Prince Andrew, Duke of York Current Events 7: February 2015

[yukari]

And the next story is his inheritance money.

Prince Andrew complaining he was left no money by the Queen when she died

(...)

The disgraced*Duke of York, 63, has told pals he received none of his mother’s estimated*£650million fortune*to help him rebuild his life.

(...)
A friend of Andy said: “I gather he’s checked it out and there’s no will.

"He’s in despair. He’s a member of the family, for God’s sake.

“What’s he meant to do? Go cap in hand to his older brother to keep a roof over his head?”

Although Andrew is feeling the pinch it is understood he was financially supported by the Queen.

It is understood that she made “very generous” provision for all her children during her life.

(...)

What if his share sort of has already been given prior the Queen's death and some of it was used to pay for the settlement.

Then again this is the Sun and they could be putting up this story to create noise about the Queen's will.

[Denville]

oh what absolute nonsense. Im sure the queen left him a reasonable amount, and Charles wont leave him starving. He may request a certain amount of economy.....

[tommy100]

I would imagine the Queen may have created trust Funds for all her children over time - the RF use trust funds quite a lot I think (Sunninghill and Gatcombe were said to be held by Trust Funds in the name of the children in case of divorce) Thus they may well have had the bulk of their inheritance already.

TBH I suspect their is not much future inheritance coming down the line as that would be a blatant tax dodge to pass it to Charles to then dish it out to his siblings.

More likely IMO is a Trust Funds to give each of her children a lump sum then an assurance from Charles to keep maintaining them to some level from the proceeds of his inheritance/the Duchy.

That way the core Royal Family fortune is not diminished and can be passed on to the next generation.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by yukari

And the next story is his inheritance money.

Prince Andrew complaining he was left no money by the Queen when she died



What if his share sort of has already been given prior the Queen's death and some of it was used to pay for the settlement.

Then again this is the Sun and they could be putting up this story to create noise about the Queen's will.

I think this is a non-story, as Andrew, as with the other children of QE2 and Prince Philip, would have been provided for through trusts that would have been set up for their benefit some time ago.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by muriel

I think this is a non-story, as Andrew, as with the other children of QE2 and Prince Philip, would have been provided for through trusts that would have been set up for their benefit some time ago.

I completely agree. In order to avoid (not evade) paying inheritance tax, the transfer of funds would have been sorted long ago. If Charles were to start dishing out lump sums now from the funds left to him by QE2, it would certainly appear more like tax evasion.

[muriel]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

If Charles were to start dishing out lump sums now from the funds left to him by QE2, it would certainly appear more like tax evasion.

Quite right!

[Granada]

Not buying this attempt at a sob story either, "allegedly" being put out by Andrews friends.
I believe like others here, that The Queen and Philip set up generous Trust Funds for Anne, Andrew and Edward. But I do also bet that dim Andrew also thought he would receive a sizable bequest upon her death.

With all the never ending drama involving shady deals and associations with dodgy People, ON TOP of the scandalous Epstein horror show, *maybe* The Queen thought better and decided to stop enabling his delusions of grandeur and quest for perks. "Rein" Andrew finally in. With ALL the other drama her grandson was providing, She wanted to tamp down questionable behavior and speculation about enabling prolific spending by Andrew.
Cut off the discretionary cash flow.

When Andrew took over Royal Lodge he NEVER imagined he wouldn't be a Full-time Working Royal with subsidies. Especially the Security. He had his sidelines "deals" when he was UK Roving Trade Ambassador too. After his questionable behavior, and Epstein however, he was relieved of that job in 2011. He STILL figured he could always fund Royal Lodge. That doesn't seem to be the case now.

He then set up Pitch@Palace, to encourage entrepreneurs. At Buckingham Palace. Nice.
I'm sure, there was a very profitable sideline gravy train incorporated in there for him. He was forced to disband that venture after the Emily Maitlis Interview fiasco. His profitable money sideline businesses are GONE.

