Prince Charles is ‘tightening the purse strings’ around the York princesses

The Prince Of Wales And The Duchess Of Cornwall Visit Coventry

Over the years, we’ve heard tons of stories about how “broke” certain British royals are, the Yorks especially. Sarah Ferguson is always flogging some tacky sh-t and her money management skills are next to nil. She’s compromised financially in so many ways, which is why she begged Jeffrey Epstein for money back in the day. Prince Andrew’s financial situation is mysterious as well – his mummy pays for his royal protection and much of his lifestyle, but there have been some indications that Andrew has his own funds somewhere, and no one is quite sure what he did to “make” that money.

The York princesses are not that different from their parents – Beatrice had an extended adolescence, largely financed by her father (again, no one knows how) and she spent years vacationing and not doing much of anything. Eugenie has worked in the art world for much of her adult life however – she worked for Paddle8 in New York for a time but she now works for the art gallery Hauser & Wirth. Neither of the York princesses get money from the Privy Purse because they’re not “working royals.” This has always caused friction between Andrew and Prince Charles, because Charles always maintained that Eugenie & Bea will never work for the Firm. Apparently, Charles is still saying that.

Princess Eugenie’s inability to access the royal private income was down to her uncle, according to a commentator. The Princess of York will be one of the royals affected by Prince Charles’ decision to “tighten the purse strings”. The List narrator Christine-Marie Liwag Dixon explained how this could affect their relationship.

She told viewers: “It was the awkward moment not caught on camera that did the talking. Prince Charles is reportedly tightening the purse strings. The heir to the British throne is being very picky about who is ‘in’ and who is ‘out’ in the Royal Family. And as the royal circle is getting smaller, Princess Eugenie is not considered a senior royal.”

Ms Liwag Dixon continued: “This is despite being 10th in line to the throne and granddaughter of the Queen. Reports now suggest it is due to Prince Charles. As she’s technically not a working royal, Princess Eugenie reportedly is not being offered the Privy Purse, which is the royal private income. The awkward dynamic between Charles and his niece was, to an extent, caught on camera in December 2020.”

The narrator added: “It was one of the very rare public appearances of Queen Elizabeth that year due to the coronavirus pandemic. Royal Family members were present with choice few excluded — Eugenie being one of them. That doesn’t bode well for her chances of rejoining the inner circle.”

[From The Daily Express]

What purse strings are there to tighten with Eugenie at this point? Her husband Jack makes his own income as some kind of brand ambassador for Casamigos. Eugenie works at an art gallery. I assume Andrew still contributes some money so that Eugenie can maintain a certain lifestyle and we don’t know what the Sussexes are charging Eugenie and Jack for the sublet of Frogmore Cottage. What else is there to take away? My theory is that the Queen has given Andrew a great deal of money from the Duchy of Lancaster funds, and Soft-Regent Charles is about to control that money and cut off Andrew, and by extension, the York princesses.


Duke of York, Prince Andrew continues to get probed about his involvement with the Jeffery Epstein case! **FILE PHOTOS**

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

125 Responses to “Prince Charles is ‘tightening the purse strings’ around the York princesses”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. hmm says:

    I’m new to this royal stuff. Does Charles pay for everyone?
    William & his mannequin don’t pay for themselves?
    So all the anniversary gifts, ugly outfits is paid for by Willy’s daddy?

    • Lauren says:

      Chuck pays for the Keenbrindges with the money from the duchy of Cornwall. He also used to pay for the Sussexes, but strangely enough, he didn’t have enough money for Meghan, possibly due to Kate’s fixation with buttons.

      • Noki says:

        They mentioned that in the Oprah interview. Did they mean moving forward Meghan must pay for what exactly? Her clothes ? She would obviously go on tours with Harry,they got gifted a home,security etc I really wish they went in detail as to what Meghan was expected to pay for and how that would work.

      • Lauren says:

        This is a point of contention as no one but the parties involved really know. For certain from the very beginning, they wanted Meghan to continue acting as they did not want to pay for her, but they relented and the Duchy of Cornwall was paying surely for the protection in the beginning. The home was supposed to be a gift from the Queen to the Sussexes as she had done with every other family member, not sure why Harry should be different. The clothing is where the doubts lie, because Meghan has been accused of overspending, in reality, it seems that might have brought in a lot of privately owned pieces, bought a lot with her money, or was lent a lot by designers and it was instead reported that she spent the duchy’s money on clothing. Looking at the spending from before Meghan joined and while Meghan was there there is a difference of a few tens of thousand pounds, not hundreds as it was reported.

      • Elizabeth Kerri Mahon says:

        Meghan was apparently encouraged to continue working as an actress because there was no money for her. I suspect that they were hoping that she would be so busy working that she wouldn’t have time to accompany Prince Harry on royal tours, which would have backfired on the courtiers because no doubt Meghan would have scheduled any movies that she did around any tours or big events that were coming up.

      • Randie says:

        Well, my take on it is like this, if he’s willing to cut his own son off and his own grandson off and be abusive enough to give the silent treatment… He has no qualms cutting off anyone else.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I also read somewhere that is not reliable that ‘The Courtiers” did not want to fund any independent security for Meghan. This meant that she would have security when with Harry and security when in residence at her Kensington Palace compound home via the overall Kensington Palace security team. However, she would not be assigned an individual Private Protection Officer as all other senior working royals (and Diana had) possess.

