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!

We know from previous accounts published by Charles when he was Prince of Wales that by 2019 he was giving both William and Harry about £3M each to run their working royal lives.

It’s not clear if he just handed over that as a lump sum or whether the Cambridge and Sussex households would present invoices and be reimbursed.

Official duties travel expenses are covers by the Sovereign Grant, security is covered by the Met.

So that money was to fund their personal office staff, personal living expenses, clothing for both official and personal use etc.

There’s no reason not to believe that the Queen was funding her children apart from
Charles from the Duchy of Lancaster - presumably she was giving each of their households a similar lump sum in lieu of a wage to act as working royals.

If Fergie was buying her own gowns and struggling to keep up does that mean Andrew was pocketing everything his mother gave him and not passing it on?

Maybe you’ve nailed it, although surely she’d realise if so?

If M’s clothing purchased & not gifted that’s a chunk gone already. Interesting to ponder.

In the past was in acceptable to rack up debt in a way it isn’t now? Didn’t the Queen Mother die with very hefty debt?

His Navy salary? Give me a break - there’s no way the Queen wasn’t funding her children in the way that Charles was funding his when they became working royals.

Weird that Catherine managed to fund an extensive working wardrobe as the spouse of a grandchild of the monarch without resorting to dodgy deals with billionaire sex offenders.

Also I can’t imagine Kate coming from a fairly normal middle class background thinking it was acceptable to order staff to make several different roast dinners every evening and then let them go to waste. Or rack up huge bills at Selfridges and then simply walk away from them unpaid.

If Lownie is correct and that’s just a fraction of the Yorks spending habits there would never have been enough money for those two.

Not more money, less direct expenses, have some things paid for such as security from other than Royal funding.

I'd also have some Royal palaces just become historic places to visit, none of them living there any more.

I’d pull the rope!

Well quite, I am no psychiatrist but SF feels ‘disordered’ (not to excuse). I will look back to see exactly what she said.

I think evidence points to SF being unable to manage any budget, however large.

Unfortunately SF’s mother seemed similarly financially chaotic & from memory I think SF had to clear her debt on death.

Not smearing H&M at all. I'm virtually never on threads about them. Simply using examples of how the material realities of being Royal do not match up with the expectations that go along with their roles and their titles and how that leaves them open to compromise. We all know A&F sold themselves for money. I'm using examples from memory.

I would like to see the monarchy cut down to a Scandi style monarchy where only the direct heirs of the sovereign are maintained by public funds. No expensive coronations or lavish opening of parliament,

Yes, I know.

I don't know that the Dutch Royal family commands as much attention and thus expectation from the world, but I confess to being somewhat ignorant about their influence.

Is it true also security & building maintenance costs etc are now comparatively far more complex & costly than in past?

I would say they do at least need a yacht for official world tours if nothing else. Wealth has so proliferated among the wealthy set that a yacht is almost basic, it's not like the 9Os when a millionaire owning a 100 million pound yacht was big news. As I said, if William and Kate want to cruise for a few days they have to borrow someone else's. If they go abroad to network on our behalf they have to use someone else's yacht. That is leaving them potentially vulnerable and it looks weak. Why should the Royal representatives of the UK be having to use someone else's yacht because they they don't have one. When half the people they're fully expected to hobnob with may have several? They should be an official Royal yacht that people they have chosen or vetted to come to.

The use of palaces and castles also seem a bit of a grey area. The palaces are technically the nations aren't they? Not truly theirs. Can they just invite anyone around for a looksy?

Andrew and Fergie are under scrutiny for misusing the Royal residences to show people they wanted favours from around. The curating of favours was wrong, but people of consequence want to see the big displays, the big palaces.

Not semi-dilapidated mansions.

Don't be ridiculous, of course they don't need a yacht.

I would say that no one ‘needs’ a yacht. And like private jets etc it’s much better for those that occasionally want or need one to rent for the odd occasion - or be a guest of someone if necessary.

Why would the head of state of the UK need a yacht?

Yes, the palaces and castles are ultimately the property of the country but that is why they are perfect for state occasions for the head of state.

In fact if the government wants to do a fancy diplomatic party at sea and have the head of state or heir host it they have a whole navel fleet which can be utilized if necessary to hold a party, gathering or meeting.

Anyone with money can invite you to a yacht, only someone representing the UK government can invite you to cocktails on HMS Cumberland.

Charles and William are both double billionaires. They pay minimal income tax, no CGT and no inheritance tax. If they want to hand some of that cash to other members of their family or buy themselves a Super yacht, they can. They don't want to. They want to keep the money and get others ( the taxpayer) to pay for them. The Late Queen, one of the richest women in the world tried to get COVID fuel payments from the government until, for once, her courtiers told her it would look bad.

