Queen Elizabeth II on Wednesday became the longest-reigning monarch in British history, and while her country might have lost influence in the world, she has ruled over an unprecedented period of wealth creation.
Besides the unwinding of an empire and the economic booms and busts, her time as head of state has been marked by the rise of the super-rich. The emergence of billionaire financiers, entrepreneurs and oil-rich sheikhs has left the woman who inherited one of the richest thrones in the world in 1952 a relative pauper a little over six decades later, albeit one with palaces, stables and an expensive stamp collection.
The 89-year-old’s estimated personal fortune, largely inherited from her family, is about US$425 million, according to an analysis by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. That is a mere 3 percent of the wealth of the richest Briton, the Duke of Westminster Gerald Grosvenor. Europe’s richest woman, Liliane Bettencourt, has a US$32 billion fortune.
Illustration: Lance Liu
“The queen is a steward of the monarchy,” said Sally Bedell Smith, author of Elizabeth the Queen, a 2012 biography. “She’s not as rich as everyone thinks she is.”
The monarchy is still one of the UK’s most valuable institutions, with a value of ￡57 billion (US$87.9 billion) to the UK, according to a report by brand valuation and strategy consultancy Brand Finance. The figure includes contribution to the economy through tourism and such things as the effect of royal babies on fashion brands.
However, its ￡20 billion of tangible assets, including Buckingham Palace, the Crown Jewels and the Royal Art Collection, are held in trust for future generations and are not the queen’s private property.
While precise details of her personal fortune are as closely guarded as the Crown Jewels, the Bloomberg Billionaires Index calculates she holds US$75 million of investments, US$160 million of assets inherited from her mother, personal property of US$110 million, a US$75 million stamp collection and the US$10 million rated Royal Stud. The palace declined to comment on the queen’s net worth.
The value of her investment holdings is derived from a statement in the Times of London in 1971 by John Colville, a director at Coutts & Co, the queen’s bank, which estimated her fortune at ￡2 million. Its appreciated value is calculated from an investment allocation of stocks, bonds, commodities and cash that is averaged about 5 percent a year over the past 25 years. That is in line with returns typically targeted by similarly wealthy investors.
“In my experience, a conservative family portfolio would look to achieve a 5 percent to 7.5 percent annual return over this time period,” said Richard Wilson, chief executive officer of the Miami Family Office, a single family office with US$500 million in assets.
The queen inherited her mother’s ￡70 million estate in 2002, according to a report by BBC News at the time. The reported value has been adjusted by the UK’s rate of inflation to account for any increase in the value of the assets.
She also owns the Balmoral and Sandringham estates, which are valued based on discussions with London-based Charles McDowell, founder of prime real-estate broker Charles McDowell.
The stamp collection of her father, George VI, is valued based on the sale of John du Pont’s stamp collection in June last year and discussions with London-based Stanley Gibbons Investments managing director Keith Heddle.
Her stable, which has about 25 horses in training each season, according to The British Monarchy Web site, is valued based on sales data from horse auctioneer Tattersalls and discussions with thoroughbred analyst Nancy Sexton. The stud’s stake in the stallion standing at Sandringham is valued based on guidance from bloodstock analyst Bill Oppenheim.
Her majesty could be worth more. Other assets, including a flock of racing pigeons, jewelry and a lifetime of gifts from visitors and admirers could add to her fortune. Moreover, the royal provenance of her estate could push its market value much higher. Even so, the queen’s reign has seen her steadily slip down the rankings of the UK’s richest people.
As of Wednesday, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary has been queen for 63 years and 216 days. She overtakes her great-great-grandmother, Queen Victoria, who cemented Britain’s position as a superpower with an empire spanning almost a quarter of the world’s land area.
That status diminished after the two world wars before the UK’s economy went through a transformation from state-owned industry to the free-market capitalism of the 1980s and 1990s.
What followed was an historic era for wealth generation, with self-made billionaires building fortunes of more than US$3 trillion since 1995, according to a May report by UBS Group AG and PwC. That has seen the queen leapfrogged by UK billionaires such as Virgin Group founder Richard Branson and retailer Philip Green.
Property prices also skyrocketed, especially in London and the southeast of England as salaries and bonuses in the City financial district took off. The number of millionaires in the UK, at least on paper, has jumped 41 percent to 715,000 in the past five years alone, according to a report by Barclays PLC.
The Crown Estate, which owns London property, the UK seabed as well as forests, wind farms and the Windsor Estate, reported net assets of more than ￡11 billion in its latest annual report. Bloomberg did not include the queen’s 15 percent share of profits from the estate in her fortune because the money is used to cover palace upkeep, payroll and other costs of the royal family.
At least the queen is able to enjoy — if not own — the royal palaces, land and the art collection, landmark assets that would be the envy of any billionaire. Buckingham Palace with its 775 rooms and 16.18-hectare garden could be worth about ￡2 billion were it ever sold, said Ollie Hooper, founder of luxury residential broker Huntly Hooper.
“Priceless is perhaps more accurate,” he said.
“Given the nature of the asset,” he said.
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS