By Jason Groves
Last updated at 1:48 AM on 1st July 2011
The Queen was yesterday offered a recession-proof funding deal, which could see her income soar as the economy picks up.
Chancellor George Osborne unveiled details of a 'historic' shake-up of Royal finances, which will give Her Majesty a 15 per cent slice of profits from the £6.6 billion Crown Estate.
The deal will guarantee that the Queen's income can never fall in cash terms, even if the organisation, which operates a huge commercial property portfolio, suffers a bad year.
Cuts: The Queen, pictured here as she is formally received into the City of Edinburgh at the Palace of Holyroodhouse, could be nine per cent poorer by 2015
The deal came a day after details emerged of a 50 per cent increase in Prince Charles's personal spending last year.
But Treasury officials confirmed there would be no direct cap on the amount the Monarch can receive from the deal – holding out the prospect of major future windfalls.
Some experts have even predicted the deal could see the Queen's income double as the Crown Estate exploits its stake in the market for offshore wind farms.
But the decision not to apply a formal ceiling on the money will alarm critics. Labour MP Paul Flynn said the Royal Family should face the same 'financial discipline' as the poorest in society. But others warned the deal would reduce the Royal Family to a 'Tesco Monarchy', reliant on the fortunes of commerce. Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said it was wrong to talk of the Monarchy in terms of taxpayer 'value'.
CHARLES WON'T BE SCRUTINIZED
The financial affairs of Prince Charles will remain shrouded in mystery – despite the opening up of the finances of the wider Royal Household for scrutiny.
The National Audit Office and MPs will be able to question the Keeper of the Privy Purse Sir Alan Reid about spending by members of the Royal Family.
Margaret Hodge, chairman of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, described the move as 'truly historic'.
But the deal will not cover the financial affairs of the Duchy of Cornwall, which provides Prince Charles with his lavish income.
The decision came a day after it emerged that Prince Charles's income rose by 4.9 per cent to £19.7 million last year. The Treasury declined to comment on why Charles had been left out.
He said: 'It makes Her Majesty sound like she's something to be bought off the shop shelf at Tesco. This really cannot be the way to approach our constitution.'
On current forecasts, Mr Osborne said the arrangement would see the £34million paid to the Queen to support her public duties enjoy only a modest rise to £35million by 2015. He suggested this would result in a nine per cut real terms cut in her income over the five years of the Parliament.
But Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls said the first two years of the scheme, which will be introduced in 2013, would deliver the Queen a 3.2 per cent real terms increase. He described the deal as 'generous'.
Mr Osborne said there would be 'proper checks and balances to ensure the sums provided do not become excessive'. Indeed, the Royal books will be opened up for scrutiny for the first time.
But Treasury officials later confirmed there will be no direct cap on the income she can receive.
The Crown Estate, which owns the seabed around Britain's coast, made a modest £2.6million from wind farms last year, but is predicting 'exponential' growth.
Some experts believe profits from this area could rise to £250million over the next decade – handing the Queen a £38million windfall which would more than double her current income.
The Treasury last night played down the prospect of a major rise, saying that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Royal officials would decide each year whether some of the increase should be held in reserve for future years.
Reform: Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne is shaking up the royal finances
Mr Osborne said the Queen had an enviable record in cost-cutting, with taxpayer funding falling in real terms by 50 per cent over the last 30 years. 'No Government department can claim to have achieved anything like that,' he said.
The campaign group Republic said the plans would lead to 'even greater waste, with less accountability'. Spokesman Graham Smith said the Queen should be paid a salary 'based on need'.
And he questioned the decision to hand the Royal Family a slice of the Crown Estate, which severed its financial links with the monarchy in 1760. 'The Windsors have no more right t o its revenue than I do,' he said. 'The Crown Estate is there to fund government and public services – to claim that it should fund the royals' lavish lifestyle is deceitful and dishonest.'
Print this article 
Read later 
Email to a friend Share this article:
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below, or debate this issue live on our message boards.
The comments below have been moderated in advance.
- Newest
- Oldest
- Best rated
- Worst rated
This makes my blood boil ! This country is a Monarchy, not a Republic, and long may it remain so. Perhaps the next to move will be to "axe" the Grand Occasions that are part of the Monarchy, and at the heart of this country. Let's not have the Trooping of the Colour, The Royal Weddings and Events. I'm sure we'd all turn out to see the "Grand Procession of MP's" in the Mall, or the "Coalition Celebration Ceremony". Regal Events are the only thing that still brings this country together, which is more than the pathetic Governments we have can do. Never has the sentiment "God Save the Queen" been more appropriate.
Report abuse
Leave the Queen alone!!! You are an EU terrorist Osbourne, you are partly responsible for the destruction of the UK along with Cameron, Blair and Brown.
Report abuse
Why don't the Saxe-Coburgs' pay their own way? They are the richest family in the world, after all. I wonder if they ever did repay the £4 million sterling, borrowed from the private BOE back in 1794?
Report abuse
The man has lost it completely, just like the man who is giving the Cameron clan a bad name. He should remember that the Duke of Edinburgh, for example, has worked for over 65 years . . . more than 25 years after normal retirment age.
Report abuse
Labour MP Paul Flynn urged the queen to show prudence at a time when the British public are wrestling with pay freezes and job losses.............What, like the fine example shown by the greedy MPs with their snouts deep in the public purse and fighting to keep their public sector pensions whilst insisting everyone else must lose theirs!
Report abuse
This sweet innocent little old Lady is a money mafia gangster along with her other Elite Friends.
Report abuse
The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.
Article Source KBG Test Blog (http://rc.kbg.me)
