Why The Queen Does Not Appear on the “Rich List"

     A recent survey by Hurun Global Rich List was published, and it contains 56 people living in the UK who are billionaires. Among the monied group are well-known names such as Sir Richard Branson and the Duke of Westminster, but where is the Queen? After all, she's the Queen and has to be the richest person in the UK or at least amongst the top ten, right?

     In that light, you may have heard (or read) that Queen Elizabeth II has a net worth in the billions and that she owns one-sixth of the world's surface. So why is she not on the rich list?

The Queen is not as wealthy as you may believe.

     The answer is that such figures fail to make a distinction between the Queen's personal wealth as an individual and the assets held in trust by her as the sovereign of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms.

     Elizabeth II's personal fortune is not officially known, but recent estimates have placed it at around $300-500 million. This figure includes only the assets held by her as a private individual - including her personal estates of Balmoral and Sandringham (which include revenue-generating working farms) and privately-held heirlooms such as jewellery, artwork, and her grandfather's stamp collection.

     These are assets that Elizabeth would still control even if she were not Queen, and she can sell them at anytime (except for some property that may be kept in accordance to will instructions). The important thing to remember is that these assets are not handed down to the beneficiaries by virtue of being monarch; they are handed down in a personal capacity outside of the constitutional realm.

The Sandringham Estate is privately owned by the Royal family.

     For example, when George V died in 1936, Edward VIII inherited Sandringham and Balmoral because they were willed to him by his father, as opposed to Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace, which he obtained because of his role as monarch. When Edward abdicated that year, Windsor, Buckingham, and the other state-owned residences automatically passed to his brother, George VI, who had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral from Edward so that they would stay within the Royal family.

     In private terms, the Queen's wealth - albeit sizable - is peanuts compared to other fortunes in Britain and across the world. She does not even make it to the billionaire's list.

     So then, what about the supposed billions under Her Majesty's throne?

     Those "billions" are in reference to assets nominally held by the monarch but are not private property, and cannot be owned or sold by the monarch. These entities are the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, the Royal Collection, and the occupied royal residences.

     The Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown, but held in trust and governed by Act of Parliament. It is one of the largest property owners in the United Kingdom, with a total worth 

Regent Street is among the properties
owned by the Crown Estate.

of £8.1 billion as of June 2013. Originally, the lands of the Crown Estate and their revenues belonged to monarch, but under George III in 1760, the revenues were surrendered to Parliament in return for a fixed annual payment to fund the Civil List - the official income of the monarchy. Today, the Crown Estate owns various properties throughout the UK, including 356,000 acres of rural land, urban properties (including significant parts of Central London such as Regent Street), more than half of the UK's seashore, as well as the Ascot Racecourse and Windsor Great Park. Surplus revenue from the Estate are paid to the Treasury and go toward funding the UK Government. In 2012, a new financial arrangement was implemented under which the monarch receives 15% of the annual Crown Estate revenues as a single payment - known as the Sovereign Grant - in place of the Civil List (and three other sources of official government funding) for the operation of the monarchy.

     The Duchy of Lancaster is another land portfolio - worth £429 million as of March 2013. It was created for John of Gaunt, a younger son of Edward III of England in 1362, who also became Duke of Lancaster. When John's eldest son ascended to the throne as Henry IV, he declared that the Duchy be a separate inheritance 

Standard of the Duchy of Lancaster.

from the estates owned by the Crown. The result is that unlike the Crown Estate, the Duchy's revenues do not go the UK Treasury. Instead, they are distributed to the Privy Purse, which is the personal income of the British monarch and subject to income tax. But in similar fashion to the Estate, the Duchy is not personally owned by the monarch, and is instead held in trust for the benefit of the monarch. Today, it covers 46,000 acres of land (including 190 miles of seashore) in England and Wales, and each succeeding monarch holds the title Duke of Lancaster, including female monarchs, who are known as "The Queen, the Duke of Lancaster." Some of the revenues from the Privy Purse (provided by the Duchy) are used to cover expenses not borne by the Sovereign Grant, usually from other members of the Royal family.

