The economic foundation of the British monarchy represents not a collection of private possessions, but a stably organized system of structured capital, tightly interwoven with the state and protected from ordinary mechanisms of market and parliamentary control. We are dealing with forms of property that are removed from free circulation, but precisely for that reason function as privileged rent capital, extracting income not from the direct process of value production, but from monopoly over access to land, infrastructure, and legal sovereignty. This rent, this non-productive capital, income for the privileged and an obligatory percentage for others, is created as an indisputable “given” even before production and outside production, exists prior to the commodity entering the market, and also outside the rules of the market altogether. This rent is not profit, but the extraction of a portion of the social product by privileged strata of society, where this constant extraction of public income is based on an exclusive right of ownership, protected by “state” instruments of coercion.
Crown Estate (assets of approximately £15–16 billion, annual income of around £440 million), the Duchy of Lancaster (around £25 million in annual income), and the Duchy of Cornwall with a comparable volume of inflows form the core of stable, politically protected monetary flows закреплённых to the monarchy as a form of state power. These assets are removed from free market circulation and are not subject to alienation in the ordinary sense, however they function as long-term rent cashflows secured by exclusive rights to land, infrastructure, and licenses закреплёнными by the state order. The source of income here is not operational activity and not entrepreneurial risk, but monopolistic control over scarce assets, supported by political decisions and the regulatory environment. In financial terms, these are stable, low-volatility flows with a minimal probability of interruption, used primarily as a material form of sustainability, to support the political stability of the monarchy, rather than to maximize returns. Such is the state of affairs with the formal side of the question. Let us now proceed to the analysis of the matter in substance.
Approximately 42% of Crown Estate revenue is generated through offshore wind projects in the North Sea, where state licenses for the use of the continental shelf create exclusive rights of access to a limited resource, transformed into stable rental income. The revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall depend by approximately 62% on commercial real estate in London, the valuation and profitability of which are supported by a combination of the Bank of England’s credit policy, debt financing, and state infrastructure investments, including Crossrail. These monetary flows cannot be treated as passive: they are formed through a direct linkage of political decisions, regulatory protection, and control over scarce assets. In practical financial terms, these are stable, low-volatility income flows, sensitive primarily to changes in regulatory and credit regimes rather than market conditions, and typical for assets whose returns are ensured by state policy and the financial system.
There exist such facts as. Within this system, over a long period of time, two different models of managing external relations and access to capital coexisted. The first was based on a purely British character, within which interaction with counterparties took place both inside the United Kingdom and in external capital markets. The second model, under conditions of global capital, represents transnational capital headed by American banks within a system closed around the US dollar. Within the first model model acted Prince Andrew — his banks, his offshore structures, his trusts. In the orbit of Prince Andrew and his economic relations were financial groups, for example, such as: Pitch@Palace — with the participation of Veritum Group (Sergey Kuznetsov), Larnabel Ventures (a Seychelles holding of Iskander Makhmudov), Xenia Group (Teymur Ataev), and with sponsorship support from structures such as Hikma Ventures (Jordan).
With the development and intensification of contradictions within financial institutions and groups, both national and transnational, contradictions continue to grow more and more. Globalist pacifism has lost relevance. Deepened internal contradictions between America and England, France and England, China and America, Russia and England, led to the fact that the purely British channel temporarily lost its positions. That is, the Anglo-American contradiction is evident. Whether one takes the question of oil, which is of decisive importance both for the construction of the economies of the two countries and for war; whether one takes the question of markets for the sale of goods, which have serious significance for the life and development of these two countries, since it is impossible to produce goods without having guaranteed sales of these goods; whether one takes the question of markets for the export of capital, representing the most characteristic feature of the modern stage; whether, finally, one takes the question of routes leading to sales markets or to raw material markets — all these fundamental questions push toward one fundamental problem, toward the problem of struggle between the interests of England and the interests of America. Wherever America intrudes, this gigantic country with its capital and institutions; the dollar dictates the law. In China, in the new colonies of South America, in Africa — everywhere the dollar encounters previously entrenched positions of England, directly or indirectly, financially or normatively. Does this mean that, having shaken the positions of British capital on the world market, American banking-financial giants have managed to stabilize and strengthen their precarious position amid an expanding and deepening crisis. Is a global stabilization visible here?
