The Guardian examines the secrecy around the monarchy’s ‘private’ finances

Every so often, a British outlet – usually the Guardian – will attempt to do some real reporting on the British monarchy and their secretive finances. While the details of the Sovereign Grant are made public every year, the SG is far from the Windsors’ only source of income. The monarch has access to the vast resources of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the heir (the Prince of Wales) has access to the Duchy of Cornwall. Both duchies are billion-dollar portfolios of real estate and investments. Personally, I believe that Charles spent a significant amount of time William-proofing the Duchy of Cornwall, so that when William became the PoW, he wouldn’t loot the entire duchy and spend money like a drunken sailor. In any case, the Guardian has done a new series about the secretive money situations of the royal family – you can read one of the pieces here. Some highlights:

The money from the duchies: King Charles and the late Queen Elizabeth II have received payments equivalent to more than £1bn from two land and property estates that are at the centre of a centuries-old debate over whether their profits should be given to the public instead.

The duchies of Lancaster & Cornwall. The duchies operate as professionally run real estate empires that manage swathes of farmland, hotels, medieval castles, offices, shops and some of London’s prime luxury real estate. They also have substantial investment portfolios, but pay no corporation tax or capital gains tax. Duchy accounts, held in parliamentary and state archives, reveal how the queen and her first-born son, in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, benefited from a huge increase in their revenues from the duchies during her seven-decade reign. Last year, their duchy income totalled £41.8m. Adjusting for inflation, the pair have received the equivalent of more than £1.2bn in total revenues from the two estates.

The profits: Profits from the Duchy of Lancaster, which consists of 18,481 hectares of rural land, primarily in the north of England and the Midlands, automatically pass to whoever is sitting on the throne. The estate itself is valued at £652m. The Duchy of Cornwall, which encompasses 52,450 hectares, mostly in the south-west of England, is worth more than £1bn. The estate has not kept pace with legislation, passed in 2013, to bring gender equality into royal succession. Its profits still only go automatically to the male heir to the throne.

The Windsors’ claim to the duchies: The royal family’s claim to the income from the duchies stems from archaic charters dating back to when the country was divided into medieval fiefdoms. Ever since the advent of parliamentary democracy, however, generations of MPs have challenged the arrangement and called for duchy profits to be paid to the Treasury instead. Parliamentary debate has often coincided with the accession of a new monarch, amid renewed scrutiny over their public and private sources of wealth.

The Windsors refuse to spend their own money: The royals insist their duchy income is “private” and the government treats it as entirely separate from the sovereign grant, the annual payment the royal family receives from the government to cover its official costs. That too has risen dramatically in recent times, and costs the taxpayer £86m a year. Buckingham Palace declined to comment on the Guardian’s figures for income received from the duchies, which it described as “speculative”.

The Windsors claim to spend their duchy money: The palace has long stated that income received from both duchies is largely spent on the family’s official duties, public work or charitable causes. However, the royals have never provided a detailed account of how money from the estates is spent, describing them as “private financial arrangements”. Charles has reported that 49% to 51% of his duchy income was spent covering public and charitable functions in recent years.

How the duchy money is really spent: As Prince of Wales, a large part of Charles’s duchy income was spent privately, including on secretaries, valets, gardeners, chefs, stable hands and farm workers. The late queen was reported to have used Duchy of Lancaster income to help Prince Andrew pay an undisclosed sum – reported to be more than £9m – to end the sexual assault case filed against him by Virginia Giuffre.

[From The Guardian]

There’s more about how little transparency there is with how the duchies function, where the money goes and how the money is spent. This… seems like a pretty easy fix? I’m sure the part about “wanting duchy profits to go to the government” wouldn’t be an easy fix, but the transparency issue is an easy fix – simply pass a transparency law which applies to the monarchy. Audit the f–kers. Make them do the f–king paperwork and file taxes. Tell the royals they can still keep the profits, but everything has to be above-board and taxed. Why does the British government allow for this issue to still be shrouded in so much secrecy? This isn’t a security issue!

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Cover Images.

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

69 Responses to “The Guardian examines the secrecy around the monarchy’s ‘private’ finances”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Slush says:

    I am so glad you’re covering this! I hope it wakes up some monarchists to the reality of how much they’re being fleeced by this family.

    • Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

      Like you I hope that it will open a few eyes but I believe that monarchists are just a stubborn and stupid as MAGAs, so my hope is probably misplaced.

