Prince Philip's will to be secret for 90 years

[HotChoc10]

'to protect the Queen's dignity,' apparently..

Why the secrecy do you think?

@Roussette

And let's just remember Margaret gave away what she could before she died to avoid IHT. Like her Mustique property which her son then flogged!

Just like any sensible person.

He totally left his mistress - Penny - sentimental things

@Roussette

And let's just remember Margaret gave away what she could before she died to avoid IHT. Like her Mustique property which her son then flogged!

Everybody can do that Roussette! So long as you meet the HMRC rules around gifts, you are doing nothing wrong, and thousands of people in the UK do similarly each year on the advice of their lawyers.

She gave the Mustique to her son, reportedly as a wedding gift, and he sold it before she died (she was apparently very unhappy about that!). You can side eye that if you wish, but there’s nothing dodgy about it from a tax perspective.

I haven't said others can't do that. Of course they can
Having dealt as executor with complicated Wills I know that
I also know there was nothing wrong with son seiling Mustique. She was upset for sentimental reasons.
Just because I state something in passing, a fact, it doesn't have to be scrutinised and assumed to always be criticism. So leave off with the side eye. !

"To protect the Queen's dignity"
That sounds odd I wrote and @upinaballoon asks is it a standard old fashioned term which is usually used in this context.

Does anyone know ?

If it's not a standard term used then it's odd and intriguing 🤔

It's standard practice to seal the wills of members of the RF, but whilst I understand their desire for privacy surely we should all be equal under the law. There are many examples of laws being introduced and the RF being given an exemption - IHT, tenant's right to buy property, etc. If these are good laws, they should apply to everyone, if not they should be repealed.

Everyone can apply to have their will sealed (or rather, their executor can apply on their behalf), so in that sense the law is equal, but does anyone seriously think the average person would be successful?

I imagine sealing a Will is as easy as contesting a Will.
In other words, very difficult

@LadyEloise1

"To protect the Queen's dignity" That sounds odd I wrote and *@upinaballoon* asks is it a standard old fashioned term which is usually used in this context.

Does anyone know ?

If it's not a standard term used then it's odd and intriguing 🤔

Well, it does sound a bit like something from a play written in 1583. The language of wills is quite quaint-sounding even nowadays.

@MattyGroves

He totally left his mistress - Penny - sentimental things

Do you know what they were?

@eightlivesdown

It's standard practice to seal the wills of members of the RF, but whilst I understand their desire for privacy surely we should all be equal under the law. There are many examples of laws being introduced and the RF being given an exemption - IHT, tenant's right to buy property, etc. If these are good laws, they should apply to everyone, if not they should be repealed.

Everyone can apply to have their will sealed (or rather, their executor can apply on their behalf), so in that sense the law is equal, but does anyone seriously think the average person would be successful?

How lovely to encounter someone who manages to write, "There are many examples etc." instead of the modern, ungrammatical, vile "There's many examples etc."

If you wanted to have a law repealed how would you start? Letter to your MP?

If you wanted the monarchy to come to an end how would start? Would you write words like twat on threads like these or would you do something else?

I don't think anyone has called anyone a twat on here have they?!

One child in the Caribbean- it’s no secret

@Dimples13

One child in the Caribbean- it’s no secret

Gosh what's their name?

@Dimples13

One child in the Caribbean- it’s no secret

Really? I thought I’d heard all the royal rumours but that one’s passed me by. Is there any evidence by any chance?

@Dimples13

One child in the Caribbean- it’s no secret

It's been a complete secret to me. How old is this child? Does he/she play cricket? Was this child conceived in the Caribbean or elsewhere?

All senior royal wills are sealed.

In recent years only Diana's was not due to her no longer being an HRH

@Dimples13

One child in the Caribbean- it’s no secret

Where has that bit of ‘information’ come from?

Does anyone really blame them for wanting his will to be kept private?

No matter what anyone thinks of the royal family as an institution, no matter what your feelings are to each of them personally - they are beings and entitled to a private and personal life. They are an ACTUAL real life family and are entitled to an element of privacy.

The reason they won’t want the will to be accessible is because they know it will lead to weeks of scrutiny. Weeks of headlines. With everyone having an opinion and something to say.

This if you saying they shouldn’t be allowed to have their wills kept private, I’m sure you would have a very different view if your wills were splashed across the media for weeks on end.

*human beings!

Whilst I understand the RF wanting privacy, I believe we should all be equal under the law.

My will wouldn't be in the newspapers, but would be accessible to friends, work colleagues, etc., and I'd prefer it to be kept private ... but I don't have this choice. Nor do celebrities, whose wills are sometimes reported in the press.

@eightlivesdown

Whilst I understand the RF wanting privacy, I believe we should all be equal under the law.

My will wouldn't be in the newspapers, but would be accessible to friends, work colleagues, etc., and I'd prefer it to be kept private ... but I don't have this choice. Nor do celebrities, whose wills are sometimes reported in the press.

We are all equal under the law in relation to this specific topic - you could apply to court to make it private

@eightlivesdown

Whilst I understand the RF wanting privacy, I believe we should all be equal under the law.

My will wouldn't be in the newspapers, but would be accessible to friends, work colleagues, etc., and I'd prefer it to be kept private ... but I don't have this choice. Nor do celebrities, whose wills are sometimes reported in the press.

Yes you do have that choice to apply to keep it private. As do celebrities.

The judge stated in Prince Philip's case:

“I have held that, because of the constitutional position of the Sovereign, it is appropriate to have a special practice in relation to royal wills,” Judge Sir Andrew McFarlane said.

“There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign and close members of her family.”

It doesn't sound like a non-Royal's application would succeed.

Here's an article relating to the sealing of previous royal wills, and giving some of the background:

www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/wills-of-the-royals-sealed-to-keep-them-secret-in-plainly-unlawful-deal-6686577.html

@Serenster

Here’s the official statement from Buckingham Palace about the Queen Mother’s Estate:

www.royal.uk/will-queen-elizabeth-queen-mother

It notes that “Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother has bequeathed her entire estate (which mainly comprises the contents of her houses) to The Queen.

In her will, she asked The Queen to make certain bequests to members of her staff, and these bequests will be subject to Inheritance Tax in the normal way.

The Queen has decided that the most important of Queen Elizabeth's pictures and works of art should be transferred to the Royal Collection”

We can of course argue whether it is appropriate for a sovereign to sovereign transfer to not be subject to inheritance tax, and I suspect it’s unlikely we’ll agree. I would note that very little of what the Queen Mother passed on in her will was actually privately owned - the majority is technically deemed to be held on trust by the Monarch on behalf of the nation. No-one in the UK pays inheritance tax on property they hold as a Trustee, so that’s not an example of special treatment.

As for the transfer of works of art to the Royal Collection (a financially independent Trust, separate from the Queen and which and receives no Government funding or public subsidy) is is not dissimilar to assets being given to the National Trust in lieu of income tax, a fairly common occurrence. As they included works by Faberge and Monet, they would have been fairly valuable in their own right.

All this "held in trust" bullshit is a massive con as well, whether it's the royals or standard-issue toffs. They still get to keep the paintings in their houses, as long as they open them up to the public a few days of the year (a rule that doesn't even apply to most of the stuff the royals kindly look after for us). The value of them is utterly irrelevant, as the public never sees the benefit.

It's just a tax dodge.