Connect with us

Wealth

Amazon Surpasses Walmart As The World’s Largest Retailer

mm

Published

on

It was bound to happen sooner than later: Amazon has surpassed Walmart as the biggest retailer on the planet.

The e-commerce juggernaut jumped 25 spots to #28 on Forbes‘ Global 2000 list of the world’s biggest public companies, as measured by a composite score of revenues, profits, assets and market value. That was sufficient enough for it to steal the title of the world’s largest retailer away from Walmart, which slipped five spots to #29 on this year’s overall list.

Amazon has continued to chart a path to retail domination, with the number of Americans who subscribe to Amazon Prime topping 100 million in 2019. The company has beefed up the benefits attached to its annual membership in an effort to make it a must-have in every household, such as offering special discounts at Whole Foods, investing heavily in television and movies and expanding free shipping. In April, Amazon said it would invest $800 million to make free one-day shipping the new normal, up from the standard two-day shipping the company offers now.

Thanks to investor enthusiasm in its breakneck growth, Amazon has a high-flying stock that has made its founder Jeff Bezos the world’s richest man and given it a market capitalization of over $900 billion, which is rivaled only by Apple. On this yardstick, it has long trounced Walmart, which lags behind with a market cap of less than $300 billion.

Amazon has been catching up on other measures, too. Its cloud computing business has practically been printing money and last year the company made a record-breaking $10 billion in profits. That is up sharply from $3 billion the year before and easily tops the $6.7 billion that fell to Walmart’s bottom line.

Nevertheless, Walmart remains larger on some counts: It still pulls in more than double the revenue and has more assets on its balance sheet due to the significant real estate that it owns. It also has 2.2 million workers, which is nearly four times the number of employees that Amazon has on payroll.

Behind Amazon and Walmart, the third-largest retailer on the planet is Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba. Its core business is selling goods via the internet, but it has also invested heavily in areas like entertainment, logistics and payments. Sales grew 51% to $56 billion in fiscal 2019, driven by the spending of its 654 million active retail customers. While Alibaba is still seeing immense growth, its growth rate has ticked down amid an economic slowdown in China and an escalating trade war with the United States.

Home improvement stores like Home Depot (#126) and Lowe’s (#234) continue to do well, as do discount stores like TJ Maxx (#394) and Ross (#671).

Meanwhile, CVS fell out of the top three largest retailers. The drugstore chain lost $600 million in 2018, as its $69 billion takeover of Aetna and goodwill impairment charges in its long-term care business, Omnicare, ate into its bottom line. The company is now ranked #410 on the overall list, down sharply from #69 in 2017.

Other retailers are facing more existential problems. Victoria’s Secret parent company L Brands fell 230 spots to #1311 on the overall list as it faces mounting competition from upstarts like ThirdLove and True&Co and traditional players like Target and Chico’s. Bed Bath & Beyond, which is trying to ward off a group of activist investors intent on shaking up management, slipped 348 spots to #1997. The embattled Sears, recently out of bankruptcy, fell 166 spots to #1913.

-Lauren Debter;Forbes Staff

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Comments

Lists

The World’s Most Reputable CEOs 2019

mm

Published

on

By

There was a time when it seemed Google could do no wrong—and then came “the memo.” Penned by a former software engineer critical of the company’s diversity initiatives, the now infamous 2017 document tarnished the tech titan’s reputation. But CEO Sundar Pichai emerged unscathed, thanks in part to the transparent way he managed the crisis.

Two years later, though, troubles ranging from employee protests over the organization’s handling of sexual misconduct allegations to data breaches widespread enough to warrant the shuttering of Google Plus appear to have proved too much for even the Valley’s most trusted leader, and as the business has faltered, so, too, has its CEO. 

READ MORE | How mogul Abdulsamad Rabiu has become a billionaire again

“Sundar Pichai, celebrated as the most reputable CEO in the world last year, didn’t make the top ten at all this year,” says Stephen Hahn-Griffiths of the Reputation Institute, a reputation measurement and management services firm. For the second year in a row, RI has published the Global CEO RepTrak, a study of chief executive reputation.

