Its cost is still unknown. Yet one in two Britons believe the coronation of King Charles III, which will take place with great fanfare on Saturday in London, should not be funded by taxpayers, according to a poll published on April 18. Should and could the king pay for the ceremony out of his own pocket? Before the coronation, the British newspapers took out the calculator: the Times estimated the fortune of the son of Elizabeth II to 600 million pounds, while the Guardian esteem double that to £1.8 billion.
No official publication has ever given the fortune of the British sovereign, which is difficult to calculate, involving separating crown and private income. Laura Clancy, researcher at Lancaster University in the UK and author of Running the family firm : how the royal family manages its image and money* (Running the family business: How the royal family manages its image and its money), come back for 20 minutes on the complexity of the fortune of the royal family.
Why is it important to look at the finances of the British monarchy?
It’s important because people don’t have it. Not everyone knows how they are financed, where this financing comes from and what the different forms are, because it is quite difficult to understand. It is difficult to navigate, because there are many sources.
The press sometimes portrays this issue with headlines that say the cost of the monarchy is £1.29 per taxpayer. However, if we consider the situation as a whole, it is not so simple. I think it is important to talk about it to realize the extent of the institution.
How is the king funded?
For the monarch, there is a separation between the private patrimony of the individual, i.e. what the Queen or Charles own personally, and what he owns as monarch. This is funded by the Sovereign Allocation, calculated on the basis of a percentage of Crown Estate revenue relative to the Crown Estate land portfolio. So they get a certain percentage of that revenue. This percentage fluctuates wildly. This funds their official work, staff and everything else [l’entretien des résidences officielles du souverain].
Then there is the money of the Duchy of Lancaster, which belongs to the monarch as Duke of Lancaster. This duchy finances their private wealth, their personal influence, in a way, because they do not receive a salary. And then there are other sources of funding. Security, for example, is funded by the ministry and overseas travel is paid for by the Foreign Office [le ministère des Affaires étrangères].
It is logical that the royal family’s foreign trips are paid for by the Foreign Officebecause they move at the request of the government…
Yes. There are also their movements in cities [au Royaume-Uni] : there, the local authorities pay. When we say that the sovereign allowance funds their official work, it funds some of it, not all of it.
Who finances the private expenditure of the king Charlie?
This mainly comes from their wealth [en plus des revenus du duché de Lancastre]. We don’t know what the queen passed on [à ses enfants en héritage], but we imagine that she passed on horses, jewellery, etc. In addition, certain properties are personally owned by the sovereigns. Some, like Buckingham Palace, are owned by the Crown, but Balmoral, for example, is privately owned.
The legacy left by the Queen is not public. We do not know how much Charles, his brothers and his sister received.
As they are monarchs, they have an exemption, which means their wills are secret. That of Prince Philip has not been made public. There was an article years ago that argued that if wills are kept secret, it’s because the royal family doesn’t want the extent of their wealth to be public.
They also do not pay inheritance taxes…
They are exempt from certain acts of parliament, which include some of the tax laws. They are therefore also not subject to income tax, technically, although they voluntarily pay it in return [du versement de l’allocation souveraine]. But they are not legally required to pay it.
The Duchy of Lancaster, which you describe in your book as operating like a business, does not pay corporation tax.
It operates like a business, but it isn’t, because it’s owned by the Crown. Everything that belongs to the Crown is considered to belong to it on behalf of the public [les citoyens britanniques].
The British monarchy employs staff, they bring in tourists. Isn’t that good for the economy?
They attract tourists, but the Palace of Versailles has no trouble bringing them in either! If there were no more monarchy and only Buckingham Palace remained, it could be open all year round. Currently it is only open in August. Technically, they are missing out on money.
In 2021, the Guardian found that the Queen had used a procedure allowing her to be consulted on bills which concern her. The procedure is little known, and for a long time it was thought that the queen did not intervene, but it has been shown that she does so to obtain changes in her favor.
For example, when it affects the lands of the royal family, they can have a say. There are a lot of wealthy landowners in the UK, because of the aristocracy, but they don’t have a say. This procedure is therefore a step above. We talk a lot about the apoliticism of the monarchy, these things show that this is not necessarily the case.
In 1992, when the Queen asked for financial help to rebuild Windsor Castle after a fire, there was an outcry. By contrast, the Sovereign Allowance for 2021 and 2022 included £34million to restore Buckingham Palace. In total, 370 million pounds will be paid over ten years. This time, it did not raise an outcry. Has the public mood towards the monarchy changed?
There have been some very interesting polls this week about people not being happy with the cost of coronation. Things are starting to change. I’m not saying everyone is going to become a Republican, but I can definitely see a slight change, and I think, maybe the Queen’s death has upset the status quo. We them [la famille royale] had kind of accepted, they were there. The death of the queen has postponed [en publique] the debate on the idea of inheritance and transmission by nepotism. In a way, it has allowed people to be aware again and to raise these issues when for many years they just let things pass and didn’t think about them.
People say, “yeah, well, that’s how it is” [elle lève les épaules d’un air résigné]. The royal family, “it’s history, it’s national identity”. But polls show people don’t really like Charles and they liked the Queen. There was a certain attachment to the queen, which is not the case with Charles. I am not saying that we will be a Republic tomorrow. I do not think so. But I think the tide will turn.
* The book was published in September 2021 by Manchester University Press.