    • Cara says:

      Brits are taught not to ask these sort of questions. From birth, they are conditioned to accept without questioning everything to do with the royal family. To do otherwise, is considered disloyal … even treasonous. Brits should DEMAND transparency. Unfortunately, most of them don’t seem to understand that they have basic rights as humans to do so. They wait for the king to do the right thing, but he will never do any of this voluntarily.

      • Pip says:

        “To do otherwise, is considered disloyal … even treasonous. ”

        Um, no, really not. Otherwise 32% of us would be a bit more wary about calling for a republic. That’s many million British adults who’ll happily argue the case for abolishing the monarchy. It feels as if the tide is turning & really quite swiftly now.

        Along with the Stand With Ukraine badge I wear on my lanyard, I have a #NotMyKing one & no-one has accused me of treason yet.

    • LittlePenguin says:

      I too am so glad you covered this – I read it yesterday and hoped you’d have a post. It’s an excellent reporting piece and the world has changed since QE2 was crowned. I’m glad to see people questioning the whole monarchy thing.

  2. C says:

    They’ll never pass a law to force their finances into the open. There is a reason the royals are exempt from the Freedom of Information Act (as the article states). Because if they did that the entire system would crumble from the uncovered corruption and loopholes and questionable methods of “reinvesting” versus raising income. And it’s in the monetary and political interests of a lot of people at the top of British government and economy to maintain the royals where they are.

    • Tacky says:

      It’s outrageous they don’t have to pay tax on their earnings like everyone else. It’s basically free money.

  3. Naomi says:

    The system is set up to avoid transparency; it’s supposed to be impenetrable on purpose. Monarchy only works if people don’t realize *precisely* how much their being bilked. Like, everyone knows the monarchy is subsidized, but there would be riots in the streets of the public had access to precise numbers, shady loopholes where monies are secreted away, etc. Because as bad we think it is (= the extent to which the royals pilfer the british public), it’s probably a lot worse.

    So yeah, definitely pass some transparency laws. But I wouldn’t hold my breath given the Tory party’s hold on the government. Everyone knows the Windsors are a house of cards.

    • booboocita says:

      Most independent polling predicts a massive Labour wave in the next election, which I believe is in the next couple of years (British Celebitches, help me out here). If/when that happens, an audit of monarchy money is all but assured. I’m here for it!

      • Mary Pester says:

        @booboocita, the election is next year, and I pray to god that Labour DO have a landslide. Every right minded person knew that the moment the press started printing stories about the monarch and his mucky money grabbing, they would release a story to deflect from it. BUT, they haven’t got Harry and Megan for the press to use for deflection now, so they release a story about their links to the slave trade!! It won’t go anywhere, and the story will go away, the minute their mucky money stops making headlines

      • Jojo says:

        Even if Labour win the election next year the royal money tree would be protected. Any new laws needed to make change happen would never get through the House of Lords. Our second chamber needs massive reform for there to be any chance at all of changes to Royal financial transparency. They all need to go and we need a fully elected body to replace the HoL, the monarchy abolished and an elected Head of State position put in place. The elected HoS could be provided with one (two at most) official residences, security, expenses and a decent salary. All hereditary positions that impact public life in any way and rely on public funding need to go.

  4. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    I’m loving this series by the Guardian and the timing of it is impeccable! It should wrap just before the Con-a-nation and hopefully will make, at least, a few people stop and think about the value of the royal family, the role they play and do the British taxpayers really want to continue to financially support a family of million/billionaires.

    • Roseberry says:

      This series is a follow on from a series last week in the guardian on the direct links between the Industrial Revolution and the slave trade,with a specific focus on Manchester with a special magazine supplementary on Saturdays issue. You can probably see it online ( if you google Cotton Capital- How slavery shaped the guardian, Britain & the world)
      In 2020 The guardian commissioned academic researchers and have now published the facts that although it was founded by liberal thinkers in 1819 in response to a massacre at a workers protest, the original founders were businessmen with links to transatlantic slavery. They have committed to investing £10 million specifically to descendant communities linked to their founders.
      Today, in response to that research which also shows the royal family’s links – BP has issued a statement that the king took the issue “profoundly seriously”and that they would be doing independent research, including access to the royal archives. I’m not holding my breath on this- I’m expecting some wishy-washy statements about deeply regretting, moving on, strong commonwealth blah blah blah…….

