The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1061  
Old 06-27-2017, 05:21 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
The Palace of Westminster needed to be rebuilt after WWII and it was built in the style of the one damaged by the German bombers - gothic revival - which was the style in which it had been rebuilt in the reign of Queen Victoria. It was built in the fashion of the mid-Victorian period - hardly 'outdated' when it was the height of the fashion of the time in which it was built.

Like a lot of London buildings it was repaired hurriedly in the years after WWII (BP was another that had to be refurbished and speed as well as lack of skilled workers - not due to costs but simply due to the fact that they hadn't been trained before starting on the work but were learning on the job) to return the UK to a functioning country after the war.

The Palace of Westminster is also part of a World Heritage Listed area - including the Abbey and the Jewel House - and so has to be preserved in the same style. As it is the 'mother of parliaments' it should be preserved to remind all of us who live in democracies of the sacrifices made over the last 800+ years to give us the idea that the people should have a say in the running of the country.

It is going to take billions to bring it into the 21st century and by the time it is it will be out of date again but that it the problem with these older buildings.

Hopefully future governments won't prefer vote-winning 'savings' that in the end cost 10 times if not 100 times more further down the track as has happened following Blair's decision to stop the annual increase in the maintenance budgets for maintaining BP and Westminster.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1062  
Old 07-20-2017, 12:35 PM
eya eya is online now
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 8,978
The Queen gets a bumper 7.9% increase in income from the Duchy of Lancaster to help fund other royals.

Queen news: Queen’s Duchy of Lancaster income funding the royals rises to £19.2million | Royal | News | Express.co.uk
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1063  
Old 07-30-2017, 03:00 AM
eya eya is online now
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: -, Greece
Posts: 8,978
Meet the woman who is protecting 13bn estate for Queen and country in ‘the best job in property'

Meet the woman who is protecting £13bn estate for Queen and country in €˜the best job in property'
Reply With Quote
  #1064  
Old 08-22-2017, 03:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc_et_Pair View Post
Yes, I have seen that, but they inherited nothing from the late Queen Elizabeth, as was the assumption: her entire estate went to her only surviving child. When trust funds were created for her grandchildren, we may assume she made no difference in the children of her daughter Elizabeth or the children of her daughter Margaret. I can not peek in the purse of Andrew or Edward or David or Sarah but none of them appear very wealthy to me. My feeling says that they are well-off, have the luck to have been provided great housing and use of services from the Court but would they all be multi-millionaires, to say something?
My bad: the article states she put two-thirds of her money into trust funds for her Great-grandchildren, not her grandchildren. And that William and Harry will reportedly share about 14 million pounds from the trust. The QM was said to have been in debt at the time of her death (HM of course paid off the debts); funding the trust funds likely took most of her ready cash in the decade before her death. I'm not familiar with the tax laws of the U.K., but this may have been a smart move to avoid death taxes. Additionally, I believe the QM had only 6 great grandchildren in 1994, although provisions could have been made for those born later.

It's possible that at least some of the great grandchildren will be wealthier than their parents when they 'come into' their trust funds.

Here's an interesting article about Royal wealth, including that of Andrew's children, which refers to Harry as a 'zesty royal hunk'!

http://royal-splendor.blogspot.com/2...al-report.html
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1065  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:03 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
I have also read that she removed William and Harry's share of the trust to help Charles pay off Diana's divorce settlement so we can't be sure who gained from the trust and as her will isn't public we probably won't ever know whether she made mention of this in the will.
Reply With Quote
  #1066  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:19 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
I have also read that she removed William and Harry's share of the trust to help Charles pay off Diana's divorce settlement so we can't be sure who gained from the trust and as her will isn't public we probably won't ever know whether she made mention of this in the will.
If true, this seems horribly unfair- making the 'boys' pay for their father's poor choices. If the trusts were irrevocable, this couldn't have happened. On the whole, I rather doubt it.

Here's a scholarly opinion that indicates HM lent the money to Charles:

https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-P...cept-the-offer
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1067  
Old 08-22-2017, 07:41 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 11,047
They had to get the money from somewhere so why not use the trusts? Seems reasonable to me - assuming Diana wasn't a spendthrift.

Trusts are simply a place to put money for children for the future and if needed the money is able to be removed for use when needed. They are rarely 'irrevocable' until inherited - not while the person paying into them is still alive.

The reason why they would take that money was that the expectation was the Diana would then use it for her sons and their futures as well as her own.