      • Demi says:

        I think that was their way to show their contempt for Meghan I guess they wanted her to know that she may as well marry Harry but don’t expect to be living like a royal-like US kind of thing.. I think they wanted Meghan to remain an actress instead of having royal duties meanwhile Harry continue working with William& kate but the plan backfired when Harry decided to dump these 2& share his role with Meghan.
        I also think Harry shielded meghan from lots of things that his family said about her

      • notasugarhere says:

        One of the big takeaways is, we don’t know what was Charles, what was courtiers. With Harry still wanting a relationship with Charles, and calling him ‘trapped’ in his position? I lean towards the courtiers being majority at fault for much of what was done.

    • Becks1 says:

      I find it complicated and I’ve been royal watching for years, lol.

      So the Queen has the Crown Estates, and the income from that goes to the government and she gets back a certain percentage – that is the “sovereign grant” and out of that she funds the working royals – Anne, Edward, Sophie. She is also the Duke of Lancaster and gets the money from that duchy, but I think that’s just her personal income, I don’t think the government touches it. Not sure though.

      I do not think William/Kate or the Sussexes got money from the sovereign grant, but when H&M left they said they were willing to keep working as royals but would give up the SG money, so they must have been getting something, I’m not sure.

      Charles is the Duke of Cornwall and he has the income from that duchy and he uses that to support himself, Camilla, and William and Kate and he was supporting the Sussexes. So when Kate shows up in a new outfit, it’s Charles’s money that paid for it. Charles funds their office at KP, etc. I’m not sure if there is a line drawn somewhere where Charles says “this vacation is on you” or if he just funds them fully. When their apartment at KP was renovated, it was said that all decorations were purchased privately which most of us assumed meant that Charles had paid for them.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        “I find it complicated and I’ve been royal watching for years, lol.”

        It all went underground after “They” got rid of the transparent civil list payments and gave the “monarch” a lump sum payment to distribute at their personal grace, favor and discretion.

        At leasy with the Civil List payments everyone knew who was getting what with the exception of Chucky (and the Wales family) who is 100% funded through the Duchy of Cornwall.

      • GraceB says:

        I believe the Sovereign Grant is meant to cover most of their business expenses (office staff, cost of royal tours, travel and security). Each working member of the royal family would get a percentage, depending on how much work they actually did. Personal costs, including clothes would come from private sources, so in the case of the Cambridges and Sussex’s they were paid for by Prince Charles from the Duchy. The confusing thing is that even clothes purchased for Royal Tours seems to come from private sources and not the Sovereign Grant.

      • notasugarhere says:

        The country being visited pays for the clothing, housing, and most of the security costs. Or the Foreign Office may pay for part of it, if they are the ones who want Royal X sent to Country X for a specific purpose.

    • Lesley says:

      Yes, Charles (or more precisely the Duchy of Cornwall) pay for most of it. I have a theory that the other brother, and wife, said to Harry that once he was Duke of Cornwall Harry would have to come to him and ask for every penny Harry and Meghan needed to be able to live. And that’s why the statement from the Sussexs came out about “making their own way in the world”.

      • Becks1 says:

        At that point though Harry and Meghan would have been funded fully from the sovereign grant or from Charles’s income as duke of lancaster – Charles doesnt pay for any of his siblings, I don’t think william would have been expected to.

        I do think there was an issue though about when William becomes king because then he would control their purse strings.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Correct, Becks1. Harry should not have been funded out of the Duchy of Cornwall once he turned 18. With so many lingering elders around, it was easier to fund/hide funding out of the Duchy for him. The Queen and Charles were moving Harry and Meghan to BP(Sovereign Grant) funding with the creation of the new Household. They would have made sure that was all in place before William became Duke of Cornwall.

    • Certs says:

      Charles probably thinks he is paying for everyone on occasions.
      At the moment, the Queen receives a Sovereign Grant which covers her expenses and those of Anne, Andrew and Edward. Philip and Princess Margaret would also be covered by this if they were still alive.
      Charles has income from the Duchy of Cornwall and that pays for him, Camilla, William, Kate and their family. Harry and Meghan would have received in income from the Duchy if they were still working royals.
      When Charles becomes King, he will receive the Sovereign Grant and H&M would have been funded by that. It is rumoured he would cut funding to his siblings. The Duchy of Cornwall would go to William and his family.
      However, when William becomes King and is in control of the Sovereign Grant, Harry would be dependent on him for money and that is probably one of the many reasons he and Meghan have decided to become financially independent.

      • notasugarhere says:

        They wouldn’t have received an income, it isn’t like a salary. Their expenses would have been paid out of the Duchy of Cornwall, but the Queen and Charles were already moving to have Harry and Meghan changed to Sovereign Grant funding. That’s why their new Household was co-funded out of SG and Duchy, because it was started mid-fiscal year. The following year, if they had stayed, it would have been all SG funding.

  2. Aurora says:

    I found it weird that Eugenie is being singled out over Beatrice as likely to be cut off. Then I remembered she’s the closest to Harry and lives at Frogmore. I think this article is targeting her to send a message that she needs to fall in line with whatever anti-Sussex agenda they’re pushing.

    • Jais says:

      Yeah it feels like a targeting Eugenie article because she is close to Harry.

    • BlueToile says:

      OMG, yes. The fact that it has been widely reported that Eugenie and her husband are very good friends of the Sussex’s is the only explanation for this ridiculous article. What is wrong with these people. I want to scream every time I see some idiot comment that Harry is a monster for running out on his “family.” He is well rid of them and every day shows that he made the right decision. Can you even imagine being dependent on a father who acts like Charles? And someday to be dependent on Will? 😳 Does anyone remember the short video where Liz, Chuck, Cam, Will and Kate were all walking into some hall to see…whatever was in some tables, and Charles stopped Meg and Harry at the door and said “Senior Royals only!” They were quickly seated and you could hear Chuck dogging on Meghan to the Queen. I thought they WERE senior royals? If they weren’t, why is everyone losing their minds about them leaving? It just feels like Harry was “senior” until Meg came along, and then they were “senior royals” only at arbitrary moments.

