The Royal Forums Coat of Arms

Go Back   The Royal Forums > Reigning Houses > British Royals

Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #21  
Old 11-03-2009, 03:53 PM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,230
I agree with Angela , I went also on Christie's website and saw the high quality of the items (especially the old pictures). The Kents will make a fortune (they have to share between them) but I don't think that Lord and Lady Frederick and others would have any use with this family items. On the other hand collectionners , museums or others will be delighted to have them..
To me the estimation is law..
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-04-2009, 12:38 AM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
It appears that there a lot of very nice items up for sale.
What a shame that the family has to part with them, but if they (the items) have been sitting away in storage since the late Duchess passed (in what 1968?), maybe its not a bad thing to sell them. Hopefully, they have taken the most sentimental items for themselves.

Does anyone know what the death duties are in England? It appears that several well off families have been known to sell off treasured antiques (including paintings) to pay this tax.
__________________

__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-07-2009, 05:37 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966


Inheritance tax is rather heavy in Britain. To be brief, the rate is 0% for the first £325,000 of the estate (‘estate’ includes all assets), then 40% on the rest of the value.
So, if an individual has left £335,000, the first £325,000 is ‘free’, but 40% of the remaining £10,000 (£4,000) has to be paid. If an individual has left, say, £10 million, then the Government receives almost £4 million (40% of £9,975,000).
__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-07-2009, 05:45 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Thats ridiculous! Has there been any mention of reducing this tax in Britian?

Is this applicable in other countries...you really don't hear about other royals selling their possessions for the death tax.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-07-2009, 06:28 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966


Well, from time to time some politician calls for reducing the tax but I doubt the Government will budge; they made over £3 billion pounds from the IHT just last year alone.
There will be a change soon - the 0% line will be raised from £325,000 to £350,000, but that's hardly a drastic one.

The IHT concerns only assets based in the United Kingdom, so foreigners, Royals or not, shouldn’t worry much about it.

And of course, there are ways of 'avoiding' the tax: a really shrewd lawyer will tell you all about those ways, but you've got to be able to afford one.
One of such ways is leaving the inheritance in trust funds. If you leave the assets in trust funds, with the beneficiary eventually gaining full access to the fund, it may prove to be disadvantageous in the long run (for the beneficiary). But if you leave the assets in DGT (Discounted Gift Trust – that’s when the beneficiary doesn't have access to main capital but gets either an allowance or percentage from the profits), then the tax can be avoided.
There are also exceptions, like money left to charities, donations, small bequests, etc., which are not subject to the Tax.

The Royal Family does pay the IHT, however there was an exception; in 1993, the Queen had a private agreement with then PM John Major, according to which the Queen Mother’s inheritance would not be subject to the Tax (the agreement was reached at the same time as the decision that the Queen’s personal income will be taxed as that of any other British subject). The Queen Mother also made full use of the Trust Funds option.
The only exceptions (for the RF) are bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign, which are exempt. This, of course, leaves a nice loophole; the Queen, for example, can leave everything to Charles but make private bequests for her other children (say, a parure here, a nice diamond necklace there...).
__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-07-2009, 07:05 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
Thanks for the information Marsel.

When I mentioned royals I was referring to other royal families per se (which is off topic I know!).

Its interesting that the tax is so high, but since it provides a reasonable source of revenue (unless you are paying it) I wouldn't imagine that it would be changed.

Now that I know the particulars it makes a lot of sense while some of the artistocratic families of Britain frequently sell their treasures. If you don't have the money just lying in the bank but rather hanging in the hall of your castle, what are you going to do?

And if no one in the Kent familiy is taking advantage of these treasures, and you have already paid tax on them, why not sell them.

I would love to be in the position to bid for some of the photographs!
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-11-2009, 03:44 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
We have just received catalogue of the items to be sold at Sotheby’s on November 17th and December 9th (the jewellery that had belonged to Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna).

The jewels are breathtaking! Among the most beautiful ones (from November auction) is a Sapphire parure, which included necklace, brooch, earrings, bracelets and 2 rings; the huge (and magnificent quality) sapphires are oval-shaped and surrounded by either 1 or 2 circles of diamonds (again, of highest quality). They are assumed to be Bolin work. The whole set is estimated at $200,000 however that’s the price of the actual stones/work alone; I bet it will fetch a lot higher because of historical importance.
Another significant ‘catch’ is a pair of cigarette cases with the portraits of Empress Alexandra and Nicholas II.

