The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1121  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:29 AM
PetticoatLane's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: A Small Town, United Kingdom
Posts: 432
Why should the Queen of the Cayman Islands not keep some of her money in the Cayman Islands?

Total non-story.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #1122  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:18 PM
Dman's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 13,321
Prince Charles has been added to the controversy-
https://mobile.twitter.com/RoyalRepo...59740730232832

https://mobile.twitter.com/RoyalRepo...60226397151232
__________________

__________________
"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

A.W. TOZER
Reply With Quote
  #1123  
Old 11-07-2017, 03:33 PM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: *******, Canada
Posts: 5,859
Richard Palmer @RoyalReporter
In response, the Duchy of Cornwall says Charles has no direct involvement in investment decisions and the Duchy derived no tax advantage.
Reply With Quote
  #1124  
Old 11-07-2017, 07:52 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NN, Lithuania
Posts: 1,483
I want to share comment from another forum:


Posted by Guy Stair Sainty
This really shows a sorry misunderstanding of the purpose for such trusts and investments. It is also hardly irrelevant that the Queen is sovereign of the countries in which these investments are situated. Britain is the largest foreign direct investor in the US, British investors invest millions in businesses based outside the UK, operating a very wide range of activities. Companies with shareholdings drawn from multiple countries that are investing internationally will often be based off-shore but profits remitted back to the investors through dividends of share purchases will be taxed just like any other investment or earnings. High tax countries do not like low tax countries - in the US election campaign Hillary Clinton made vocal attacks on companies that redomicile in the Uk after acquiring UK companies because UK corporation tax is 20% as opposed to US at 35%. The Uk economy benefited and who was complaining about this in the UK? Most companies based in these so-called tax havens are pension funds, asset managers, etc but investing in multiple jurisdictions. The profits ultimately returned to the shareholders all attract tax at whatever rate the country applies tax.

Now the Prince of Wales is being attacked for a purported conflict of interest in which the Duchy of Cornwall (assets £900 million) benefited by a share sale that earned a profit of $200,000. Can anyone seriously imagine that the Prince of Wales would make public speeches in order to boost a share price in which a tiny proportion of the Duchy’s assets were invested?

One of the strangest aspects of this affair is the complaints about “secrecy” - UK private company accounts are public documents for anyone to see and these name directors and can show the shares held by directors. In the US, however, private company’s accounts are not matters of public record and US banks have strong privacy protections. Would the US be considered a “tax haven” or to being acting immorally?

I am listening to a BBC reporter complaining that he does not have access to see the accounts of Isle of Man account holders. I consider it a gross invasions of privacy for anyone to have a right to look at my personal finances and I would hazard a guess that most people would feel the same way. Why should the media know this? Especially the BBC where journalists were furious at the reporting of their inflated earnings.

The media comments I have listened to demonstrate little understanding of finance, investment or taxation. Tax competition exists and smaller economies, Ireland, Malta (for companies with non-resident shareholders), Luxembourg, Caribbean islands, etc, all have low tax rates because they want to be attractive to International companies and private investment companies. These companies then earn larger profits for their investors which, when returned, attract tax in the country of residence of the investor - if the “tax havens” (as they are mis-described) imposed another level of tax, this would reduce the profits returned to the country of the shareholders and reduce the final tax take.

Some EU countries (France, for example) have a very high inheritance tax, some other EU countries that may have high income tax rates (France has both, which is why so many wealthy French have left) have no inheritance or estate taxes. Taxes do affect behaviour but the EU allows anyone to live anywhere and many decide to move to countries whose taxation system is the most atttractive just as they might move to the country which has the best employment opportunities and highest salaries. Is there really something morally wrong with this? Personally speaking while I love France and French culture, I would not invest in French businesses; France is a country which punishes success. But I do invest in the UK which has relatively low rates compared with some other leading economies.
Reply With Quote
  #1125  
Old 11-07-2017, 08:55 PM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,052
This is not meant as a response to other posters, as I wrote this earlier today, but haven't had time to put it here before now.

The Queen:

1. Journalists who don't know the facts, continue to describe the Duchy of Lancaster as the Queen's private fortune, which is completely wrong - see post 1094/1098/1100.

2. Jeremy Corbyn was asked by the Telegraph yesterday about whether the Queen should apologise? His answer (which was taken as a yes) can be read in post 1105.

Later he called for an inquiry:
Jeremy Corbyn the great tax hypocrite | Daily Mail Online
Quote:
Later he called for an inquiry ‘into all the revelations about the Paradise Papers’. Asked if that included the Queen, Mr Corbyn told Bloomberg: ‘Everybody. The Royal Household are subject to taxation... these issues all must be part of that.’

His comments came despite the fact that Labour-run Warrington Council bought an offshore company that owned Birchwood Park. Local Labour MP Helen Jones has said this would see the council avoiding £10million in tax.
3. Then royal commentators came out and defended her.

Dickie Arbiter to the DF:
Quote:
The Queen’s done nothing wrong and she’s got nothing to apologise for.

'The Queen is being knocked to take the heat of others.

He added: 'The money has been invested by the Duchy of Lancaster – not her – and the money doesn’t go in her pocket’ and would be used for the upkeep of palaces and pensions for retired staff.

Mr Arbiter said her tax affairs being front page wouldn't be ‘uncomfortable’ for the Queen because ‘anyone with an ounce of financial nous knows profits coming into the UK from offshore is taxed at the full whack’.
Ingrid Seward to the Express:
Quote:
“What nonsense. I think Jeremy Corbyn should apologise for even suggesting it.”
Victoria Howard wrote this great article (really worth a read), but she forgot to mention that the Duchy is administered by its Chancellor (chosen by the PM) and the Duchy Council (chosen by the Chancellor), which is a very important fact:
Queen doesn't run Duchy of Lancaster - off-shore investments are not her fault • The Crown Chronicles

Royal commentator Bradley‏ wrote this on twitter, as a response to the above article:

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
This is a great piece of reporting, unlike some who threw the Queen under the bus without a second thought. #ParadisePapers

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
Great piece Victoria, it’s good to see someone reporting facts and not misleading rubbish like the mainstream media.

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
The BBC’s coverage of the Queen’s involvement in the Paradise Papers has been misleading and deeply disappointing. #ParadisePapers

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
The misleading reporting by the mainstream has created a lot of hate toward the Queen which is reprehensible.

Bradley‏ @LoopyCrown3
It’s great to see this piece reporting the facts instead of sensationalist headlines. I wholeheartedly support it.

4. Other people in the press have tried to explain since the news broke (as I did in posts 1094/1098/1100) that this has nothing to do with the Queen.

The Telegraph's Tim Stanley:

Tim Stanley‏ @timothy_stanley
An investment made in 2005, when responsibility for the Queen’s holdings fell under a Labour minister (he wrote that as an answer to another tweet who reported that Jeremy Corbyn wants the Queen to apologise for her advisors investing her funds offshore).

He also wrote this article:
This obsession with removing the privacy of the rich is misplaced anger*
Quote:
When the Paradise Papers story broke on Sunday, I watched the BBC News channel engage in some flagrant editorialising. The Queen’s private estate invested a sum of money offshore in 2005, which prompted a chorus of “it doesn’t look good”. “Oh no, not good”. “Not good at all”. Well, as the nudist said to the dog walker, if you don’t like what you see, don’t look!

Before we get onto the question of tax privacy, let’s shoot down this absurd idea that Her Majesty is guilty of something. First, offshore investments are legal. Second, Her Majesty pays tax on all her income. Third, the cash that generates said income is managed not by her but by the Duchy of Lancaster, which is technically run by a member of the Cabinet known as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

In 2005, that would’ve been a Labour Party appointee.
So, while the Left is thrilled at the prospect that Her Majesty is the pirate queen of high finance, blame lies not with the monarch but with politicians and speculators. If blame is the right word because, as I said, none of this was actually illegal.
And then the Telegraph's former George Trefgarne:

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
1. Media is uncritically reporting that the Queen has personally invested in some dodgy offshore scheme. This is rubbish

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
2. First of all it is the Duchy of Lancaster and its income is paid to Royal Household for official, not personal purposes

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
3. Second it isn’t a dodgy scheme. merely a private equity fund in which dozens of charities, including Oxford and Cambridge invest

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
4. Thirdly the Queen doesn’t make investment decisions, the Duchy is presided over by the Chancellor, at that time Alan Milburn MP

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
5. You can read it all here for yourself
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/...86347475415042

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
6. Finally, I don’t think these weird international consortia who get “leaked” data are proper journalists and shouldn’t be treated as such

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
7. The real story is who stole this private data and why is it being used to bully private individuals by the media?

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
8. It is true the Queen has private wealth, eg Sandringham but this is separate to the Duchy of Lancaster

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
9. Income from the Duchy of Lancaster is used to primarily to pay for members of Royal family's official duties etc not funded by civil list

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
10. Headlines should read "Labour minister oversaw small investment in private equity fund on which tax was paid to fund minor Royals"

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
11. But that wouldn't be so much fun for these fearless questers after truth

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
12. Also, by raising the Queen in this misleading way they create a public interest defence under data protection and privacy laws.

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
13. Royal Household should have done a better job of rebuttal and issued full and detailed statement. Via social media

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne 5. nov.
14. Correction, in 2000 most responsibility for Duchy of Lancaster affairs were delegated to a new board, so Alan Milburn not guilty

George Trefgarne‏ @GeorgeTrefgarne
15. It is all explained in Duchy accounts here:
https://twitter.com/GeorgeTrefgarne/...03274520350720

And I agree with what he and some others writes on twitter: The Palace have done a very poor job in defending her. They should have issued a detailed public statement.

5. From me: I'm still angry that the Queen (aged 91) in her seventh decade on the throne got her reputation broken because of some ignorant people in the press.

And the suggestion that she should apologize is just ridiculous.

What shall she say? I'm sorry that the Duchy of Lancaster, which is administered by its government-chosen Chancellor/Council and not by me, has invested money offshore.

Charles:
Paradise Papers: Prince Charles lobbied on climate policy after shares purchase - BBC News
Quote:
Prince Charles campaigned to alter climate-change agreements without disclosing his private estate had an offshore financial interest in what he was promoting, BBC Panorama has found.

The Paradise Papers show the Duchy of Cornwall in 2007 secretly bought shares worth $113,500 in a Bermuda company that would benefit from a rule change.

The prince was a friend of a director of Sustainable Forestry Management Ltd.

The Duchy of Cornwall says he has no direct involvement in its investments.

A Clarence House spokesman said the Prince of Wales had "certainly never chosen to speak out on a topic simply because of a company that it may have invested in.

"In the case of climate change his views are well known, indeed he has been warning of the threat of global warming to our environment for over 30 years.

"Carbon markets are just one example that the prince has championed since the 1990s and which he continues to promote today."
1. I was just waiting for this:

2. I've not had the time to read so much about this stuff yet, but this doesn't look good to ordinary people who is reading the headlines.

3. We know about Operation London Bridge (the Queen's death/funeral) and Operation Golden Orb (Charles's coronation), but we didn't know that the BBC/Guardian planned Operation Bring Down The Monarchy.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1126  
Old 11-08-2017, 12:49 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 621

We know about Operation London Bridge (the Queen's death/funeral) and Operation Golden Orb (Charles's coronation), but we didn't know that the BBC/Guardian planned Operation Bring Down The Monarchy.

Is this for real, the BBC/Guardian want to start something that would destroy the monarchy, destroy their country's history, their own heritage for what? Nobody dislikes HM that much right......and why? I am shocked to read this Royal Norway......


Reply With Quote
  #1127  
Old 11-08-2017, 02:24 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,429
I don't think there's an actual "Bring Down the Monarchy" plot brewing but sometimes it seems that way. The Guardian has always been kind of known for having republican leanings.
__________________
“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
  #1128  
Old 11-08-2017, 03:00 AM
ROYAL NORWAY's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: somewhere, United Kingdom, Norway
Posts: 3,052
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Payton View Post
Is this for real, the BBC/Guardian want to start something that would destroy the monarchy, destroy their country's history, their own heritage for what? Nobody dislikes HM that much right......and why? I am shocked to read this Royal Norway......
1. The ''Operation Bring Down The Monarchy'' thing was just somthing I came up with, but it really looks like that's the main goal.

2. The Guardian is a republican Newspaper, so no surprise there.

3. The BBC is often accused (by monarchists) for being anti-monarchy, while republicans accuse them of being the opposite.

4. Generally, I will say that the BBC is pretty pro-monarchy and wery pro-Queen when it comes to their coverage/documentaries during the Diamond Jubilee and her 80th/90th birthdays, but we had the Annie Leibovitz thing in 2007 and some republican coverage in the days before the wedding in 2011.

But that seems to have changed after that Duchy thing and even Nicholas Witchell (a very big admirer of HM) said live on TV that the offshore investment was embarrassing to her and that without even mentioning either of the facts (very unlike him).

