The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   Trust Funds for the Queen's Children and Grandchildren (https://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/trust-funds-for-the-queens-children-and-grandchildren-12504.html)

yvr girl 04-23-2007 05:15 PM

Trust Funds for the Queen's Children and Grandchildren
 
Does anyone have any idea what has been set up for Ann, Andrew and Edward? Will they end up like the Kents and Gloucesters - forced to sell homes because they can't afford them any longer? Fergie seems to indicate that Andrew doesn't have much money, but I find that hard to believe. I can't imagine the Queen not taking care of her children. I know Prince Charles has nothing to worry about.

selrahc4 04-23-2007 05:48 PM

Well, the current Kents and Gloucesters are grandchildren of a sovereign, not children. There would be natural dilution of funds through splitting between heirs and unforeseen inflation, unless the families were especially fortunate in investments and/or income-producing ventures.

I'm sure the Queen's children are well provided for by her, and with an eye to future generations as far as the future can be anticipated. But it would be normal that the same thing might happen to the next generation as did the Kents/Gloucesters.

Sarah probably implies that Andrew can't provide what his daughters need and that they depend on her just to aggrandize herself. You don't see Anne or Edward and their families hurting, do you? Andrew would be the same.

princess olga 04-23-2007 08:39 PM

Fascinating topic - not only re the British Royal Fam, but all the others as well.

While I realize full well that the last people probably we should ever feel sorry for are the privileged blue bloods, it always seems so, well, unfair to me that the siblings of the oldest child and heir to whichever throne, that the siblings seem to end up with the shorter end of the stick.

It makes me wonder if there might be special arrangements in place that these families have for these kinds of situations. Talking about one's love life these days is less of a social taboo than discussing one's finances - heck, I already don't ask my friends what they make for salary etc, let alone that I know how i.e. Princess Michael makes ends meet besides selling the occasional book and selling her 'pile' in the country.

I remember that Constantijn of the Netherlands, second in line to the Dutch throne (I mean de facto, until Amalia'd turn 18), once remarked that he has to work for a living. While that may be a slight exaggeration, the fact remains the Dutch taxpayer doesn't give him a penny. Same perhaps later with i.e. Harry of England. And already with Zara, Peter, etc etc.
Fascinating topic because there is a circle of folks who are closely related to the people occupying the throne, but who have to pay their own way to the party. And how do they manage to do that? Or are some of them de facto 'poor' in comparison and do they just keep up appearances, which seems quite an expensive proposition?

branchg 04-30-2007 08:23 AM

All of The Queen's children have trust funds, as do her grandchildren. They are designed to provide an income, but are not likely to generate huge amounts of money individually. Once Charles becomes King, the Queen Mother's fortune (about $10 million in trust) will be distributed directly to her grandchildren in equal shares.

The fortune of the Sovereign is generally accumulated for the next Sovereign in order to preserve the financial independence of the monarchy.

Duchess 04-30-2007 10:30 AM

correct me if i'm wrong but isn't the sovereirn's fortune looked at in 2 aspects: her private fortune and the monies accumulated through the public? her private fortune is split according to her own wishes but aren't the assets that belong to the crown passed on only to the heir?

HRH Kimetha 04-30-2007 01:56 PM

What an interesting subject. I keep hearing about the Queen's personal wealth at about $2billion. How accurate would that be?

branchg 04-30-2007 04:19 PM

The Sovereign's fortune is limited to the personal property of The Queen, including her jewels, the Royal Art Collection, Balmoral, Sandringham and her private investments. These are estimated to be worth approximately $650 million in total.

The rest of the fortune belongs to The Crown and is considered to be in trust for the monarchy. Although technically, the Sovereign is entitled to the Duchy of Lancaster revenues, the royal palaces and aircraft, these assets are granted by Parliament's consent for use by the Sovereign.

Duchess 04-30-2007 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg
The Sovereign's fortune is limited to the personal property of The Queen, including her jewels,... .

you've probably answered this before but here goes:

isn't jewelry given as official state gifts, the property of the crown? i'm assuming when you say "jewels" you're referring to items that she's purchased privately or have been passed down from family?

branchg 04-30-2007 07:19 PM

All gifts of jewelry remain the private property of The Queen until she designates them otherwise. As a practical rule, she is very likely to leave any jewels given to her by other heads of state (the Saudi diamond necklaces) or governments (the Coronation Aquamarine Parure from Brazil) as part of the Crown Collection after her death.

