Tag Archives: Norman Conquest

Royal Riches: What the Monarchy Costs Great Britain

By Eamon Murphy

Royal finances: what the monarchy costs Great Britain

Filed under: , ,

AP/Lefteris Pitarakis

Here’s a paradox about Great Britain. In many ways, it’s a more progressive country than the United States, its colonial offspring. It has a more generous welfare state (including national health care), a more progressive tax structure, and a third major political party to the left of Labour. Most workers are entitled to at least 28 paid days of vacation per year, and same-sex marriage will soon be legal throughout England and Wales.

And yet Great Britain maintains one of the most conservative institutions on the planet: a hereditary monarchy, something Americans would never countenance. This despite the fact that King Charles I lost two civil wars, leading to his own decapitation and the short-lived abolition of the monarchy, in the mid-17th century.

And though the royal family’s political significance has long since been reduced to the ceremonial, the Windsors still have a massive financial footprint. As sovereign, the Queen owns the Crown Estate, a property portfolio worth £8.1 billion ($12.4 billion) as of last month — the first time its value has exceeded £8 billion. It includes a lot of prime real estate — “large parts of London’s West End,” “15 retail parks in various towns and cities,” shopping centers, offices, agricultural lands, forests, and “most UK coastline,” according to the BBC — and 15 percent of its annual revenues is used to fund the monarchy. The rest goes to the Treasury.

As a result of the these assets’ recent performance, the Queen is getting a raise: the Sovereign Grant, as her cut of the Crown Estate’s revenues is called, is set to increase next year from £36.1 million to £37.89 million (more than $55 million) — a gain of 5 percent, and the second consecutive bump to her allowance.

“The Crown Estate as a whole dates from the time of the Norman Conquest,” explains the monarchy’s official website — more than 900 years ago — but the current arrangement came into effect in 1760. That was the year King George III — the intolerable tyrant of the Declaration of Independence — signed the revenues over to the Treasury, and in return, stopped having to pay for the civil government, the national debt, and his own personal debt. Those expenses were covered by something called the Civil List, funded by the Treasury and supplemented more recently by grants from other departments, until the Sovereign Grant Act of 2011. Buckingham Palace called the change “a modern, transparent and simpler way of funding the head of state,” but opponents of the monarchy are unconvinced. “Pegging royal funding to Crown Estate revenue makes no sense at all,” said the group Republic, which advocates replacing the Queen (or King) with an elected head of state. “The two are not related. Crown Estate revenue has always been there to provide funds for the government.”

<div …read more

Source: FULL ARTICLE at DailyFinance

In UK, aristocrat faces real-life 'Downton Abbey' dilemma

Viscount Timothy Torrington’s story reads like a real-life version of “Downton Abbey,” the hit period drama about the family of an earl who has no direct heir to inherit his title.

Like the fictional character Lord Grantham, the aristocrat has three daughters but no sons. In order for his title to live on in future generations, the 69-year-old has no choice but to pass it to a distant relative abroad, someone he has not even met.

“It’s a sadness in life that my wife and I never had a son,” said the viscount, who lives with his wife in the countryside west of London. “But I suppose I would rather someone inherit it than have it dying out.”

Downton Abbey” may be set in the early 20th century and its characters may be fictional, but the effects of a centuries-old rule that puts boys before girls are very real to Torrington and hundreds of hereditary peers in modern Britain. It’s still a man’s world when it comes to inheritance among Britain’s peerage, an archaic system of feudal class and power that first took shape almost a millennium ago around the time of the Norman Conquest.

The titles — earls, viscounts, barons, marquesses and dukes — no longer indicate great wealth. But for many they’re still a mark of prestige and social status more impressive than anything money can buy.

Julian Fellowes, the creator and writer behind “Downton,” knows this only too well: His wife, Emma Kitchener, is a descendant of the first Lord Kitchener, the famous imperial field marshal and statesman. She cannot inherit the storied title, which faces dying out.

Most hereditary peerages are bestowed by royalty and can only be passed to sons not daughters — based on the rule of “male primogeniture” — a principle as old as the peerage system itself. If a peer dies with no son, the title will go to a male heir like a cousin or uncle, and if there is no male heir to be found a title could become extinct.

There are exceptions: Some women, like the late Baroness Margaret Thatcher, become “life peers” by the monarch’s appointment, not by inheritance. She cannot pass her title on to her offspring. Among about 1,000 titles that can be inherited, only about 90 may descend in the female line.

Torrington’s title isn’t one of them. His eldest daughter, Hatta Wood, has just had a baby boy — but he, too, is locked out of inheriting the title because male primogeniture excludes the entire female line of the family tree. The nearest male heir is a distant cousin who lives in Toronto.

“It’s unfair to my son,” said Wood, 35. “When he was born, it suddenly felt like I could keep (the title) going down the family line … but it’s going to go to somebody else, a guy in Canada.”

Wood admits that she values her father’s title for its “sentimental value more than anything else.” Unlike the Downton ladies, she has her own career in publishing. Most noble titles are now

From: http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/world/~3/W5fHwx7SZuc/