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!

Does that mean when W&K go on their luxury holidays paid for by the Saudis ..which by your definition is persoanl then they are unsuitable for the role cos they cant afford to rent the yacht themselves?

All very valid & I do see your point. How did in work in past? What’s to stop a ‘we’re the servants of the people & keep our weetabix in tupperware’ ‘how vulgar’ re: any obvious materialism from ‘guests’?

If slimmed down poss for monarchy to be like this? Are not C&C & W&K inhabiting this space?

The RF is as wealthy as any aristocratic family. But

(a) they get the bestest titles and status in the country, which means that otherwise intelligent people ( captains-of-industry types) wet themselves for a chance of some of the Royal fairy dust.

(b) the money isn't trickled down the generations fairly. The Monarch and Heir geta dedicated fund; the rest have to manage on inheritances and what their dad/ brother decides to give them. That makes them very vulnerable to the captains-of-industry types mention in (a). Especially if they're venal and/or stupid.

Problem (b) could be fixed by restructuring RF finances.

Problem (a) is the real problem here, not whether individual RF members, or the RF as a whole have or don't have enough cash.

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.

Hear hear

It's a good question. If the Monarchy were slimmed down, would the funding to the core working members increase enough to ameliorate any potential attempts by nefarious individuals (which we now know thanks to the Epstein files is a good chunk of that 2% elite) to seduce them with money, or favours?

I don't know. I don't know how much the other working or titled royals receive altogether.

But certainly the prestige of titles doesn't appear to be enough of a buffer.

People of consequence want to see the big displays, the big palaces ...

Apart from a yacht that's exactly what they do see, @TightlyLacedCorset -hence the state banquets with gold everywhere and the RF dripping with jewels beyond price, the carriage rides, the invites to various palaces (over 20 major residences available, many privately owned), the guards of honour, the gun salutes and all the rest

None of this comes out of the family's personal pockets, and what's the point in comparing their wealth with the gulf arabs when practically nobody else can match such assets and other european monarchies may be better comparators anyway?

FWIW I don't actually grudge them their wealth because there are far graver issues to address, but just how much more do you want them to have?

This is spot on.

To OP’s point, if the venal & greedy were not in the family, we have the solution.

I heard on the news tonight that someone has won £180,000,000 on the lottery.
The winner could give the royals £80,000,000 and still have enough money left to live comfortably.
😁😁😁😁.

I personally don't want to have anything more than they have already. Think we need to replace with a removable HoS.

BUT if we are insistent on keeping them, if we are insistent on using them as quasi-foreign dignitaries, then we have to ensure they do not feel so cash strapped that they go as far as seeking financial remedy from completely unsavoury people.

I think their finances need to be looked at both from the perspective of potential tax dodging, fraud, unaccounted funds, wastage etc

And from the perspective of do they actually have enough to remain impervious to financial corruption amongst the people they come across. At the moment I assume that if one of the members runs through the money set aside for their personal household, scrutiny means they cannot ask for more or request a raise. Some of the non core members certainly don't seem to have enough to maintain the lifestyles expected of Royals.

But that's hard when you're bestowed titles at birth, receive unearned deference starting from a young age, but then are expected to manage a restricted budget at adulthood and come across people far more wealthy than you, whom will cheerfully trade access to your prestige for cash.

It's so easy. I'm thinking about simply being able to get money and gifts from super rich people just because of who my mother is and a title I didn't even earn to get.

would the funding to the core working members increase enough to ameliorate any potential attempts by nefarious individuals

Charles and William are billionaires. If they're susceptible to corruption, they're unfit for their positions.

This is why I don't think they should be. No titles until adulthood or only for the firstborn. There rest get no titles but me expectation of working for the RF. They get a load of riches and can do what they want. If they want more then they work like the rest of us, but they can't use their titles for personal gain because they don't have them.

No - if they are found to have given away government secrets or helped to perpetuate an international paedophile ring in return for a fancy yacht holiday then, yes.

Also there is no evidence that W&K have had a holiday on a Saudi yacht. It was originally reported as a yacht belonging to a member of the UAE royals but that was later reported as untrue.

If it’s only W&K & C&C - sorted? Otherwise - no role & earn own £ as a solution.