Its obvious from the ridiculous "Indian healing Guru" story, that Andrew spends an ABSOLUTE fortune on questionable People and activities. Probably JUST the tip of the iceberg. Good grief, HOW out of touch is he ????

Plus Sarah said just last week on her media blitz in The States, in response to a question, that Andrew doesn't take any taxpayers money......And that She was "in a position to support Andrew and the rest of my Family thru my work". Why the Girls ? Beatrice's husband seems extremely well off and Eugenie's husband has certainly used his royal connections to get great Jobs too.

Seems another "brag" by Sarah.
Looks like Andrew is going to have to tighten his belt. Lots of People who are in dire economic straits will be appalled over the Guru story AND The amount of money The Queen left Charles. Even I'm flabbergasted.

Is that all Charles's to do with, as he sees fit ? No taxes either. On top of his OWN private fortune from The Duchy of Cornwall when he was POW ?

[Denville]

of course Charlee's money is his to do with as he sees fit. HE has usually used it to help his charities and his sons, when they needed expenses paid. he will be helping out his elderly cousins who have dedicated their lives to royal duties, as they get older and retire. He will help Andrew, but I dont think he will knock himself out to give Andrew a lavish lifestyle. However he will have a home and security and an adequate income.

[Toledo]

If the link below opens in default Spanish language, just mouse over the article, right click and select Translate:

Andrés, a headache for Carlos III: a(...)decision and a bill to assume
If Andrew was the darling of his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, with his brother Charles III, things have changed

[Mirabel]

I always thought Andrew would have a rude awakening once Charles succeeded. It was unlikely that Charles would be as indulgent as the late Queen was.

Now Andrew will need to adjust his expectations.

[Denville]

we dont know what money Andrew has. or what Charles will allow him or if he will stay in RL or move somwerhe smaller.

[Granada]

Denville, all I'm saying that's ALOT of money to "help his charities and his sons". ALOT.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Granada

Denville, all I'm saying that's ALOT of money to "help his charities and his sons". ALOT.

What is your point? Charles is fairly rich. He has the Duchy of Lancaster now, and has private wealth. he has used his previous income to pay part of his sons' expenses, and help his charities. Now as King, he will have to help the elderly cousins, who were helped previously by the queen.... Im sure he will still give to his charities and try to raise more money. and he will help his siblings if they need it. I think that by and large he used his previous income fairly responsibility and didnt spend it all on chocolate for himself, so why do you think he's not going to spend his new income sensibly?
But the Duchy of Lanc is money for Charles to spend, just as the Duchy of Cornwall income was his to spend when he was POW. There are no restrictions on how he spends it, though there may be some guidelines. But I dont think that Charles is going to buy thousands of balloons iwth his money and float them over BP every night. so Im not sure what your question is?

[Toledo]

Originally Posted by Mirabel

I always thought Andrew would have a rude awakening once Charles succeeded. It was unlikely that Charles would be as indulgent as the late Queen was.

Now Andrew will need to adjust his expectations.

I still haven't recovered on the late Queen using her money to pay for an Andrew settlement. Imagine the amount it would have provided if invested for long term to use toward future expenses.

[Princess_Eleanor]

Originally Posted by Granada

Denville, all I'm saying that's ALOT of money to "help his charities and his sons". ALOT.

That's not £650 million (estimated) in cash, this includes the Balmoral & Sandringham estates, Queen Elizabeth's private jewellery and art collections, antiques, horses, cars etc.

If they had to pay inheritance tax on this, they might have to sell off jewelry etc, that's why it was established that the vast part of the inheritance should pass from monarch to monarch and no inheritance tax would have too be paid.

I'm sure Anne, Andrew & Edward each received a seizable sum, but perhaps Andrew thinks it's very little in comparison to around 650 million worth of real estate, jewellery etc. Does he seriously think that Charles should hand him an equal share of that in the form of a pay-out?!

In most royal families, the majority of the wealth is handed from monarch to monarch and that is done because otherwise, in a couple of generations' time it would all have been split and most of the estates and jewellery would have left the main line.