All of her other jewels have been handed down and are inherited by the next Sovereign as their personal property.

Elspeth 04-30-2007 07:50 PM

Does that include the jewels designated by Queen Victoria for use by future Queens?

Warren 05-01-2007 07:13 AM

The Crown Jewellery
 
Excluding the Crown Jewels (ie the jewels in the Tower) there are just two categories: Jewels left to (or given to) the Crown by Queen Victoria, Queen Mary and King George V; and the rest, which are private property.

source: Suzy Menkes, "The Royal Jewels", Third edition 1988, Appendix A 'The Crown Jewellery'.
Menkes has given her sources as Twining Papers, Goldsmith's Hall Library; and The Royal Library, Windsor.

...................................................................The Crown Jewellery

Jewels left to the Crown by Queen Victoria:
The Diamond Diadem of George IV
Brilliant Regal Tiara (made in 1855 to hold the Koh-i-noor; diamonds remounted for Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother's Crown; the four detachable anthemions from the Regal Indian tiara later forming what is now the Countess of Wessex wedding tiara)
Regal Indian Tiara
The Timur Ruby
The Diamond Collet Necklace
Two Diamond Collet Necklace
Diamond Fringe Necklace (stones from George III)
Duchess of Kent Amethysts
three Bow Brooches
Queen Victoria's Sapphire Brooch
Presents from the Prince Consort. These items were all left to Edward VII by Queen Victoria in her will, to be considered "as belonging to the Crown and to be worn by all future Queens in right of it", being bracelets, brooches, pins, and a Scottish pebble set as a brooch.
A collection of jewelled cockades, girdles, swords, orders, rings, bracelets, brooches, earrings, opals, pearls, mementoes, minatures etc etc.

Queen Mary gave to the Crown:
3 Indian armlets (1912)
Indian diamond, pearl, emerald and ruby necklace (1926)

Ring sent to Tower by Queen Mary 1919 and added to the Regalia:
Sapphire ring with ruby cross and diamonds given to Queen Victoria by her mother the Duchess of Kent in 1838

King George V gave to the Crown:
Snap of the Indian necklace (see above) made of a ruby ring given to Queen Victoria by a Maharajah.

Based on this list, and assuming it is largely accurate, the vast bulk of the Windsor jewel collection is private property, and strictly "hands off!". :biggrin:
x

branchg 05-01-2007 08:10 AM

Some additional pieces were probably designated by Queen Mary in her will as belonging to the Crown to be worn by Queens in right of it, but we don't know for sure.

Claire 05-02-2007 03:44 PM

I don't know if the royals have trust funds in the same way we see American trust fund babies as having trusts. I believe that they were all given shares which matured at various stages of their lives.
There is also a big difference in what the royals have and will never have. When George VI dies, he left money in trust for Anne and Charles, not Andrew, Edward, Sarah and David simply because they didn't exist. A lot was made in the 1980's when the Queen brought Diana shares in the Royal Mail. It can only be guessed that various royals own shares in other companies' worldwide and nationally.
I was once told that the arguement behind the Prince of Wales ownship of his estates was that he must collect enough money to look after the royal family in his care. I don't think the Queen ever had the benfit of those estates.

I also doubt the Queen will divide her estate equally.
Prince Charles, William and Harry have no need for it and she will pass it down to the other royals, who will probably have to pay double the amount in inheritance tax anyway.

selrahc4 05-07-2007 05:05 PM

The Queen will leave the bulk of her estate to the next sovereign as has been the case for years and years.

Claire 05-08-2007 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by selrahc4
The Queen will leave the bulk of her estate to the next sovereign as has been the case for years and years.

Sorry, problem of translation - estate in our legal term means material wealth (money, bonds and stocks), not property.

HRH Kimetha 05-08-2007 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire
I was once told that the arguement behind the Prince of Wales ownship of his estates was that he must collect enough money to look after the royal family in his care. I don't think the Queen ever had the benfit of those estates.

Besides the Duchess, William and Harry, who else in the Royal Family does the Prince have in his care?

Iluvbertie 05-09-2007 02:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HRH Kimetha
Besides the Duchess, William and Harry, who else in the Royal Family does the Prince have in his care?

At the moment no one officially but he will also be responsible for wives and children of William and Harry during the lifetime of his mother.