      • Bee says:

        The Guardian has been on fire lately! The Cotton Capital series is excellent. I’m looking forward to this series and really should send them a bit of cash. They seem to be the only domestic press that isn’t afraid of the palace.

    • Hyacinth Bucket says:

      Yep, the timing is superb. They’re doing slave trade and the RF today. 😀

      • Jojo says:

        @Bee I choose to subscribe to the Guardian and pay a small amount by direct debit monthly to support them exactly because of their, relative, independence from any billionaire press barons in general & Murdoch in particular. It is literally the only mainstream news source in the UK that didn’t fully jump on the H&M hate fest. When I set this arrangement up online there was a section asking me why I’d chosen to donate and I stated their stance on the monarchy and their relative lack of bias toward Prince Harry & Princess Meghan as my reasons.

  5. Brassy Rebel says:

    And yet they insist they are public servants. More like public leeches.

  6. Seaflower says:

    So not only are they getting a huge sovereign grant, plus the money from these two duchies, but also they accept bags of cash and expensive jewellery. And that’s before talk about what was looted from other countries. Greed knows no bounds.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      No, it can’t be that much. Charles said he couldn’t afford to finance Harry’s wife, so. He must be near broke. The bags of dictator cash all went to charity obviously (all sarcasm).

  7. No it’s not a security problem it’s a we don’t want anyone to know. Don’t think much will change.

  8. tamra says:

    I am also interested about the bags of cash and the paying for titles and access to the royals!

  9. ML says:

    This is another excellent series by The Guardian!!
    For more articles about wealth, money, costs and slavery connected to the British monarchy https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/series/cost-of-the-crown
    That is the place to be.

    • UnstrungPearl says:

      An excellent series! And perfect timing. It won’t be covered by the tabloids, but just having all the info (or lack of info) published in a mainstream paper will provide an excellent resource.
      What really shocks me is the total secrecy on how the sovereign grant is spent. Its taxpayer money, just tell us! I’m not even saying it’s too much (though it is) if it’s spent on the public buildings, duties etc. As the saying goes…if you’ve done nothing wrong, you’ve nothing to hide, right?

  10. Tarte au Citron says:

    Highly recommend “…And What Do You Do?” by Norman Baker which covers this topic. He is a former Lib Dem MP and member of the Privy Council.

    • ML says:

      I just ordered this—thanks for the tip, Tarte Au Citron.

    • Becks1 says:

      yes I found that book REALLY interesting.

    • Jaded says:

      Just ordered it, thanks for the recommendation!

    • kirk says:

      Another critical book from different perspective is “Running the Family Firm” by Laura Clancy, sociology lecturer at U. of Manchester. Examines the secrecy, media manipulation and capital accumulation in context of global inequality by ruthless family intent on projecting benign image. Book went to press before Oprah interview with M-H, so those thoughts not included.

      Dr. John Kirkhope’s research on Duchy of Cornwall that he did while working on PhD at University of Plymouth used to be available online. Guardian will probly use his work.

      • kirk says:

        If you want easy access to Dr Kirkhope’s work, he also published book “The Duchy of Cornwall. Beyond the Law” with Peter Smith as co-author.

  11. UnstrungPearl says:

    If the Duchy money is truly private, why aren’t they paying taxes? If Charles wants to help people he can start by paying tax ffs!
    Politicians these days are so useless with the monarchy. Saw that Keir Starmer was just at a dinner and stayover with King Charles, no chance he’ll do anything if he wins next year.

  12. notasugarhere says:

    Good. Let’s hope in the future they delve into how the ‘private’ estates of Balmoral and Sandringham were actually purchased with taxpayer funds, and the shady deal around the monarch–to-monarch tax-free inheritance of private wealth.

  13. Amy Bee says:

    With all that money it begs the questions why they still get money from the state and why the Queen couldn’t use her own money to pay for the renovations of Frogmore Cottage?

    • BeanieBean says:

      That was my first thought, with all that private money, how do they have the gall to accept money from the government? They could be entirely self-financing.

  14. HeyKay says:

    We would be shocked to find out how much wealth they have!
    And the zillions of ways they hide it, never pay taxes on it, hoard it.

    The more true info that comes out, the faster it all will turn to dust.

    • Babz says:

      I would bet that the banks in Switzerland and the Caymans have quite a few numbered bank accounts belonging to the BRF. You just know they are stashing money offshore, besides raking in and spending money from the Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall.