This year’s ranking reveals an average two-point increase in the reputations of the world’s CEOs, a trend that mirrors the one-point increase in the reputations of the world’s companies. The driving force behind both, Hahn-Griffiths says, is corporate responsibility.

“There was a time and a place when it was good enough for leaders to deliver on financial performance, new products and innovative agendas, but that paradigm has changed,” he explains. “Social responsibility, employee responsibility and environmental responsibility—that’s 32% of the weight of reputation of any given CEO.”

With that in mind, it’s no wonder that Pichai, whose identity as a leader is so inextricably linked to that of his company, fell from the top ten, and he’s far from alone: Eight of the CEOs who appeared in the upper echelon of last year’s list—including Kraft Heinz Company CEO Bernardo Hees, Mondelēz International CEO Dirk Van de Put and LinkedIn CEO Jeff Weiner—failed to return this time, their descents making room for the rise of some newcomers, among them Ben van Beurden.

READ MORE | Fewer Billionaires, Poorer Billionaires On African Continent In 2019

At first glance, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell might seem an unlikely candidate to rank high on a list of this nature. After all, not only has the energy sector long been regarded by the general public as one without much of a moral compass, but the business Van Beurden leads isn’t counted among the world’s most reputable.

None of this is news to him, and since rising to the helm in 2014, he’s made rewriting the narrative a priority, and a public one at that. “Doing the right thing is the single biggest driver of reputation,” Hahn-Griffiths says. “His leadership style—lead from the front, not the back—says not only is he a highly ethical CEO, but he has empathy and the desire to make the world a better place to live.”

BRITAIN-NETHERLANDS-EARNINGS-OIL-BUSINESS
Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben van BeurdenAFP/GETTY IMAGES

From spearheading a campaign to reduce Shell’s net carbon footprint50% by 2050 to collaborating with organizations including the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures and the World Resources Institute to ensure that his company’s plans become a reality, Van Beurden has acknowledged the elephant in the energy room—climate change—and has demonstrated his commitment to working to protect the planet against the threats his industry has helped create. “Energy is one of the least reputable industries,” Hahn-Griffiths says. “Shell really took a stand as a leader in climate change and alternative energy, and redefined what it means to be a good corporate citizen in the energy sector.”

The attention Van Beurden has paid to developing sustainable energy solutions is surely qualification enough to make him one of the world’s most reputable CEOs, but had he pursued these initiatives behind closed doors, would they have been enough to propel him into the top ten? It’s difficult to say, and the visibility of his leadership certainly didn’t hurt.

In fact, the more familiar the general public is with a CEO, the more likely he or she is to have a strong reputation. “The difference between having a CEO with whom the general public isn’t familiar is 10.3 points,” Hahn-Griffiths says. “Not only is that significant, but it translates into billions of dollars in market capitalization, just because you have a CEO at the helm who is visible.”

Worth noting, however, is that the association between familiarity and perception won’t exist if a CEO is known for all the wrong reasons. As in the case of Pichai, not all press is good press.

The Battery Conservancy Presents John Demsey With The Battery Medal For Corporate Leadership
The Estée Lauder Companies CEO Fabrizio FredaPATRICK MCMULLAN VIA GETTY IMAGE

For Fabrizio Freda, whose familiarity ensured his spot in the top tenfor the second year in a row, influence has always been a business imperative. Upon becoming the first non-Lauder to serve as CEO of The Estée Lauder Cos., in 2009, Freda was faced with a big branding challenge: convincing the Millennial generation that a 63-year-old cosmetics company might be relevant to them.

In order to successfully make the case, Freda just knew a brand makeover wouldn’t do, so he started on the inside, implementing a global reverse-mentoring program to promote perpetual learning and development for employees and prioritizing the hiring of more Millennials, who now reportedly make up 67% of the Estée Lauder workforce.

Such shifts have enabled the company to make attention-grabbing moves on the global stage, including the acquisitions of Smashbox, Becca and Too Faced, all Millennial-centric beauty brands, the latter of which boasts 12.5 million Instagram followers. “Part of his legacy is really making strides toward winning over the Millennial cohort,” Hahn-Griffiths says. “He’s taken a company that’s been around for generations and has made it relevant to emerging audiences around the world.”

And while not every initiative has gone according to plan—Estée Edit, a Millennial-focused line fronted by Kendall Jenner, was discontinued after just 18 months on Sephora’s shelves—those don’t seem to have hurt Freda’s bottom line; Estée Lauder’s market cap has grown from about $5 billion back in 2009 to more than $60 billion today.

“Without losing our advantages of scale and scope, we are instilling a more entrepreneurial mindset to ensure we stay agile and act decisively,” wrote Freda in a statement to Forbes. “This gives us the best qualities of a well-financed, structured organization with the challenger spirit of a startup.”

READ MORE: Gene Hackers: The Young Biotech Entrepreneurs Looking To Make Billions By Editing Life Itself

Notably absent from this year’s list are women. That’s unsettling. Last year, The Campbell Soup Co. CEO Denise Morrison, who has since stepped down, was the only woman to make the ranks. RI attributes the lack of representation among female leaders to the fact that, on average, their familiarity with the general public is 12%, whereas that of their male counterparts is 15%.

But Hahn-Griffiths is confident that this trend will soon change, and he says GlaxoSmithKline CEO Emma Walmsley is the one to watch. “She’s the first woman to run a major pharmaceuticals company and has been really disruptive,” he says. “We anticipate the number of women CEOs to increase significantly, and we think Emma, who she is and what she represents, is a role model.”

-Vicky Valet;Forbes Staff

Continue Reading

Technology

Gene Hackers: The Young Biotech Entrepreneurs Looking To Make Billions By Editing Life Itself

mm

Published

on

By

hen Rachel Haurwitz started her biology Ph.D. at the University of California, Berkeley, the award-winning biochemist Jennifer Doudna suggested Haurwitz investigate part of a bacterial immune system. She studied how microbes store genetic mementos of attacking viruses and recognize them to fight off future assaults. “It was an esoteric project,” Haurwitz says. 

It’s esoteric no more. This system, called Crispr, has become one of the hottest technologies in biology, with the potential to give scientists control of the building blocks of life and give investors rich rewards. Crispr had no obvious relevance to human health when it was first described in 1987, but Doudna, who won the Breakthrough Prize in Life Sciences for her Crispr work, and other pioneers have discovered ways to turn it into a gene-editing tool. Haurwitz and Doudna helped found Caribou Bio­sciences in 2011 to get in on the action. Haurwitz, still in her 20s, became CEO the next year. 

Haurwitz is not the only young entrepreneur who sees opportunity in gene editing. Doudna cofounded Mammoth Bio­sciences with some of her other doctoral students and two Stanford Ph.D.s. Trevor Martin, the company’s 30-year-old CEO, has raised $23 million from such investors as Apple CEO Tim Cook. In 2015, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 29-year-old Luhan Yang founded eGenesis with her mentor, Harvard geneticist George Church, to use Crispr to help transplant pig organs into people. Omar Abudayyeh and Jonathan Gootenberg, also in their 20s, cofounded Sherlock Biosciences with another Crispr pioneer, 37-year-old Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard.

“They may be young, but in both cases these are people at the top of their game scientifically,” Doudna says of her cofounders. “They’re fearless in all the right ways and very aware of the ethical challenges.”   

Given that no one had built a Crispr company until a few years ago, “there’s maybe more of an opportunity for people with nontraditional backgrounds,” Haurwitz says.

Crispr is an acronym for “clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats.” It refers to the way bacteria store, in their genomes, snippets of viral DNA, like mug shots. Those markers are used to identify invaders that return, much as a human immune system uses telltale elements of a polio virus remembered from a vaccine.