From her book ‘My Story’ SF says:

”You might assume my financial worries were over, that I could now live solvently ever after in the bosom of one of the richest families in the world”.

The reality was something different. For I had married the second son, & that made all the difference. While Andrew received a moderate sum from the Civil List, it went for the cost of official engagements & for staff & office expenses. As for the Royal Navy, in all our years together Andrew’s income never exceeded $50,000. Not that he cared, he didn’t carry cash & had written very few cheques. Ever since he was born he’d had everything done for him.

Now he had a family finances got more complicated. We received a small allowance to cover expenses at Castlewood but not enough for upkeep and staff.

I did have a magical instrument, an account at Coutts with apparently unlimited credit. I piled up an impressive overdraft - a six figure debt by 1992. Where did the money go? Costs at Castlewood & later Sunninghill Park. Trips with my daughters. Skiing, parties at Buckingham Palace for everyone who helped us during the year (250). We’d treat them to the best food & drinking.

I played Santa and took pains to find gifts for the Queen or Princess Margaret. I just wanted to make them happy.

I tried to save money where I could, I found some designers would allow me a deep discount in return for the publicity value of my wearing their fashions. I found out I was wrong again such things were ‘not done’ by a Royal Duchess. A new cartoon strip came out “Freebie Fergie” “Fergie the Freeloader”.

What the press & Palace failed to understand was that I urgently wanted to work, to earn to be productive. I had never wanted to stop my publishing job.

As for the Royal Navy, in all our years together Andrew’s income never exceeded $50,000

They separated in 1992 at which point that income was worth over £100k in today's money. Plus the aforementioned Civil List allowances, and no actual housing costs such as rent or mortgage.

Unbelievable entitlement.

I'm thinking about simply being able to get money and gifts from super rich people just because of who my mother is and a title I didn't even earn to get

But they could receive 100 times what they get already and still there'd be people only too happy to lend their yachts/give lavish jewels, etc. - and worse, they'd probably go right on being happy to take them, @TightlyLacedCorset

I'm honestly not convinced that the answer to downright venality is to increase the cash, or that it could possibly work when there's every chance they'd simply see it as their due and still go after unsuitable people for more

Is this really an accurate description of their accessible finances though?

Here is some quotes from an admittedly online source: celebritynetworth.com

www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/billionaire-news/royal-family-real-estate-empires/

"...we took a hard look at Prince Andrew's finances and uncovered something surprising: for all the castles, titles, and pageantry, he wasn't sitting on a secret royal fortune. In fact, stripped of allowances and bailouts, he was living on a military pension that wouldn't cover the heating bill of a single wing at Royal Lodge."

"People tend to assume that every member of the British royal family is born into staggering private wealth. After all, they grow up in palaces, travel with security details, and are surrounded by staff whose salaries are paid by… someone. The optics scream billionaire dynasty. But that assumption is wrong.
^^
Most of the glittering assets we associate with the monarchy — Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Crown Jewels, even the £15+ billion "Crown Estate" — are not private property. They are held in trust for the nation. They cannot be sold. They cannot be liquidated. They do not belong to the extended royal family in any personal sense."

William:

The Duchy of Cornwall is worth over a billion but as regards income:

Regarding the Duchy of Cornwall The estate generates an annual surplus that flows directly to the Prince of Wales as private income. In the 2023–2024 financial year, William received approximately £23.6 million (about $30.4 million). In 2024–2025, he received roughly £22.9 million (about $30.9 million).
That income funds his household, private staff, security costs not covered by the state, charitable initiatives, and the personal lives of himself, Princess Catherine, and their three children.

He also apparently voluntarily pays income tax but does disclose how much.

Charles: Duchy of Lancaster

"...In recent years, the Duchy has produced between £24 and £27 million per year (roughly $30–$35 million) in net income. That money flows directly to the monarch as private income, traditionally referred to as the Privy Purse"

He also voluntarily pays income tax but does disclose how much.

I'm sure there is other money, but even if doubled, in comparison to the Royal Families of the Middle East and today's super millionaires and billionaires this isn't really that much in liquid funds. It's an astonishing amount for a normie who works a 9-5 it's really not for the sorts of people they're expected to schmooze with.