      • cabooklover says:

        @ BLUETOILE what video was that?

      • MsIam says:

        @cabooklover, I think it was for the Prince of Wales anniversary or something like that? There was a display of items. I remember people made a big deal of how Meghan and Harry were shooed away for some reason but no one knew why.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        It was the video where Meghan was heavily pregnant with Archie in the off-white coat, off- white pill box house and off-white & green print Victoria Beckham dress.

      • Persephone says:

        Is this the video:
        Its the only one I could find, I saw something like what you described starting at minute 2:00.

      • Becks1 says:

        I’ve watched that video a lot, there was definitely something awkward there but I don’t hear Charles saying anything about “the spare” like someone said or Charles “dogging on Meghan” to the Queen.

        There was definitely something weird about the entrance, but Harry very clearly gestures to Charles to go first, he and M were not expecting to cut in line, it seems the awkwardness is because they were the first at the entrance and so had to wait for the others to get there. They walk in behind the others and then the aide comes and kind of guides them away from the display and then they wait for the other royals to look at the display and then they proceed into the next room.

        It was a weird interaction for sure but I can’t pick up on what other people see/hear.

      • BlueToile says:

        Persephone, thank you for that link. I watched it and now I believe the other I saw (only consisting of the entrance) was doctored! Seriously. This video shows some awkwardness, but nothing like the other where I could absolutely hear “senior royals only!” How do people do that? The voices blended very softly with the other sounds of steps, murmurs, etc. My first clue that something was wrong should have been all the hateful comments about M&H.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Appears some of you viewed a video doctored by Meghan haters.

    • Lizzie says:

      Mentions she is tenth in line but she won’t be after Meghan and Bea deliver.

    • equality says:

      @Persephone That page was disgusting. It’s on the RF Youtube channel and there are nasty comments about Meghan that they just let stay there.

    • February-Pisces says:

      I thought it was weird that eugenie was singled out, she and Beatrice usually come as a pair. I do think it’s a warning shot to toe the line or else. The media seem determined to target anyone who supports harry and Meghan.

      • CuriousCole says:

        @February-Pisces, that must be it. I was pretty confused by Eugenie being the focus of this article when Beatrice is far likelier to be affected. Given their jobs and Sussex housing safety net, Eugenie and Jack will be fine, which must really irk Charles and William.

    • MJM says:

      Yep this article is very strange and shady.

    • Christine says:

      I thought the exact same thing. My God, they REALLY can’t get out of their own way and recognize that they actually owe Harry and Meghan a huge apology. Now they are firing shots across the bow of family members who still acknowledge Harry and Meghan as loved. FFS, we see you.

    • Nina says:

      @persophone: Watched the video. The comments are disgusting. Why would people post such bile. They are championing the snobbish and outdated behaviour of people who wouldn’t even piss on them if they were on fire.
      So glad Meghan and Harry are out of there. When I see Meghan and Harry the Alladin song comes to mind. A whole New World. Was my favourite cartoon as a child. Right now I’m just imagining Meghan singing that to Harry. HAHAHAHAAA. She really opened his eyes to a whole new world

  3. SusanRagain says:

    Go ahead.
    Didn’t they both marry very wealthy men?
    Money hoarding is nasty!
    Cut the $$ off for Andrew and Fergie also.
    If PC relatives need money, let him support them with his own cash.

    I’m starting to be a big fan of Prince Edward and Sophie. They seem to be getting along just fine and keep a fairly low profile.

    • BlueToile says:

      Regarding Sophie & Edward, you may want to reconsider. They are sucking up to the Cambridges and stabbing H&M in the back whenever they can. (We have seen it obvious in public engagements a few times.) They need to stay in good with the heirs or they also get cut off from any $$. It really is a very toxic setup this family has going on. Very Toxic.

    • Isabella Saxon says:

      After seeing Sophie snub Meghan at the Commonwealth Service, I can’t like her anymore. Edward was the only one who was nice to Meghan that day, except Harry of course.

      • Brielle says:

        And Sophie and Edward’s new article where they try to copy the Sussexes,absolutely don’t wanna talk about Andrew but take shots at Oprah and the Sussexes..and here some want us to believe that Sophie isn’t trying to push herself as Meghan’s replacement

    • notasugarhere says:

      E&S were only made working royals, several years into their marriage, because their businesses flopped and they were millions in debt. They own the lease, they do not have the funds to pay expenses, staff, etc. Those things are funded through the SF as long as they are working royals. Charles wanted to remove them from the list of working royals in his reign, which would mean they’d have to pay all the costs at Bagshot themselves.

      Sophie has been kissing up to W&K for years now, before Meghan appeared, to convince them to keep E&S on as working royals during Charles’s reign. Charles even fired the Queen personal secretary who publicly advocated for keeping E&S.

      And agree, never forget Sophie meangirling Meghan while cozying up to Kate publicly.

  4. Cecilia says:

    I do think charles is going to cut andrew completely of after their mother meets her maker.which is why i think that andrew is currently sucking up to the queen to get to her other funds. Because im pretty sure that the queen has more money than whats in the privy purse.

    • Snuffles says:

      Yup, Andrew is greasing up Mummy to get a significant inheritance for him and his children. Charles is sharpening the knife to cut them all off as soon as humanly possible.

      See, this is why all future royals need to educate and train themselves for a life beyond The Crown.

      • (The OG) Jan90067 says:

        Exactly. You can bet YOUR last dollar Mummy Dearest has set aside a HUGE personal bequest for Mummy’s Favorite Pedo, knowing that Charles will freeze him out almost completely (he *may* allow Pedo in the back row of the balcony at Trooping). Barring that, she may be funnelling him large sums NOW, knowing she can’t do it tax-wise when she goes.

