Thoughts on the King and Prince of Wales tax disclosures

[Kirschcherries]

According to the BBC KC and PW have released details of the tax they paid in the 2024-2025 Tax Year.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8x2151y8q4o

Apparently KC is in the Top 100 tax payers - The Sunday Times Rich List for 2025 placed him at 238.

I think it’s good they have done this and believe they are entitled to use the same legal tax avoidance measures everyone else can use. I don’t think we have a right to know every detail of their personal wealth but this is balanced against transparency regarding the Sovereign Grant and Duchies.

Sorry that was waffly

I think you are talking about illegal tax evasion not lawful tax avoidance.

I use lawful tax avoidance like ISA’s, pensions etc. if you want the rules changed they change for everyone.

I know it’s small fry but PW will be paying 20% tax on school fees. Edited I meant VAT

@Kirschcherries I'm not talking about illegal tax evasion at all. They don't pay inheritance tax, as one example.

Exactly BoredZelda.

I think quite a number of republicans (including Graham Smith) believe the tax payer will benefit more without a monarchy than it does with a monarchy because we can reclaim all the royal residences and land back into public ownership and they can be used for the public’s benefit.

In reality what is likely to happen is the government will be fully aware that they will be an ongoing drain on the purse with maintenance costs etc (National Trust can’t afford them) so the land and property will be sold off by the government and purchased by overseas billionaires (eg Saudi RF) and become private residences for owners/horses and visited by them once or twice a year.

I’m open to any evidence that shows this isn’t likely to be the case.

Also, I don’t think there is any appetite for another referendum, and certainly not one that doesn’t come with a fully detailed and costed plan, which will obviously need to include commonwealth and realms.

Without that I’ll be sticking with the status quo.

That’s a deliberate policy decision agreed by HMT and regularly reviewed (last in 2023), not a cash grab by the family. It only applies to the Sovereign and consort too - all other family members, and bequests to other family members, incur tax in the normal way.

The reasons for the exemption, as set out in 2023:

Some assets are held by The King as Sovereign rather than as a private individual. They are not sold to provide income or capital for the personal use of The King and pass from one Sovereign to the next. The official residences, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection of paintings and other works of art and other assets held by The King in right of the Crown fall into this category. It would clearly be inappropriate for inheritance tax to
be paid in respect of such assets.

In relation to assets which can properly be regarded as private, the arrangements provide that inheritance tax will not be paid on gifts or bequests from one Sovereign to the next, but will be payable on gifts and bequests to anyone else. Tax will also not
be payable on assets passing to the Sovereign on the death of a consort of a former Sovereign. The reasons for not taxing assets passing to the next Sovereign are that private assets such as Sandringham and Balmoral have official as well as private use,
and that the Monarchy as an institution needs 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.

Obviously you are free to disagree with the policy reasons expressed here, but some thought has gone into what is appropriate here over a number of decades by successive elected governments.

And another thing we are not allowed to see, even of extremely minor royals, is their wills.

Only the monarch doesn’t pay IHT.

The PoW does not own the Duchy of Cornwall, the incumbent just benefits from its income. So there is no IHT to pay.

If the PoW did own the Duchy I imaging he would legally structure it to maximise legal tax avoidance measures like the Duke of Westminster.

@Serenster Obviously you are free to disagree with the policy reasons expressed here, but some thought has gone into what is appropriate here over a number of decades by successive elected governments cap doffing MPs whose heads are turned by all the wealth.

They're billionaires, for crying out loud. They're also parasites.

I would like to pay respect to NZ, Australia and Canada - who have called for AMW to be removed from the line of succession but haven't had a result, so far.

A handful of people who are subject to massive intrusion into all aspects of their lives, to the extent some people think they should have no privacy at all, not over their family lives, health or financial affairs get a small amount of privacy in death. And that’s a terrible thing, apparently….

(Anyone can apply to have their will sealed by the way).

@Serenster You always provide thoughtful and pragmatic posts that often reflect my thoughts.

Thanks @mumumental If you haven't got an account and can't read this:

At last, an economic policy we can all get behind – doubling the royal family’s funding | Marina Hyde | The Guardian

My feeling is that it is disingenuous to group those things together and quite unfair on those that pay so much, although struggling, to such wealthy people. You know, as I do, that previously it has been used to hide legacies to mistresses, etc., by people we've probably never heard of.

It is spot on what Norman Baker said:

"If Charles is talking about slimming down the monarchy and William as well, we want slimmed-down costs, not just fewer people on the Buckingham Palace balcony."

Why would you be so disparaging about elected representatives?

Most normal people aren't that overawed simply by riches. Even if they were, a quick search would tell you that there are politicians and political donors as rich as (and richer than) the Royal Family.

Absolute rubbish. Most of the MPs we have, particularly Labour ones, are completely enthralled by wealth, whether its RF wealth or political donors or wherever it comes from.

There was a documentary on Channel 4 a few years back when MPs from red and blue camps went on road trips together. Jacob Rees Mogg was paired with Jess Philips. She was like a love struck teenager, fawning and cooing over him. It was not her finest hour.

And normal people are completely overawed by riches. If they weren't, we wouldn't have the society we've got.

Of course I don’t know that, and neither do you, since the wills aren’t public. Doesn’t stop the idle gossips though, does it.

If it’s disingenuous to group them together then unpick each issue and think about what you would propose going forward.

(Anyone can apply to have their will sealed by the way).

Really not as easy as that.

To have a will officially "sealed" (exempted from public inspection) by the court, an application must be made under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules. However, this is largely restricted to cases involving national security or the Royal Family (e.g., Prince Philip’s will was sealed). It is exceptionally rare—and generally not possible—for a private citizen to successfully seal their will this way.

@Kirschcherries @Serenster I thought we were having a pleasant, informative debate but I feel a bit got at!

I only said that we are not able to see their wills. The other poster should unpick each issue. I do not feel I am an idle gossip and have thought carefully about what I am sharing.

Prince Philip's will to be secret for 90 years - BBC News

Scrutiny of Royal Finances is a good thing as far as I am concerned ( and I support a constitutional monarchy) . Whinging about how rich they are muddies the waters as far as I can see. Other Dukes etc , with historical wealth are at least as rich as they without a scrap of the scrutiny or the duties. (Duke of Grosvenor? ) So I welcome a discussion which does not seem to stem from envy. (& TBF not all anti monarchy discussions do ) But let's be realistic, the RF wealth is more front and centre and publicised than others.

Apparently it is very expensive to attempt to seal a Will, many cases are turned down, and it is barely a handful in a year manage it

There are significant portions of BP which are for royal use only. Apartments etc. The very long suffering tax payer should not shoulder the bill for repairs, just because the RF couldn’t be arsed to pay for the themselves years ago. We know that those areas are being repaired to take account of future live in use down the line, if required. I’ve spent a fortune upgrading and repairing my home over the years. Why not them too?! It’s not as if they lack the finds, for heavens sake.

They don’t own it , they don’t want to live there because it’s extremely old and uncomfortable! , Queen Elizabeth was informed she had to move there for optics after she became queen!
its like asking someone to move into old rundown property they do not own and then foot the bill to ungrade and repair it.

im assuming you own your home .

I’ve spent a fortune upgrading and repairing my home over the years. Why not them too?! It’s not as if they lack the finds, for heavens sake

Because they don't own Buck House privately, and even billionaires are entitled to have their "working premises" funded if they belong to someone else

That said, Marina Hyde's question "how does Charles’s “slimmed down” monarchy now seem to cost twice what the bloated one did?" is very valid, and though it'll never happen I'd like to see an answer