Even staunch Royalists are wincing over the recent investigation into King Charles and Prince William’s opaque financial affairs which details how their estates take money off hospitals, the military, prisons and firefighters. Both Royals pay income tax (since the 1990s though refuse to say how much) but not capital gains and corporation tax. Hints from 25 years back that greater transparency was needed have clearly been ignored.
The feudal-sounding duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall, owned and run by the Royals are actually property companies with assets worth £1.8 billion and 5,410 landholdings, ranging from rental houses and flats to farmland, mining rights and drilling sites.
‘Prising open the secrets of the two duchies, which are exempt from business taxes and are used to fund the royals’ lifestyles and philanthropic work, has proved almost impossible. Two parliamentary committees have tried and largely failed.’
There are calls for the two duchies to be folded into the Crown estate, which sends its profits to the Government.
King Charles, 14 November 1948 9.14pm London, has his Saturn in Virgo in his 2nd house which has always puzzled me – since it should mean thrifty even mean about money, when his personal lifestyle hardly shrieks austerity; though it can also mean shrewd in business. He is nowhere near the top of the global rich list coming way down at around 250th.
He does have a Taurus Moon close to his North Node which can indicate an acquisitive streak and a tendency to become embroiled in financial tussles. His Moon is trine Saturn trine Jupiter in an out of element (nearly Earth) Grand Trine which will emphasise his interest in building a solid business operation.
At the moment he has his Saturn moved by Solar Arc direction to conjunct his Sun exactly bringing a few financial realities home to roost. Tr Saturn is also moving through his 8th house which again suggests a need for rearranging joint finances. Early 2025 in particular will see transiting Saturn tugging on his Mars, Uranus Jupiter – and thereby affecting his Grand Trine involving Saturn – for another discouraging phase of having to face the bottom line. Plus his Solar Arc Pluto will conjunct his South Node in 2025. By 2027 tr Uranus will be squaring his Saturn as well. Not all of this may involve money matters but a chunk will. His life and attitude to finances will have to change force majeure.
He is not as indulgent as his mother Queen Elizabeth 11, who for all her emphasis on living a frugal lifestyle with single bar radiators and the like, also bred and competed racehorses – and that is a very expensive hobby about which nothing much was ever spoken. She had an indulgent Venus and erratic Uranus in her 2nd house of finances and an earthy Taurus Sun, as well as a Leo Moon.
Prince William is less money-minded than his father/grandmother. But even he is feeling the pressure with his Progressed Moon moving through his 2nd house of finances for another year; and tr Pluto moving through his 2nd house well into the 2040s. Both will alter his approach to money.
Tr Uranus is conjunct his Venus in Taurus exactly now, which given that it is on the focal point of a yod inconjunct Neptune sextile Pluto, it does suggest a life-changing phase, when he will be jolted onto a new track.
Part of the problem as Libby Purves explained in The Times quoting the experience of a journalist who previously tried to investigate the Royal finances “The King is a good man. So is William — big sense of obligation. But they have these hard-nosed people, chisel-faced accountants ….” The men in grey suits get the blame.
I am pro-Monarchy since it is good for tourism, holds the country together and they do put on a good performance when it comes to state occasions. The ranters and ravers, driven by a good deal by envy, would do well to consider what the alternatives are. The Russian royals were assassinated and the Bolsheviks took over. Spanish Royals out – dictator Franco in. Shah of Persia exiled and the beards moved in.
Royals can be their own worst enemy and shoot themselves in the foot with crass decisions and obfuscation. But I would not trade their lifestyle for all the money in the world and the vacuum they leave is often filled by much much worse.
Might be worth looking at the Crown Estate Act, 1961? It is independent of both King and the government of the day. However,
“In the 1961 Act, Parliament charged the Commissioners with the function of managing and turning to account the land and other property, rights and interests vested in the Crown. On his accession, King Charles III formally surrendered the hereditary revenues to the government, as each Monarch has done since 1760.” thecrownestate.co.uk
The Crown Estate Act is dated 27 July, 1961. It has a t-square of Sun in ‘royal’ Leo, opposing Jupiter in ‘the people’ Aquarius, with Neptune in Scorpio (money from the sea beds?! And hidden money). Pluto in Aquarius transit may put pressure on this, and with the outlet in Taurus that suggests wealth and land are involved. Pluto in 1961 was 6 Virgo, so Uranus in Gemini could shake up the rules surrounding the wealth generated by the Crown Estates. Pluto opposes Chiron, 5 Pisces. Perhaps when Gemini Uranus transits both 1066 Pluto in Pisces, and 1801 UK Pluto in Pisces that process will be underway?