If an invading virus matches a stored mug shot, enzymes associated with Crispr break the virus’ lethal DNA into harmless pieces. Doudna and others figured out how to use those enzymes to snip DNA at precise points in order to insert or modify genes. Thus does Crispr promise to make the expensive and buggy process of rewriting DNA easier, opening up new ways to treat dis­eases caused by genetic mutations, create cheaper diagnostic tests and engineer cells that kill cancer.

Eight years after its start in Berkeley, Caribou has raised $41 million and cut licensing deals—potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars—with DuPont Pioneer, Novartis and others. It’s starting to develop medical therapies.

Haurwitz grew up in Austin, Texas, and earned a bachelor’s degree in biology at Harvard. She didn’t have a clear plan when she went on to UC Berkeley, but she thought she might later become a patent attorney. 

That thinking changed as her Ph.D. work got more exciting. Haurwitz and Doudna spent a lot of time talking about how they could repurpose Crispr for modifying genomes to cure disease. Program the naturally occurring Crispr system to cut the gene you want to modify, and it’s theoretically possible to use it to change the genetic code to either fix “misspellings” that cause illness or disrupt the production of an unwanted protein.

Caribou started out with the notion of making Crispr technology available for DNA editing in applications such as drug development, agriculture and basic biological research. Haurwitz’s cofounders didn’t want to leave academia and were “crazy enough to let a 26-year-old who had never worked for a company in her life take on the role of president and CEO,” she says. 

Haurwitz took a few business classes before getting her Ph.D., then pitched venture capitalists on funding a technology they didn’t really understand. Caribou was securing an exclusive license to some Crispr patents held by the University of California system and the University of Vienna. Still, “pretty much every VC we ­talked to kind of said, ‘Meh,’ ” Haurwitz remembers. This was 2012, and they thought she was overestimating Crispr’s potential. 

The papers that propelled Crispr into the limelight came the next year, and investor dollars and a wave of new companies quickly followed. Editas Medicine, cofounded by Sherlock’s Feng Zhang, raised $43 million to apply the technology to medical therapies. Next was Intellia Therapeutics, cofounded by Caribou, which raised $15 million in its 2014 launch. And Crispr Therapeutics, founded by Crispr pioneer Emmanuelle Charpentier, raised $89 million. The three went public in 2016 and now have a combined market capitalization of $3.8 billion.

Meanwhile, Haurwitz was being cold-called by plant-breeding and drug companies. DuPont led an $11 million investment in 2015. Caribou raised another $30 million the next year and has been able to sustain itself on that funding and payments from licensing and partnership deals.

Caribou licensed to Integrated DNA Technologies the right to sell biology researchers what they’d need for gene-editing experiments. Genus, an animal genetics firm, paid Caribou an undisclosed amount for the exclusive right to use its proprietary Crispr technology to engineer the genes of pigs and other livestock. Similarly, the Jackson Laboratory is paying Caribou to use Crispr to engineer new populations of research mice that model human diseases. 

Haurwitz will soon have to seek venture capital again, as Caribou has pivoted to drug development, which is expensive but potentially more lucrative. Her first focus: improve on existing cancer therapies that take patients’ immune cells and train them to attack cancer. Crispr, she says, could be used to edit the DNA of immune cells from healthy donors so that these cells could be given to any cancer patient. The company plans to start trials in humans next year. There’s competition, from Allogene Therapeutics and its partner Cellectis, which have a combined market cap of $3.9 billion.

Caribou is also developing a program in another buzzy area: the microbiome, or the many bacteria that inhabit all parts of the human body, particularly the gut. This time, investors know what Crispr is, and Haurwitz has already won some over. “She’s one of the few people that I’ve met in my life that is able to toggle between business talk and scientific talk in a heartbeat,” says Ambar Bhattacharyya, a Caribou investor at Maverick Ventures.

Beyond the competition, there is an intellectual property conflict. Overlapping patent claims from the University of California and the Broad Institute emerged for the foundational technology, which involves an enzyme called Cas9, used to cut DNA. A lawsuit between the institutions was decided in favor of the Broad, but the U.S. Patent Office has granted patents to both. UC’s patents claim broader rights than were demonstrated in its application, says Lisa Ouellette, a Stanford Law School professor, and could make them vulnerable to a legal challenge. (UC disagrees.)