Among items to be sold in December, I’m mostly impressed by the Egyptian-theme jewellery. In particular, there are a couple of items which were in Natalya Paley’s collection. They don’t come cheap though – most are expected to fetch over $100,000.

I’ll try to post some pictures from the catalogue.
__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-11-2009, 03:55 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 1,262
Or you could just provide us the link, Marsel I can't wait for this auction. Although it's sad, it will be interesting to know the final prices
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-11-2009, 04:08 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
I’m not sure the catalogue is available online, at least as of now: we have got the actual printed catalogue. I’ll check Sotheby’s website though.
The November sale is called “Magnificent Jewels”.

EDIT: the catalogue is unfortunately not available online, although you can learn some details here.
__________________
Audentes fortuna iuvat - Fortune favours the bold *** ... ***Amore, more, ore, re - Love, behaviour, words, actions *** ... ***Aquila non capit muscas - An eagle does not hunt flies
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-11-2009, 04:21 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Los Angeles, United States
Posts: 1,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsel View Post
I’m not sure the catalogue is available online, at least as of now: we have got the actual printed catalogue. I’ll check Sotheby’s website though.
The November sale is called “Magnificent Jewels”.
Thanks, dear I'll google it. I didn't understand that you actually received the catalogue at home. Lucky you

I just viewed some of the masterpieces of the auction. What can I say? They are all divine: the ruby/diamond necklace, the Cartier brooch, the sapphire/diamond demi-parure and all these colorful diamonds! I can't imagine how the Kents may be feeling now that they're giving them away.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-13-2009, 09:57 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,196
An article regarding the Kent auction.

Amazing how they make seem like its all Princess Michael's fault, when its the theitre family is auctioning off the items. But it is the Daily Mail!

Selling off our silver: The Duke of Kent's family flog gifts given to them by the public to the highest bidder | Mail Online
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-13-2009, 10:09 PM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
Any opprtunity to bash MC! I loathe loathe loathe that Daily Mail It has to be the most pernicious 'chattering Classes' rag ever to evolve!

I'm still waiting for my catalogue to arrive I can't wait to have a good drool! I wander if any of Princess Victoria's effects that she left the George and Marina will be amongst the lots!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-13-2009, 11:03 PM
Patra's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern, United States
Posts: 2,208
The article only talks about "I cant believe the Kent's are doing this and that." I see no personal attacks on just specifically MC Princess Michael particularly.
__________________
Patra
God is in the Details.....
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-13-2009, 11:14 PM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
I think using pictures of the Michaels rather than one including all of the Kents (thus using pictorial license to imply a collective decision and responsibility - which would be more accurate and therefore appropriate as well as an example of good, fair and rational journalism) or even one of the Duke as the titular head of this branch of the family, pretty much sums up the tactic and angle implied and taken by the Daily Mail In addition, the references to interior shots at Nether Lypiatt was a cheap dig (which can only be expected from that 'sewer' based Daily Mail ) without balancing this with reminding "dear" Daily Mail readers to the parallel of Coppins!!!!????? Why single out the Michaels when Edward and Katherine sold Coppins too!?

This article is a perfect example of what I have been discussing with others on the Michaels thread.....a blatant example of media manipulation and distortion (obvious or not) of using MC as a scapegoat - implied or otherwise! The press seem to use MC at their convenience (pleasure under perpetual duress more likely!)...I just wonder (tongue firmly in cheek!) why the saintly Katherine Kent's image hasn't been used in connection with this story or that of Princess Alexandra...perhaps I am being cynical! But when it comes to that unspeakable rag the Daily Mail I must protest!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:07 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
interesting article imo.

....One councillor I spoke to this week, after he discovered the cup was on sale for £600, said: 'This is a gross discourtesy. Fifty years may be a long time between the giving of the gift and its sale, but the compact between royalty and the public is a simple one - the public come and wave, the royals come and do their duty.
'If they are rewarded with a gift, it is not given to them personally, but to the office they hold and for the job they did that day. They can't just sell history off like so many lumps of sugar. These things aren't theirs to sell.' .......


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
An article regarding the Kent auction.

Amazing how they make seem like its all Princess Michael's fault, when its the theitre family is auctioning off the items. But it is the Daily Mail!