How free are they really to crazily spend if desire to do so? Checks & balances?

What checks and balances? William has decided to reverse his father's policy of revealing how much tax he pays. Andrew had expenses for golfing holidays ,prostitutes and massages just waved through. They have all been paying peppercorn rents to the Crown Estate for decades with no one in government doing their job and keeping track of it, they get given money to maintain Crown properties then leave them derelict to the extent their money has to be increased to pay for renovations. There are no checks and balances, because Parliament and all the cronies around them would rather forelock tug in return for a gong.

They had the royal yacht Britannia, it was decommissioned because it was deemed to costly by the government, do you really think they would sanction getting another one !

Of course not. They live a life of privilege and most do very little for it.
nice try op with the H&M bash though.

I'm curious as to where you think I've 'bashed' them. It's the second time a poster has said this. What did I say that was ’bashing'?

I think people are sensitive to anything in regards to H&M because they do receive a load of bashing generally. But I haven't done that here. They are Royals. I'm treating them as examples of Royals with influence abroad and making the point that H&M as Royals may need more money as do W&K, A&F and now it seems E&B

I needed a laugh today!! There are children who live below the poverty line and haven’t enough food to eat, let alone clothes to wear and who don’t live in secure housing yet we should give the RF more money. Pull the other one!!

Great. Are we having a whip round? I'm on basic state pension but would be only too delighted to help. I'm sure this most endearing of families would do the same for me.

I think an issue here is what worked well up until the QM’s death doesn’t any longer. Now things are less opaque, they’re more problematic. No one will ignore perceived spendthrift excess due to a simple belief the Royals are our betters. The public wants more & more transparency.

In Singapore the PM earns about a million pounds PA & in theory open to anyone with the talent to fill the role. It’s a fair wage for a role whereby you may be required to take a country to war. It also prevents the kind of corruption that has been discussed. No need to hawk around afterwards etc.

Quite right....if I were talking about the Royals receiving more money in relation to the average person. I'd agree with you.

But I'm talking about their funding in relation to the set of people they live amongst, network with, are expected to entertain. Expected to meet, greet, impress, dine with, host and align with in an official capacity as well as privately.

Of course all the Royals have tremendous privilege in relation to the average person, but in the circles they inhabit they may not actually be perceived as having much and therefore seen as and put in the position of being easily exploitable. We have to question why Andrew and Sarah in particular, were left having to seek funds elsewhere whilst the house was apparently not even in top condition. Of course they were greedy, but I suspect there was more to it. Fergie almost came to the point of propositioning herself to a pedo. Epstein simply didn't seem to want her.

Be & E have dodgy dealings in the ME.

H&M have resorted to upper class kiss and tell with media publishers and have to constantly think of new ways to raise funds.

But being as all their grasping has bought the Royal Family to the point of near extinction, it is prudent to question do they need more money to stop them feeling the need to get involved in what are effectively personal finance feeding charities, proxy jobs, selling tell all books to raise funds, or business dealings with dubious persons in the Middle East and elsewhere. I mean why are they doing it? It's easy to say they're just greedy, but they have titles, and are expected to present as Royals. Wear expensive designer clothing, serve up elaborate spreads, maintain the upkeep of imposing homes. Pay staff. It costs. I'm not sure they are receiving enough outlay for that. Several million a year is not actually a lot when you factor in all the outgoings above. It's a fortune to me. It's not necessarily a fortune for what they have to do.

Then the people they are sent to meet, have yachts, tons of sports cars, several palaces, jewellery and expensive wines flowing like water, can put on huge food spreads. Can afford to throw money and jewellery at them.

Then it just takes one billionaire to offer some nice diamond earrings, offer to pay off that staff debt, give an invitation to their personal yacht filled with unsuitable people that you now cannot get away from until you dock in a week.

When Trump came to visit the other day, he was probably richer in liquid terms than Charles.

It doesn't matter if the royals are rich if most of their wealth is tied up in assets held by trusts and other entities and they must give accounting to the public at some point.

I think you are missing the point. The monarch and heir have billions - they also have the palaces and castles at their disposal for all official duties. They don’t need to ‘impress’ anyone beyond the requirements of the government’s state requests.

If they have personal needs to impress other rich people and celebrities beyond that then that makes them unsuitable for public service and they should not be representing the UK.

It’s quite clear now that Andrew and by extension Sarah should have been receiving a lot less than they were in terms of official roles, funding from the Queen, Crown property housing and paid security.

Then they could have consorted with any dodgy people they felt like and made money anyway to they chose to like H&M but also face the consequences of those actions where and when necessary.