I think tax revenue from all these mysterious royal-not-royal assets is preferable to a republic somehow. Somewhat concerning to wonder how things might work if a global corporation ‘owned’ the sea beds…..
Also of interest is the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster Act, 14 August, 1838. This has had some amendments through the years, but essentially rules for Parliament and the Treasury to see and review the accounts for these holdings.
The King’s Scorpio Sun is conjunct Saturn for the Act, and both squaring the Act’s 20 Leo Sun. Wealthy secretive Pluto in Aries in 1838 is, at 17 degrees, opposite the King’s Venus, 16 Libra, and Neptune 14 Libra.It trines his natal Pluto in royal Leo. The Act’s Pluto also opposes William’s 15 Libra Saturn. Wealthy, hang on tight Venus was in Cancer at 19 degrees in 1838, so bang on the UK Moon, representing the public, squaring the Pluto for possible tensions around hidden wealth?
The Solar Eclipse of August 2026 is 20 Leo, right on the Act’s Sun. Perhaps this signals changes in attitude – or even changes in the Royal Family or Government? It is close to UK Leo Saturn which could suggest new legislation? I’ve noticed that this year has come up quite a lot in Marjorie’s posts, so changes and developments then seem likely. Change cannot be created or legislated for overnight after all.
And then there’s tr Saturn in Aries transiting the 1838 Pluto in 2027. Quite punchy?
For a clear, brief timeline on all the many challenges, historical arguments, and the long history of both Duchies, here’s one from the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/who-owns-and-profits-from-the-duchies-of-lancaster-and-cornwall-timeline
For me Marjorie just criticising Royals was a shock. But then, who r royals? The pure blue blood got diluted centuries ago…I was just looking at Royals family tree and didn’t find a single pure blue blood….so in name of Royals…frauds r enjoying…anyway, Pluto in Aquarius is all about rebelling against system…so monarchy as well..y should only judiciary to corporate world suffer only
I remember years ago, maybe even more than a decade, Forbes used to run the richest royals list. And the richest in Europe were the Dutch, I think. (Do they own part of Royal Dutch Shell or not?) And then they mysteriously disappeared. I believe the crown now goes to either Luxembourg or Liechtenstein.
In the world, there were the Arab monarchs, but I think the King of Thailand tops them all.
I am aware that we are steering away from pure astrology, still with a new era knocking on the door, I need to add a few things. Connecting to the comments of Starstuck and AI22 (thank you to you both) I would like to add, that the idea and the reality of a monarchy is the opposite of any democracy. Quoting Orwell’s “Animal Farm”: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”. Besides the obvious and ever growing financial advantage, the other scary aspect of this situation is the judicial inequality in Great Britain. How can any so called royal be tried at court when the institution itself is called the “Royal Court of Justice” and the judges have to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch? “I ….. , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law.” This is how Andrew was protected by the Scotland Yard and the establishment when some documents went missing thwarting case against him, and finally getting saved by a huge cash injection from his mum. The case was solved but the truth remains hidden. The other famous, and truly blood curling example was the Diana Inquiry, which I am not going to detail here, John Morgan did it for us who is interested, turning every stone possible. It is worth reading. …and these are only the cases the people of today most likely know of.
Spot on about democracy, and the dichotomy of how justice is structured in this country. This was also illustrated nicely in the case against Diana’s former butler in 2002, who was on trial for er, ‘caring’ for her possessions in his own home, and a constitutional crisis was only averted at the last minute by the Queen ‘having a recollection’ of a conversation she’d previously had with Burrell about the 310 items worth £4.5M. Goodness, she must have felt a fool. 😉
Oh and you forgot the Masons, btw.
A landlord charges rent – my goodness, whatever next?
On your point about the Monarchy being good for tourism, Marjorie, France, who chopped the heads off their royals, enjoys 100M visitors a year compared to the UK’s 38M.
Buckingham Palace attracts 550K visitors to Versaille’s 10M visitors.
Taking money off the NHS, local councils, the armed forces (effectively charging them for protecting the country) is gobsmacking. As if this isn’t bad enough, Charles accepts illicit dosh in the form of cash in Fortnum’s carrier bags in exchange for honours (which aren’t his to bestow in the first place).
Indeed, Norman Baker’s book is eye-opening and ought to be required reading. In an age when many people can’t afford to heat their homes, and the number of homeless has risen exponentially – the Trussell Trust distributed more than 3.1 million emergency food parcels between April ’23 and March ’24, an increase of 94% over the past five years – an additional £500M to the Royals from the Sovereign Grant, on top of the money they’re already raking in each year from vital public services, is not only morally degenerate, but also patently anti-democratic. They are one family, there by accident of birth and ancient feudal rights, we’re 70M people.
The question is not why Versailles attracts more tourists than Buckingham Palace but how many would Buckingham Palace atrract without the royals?
The monarchy in Britain has been neutered and essentially has become almost purely Leo. Taking them out at this point is pointless. The monarchy is Britain’s Hollywood with a lot more class and prestige. It is an industry. The Coronation cost £100 million to produce but brought in £337 million. Most of the monarchy costs are paid in salaries, and caretakers. The royals aren’t eating and wearing all of it. Get rid of them and you won’t get rid of all or even much of the expense.
The places created by former monarchs just aren’t that attractive when compared to the spectacle. Changing the guard, Royal Ascot, the royal weddings, jubilees, the coronation, Trooping the colour, and the list I’m sure goes on. You live in a interesting place. In my town, about once a year, they ring the church bells and everyone loves it. Of course we can live without that but there is an intrinsic value to small and big ceremonies.
The argument being made really takes in a lot more than just the monarchy. Christmas costs a lot of money and hurts families when they spend their limited means on it so why not ban it and require households to give a tax equivalent to it over to the state for the poor. It costs money to feed and care for wild animals in zoos, we should probably return them to the wild and sell the zoo’s property and give it to the poor. Same for the museums, theaters and don’t even get me started on the city parks. What a complete waste of valuable land in the cities that could be used for affordable housing. In these compassionate, Pisces Neptune times, human enjoyment and the industry it spawns (all except the free parks whose care is just a complete waste of taxpayer money) should never be placed before giving to the poor.
The royals are one family, there by accident of birth and ancient feudal rights so much better than then the 107 Hollywood stars who are there by accident of birth and willingness to accept degradation by sleeping with Weinstein to make a million dollars, we’re 333M people.
I am sorry to raise the point, but no. The monarchy is hardly Britain’s Hollywood! And it’s certainly not the British equivalent of Hollywood, either, with its long tradition of extraordinary talent, of unforgettable actors, directors and writers. My life has not been enriched one iota by the monarchy, as it has by say, Tony Richardson, Nicolas Roeg, Peter Greenaway, or by Vanessa Redgrave, Glenda Jackson, Helen Mirren, Peter Sellers, Eric Porter, David Bowie, Cate Blanchett, Kenneth Branagh, to name only a few.
Hollywood may be all you like, but it is a cradle of extraordinary talent. The monarchy has produced no Casablanca, no The Godfather, no Casino, it has no Orson Welles, No Billy Wilder, no Douglas Sirk, no Fritz Lang, no John Cassavettes, no Martin Scorsese, no Clint Eastwood, and most certainly no Humphrey Bogart, no Barbra Streisand, no Paul Newman, no Meryl Streep, no Marlon Brando, the list is very long.
So I beg to differ about the size and quality of the spectacle. The monarchy really is more like Britain’s Disneyland Parade, with the right to vacuum obscene wealth from the country, just like Disney, I guess.
Indeed, Lucy. In addition, the public chooses to watch (or otherwise) Hollywood’s output, whereas taxpayers in Britain are obligated to pay for the independently wealthy monarchy by law, and cannot opt out of it.
As for Lumiere’s last paragraph, I’ve no idea what any of that means, and it’s factually wrong, as Britain has around 70m people (the US has around 333M people).
@ Starstruck I think that Lumiere (which by the way I think is a lovely name) means that there are 333 million Americans.
@Virginia Thank you. You have a lovely name as well.
@Starstruck I understand why you think this but the monarchy and Hollywood are the same. Hollywood receives taxpayer subsidies and at a much higher level than the monarchy receives.
There is one difference between them, I’m pretty sure your monarchy pays for itself because you have centralized and controlled finances but I’m also pretty sure that Hollywood does not pay for itself because it’s finances are not centralized and controlled.
You have the recipe on this. Your system has built this structure that controls and monetizes your monarchy in probably one of the only major Leonine activities that truly pay for itself. You have harnessed Leo is a way that not only pays for itself, but gives the UK prestige diplomatically, has built a longstanding mechanism that grants your Prime Ministers instant access to high status international networks and puts them in the room weekly with a person that has institutional memory.
Leo (human enjoyment) is always funded by someone. Almost all of the Leonine show’s costs have to be paid in full before a return is gained from it. Ticket prices are just one way of gaining a return from it but the real return is the observation of the show itself. The fixed signs. Taurus resources (Build a show). Leo show (Schedule/film the show). Scorpio other people’s money (Buy a ticket). Aquarius the audience (Watch the show).
I think Pluto in Aquarius is going to have a theme of other people’s money which points to reduction of government funding for Leo activities but Pluto rules the dead not the living. I think your monarchy is living in the sense it provides a positive return where I think Hollywood is in danger because they do not.
In Britain, your monarchy returns come from bar and food receipts, hotel receipts, tickets to attractions, cab fare, airport taxes and fares, tips, and purchases. With 38 million annual visitors and 70 million residents, does a combination of the UK residents and the visitors spend at least £0.79 each annually because of the monarchy? If they do, it breaks even. If they spend an average of more than that then the UK has a net revenue profit.
The UK’s Air Passenger Duty (APD) is rising to £90 on April 1, 2025 to the East Coast of the USA. After April 1, 2025, for example an American visitor that comes to London and puts the changing of the guards among 14 other visited attractions (6.6% of the visit). That means they pay £6 of their APD to the UK directly as a tax because of that attraction. The average visitor also spends £819 and that translates to a little over another £54 in average spending on hotels, meals, tickets and the like because of that attraction.
The UK has a one of a kind Leonine show in the monarchy, one that no other country in the English speaking world can replicate or compete with. The UK government should study the industry before making a change. Keeping a roof on and heating a palace is an expensive affair and the cost isn’t much affected by the presence or absence of a King inside. Removing the royals may very well remove a small amount of cost but at the expense of the lion’s share of revenue generation and all of the cachet and prestige.
Conversely, look at Hollywood. This number is from 2020, California provided $330 million ($8.46 per Californian) to Hollywood in tax credits which are paid out in full, they are not deductions. New York paid out $429 million ($21.92 per New Yorker) annually. Thirty-six other states do the same at varying levels through film tax credits. In 2020, Hollywood’s box office take was low at $2.2 billion.
A week ago, Governor Newsom proposed boosting the California subsidy to $750 million.
The UK film industry is not much less expensive either. Just a few days ago, the UK budget gave £25 million toward the renovation of the Crown Works studio.
Your Sovereign Grant costs about $112 million over 70 million ($1.60 per person) and, as I understand it, that subsidy comes from revenues from the Crown estate and not income tax which is the source of these subsidies in America and the UK. The UK has done an excellent job at declawing the lion while keeping all the best parts intact.
As an American, I thankfully don’t have a dog in this fight, as we solved this problem long ago (since escaping a powerful, unaccountable monarchy was a big motivator for the Revolution); but as an observer from afar, I find the extent of support for the Royal Family to be mystifying.
It’s not so much the institution itself, which undoubtedly is an essential part of British identity and does a lot of good. But why, in a country where so many are struggling financially, are so many taxpayers seemingly willing to continue to subsidize the obscenely lavish lifestyles of these hereditary multimillionaires? And why are these multimillionaires allowed to continue to accumulate, often directly at public expense (I’m referring to recent reporting on the Duchy of Lancaster, for instance), with zero oversight, and without paying so much as a simple capital gains tax?
All this in a country whose flagship NHS–once the envy of the world (or at least of Americans)–is woefully underfunded, and where taxpayers have recently been put on notice that austerity measures are a likelihood and impoverished older people may lose their winter fuel subsidies? It boggles the mind.
Plus, I notice that British media never seem to place the blame for this imbalance where it actually lies: at the feet of the royals themselves. No, it’s always some subaltern, a “chisel-faced” accountant or other gatekeeper; heaven forfend that anyone suggest the Royal Family themselves might be just a little…greedy.
The Royals in the UK remind me of the huge corporations in the U.S. that use public infrastructure to profit massively, yet functionally pay no taxes. I hope Pluto leaving Capricorn changes the balance to more fairness for everyone, including these “too big to fail” entities such as big corporations and, yes, the Royal Family. (Not to worry; I’m sure they’ll still be able to get by without too much difficulty.)
As a fellow American, I’m not so sure we really got rid of royalty – given what may await us (sorry to bring up the elections), our past dreams of a Kennedy ‘Camelot’, and the US public’s fascination with the British monarchy, and its aristocracy in general (eg Dowton Abbey series). The need for an idealized ruler – whatever the political ideology, including religious figures – remains in the psyche of most of the world.
Support for the Royals mystifying indeed.
The biggest benefit scroungers are the Royals and most British people never even see them. And Starstruck is completely correct in her comments. Obscene wealth against abject poverty for so many whilst the Royals and indeed governments could not care less and never did.