     Then there is the Royal Collection, which is the collection of priceless artifacts owned by the British monarch as sovereign, but held in trust for his or her successors and the nation. In other words, the Collection is not owned by the monarch in a personal capacity, and its contents cannot be sold. Very few items of the Collection survive prior to the 1500's, and its modern foundations were laid by Charles I - who was a patron of Anthony van Dyck and purchased an enormous quantity of works from other artists. The Collection was sold off by Oliver Cromwell in the 1650's, but was largely restored when the monarchy itself was restored. Since then, succeeding generations of monarchs and/or their consorts have either purchased items for the Collection or have received gifts from individuals and countries that have made their way to the Collection.

The Imperial State Crown is one of most precious items of the Royal Collection

     Today, it is one of the largest and extensive collections on the world, with over 7,000 paintings, 40,000 watercolors and drawings, about 150,000 old master prints, photographs, tapestries, furniture, ceramics, books, gold and silver plate, and other works of art. Also included are the Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom, arms and armor, jewellery, and other assorted items. The Collection is dispersed across the state-owned royal palaces (both occupied and unoccupied), including Windsor, Buckingham Palace, Holyroodhouse, and Hampton Court Palace. Parts of the Collection are also on loan to various museums and touring exhibitions, including the British Museum and the National Gallery. The Collection's value is indeterminable in part because many items (including the Crown Jewels) are priceless.

The Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh, the Queen's official residence in Scotland.

     Finally, there are occupied and state-owned Royal residences, including Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, the Palace of Holyroodhouse, Hillsborough Castle, Clarence House, St. James's Palace, and Kensington Palace. They are held in trust for the official use of succeeding monarchs and their families, and like the Crown Estate, the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Royal Collection, are not personally owned by the Queen and cannot be sold by her.

     As for the claim that Elizabeth II owns one-sixth of the world's land surface (6.6 billion acres), well that figure appears to be the sum of the geographic land area of all of the Commonwealth realms and territories, including the UK, Canada, the Bahamas, the Falklands, Gibraltar, parts of Antarctica, and many others. Again, these are lands that are not owned by the Queen in a personal capacity, and not all land in those countries is Crown land (in Canada's case, its 89%) and such land is held by the various governments in the name of the monarch. (It should be noted that this spurious claim is made alongside Pope Francis owning a large chunk of the world, but only because the Catholic Church owns these lands).

     So on the surface, the Queen appears to be up to her eyeballs with a fortune that is one of the largest in the world. But the reality is that her personal wealth is modest compared to the assets held by her in trust for her successors and the countries over which she reigns. The most important thing to remember is that those assets cannot be owned outright by the Queen and she cannot sell them for personal profit, which is a basic tenet for something to be counted as personal wealth.

And this is why the Queen does not appear on any rich list.



Photo Credit: Elwyn Thomas Roddick via Geograph cc, West Midlands Police via Flickr cc, Paul Robertson via Flickr cc, Oliver-Bonjoch via Wikimedia Commons cc

Kate: What Do You Call Her?

What's so hard about referring to Kate as the Duchess of Cambridge and not Kate Middleton?

     
     Ever since she first appeared under the gaze of the media spotlight, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge has been known in the press as Kate Middleton.

     This practice should have ended upon her marriage to Prince William, Duke of Cambridge in 2011, because on that day, she ceased to be Kate Middleton, and became the Duchess of Cambridge. Yet it has been continued by several media outlets and news publications, and it is somewhat frustrating to hear the Duchess referred to as such.

     Some people may look upon this as trivial, and it is true that regardless of what she is called, it does not change on iota about your own life (or her's either). However, as a matter of proper form and dignity, Kate should not be referred to by her maiden name unless it is in reference to the period of her life before her marriage.