The Queen also had to lend money - again I have heard from the trust she had for the boys - as combined there wasn't enough to pay Diana the 17 million she was paid. Charles virtually bankrupted himself to pay her off and then needed help to finish the deal and so the boys' trusts were used and Diana was told that was where the money came from so if she spent it all then they wouldn't be getting anymore.

The royals did play hard with her over money - not as hard as Sarah who received a mere 3 million of which 2 million went into the girls trusts and some of which, according to Sarah, she has spent on herself to pay off her debts.
Reply With Quote
  #1068  
Old 08-22-2017, 08:00 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,230
Why on earth would Diana "spend it all"? The trusts for the boys would certainly not be "plundered"..and there would certainly be rules against withdrawing the money "just ot buy off Diana."

The queen lent Charles the money to pay Diana's divorce settlement. Why wuodl the queen or QM want to make the boys poorer..
Reply With Quote
  #1069  
Old 08-22-2017, 08:41 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
If true, this seems horribly unfair- making the 'boys' pay for their father's poor choices. If the trusts were irrevocable, this couldn't have happened. On the whole, I rather doubt it.

Here's a scholarly opinion that indicates HM lent the money to Charles:

https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-P...cept-the-offer


This is not a scholarly opinion... I mean, the person who posted the opinion is a scholar, but Quora is an open forum where anyone can claim to be anyone, and it doesn't look like there is anything to verify who a person claims to be. Nor are there any sources linked to answers.

Assuming that this poster is who he claims to be (which I have no reason to doubt), his post is instantly questionable though based on verifiable inaccuracies within it. The biggie is the claim that "She also gave up the title 'Her Royal Highness', but continued to be the Princess of Wales." This is inaccurate - she lost her HRH when she ceased to be married, but it wasn't part of her divorce settlement - the Queen issued LPs stating that the ex-wives of British Princes were not covered by the LPs of 1917, and thus didn't have the style HRH. It was also established that said ex-wives would be styled like the ex-wives of peers - that is, as Name, Ex-Husband's Title (during their marriage). Thus, from the moment of her divorce Diana most definitely was not the Princess of Wales, but rather by curtesy Diana, Princess of Wales, and there is a difference.

I'm not able to grab a source regarding the title right now (I'm on my phone), but it has been discussed thoroughly on the titles and styles threads. The LP, however, can be found here: https://www.thegazette.co.uk/London/...510/page/11603

That said, taking money out of a trust that has been set aside for your great-grandchildren to contribute to their parents' divorce settlement is hardly making them pay for their parents' divorce - really it's taking money that you had set aside for one purpose and using it for another. At that point in time, the money wasn't William and Harry's, it was the Queen Mother's.

I'm not even going to comment on the statement that the divorce was because of Charles' "poor choices."
Reply With Quote
  #1070  
Old 08-22-2017, 08:46 PM
Ish's Avatar
Ish Ish is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 3,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denville View Post
Why on earth would Diana "spend it all"? The trusts for the boys would certainly not be "plundered"..and there would certainly be rules against withdrawing the money "just ot buy off Diana."

The queen lent Charles the money to pay Diana's divorce settlement. Why wuodl the queen or QM want to make the boys poorer..


This money (at the time) wasn't William and Harry's. It was the Queen Mother's. In setting up the trusts she may have earmarked it for the boys, but it was still her money to do with what she saw best.

If she thought it was best to give that money to Charles to use for his divorce settlement, and thus ensuring that Diana was able to continue living life as she had been accustomed to, then it was her right to do that. Really, doing so could have been seen by her as taking care of the boys - they were being damaged by the long, drawn out public divorce of their parents, and in ensuring that their mother had financial security the BRF (be it Charles, the Queen, or the QM) was ensuring that the boys were still taken care of (and less likely to be subject to some of the humiliation that the Yorks have encountered due to Sarah's scramblings for money).
Reply With Quote
  #1071  
Old 08-22-2017, 08:48 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,754
In order for the money (QM's cash) not to be subject to the death tax, she would have had to live a certain period of time after the gifts were made to the trusts. It's unlikely she would have disturbed the trusts she set up. She might not have been able to, assuming they were irrevocable trusts.

Too bad Charles put himself in such a position that he had to borrow from his mother; it was certainly better than "borrowing" from his sons. And probably there was a bank (maybe Coutts?) which would have lent him the money, at any rate. If he did loot his children's trusts in order to divorce their mother, it would likely taint his relationship with them going forward. I am disinclined to believe it.

