Question here re the RF , money, tax , etc. Are there further reforms so they can cost us less?

[BasiliskStare]

People will have their own opinions about whether we should have a monarchy or not - but given we have , but I wonder if there could be a thread about the cost. Is there a middle ground for the monarchy costing less. So , a discussion about lowering the cost of the monarchy

I've said this before but I am largely in favour of a constitutional monarchy - conservative with a small c - me. But I am in favour of scrutiny.

All of these ideas are just questions without me knowing the answers. It's meant to be a discussion ( and apologies my points aren't more perspicacious) 😊

I would like to see Monarch not being able to hand personal wealth down to the next monarch without IHT. I have read that this might need them to sell Balmoral or Sandringham to pay this off as against this idea. But that might be a while hence and I am sure they could rent / sell some of their houses in lieu.
I think the number of houses Charles owns is - well shall we just say "a lot" and I think William has said "no more houses" .

I have heard people say - houses could be given to the National Trust to raise money - but am pretty sure the NT couldn't afford take them all over.

The RF haven't paid tax until ( I think 1992 - so a great deal behind most of us) & that has given them a great deal of wealth.

I think I'm right in that the profits from the Duchy of Cornwall go to the Govt in return for the Sovereign Grant - is the same for the Duchy of Lancaster (which I think is circa £20m p.a. profit ) ?

I know the Sovereign grant has to pay for staff , wages upkeep of Crown property which I think is why they got a hike for renovations to BP (?) , not I think security, and includes travel "on the firm's business " - my words .

So, sorry if these are rubbish questions, and I am not more knowledgable , but I'm just wondering if there are places people think where the RF could cost less, or put more back into public coffers. I do remember the change from the cvil list to the sovereign grant was , I think , considered A Good Thing at the time because it meant more of the eg Duchy of Cornwall money would go to the Govt.

Anyone more knowledgeable than me I'd be interested. 😁

Considering the number of engagements by some rf members has decreased and the desire for a slimmer rf, begs the question how much staff is needed etc. So I woukd expect the amount needed to decrease. Although I appreciate alot of it is for maintenance of buildings there should be a drop though not the never ending increase we see every yr because of some stupid law that was made.

In fact I think places like Buckingham Palace which they don't want to syay in should be handed back and turned into a tourist attraction opened up completely so the money generated can pay towards maintaining it and reduce the burden on the tax payer. The rf can then use it for events as needed on which those days it will be closed.

Lots of the properties could be like that.

I also agree about iht and transparency on finances but there will never be any appetite to change the laws to make it happen

Any conversation ( not here, nationally) probably needs to start with accurate, complete information on royal finances and a clear list of what is held by the crown estate and what is personal property. I'm pretty sure that this will turn out to be extremely complicated, as such things usually are when they have evolved organically over time rather than been laid out clearly from the start. I don't think anyone has clear information at this point.

I would like to see clarity on the institution's finances. There are probably areas that need rethinking and I agree that shedding some property would be good.

But. I also want to see any extremely wealthy businesses and families held to account and taxed properly and fairly. Yes the monarchy needs financial reform but I believe one reason this hasn't happened is because they are useful human shields for others with power and money who don't want their financial details exposed in public.

So yes let's have accurate information and some long delayed reform (I suspect that the longevity of the late Queen was a factor in that delay). Let's also look at how the wealthy are able to avoid tax in general as well.

I don't think they should be able to avoid inheritance tax, I'd like to see this reform at the very least.

I confess to ignorance about the tax situation, so I hesitated to contribute to this thread.

I know it was said the Charles would slim things down somewhat and I think in some ways he has, but not to the extent we expected. It would be marvellous if Prince Andrew could be got rid of in some legal way.

However, I do think William will. William (and I don't blame him) strikes me as not having the same level of vocation as the late Queen and I suspect he'd be keen on the Scandinavian model, with a much more casual approach and a more normal life for his family.

I think we need Buck House and Windsor Castle for ceremonial purposes - state visits etc. The RF do love Balmoral and it's actually quite a small house and surely must create a good deal of employment and tourist trade in a remote area. But some of the other places which were so beloved of the late Queen - Sandringham, for example - may not hold the same attraction for her children and grandchildren. I'm not sure if it would save any money just to turn them into tourism attractions, though - the upkeep would still be huge. They would have to be sold.

