38656356325923

withheld, provoking reasonable complaints that, without such information, the amount
really required by the Palace would be based on guesswork. The question of her tax
immunity was also publicly raised for the first time. It was categorically stated by the
Palace that the royal palaces, royal jewels, and royal collections, whose value ‘could be
regarded as astronomical’, are vested in the sovereign and are, therefore, inalienable.
(These also specifically included the immensely valuable stamp collections accumulated
by George V and George VI.) Suggestions that the Queen owned private funds worth £50
million were, the Committee was assured, ‘wildly exaggerated’.
Mountbatten, always more sensitive to public relations than either Elizabeth or Philip
and their advisers, had been particularly anxious that this point should be cleared up.
He was concerned by the bad impression given by the ever-increasing public cost of the
monarchy, particularly when contrasted with what was widely believed to be Elizabeth’s
huge private fortune. The fact that she regularly appeared on the American magazine
Fortune’s list of the world’s richest women caused, in his view, immense damage in the
public eye. Mountbatten thought the Palace’s traditional secrecy on such matters a great
mistake. ‘Unless you can get an informed reply published making just one point, the
image of the monarchy will be gravely damaged,’ he told Prince Philip on 5 June 1971.
‘It is true that there is a fortune, which is very big, but the overwhelming proportion
(85%?) is in pictures, objets d’art, furniture, etc. in the three State-owned Palaces. The
Queen can’t sell any of them, they bring in no income.’ He recommended an
authoritative article in The Times which would be picked up by the world’s press,
otherwise people would resent being asked to pay more and more while Elizabeth
economized on her ‘£100m fortune’. ‘So will you both please believe a loving old uncle
and NOT your constitutional advisers, and do it,’ he pleaded. 1 Four days later Jock
Colville, now a banker, made a statement in The Times in which he said that the Queen
was worth about £12 million.
Mountbatten, it seemed, had been over-optimistic; Fortune continued to count
Elizabeth’s palaces, jewels and collections as her assets, while facts and figures given to
the Select Committee revealed the true cost of the monarchy to the taxpayer as being
considerably more than the published amounts for the Civil List and the Privy Purse.
These showed that, quite apart from the Civil List allowance, many of the costs of the
royal activities were also borne by government departments:
Marshal of the Diplomatic Corps £ 6,000
Overseas visits at request of government departments 214,000
Gentlemen-at-Arms and Yeomen of the Guard 13,000
Palaces occupied by the Queen and members of the royal family 974,000
Rail travel including royal train 36,000