How Rich Are Britain's Royals? – Foreign Policy

Your FP Insider Access:
The president successfully preserved the status quo for two decades. Suddenly, he’s turned into a destroyer.
The Queen’s death underscored the central—and, at times, conflicting—role the broadcaster plays in royal coverage.
Russian strikes have taken a toll on Ukraine’s defense industry, but offshoring and the cottage industry are keeping the shells coming.
The Houthis have a poor track record in negotiations. But giving up on negotiating with them isn’t an option.
Q&A: How Rich Are Britain’s Royals? How Rich Are Britain’s Royals?… | View Comments ()
The funeral of Queen Elizabeth II has put a spotlight on the emotional impact that the British royal family has on the United Kingdom. The monarchy’s economic impact, however, is much harder to gauge—partly because it’s a vestige of an earlier understanding of economics.
Is the monarchy a net economic loss or a net gain for Britain? Do we have any sense of what the royals’ personal views on economic policy are? And what does it even mean to “own” all of the country’s swans?
Those are some of the questions that came up in my conversation this week with FP columnist Adam Tooze on the podcast we co-host, Ones and Tooze. What follows is a transcript of the interview, edited for clarity and length. For the entire conversation, subscribe to Ones and Tooze on your preferred podcast app.
The funeral of Queen Elizabeth II has put a spotlight on the emotional impact that the British royal family has on the United Kingdom. The monarchy’s economic impact, however, is much harder to gauge—partly because it’s a vestige of an earlier understanding of economics.
Is the monarchy a net economic loss or a net gain for Britain? Do we have any sense of what the royals’ personal views on economic policy are? And what does it even mean to “own” all of the country’s swans?
Those are some of the questions that came up in my conversation this week with FP columnist Adam Tooze on the podcast we co-host, Ones and Tooze. What follows is a transcript of the interview, edited for clarity and length. For the entire conversation, subscribe to Ones and Tooze on your preferred podcast app.
Cameron Abadi: Just to start out, I’m curious whether the British royal family’s wealth is personal, or is it institutional? Are they wealthy by virtue of being monarchs and thus having control of state assets, or are they just an independently wealthy family that happens to be the heads of state under Britain’s constitutional system?

LISTEN HERE: For the entire conversation, and episodes in the weeks ahead on this subject and others, follow Ones and Tooze wherever you get your podcasts.
Adam Tooze: Yeah, it’s a really tricky question. According to one estimate I’ve seen, the total value of what’s called “the firm,” their assets are about $28 billion. And so we’re talking about serious amounts of money. The queen herself was an incredibly wealthy woman. By some estimates, $500 million would be not far off. That includes two palaces, Sandringham and Balmoral, and a stamp collection valued at $100 million, which makes me think the $500 million estimate may be on the low side.
The English monarchs, like most monarchs in most places, basically owned land. They owned the country, and they owned it by the right of seizure. The 1760s is really the moment where the British Constitution in its modern form emerges, because at that point the royal house hands off all its possessions, the Crown lands, to the U.K. Treasury. And the royal house, from that moment onward, receives the so-called civil list, which is a grant by Parliament to fund the monarchy. And that system continued for 250 years, all the way down to 2011, when a Conservative Party government, in an age of austerity, decided that having Parliament voting on the civil list was something of an embarrassment. And so instead, they did a kind of public-private partnership in which the Treasury, as the public branch, agrees to share the revenue from the royal lands. These are these giant landholdings of about $20 billion worth of land across Britain, property that is leased out, rented out, in various ways and developed. And that revenue is split 15 percent to 85 percent, in favor of the Treasury.
CA: Got it. I mean, it does seem to me that there are still vestiges of these kinds of older monarchical rights that are still around in Britain that are in strange tension with the kind of modern sense of property rights. So specifically, when it comes to King Charles III, he now, by virtue of being the monarch, owns the Duchy of Lancaster. And this includes pieces of land and other assets. And I’m just curious, does that mean he owns it in a modern legal sense? Could he sell the Duchy of Lancaster if he wanted to? And this extends to other strange aspects of royal ownership I’ve come across. Britain’s swans, for example, apparently are owned by the monarch, and there is a classification of royal fish, whales, dolphins, sturgeon that are all owned by the monarch. How does this stand in relationship to our modern sense of ownership and what that means?
AT: By virtue of being the person who inhabits that role [of monarch], you could say he owns this land, but really what he’s entitled to is the flow of revenue from it. So he can’t sell it. It stays intact. All he can do is lease it out or rent it or develop it in other ways. As for the swans and all that, I mean, it’s not as crazy as it sounds. The swans once upon a time were the pièce de résistance in any really serious banquet. So if you were going to have a really big banquet, you served a swan. And they were rare. And so the kings being kings, said, “All swans in the country belong to us.” The monarchs own them in the sense that no one else owns them.
CA: I think it’s interesting because, yeah, this is ownership, but it’s not in the sense of it being a commodity. I mean, no one’s under the impression that King Charles now can sell off all of the swans.
AT: No, no. He can’t collateralize the swans.
CA: Well, don’t give him any ideas. But there is a republican movement in Britain that would like to abolish the monarchy. And this got me wondering about how one would even go about doing that, given the system we’ve just described. What would happen if Britain really tried to pursue a republican option?
AT: I think it would be quite simple to do on the basis of the structure of the division between the personal private property of the royals on the one hand, which is really outside the limelight and is modest. You know, they’re not even billionaires. They’re not really proper oligarchs. They’re just kind of rich people. They don’t have as much wealth as your average hedge fund billionaire in the United States, let alone a Bezos or somebody like that. Where their wealth is really located is these Crown land portfolios, Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall, and those are already under professional management and subject to public audit. So literally all you’d need to do would be retitle them and transfer the revenue flow away from the royal house, and that would be it. And then you would just require the royal household to pay taxes like everyone else.
CA: Hmm. That got me wondering what exactly is the relationship of a sovereign like King Charles to taxes? Is he required to pay taxes on his income the way that normal British citizens do? How about just the taxes on whatever he inherited from Queen Elizabeth?
AT: They’re not required to pay income tax, but under a political arrangement reached by the queen with the governments of the 1990s, they volunteered to pay tax, or at least on a substantial fraction of their income. So the income from the Duchy of Lancaster, the core income of the household, is taxed. What they don’t do, and under quite explicit and sort of legal entitlement, is they do not pay inheritance tax. For some reason, this was a bugbear of the John Major government in the 1990s—the Conservative government that came after Margaret Thatcher, the one that no one ever remembers. It was quite consequential in various ways. And one of the things it did was to amend the royal inheritance law. They apparently got worried about a short sequence in which the queen would die, then Charles would inherit, then he would die. And if you applied inheritance taxation in short succession, you could end up essentially stripping almost all of the assets, because in Britain, you pay inheritance tax over $400,000, give or take. So, you know, really on the death of the monarch, no inheritance tax is due.
But more seriously, you just have to ask yourself the more basic question: If we’re talking about a pot of assets worth $20 billion-plus, is maintaining this ongoing festival of pomp and ceremony and the soap opera of their private lives really the most sensible use for that money? Or could it be spent on something else? Could it be kept as a perpetual pot by all means? Could it be used for educational purposes? Or could it in fact be sold and used to fund, for instance, heat pumps for a large part of the British population to deal with the energy transition and the climate crisis? It’s not a vast amount of money. You couldn’t transform Britain with it, but you could certainly do something more useful than generating this show. But that’s a very utilitarian, kind of crass way of looking at this.
CA: I mean, I admit I find it also bizarre. I really try to understand what the death of the queen means, and I find it hard to understand.
AT: Yes, this is a blank. I’m an expat for a reason. I do not find the spectacle—I don’t buy it.
Cameron Abadi is a deputy editor at Foreign Policy. Twitter: @CameronAbadi
Commenting on this and other recent articles is just one benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.
Already a subscriber? .