        For tax purposes, the bulk of her personal monies, art, and jewels must go to Charles (to be tax free) or they face humongous tax consequences, but wouldn’t it be a kick in the pants for her to say, “Phucket it all… I’m gone… who cares!?” and leave it mostly to Pedo to muck up that inheritance lol

      • Aud says:

        Yes I think almost everyone will get cut off by Charles. I honestly wonder if he may go too far with his cuts. Obviously Andrew has to go. But he may cut off so many family members that they disappear, especially with his lazy son and daughter in law next in line.

    • Becks1 says:

      This is how I’m interpreting the article – that Charles is going to cut off Andrew once he becomes king and as such the York princesses will be affected. It doesn’t really make sense otherwise. And I agree with people above that this is about Eugenie and not Beatrice as a dig at the Sussexes.

      I don’t think the Queen is going to leave Andrew an inheritance, because it would be taxed, but I bet she is giving him lots of money now as a sort of inheritance.

    • Sofia says:

      I agree.

    • notasugarhere says:

      It may be, the Queen took a page out of her mum’s will book. Created trust funds for Andrew and his daughters, but the money was inaccessible for a certain number of years due to inheritance laws. If they did 1) get that money and 2) already blown through that? He might not see more inheritance when she passes.

  5. Jais says:

    Am confused? What was caught on camera?

    • ProfPlum says:

      @Jais, THIS!! This sounds juicy!

    • SarahCS says:

      I think they mean the ‘magnificent seven’ photoshoot outdoors late last year(?), they were billed as the ‘new’ core monarchy who would support the queen and everyone else is out.

    • Becks1 says:

      So I think they are just referring to the stupid “magnificent seven” rollout at Windsor, when W&K stopped by after their train tour of Scotland – the York princesses obviously weren’t there – because it mentions how there were “choice few excluded” which is stupid bc almost everyone was excluded.

      • Jais says:

        Omg that is really stupid. Beatrice also wasn’t there so why isn’t she mentioned as part of the snub? Is it bc she doesn’t live at frogmore? Article was weird and really made it sound like there was an on camera snub but was then vague enough that we gotta discern it was the awkward mag 7 in Scotland camera roll. Lol the only snub was when the Queen strait up ignored Kate while she awkwardly waited to be acknowledged before giving up and then super smiled at Sophie. But sure really it was Eugenie snubbed by Charles. Omfg.

      • Lizzie Bathory says:

        Exactly, Jais. There was an awkward snub on camera. And it wasn’t directed at either of the York girls, both of whom have always seemed close to the Queen.

    • KW says:

      there is a video on youtube where you see Charles telling Meghan and Harry at the door to this room that they need to Stand There, Stand Back and they kept walking in. I don’t hear William say anything, but apparently he stepped in front of Meghan (heavily pregnant btw) and her and Harry both stopped and then an aide or someone comes and whisks them away. Charles is talking on one side of his mouth about the spare or something …. that’s all I could get out of the video myself. Hope it helps. And it looks bad and I feel bad for both Harry and Meghan watching it. Apparently the queen asks Charles “is she gone” it is bad optics, IMO, and the family look ridiculous and Kate is channeling someone with her little house on the prairie cosplay. That’s what I got.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have seen this video and agree with all you say. However, my question is this: Why were Meghan and Harry there if they were not supposed to be there? I am sure the courtiers tell you exactly where to be and what time EXACTLY to show up.

        Did the courtiers specifically “set-up” Meghan & Harry to cause a problem with QEII & Charles?

      • Becks1 says:

        Yes this video is posted above but that’s not what the article is talking about. the article refers to a “snub” of Eugenie in December 2020.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Becks1 – Here is my theory on the York Princesses and it is only my arrogant opinion. Charles really does not care what Beatrice does or does not do as being a Senior Working Royal is NOT her cup of tea. Beatrice has always run with a rich fast European jet & yacht set that contains all types with money and a willingness to party. Looking at who Beatrice married, I cannot see her turning into Princess Anne Lite.

        On the other hand, I can see Eugenie modeling and working herself into becoming a Princess Anne Lite. Eugenie seems to have a common touch and a compelling “light in her eyes” that relates to and attracts the positive attention of your average common Joe taxpayer much like Harry. What I am trying to say is that Eugenie seems to be more liked by the public in general than her sister Beatrice or Aunt Sophie in the same way that Harry was also more popular with the public in general than his brother Baldingham or his Uncle Edward.

        If Anne ever retires and Charles allows it, I can see Eugenie trying to step into Anne’s very big shoes as she seems to be willing to work hard for the firm. Also, Jack Brooksbank is a positive attribute for Eugenie in that he is “attractive” and non-offensive in that athletic military manly-man blokey way that also makes Commander Timothy Laurence highly likable and attractive without really doing anything. In other words Jack Brooksbank does not come come across as fake or as Euro-trash or as social climber.

      • notasugarhere says:

        BTB, I’ve always seen them the other way. Beatrice would be thrilled to be a working royal, while Eugenie has kept a lower profile and wanted to get on with her life.

  6. Monkey70 says:

    Beatrice does actually have a paid job (shocker). She is a VP for partnerships and strategy at Afiniti. David Cameron is also the head of the board of advisors so I expect this pays a lot for very little input from her. If you read her job history on their website someone should get a pulitzer for her resume.

  7. Noki says:

    The York sisters dont even seem overly flashy,I have seen influencers who are more grand than those two blood Princesses. I think they live within their means and are content.