     So if not Kate Middleton, then she must surely be Princess Kate, right? Wrong.

     According to the Letters Patent issued by George V in 1917 (which were most recently amended by the Queen in 2012), the title of Prince or Princess in the United Kingdom is restricted to the children of a monarch, male-line grandchildren of a monarch, and the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.

     In other words, this title and dignity is only for the use for people who are born into the royal family, and not for people who marry into it (though there have been exceptions, as I will explain later).

     So does this mean she is not a Princess? No, wrong again!

     Kate is a Princess, but only because she married a Prince. Like most women who take the feminine form of their husband's name, so did she. Technically speaking, she is also Princess William of Wales, and would be known as such had her husband not received his titles of Duke of Cambridge, Earl of Strathearn, and Baron Carrickfergus. But as she does not come from royal blood, Kate is not a Princess in her own right.

     However, there is precedent for making her a stand-alone Princess. In 1957, the Duke of Edinburgh, who had renounced his birthright Greek and Danish royal titles to marry then-Princess Elizabeth in 1947 as Philip Mountbatten (with his surname being that of his mother's family in Britain), was made a Prince of the United Kingdom by the Queen, which allowed him to be formally called Prince Philip.

     Could the Queen do the same for Kate? Yes, but the likelihood is low for this simple reason: if Kate gets this treatment, then all other royal wives - including Princess Michael of Kent (wife of Prince Michael of Kent) and the Duchess of Gloucester (wife of Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester) - would probably demand the same. 

So to summarize, the proper form of referring to Kate is:

• Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cambridge

It is also OK to call her:

• Catherine (or Kate), Duchess of Cambridge
• The Duchess of Cambridge 

Other names that can correctly be used to describe her are:

• Catherine (or Kate) Cambridge
• Catherine (or Kate) Mountbatten-Windsor
• Duchess Catherine (or Kate)

The incorrect forms are:

• Catherine (or Kate) Middleton
• Princess Catherine (or Kate)

     The colloquial surname Cambridge is in reference to Kate's territorial designation as the Duchess of Cambridge. It is similar to Prince William and Prince Harry being known as William and Harry Wales in the military and in school, based on their formal styles (i.e., Prince Harry of Wales), which in turn is based on their father's territorial designation as the Prince of Wales. 

     It is also proper to refer to Kate via her Scottish title of Countess of Strathearn and her Northern Irish title of Baroness Carrickfergus. 

     Mountbatten-Windsor is the surname adopted for use by non-royal and male-line descendants of the Queen and Prince Philip, but which has been used by members with royal titles, such as Princess Anne when she signed her name on the marriage register during her first wedding in 1973.

     So why is it hard for the media to stop calling her Kate Middleton or Princess Kate? With regard to the former, it's likely because they became used to calling her that for a long time before her marriage, and have not shaken it off. With regard to the latter, it may well be that Princess sounds better than (and superior to) Duchess. Indeed, there were some media personalities on the day of the wedding who were aghast (and shocked!) to find out that the wife of a Prince was a mere Duchess. Since then, they and others in the media have taken it upon themselves to elevate her to the status of a Princess, or to just use her maiden name (which actually takes her down a notch, when you think about it). 

     All of this goes to the way that some media outlets treat Kate and other members of the royal family as mere "celebrities" or entertainment show-pieces with no respect for their status or constitutional role. It is true that several things about monarchy have become relaxed, and this is a positive development, but there are some formalities that need to be observed, such as the use of proper titles in the media.

     For more information about royal titles and the use of them in the United Kingdom, please read Why Kate Is Not Princess Catherine.


Photo Credit: Tom Soper Photography via Fotopedia cc

The Myth of Infantilism and the Monarchy Debunked

     One of the common criticisms of the monarchy that I have come upon is that it is somehow holding Britain back by infantilizing the people. In the minds of such malcontents, the United Kingdom – as well as other Commonwealth nations – cannot “grow up” into modern democratic societies so long as the monarchy is in existence. For them, the monarchy is incompatible with modernity and therefore has no place in modern Britain.

