Should the Royal Family receive more money?

[TightlyLacedCorset]

Yes. I am asking this question.

Do they have enough? Is a lack of money leaving our Royal family vulnerable to exploitation?

I'm interested in this quote from Royal Biographer Andrew Lownie in The Guardian

"That’s what the Chinese and Russian secret services realised – that the easiest vulnerability of the British establishment is the royal family,” says Lownie. “There’s no scrutiny. They’re greedy. They’re short of money.”

Are our Royal Family short of cash? I mean short of cash in relation to their current position, not the average Joe.

Consider that our Royal Family tend to have to borrow things from other people richer than themselves. Super Yachts from the Saudi Royal family as one example. Why do they not have their own, if that is seen as social currency in the circles they're required to mingle in? I remember Meghan receiving earrings or something from a Saudi family. I also remember them having to borrow Tyler Perry the film producer's Mansion. Tyler Perry is now being accused of serious sexual harassment. Yet Meghan and Harry felt compelled to stay in his mansion (albeit before the charges) and likely remained friends out of a sense of compulsion afterwards. They needed to stay in a place befitting their station.

Why are our Royal family being tempted with lavish gifts and having to borrow from other Royals when they are Royals themselves, or borrow cash as Fergie, from other murky super millionaires? Surely as representatives of Britain, the former Empire, they should be the ones giving the gifts? Do they feel like poor cousins or poor relations when schmoozing with people of similar pedigree?

They do seem poor in relation to the Saudis and many multi-millionaires and people of influence today. When we send them abroad to hobnob with influential powerful people as our 'soft power' brokers, do they appear underwhelming in terms of wealth among those people? So that these people quickly realise that offering gifts or the use of lavish conveniences will be a permanent way into the Royal graces and possibly a way to exploit and compromise?

Aside from state functions, can Charles and Camilla or William and Kate really put on an imposing display of power abroad?

I've read that a lot of the Royal dwellings are in need of repairs. Andrew's was. How embarrassing to be a Prince and invite people of influence to a home in need of doing up!

It's a new world. There are more billionaires than ever and we will soon enter the era of the Trillionaire. Royals are surrounded by people much wealthier than them. Decades ago it would have been more equal or unequal in their favour.

I remember when Harry and Meghan were offered Frogmore. Many people, particularly Americans, could not get their heads around the concept of a Duke and Duchess being expected to live in a cottage. No amount of explaining that a cottage can still be an extremely large home within the UK and their relatively minor place in the line of succession made sense to many. There is a disconnect between these high faluting titles Prince, Duke, Princess, Duchess and their actual accompanying material wealth/assets in the eyes of other people. It surely puts pressure on the individual to live as though they're wealthier than they are.

Meghan is making Jam for money!

Frogmore corttage was a 5 bedhouse not some 2 up, 2 down.

lets make 1st May "Save the Royal Family from shoddy paint finishes" day - If everyone in the UK donated a fiver every May 1st to the RF, they would stop drooling over Saudi/Epstein/etc wealth, and be happy.

Charles seems jam for money too

Why do they have to have these things? The majority of the royal family don't represent the UK and certainly don't need to "keep up" with the Saudis etc

It's fair to say that their role has changed over the decades and their presence and their wealth isn't that important.

OP, your concept of what the Royal Family are and what they should have is out of date.

The thing is that the Royal Family money/assets are mostly all tied up in trusts, so that the beneficiaries (i.e. the Royals) can "enjoy" the assets, i.e. the homes, income from estates etc., but they can't actually sell or mortgage, say, Frogmore House or Buckingham Palace etc., so they can't "use" their "wealth" which has to be ring-fenced and passed down through the generations. Out of their extensive estates, there are also significant costs, i.e. staffing, maintenance,
etc., so it's hardly that they're all rolling in cash. Yes, they'll be "rich" in terms of cash compared to the average Joe Public, but not "super yacht" or "private jet" rich.

It's a bit of a mis-match really. On "official" business, they'll have the private jets/RAF planes etc, fancy hotels, posh dinners etc., but in normal day to day life, they don't, so will need to rely on "friends" such as Dubai billionaires to put them up in the swanky hotels and provide the private jets if they want the same kind of "luxury" holiday they are accustomed to on official business. They're hardly likely to get on a Jet2 plane to stay in an all inclusive hotel in Magaluf! So they need "money" from somewhere else to provide the kind of "experience" comparable to their official duties. That leads to relying on some "dubious" people - obviously not all of their "friends" will be dubious but lots of the ultra rich are clearly "on the fiddle" somewhere and it's not all from legitimate sources! Those millionaires/billionaires will want something in return - some will be happy with simply the publicity/parties/attendance of a royal to improve their "image" or reputation, but others will want introductions or other less legal things like back door to big contracts etc.

Yes. But my mum lives in a 5 bed house and she's not a member of the Royal Family. I know Frogmore is way nicer with lovely grounds, but from the outside, if you're not British, as a main home, it's something you expect to see a middle-class family to live in, not a Duke or Duchess. Compare that to a Saudi palace, the Obama's mansion etc

No they should not.

The solution for their corruption is not to pay them more. The solution is to get rid of the useless feckers, let them retire and stop meddling in British affairs. This is the modern world, we don't need a monarchy, we are a democracy.

No. Less.

Megan doesn't have to make jam for money. She has enough cash to live off her investments.