Large programs of “sustainable development” and social initiatives in the United Kingdom, since 2026, have been supported by American foundations — Bezos Earth Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies, Paul G. Allen Family Foundation. These structures do not simply provide grants; they set requirements for reporting, audits, and acceptable partners, thereby shaping the rules of participation. Earthshot Prize in this configuration functions not as a charitable or grant initiative, but as a mechanism for forming a pool of projects suitable for subsequent inclusion into the orbit of American venture and private capital. The participation of such structures as Bezos Earth Fund, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and Paul G. Allen Family Foundation creates a primary market of permissible initiatives, after which they transition to the stage of commercial financing. A characteristic example is Coral Vita, which received investments from Valor Equity Partners and Tao Capital Partners, demonstrating the transition from status-based mediation and arbitrage schemes to a model of absorption and scaling of innovations by global US private capital. The Kate Early Childhood Centre project, supported by the LEGO Foundation, is embedded in the impact-investment market, the volume of which, according to Morgan Stanley estimates, approached $1 trillion by 2025. The economic meaning of such initiatives lies not in their social function as such, but in the creation of standardized, low-risk directions for capital allocation, suitable for pension, insurance, and fund pools oriented toward long-term returns and full regulatory compatibility.
The state budget is one of the sources of financing for these funds. An indicative indicator is the change in the redistribution of Duchy of Cornwall funds after 2023. Assets under the management of the Duchy, estimated at approximately £1.3 billion in 2023, over the period 2023–2025 were transferred under the management of American giants: at least £400 million of assets were withdrawn from agriculture, commercial real estate, and other sectors; in particular, about £150 million was placed in ESG index products of the iShares line under the management of BlackRock, around £100 million in “green” securities through Legal & General Investment Management, another approximately £150 million into BlackRock Real Assets direct-investment structures and closed strategic mandates of Vanguard, implemented through co-investment and advisory models without public placement. One can cite numerous examples of how American capital has entrenched itself on British territory, increasingly integrating into British financial life. These steps represent not investment optimization, but confirmation of asset admissibility for global managers — BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street Global Advisors — and for American pension-insurance capital, including CalPERS, CalSTRS, TIAA, as well as insurance pools Prudential and MetLife. Collectively, these structures control approximately $18–20 trillion in global assets.
The culmination of the process was the step of 2025, when Crown Estate announced the creation of a joint investment structure with BlackRock Real Assets and the venture division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Initial capital — £2 billion, of which £1.2 billion is provided by BlackRock and associated American pension funds (CalPERS, TIAA). The management model of the new Crown Estate – BlackRock – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Venture Fund is based on a Secret Appendix to the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on critical infrastructure, signed in 2024. This appendix reportedly grants American partners the right of “advisory veto” over any changes in leadership or strategy of the assets into which the fund invests, even if the title of ownership remains with Crown Estate — including decisions affecting security, digital infrastructure, and energy management on the territory of the United Kingdom.
From what has been stated above, one conclusion remains: the matter reduces to an intensifying and deepening global crisis. We have such facts as desperate clashes of financial and industrial groups over markets for the sale of goods, over markets for the export of capital. We have such facts as the frenzied growth of armaments in countries with developed economies, the formation of new military alliances, and evident preparation for new military confrontations. We have such facts as the sharpening of contradictions between the main powers of the world, striving to draw all other states into their orbit. Finally, we have such facts as the existence of the former Soviet Union, in the person of Russia and fragmented Republics, which represent the very node of these contradictions.
Author of the Article
James Whitmore
Read other analytical materials on easternpost.uk and subscribe to our updates.
Release Date: January 28, 2026
Publisher: The Eastern Post, London-Paris, United Kingdom-France, 2026.