[Lilyflo]

Originally Posted by Granada

Is that all Charles's to do with, as he sees fit ? No taxes either. On top of his OWN private fortune from The Duchy of Cornwall when he was POW ?

Charles won't have to pay inheritance tax on the money left by QE2 (monarch to monarch) but he will continue to pay income tax voluntarily as QE2 did.

It appears to me that Charles has always invested his money wisely into the Duchy of Cornwall and his charities, always to the benefit of people and the environment. I doubt he'll change now that he's even richer and we'll see the money being put to good use, including supporting his relatives according to their needs (if not their desires!).

Andrew, however, has always appeared to me to be greedy, profligate and unconcerned about others (apart from his immediate family). He's as popular as a dose of shingles so hardly anyone will be interested in his alleged whinging about lack of funds.

[Mbruno]

Originally Posted by tommy100

Seems like Andrew was able to sweet talk his mother into paying for a lot of his personal costs on expenses - this makes me think money may certainly be a factor in the Royal Lodge stories. I dread to think what else he asked the late Queen to pay - his legal bills for sure and that will have been a heavy chunk of cash!

That is actually one of the reasons why, at least in America, there was sympathy for the Sussexes' quest "for financial independence".

I don't know if Andrew would have made it on his own, but, in practice, joining the armed forces was the only career he was realistically allowed to pursue as the second in line to the throne at the time and, in the UK, as in many other countries, being a Navy officer is not exactly a particularly profitable career. It will give you a comfortable middle-class life and (probably) a guaranteed pension, but that's it.

I think it was Prince Laurent of Belgium who said it, when the Belgian Parliament cut his stipend, but there is a valid argument in saying that "spares" who are supposed to be working royals are not allowed in practice to have a career in the private sector that would make them independent and, yet, when they grow older, move down the line of succession, and become "expendable" so to speak, they get a lot of criticism for expecting their brother or father/mother to support them. I don't blame Harry and Meghan for example for not wanting to be in the same situation.

I know some royals, even in the old system, managed to find loopholes to circumvent those problems. The Princess Royal, I think, has her horse business, although I don't know how much she can rely on that for a living. But maybe Andrew was never that resourceful and the business connections he tried to have after leaving the Navy appear to have been shady.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Toledo

I still haven't recovered on the late Queen using her money to pay for an Andrew settlement. Imagine the amount it would have provided if invested for long term to use toward future expenses.

Seriously? Andrew is her son, her favourite son, and of course she was going to help him. SHe had a lot of money, of course she would spend it on avoiding any further scandal.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by Lilyflo

Charles won't have to pay inheritance tax on the money left by QE2 (monarch to monarch) but he will continue to pay income tax voluntarily as QE2 did.

It appears to me that Charles has always invested his money wisely into the Duchy of Cornwall and his charities, always to the benefit of people and the environment. I doubt he'll change now that he's even richer and we'll see the money being put to good use, including supporting his relatives according to their needs (if not their desires!).

A.

well yes, I think that mostly Chalres has been responsible in how he spent his money. He's careful. He likes to live well himself but he has worked to improve the income from the Duchy of C, and is generous but canny in how he hands out his money to relatives, charities etc. He paid the furlough money for his employees, during the pandemic, he has supported his boys, while they were both working royals, and he gave Harry starter money to make a new life in the US. I think he will continue to be responsilbe how he spends money now as King.. he wotn leave Andrew short, though he may impose some restrictions on him. But Andrew probalby cant earn any more money, and he is not able to go on as a working royal, so Ch will take that into account.

[Denville]

Originally Posted by sophie25

It's such a bad look though when our royals are dodging paying tax (legally or not) on vast sums of, let's face it, unearned millions whilst so many people are struggling to heat their homes. It's actually immoral and the Queen was allegedly this deeply Christian woman, what parts of the Gospels was she not reading?

what exactly are you accusing the queen of?