What Mitt Romney and Queen Elizabeth II Have in Common

×
Queen Elizabeth vs. Mitt RomneyIn many ways, this year's presidential election may come down to a question of wealth ... and, more specifically, a question of Mitt Romney's wealth, as the GOP candidate's holdings have become the subject of considerable discussion.

Democratic pundits have argued that Romney is a child of privilege, and out of touch with average Americans, while his campaign has pointed to his considerable business success as a demonstration of his economic acumen. Late last week, the political mill acquired some fresh grist when Romney released his public financial disclosure report, a key requirement for presidential candidates.

Romney has been quick to highlight his years with Bain Capital, but he has also been quiet about how much money he actually raked in at the private equity firm. And, while Friday's filing gives a better look at the candidate's finances, it's still unclear how much money he actually has. Romney's campaign has claimed that he is worth between $190 million and $250 million, but, according to the filing, the true figure could be as high as $255 million.

Indeed, despite the filing, the picture of Romney's finances is still maddeningly opaque, particularly when it comes to his investments. For example, the report notes, his 2011 income from his Bain Capital holdings netted him somewhere between a relatively modest $720,000 and a stunning $6.26 million. Similarly, his holdings in Goldman Sachs (GS) yielded upwards of $1.1 million, but there's no way to know exactly how much money Romney has in the investment house -- nor how handsomely that investment has paid off.

In addition to making it hard to gauge the full value of the House of Romney, the vagueness may obscure a significant part of the candidate's decision-making process. Where Romney puts his money -- and just as importantly, where he doesn't -- could reveal a great deal about his priorities.

While his investments are hard to determine, some aspects of Romney's income are much clearer. For example, royalties from his book No Apology: Believe in America totaled somewhere between $50,001 and $100,000, and -- his campaign announced -- were given to charity. Similarly, his seat on the board of hotel chain Marriott International netted him $260,389.74 in stock. Meanwhile, his speaking fees brought in $189,975 in 2011.

Inherited Wealth

When it comes to analyzing Romney's wealth, getting hold of a figure is just the first problem; the second is putting his holdings into context. In the past, many commentators -- myself included -- have drawn comparisons between Romney's cash and the average U.S. household income or Barack Obama's more modest net worth, noting that Romney makes more in a year than the average household will make in a lifetime, and his assets are more than 30 times those of the President.

On Monday, though, Bloomberg TV celebrated Queen Elizabeth II's Diamond Jubilee by analyzing the Queen's income and holdings. Initially, it would appear that Romney and the Queen share little in common: He's the scion of a political dynasty that stretches back a measly couple of decades, while she's the scion of a royal line that stretches back for centuries. He's a political candidate, while she's a relic of an earlier form of government. She's an institution, while he's running on a platform based in political change. Then again, like the queen, Romney got his start with the help of a major boost from inherited wealth -- and, like her, his finances are somewhat mysterious.

The vast majority of Elizabeth II's holdings -- roughly $11.2 billion -- are tied up in the Crown Estate, a collection of artifacts and real estate that British sovereigns can use, but can't sell. On the bright side, she essentially lives rent-free. But, while Buckingham Palace is sure to impress the neighbors, it's not like she can trade up. Then again, the queen recently fired the crown jeweler after 160 years of service, suggesting that she may have some leeway in matters of style.

Queen Elizabeth's personal wealth of approximately $461 million is a fair bit more than Romney's, but the two of them occupy a similar space in the wealth hierarchy: Romney lands somewhere between ordinary rich people and stratospherically superwealthy people like Bill Gates and Carlos Slim. Similarly, the Queen lands somewhere between lower-rent royals like Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and epically wealthy monarchs like the Sultan of Brunei or King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

And, like Romney, Queen Elizabeth pays most of her bills out of a comparatively modest yearly income, comprised of a $21 million yearly stipend, investment income, and profits from her estates. By comparison, Romney took in $21.6 million in 2010.

But when it comes to comparing the British monarch and the Massachusetts mogul, Queen Elizabeth II's vast holdings could also serve as a cautionary tale. Romney's inheritance was sufficient to provide him a good education and a healthy head start, but -- as he's often pointed out -- the majority of his fortune was the result of his own efforts. It takes little more than a glance at the collection of dilettantes and tabloid fodder cluttering the Queen's family tree to illustrate the dangers of raising a child who has a firm expectation of vast inherited wealth. If Romney wants to find examples a little closer to home, he might take a peek at the Hilton family, the Kardashian clan, the Gettys and the Grubmans.

As for Romney's five sons, his campaign recently revealed that the candidate has created a trust fund of "roughly $100 million" for them. And, given that he campaigned against the estate tax, it would appear that he wants his boys -- and other wealthy children -- to enjoy the full, personality-corroding effect of their inherited wealth. As he progresses down the campaign trail, it might be a good idea for Romney to occasionally spare a thought to the cautionary tales provided by Prince Charles -- or Kim Kardashian, for that matter.

Bruce Watson is a senior features writer for DailyFinance. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.



Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

Getting out of debt

Everyone hates debt. Get out of it.

View Course »

Intro to different retirement accounts

What does it mean to have a 401(k)? IRA?

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

29 Comments

Filter by:
sailor7379

Garfield" read Hoover's "Betrayal of Freedom: and then u will have the answer.

June 06 2012 at 8:43 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
sailor7379

I'd rather see Obama's passport and college records

June 06 2012 at 8:42 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
ha6ai

OK Brucie! Enough Obama-propaganda Romney-bashing for today!

Instead, lets ask, "What do Bill Clinton and Barak Obama NOT have in common"?

(1) Per Clinton: Romney had a "sterling business career". (Obama was unfair and wrong in libeling Romney by calling him a "vulture capitalist" who lost jobs - per Clinton the opposite is true.)

(2) Per Clinton: Obama is wrong about continuing the "Bush tax cuts" (actually now the "Bush-Obama tax cuts"). Per Clinton: The Bush tax cuts should be continued for both the "rich" and "middle class".

(3) Per Clinton: The "Recession" is not over, contrary to Obama's claim that the "Recession" is over and we are in "recovery". Per Clinton, the "Obama Recession" continues.

LOL!

June 06 2012 at 4:47 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
ha6ai

OK Brucie! Enough Obama-propaganda Romney-bashing for today!

Instead, lets ask, "What do Bill Clinton and Barak Obama NOT have in common"?

(1) Per Clinton: Romney had a "sterling business career". (Obama was unfair and wrong in libeling Romney by calling him a "vulture capitalist" who lost jobs - per Clinton the opposite is true.)

(2) Per Clinton: Obama is wrong about continuing the "Bush tax cuts" (actually now the "Bush-Obama tax cuts"). Per Clinton: The Bush tax cuts should be continued for both the "rich" and "middle class".

(3) Per Clinton: The "Recession" is not over, contrary to Obama's claim that the "Recession" is over and we are in "recovery". Per Clinton, the "Obama Recession" continues.

LOL!

June 06 2012 at 4:44 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
Garfield Whittak

69Firebird so the proverbial 99% of the "have nots" in America (who struggle financially) are lazy, dumb and deserve to be "poor"??? The super rich do love fools/ignorant folks who utter silly/uninformed statements like yours because the few rich will continue to get richer while the masses/majority struggle until the wider economy collapses under the strain of growing income inequality!

June 06 2012 at 12:08 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Garfield Whittak

horsie27677 what silly/uninformed chatter you display below. Do you think the Great Depression and/or our current Great Recession was caused by leaders like Obama or socialism for that matter?..........or was it the excesses of the selfish/greedy corporate leaders of capitalism that in essence caused the financial collapse that jerk/hurt us all!? Think about and answer these questions!

June 06 2012 at 12:03 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Garfield Whittak

imalibnow2 we all know that America's government is of/by/for the rich (both political parties are)......but at least the Democrats (and their wealthy elite) realize that income inequality is a critical problem for the wider economy and in the process try to manage this conundrum more creatively!

June 05 2012 at 11:55 PM Report abuse -1 rate up rate down Reply
Garfield Whittak

davidhken you fail to grasp the irony that the wealthy are wealthy because they (the rich) control government/government policy directly and indirectly (which actually benefits a select few in a lopsided manner). Government my friend is not (socioeconomic class) neutral and can/will never be........

June 05 2012 at 11:52 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Garfield Whittak

davidhken you fail to grasp the irony that the wealthy are wealthy because the control government/government policy directly and indirectly (which actually benefits a select few in a lopsided manner). Government my friend is not (socioeconomic class) neutral and can/will never be........

June 05 2012 at 11:51 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Garfield Whittak

Brabrooke what is Kerry's employment background?????

June 05 2012 at 11:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to Garfield Whittak's comment
Brabrooke

He ran for president. He was in politics and had a billionaire wife.

June 06 2012 at 9:08 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply