The Royal Family, "Tax" and "Transparency"

[EssexPhil]

The PR exercise that is Hing Charles/Prince William's voluntary tax payments amuses me.

I'm not particularly pro- or anti-Monarchy. If truth be told, I'm not particularly keen on the concept, but the ones we have by and large do a good job, and may well be better than alternatives to Monarchy.

But the Royal Family's Tax arrangements are faintly ridiculous.

Let's start with Property. A deal was struck whereby a lot of the Properties are deemed to be "Crown Estate". The deal is the Monarch manages these on behalf of the nation, in return for various tax advantages. In return, we pay for the upkeep of various of these Properties, as well as funding the expenses of working Royals. Not cheap-so we pay roughly £100million a year for Royal's expenses/Property upkeep, as well as a £250 million renovation to Buck House-where no-one lives.

But it is not that simple. The Monarch also gets to choose which are "private" properties, and not part of the Crown Estate. So-for example-the Sandringham and Balmoral estates are privately owned. And, provided a Monarch wills them to the next Monarch. no IHT is paid. Suddenly, you can see why William and Harry don't get on-knowing your Dad is going to leave £hundreds of millions to just 1 of you isn't going to help. Same for Highgrove, and a host of "private" properties.

And saying what income tax you "choose" to pay without also giving details of income, expenses and relevant deductions is not "transparent" in my World.

Do I agree that Senior Royals should have tax concessions? Yes. Just not the amount they currently receive.

[Jon MW]

... The Monarch also gets to choose which are "private" properties, and not part of the Crown Estate. ..

That isn't true

William the Conquerer introduced feudalism - which meant the monarch nominally owned all the land

The Civil War established that "the people", in the form of Parliament, were Sovereign over the Crown - which meant the end of feudalism

But the Monarch still owned a vast property estate - the balance that was struck was that the Monarch kept ownership but out of the revenue they had to pay for most government things (like the Civil Service and the countries defence for example)

George III changed that - rather than the Monarch having to fund government things he gave the revenue to the government, and they in turn gave the Monarch money to live on

The Crown Estate is neither the property of the government, or the property of the reigning Monarch - it is basically its own entity

The government gets all the revenue - but with an agreement to pay some of it to the Monarch

-- Completely separately to this, sometimes the King or Queen buys their own property

Sandringham was bought in 1862, Balmoral was bought in 1852 - they were just bought like anyone else would buy private property - nothing to do with the Crown Estate

The Monarch has zero control over the Crown Estate, they do not manage the Crown Estates and can't take things out or add to them.

Whether they should have tax concessions is another thing - that's very complex. Basically all very wealthy people should have tax concessions because it's very easy for them to avoid paying any tax's - giving them concessions is basically a way of tricking them into paying more tax than if you gave them nothing. No concesssions - they'll try and avoid it all; with concessions they'll pay less - but more than they would otherwise. And the actuall amount they pay is vastly more than everyone else so it's a pretty vital source of revenue.

[EssexPhil]

Interesting take on things.

Because what you say is not untrue. It just isn't the whole story.

The deal that was struck during George 3rd's reign did indeed create Crown Estates. But in a totally different way to that of today. That deal was for the King to hand over various assets in return for an annual payment-what became the Civil List. Where the Monarch and certain other Royals received a payment that everyone could see what it was. But that system all went in 2014.

Now the Royals receive £100 million a year of taxpayers money. As a mixture of expenses and a percentage of profits from Crown Estates-although no-one knows exactly how much that bit is. It's a secret. We're not told how much of that £100 mill is expenses, and how much is profit. Because it is accepted they get a percentage of profit.

It was our last Queen who negotiated the current tax arrangements, both in relation to the new Sovereign Grant, and in relation to the UK Tax treatment of Private Property. Private property which, between the King and Prince of Wales is in excess of £1 Billion. Passed on in a way denied to absolutely everyone else.

Princess Margaret did not get on with her Sister. Andrew does not get on with his Brother. Harry does not get on with his Brother. How long before George's siblings realise that it is not only the Top Job that will be denied them.

Let's give 1 example how the Royal Family are treated differently. Prince William owns Dartmoor Prison. It has been unfit for human habitation for some years due to Uranium/Radon leakage. It was only finally cleared of Inmates in 2024. Which other Landlord would still be receiving Rent and not told to take urgent corrective action? Heard anything from our future King about the vast sums that will need to be spent in upgrades and likely compensation? Thought not.

I'm not averse to giving our Monarch and Future Monarch £hundreds of millions. I'm not averse to them having assets worth £hundreds of millions. I'm not averse to them having IHT and Income Tax perks worth £hundreds of millions.

All 3? Our Royal Family costs more than every other Royal Family in the whole World. Probably more than the combined cost of every other Royal Family in the World.i

[Jon MW]

...

Now the Royals receive £100 million a year of taxpayers money. As a mixture of expenses and a percentage of profits from Crown Estates-although no-one knows exactly how much that bit is. It's a secret. We're not told how much of that £100 mill is expenses, and how much is profit. Because it is accepted they get a percentage of profit.
...

I have a feeling your opinions on this might be a little emotion based because some of this information (like how the monarch has no control over what property is in the Crown Estate and how the Sovereign Grant is calculated) - is not difficult to find.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/monarchy-funding-sovereign-grant-royal-family-b3003165.html

"The Royal Trustees’ review determined that the Sovereign Grant will now be calculated as 20.5 per cent of Crown Estate net profits from 2027-28, an increase from the current rate of 12 per cent, for the next five years."

That would be more than a £100 million in the past - last year the Crown Estate made a £1.1bn profit for example; but that profit is expected to fall quite a lot in the next few years because of regulatory changes.


I'm not sure where you're getting that any of the Sovereign Grant comes from general taxation - have you got a source for the expenses part?

[EssexPhil]

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?

[EssexPhil]

This article puts it rather better than me.

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

[Jon MW]

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

[EssexPhil]

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