I guess the financial benefit of selling off such places is not in the money raised from the sale (which is a drop in the ocean in terms of national budgets) but in ending the cost of running them as royal residences and maintaining them as such.

Sandringham and Balmoral are not Crown Estate properties. They belong to the King personally.

I agree.

The RF are the latest generstions of a landed aristocratic family that handed over much of its wealth to the British governmemt, in return for a standard of living fitting for a cobstitutional monarch.

If they hadn't done that, they would have personal wealth equivalent to that of the Duke of Westminister. Who pays very little in inheritance tax whenever one of them dies.

But the RF are far more visible ( because of their job) than the other aristocrats, and so get the censure that should actually fall on that whole landed-gentry-trust-fund caste.

And the self made billionaires

Yes.

While the rest of us are handing over chunks of money in IHT ( on modest family homes) the really rich set up a trust fund to avoid such tax.

Thank you. I freely admit I don't know enough about the ins and outs of the RF finances , but to me the IHT is an obvious place to start with scrutiny.
I have no idea about the what the Grosvenor / Cadogan estates etc pay in tax. I think they do have a lot of commercial property in chi chi areas so may be able to put up rents.

I do think it is a good point that the treatment of RF money has evolved organically. I'm not sure other big wealthy families have all their advantages (I mean tax ) so what it comes down to is I would like to be convinced there was proper regular scrutiny (and it may be there is & I just haven't researched enough.) Anyway thank you for your thoughts .

I agree with @MrsLeonFarrell that clarity between crown estates vs personal wealth would be good but untangling it would be extremely difficult.

The Duchy’s are an interesting blend of providing an income for a post holder (sovereign, PoW) with limitations on what they can do with the assets. Again difficult to untangle.

The Duke of Westminster is a good example of how the RF could use legal tax avoidance measures to minimise tax and IHT. However, there is a tension between allowing the RF to act like every other wealthy family to protect assets and minimise tax and meeting the publics expectations of propriety.

I do not want to side track the discussion but a good example is commercialisation. The King had the Duchy Originals range, if you require the RF to be treated the same as everyone else then commercialisation is part of the discussion. Another area is accepting gifts - is a gift for the Crown & so belongs to the crown estates or is it for the person?

I don’t think there is a right answer and as you work through the detail there would be a lot of decisions that would be just as controversial as the current situation.

I can see the current situation isn’t ideal but finding a fair solution that the majority of the public accept is not easy to identify.

Oh dear. Back to the drawing board!

I can't see how we could 'get rid' of Buck House of Windsor Castle -even if we became a republic. State visits by foreign leaders are a fact of life and they do love a carriage ride down The Mall, or a banquet at Windsor.

I'm still sure though, that William will be open to giving up quite a lot of the real estate for a bit more privacy and normality. He'll be thinking of his children too..

The RF (or at least the working members) has actually shrunk quite a lot recently, for one reason or another. Once KC dies I suppose Highgrove will become redundant. I think (much as I don't wish it - I like KC!) his passing will usher in a bit of a bonfire of the palaces.

I thought they are only costing minimal now? As a foreigner I think without the Royal institution UK is just a dull country with not much interesting tradition. Sorry but just my honest opinion. Not much reason to visit as it turns into a socialist country. Nobody wants to see rotting old industrial towns with council estates.

@Harassedevictee Duchy originals profit all goes to charity.

I thought they are only costing minimal now?
Completely the opposite. Less working royals = more money. Please see pic below showing this. Taken from the House of Commons library

@TheWiseGoose How you can say we are a dull country without the Royal Family I do not know. Whether they are there are not, our traditions will not change. We will still have marching bands, ceremonies, fly pasts, military processions, national commemorations.. VE Day, Remembrance Day, and all our traditions will not disappear just because there's not a few Royals on the balcony or at a window watching.
Why on earth would you think otherwise?

Do you think we just consist of 'rotting old industrial towns'? Have you ever been to some of the wonderful UK sites? Bath, Windsor, so much in London, Edinburgh, Cambridge, Windsor, Stratford on Avon... far too many to mention.

Worth a read....

