Royal Finances - Who Are Paying For Them?

[tiaras]

"Republicans view at your own risk".  I don't understand the reasoning behind this statement. Could you explain...

An implied back-hand and a level of projection that anti-monarchists wouldn't bother reading material that is counter-intuitive to their principles before making a well-rounded opinion? That's what I got from it.

:goodpost: exactly this is a forum not fan site .

When you judge another, you do not define them, you define yourself - Wayne Dyer....

[TLLK]

The reason government receives the money in the first place is because of this agreement, without it the revenue does belong to the sovereign.

If the revenue belonged outright to parliament, there would be no reason for the monarch to have to agree to give it up in the first place.

That would be correct.

Lets keep to the facts, and the fact are:

1. Queen Elizabeth II owns the Crown Estate [Just like she owns the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, etc...] and will own the Estate for as along as she remains the Sovereign.

2. The revenues are legally owned by the Sovereign as well but through an agreement set up by King George III and with every succeeding sovereign down to and including Queen Elizabeth II renewing the arrangement the revenue from the Estate is kept by the Treasury in exchange for Parliament providing the Head of State with appropriate funding.

3. Yes, Parliament in practice owns the revenue of the Crown Estates. But in legal terms, the revenue is entirely owned by the Sovereign and only given to Parliament by a long standing mutual agreement.

That is the beauty of our constitutional set up, the Parliamentarians accept and respect the Monarchy - while the Monarchy honors its age old agreements and allows for the democratic process to take place all the while keeping it accountable to the Sovereign and the people.

Thank you for sharing these facts and your perspective on the subject Windsor.

[Lady Adams]

A friend of mine was asking about the BRF's financial situation and I found this article from earlier in 2014 in the New York Times, which I found very interesting.

Britain's Welfare Queen

The Sovereign Grant seemed to simplify things, but it did nothing to resolve the constitutional fudge. Many within the royal family clearly look upon the Crown Estate as their personal property. And in directly linking royal income to the estate, the grant appeared to some to legitimize the monarch's claim to it.

And there are still hidden subsidies. The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, for example, are huge property holdings "held in trust" for the sovereign and the heir to the throne, respectively, and are distinct from the Crown Estate. Last year, the queen received £12.7 million from the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Prince of Wales £19.1 million from the Duchy of Cornwall. And both were exempt from business taxes.

Such "lost revenues," argues the anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, should be regarded as state handouts to the queen. On this basis, Republic estimates the total cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer is more than £200 million a year.