Warren 05-09-2007 05:42 AM

In 2005/2006 the Prince's income from the Duchy of Cornwall was 14.1 million, and 10.8 million after tax.
There will be no need for the Waleses to watch the pennies, and in any case William and Harry have their own considerable fortunes.

selrahc4 05-10-2007 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claire
Sorry, problem of translation - estate in our legal term means material wealth (money, bonds and stocks), not property.

I also meant money, bonds, stocks, and other personal property in my post, along with real estate. She will leave most of all of these things to the next sovereign. There are two reasons: Tradition and the fact that inheritance left from sovereign to sovereign is exempt from inheritance taxes.

branchg 05-11-2007 08:34 AM

William and Harry are both receiving a considerable amount of money from their trusts and are no longer supported by Prince Charles.

HRH Kimetha 05-11-2007 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by branchg
William and Harry are both receiving a considerable amount of money from their trusts and are no longer supported by Prince Charles.

According the Prince Of Wales website, he does support the Princes in personal staff. This is according to this statement about his expenditures, "personal expenditure includes the salary cost of 21.7 full-time equivalent staff, including personal secretaries, a chef, grooms, valets, gardeners, farm staff and estate workers, and staff for The Duchess of Cornwall and Prince William and Prince Harry.":smile:

kelly1972 05-11-2007 04:29 PM

It looks like William and Harry will receive a considerable amount of money when they inherit their mother's estate. But, What about the other royal grandchildren? Is there trust funds set up for them as well. I'm sure Peter will inherit Gatcombe Park as well as his mother's estate. What about Zara, Beatrice, Eugenie and Louise? Do they have trust funds as well? This is a great thread! Thanks for starting it.

HRH Kimetha 05-11-2007 04:42 PM

Doesn't Gatcombe belong to Anne already?:smile:

Their fathers probably put up trust funds for them as maybe the Queen when each were born for education, personal funding etc.

kelly1972 05-19-2007 12:02 PM

I'm sorry HRH Kimetha, I meant when Princess Anne dies Peter will probably inherit Gatcombe Park. Yes, Princess Anne does own it. It was a wedding gift from the Queen to her and Mark Phillips when they got married. Sorry again for the confusion in my post.

branchg 05-19-2007 02:58 PM

The Queen set-up trusts for each of her grandchildren (except William and Harry) to provide for their education and expenses.

kelly1972 05-21-2007 07:54 AM

Does anyone know at what age they receive their trust fund? If it is at 21 than 2 of her grandchildren have already got it then. I wondered if the Queen did set up a trust fund. Thanks for the answer branchg.

branchg 05-21-2007 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly1972
Does anyone know at what age they receive their trust fund? If it is at 21 than 2 of her grandchildren have already got it then. I wondered if the Queen did set up a trust fund. Thanks for the answer branchg.

Well, based on Sarah's divorce settlement as an example, Beatrice and Eugenie are the beneficiaries of a $3 million trust set-up by The Queen, with the income accruing directly to them after 25.

Elspeth 05-25-2007 12:40 AM

Quote:

Charles gets nothing because he will inherit the vast majority of his mother's personal fortune as the new Sovereign. William gets very little because he will become The Duke of Cornwall and have a sizable income from the duchy. Harry is provided for by his Spencer trust and his mother's legacy.
I think this was also pretty much the case with the way George V left his money, with his eldest son not getting much if any legacy because he'd had money from the Duchy of Cornwall and would have access to the money from the Duchy of Lancaster as well as the other personal property of the sovereign. It seems to have been reinterpreted more recently as George V writing his eldest son out of his will because he didn't trust him, but I think it's pretty much standard procedure for the sovereign (and other close relations) to provide for the younger children who don't have that ready-made source of income like the new monarch does.

Lumutqueen 11-11-2011 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by econo (Post 1336303)
... the Palace will probably have to decide: support minor royals forever, or make peace with their business deals.

Beatrice and Eugenie have a trust fund, it is theirs to use as they wish and when they wish. William and Harry and presumably Zara and Peter had one as well, W&H have their mothers benefits to hide behind and Z&P have no royal title to criticise over. Beatrice and Eugenie are between a rock and a hard place, one they have not chosen to be in nor can easily get out of.