Whoever owns the technology will command fat fees. Caribou might run trials related to a particular gene, but if other companies want to run trials related to other genes, they may have to approach Caribou, says Jacob Sherkow, a professor at New York Law School. “They’re going to have to pay handsomely.”

Legal battles aside, the new field risks public backlash. In November, Chinese scientist He Jiankui announced he’d used Crispr to tinker with the genomes of human embryos born as twin girls, thereby heightening pressure on ­Crispr scientists to consider the ethics of how they’re using the life-altering tech. Caribou’s license agreements include language to prevent its use on human embryos, Haurwitz says. 

Doudna says researchers need to vet the science of editing the genes of embryos, and then people need to discuss how to use it responsibly. “Are there real unmet medical needs that would require this kind of editing or not? I think that’s one question.”

Debate over the answer will shape Crispr’s path to commercialization, one that holds immense potential for its youthful founders—and the likelihood of yet more controversy and conflict.

-Michela Tindera;Forbes Staff

-Ellie Kincaid;Forbes Staff

Continue Reading

Wealth

Baby Archie’s Great-Granny Is Royally Loaded: Inside Queen Elizabeth’s $500 Million Fortune

Published

on

By

What kind of silver spoon was little Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsorborn with in his mouth? Probably a gold one. After all, his great-grandmother lives like a queen.

Only Elizabeth II can call several palaces home, don Cartier tiaras, own rare paintings, collect Thoroughbreds, and match endless colorful hats with a rainbow of outfits without being a billionaire. Her Majesty, who has worn the crown since 1953, lives the life of the ultrarich but is nowhere close to being one of the wealthiest in the world—or even her United Kingdom. The Queen’s nine-figure net worth—estimated at $500 million—lands her way below the 2,153 billionaires on Forbes’list this year. And yet she enjoys a lifestyle any of them would surely envy.

The 93-year-old directly owns some assets like Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham Estate in Norfolk, but many of her most valuable assets like Buckingham Palace are owned by a body called the Crown Estate. 

If she were to possess the Crown Estate—which includes a myriad of properties in the U.K. and is owned by neither the government nor the royal family—as well as the Duchy of Lancaster (a private trust governed by the same ownership rules), Forbes estimates that the Queen would be the richest person in the U.K. (and the third-wealthiest woman in the world) with a net worth of more than $25 billion. And even that number doesn’t take into account the value of the Royal Collection Trust, which, with its Fabergé eggsand Rembrandt paintings, could be worth in excess of a billion dollars.

And she does earn a living. The Queen derives an annual income from the properties held by the $18 billion Crown Estate and the Duchy of Lancaster, a real estate trust dating back to 1265, that paid her $27 million (pretax) in fiscal year 2018 for personal expenses. The Sovereign Grant, which equals 25% of the income from the Crown Estate, goes toward the Queen’s official expenses, which include payroll, travel, housekeeping, maintenance costs and even IT expenses. (She is on Instagram, after all.) And none of that includes any winnings she earns betting on her beloved racehorses.

Naturally, Queen Elizabeth’s eldest son, Prince Charles, is not as wealthy as his mother—yet. The 70-year-old Prince of Wales derives his annual income from the Duchy of Cornwall, which manages a real estate trust that largely consists of 131,000 acres and more than $450 million in commercial assets within the U.K. The proceeds from Cornwall cover not only the annual expenses of Prince Charles but also of his two sons and their families: Prince William, the Duchess of Cambridge and their three children; and Prince Harry, his wife, Meghan Markle, and baby Archie. Though considerably more modern and down-to-earth than their grandmother, the young Windsors live like, well, royalty. In 2018, the families of William and Harry had $6.1 million in personal expenses, although the royals’ official financial statements do not detail what those expenses were. 

Despite the endless fascination with the royals around the world, there is a faction in the U.K. who believe the family is a burden on taxpayers. That’s not necessarily the case, however, according to Richard Haigh, the managing director of Brand Finance, a U.K.-based valuation company. “Last year, we valued the boost to the U.K. economy from Harry and Meghan’s royal wedding in Windsor at almost $1.5 billion,” Haigh told Forbes. And in its latest report on the monarchy from 2017, Brand Finance estimated that the family is responsible for more than $700 million in annual tourism.

In other words—everyone is royally flush.

With additional reporting by Hayley C. Cuccinello, Ariel Shapiro and Kristin Tablang.


The Royal Family by the Numbers

REAL ESTATE

$18.7 billion: The real estate owned in Great Britain by the Crown Estate and its Scottish counterpart. The Queen technically owns this portfolio of commercial and industrial properties, but she cannot sell any of it.

$4.7 billion: According to Lenka Duskova of the Czech real estate agency Luxent, the value of Buckingham Palace, the 775-room residence of the United Kingdom’s sovereigns since 1837, would be worth a little bit more than Richard Branson. (Not that the royal family is looking to move.)

$1.3 billion: The net assets of the Duchy of Cornwall, which spans 131,000 acres. Its portfolio include the Isles of Scilly, residential and commercial properties in London and Llwynywermod, the Welsh home of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles, the Duchess of Cornwall.

$740 million: The net assets of the Duchy of Lancaster, which includes some 46,000 acres of land in England and Wales acquired by the Duchy over seven centuries, London’s Savoy Chapel (built in 1512), as well as limestone and sandstone quarries and a gypsum mine.

$600 million: The value of Kensington Palace, the childhood home of Queen Victoria and the residence of young royals for more than three centuries, according to Luxent. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and their three children live in Kensington Palace 1A, a 20-room, four-story “apartment.”

GIVING BACK

$428.2 million: The profit turned by the Crown Estate in 2018, which was deposited into Britain’s Treasury rather than the Queen’s many purses.

$145.6 million: The combined assets held by Prince Charles’ charities, which support economic, environmental and social causes in Britain and around the globe.

Diana, Princess of Wales with her sons, Prince William and Harry
High Notes: Princes William and Harry received millions from Princess Diana’s estate when they turned 25.TIM GRAHAM/GETTY IMAGES

$46.7 million: The amount spent on charitable activities in 2018 by Prince Charles’ philanthropic organizations.

$31.5 million: The value of Princess Diana’s estate at the time of her death, according to her will. The bulk of that sum went to her sons, Princes William and Harry, each of whom inherited a share on his 25th birthday. The remainder was split between her 17 godchildren and her former butler Paul Burrell, who received£50,000 (about $81,000).

1,762: The number of offshore wind turbines that are part of the Crown Estate.

LIFESTYLE

200 billion: The number of times the image of the Queen on U.K. postage stamps has been reproduced. The design has not changed since 1967 and is believed to be the most reproduced work of art in history.

Poltimore Tiara
High Tiara: The Poltimore Tiara from the collection of the late Princess Margaret was auctioned in 2006.DANNY LAWSON/PA IMAGES VIA GETTY IMAGES

$17,627,021: Amount that the jewelry and Fabergé items from the collection of Princess Margaret brought in at Christie’s in 2006. The exquisite pieces included the Poltimore Tiara—made in 1870 by Garrard for Lady Poltimore, the wife of the second Baron Poltimore and Queen Victoria’s treasurer—which sold for $1.7 million.

$2,423,050: The amount an unused Mauritius “Post Office” twopence from 1847 (No. 13)—which mirrors the piece widely regarded as the most valuable stamp in the Royal Philatelic Collection (No. 14)—sold for in 1993. The prized collection—which has never been appraised—also boasts one of two 1854 Bermuda “Perot” stamps still in existence, the other having last sold for $340,000 in 1996.

$2.2 million: Meghan Markle’s net worth based on her salary from Suits. The Duchess of Sussex starred as Rachel Zane on the legal drama for seven seasons and earned an estimated average of $57,500 per episode.