     To be fair, if Britain had no history and was just starting today, I doubt that a constitutional hereditary monarchy would be the first choice of a governmental foundation for the founding fathers of a new nation.

     But that is the point. Britain does have a history – a rich and illustrious history that stretches back thousands of years, and the monarchy has played a large role in that history.

     In the present, the monarchy can therefore be regarded as an inheritance – not just the inheritance of successive monarchs or members of the Royal family – but of all Britons, regardless of race, color, creed, origin, gender, or religion.

Royal Coat of Arms of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

     If you believe in the idea of the United Kingdom – of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales welded into a strong, single nation-state – and for that matter, the unity of the Commonwealth, then you have the Queen and the monarchy to thank for that. It provides a force that brings together and unifies disparate peoples, in spite of their differences; provides a measure of stability and continuity in a world that seems more chaotic every day; and it gives the people of Britain and the Commonwealth a yardstick of how far they have come, where they are, and were they are going in the passage of time.

     For all of its imperfections (all people and institutions have them), the monarchy works in Britain and in the Commonwealth countries were it retains its unique status. I feel the same way towards our own Constitution in the United States; for all of its flaws (not to mention the endless debate about what its provisions mean), it has generally worked well throughout our 230 year existence.

     It is highly disrespectful to tell the people of Britain – and for that matter, Canada, Australia, Jamaica, and the other realms with the Queen as head of state – that they are not a “grown-up” people, and living in a country that is not “grown-up.”

     I am also supremely doubtful that the same can be said about Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands – countries that are routinely held up as models for social justice and economic equality, but also have functioning monarchies.

     If anything, the monarchy has helped to advance technological and social progress. 

     In the past, members of the Royal family have been patrons of the arts and sciences who promoted good and useful works.

The Prince of Wales has worked hard to provide encouragement and inspiration to young people.

     In the present, Prince Charles’s vast array of organizations – such as the Prince’s Trust – have helped hundreds of thousands of young men and women to rise from their present – often lowly and tragic – circumstances, and to have faith in themselves to excel at something at which they are good. In this sense, the monarchy – contrary to keeping people down, has actually empowered them.

     Far from looking down on people, the Royal family actually looks up to people who have achieved success or have done good works in their communities, and who have inspired others by becoming positive role models. That’s why the monarchy recognizes such people by giving them awards to commend their achievements – people such as Andy Murray, Sean Connery, Richard Branson, Jessica Ennis-Hill, Adele, J.K. Rowling, Bradley Wiggins, and scores of other people who are not celebrities, but are hard-working individuals who make a positive difference to other people’s lives and in the wider society.

     If I were living in Britain and became a citizen/subject, I would be satisfied with living under the system of constitutional monarchy, in which I took part in the election of representatives to Parliament who form a government to solve the issues of the day, whilst the monarch is limited to the mostly formal and ceremonial duties of state – irrespective of partisan politics.

Politicians such as Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg come and go throughout the years...

...but the monarchy is timeless, and there's something saying about that.

    

     I believe that the people who perpetuate the infantilizing myth do so in part because they are malcontent with the inability of the government to actually solve the problems that the country faces, and they attack the monarchy for (in their view) keeping people from understanding the stark realities of life in Britain and from owning up to Britain’s many problems – especially in the wake of the Great Recession and the economic slump.

     To them, I ask: “Is the monarchy keeping people from exercising their right to vote? Is it preventing people from becoming politically and civically active? Is it halting them from assembling and holding peaceful rallies to affect change in government policies? Is the monarchy stopping people from having freedom of thought, or of speech, or of the press?”

