‘Courtiers’ 2

[RandomPenguinHouse]

The last thread filled up during a particularly chatty morning.

Thanks for posting that link CathyorClaire, as it confirms exactly what I posed earlier:

The inheritance section of the memorandum begins by noting that some royal assets are held by the Queen as “as Sovereign rather than as a private individual” and that “it would clearly be inappropriate for inheritance tax to be paid in respect of such assets”.

Assets of this type include official residences such as Buckingham Palace, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection of paintings and other works of art.

They are not really the King or Queen’s personal property, but that of the crown and are thus not subject to inheritance tax.

In addition to that (which is the vast bulk of the assets that would be subject to notional tax) what the Queen does hold as personal property is also exempted from inheritance tax.

Two justifications are given for this: first, it says that the nature of the monarch’s role means that it is important for them to have “sufficient private resources” to enable it to continue to perform its traditional role in national life, and to have a degree of financial independence from the Government of the day.

Second, it notes that some of the monarch’s private assets are also used for official functions - private assets such as Sandringham and Balmoral have official as well as private use.

Poor dears weren't happy with that and now it's 25%

And let's not forget the amount is guaranteed never to go down hence the SG being paid in full over the past couple of years despite the income from the Crown Estate taking a massive pandemic related hit with every other business in the UK being expected just to absorb it.

Also, to Novella, it’s actually very common for countries who have gotten rid of their royals to have to pay them compensation if they took their assets in the process - Romania, Bulgaria and Greece have all paid their former royal families compensation. The former Prussian royals are still suing the German government even now (obviously the last Kaiser was Wilhelm II, deposed after WWII).

If a few monarchs died close together, their fortune would be wiped out. Who wants a poor King or Queen?

who wants Putin strolling into Buckingham or Windsor palace and destroying it out of spite

The Queen would have bopped him with her handbag if he'd tried that. And Prince Philip would have called him a nasty word and kicked him up the arse.
Ah, happy days. 😊

Two justifications are given for this: first, it says that the nature of the monarch’s role means that it is important for them to have “sufficient private resources” to enable it to continue to perform its traditional role in national life, and to have a degree of financial independence from the Government of the day.

And yet Charles also has the opaquely accounted private income from the Duchy of Lancaster to play with now having spent decades lining his pockets with the equally opaque income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

Second, it notes that some of the monarch’s private assets are also used for official functions - private assets such as Sandringham and Balmoral have official as well as private use.

A blurred crossover when you have the likes of the Beckhams 'visiting' BP for a private children's party and the likes of Epstein and Maxwell gallivanting round Balmoral.

@Serenster
Yes Greece paid 12 million to the deposed king.
Absolute bargain .

Our lot currently cost 350 million a year

And yet Charles also has the opaquely accounted private income from the Duchy of Lancaster to play with now having spent decades lining his pockets with the equally opaque income from the Duchy of Cornwall.

It might be opaque to you but it won't be to the Inland Revenue.

They clearly are part of the royal family. What a strange thing to say.

Our lot currently cost 350 million a year.

No, they don't. 🙄 Have you been reading Republic.org.uk again?

What would that be in today's money though?

And @Serenster objections to monarchy are about a great deal more than money , important though that is .

They cost a fortune ( and please , the ' tourism ' lie has been roundly disproved) but they also institutionalise unearned power and influence . Monarchy infantilises what is supposed to be a mature democracy .
And just today we've seen Charles told not to attend COP. So does he do as he's told, in which case he's a cipher and what is the point. Or , as is likely with this one, does he do what he wants , so we have an unelected hard of state doing as he pleases with the country and to hell with one person one vote

The monarchy has clung on to its position in the UK due to the calm ( I'd say passive but I would) populace. It is out of place and out of time

@Aspiringmatriarch
That was in 2002.

I actually think the constitutional monarchies work pretty well in general. I can't remember the details (as usual) but there's a list somewhere of countries rated by how successful they are as democracies and quite a number of the countries high on that list are monarchies.

Ah, ok.

To my mind they are obviously still part of "the family" but when they stopped working they should have renounced their titles just like if you resigned from any job - you don't get to keep the title.

But @Thesummeriwas16 that assumes that titles = working royal which isn't the case.

I love quoting that fact to my royal skeptic dcs! They’re still not convinced though,

@MarshaMelrose

You are missing the point .
The Duchy is at once private and public . Switching hats when it suits . The inland revenue will apply rules as relevant but uniquely , the duchy decides for itself how it wants to be viewed .

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/14/prince-charles-estate-tax-avoidance

Well again, to my mind it should be and hopefully Charles will rectify it but I won't hold my breath!

It might be opaque to you but it won't be to the Inland Revenue

The royals decide their tax affairs.

Apparently most people when asked used to say step-father and even now most likely to say same sex couple rather than woman. Apparently even some people who’s mothers are surgeons don’t say woman as their first answer.

Yes Greece paid 12 million to the deposed king.
Absolute bargain .

Yes, I know. The Greek Court decided against him in much of his claim - but even then they still had to pay him some considerable compensation. The others got paid much more.

But it was more to disprove your incorrect assertion that the royal family, if deposed in the UK, wouldn’t be able to claim compensation if all the assets previously held by them as monarchs were just seized with no compensation. Even extremely politically hostile countries like Greece had to pay.

No, your point was that it's opaque. But as you've now pointed out HMRC knows exactly what's happening. And in fact that article shows that everyone can see exactly how the money is being spent. Thats the opposite of opaque.

The duchy doesn't decide how it wants to be viewed and everyone has to fall into line. The Duchy's accountants present their interpretation of how they see the laws applying to the Duchy, and then HMRC reviews and challenges as appropriate, then going to tribunal if they wish. (Although they'd do it more discretely with a negotiated deal.) It's the same for accountants and their clients across the country.