How the Monarchy is funded by the public:

1. The UK Crown Estates are not the UK royal family's private property, and the royal family are not responsible for any amount of money the Estates bring into the treasury. The monarch is a position in the UK state that the UK owns the Crown Estates through, a position that would be abolished in a republic, leading to the Crown Estates being directly owned by the republican state.
2. The Crown Estates have always been public property and the revenue they raise is public revenue. When George III gave up his control over the Crown Estates in the 18th century, they were not his private property. The current royals are also equally not responsible for producing the profits, either.
3. The Sovereign Grant is not an exchange of money. It is a grant that is loosely tied to the Crown Estate profits and is used for their expenses, like staffing costs and also endless private jet and helicopter flights. If the profits of the Crown Estates went down to zero, the royals would still get the full amount of the Sovereign Grant again, regardless. It can only go up or stay the same.
4. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall that gave Elizabeth and Charles (and now William) their private income of approximately £25 millions/year (each) are also public property.
5. The total cost of the monarchy is currently £350-450million/year, after including the Sovereign Grant, their £150 million/year security, and their Duchy incomes, and misc. costs.

My point was the RF could commercialise far more than they do, instead of giving the profits to charity they could use them to pay IHT etc.

First we were told charles would scale down the royals but that hasn't happened and actually they are now costing more than ever..
Now people here are saying oh but William will scale things down when its his turn.
.

No he won't, dont be niave!!! They love all the pomp and fuss made over them and believe they are 100% entitled to it. The last thing William wants is to give his children anything less than he got, than they are used to.

Why anyone still believes the opposite is beyond me.

Exactly @ssd

It's hardly the case that a new Monarch has a eureka moment and thinks oh my goodness, we are costing too much. Quite the opposite. They squirrel it away even more, and there is never any talk of scaling it all down. Charles used to bleat on about slimming down, and made a grand gesture of turning down the swimming pool temperature during Covid, but he's all talk, no action. And his son will be the same, although he doesn't even pretend to want to be a bit more frugal, like the Queen and her tupperware with cornflakes in 😂

The Duchy of Lancaster is NOT owned by the state.
It is the personal property of the monarch and funds their life - so the costs of staffing/running Sandringham and Balmoral (both owned entirely by the Monarch) come out of private funds - via the Dutchy of Lancaster.
The sovereign grant which is paid from the Crown Estates pays for all travel, staff needed to run the monarchy, all staff employed at BP & Windsor, maintenance of properties lived in by the King but owned by the state (BP &Windsor), costs of entertaining ( all functions held at BP & Windsor).
So for example the King will eat at a state banquet with everyone else -this is paid from the crown estates. When he is at Highgrove or Sandringham he will pay for the ‘grocery shopping’.
Security is the only thing the taxpayer pays for - but this is more than covered by the excess profit from the Crown Estates which goes into the treasury. Currently only the King, Queen, Prince & Princess of Wales (and by extension their children) receive 24/7 security. Princess Anne, The Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and the Duke and Duchess of Gloucester have security when they are on official appointments .
As a side note, the Duke of Westminster does NOT avoid IHT. Oh I’m sure he has excellent accountants which work the law to his advantage (but that’s not his fault tax laws are so convoluted here) but his agreement with the IR is that his holdings are assessed and he pays 6% every 10 years as opposed to the 40% flat rate applied at death.
The cost to the nation is pretty negligible frankly. For example, the Coronation cost in the region of £72 million (the biggest single cost was by far the security needed). However, every hotel was full and the spending in the capital was huge (drinks, food etc) plus the widespread spending across the country. As soon as the extra spending hit £350 million the cost of the coronation was ‘cancelled out’ by the extra VAT going into the coffers. It was estimated that there was an extra £3.2 Billion spend that bank holiday weekend because of the coronation (on top of the usual £4 billion bank holiday spend). So in real terms the coronation cost £72 million (remember, much of this will be staff wages , which are then taxed…..) but made the IR £600 million extra in VAT alone.
You are incorrect OP regarding the Duchy of Cornwall - this is to provide an income to the heir to the throne. However if the heir does not have his own household , ie he isn’t 18 (like Prince Charles from 1952- 1966) then the profits go to the treasury.
HTH!

Yes i have but I can see those things in other European countries. And marching bands? Are you kidding me? Love them or hate them, the institution is a huge draw as it does represent the history of your country and the pomp and ceremonies that come with it.

You will still have ALL the pomp and ceremonies. Nothing will change. I don't understand your point.
No one comes to see the royal family, they come to see the pomp.

Look at France, they are always having ceremonial celebration days with parades, marching, flypasts etc.

I think reinstating a fixed Civil List regularly scrutinised and debated in Parliament is a good first step.

Totally agree. At the moment, no debate is allowed in any way shape or form