For impartiality sake, Marjorie, you should have also listed success stories of countries which are not monarchies and are doing well.
Should I? Feel free.
Portugal, Greece, France, Italy, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, Finland, Rumania, Bulgaria, all former states of Yugoslavia, Austria, Albania have all abolished the monarchy and do not regret it. Switzerland has always been a republic. Barbados became a republic a couple of years ago and have not encountered disaster because of it. I don’t think the British monarchy will survive Pluto in Aquarius, which is all about the sovereignty of the people. By the time the UK asks the EU to rejoin, which is inevitable, it will have no room for kings and queens.
@Andre I tend to agree that when the UK rejoins the EU it is to be hoped that the EU will have ironed out the worst aspects of its policy, equally I tend to think that the UK will retains its monarchy.
Athelstan (in the tenth century) started to build ‘the firm’, based on the foundations laid down by Alfred the Great; so well over a 1,000 years ago. And as you point out, the King is in the second division of the world’s most wealthy. In the UK, for example, the Duke of Westminster (whose family business has been running for a much shorter period of time) well outranks the King in terms of wealth. Most British people (who take any kind of interest) have long known about the Royal Family’s wealth and where it is derived from. That a Murdoch publication is again directly involved in this latest ‘revelation’, should come as no surprise!
I don’t think anyone really knows how much the King, the Duke, or any of the Forbes/Bloomberg billionaires really have. And it fluctuates. The Forbes/Bloomberg lists are all stock almost. So how much of that wealth is liquid and how much hard, cold cash do they have remains a mystery.
Hasn’t the Queen been, and now King Charles, the biggest landowner in Australia? I think Canada too? Does anyone know what that land-owning comprises?
The King has no personal land in Canada. Crown lands are lands of the Canadian state. They are called Crown lands (except in Québec where the expression is public lands) but they belong to His Majesty in the right of Canada. The same goes for Australia and New Zealand, I believe.
Thank you! An important difference.
It very depends on whether this is a personal fortune or the Crown Estate. Reading that hundred of properties have been mapped as belonging to Royal Estates; does not mean it belongs to them. Some of these estate are Crown property not personal. I think Crown Estate goes to the Treasury.
Sorry typed this too quickly. What I am attempting to say is that most of the Royal Estates are Crown Properties. Only a few belong to the Royals. This is the crux of this financial matter. If this is based on just mapping properties and not concrete evidence of payment and established Estate ownership, ensuring they are solely owned by the Royals, then it conjecture not fact. I trust that this was established, by reading deeds or seeing payments?
You’ve missed the crown owning and thus taking multiple millions from the British Isles seabed. How can one family own virtually all of our seabed?
Labour have entered into a partnership with the Crown Estate, for wind farms.
and I wonder how much they are paying them for that? I remember reading Norman Baker’s book : and what do you do? IMO their holdings and ownership do have to be less opaque. I think this has come out because in this latest budget their holdings are exempt tax but other people have to pay…..I also remember watching a programme about one of the palaces King Charles was trying to restore and he was keen to get other people to finance it….including the Saudi’s so perhaps he just doesn’t like to put his hand into his own pocket. My SolarFire says Saturn in the 2nd You may experience feelings of emotional and financial poverty early in life….so perhaps for him spending his own money is emotional!
I think Norman also said that when the Duchy of Lancaster was making money it was ‘theirs’ when it was loosing it was the peoples!! A sort of heads I win, tails you loose idea…
At last! I support the Monarchy and like having one especially the historical elements, though obviously if a a new system was being designed now, it wouldn’t include one. Getting rid of it would cause infinitely more problems than keeping it. Brexit would look like a currant in a fruit cake in comparison and that was only 47 years, but there’s no reason why endless royals should have secret wills for example. Their financial affairs, if they receive any taxpayers money at all, should be governed by the same rules as ours.
George Osborne’s and King Charles’s negotations concluded in 2011 with a considerable increase in the sovereign grant, which because of percentage allocations increases exponentially as well as being inflation linked. On becoming King, Charles surrendered the 25% portion of the offshore wind farm leases billion pound deal. All the perks and special arrangements such as Royal Assent are examined in “And What Do You Do” by Norman Baker, an ex-Minister. Truly shocking so it’s about time that these issues are exposed and discussed.
Sorry not an astrological comment, but delighted that the astrology is indicating activity and pressure for change. Perhaps Pluto in Capricorn’s goodbye present.
If they 45% on all these Duchies, the Treasury will earn more from the Duchies then Corporation Tax at 25% King Charles voluntarily 45%.