    • Cecilia says:

      I think both sisters but particularly Beatrice do like a good flashy/ hollywood party now and then. They are just smart enough not to make it public.

    • Truthiness says:

      Beatrice really sticks out. I remember when Beatrice got her job. It hit the news because in her first 50 days, she took 25 days off on holiday for “events” she needed to vacation off to. The firm allegedly needed to talk to her about her 50% attendance record.

      • notasugarhere says:

        If her boss approved her holiday requests against firm’s wishes, the boss is the one who should have received the talking to.

  8. lunchcoma says:

    I mean, they both married well-off men, so there’s no reason to think they needed extended support. And I understand in theory why Charles doesn’t want the monarchy to extend to a bunch of cousins by the time William is king. Having the Kents around now isn’t great.

    But Charles can’t have his cake and eat it too. If there’s somehow a hole left by the Sussexes that needs to be filled by a pair of royals who can attend events no one cares about without working harder than William or outshining Kate, Beatrice and Eugenie are right there. Whatever their parents’ faults, they’re good placeholders. If they’re surplus to requirements, so were Harry and Meghan.

  9. Lionel says:

    What event in 2020 are they even talking about? Was Beatrice there and Eugenie wasn’t? And if so might it have been because Eugenie was, you know, having a baby right around that time?

    • Becks1 says:

      I said this above, but I think it was the event at Windsor Castle in December, with the working royals and the queen. There was no snub because it was just the main working royals – Anne, Edward, Sophie, Charles, Camilla, William, Kate. Andrew wasn’t there, his daughters weren’t, the Gloucesters weren’t, the Kents weren’t, etc.

  10. Cat Friend says:

    As a UK taxpayer these many years all I can say to your headline is about bloody time
    Nobody cares about them and they money they waste on excruciating bad taste designer wear is sickening .
    Charlie boy is right that when his mum goes (Mrs Windsor as she is known) there will be less toleration of the rest .
    Sorry I haven’t read the rest as I just can’t be ar**d with even reading about them in detail .The photos are enough for me .None of them are truly interested in charity work which was the redeeming feature.No I don’t want a republic but I want less of them on the public purse
    End of rant 😹

    • BayTampaBay says:

      If Charles cuts out the York family, as we believe he will, will less money be spent in aggregate or will Charles just spend more on himself & Camilla?

      Inquiring Minds Want To Know!

      • Jais says:

        Okay this is interesting bc I’m assuming the slimmed down monarchy means less money from taxpayers? But is that actually true? Like is there a breakdown of this?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        The Sovereign Grant is a percentage of the Crown Estates net profits paid each year to whomever is the Sovereign in a lump-sum for said sovereign to distribute at their grace, favor and pleasure.

        There has been no public transparency with a breakdown who gets how much $$$ since parliament did away with the Civil List and individual Civil List payments to working royals and replaced it with the lump-sum Sovereign Grant.

      • Jais says:

        So is the slimming down of the monarchy just an illusion, like telling the public there’s less of us so we must cost less when in fact there is no real change and the money is just aggregated differently at the discretion of who’s in power? Well no wonder Charles is in favor of a slimmed down monarchy if that’s the case. So it just a scheme to curry public favor then?

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @Jais – Your theory is my theory. I see Chucky III spending no less money with a slimmed down working Royal Family. I only see him spending the money differently which may or may not be a good thing depending on where the money goes.

      • Jais says:

        Wow that’s kinda crazy. I mean I guess Charles could spend it more wisely but how would anyone ever know if there’s no transparency? But at least you can say hey we slimmed down the monarchy therefore we are spending less on new dresses and buttons.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There’s never any talk of them taking less money, regardless of the plan to move to 1/3 the number of working royals they have now. Interesting, no?

        Meanwhile, they extracted hundreds of millions more out of taxpayers for the BP restoration. No questions about all the funds *already paid to the Queen for years for that upkeep and restoration going astray*. Now they’re calling for 80 million in taxpayer funds to refurbish *just one side* of Charlie’s vanity home, Clarence House.

  11. Murphy says:

    Considering he’s having a hard time keeping his firm staffed these days, and he’s about to loose several to retirement/general elderliness….you’d think he wouldn’t want to alienate the only young people who’d be willing to work for it.

  12. Lizzie says:

    I thought the York girls were always cut off – so this is saying they won’t be supplemented by their father once Charles is King? Old news

    • BayTampaBay says:

      Per other less reliable gossip sites: Andrew was being funded via the Sovereign Grant & QEII’s personal handouts from her personal wallet.

      The York Princesses never received direct funding from the Sovereign Grant or QEII’s personal wallet. Beatrice & Eugenie funding came thru their father who receives his non-dodgy funding from the Sovereign Grant & QEII’s personal handouts and his dodgy funding from a place no ‘Palace People” probably want to talk.

  13. Midge says:

    Eug working at Paddle 8 is kind of funny. She worked with Alex Gilkes, Eton grad and world class social climber who is currently engaged to Maria Sharapova. Alex preyed upon teenage Misha Nonoo and eventually married her in a lavish ceremony at the Peggy Guggenheim museum in Venice. I have friends who attended the wedding. Paddle 8 was an abysmal failure but Alex used his social network to escape unscathed. These art world “jobs” are playgrounds for the rich and connected.

    • Merricat says:

      The politics of who gets to own art is another ball of wax.

    • notasugarhere says:

      That may be how Eugenie and Meghan already knew each other, prior to Meghan and Harry being set up on their blind dat. Both Eugenie and Meghan are friends with Misha Nonoo.

      • Humbugged says:

        both York girls ,their hubbys and Meghan and Harry were all at Misha’s second wedding

        And ‘preyed’ it a bit off .She was in her mid 20s when she met Gilkes and married him 3 years later in 2012 when her cousin was the Ambassador to the US and Gilkes is 4 years older than her

  14. teecee says:

    I would be surprised if the Queen hasn’t made provisions for her favorite rapist and his children (no real shade to the York girls, you don’t choose your parents) from her vast private fortune. She’s not a brainbox, but that doesn’t mean she’s a total idiot. Charles has been telegraphing his plans for Andrew and company for years now.

  15. HeyJude says:

    It’s quite funny Charles and William are alienating every royal that’s decent. Harry and Meghan are persona non grata.

    Eugenie is one of the few grandkids who doesn’t appear to want to exclusively suck off the teat of royalty. She had an actual real job and her husband has had actual real jobs. She has a marketable skill in working in art. They have actual work ethics.

    So of course they must go and they must be insulted in the press on the way out!

    Charles is in for a real shock one day when he’s an old, sickly monarch and the only people left surrounding him are vipers who have nothing but bad, self-serving intentions like William, Kate, and the Middletons.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      IMAO, the problem Chuck will have is that his subjects, especially the ones in less urban and rural areas request and expect a Royal to attend their local celebrations and fetes. This is the bread-and-butter engagement work Anne thrives on as it brings her into direct contact with Mr. & Ms. John Q. Taxpayer and puts a smile on their faces.

      If Charles “gets rid” of the York Princesses and the Wessexes, there will not be enough royals to service all the “requests for a Royal” as Princess Anne & The Duke of Gloucester age out into semi then full retirement. The Cambridge kids have 20+ years to go before they complete their education plus military service and are ready to hoe-a-row as full-time senior royals. Also, here is a good chance that Charles may not be around in 20+ years so that is an additional loss of Camilla and himself. If Mr. & Ms. Public want a Royal at their annual village fete, what is King Baldingham going to do?

      Per Robert Hazel author of “The Role of Monarchy in Modern Democracy” explains:

      The monarch needs a large team to service the demand. Talk to any lord lieutenant—they’re the queen’s representatives in each county, who organize the bids for royal visits. I know our local lord lieutenant very well, and he says that the demand for royal visits, also known as “bread & butter engagements”, far exceeds what the palace can supply. I have no doubt that it’s similar in other counties. That’s the dilemma that they face. That’s why, although Prince Charles has said that he would like to slim down the size of the royal family, by which he means have a smaller team, in practice he’ll find that quite difficult when he becomes king.

      Take Norway, which has a population of 5 million. Their royal team is four people. The king and queen, and the crown prince and crown princess, and a team of four people can service a population of 5 million. The population of the U.K. is 66 million, so it’s 13 times larger than that of Norway, and one of the main functions of the royal family is to get out there and be seen.

      • notasugarhere says:

        There are enough royals to cover many bread-and-butter engagements if William and Kate are required to do a minimum of 500 a year (like Charles and Anne do).

  16. bettyrose says:

    When minor royals start having babies, do they have a plan for the long term support? Are the babies supposed to go to university and have careers if they aren’t being given a piece of the royal pie? And didn’t we just hear that Philip left a bundle to the Yorks?

    What’s the future for Louis and Charlotte like? Will they have trustfunds or be expected to work for a living? It’s not easy to find a career that sustains a royal-level life but it would also be weird to have a royal joining the middle class suburban grind, wouldn’t it?

    • Becks1 says:

      Yes, they are supposed to go to university etc and then go to work. Princess Margaret’s children both work (her son designs high-end furniture I think). I think Sophie and Edward intend for their children to have careers. Zara and Peter Phillips were never going to be working royals so they have careers (somewhat shady with Peter but still.) The York princesses have jobs. posh jobs, but jobs. and then the children/grandchildren of the Kents and Gloucesters all have careers I think.

      I think Charlotte and Louis will be interesting because I imagine right now the expectation is that all three will be working royals, but then we’re back in this same situation in 50 years (if the monarchy is around) where you have cousins etc of the king and have to find a place for them. It would be better if C&L were not working royals and the main working royals were just the monarch and the spouse and the direct heir.

      • bettyrose says:

        Thanks, Becks! But unless I misunderstand what it means to work in an art gallery, the York Princesses earn enough to live with roommates in less stylish parts of London. I mean, know they’re married to rich men now, but very few uni graduates will ever earn the kind of lifestyle they live, so I guess I still don’t see how any RF offspring is truly expected to live off their own earnings.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Harry has set the expectation for Charlotte and Louis to never use titles, never use HRH, and go out and earn a living. Move to a format like most other European royals, where only the Heir and firstborn are working royals. All younger siblings are required to go out and make a living.

  17. Lila says:

    This bull who’s in and who’s out superiority club is precisely the royals’ problem. It’s more like a clique than a family. What’s the point of this? Eugenie has a job. She’s not trying to be a working royal. Why be petty? All this is doing is revelling in being able to say she’s out.

    I do think Charles is harder in the York princesses because he hates Andrew. They seem to have laid all their hopes Edward and Sophie which I’m skeptical of. They aren’t popular and have never been popular for a reason. I realize Charles had enough siblings that he didn’t need cousins, but William isn’t in that situation. They need to quit burning bridges and think more about what William is going to do once Anne and Edward are gone.

  18. anotherlily says:

    There is no ‘privy purse’. It was replaced by the Sovereign Grant, all of which goes to the Queen who uses it to meet the expenses of running ‘the Firm’ which includes payments to some senior royals who have official royal duties. This does not include Prince Charles or the Cambridges (or the Sussexes before they left) whose expenses are paid from the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall .

    The York Princesses have never been part of the Firm. They each have trust fund money from the Queen Mother and the Queen also made trust fund provision for them following their parents’ divorce. They were told that they would need to work and live independently after completing their education. However they have always lived in royal residences, sharing a flat in St James’ Palace when they were both single. Eugenie then moved into a cottage in Kensington Palace when she married. Charles reportedly wants to end the assumption that certain royals are entitled to be housed in royal residencies when they have no official duties. Despite the fact that they pay market rents it is still seen as a ‘perk’ . Princess Margaret’s children have bought their own homes and so have most other members of the royal family. Charles thinks Andrew’s daughters should do the same.

    This may be why Eugenie and her husband have moved into Frogmore Cottage. Prince Harry owns a long lease on the house and has repaid all the Sovereign Grant money spent on converting what were staff cottages into a royal residence. Charles has no say in who lives there.

    • BayTampaBay says:

      “Despite the fact that they pay market rents it is still seen as a ‘perk”.

      I would say they pay on the low end of “market rent” and would being willing to bet they pay no “Management & Maintenance” fees as they would in any London or NYC high-rise co-op or condo building.

      Not trying to put the York Princesses down but I agree with you that housing in a Royal compound is very much a “perk”.

    • Amy Too says:

      Then what are they going to do with all that property? Rent them to the public? Put courtiers and servants up in them? Keep them empty? I thought the whole point of all the cottages and houses and estates was so that the monarch could have their friends and family around them. It’s a perk based on birth and nothing else, but it’s a monarchy, of course there will be certain perks for the people the monarch loves and is related to.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        I have no problem with anyone living at Buckingham Palace, Kensington Palace, St. James Palace or Windsor Palace that has permission (grace & favor or pleasure & convenience) of the Sovereign. The Sovereign must have some prerogatives and housing choices should be one of them.

        All of theses “Grace & Favor” tenancies with peppercorn rents came to public attention in the mid-1980s when the cost of living in London began to mega-skyrocket as the Royal “help” and “staff” at all levels of paygrade began to complain needing & wanting a “living wage” if they were not already from wealthy families. Employees of the palace wanted housing provide as part of their salary as it was in most cases prior to the mid-1960s. (FYI: The commentariat of the Daily Fail was really pissed when when the Sussexes got Frogmore Cottage and “supposedly” displaced up to five households of Windsor Castle staff)

        So all the people with HRH in front of their name began to look like free loaders. This “discussion” feed stories and comments in the Daily Fail and other tabloids for years going back to the time before “online” and comments in the form of “Letters to the Editor” and dial-in toll charge lines to leave a voice mail opinion message which was a particular favorite of The Fail.

        There is no easy answer because nothing is transparent and there are no written rules. It is impossible to make an informed opinion on something that is impossible to inform yourself on.

        Notasugarhere, one of my favorite posters and a CB legend, once said something along the lines that all the HRHs should be housed in one compound and security provided within that compound. If you live somewhere outside of the compound or go on holiday you picked up your tab for security on your own dime.

        P.S. I would love to have seen the Sussexes rent Frogmore Cottage to some really rich pleb just to piss off all the Windsors I do not like and the Daily Mail commentariat.

      • notasugarhere says:

        Bay, hugs. I’m going to buy you a cape as you’re a Legend Royal Poster!

        I stick by the ‘put them all in one damn place’ mentality. The security costs are off the charts when they’re all flitting around to different estates, multiple royal homes, off on holiday, living separately from their spouses, using taxpayer funds to secure private residences like Balmoral, Sandringham, and Gatcomb.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Eugenie and her then-boyfriend, Jack, were paying rent on that space at Kensington Palace. They weren’t given a cottage to live in for free.

      Eugenie and Jack now living at Frogmore Cottage, by the grace and favour of Harry and Meghan? Leads me to believe Eugenie/Jack don’t have nearly as much money as we think.

  19. Nivz says:

    Eugenie. Rhymes with Liz Cheney.
    Each has a problematic dad.
    Each has a semblance of a conscience.
    Each gets shafted by her respective establishment.

  20. Athena says:

    I’m not sure Beatrice’s husband Jack is that wealthy. It is interesting that no son of a billionaire tried to marry a blood princess. Jack may actually be-able to earn more and have more business deals outside of the UK, away from the scrutiny of the British press who will accuse him of profiting from his royal connection.
    I will wager that those two will be the next ones to leave the country. Anne’s children especially Zara are also a possibility.

  21. India says:

    Charles needs to tighten the purse strings around the Cambridges to keep them from undercutting him.

  22. Gk says:

    And this is why it was wise of Harry to leave and make his own money. Who knows what the future holds for the entire monarchy but for the second born it is even less secure.

    • Carty says:

      Harry seems like the type that would look out for Eugenie if Chuck messes with her

  23. Athena says:

    I just want to add, if my grandmother was the Queen of England and worth $350 million, I would expect to be living in the lap of luxury. I cannot understand the finances of these people, the appearance of penny pinching, all the money going to the person who needs it the least. Can’t they be gifted money, property, businesses before the queen dies? Do they have trust funds in the UK? Offshore accounts to fund to living of a grandchild?
    The queen can gift them a house, a real gift, not the fake Frogmore Cottage gift. She can loan the funds for a business ( and then forgive the loan). Rich folks have plenty of ways to avoid paying taxes and passing money on to their children.
    How much financial support is Camilla providing to her children?

    • Tessa says:

      I did read that Charles gave Tom and Laura trust funds, amount unknown. APB would probably have Tom and Laura in his will and also, Camilla would probably leave money to Tom and Laura.

    • Elizabeth says:

      Forbes estimated her private wealth at $500 million last month.

      • Brielle says:

        She is less rich than OPRAH who worked to be rich?I am shocked,I thought she would be a billionaire like JEFF BEZOS

  24. 2cents says:

    🤔 This story makes me wonder if Charles (as a soft regent) has also tightened William’s and Kate’s purse behind the scene.

