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
 
  #81  
Old 11-21-2009, 05:33 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
I think they will be reasonably glad with the auction results. And bear in mind that quite a few items didn't sell (the bids were lower than the reserve price), so £2 million is for the sold-items only.
__________________

__________________
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
  #82  
Old 11-22-2009, 08:11 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,380
Why were the earrings Princess MC received from the Duchess of Windsor unsold ??
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #83  
Old 11-22-2009, 08:34 AM
Patra's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Southern, United States
Posts: 2,207
Good question, I was wondering that myself....I can imagine them not getting the estimated bid, as almost all the other jewelry got 3 times their estimated value.

Maybe it was pulled out by the Princess MC for some reason?
__________________
Patra
God is in the Details.....
Reply With Quote
  #84  
Old 11-22-2009, 11:58 AM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
No, Princess Michael didn't pull out any items from the auction.

Actually, a lot of interesting lots weren't sold. For example, the George VI chair and footstool’s reserve price was £15,000 but the highest bid was about £8,000. Similarly, the Duchess of Windsor's earrings' reserve price was £50,000 but the highest bid was around £30,000. Those items relied heavily on their historical connections, not actual value.
__________________
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
  #85  
Old 11-22-2009, 12:07 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
Wow no one purchased the Duchess of Windsors earrings. Interesting....especially as per her will she only gave the Kent's any jewels upon her death.

Now do they have to pay any special tax on this?
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #86  
Old 11-22-2009, 12:38 PM
Dierna23's Avatar
Heir Apparent
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: -, Germany
Posts: 3,588
To be entirely honest, I found the earrings quite ugly and tasteless, I may be the only one... However, nevertheless I'm wondering too why they haven't been sold as they once belonged the Duchess of Windsor.
The results of the auction are less than I expected (maybe it's just not the best idea to start such an auction during the economy crisis?), but still a good help for a family with financial problems as it the Kent branch seems to be.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #87  
Old 11-22-2009, 12:43 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
Sometimes you have to strike when the iron is hot.

When the late Duchess's items were on auction, the world economy was good. People could purchase things simply for nostalgia. Furthermore, she had just died what two years prior....so name recognition was wild. Nowadays, the only people who have heard of the Windsor are those from the geneartions that grew up with the Abdication and/or reading about their expoits in the paper and frankly us, the royalty watchers.

Most likely if you asked a 20 to 30 year old on ANY street (London, New York, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, etc) unless they are into royalty they don't know who the Duke and Duchess of Windsor are.

My only concern regarding this auction, is God forbid what happens when the Duke of Kent dies. The death tax might take up whatever they have left. Thank goodness, the next generation has jobs.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #88  
Old 11-22-2009, 01:11 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk
Wow no one purchased the Duchess of Windsors earrings. Interesting....especially as per her will she only gave the Kent's any jewels upon her death.
Now do they have to pay any special tax on this?
This is Britain we're talking about: of course there are taxes.

First of all, there is the commission paid to the auction house (which is included in the final selling prices): the rates are 25% (excluding tax) of the first £15,000, 20% (excluding tax) for up to £600,000 and 12% (excluding tax) from £600,000 and up.

As for the tax itself, it is different for every item or auction. For example, if the lots are sold to public museums, galleries, the National Trust, National Arts Collections and similar institutions (pre-eminent for their national, historical, scientific or artistic interest), the Government offers a tax inducement, usually equivalent to around 25% of the tax that would have otherwise been paid.
Then there is also the location of the sale: for example, places like Geneva or New York are considered tax-privileged locations, whereas London is tax hell.
In normal cases, taxation works similar to ordinary sales (which means, different taxes for works of art, jewellery, different rates for items sold at different prices, locations, etc).

Considering the nature of the items sold at the Christie’s, the selling prices of each individual item and the location, I’d say the Kents will never see about 40-45% of the £2.1 million (after paying all the taxes and Christie's commission). Still £1.3 isn't too bad as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk
My only concern regarding this auction, is God forbid what happens when the Duke of Kent dies. The death tax might take up whatever they have left. Thank goodness, the next generation has jobs.
If such unfortunate event were to take place, they would need a couple of more auctions to cover the DT. Don't forget that most of Kents' assets are not in currency but in land, properties, jewellery, etc: in order to pay the DT, they'd have to sell quite a few family heirlooms - 40% of the total estate value would be a burden for anyone.
__________________
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
  #89  
Old 11-22-2009, 01:16 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
While you and I do not . I admire your empathy with the Royals

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Sometimes you have to strike when the iron is hot.

When the late Duchess's items were on auction, the world economy was good. People could purchase things simply for nostalgia. Furthermore, she had just died what two years prior....so name recognition was wild. Nowadays, the only people who have heard of the Windsor are those from the geneartions that grew up with the Abdication and/or reading about their expoits in the paper and frankly us, the royalty watchers.

Most likely if you asked a 20 to 30 year old on ANY street (London, New York, Rome, Paris, Berlin, Moscow, etc) unless they are into royalty they don't know who the Duke and Duchess of Windsor are.

My only concern regarding this auction, is God forbid what happens when the Duke of Kent dies. The death tax might take up whatever they have left.
Quote:
Thank goodness, the next generation has jobs
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #90  
Old 11-22-2009, 01:40 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,378
My empathy is the selling of family heirlooms.

Needless to say the Kents and I are in VERY different economic circumstances. Most likely their idea of struglling is my idea of living VERY NICE. I just think its sad, that one must sell off family heirlooms to pay the Tax Man. In order to save for the next generation and pass items along, one must really make enough during one's life time to pay the taxes when you die. Its silly.

The smart thing to do IMO would be to invest it i.e. stocks or real estate. The economy will eventually rebound and its best to purchase when things are low. How is the real estate market in London? I remember 10 to 15 years ago one could buy a one bedroom condo in Georgetown for like 50K. At the height of the real estate boom, you could sell it for like 300K. I think they are going for around 150-200K now.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #91  
Old 11-22-2009, 01:56 PM
Marsel's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 966
Well, the recession did hit the real estate sector heavily; things were really bad (for the sellers) about a year ago – prices were up to 40% even in the prime areas. However, things have improved slightly in the last 5-6 months.

Investing in land is always a wise decision, however the problem is that if your other assets are invested in properties or valuables and you have little ‘cash’, then in order to pay for the DT, the beneficiaries will still have to sell. Which means, if you are going to leave a large estate, you’d better be sure there are easily disposable assets too.

Personally I think that investing into land and works of arts and/or jewellery will still pay off in the long run, but I’m saying so from Russia, where there are no such ridiculously high taxes.
__________________
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
  #92  
Old 11-23-2009, 04:20 AM
RubyPrincess168's Avatar
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sun Prairie, United States
Posts: 1,619
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al_bina View Post
It is so sad to see the Kents selling their family heirlooms off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
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.
Someone went to alot of trouble to track down the gift givers to get their reactions! Would it have been more preferable to sell them for scrap metal and get the $$ that way? What are they supposed to do with their father's coronation chair and stool? Sit in it while watching tv? Save it and use it when Prince Charles or Prince William ascends the throne?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonk View Post
Marsel you raise very valid points but gifts are just that gifts. And when someone gives it you, you have the right to do with it what you see fit.

It is tacky, yes it is tacky to sell a gift or "regift" it. But what is the point of keeping stuff that you have no use for...and they just pile up.
I see nothing wrong with this - it's just like having a garage sale. A lot of people are downsizing their stuff. If it's useless gifts or stuff, there's no point in storing - someone is going to dispose of it at some point. My parents' basement is full of not only their stuff but things they took when their parents died and haven't gone through yet as well. Thankfully they are dealing with it now, while they are alive so it doesn't fall on us kids to do it. I'd be curoius how much money from the proceeds of the sale are actually going to charity. I suspect the sale (in this economy) was because they need the money, and the charity donation is to appease the public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 11-23-2009, 08:23 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patra View Post
I thought they would make about double the originally estimated 1.25 million pounds, they should be pleased, as Im sure every bit helps the kents now!
I am not sure the Kent's in general, and Prince & Princess
Michael in particular, are as badly off as might have been suggested. They have a fair amount of capital (nearly £6m from just the sale of the house in the Cotswolds) and I am sure they were well provided for by Marina. In addition, I am sure they have made the odd pound or two in all their trapezing around Russia and Eastern Europe!!!!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 11-23-2009, 09:12 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,380
Regarding the result of the Auction the best sold item is the painting of the Duchess d'Argyl by Laszlo - estimation 10.000-15.000 and sold 46.850 ..
At Glamis castle I saw the one of Queen Mum also painted by Laszlo, a lovely painting of a young Duchess.
Louise, Duchess d' Argyl Queen Victoria's daughter had not a happy life at all.
To pay such a lot of money for having in your dining room the painting of an old sad royal is pathetic.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 11-23-2009, 09:23 AM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
it is not about the royal but about the artist probably. Perhaps the buyer is a museum and even it is a private person, it is the work of art that matters in this case I think

Quote:
Originally Posted by maria-olivia View Post
Regarding the result of the Auction the best sold item is the painting of the Duchess d'Argyl by Laszlo - estimation 10.000-15.000 and sold 46.850 ..
At Glamis castle I saw the one of Queen Mum also painted by Laszlo, a lovely painting of a young Duchess.
Louise, Duchess d' Argyl Queen Victoria's daughter had not a happy life at all.
Quote:
To pay such a lot of money for having in your dining room the painting of an old sad royal is pathetic
.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 11-23-2009, 09:49 AM
maria-olivia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,380
Susan Alicia , I don't think a Museum had that money for a minor royal but you are right about the artist who is famous.
The painting of young Victoria estimation 10.000-15.000 was sold 10.000.
But is was not a painting of Winterhalter but AFTER W.
Is this the royal was important but not the artist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 11-23-2009, 01:49 PM
susan alicia's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: , Netherlands
Posts: 2,528
I don't know maria-olivia, I do no know what an After W. usually fetches, perhaps Christie's was looking for a buyer who collects everything that has to do with Victoria and who liked the style of Winterhalter and it did not happen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maria-olivia View Post
Susan Alicia , I don't think a Museum had that money for a minor royal but you are right about the artist who is famous.
The painting of young Victoria estimation 10.000-15.000 was sold 10.000.
But is was not a painting of Winterhalter but AFTER W.
Is this the royal was important but not the artist.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:22 AM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,427
Quote:
Originally Posted by muriel View Post
...I am sure they were well provided for by Marina.
Like many royals Princess Marina had assets (jewellery, silverware, bric-a-brac etc), but was cash poor.
It's all relative of course but royal figures often aren't as "rich" as we imagine them to be.
For example, the Duchess of Gloucester may be dripping in diamonds but her fabulous jewellery collection, worth a fortune, produces zero income.

ETA.. Getting back to Princess Marina's financial situation, when the Civil List was drawn up for the new reign in 1937 no provision was made for the widow of a King's son as at that time there were no widows of that status. The situation could have been remedied by a quick Act of Parliament but due to the war it wasn't. I've read that she refused the government pension she was entitled to as the widow of an officer and it wasn't until 1953 with the new Civil List and a bequest from Queen Mary's estate that her financial position was made secure. During the intervening period she had to sell off various assets (collectables, Fabergé) to provide for herself and her three young children.
__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 11-24-2009, 09:29 AM
muriel's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London / Guildford, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
Like many royals Princess Marina had assets (jewellery, silverware, bric-a-brac etc), but was cash poor.
It's all relative of course but royal figures often aren't as "rich" as we imagine them to be.
For example, the Duchess of Gloucester may be dripping in diamonds but her fabulous jewellery collection, worth a fortune, produces zero income.
Well at least using their share of the proceeds from the sale, Prince & Princess Michael will be able to pay their rent for a few years.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #100  
Old 11-25-2009, 07:29 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , United States
Posts: 2,736
Marina did have money she inherited from The Duke when he died (mainly, the nearly 1 million pounds George V settled on each of his sons at his death), but it was limited to the income with the principal left in trust for her three children.

Queen Mary and George VI both helped her out, but she generally had a difficult time financially until her brother-in-law died and additional provision was made through the Civil List. But I doubt there was much capital left when she died in 1968.
__________________

__________________
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 403 12-19-2014 02:11 AM
The Duke and Duchess of Kent: Oct 2003- A.C.C. British Royals 468 12-10-2014 07:20 AM
Grand Duke Jean and the late GD Joséphine-Charlotte, Part 2 (April 2005 - ) Alexandria Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg 160 11-12-2014 01:31 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




Popular Tags
belgium brussels carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events engagement fashion genealogy germany grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta sofia jordan king carl xvi gustav king constantine ii king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit olympic games ottoman pieter van vollenhoven poland president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince daniel prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess ariane princess astrid princess beatrix princess catharina-amalia princess charlene princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen fabiola queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:21 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]