    • Babz says:

      You know that the banks in Switzerland and the Caymans have quite a few numbered bank accounts belonging to the BRF. They are stashing money offshore, besides raking in and spending money from the Duchys of Lancaster and Cornwall.

    • The Recluse says:

      I would recommend re-visiting the Panama Papers. The Queen’s finances appeared in those.

  15. Cams says:

    I don’t think the british royal family has that much “cash on hand”. If William was actually rich he could’ve married better than Kate. Their marriages show how little money they have. It’s more than you and me but it’s not enough for the lifestyle. William friends are all scroungers. Their events have lowlifes.

    Queen e2 had ww2 in her favor. Charles has the old way and tv in his favor. William will be a “what’s Margaret for?”. His kids will need to be impressive and I doubt it. It’s time to start burying money in egypt because I don’t see them surviving the tory recession that’s coming soon.

    • ML says:

      CRex definitely has billions of pounds at hand. My personal experience with the very rich is that many of them see themselves as far less wealthy than they are. Harry was controlled by his father, but my guess is that many of the others (if careful) would be millionaires.

      • Cams says:

        @ml Charles is less wealthy because of all the things he has to pay for. Between the grant, Dutch, and stolen money – has to pay out housing, food, habits, events, family, staff, and whatever else. To them they probably do seem poor. Compare them to Paris Hilton. Paris is wealthy but she can hide away. She doesn’t have to maintain so much.

      • Becks1 says:

        it speculates in the article that the Charles gets around 50 million/year from the Duchy of Lancaster. PLUS the sovereign grant funding. PLUS whatever is hidden offshore. PLUS his bags of cash. And that’s probably a low estimate.

        Make no mistake, Charles is wealthy. VERY wealthy.

        someone like Sophie is a different story. But charles (and his mother before him) is very very wealthy.

        Also, if Charles feels poor because of everything he has to spend….then he can slim down his spending.

    • C says:

      Oh they keep their cash offshore. It was in the Paradise Papers. But I agree that most of the family doesn’t have much in the way of liquid assets. I think William did because of his position, but because he is just cheap anyway and it was helpful for the Middletons to cover all her expenses while she dated him, which I highly doubt a lot of aristo families who are similarly cash poor would have done for their daughters (paying for her airfare on holiday with him, paying for her expenses wherever they went together etc).

      • Cams says:

        If William really wanted Kate things would’ve went down different. He didnt try with her at all. Lol. I still believe she funds herself to a degree. That’s why she gets to do these stupid events.

    • equality says:

      William didn’t have the duchy money when he married Kate. And there are rich men available that don’t come with all the scrutiny and BS of the RF.

      • Rackel says:

        They didn’t want Kate. Kate was never going to be a kept wife. With William she spent her own money plus got a title. Look at Pippa, she dated around HARD. She still had to marry an older dude with issues. He only married her because her sister is married to the maybe future king.
        They both still have to work.

  16. Eating Popcorn says:

    Charles also had a law passed that his tenants were not given the right to buy their properties, unlike other tenants in the UK.

  17. Pumpkin (Was Sofia) says:

    Oh there will never be true transparency with the royals because as others have said, it could cause a riot once people find out how much they all actually cost instead of that “£1 per taxpayer (or whatever number it is)” lie they peddle.

  18. Sophie says:

    If human rights laws (such as discriminatory laws) do not apply for them, what makes you think that someone, anyone will pass a transparency law applying to them? For sure the Tories won’t, but I have lost hope that Labour will, as there’s a lot of discontent about Starmer within the party (and outside) and he is turning to be as dishonest as the rest of them.

    It’s good that the Guardian sheds a light on this issue, as this needs maximum visibility, in case anyone wakes up!

    • Pip says:

      But at least he’s not the Tories – we so badly need a change from the Tories. I desperately hope that we all vote Labour, despite people’s reservations about Starmer – I know the purists don’t like him & part of me understand why but HE’S NOT THE TORIES so surely that has to be better? I don’t think the UK can cope with another term of this bunch of bastards.

      • Cams says:

        The uk can’t. Its getting so bad that you guys can’t really afford to get rid of the monarchy right now. You need a link to the continent. Cause no one cares about england right now. People aren’t even mad about brexit because they still have Ireland. England is just a weighted block and full of deceit.
        England needs totally new leadership and to jail the Tories, including sunak wife. I included her because she us so wealthy and such a tax fraud.

      • EBS says:

        Yes exactly, we all have to vote for Labour (or the Lib Dems if you’re in a constituency where Labour has no chance; if there’s a three way split, vote Labour). Think of it like Americans voting for Biden, even if they didn’t love him. We really need to get the Tories out, there will be nothing left of the country if we don’t.

  19. Emma says:

    I do feel that there is more discussion about the financial affairs of the royal family than I can ever remember. There was a veil of protection around Queen Elizabeth, that just doesn’t seem the same, that reverence just isn’t there for Charles and Camilla. There is a lot of quiet discomfort about Camilla’s role as Queen rather than just consort. Even from those who think Harry and Meghan are the problem.

    There’s also growing comparison to the cost of our royal family compared to other European royals. As pointed out by the Guardian article showing how much more they get and that’s not including the Duchy incomes. The cost of the whole Coronation is not helping either!

    • Rackel says:

      They tried to stop funding elizabeth2. It’s just there was so much going on and continued to go on. Its being revisited because there is a new monarch. With this cost of living crisis he better think first. I can see the rf having to come up with a way to donate the sovereign grant back.

      When Buckingham palace had that fire no one wanted fund it. Elizabeth had to beg and chip in funds.

  20. QuiteContrary says:

    Now this is actual journalism.

    Royal rota, take note (as if they would).

  21. Mary Pester says:

    LOUDER PLEASE, LOUDER, make those Palace and parliament walls shake, right down to their bloody foundations. Anyone else with this sort of wealth PAYS about 50p in the pound in other words HALF in taxes, if these titled parasites paid the proper amount of tax (especially on inherited wealth) look how many families would not be cold and hungry and having to rely on food banks, look at how many cancer sufferers would be getting their treatment, look at the schools and hospitals that could be refurbished!! So CLOSE all the tax loopholes for people like Sunaks wife as well and get that money where it rightfully belongs, WITH THE PEOPLE, and yet THEY want US to subsidise THEM

  22. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    While they’re at it, maybe they can look into where that unaccounted for 7 million pounds of Earths!t money went.

  23. Typical Virgo says:

    So it’s not in the public’s interest to know how much money the royal family reaps from its vassals (the public) living on feudal lands, in a system that probably seemed really modern to ancient Brittania. But it IS in the public’s interest to know how a private citizen (Harry obv) answered a question on another’s country’s immigration paperwork, even though there is no answer to that question that would preclude Harry from being granted citizenship??

  24. Visa Diva says:

    The Guardian also compared the amount the Windsors get from the government tp other European Royals and they far and away received the most funding

  25. B says:

    I’ve skimmed by the main page twice today and each time as I sped past that picture I thought it was trumps face and my brain also picked monarch out of the headline.
    Acid reflux each time.

  26. Noor says:

    Obviously the basis for the funding of the royals should be reviewed. The Crown properties should take over the management of all crown properties including the various palaces and the 2 duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster. The constitutional monarchy should be put placed on a fixed salary similiar to Presidents.

  27. Cassie says:

    I love that the Guardian is doing this and making people aware of how corrupt that institution is .

    They are the only ones who don’t seem bothered about telling the truth for fear of reprisal.

    Hope they keep digging and exposing .

  28. OriginalCee says:

    Imagine sitting on a 1 billion pound estate and telling your younger son that his wife will have to work because there isn’t enough money. Just imagine that scenario.
    #AbolishTheMonarchy

  29. Vera says:

    Today’s article on royal gifts was making my blood boil. Working in the public sector, we are not allowed to accept any gifts over the value of £10 and even that has to be reimbursed. Eg if someone gives you a box of chocolate worth £5, you have to declare it.
    While the Queen was allowed to accept and even demand expensive horses as gifts!
    “Last month, the German magazine Der Spiegel said it had found state papers documenting how the queen had asked for two horses as a gift while on a state visit to West Germany in 1978. The country’s president approved the gift in the interests of good relations, despite it being the most expensive gift given to a visiting head of state since the end of the second world war.”

  30. JaneBee says:

    Love a good Guardian expose. So pleased to see Celebitchy covering it. The latest article seems to be on the money RF generates from selling horses they were gifted by Middle Eastern royal families. Pure class 😂

  31. MsDoe says:

    I thought the most interesting article in the Guardian the other day was the one which provide context with other European royalty: that is, the British royal family rakes in many, many, many times what other royals do. No one is even close. And they also explained the Sovereign Grant, and how it came about. An excellent eye-opening series — hope it gets people asking hard questions of the monarchy.