I watch a guy on YT who critiques multimillion dollar mansions. Watching it really gave me a perspective on how skewed the distance between the mega rich, averagely wealthy and the poor has become. There are people buying 50-100 million dollar houses and they ideally don't want to live near people with houses 'only' worth 5 - 10 million. Those people are not of the same calibre. That's how crazy it's become.

The royal family are like any other seriously rich family. They can never have enough. Greedy bastards.

Yes I agree

If they are going on holiday aka personal family holiday and not work related trip and want to be on a yacht then they can pay for it. William gets £20m a yr from the Duchy he can afford it but no they are just grifters and no better than the others. If thay money isnt enough and they wsnt that lifestyle then go earn it like everyone else has to. Otherwise cut your clothes accordingly. Because of their position it is precarious of then to be have holidays paid for by billionaires because the question will always be and what are they getting for it...access, information, intelligence...etc.

BUT... we're told AMW was the favourite son!

His mum ponied up £12m to pay off a litigant when he was past middle-aged.

His mum set Anne up with a pile, and the means to run it.

His mum set up Edward with a pile and the means to run it

Are we really expected to believe she'd have gifted AMW and SF a custom-made modern pile and not also have similarly provided the means for them to run it?

Fat finger edits.

Money management does not seem a strength for A or SF & in latter days SF not popular. A factor?

The the Queen annd some Royal Homes are maintained through the sovereign grant which is a percentage of the profits made by The Crown Estates every year.
It used to be around 10%. QEII paid for all of her and her families ‘running costs’ from the Sovereign grant (excluding the Prince of Wales and his heirs who are funded by The Duchy of Cornwall).
The maintenance on the 775 room Buckingham Palace is HUGE -there simply wasn’t enough money in the 10% to cover it. So the Sovereign Grant was increased to 25% for a period of 10 years to cover the repairs which over the 10 year period will be in the region of 500 million.
The Sovereign Grant has accounts which are done every year -every penny has to be accounted for.
We (as in taxpayers) pay through HMRC only for security. That is the only costs taxpayers pay for.
The Crown Estates are not state/government owned but held by the monarch in right of the crown. While they are managed like a business the monarch cannot decide to liquidise 300 million to buy a yacht.
Legally William does not have to pay tax. He chooses to. If he decides that he wants the same as everyone else -to keep his tax affairs private-then I don’t see why that is an issue.
Every aspect of their lives is scruitinised in a way that would send most of us mad -I don’t blame him for wanting privacy where he can get it.
Re the ‘peppercorn rents’ -the Royals who have ‘grace and favour apartments’ pay full market value and have done for decades-or the monarch has paid it for them ( eg The Gloucesters and The Kents).
Andrew MW had a different arrangement with the Crown Esates as he had a lease which until the last 5 years he had fulfilled all of his obligations. By paying for the renovations on Royal Lodge which he became the tenant of after the death of The Queen Mother he effectively paid his ‘rent’ in adavance which was why for the next 25 years he only had to pay a ‘peppercorn’ rent.
The goverment are not responsible for ‘keeping check’ on the Crown Estates.

Well now it seems quite a few others have been paying ' peppercorn rents'- why do Bea and Eugenie have London offices? So it looks like the Crown Estate isn't scrutinised enough at all, despite them saying it is.
Re William and Charles declaring their taxes- because the things they say they care about- the environment, homelessness, mental health support, early years etc are things that all need huge government resources paid for through taxation. So if they are not revealing how much tax they are paying then all they are doing is telling people who do not trouser £30m a year to pony up. Why isn't he saying how much he is paying towards these costs? He can say he pays tax and he does, but how much is he writing off? Charles paid £4m in tax even though he's a billionaire nearly 2x over. He managed to write so much off, his tax bill reduced even when his income increased. William decided he didn't want to reveal his so the suspicion is he has managed to pay even less but doesn't want anyone to know if about it. Not to mention the Late Queen decided to pay tax in return for less scrutiny in Parliament and a move away from the Civil List to the Sovereign Grant. So we have handed them less scrutiny but have no idea to what extent they are holding up their side of the bargain.