But don't worry - I can absolutely see Megan and Harry going exactly the same way as Andrew and Fergie eventually. They'll get duped/sucked in by some shady billionaire, he because he's stupid and she because she's greedy.

No, they have plenty of money. No amount of money would have been enough for the Yorks.

We should have fewer working royals. Anyone outside that small group should live on family money or get a job, and not the sort of job that allows them access to sensitive information unless they go through the same selection and security processes as anyone else.

As a British person, my concept of the Royals is grounded. But we do STILL very much expect them to pimp themselves out firming up alliances for us abroad. Doing tours etc. Razzle Dazzle. I'm saying that might be getting very difficult for them because they cannot keep up with the Joneses materially without compromising themselves. Titles and standing require some show behind it. Power without any material utility doesn't make such a big impression. The Royals don't even seem to have a top of the range yacht for state or leisure functions, despite many rich people of influence using yachts when networking. I would have thought a Yacht was as essential as a decent car, considering the role. Instead the Royals have to step aboard somebody else's, whose staff etc they do not know. Instead of inviting someone to theirs.

Perhaps our Royal Family would be better if they had less reason to rely on the gift giving of richer people.

Saudi Royals have oil money and run their country. UK and European royals are more like mascots for a country. They have actual castle and palaces and staff, they shouldn't be given access to information to trade for a holiday.

I know the knee-jerk reaction here is to decry the ridiculousness of the assertion, but I think this deserves some thought. I’m not really going to argue that the extended royal family members need larger budgets. However, it is true that financial distress is the biggest red flag for security risk.

If anything, I think this is an argument for a streamlined monarchy. If you don’t have tertiary members engaging in soft diplomacy, their slightly lesser financial status won’t be an issue.

No

Why? They're the British royal family not the Saudi or American royal family. They don't have to own any of these things. They have enough stately piles and real estate to utilise, and can access other venues.

Not least, the Saudis' etc income comes from oil or industry of some kind so they can buy yachts etc. I, for one, don't want to subside these things so a bunch of overbred ponies can go on holiday (note Andrew and Fergie in the '80's).

Just btw, I'm also "British", I'm not anti Royal per se but my expectations are very different from yours. The Royals' strength is their heritage, not something than can be bought.

And on that point. I think Oprah visited Meghan and Harry and was reportedly 'surprised' at the humbleness of their living arrangements. I remember having lengthy back and forths with outraged PoC online who simply couldn't understand what other reason there was for a Duke and Duchess to have such a small dwelling. They didn't understand how you could be expected to entertain a celebrity like Oprah in such a small space or why you would have titles and be expected to live in a 'basic' house. To them it was confirmation of bias and even today people still say M&H had to go to America to get a better home.

Whilst I don't agree, I can see that if you want to influence prestigious rich people as Royals it's hard to do it in a basic dwelling.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/lifestyle/article-11541915/Harry-Meghan-Oprah-stunned-small-size-Nottingham-Cottage-went-tea.html

Don't ever look at the Dutch royal family, OP. Their Queen used to go round on a bicycle!
H and M did not leave the UK 'to get a better home'. Anyone saying that is just making it up.
I love the pomp - well, the horses, carriages, guards' uniforms. But we need a stripped-down royal family. Meghan doesn't have to sell jam - she could get a job.

The current king is a billionaire in his private wealth ..they need morals not money

No - ‘they’ don’t need more money.

The head of state and his heir are more than adequately provided for to act on behalf of the country.

They don’t need a yacht to impress or entertain for their role, they have palaces and castles to do that.

The problem is making the head of state role an extended family role.

There’s no security risk from the likes of Andrew if there’s no role involving access to government information etc.

The monarch and heir need to be regularly audited by government financial oversight and the rest of the family need to be kept completely separate from any kind of financial aspect of the head of state role.

These are valid points worthy of discussion.

SF is clearly a spendthrift but was pretty astonished on marriage that her & Andrew’s funds didn’t match the expectation of life they led. The Queen gifted a mansion but running costs sky high. Gowns etc bought by her & she started married life in hefty debt. She needed to lean in to any financial advice & palace guidance but she claims this was sorely lacking. The response was unlimited store credit which she used to buy extravagant presents amongst other things. It led to a financial, chaotic mess. Sure, tiniest violins playing but really only a level headed, ultra high net worth person would truly thrive in that environment (?) SF & A are clearly though authors of own misfortune.

What I don’t understand is whether Anne & Edward had same financial set up & access to equal funds as Andrew & Sarah. They’ve managed far better.

You don’t honestly think that Andrew higher up the pecking order at the time, second only to Charles would receive less than Anne or Edward do you?

You emphasised the "they're short of money" part of Lownie's quote while skipping past the "they're greedy" part. For greedy, moral vacuums like Andrew there's never enough money.

For the rest of them it's quite simple. If they think they're not getting enough money to do the pomp they're being asked to do then they can stop and, instead, go and get a proper job. No-one's holding a gun to their head to force them to attend state dinners or open community centres. They've all got cars and driving licenses so I'm sure Evri would give them interviews for delivery driver jobs.

What a brazen post. Pleading poverty for the royal family whilst smearing Harry and Meghan

This, against the background of the Epstein revelations and the financial sleaze the whole family are involved in.

Oh and let's remember that Charles and William are billionaires

SF suggests she/they were expected to fund a Royal lifestyle out of A’s salary pretty much, if we can trust anything she says.