View Comments
Join the conversation on this and other recent Foreign Policy articles when you subscribe now.

Not your account?
View Comments
Please follow our comment guidelines, stay on topic, and be civil, courteous, and respectful of others’ beliefs. Comments are closed automatically seven days after articles are published.


The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.


NEW FOR SUBSCRIBERS: Want to read more on this topic or region? Click + to receive email alerts when new stories are published on Economics
Read More
The late queen incarnated and ably helped sell her nation and its system while never criticizing or apologizing for its past.
Her successor will need to adapt while also protecting the age-old magic of the monarchy.
Through tragedy and tumult, Queen Elizabeth II was a model of constancy. Her death will have important repercussions for the monarchy and the future of the United Kingdom.
Trending
Ignore the naysayers—the long-prepared plan is a smart way to slash the Kremlin’s profits.
Ukraine may have achieved its biggest breakthrough of the war.
Reckless policies have knocked out established norms.
A great classical music tradition might die because of the Ukraine invasion.
Sign up for Morning Brief
By signing up, I agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to occasionally receive special offers from Foreign Policy.
Expand your perspective with unlimited access.
Subscribe Now
Your guide to the most important world stories of the day. Delivered Monday-Friday.
Essential analysis of the stories shaping geopolitics on the continent. Delivered Wednesday.
One-stop digest of politics, economics, and culture. Delivered Friday.
The latest news, analysis, and data from the country each week. Delivered Wednesday.
Weekly update on developments in India and its neighbors. Delivered Thursday.
Weekly update on what’s driving U.S. national security policy. Delivered Thursday.
A curated selection of our very best long reads. Delivered Wednesday & Sunday.
Evening roundup with our editors’ favorite stories of the day. Delivered Monday-Saturday.
A monthly digest of the top articles read by FP subscribers.
In her role as administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Samantha Power is often thrust into the forefront of some of the world’s biggest crises. From working to ensuShow more
Last summer, the United States decided to end its longest war. But just days after the U.S. military withdrew from Afghanistan, Kabul fell—and the Taliban took control of the country. Aug.Show more
Want the inside scoop on Russian arms sales to Africa? Care to learn more about how Ukraine is arming itself and how Beijing views Washington’s support for Taiwan? FP subscribers are alreaShow more
The president successfully preserved the status quo for two decades. Suddenly, he’s turned into a destroyer.
The Ukraine war has given Astana a unique chance to frustrate Moscow.
The trans-Atlantic alliance chief discusses Russia’s war in Ukraine and competing with China.
What U.S. ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield wants from the 77th U.N. General Assembly.

source

Leave a Comment