    I question this because of the recent changes at Kensington Palace with the help of crisis managers: Jason Knauf was sacked (Christian Jones before him) and the Cambridges changed their social media name from Kensingtonroyal to dukeandduchessofcambridge and started a Youtube channel.

    So could Charles be forcing W&K to give up their separate household and share a smaller combined household with him? That would be more efficient working as a team and conveniently dampen any overzealous ambitions William has to be the next king.

    Charles could also change giving W&K a yearly lump sum upfront and turn it into a performance pay instead, where W&K’s income will vary according to the number of engagements they do each year. No more laziness for W&K. They’ll have to work hard or fund their lifestyle with their own private money. It would please the taxpayers.

    It could explain why William was willing to change his tune and threw Diana under the bus in favor of his father in his BBC statement and why he looked so unhappy on his recent “charmless” Scotland tour.

    Charles’ vision of a slimmed down, efficient monarchy may be quite radical. We’ll wait and see!

  25. Jay says:

    I think dear Andrew is using his more publically sympathetic daughter as a human shield – see Charles? See what happens when you cut off the Yorks? Do you want poor, sweet Eugenie to cry? Or worse, not be able to afford $400 velvet headbands? Is that what you want, you stingy #$&!?

    • detnew359 says:

      @jay, this! People are forgetting the Andrew factor. He has been playing up his daughters for years. Whether his daughters want the money or not, he wants it for them and feels his kids should have the same things as Charles’ children.

  26. lee says:

    The Great Billie Holliday with her cowriter Mr. Herzog sung it best. Mrs. Meghan no doubt has heard it and believes it.

    Rich relations give
    Crust of bread and such
    You can help yourself
    But don’t take too much
    Mama may have, Papa may have
    But God bless the child that’s got his own

    He just don’t worry ’bout nothin’
    ‘Cause he’s got his own

    • bamaborn says:

      Awww Lady Day! Thanks for the flashback.

    • Becks1 says:

      It’s kind of funny that you posted these lyrics on Friday bc that song and Billie H were a question/answer on Jeopardy that same day.

  27. equality says:

    This has probably been in the works for a while. That would explain Eugenie moving to Frogmore and the rumors that Bea and Edo are looking for a house. It is probably directed more toward Eugenie because Bea and Edo seem to be pretty set and have apparently been living with his mother during the lockdown and not in royal housing. I’m glad Harry let Eugenie use Frogmore because I bet it irritates Charles with his plan. It makes it more awful though if Fergie was sending encouraging texts to Piers Morgan.

  28. The Recluse says:

    She may not be able to afford a royal lifestyle, but at least Eugenie does have a career. Poor Beatrice though takes after her parents in that she is lazy and self-indulgent and probably a spendthrift. I hope her husband has enough money to keep her in comfort and for his in-laws to sponge off of him.
    I would not be surprised if the Queen is siphoning off a small fortune for Andrew’s use before and after she is gone.

  29. Brielle says:

    Is this really a story? I thought Beatrice and Eugenie had real jobs and weren’t working royals? Do they or their parents wanted them to return as working royals?

    • L4frimaire says:

      I don’t even understand the gist of this story, other than to put Charles name out there, and try to create news. And why single one out? She’s on maternity leave and apparently minding her business.

      • Brielle says:

        And also these girls are super connected: one of them was dining with Peter Dundas,and she was also at the tories party when they won and they wore really expensive coats at Philip’s funeral,and it seems that one of them is living at Frogmore for free so..I don’t think they need the royal purse

  30. MangoAngelesque says:

    I always associate the word “privy” with its “toilet/outhouse” definition, so all I could think was that their obsession with Harry & Meghan’s bathroom count suddenly makes sense; they have to get their money from a Bathroom Fund!

  31. Gillysirl says:

    Doesn’t this all seem like some weird dystopian novel? You’re born a prince, raised in a castle, told you are special your whole life, not challenged on anything, you’re always right. Except you’re not the first born. So once you’re of age, you’re on your own – all the money goes to the first born. And you can’t complain. And you’re not permitted to make money in any way that’s visible. I am NOT a fan of the royal family (and obviously Andrew is awful and should be in jail) this seems like another level of petty meanness. They are so toxic. They constantly set people up to fail.

  32. Janethetrain says:

    If I am a newly hired crisis manager, I’m shifting all plans into converting most royal palaces to museums and start returning some “treasures” to their country of origin. Gen Z is getting older and they are coming hard for the past. The Windsors only survival is to turn into “keepers” of the legacy. It will also provide a cover for williams lack of work. If he is “managing” Buckingham Museum’s new exhibits, he can outsource all of the work involved and no one will know.

    Transitioning to museums and preemptively cutting the budget will create passive income for their foundations and will give Charles and William the ability to close everyone out too, which is why we are hearing from Uncle Gary. Nobody cares about the morals of ornamental kings.

    • equality says:

      Charles has planned on moving Buckingham more to offices and museum and not residing there. That wouldn’t be new. Since the Queen has decided to stay at Windsor now his timeline may move up on that. If the Queen has any say in that, the museum manager job would likely go to Andrew or one of her grandchildren who aren’t “working” royals. I would be greatly surprised to see any “treasures” returned though. Some are already kept hidden and unused because of sketchy provenance. The Queen is considered only the caretaker of some items so, I imagine, the government would have to authorize any returns. If they did exhibit some like that they could probably do big business as a museum though.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Any income from a BP museum would go to the taxpayers, not the Windsors. Just as exhibits at Kensington Palace are put on by a stand-alone charity, Historic Royal Palaces.