Diarist 11-14-2011 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1336340)
Beatrice and Eugenie have a trust fund, it is theirs to use as they wish and when they wish

A nice idea, Lumutqueen, but we actually do not know this. Under English law, Trusts are private and the terms of the trust are governed by a Trust Deed, which is a private legal instrument. Generally, there are two elements to a trust, income and capital. There are very often restrictions on the use of both income and capital. It is common with some trusts to prevent the beneficiaries accessing the capital until they are 25 years old or so. We don't know what the terms of Beatrice and Eugenie's trusts are. There may well be strict clauses about use of the money - athough thanks to Sarah, we know that apparently the restrictions on the use of trust income were lax enough to allow Sarah to 'leech' [as the papers put it] off her daughters' trust funds. I believe Lord_Royal is a solicitor; perhaps he could help us with English Trust law if he drops by here.

Hope some of this helps,

Alex

Lumutqueen 11-14-2011 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diarist (Post 1337238)
A nice idea, Lumutqueen, but we actually do not know this.

You may not know this yes you are right in saying that. :smile: But my point still stands, whatever trust fund B&E have received or shall receive can be used as they wish at their discretion.

That's just my information, on what you wrote. :flowers:

Diarist 11-14-2011 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lumutqueen (Post 1337247)
You may not know this yes you are right in saying that. :smile: But my point still stands, whatever trust fund B&E have received or shall receive can be used as they wish at their discretion.

Only insofar as the terms of the trust allow this. And this is law, not discretion........
.

Lord_Royal 11-21-2011 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diarist (Post 1337238)
A nice idea, Lumutqueen, but we actually do not know this. Under English law, Trusts are private and the terms of the trust are governed by a Trust Deed, which is a private legal instrument. Generally, there are two elements to a trust, income and capital. There are very often restrictions on the use of both income and capital. It is common with some trusts to prevent the beneficiaries accessing the capital until they are 25 years old or so. We don't know what the terms of Beatrice and Eugenie's trusts are. There may well be strict clauses about use of the money - athough thanks to Sarah, we know that apparently the restrictions on the use of trust income were lax enough to allow Sarah to 'leech' [as the papers put it] off her daughters' trust funds. I believe Lord_Royal is a solicitor; perhaps he could help us with English Trust law if he drops by here.

Indeed, I am. The trust for Beatrice and Eugenie that Sarah has spoken of is the one made for them by The Queen when Andrew and Sarah divorced. Now, something murky happened in the late 1990s regarding the 500,000 pounds budgeted for a home for Sarah and the girls (the house in Windlesham was said by Sarah to be too expensive to run, so a house was never purchased) and I recall Sarah had a meeting with the trustees of the the B&E trust. I wonder if that 500,000 was added to the trust. ANYWAY...

There is usually two components to a trust: income and capital, both of which can be managed by the terms of the trust. From various articles we know that 1.4 million pounds was put into trust in 1996. Since that time the money has surely generated a substantial income. The trust instrument would explain if and how that income could be spent, the lifespan of the trust and other conditions. The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no way to discern what the trust says since it is a private document. What can be said, without hesitation, is that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie cannot do as they please with the trust money, they will always have trustees to answer to.

However, the trust will be wound up (as all trusts have a determined lifespan, they cannot go on indefinitely) and at that point the Princesses will have free reign over their funds. Additionally, Saunders v Vaughtier tells us that an adult can collapse their trust at will. As both Princesses are over the age of 18, this may have occurred.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Andrew and Sarah Divorce Trust 1996 is not the only trust B&E are beneficiaries of. The late HM The Queen Mother established trusts in 1994, totaling 19 million pounds (the vast majority of her cash) for the benefit of her grandchildren so that none of them had to pay any taxes or duties.

So there are certainly two trusts that benefit the York Princesses. There could be as much as 6 million pounds of capital in The Queen Mother 1994 trust for the York girls. We'll never really know.

They should focus on charity and enhancing their image. The role Princess Alexandra fills would be ideal for them.

Molly2101 11-23-2011 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord_Royal (Post 1339655)
It's also worth keeping in mind that the Andrew and Sarah Divorce Trust 1996 is not the only trust B&E are beneficiaries of. The late HM The Queen Mother established trusts in 1994, totaling 19 million pounds (the vast majority of her cash) for the benefit of her grandchildren so that none of them had to pay any taxes or duties.

Does this Trust fund extend as far as Louise and James, as they were not around when this was set up?

Regarding the article with Prince Charles referring to the girls as twits, we can likely take it with a pinch of salt. We know the Royal brothers do not always necessarily get along, and during certain periods of their life have had rifts with each other. I don't, however, think Charles would call his nieces "twits" in public to members of the press. I could be wrong in thinking that though...