Selling off our silver: The Duke of Kent's family flog gifts given to them by the public to the highest bidder | Mail Online
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:28 AM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
I quite understand your Councillor's view Susan Alicia, but with regards to Prince Michael's role in the auction I would just like to point out that he has never received an annuity at the tax payers' expense and yet he still comes out and waves, as and when! A job that an HRH title entails but in his case does not have a salary! Thus he has as far as I can tell, fulfilled his side of any Royal-Public obligated 'compact' without ever expecting or having been in receipt of remuneration via the public! What on earth does the public expect him to live on if he has nothing coming into the household accounts! He has no annuity...and yet when he is obliged to turn out on public occasions he and MC are expected to look appropriate....it isn't Prince Michael's fault he was born an HRH and grew up to find himself without any income!

As to the Duke and Princess Alexandra and their respective positions, when it comes to paid royals flogging goodies received ....well....I remain an observer!

The point is, the family, Edward, Alexandra and Michael, have decided collectively to sell the lots....it was a collective decision and I feel that all three are therefore responsible...I just see Prince Michael's position as more akin to that of the less advantageous one accepting the necessary option of selling a few bits in order to keep himself afloat - especially when one remembers that from next year he will be paying a rather large rent whereas his siblings will not!
__________________
C.C

'I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.'
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-14-2009, 05:55 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by susan alicia View Post
interesting article imo.

....One councillor I spoke to this week, after he discovered the cup was on sale for £600, said: 'This is a gross discourtesy. Fifty years may be a long time between the giving of the gift and its sale, but the compact between royalty and the public is a simple one - the public come and wave, the royals come and do their duty.
'If they are rewarded with a gift, it is not given to them personally, but to the office they hold and for the job they did that day. They can't just sell history off like so many lumps of sugar. These things aren't theirs to sell.' .......
I totally agree with him, it was bad enough when Diana gave gifts way and when Fawcett disposed of items, have they not learned from the outcry then? It is discourteous to read of the sale of an item you have gifted.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:03 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Cutmantle View Post
A job that an HRH title entails but in his case does not have a salary! T ---- especially when one remembers that from next year he will be paying a rather large rent whereas his siblings will not!
Yes. for all these years they have had payment in the form of very low cost accommodation, utility bills paid etc. etc. It is well overdue that they start paying rent for the sumptuous apartments they have occupied.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:26 AM
Connie Cutmantle's Avatar
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 141
Goodness I feel like I am having a fencing lesson with the editor of Femail! Skydragon....I was merely trying to express a personal opinion pertaining to the positions of the Michaels with regard to the auction.

Here on this thread, I was trying to make a point that was relevant to the auction and which I hope included relevant points of discussion that would draw in comments about Edward, Katherine and Alexandra and not reduce this thread to just another outlet for MC bashing! Direct or not!
__________________
C.C

'I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.'
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-14-2009, 06:30 AM
Skydragon's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: London and Highlands, United Kingdom
Posts: 10,943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connie Cutmantle View Post
I was merely trying to express a personal opinion pertaining to the positions of the Michaels with regard to the auction.

Here on this thread, I was trying to make a point that was relevant to the auction and which I hope included relevant points of discussion that would draw in comments about Edward, Katherine and Alexandra and not reduce this thread to just another outlet for MC bashing! Direct or not!
All any of us do, is express a personal opinion. I haven't seen any MC bashing on here, perhaps you are a little too protective of the woman to read post objectively. You, after all were the one who raised the question of their accommodation and payments from the crown.
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Princess Alexandra of Kent and the late Sir Angus Ogilvy: July 2003- Alexandria British Royals 401 09-12-2014 09:35 PM
The Duke and Duchess of Kent: Oct 2003- A.C.C. British Royals 463 08-02-2014 06:26 PM
Grand Duke Jean and the late GD Joséphine-Charlotte, Part 2 (April 2005 - ) Alexandria Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg 157 05-14-2014 03:20 PM
La Comtesse de Paris: Auction of her Estate, October 2008 maria-olivia Royal Families of France 114 08-12-2009 10:43 AM
Prince and Princess Axel of Denmark: Auction of their Estate; May 2009 maria-olivia Royal House of Denmark 10 05-19-2009 05:50 PM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene chris o'neill crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit duchess of cambridge fashion genealogy grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg nobility olympic games olympics ottoman picture of the month poland pom president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess letizia princess mabel princess margriet princess marilene princess mary princess mary fashion queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:41 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]