Where did you read that he did this?
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1072  
Old 08-22-2017, 09:21 PM
Molly2101's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 3,356
Quote:
Originally Posted by ladongas View Post
My bad: the article states she put two-thirds of her money into trust funds for her Great-grandchildren, not her grandchildren. And that William and Harry will reportedly share about 14 million pounds from the trust. The QM was said to have been in debt at the time of her death (HM of course paid off the debts); funding the trust funds likely took most of her ready cash in the decade before her death. I'm not familiar with the tax laws of the U.K., but this may have been a smart move to avoid death taxes. Additionally, I believe the QM had only 6 great grandchildren in 1994, although provisions could have been made for those born later.

It's possible that at least some of the great grandchildren will be wealthier than their parents when they 'come into' their trust funds.

Here's an interesting article about Royal wealth, including that of Andrew's children, which refers to Harry as a 'zesty royal hunk'!

The Wealth of the Windsors: A Special Report on the Wealth of the British Royal Family
I don't think provisions would have been made for any further great grandchildren of the QM (aka Louise and James) as I think you can only create a trust fund in the name of a live person. I could be wrong though.

Interesting article and would be interesting to know how much is true. How can Andrew be worth $75 million yet his brother and sister are only worth $40 and $30 respectively. I know Edward farms out a large amount of Bagshot and rents parts of it for offices but still can't see him being worth so much. Inheritance is one thing but for Andrew to be worth $75 million is hard for me to believe.

They're obviously not short on money by any means; all we would need to do would be to look in the wardrobes of Sophie and the York princesses to know they aren't scraping by.
__________________
"I am yours, you are mine, of that be sure. You are locked in my heart, the little key is lost and now you must stay there forever."
Written by Princess Alix of Hesse and by Rhine in the diary of her fiance, Tsarevich Nicholas.
Reply With Quote
  #1073  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:03 PM
Skippyboo's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Atlanta, United States
Posts: 4,098
Duties and Roles of Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie

The trust money could have been given to Edward, David and Sarah instead. None of them had children yet in 1994. It totally would not be fair for the 6 eldest Great grandkids to get millions with the 6 younger ones who born later to get nothing.
Reply With Quote
  #1074  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:16 PM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,431
My mother set up a trust fund for her grandchildren in her will. As my brother was still single at the time, the provision was made that should he have children, they would get equal shares. The Queen Mother may have done likewise. One trust fund for all of her great grandchildren to split at a time of her choosing. My mother stipulated her grandchildren would have to be 30 years of age to get total access to the trust fund other than by going through the executor of the will.

Seeing as Beatrice and Eugenie haven't reached that age yet, its plausible that by the time the oldest great grandchildren reached 30, all of the great grandchildren of the Queen Mother would have been born. Set up this way, Louise and James would also be provided for.