Lord_Royal 11-23-2011 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1340298)
Does this Trust fund extend as far as Louise and James, as they were not around when this was set up?

The short answer is NO. As Lady Louise and Viscount Severn were not born (or conceived, nor were their parents married, 1994's a long time ago!) HM The Queen Mother could not establish a trust for any of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children because they didn't exist. For a trust to be valid 3 Certainties must be satisfied: Intention, Subject and Object. Lady Louise and Viscount Severn would have been the Objects (beneficiaries) of the trust but because they didn't exist it is an impossibility that such a trust could be made. As the HM The Queen Mother died in 2002, her estate would have been settled prior to Lady Louise's conception (she was born in November 2003).

Thus, 3 sets of grandchildren benefited from HM The Queen Mother's 1994 Trust. This trust absolutely provides TRH Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie an excellent income. Their wealth, quite simply, is underestimated by the media and they can likely support themselves with ease.

The article about Charles and the York Princesses is all gossip at this point, most unfortunate given the upcoming Diamond Jubilee.

Molly2101 11-24-2011 06:10 PM

Thank you Lord Royal for your infomation. I always imagined SOMETHING would have been put away for Edward's future children, even if he was not married at the time. I am guessing this means Louise and James inherit nothing from their great grandmother, except what they perhaps get from Edward via the Queen Mother?

Lord_Royal 11-30-2011 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Molly2101 (Post 1340662)
Thank you Lord Royal for your infomation. I always imagined SOMETHING would have been put away for Edward's future children, even if he was not married at the time. I am guessing this means Louise and James inherit nothing from their great grandmother, except what they perhaps get from Edward via the Queen Mother?

Lady Louise and Viscount Severn will inherit from their father. Although it's pure speculation, I cannot see HM The Queen allowing the Wessex children to go without and possess substantially less wealth than their cousins. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if she's set up another trust for them, just as she did for the York princesses with the Sarah and Andrew Divorce Trust of 1996.

tommy100 12-30-2014 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kelly1972 (Post 613934)
I'm sorry HRH Kimetha, I meant when Princess Anne dies Peter will probably inherit Gatcombe Park. Yes, Princess Anne does own it. It was a wedding gift from the Queen to her and Mark Phillips when they got married. Sorry again for the confusion in my post.

In Brian Hoey's Not in Front of the Corgi's book (I have no clue how accurate it is but I remember it was previewed in newspapers in the UK) that Gatcombe was not purchased by the Queen in Anne and Mark's names 'in case they divorced'. Its also worth bearing in mind that Mark Phillips lives in Aston Farm which is right next door to Gatcombe and was apparently purchased by the Queen like Gatcombe was, in effect it means there are two houses that will one day be available. One for Peter (Gatcombe) and one for Zara (Aston Farm house) maybe?

It also discusses that Zara and Peter both had a trust fund set up for them when they were born. Apparently Trustees for them include Andrew Parker Bowles (Camilla's Ex husband and Anne's former flame) and Sir Jackie Stewart (Who was at Zara's wedding).

Like I say I don't know how accurate any of this is.

(A link to some extracts from the book)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...20park&f=false

janjan 04-28-2015 04:34 AM

She also got money when the Queen Mother passed on I am just saying one day Charles is going to say to her thanks but no thanks your work isn't needed then she will be left with nothing to do

Mirabel 04-30-2015 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janjan (Post 1772472)
She also got money when the Queen Mother passed on

Yes, but I doubt that she got all that much if the Queen Mother left an inheritance to all of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

(At least, it probably wouldn't be enough to fund that sort of lifestyle).

janjan 04-30-2015 07:56 PM

The queen mother had more then u thought an article written just after she passed claimed she left them over 230 million pounds And get this Royals don't have to pay tax on the estate so no death dues divide that up is a pretty nice pile

Iluvbertie 04-30-2015 08:01 PM

Anything the Queen Mother left to anyone other than The Queen was subject to Death Duties. Only monarch to monarch is death duties' free.

royal-blue 04-30-2015 08:21 PM

It is completely unfair that the monarch does not have to pay inheritance tax even though every other citizen does where necessary. The monarch should not be above the law.

Lord_Royal 04-30-2015 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mirabel (Post 1773743)
Yes, but I doubt that she got all that much if the Queen Mother left an inheritance to all of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

(At least, it probably wouldn't be enough to fund that sort of lifestyle).

The Queen Mother didn't leave anything to her grandchildren. In 1994 2/3 of her money fortune, at the time 19 million pounds, went into a trust fund for her great grandchildren and Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto, on the gamble that she would live another 7 years and therefore avoid the 40% tax. It's perfectly legal and anyone can do it, and it's a gamble that paid off.

Source: The gamble that foiled the taxman | UK news | The Guardian

Given the length of time the Queen Mother Trust held that money for Beatrice and Eugenie, who would have been 6 and 4 at the time the money was invested, it likely had 15 - 20 years to grow - and then there is the trust fund that Her Majesty The Queen set up for Beatrice and Eugenie when Andrew and Sarah divorced in 1996, when the Princesses were 8 and 6, again, another 15 years to grow at the minimum.

And who knows if Sarah saved money for her girls - although she has encountered many financial difficulties over the years, Sarah is generous to a fault and it's well known she contributed to her daughter's lifestyle. I would not be at all surprised to discover that some of her earnings went into trust funds for her girls.

Ultimately, the York Princesses are wealthy women in their own right and it's that independent wealth that undoubtedly shapes some of the decisions they take with the roles and duties they wish to/are allowed to pursue as members of the Royal Family and as private citizens in careers.

janjan 04-30-2015 09:55 PM

But there are ways around it after the queen mother died there was mentioned that The queen mother estate would not be subjected to death taxes since she once was Queen People were pretty mad about it I will see if I can find that article

Iluvbertie 04-30-2015 11:03 PM

The law is clear - the Queen Mother didn't have to pay death duties on what she left to The Queen and she left her most of her estate for that reason.


What else she did was set up a trust fund early enough that it was in existence for over 7 years and that was also not subject to death duties. If she had died within that 7 year period it would have been - the same as for everyone else.

janjan 05-01-2015 04:26 AM

Ann said a long time ago that her children have trust funds set up for them They also got money from the Queen Mother

muriel 05-01-2015 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by royal-blue (Post 1773758)
It is completely unfair that the monarch does not have to pay inheritance tax even though every other citizen does where necessary. The monarch should not be above the law.

The monarch is not above the law, it is just a different law that applies.

Nice Nofret 05-01-2015 05:19 AM

The Monach is paying taxes - just not death duties (which in Switzerland, no one has to pay, anyway).

Mirabel 05-01-2015 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lord_Royal (Post 1773760)

And who knows if Sarah saved money for her girls - although she has encountered many financial difficulties over the years, Sarah is generous to a fault and it's well known she contributed to her daughter's lifestyle. I would not be at all surprised to discover that some of her earnings went into trust funds for her girls.

I thought that there was an interview in which Fergie admitted having to use money from those trust funds because she was broke?
So it seems unlikely she'd have contributed to them at any point.

Iluvbertie 05-01-2015 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janjan (Post 1773853)
Ann said a long time ago that her children have trust funds set up for them They also got money from the Queen Mother

No one is disputing that they all have trust funds and money from the Queen Mother in those trust funds.

The facts are that because The Queen Mother set up the trust fund more than 7 years before she died there was no death duties to be paid on that money. That law applies to everyone.

Had she died within the 7 years of setting up the fund then there would have been appropriate taxes to be paid.

janjan 05-01-2015 03:12 PM

No cause the Queen got Parliament to pass an act my cousin lives in London and was pissed off big time because he thought that she should have paid

Osipi 05-01-2015 03:35 PM

According to www.royal.gov.uk it states

"In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis."

This applies to her personal income.

VictoriaB 05-01-2015 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by janjan (Post 1774064)
No cause the Queen got Parliament to pass an act my cousin lives in London and was pissed off big time because he thought that she should have paid


The Queen cannot dictate to Parliament what they should & should not do.

I think you've been watching too much Wolf Hall. That might have been the case in the days of Henry VIII but it has not applied during this Queen's reign. She had the benefit of customs and laws passed in previous reigns as Iluvbertie and others have pointed out several times.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

Iluvbertie 05-01-2015 07:09 PM

The tax situation is well known. Until George VI ascended the throne the monarch paid normal taxes like everyone else on income. George VI negotiated not to have to pay the taxes as he had to pay his older brother for Balmoral and Sandringham so from 1937 until 1992 the monarch didn't pay income tax but it was George VI who negotiated that right not The Queen.

As has been pointed out, she was forced to agree to voluntarily pay tax in 1992 (Charles had been voluntarily paying tax since he took control of the Cornwall estate in 1969 - paid at 50% until he married Diana when he reduced it to 25% to cover the additional expenses he had in having a wife and family).

In 1894 inheritance tax was introduced in the Finance Act (actually simplified the then existing five laws that covered inheritance laws and taxes into one). In most of those laws the monarch was expressly excluded - so it isn't The Queen but her ancestors from her father back to Queen Victoria and even further back to George III who negotiated those exceptions.

A lot of British people get upset about the financial arrangements to do with the monarchy largely out of ignorance and largely because the press likes to stir up the people and use misinformation to do so. I don't know how many times I read about the Civil List and who is supposedly on it - when if people actually do their research they would learn:

a) the Civil List did exist to cover the official expenses of members of the royal family - not their private expenses
b) that in 1992 The Queen agreed to repay to the government the payments made to all members of the royal family other than herself, Philip and her mother.
c) the Civil List itself was abolished in 2012 and replaced with the Sovereign Grant Act that provides The Queen with the money to run her official life, maintain the royal palaces and cover the transport costs. This includes, for instance, all the expenses associated with State Banquets and events like the Garter Ceremony.
d) Charles covers the expenses of himself, Camilla, William, Kate, George and Harry - officially and privately

tommy100 06-02-2017 06:42 PM

I was thinking about this the other day, someone was asking why the Queen hasn't put all her jewels into a trust fund at the Dutch, Swedish and I think Luxembourg royals have. I guess the most simple answer is that there is no need for her to. While property left by one Sovereign to another is not subject to inheritance tax there is no need for a trust fund, I guess most jewels are put into a trust funds to prevent inheritance tax forcing them to be sold off and to stop the jewels from leaving the royal line. At the moment as long as the Sovereign keeps ownership of the jewels and does not give them away to others then they pass tax free onto the next sovereign, this is almost certainly why all the loans the Queen makes are one offs or 'lifetime loans'.

As for trust funds for her children and grandchildren, it was widely reported that Anne benefitted from a trust fund as a child and I have no doubt the Queen's children and grandchildren have. Surprisingly maybe we hear more about Trust Funds for the grandchildren than we ever have about Trust Funds for the Queens' own children.

Osipi 06-02-2017 07:26 PM

Although the monarch has the use of many wonderful treasures from the Crown jewels to the Royal Art collection and many different residences at her disposal, very little of it is actually the Queen's. The Crown Estate holds onto ownership in the name of Britain and it is 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate that is audited and makes up for what the Queen receives in the Sovereign Grant.

Although many things are transferable from sovereign to sovereign specifically, the Queen could not "will" any of these things to specific people.

The Queen's own personal jewelry and land such as Balmoral and Sandringham which are her own personal holdings though are at her discretion but tradition holds that it is transfered monarch to monarch.

Here is a bit of information I found.

The Crown Estate, which runs the Queen's land and property empire, posts record profits of 285.1 million | The Independent

Mbruno 06-02-2017 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osipi (Post 1991271)
Although the monarch has the use of many wonderful treasures from the Crown jewels to the Royal Art collection and many different residences at her disposal, very little of it is actually the Queen's. The Crown Estate holds onto ownership in the name of Britain and it is 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate that is audited and makes up for what the Queen receives in the Sovereign Grant.

Although many things are transferable from sovereign to sovereign specifically, the Queen could not "will" any of these things to specific people.

The Queen's own personal jewelry and land such as Balmoral and Sandringham which are her own personal holdings though are at her discretion but tradition holds that it is transfered monarch to monarch.

Here is a bit of information I found.

The Crown Estate, which runs the Queen's land and property empire, posts record profits of 285.1 million | The Independent


Most of the jewels the Queen wears on a regular basis are owned by her personally and she can leave them to whoever she wants. It is true that most of it will go to Charles, but I'm pretty sure the Queen's younger children will also inherit some items , just as part of Queen Mary's jewels are now with the Gloucesters and the Kents.


The jewels that are part of the Royal Collection are the Crown jewels properly and older pieces dating back to the Victorian age. Pretty much everything acquired or inherited throughout the 20th century is private property.

Osipi 06-02-2017 09:03 PM

Ah thanks for explaining that. :biggrin:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2020
Jelsoft Enterprises