     The answer to all of those questions is a resounding NO. If anything, on the second question, members of the Royal family going back to Prince Albert – and even beyond – have encouraged more people to become educated and to take part in civic affairs. They have also expressed a general desire for more social cohesion and community-building, which is especially important in a Britain that has become increasingly diverse in several ways.

     The accusation of infantilism is an insult against the people’s collective intelligence, especially if they are the ones who are experiencing difficult times, and need not require any further reminding.

National celebration for the Diamond Jubilee produced no such infantilism. The celebrations showed Britain standing tall and proud of itself and its monarchy.

     Just as in the States, it is up to the people of the United Kingdom to exercise their democratic freedoms as part of the wider community of the realm and to express their will to the people they elected, and if that will is not being properly expressed in government policies, it is the right of the people to vote for other legislators to represent their collective interest.

     Britain has many issues it needs to confront, and it can do better, but abolishing the monarchy or accusing it of infantilizing the people is not the answer to Britain’s problems. (In other words, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater!)

     The answer is for the people to get out and participate in the democratic process. Next year, the British people will have the opportunity to retain David Cameron as Prime Minister and elect a Conservative (Tory)-led government, or to replace him with Ed Miliband and the Labour Party. The monarchy cannot and will not stop that from happening, for if it did, there would be a constitutional crisis – possibly even a revolution – and it would not be pretty for anybody.

     The monarchy has not held back modernity; it has been part of modernity. Indeed, it has “grown up” with it.

The balance of tradition and modernity have become a hallmark of the monarchy.

     It has embraced modernity – not as quickly as some would like to see – but it has done so nonetheless. It has adapted with the times as necessary to keep up – throwing out old customs such as the presentation of debutantes, and creating new ones like widening the circle of people invited to garden parties. This is not the monarchy of William the Conqueror or Robert the Bruce; nor is it the monarchy of Elizabeth I of England or James VI & I; nor even is it the monarchy of George III or Queen Victoria. It is a modern monarchy for our times, while also retaining timeless, rich, and colorful rituals, such as the State Opening of Parliament, Trooping the Colour, and best of all – the Coronation.

     Celebrating the monarchy is not infantilism. It is an expression of national pride, on par with celebrating the UK’s success at the Olympics in 2012 or Andy Murray’s triumph at Wimbledon last year.

     People in Britain are not behaving like children by singing God Save the Queen – or for that matter, Land of Hope and Glory or Rule Britannia! They are celebrating an ancient institution that instills national pride and which represents what is good and decent about their country. Why else would 1.2 million people line up long the banks of the River Thames - in the rain, no less - for the Diamond Jubilee's River Pageant in support of the Queen?

     (Just for the record, only 500 anti-monarchists bothered to show up, and they were supremely outnumbered by people chanting: GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!)

Infantilism you say? I call it patriotic pride.

     Indeed, one of reasons I regard Britain with high esteem is due to the monarchy and the fact that it is still functioning and retains relevance in modern society. Of course, there is more to the UK than just the monarchy. As Hugh Grant said (in Love Actually), there's also Harry Potter, Sean Connery, David Beckham's right (and left) foot, as well as other things and people that make Britain unique amongst the nations of the world. The monarchy stands out for its role in forging the nation we know today and for continuing to help write its long island story.

     If it is true that the monarchy encourages infantilism, it is only because the malcontented monarchy-downers believe it to be so. They are the ones who convince themselves that they are inferior to the Royal family to the point that they feel ashamed of living in a country with a hereditary monarchy. THEY are the ones who are responsible for putting themselves in this position of inferiority and feeling like infants, not the monarchy.

     The people who believe in the United Kingdom and who take pride in its monarchy are the real “grown-ups” around here.

 

Photo Credit: Sodacan via Wikimedia Commons cc, Dan Marsh via Wikimedia Commons cc, UK in France via Flickr cc, Abuk SABUK via Wikimedia Commons cc, Ben via Flickr cc, Defence Images via Photopin cc