Telegraph: Is King Charles really a billionaire? Experts say yes, he absolutely is.

David Dimbleby, the historian and broadcaster, made a documentary called What’s the Monarchy For? The Windsors are absolutely furious about it, but they can’t attack Dimbleby directly, nor can they dispute much of the documentary on the record, because it might lend credence to it (plus, I think Dimbleby’s program is largely truthful). So what’s happening is so funny and predictable – royal sources and courtiers are huffing and puffing behind the scenes, which spurs on the royal reporters to fall all over themselves defending the Windsors. But they’re also doing that thing particular to British reporting – acting huffy about one thing, then slyly quoting the Windsors’ biggest critics. Here’s part of the Telegraph’s piece about whether Dimbleby was accurate when he said that King Charles is the first British billionaire king.

“How is the Royal family making more money than ever?” asks David Dimbleby, in his new BBC documentary on the monarchy. “And are they worth it?” The programme claims that for the first time, the British monarch has private wealth exceeding £1bn, citing estimates by the Guardian that King Charles’s personal assets are worth around £1.8bn.

Such claims surfacing in a Left-wing newspaper, as they did two years ago, is one thing. That they have now been given prominence and apparent credence by Britain’s public service broadcaster, conveyed to the nation by one of the corporation’s most respected presenters, is quite another. It’s telling, at a time of declining support for the monarchy, that republicans immediately seized on Dimbleby’s remarks, conscious that wealth is increasingly becoming a dirty concept among the young in particular.

On Wednesday, Narinder Kaur, the television presenter, delighted in objecting to a picture showing the sinful double whammy of the King knighting Jeremy Hunt, the Conservative former health secretary. “Rewarded for making Britain poorer by a king who is now a billionaire,” she said. “Proper kick in the teeth for the working class of Britain.”

“I think the current £1.8bn for Charles’s wealth is an underestimate,” says Norman Baker, the anti-monarchy former Lib Dem minister and author of Royal Mint, National Debt: The Shocking Truth About the Royals’ Finances. “I’d put it somewhere closer to £2.5bn because we don’t know the extent of his investment income. There’s no question Charles is a billionaire.”

Republicans have identified Charles’s wealth as a promising target for attacks, with the Royal family recently wounded by scandals surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, the former Duke of York, and public support for the monarchy having dropped from 75 per cent in 2012 to 62 per cent now. Now, they’ve been given a helping hand from a surprising corner.

The King, said Dimbleby, “inherited more wealth than any monarch for generations”. It is true that over the course of his mother’s life, the Windsor monarchy was able to accumulate wealth through property, private collections, investments and the duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, which control vast amounts of land and property. Coupled with these assets and revenues, the monarchy’s exemption from inheritance tax and other tax arrangements meant that when Charles took his place on the throne, he became Britain’s first private billionaire monarch, according to the Guardian data cited by Dimbleby.

“The King’s personal wealth is accumulating with businesses run for private gain,” says Ed Owens, a historian of the modern monarchy. “He and his family collect priceless gifts, racehorses and art and the question is always, does this belong to an individual or the nation? We are living in an increasingly divided country. Among the younger generation who view extremes of wealth negatively, being a billionaire is a problem for the King.”

[From The Telegraph]

I’m sure there are a number of people who simply hate billionaires, but I think Charles’s billionaire status is much more complicated than that. It’s the fact that A) he inherited all of it tax-free, B) there is still so much mystery about royal finances overall, and C) what little people do know of royal wealth, it looks like it comes from screwing over taxpayers, slumlording and making vital services “pay” various duchies. But yes, overall… Charles is a billionaire. QEII was as well. The Scooter King will inherit it all, and I hope that’s the end of the line for all of this.

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red.

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

16 Responses to “Telegraph: Is King Charles really a billionaire? Experts say yes, he absolutely is.”

  1. Eurydice says:

    I think if Queen Victoria’s personal fortune were valued at today’s currency she’d be twice as wealthy as Charles.

  2. Marceldeux says:

    To think Charles is anything but a billionaire, is silly to me. Of course he’s a billionaire.

  3. Beverley says:

    Yet he claimed had no money for Meghan.
    We all know why.

    • Nikki (Toronto) says:

      While I think that family is racist as hell, I believe Charles and the Firm needed Harry and Meghan to burn through their money – Meghan’s savings and Harry’s inheritance from Diana. Financial abuse/control is very much a part of that family’s dynamic. William wouldn’t be able to control them if they had access to other funds.

    • jais says:

      It’s unbelievable that he said that.

