Recent Posts

...
3. A decision has been made for that £250 Million to be part of the Sovereign Grant, rather than a business expense of Crown Estates
...

If the Monarch is occupying the property then it's the Monarch's responsibility to pay it out of their money

This is not a new thing

It is an established rule

The King hasn't received a windfall from the taxpayer - because that expense has not been taken away from the Crown Estate and given to the government (via the Monarch) - that expense was never the Crown Estate's to start with

[If]

Completely agree that Crown Estates are, by and large, beyond reproach.

The 1 problem that I am referring to in all of this relates rather more to the actions of Accountants/Accounting Rules and the Treasury, as opposed to Crown Estates.

I'm certainly no Accountant. But I will simplify this via making certain assumptions. Which will undoubtedly mean that the numbers will not be right. But the principle should be. So-for this purpose, let us assume:-

1. That the Monarch receives 20% of Net Profits (I believe for various years the figure was lower);
2. The Cost of upgrading Buck House is £250 million
3. A decision has been made for that £250 Million to be part of the Sovereign Grant, rather than a business expense of Crown Estates
4. A decision has been made that this is to be funded by the Treasury, rather than Crown Estates
5. As a result, the £250 million does not (as far as I can see) appear on the calculations in relation to net profit. Logically, because the decisions of 3/4 above have taken the expense outside the remit of Crown Estates, and into the remit of the Monarch and General Taxpayer. Making the "net" profits of Crown Estates rather higher than they might otherwise have been

If those figures are right, then the King has received a windfall from the Taxpayer of (20% x £250 million) =£50 million

I literally just read the part where you suggested the Monarch has any control over anything to do with the Crown Estate and spun it off there

I read a lot of the books when I worked for a law firm doing conveyancing and amongst that was very much the central principle that - the Crown Estates are completely independent

I think there's plenty of questions that can be raised about the Monarch's finances - particularly their private business

But the Crown Estate paying the government all it's money

And the government allocating a small portion of that to fund the Head of State - does not seem controversial

The government being able to use some of the money from the Crown Estate to fund the administrative headquarters of the UK Head of State also doesn't seem controversial

The main thrust of my original article was "The Royal Family, "Tax" and "Transparency". The clue really is in the title.

I don't know your background. Mine was as a Commercial Solicitor, regularly dealing with commercial matters for Companies of every size. I have read thousands of annual reports. Very few of which have contained as little actual information as that one, but I am sure that is deliberate and has reasons behind it.

The point I was trying to make is not a difficult one, but I presume I have not made myself sufficiently clear. Crown Estates are responsible for managing a very large Property portfolio. The Monarch is responsible for the upkeep of Royal residences.

Buckingham Palace is not a Royal Residence. It is a 778 room commercial building. The £250 million spend on the Palace is not "upkeep". It is a massive programme of upgrade and improvement. I have no idea whether it represents value for money. And I have no interest in that particular debate. The bit I really don't get is why a massive commercial property project in relation to Crown Estate Property is not simply under the control of the multi-£billion property company of the Owner, as opposed to part of the Sovereign Grant. Or, put another way, paid by Crown Estates, rather than the Treasury. The only other thing that interested me was reporting a "net revenue profit" of £500 million in the last financial year. Now, unless things have changed a lot since I retired, "net revenue profit" is not the same as "profit". Simply because it refers to some, but not all, expenses.

But that is very much a separate topic. The original purpose of my original post was to comment on why the Royal Family (or, more accurately, Monarchs and future monarchs) receive money in a way that is far less transparent than under the old Civil List.

If you are interested, the reason the whole deal relating to Tax treatment of Royals was changed is this.

The old Rules had an exemption (like now) for monarch to monarch transfers. However, George VI left substantial assets to his Wife, the Queen Mother. Not Property-high end art and jewellery. Queen Elizabeth II realised that, under the rules then in place, she would be liable to pay IHT on her Mother's estate. Consequently, a new agreement was drawn up in 1993, whereby the Monarch was to be exempt from IHT for monies received. So-when the Queen Mother died in 2002, her £70 million estate was not subject to Tax

Click to see full-size image.

And so it goes...

Just playing 18 holes in today's heat is a feat in itself!

To clarify 1 point, it is true to say that the Monarch has no direct control over what is currently part of the Crown Estate. What they do have control over is what remains outside of that public control.
...

That - does not make sense

The Monarch has no control over the Crown Estate

If, for example, the Crown Estate wanted to add Balmoral to their holdings they would have to buy it from the Monarch

It's true that they probably wouldn't agree to sell it - but why would the Crown Estate ever want to buy it?

There's a whole bunch of expensive property that costs the Crown Estate tonnes of money and doesn't provide a revenue

The Crown Estate makes a billion pounds profit a year - it doesn't do that by buying even more unprofitable property

So even if the Monarch wanted to be able to sell Balmoral to them - they wouldn't agree to buy it

...
To quote the article you provided, "The Sovereign Grant is drawn from Public Funds"...
...

Technically the Sovereign Grant is all paid out by general taxation

But (using the new figures) - the Crown Estate gives the government 100% of it's money

The government gives the Monarch money equal to 20% of what they have received from the Crown Estate

Doesn't that seem a lot like the King is paying 80% tax on all his "public" property

And Occupied Royal Residences - which Buckingham Palace is because it is the administrative headquarters of the Monarchy even if no one lives there - are parts of.the Crown Estate which are the responsibility of the monarch

Which is worse - for the Monarch

If they had any say they would leave that as a liability for the Crown Estate - because then they wouldn't have to pay for it

The government made the extra money available because this is the administrative H.Q. of the Head of State - so mildly important

But that was all a percentage of the money that was originally taken from the Crown Estate to start with

The article you posted has very little in common with what you have been saying

You seem to be mainly talking about the Crown Estate but referring to their private finances - which is a completely different topic

If you were interested in the Crown Estate finances they publish them every year in their annual report - you can get it here https://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about-us/annual-report

Click to see full-size image.

And so it goes...

Tis the life of an 18 + handicapper. File it under ffs and on to the next round. 😁🏌‍♂️

As long as most are in the low to mid 90's atm I'm happy. The aim is high 80's - low 90's before the end of the year. Let's see what happens.

This article puts it rather better than me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c77yzgnp5lvo

Click to see full-size image.

And so it goes...

To clarify 1 point, it is true to say that the Monarch has no direct control over what is currently part of the Crown Estate. What they do have control over is what remains outside of that public control.

I get that the Royal Family want lots of their assets to remain outside the Crown Estate. I would, too in their shoes. The difference is that I would not expect favourable tax treatment for the bits kept outside of the Crown Estate.

To quote the article you provided, "The Sovereign Grant is drawn from Public Funds". I really don't think that could be any clearer. That is, I suspect, why the payments do not appear in the Crown accounts.

What does "Net Profit" actually mean? Because it is very much a moveable feast. To give 1 relevant example, has the £250 million capital spend on Buck House impacted on the Net Profit figure? Because, as I understand it, the answer is sometimes.

PS. One part of the Sovereign Grant is, as that article rightly points out, for "general residence upkeep" £250 million on a 778 room mansion that no member of the Royal Family is willing to live in?

If the Monarch really has no input at all in relation to how money is spent on Crown Properties, answer me this. Why do you think that the £250 million spend on Buckingham Palace is expressly included in the Sovereign Grant? Surely it is simply an expense borne by Crown Estates, and nothing to do with the Sovereign Grant?

Suppose you or ! agreed to hand over various rights to an asset 200 years ago because we were skint and needed the income. What do you think our chances would be of doubling the Reward percentage 200 years later?