Prince Harry Marries Ms. Meghan Markle - Windsor Castle
Here Comes the Bride: Meghan Markle heads to her wedding in the queen’s 1955 Rolls-Royce Phantom IV.MAX MUMBY/INDIGO/GETTY IMAGES

$1,039,758: The auction price of the 1955 Rolls-Royce Phantom IV belonging to Queen Elizabeth sold at Bonhams’ Goodwood Revival Sale in September 2018. The previous year, a bespoke 2001 Daimler Super V-8 commissioned by the Queen fetched $55,575—and in November 2016, Princess Diana’s beloved 1994 Audi Cabriolet sold for $59,500 at Silverstone Auctions’ NEC Classic Motor Show sale.

$583,000: The total earnings of Queen Elizabeth’s champion horses in the past year, according to the British Horseracing Authority. The Queen’s most valuable horse of all time, Estimate—an Irish-bred, British-trained Thoroughbred that won the Queen’s Vase at Royal Ascot in 2012 and the Ascot Gold Cup the following year—collected more than $487,000 in prize money before retiring to the Royal Stud at Sandringham in 2014.

Princess Diana Dancing with John Travolta
White House Fever: John Travolta twirls Princess Diana around the dance floor with Nancy and Ronald Reagan in the background. CORBIS VIA GETTY IMAGES

$222,500: The amount a midnight-blue velvet Victor Edelstein evening gown Princess Diana wore to a 1985 state dinner at the White House hosted by President Reagan—where she famously danced with John Travolta—sold for at auction in 1997.

$25,277: The cost of Prince George’s tuition at Thomas’ Battersea for the 2019—2020 school year, inclusive of books and registration fees.

The British Crown Jewels In 1969
Gem Dandy: The British Crown Jewels include the Sceptre (which belonged to Louis XVI), The Cup, Bracelets, Globe, Tiara and Royal Crown.GAMMA-KEYSTONE VIA GETTY IMAGES

23,578: The number of gemstones showcased in the Crown Jewels, which are housed in the Tower of London. The Sovereign’s Sceptre with Cross has been used at every coronation since Charles II’s in 1661 and boasts the Cullinan I diamond, the largest top-quality cut white diamond in the world, weighing 530.2 carats.

$7,500: How much a slice of cake from the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton sold for at Julien’s Auctions in December 2014—four months after a slice of the five-tier fruitcake from Prince Charles and Lady Diana Spencer’s wedding sold for $1,375. The year before, a piece of Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip’s 9-foot-tall, 500-pound cake sold for a relatively low $896.   

$3,900: The final price of a felt-and-velvet doll from 1935 once belonging to Princess Elizabeth, which sold in December 2018. The year prior, a pair of Deans Rag Book Co. Mickey and Minnie Mouse toys—given to Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret by their nanny Clara Allah Knight—fetched $1,164.

Princess Elizabeth And Corgi
Dog Days: Princess Elizabeth with her pet corgi in 1944. LISA SHERIDAN/HULTON ARCHIVE/GETTY IMAGES

1,306: The number of corgis registered in the U.K. in 1944, when Princess Elizabeth received one for her 18th birthday. Corgi registration jumped 56% that year and would continue to increase until 1960. The Queen’s influence over the corgi market is so great that when her last pup died in 2018, the Kennel Club temporarily placed the short-legged breed on its “At Risk” list.

800: The number of royal warrant holders, which range from luxury brands such as Burberry to family-run saddle maker Abbey England. The royal warrants recognize those who supply goods or services to the royal family. Brand Finance estimates a royal warrant can contribute as much as 5% of a company’s revenue.

The Duke & Duchess Of Sussex Pose With Their Newborn Son
Set for Life: The Duke and Duchess of Sussex introduce Archie to the world. DOMINIC LIPINSKI/WPA POOL/GETTY IMAGES

7: The place in line Prince Harry’s newborn son, Archie, holds in the royal succession.

Deniz Cam; Forbes Staff


Continue Reading

Trending