  4. JerseyCow says:

    The PR people really boofed it. If you’re old enough to remember the RF in the 1980s, you might remember the messaging / popular belief about their wealth. It was very different: the queen was portrayed as doing it only for the duty, living in a drafty and rodent infested castle, for only a meagre annual sum. Anne couldn’t even afford new clothes!

    We were told that the yacht Britannia was yes, ostentatious but that wasn’t TQ’s choice; it had to be fancy to impress visiting dignitaries. More of a heavy and slightly embarrassing burden

    In other words they were smart enough to manage the messaging and be discreet with their outsized wealth. This group seems to have missed that memo and/ or lacks the skills and awareness to do the same.

    • Lili says:

      I remember a story from the early 90’s that said QEII was the 5th richest person in the world worth 5 billion after the sultan of Bruni. so i reckon with how wealth has climbed in the last 20yrs i reckon she was way up there before she died. The Sovereign Grant was established in 2011 where they agreed to replace other funding methods and consoildate things into one package grant for the Monarch’s official duties and palace maintenance.

      • BeanieBean says:

        I remember that, too. That prompted the usual articles–but it’s not personal wealth, it’s the Crown, etc., etc., etc. No, she personally was that stinking rich & now her son is. We’ll see how Billy Boy handles his inheritance.

  5. Brassy Rebel says:

    To paraphrase that old monarchist and colonialist, Winston Churchill, I think when it comes to the monarchy, “This may not be the beginning of the end, but it is surely the end of the beginning.” If you look hard enough, you can see the British public waking up to the fact that they are being systematically royally screwed.

  6. ThatGirlThere says:

    Of course he is. And knowing that he still wouldn’t help support Meghan and Harry when they got engaged then married makes his excessive wealth even more disgusting. Trashy old man.

  7. Beth says:

    Working royals have commercial enterprises. For example, the duchies generate over £50m annually for Charles and William (personal income exempt from corporation tax and capital gains tax).

    Anne’s Gatcombe Park is run as a business and Edward earns income by renting out stables. BP, KP and Highgrove have gift shops flogging all sorts. Not all profits go to charity, some pay for things the royal family would otherwise have to fund out of their own pockets.

    And Balmoral and Sandringham also have gift shops that help towards the running of these estates – selling luxury items like King’s whisky for £100 and woollen blankets for £200. Just a few examples.

    Then you should see what the non-working royals get up to (several with titles and HRHs, btw). Which is why it’s so outrageous for the Sussexes to be criticised.

  8. Royal Downfall Watcher says:

    Look, I think billionaires and (GASP) Trillionaires should be taxed. It is unethical and downright evil that they don’t pay their fair share. Saying that, at least El0n and Drumpf and the Amazon King aren’t being paraded around as bastions of American culture. At least we aren’t being sold a bucket of lies saying they are the reason why other people visit america….

    They are stealing from us every day but at least we don’t have to bow when we see them. It seems INSANE to me that the British public has to deal with these morons. Again- I am appauled by our billionaires and I think that unless you have a “good” one like Pritzker or McKenzie…they are pure f-ing evil. How else can you justify not ending world hunger with a FRACTION of your wealth? How can you justify not paying your fair share of taxes *which would STILL LEAVE YOU A BILLIONAIRE* – resulting in children starving? They know they are letting kids die. They know they are preventing humanity from living in a peaceful world. They KNOW they are destroying the Earth for future generations and they dont give a Sh*t. That makes them evil.

    Now back to the Monarchy – they have all of this and they didn’t have to lift a finger to get it. It was inherited wealth that came from slavery, the absolute exploitation of their own population, and crime. It is disgusting and the fact that they walk around in tiaras and pretend they are justified for doing so is beyond cringe.

    I hope one day American billionaires and millionaires finally are forced to pay their fair share and I hope the Monarchy ends for the British people….and may all that wealth be given back to the people from whom it was stollen.

    *sorry rant over*

  9. Becks1 says:

    The BRF has spent years – decades, maybe longer – purposely muddying the water on what they actually own. Something often brought up (even on here) in their defense is that things are “crown property” not the personal property of the monarch. But its not like the people benefit from the priceless tiaras, whether the Crown owns them or the monarch personally. And William and Kate may be paying market rate but they’re decorating the house from the royal warehouses – what are those items considered? Crown or personal? If Crown property, the wales sure feel comfortable using those things for their private home where they will never host receptions etc. And what about the furniture and decor at Sandringham?

    That’s without getting into the land, the jewelry, the houses (how much are Sandringham and Balmoral worth??) the horses etc. AND without getting into the off shore investments!!!

    And the tax benefits!!

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment