood diamonds or stolen from other people and countries.

I agree that things should be transparent but like the reparations for slavery issue, the people in power hope to avoid discussing it.

On the Collingwood earrings that Diana wore and now Kate regularly wears, they were a wedding gift to Diana from the Spencer family’s regular jewellers. It was said that the jewellers had wanted to give the new Princess a necklace and earrings that they had already lent her for this engagement photo shoot, but it was suggested that that might be too expensive a gift from a commercial jeweller. So she was given the pearl and diamond earrings instead.

Which suggests they were treated as gifts to the Crown, rather than a personal gift to the daughter of a long-standing customer? So presumably Kate now has them on loan from the Royal Collection.

@Serenster "But what if the head of State of the other country is a personal friend and you regularly holiday together (e.g the Spanish royals). Or you are related to the other Royals?"
Presumably you would say "Sorry, Filipe, old man, you know I can't accept that socking great diamond. You just pick up the tab for the last round of drinks."

Never going to happen to me, CurlewKate, so I have no idea what I’d say in that event! 🤣

Spanish gifts have been controversial for other Royal families, by the way.

In 1960 General Franco gave the fiancee of the King of Belgium, Fabiola, (born into a wealthy Spanish family and working as a nurse before her engagement) a lavish diamond coronet as a wedding present. Here is Franco’s wife presenting the present to Fabiola on the right. Fabiola wore the tiara quite a bit as Queen of Belgium, but it’s not been seen at all since her death. Quietly retired from use?

To avoid cases like this?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/cps-cash-honours-scandal-king-charles-b2228880.html

I think it shows a distinct lack of common sense from the givers! If you want to donate childrens clothes to someone then find someone who needs them . It’s like those sad bunches of garage flowers handed out by people lurking outside churches and other places where royals congregate.if you want to stand in the cold to wave at another human being then fine, but what in heavens name do they think a millionaires wife or child is going to do with a bunch of dyed carnations? Apart from donate them to the nearest compost heap that is.

Anything they own, or receive, in their capacity as the royal family should be available for the public to enjoy. All their hoard of art and historical treasures should be on public display, as should their jewels. They only have these things because of their status and they should not be allowed to hide them.

"Would appear to be" is interesting wording. Implication not accusation

If The Guardian has something solid to go on they would print it rather than just imply a problem. They need to do more digging for evidence of they want to lobby for changes to the existing rules.

I agree it would be nice for the Chagall bible to be added to the national collection but it isn't up to me and they haven't broken any rules by keeping it in private hands.

I believe a lot of the gifts they are given, they should have to donate the equal value to charity.

Why on earth should they benefit in the way they do, from a status bestowed upon them by the public? If the public were to decide that they did not want the royals anymore, they would go.

It's baffling to me that we have a family of billionaires who don't have to do much to benefit the country.