This is just a guess on my part but one that makes sense to me.
__________________
In my walks, every man I meet is my superior in some way, and in that I learn from him.
~~~Ralph Waldo Emerson~~~
Reply With Quote
  #1075  
Old 08-22-2017, 10:24 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,754
Ya know, it was pretty gutsy for the QM to set up a trust which would only 'pay off' tax wise if she lived a further 7 years. And she was 94 at the time! As was (allegedly) shouted at the elderly Queen Victoria, 'Go it, old girl!'
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1076  
Old 08-22-2017, 11:47 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: central valley, United States
Posts: 822
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ish View Post
This money (at the time) wasn't William and Harry's. It was the Queen Mother's. In setting up the trusts she may have earmarked it for the boys, but it was still her money to do with what she saw best.

If she thought it was best to give that money to Charles to use for his divorce settlement, and thus ensuring that Diana was able to continue living life as she had been accustomed to, then it was her right to do that...
Actually the whole excercize of putting assets into trusts removes the grantor from control of the assets, they are, in the simplest sense, gifts given now, but not to be dispersed until the beneficiary reaches a certain age or some event happens. For the QM to set up inheritance tax free trusts under U.K. law they had to be irrevocable e.g., she couldn't touch the assets or income after she set them up. If she'd retained even the ability to raid the trust or use it's assets/income it would not have qualified to avoid the 40% tax at her death, since no inheritance tax was paid on the trusts at her death we know they were irrevocable trusts, so the QM couldn't use assets from them to help out Charles.
Likewise, Sarah's extreme irresponsibility with money was well known when the QM set up the trusts & I expect the terms of the girl's trusts are written to protect the girls as much as possible from their mother's 'needs.' Sarah has said her daughters have helped her w/ income from their trusts in the past, but I'd guess that their access to the capital is tied up until they are much older to avoid depletion of the trust assets.
Reply With Quote
  #1077  
Old 08-23-2017, 03:32 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Waterford, United States
Posts: 1,754
Thank you, sndral! Your explanation is perfectly clear; I hope it will put an end to the rumor that provoked the discussion.
__________________
"If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it, you surely will.

Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #1078  
Old 08-23-2017, 04:27 AM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 2,230
Quote:
Originally Posted by sndral View Post
Actually the whole excercize of putting assets into trusts removes the grantor from control of the assets, they are, in the simplest sense, gifts given now, but not to be dispersed until the beneficiary reaches a certain age or some event happens. For the QM to set up inheritance tax free trusts under U.K. law they had to be irrevocable e.g., she couldn't touch the assets or income after she set them up. If she'd retained even the ability to raid the trust or use it's assets/income it would not have qualified to avoid the 40% tax at her death, since no inheritance tax was paid on the trusts at her death we know they were irrevocable trusts, so the QM couldn't use assets from them to help out Charles.
Likewise, Sarah's extreme irresponsibility with money was well known when much older to avoid depletion of the trust assets.
well that is certainly my impression. that one cant disturb a trust when set up unless the trustees agree and certain conditions are met. if it was done to avoid tax then there would be conditions. I cant' see the QM doing that, when the queen could help Charles out with the divorce money. There was no need.
And While it is possible that the York girls help their mother from te income, they would also not be able to touch the capital.
Reply With Quote
  #1079  
Old 08-23-2017, 05:35 AM
Duc_et_Pair's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: City, Netherlands
Posts: 7,152
Quote:
Originally Posted by Molly2101 View Post
[....]

They're obviously not short on money by any means; all we would need to do would be to look in the wardrobes of Sophie and the York princesses to know they aren't scraping by.
Aren't Sophie and other royal ladies reimbursed for their functional or representative costs via the grants which are received by the Princess Royal, the Duke of York and the Earl of Wessex (from the Duchy of Lancaster)?

Looking good still does not state great wealth. All ladies at all royal events look good. Not all ladies at all royal events are millionaires however. It says nothing. When my company reimburses me for the best tailormade suits, nice. It still does not reveal my personal wealth. Marie Christine of Kent is an ber-glamorous lady but I dare to doubt that her husband Prince Michael is a very wealthy gentleman, to name an example.
Reply With Quote
  #1080  
Old 08-23-2017, 06:53 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: England, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,561
Also don't forget that whatever the royal ladies wear I personally doubt they regularly pay full price for their clothes. It wouldn't surprise me if some are borrowed and the rest discounted to some degree - you only have to look at Jane Taylor milliner's website to see how much it makes of the coverage of Sophie wearing their designs - even stating - "Indeed, the Countess of Wessex has exclusively worn Jane Taylor’s designs since 2009, at such occasions as the Royal Wedding of Kate and William, Ascot, when representing the Queen in Scotland and at many other Royal events and engagements." I am sure some sort of deal has been done that gives Sophie a discount at least. What they wear is not a sign of their wealth but their status and connections as royalty. Also remember this - Sophie probably gets a similar if not same deal as Anne in terms of expenses etc - Anne does not wear high fashion with regular new outfits, Sophie does. Its not a criticism but I think if you compared them just on wardrobes it would appear Sophie was wealthier than Anne which I highly doubt is true.

Beatrice and Eugenie are clearly well provided for financially but they also benefit from being the granddaughters of a Queen and the daughters of a Prince. They, and I have to say IMO Beatrice especially noticeably, use these connections to enjoy holidays on yachts, private islands etc, living a millionaire lifestyle without necessarily needing to be millionaires themselves.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british royal family, civil list, finances


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
Royals & Nobles and Wealth, Costs and Finances kcc Royal Life and Lifestyle 413 04-17-2017 06:46 PM
Costs and Finances of the Belgian Royal Family Marengo Royal Family of Belgium 84 09-18-2016 04:24 AM
Wealth and Finances of the Spanish Royal Family hrhcp Royal Family of Spain 122 04-20-2016 04:34 AM
Wealth of The German Royal/Princely Houses kcc Royal Families of Austria and Germany 12 12-30-2007 04:35 AM




Popular Tags
best outfit best outfit december birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events denmark duchess of cambridge eveningwear earl of snowdon europe general news hereditary grand duchess stphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta elena infanta leonor infanta sofia iaki urdangarn james bond king felipe king felipe vi king philippe king willem-alexander letizia liechtenstein monarchy news picture of the week prince alexander prince carl philip prince daniel prince felix prince gabriel prince harry prince nicholas prince oscar prince philip prince sebastian princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess leonore princess madeleine princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria prince william queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania in new zealand queen silvia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family united kingdom victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:36 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017
Jelsoft Enterprises