5. Hopefully, this will blow over, but the damage is there.

And as royal commentator Bradley‏ wrote, the misleading reporting by the mainstream has created a lot of hate toward the Queen which is reprehensible.
__________________
The Queen is the most wonderful, forgiving, non judgmental person I know. Sarah Ferguson speaking in 2011.
Reply With Quote
  #1129  
Old 11-08-2017, 03:31 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 621
Again I ask, why is the *Media* allowed to get away with this harassment of HM? Give me a break here.......no one can just go around the world and print lies and do damage to a person's life without something being done about it. And no one can ever make me believe that this will blow over for when things like this keep happening again and again well that is when things get out of control in life.........yes there is fire when I smell smoke, and this smoke is reaching across the pond so to speak.

So BP and the BRF will do nothing about this as always.........it is *Keep calm and carry on* attitude ..........sometime they should stand up and just fight fire with fire..........give as good as you receive I say.

Maybe some person in BP should put out a statement or something to clear this up.
Reply With Quote
  #1130  
Old 11-08-2017, 03:40 AM
Osipi's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: On the west side of North up from Back, United States
Posts: 9,429
I think the adage "never complain, never explain" fits more into what is going on now. The more they would "explain", the more they put out there that can get twisted and turned around.

Besides, if all this has to deal with HM's "personal" and "private" income whether it was invested or not with offshore tax havens or by whomever decided to invest it there, its no one's business but her own. She owes no one an explanation nor does she owe anyone an apology nor does she need to account to the public each and every time she has a Big Mac attack.

Spheno posted a wonderful explanation of things a few posts up. Makes a whole lot of 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
  #1131  
Old 11-08-2017, 04:21 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 621


I just read Spheno's comment and yes it made sense yet my issue is with the media.......there are laws that protect a person's right to privacy and no one or no company can just go out and try to destroy a person's life or invade their bank accounts or life. What I see wrong is the the way the media is using the very people of the country to turn against the royal family. Not everyone is going to be bothered to learn or read about taxation or laws of privacy......most could care less for they just read headlines and don't do *facts*....that there creates the problems for HM and the firm. Can I go around and shut to the world I want to bad mouth someone say a president of my country without suffering the consequences.........don't think so for the FBI would be right at my door...........so what makes the media in England think they can get away with this harassment of the royal family. The Guardian Newspaper must be owned and filled with lots of Jealous id*ots who think they should be what....royal?
Reply With Quote
  #1132  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:03 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 570
Quote:
Originally Posted by M. Payton View Post

The Guardian Newspaper must be owned and filled with lots of Jealous id*ots who think they should be what....royal?
The Guardian is a republican newspaper (not republican in the US political party sense). Their point is that they don’t think anyone should be royal. They would like to see Britain as a republic with an elected head of state. They are usually more cautious about criticising the Queen - she is so popular that she usually rises above criticism so they don’t seem to bother. Charles is their usual punching bag, I was wondering what took them so long to get around to him.
Reply With Quote
  #1133  
Old 11-08-2017, 05:48 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: USA, United States
Posts: 621

Thank you very much for explaining that to me, yet if they want to become a republic with an elected head of government and congress, then please do come to the US and live here and pay what we pay for almost nothing in return. I feel nobody has the right to ever attack another person in whatever way with lies to create trouble. These attacks on HM is disgraceful and disgusting to read daily.....and the people only read headlines, they don;t really look at facts or even want to get to involved yet arms will go up when they feel they are being taken advantage of. Jeremy Corbyn is one big troublemaker for HM and the family and wants to lead the way to being elected head of the country.
__________________

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 birthday carl gustaf chris o'neill crown princess mary crown princess victoria current events cymry denmark duchess of cornwall earl of snowdon general news grand duchess maria teresa hereditary grand duchess stéphanie hereditary grand duke guillaume infanta cristina infanta leonor infanta sofia iñaki urdangarín king felipe king felipe vi king juan carlos 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 princess beatrice princess claire of luxembourg princess estelle princess eugenie princess leonore princess madeleine princess mary current events princess of asturias princess sofia princess victoria queen elizabeth ii queen letizia queen letizia casual outfits queen letizia cocktail dresses queen letizia daytime fashion queen letizia fashion queen mathilde queen mathilde daytime fashion queen maxima queen maxima casual wear queen maxima daytime fashion queen maxima fashion queen maxima hats queen maxima style queen rania queen rania daytime fashion queen silvia sofia state visit stephanie sweden swedish royal family victoria



Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:34 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

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