Forum Topic

I'm sorry but you're now verging on gobbledigook and your last para is just unrelated whataboutery.To hold something "in trust" usually requires a trust deed. The legal status of the 2 duchies is actually much more arcane - they are in effect a law unto themselves since they are governed by special laws which are unique to each duchy.The 2 duchies are in effect businesses which do not pay corporation tax. The income from them goes to Charles and William (or their heirs) in perpetuity and they can spend it as they wish, having paid income tax on it.As this appears to be too difficult to understand, let me give a simple example as a comparison. Imagine I owned 100% of the shares in Barclays Bank plc. Imagine also that Barclays Bank did not pay on tax on its profits. I am not allowed to sell my shares in Barclays Bank but every year they pay me dividends (which I put on my income tax return) with which after tax I can do what I like. Anyone who has spent a few weeks studying finance will tell you that the right to a permanent stream of dividends is equal to the value of the underlying sharesMeanwhile, there are also the other personal assets - the hundreds of millions which are neither in the Crown Estate nor in the 2 duchies.Now you say this wealth has been "successfully maintained" by the Royal Family over the centuries - and who cares as it is their money not ours. But actually, the Royal Family's investment portfolio is apallingly badly run, not least because it is administered in secrecy without the transparent governance and stakeholder intervention which, say, a public company is subject to. Just to cite one example - a duchy with assets of over £600m producing income of only £20m? It's pathetic. Talk to anyone who has had dealings with the Duchy of Cornwall and they will tell you the management there is as mad as a box of frogs. Lovely biscuits though.

Michael Winstanley ● 555d

Hello Michael W,According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Lancaster)"As of the financial year ending 31 March 2022, the estate was valued at £652.8 million.[5] The net income of the Duchy is paid to the reigning sovereign as Duke of Lancaster:[2] it amounts to about £24 million per year.[5] As the Duchy is an inalienable asset of the Crown held in trust for future sovereigns, the sovereign is not entitled to the portfolio's capital or capital profits.[2][6] The Duchy of Lancaster is not subject to tax,[7] although the Sovereign has voluntarily paid both income and capital gains tax since 1993.[8] As such, the income received by the Privy Purse, of which income from the Duchy forms a significant part, is taxed once official expenditures have been deducted."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Cornwall"The Duchy of Cornwall (Cornish: Duketh Kernow) is one of two royal duchies in England, the other being the Duchy of Lancaster. The eldest son of the reigning British monarch inherits possession of the duchy and title of Duke of Cornwall at birth or when his parent succeeds to the throne, but may not sell assets for personal benefit and has limited rights and income while a minor.The current duke is Prince William. .......The government considers the duchy to be a crown body and therefore exempt from paying corporation tax. The tax exempt status of the duchy has been challenged,[2] and from 1993 to his accession to the throne in 2022, Prince Charles, the Duke of Cornwall, voluntarily paid income tax on the duchy income, less amounts that he considered to be official expenditure."I hope the above is of help.

Ivonne Holliday ● 555d

'(i) I am willing to bet my mortgage that I have more degrees and higher education that you. The way in which I choose to express myself in this at times saccharine and anodyne forum is intended to inflame, humour and rouse emotion, which I have clearly achieved.(ii) Regarding your point about a lack of protest, it is clear we are living in a sub-North Korea state during this period of royal mourning given how police have suppressed the few protestors who have dared to display dissidence'.Mr Sharp - "Sharp by name sharp by nature what !"I am sure we are all grateful to you for using your academic qualifications to shake up the tone of this forum and its contributors with your acerbic wit.I for one am rolling about laughing and will try harder to match you in future and think 'would this match Mr Sharp's standards ?' before I post.I hope you don't mind me saying so however but you do come across as a touch patronising.Always a danger of course if you have a PhD (or two ?) which I am sure is what you must have at least to boast about how qualified and hence clever you are.Might I ask what the subjects were and which institutions awarded them ?I tend to agree that the police taking away the feeble posters of the one or two protesters was heavy handed but also silly as it gives excuse to people like you to compare in the usual cliched way, the UK with North Korea.Best to have let them get on with it so we could all watch their antics as we do those of gorillas in the zoo.And at the same time let the thousands that wanted to show their respect as they are doing.On Tuesday I anticipate you and thousands like you are seen marching in protest against it all and unlike in North Korea you won't of course be stopped.To spot you in the crowd, what will your piece of cardboard have on it ?That is if you have unglued yourself from St George's Chapel.  PS sorry the mortgage rate is likely to go up.

John Hawkes ● 557d

Ivonne. (Not too sure which Michael that was a response to.) I'm pragmatic about this: in principle I thing hereditary positions are an anachronism in a 21st century democracy but as you've said in your other post elsewhere the thought of president Blair or Boris does make one think perhaps the status quo isn't so bad, and, in any case, republics still have state funerals; perhaps Charles will slim down and modernise the royal family? As an atheist I'm also uncomfortable with a head of state who is also head of the Church of England, particularly as I believe recent surveys indicate that the UK is now predominantly secular? I agree, you're correct, many of our current ills are caused by recent government policies - austerity, failure to invest sufficiently in renewable energy sources, Brexit to name a few. However, the monarchy and royal family are also the figurehead of inequity based on their position by virtue of birth and power underpinned by wealth from sources of dubious historical provenance. Bankers' bonuses are an example of great inequity but in many ways I don't blame the bankers as they're just taking advantage of a culture created the UK's government - both it's parliamentary and monarchy arms. Also, some dealers have elevated themselves to the ranks of the wealthy from the east London markets so perhaps that's an example of levelling up, even if not very equitable overall? Similarly, oil companies are benefitting becaise of world ecconomics and the only reason for not seeking a contribution from them seems to be political dogma. I can also see why many are annoyed at the expense of a state funeral when others are struggling to pay for food and heating.Of course, if one looks at the royal family on a personal level it's sad a 96 year old mother, grandmother, great grandmother has died, and they wish to grieve (although it can't have been entirely unexpected, I'm sure the family was given more accurate information on the Queen's health than the rest of us). Others may want to grieve but while I feel sympathy for the family I have to admit ambivalent feelings relating to someone I've never met and spoken with, and that I only know from a public, managed, facade - although I know those who have met her have usually liked her. As someone who had met her, I thought Jeremy Corbyn summed it up well: "My thoughts are with the Queen’s family as they come to terms with their personal loss, as well as those here and around the world who will mourn her death.I enjoyed discussing our families, gardens and jam-making with her. May she rest in peace."

Michael Ixer ● 557d

Hello Michael,I do not mind, though wholeheartedly and politely disagree, with people who would like the monarchy abolished. Yes, there are many mothers, grandmothers and perhaps great grandmothers that are in dire financial straits.  Why blame the monarchy and not the government who gifted £xxx billion to their friends during COVID?  Failing Grayling and his contract to a company to run ferries which had no experience, let alone owned any ferries?  Track and trace?  PPE paid for and never materialized?  Need I continue?  It is very recent history, so most will remember it - one would hope!Has anybody demanded and empathy from the government?  The comment "I've heard nowadays you can stand in a queue for 13 hours to see a dead rich white woman in a box?" is beyond disrespectful and reprehensible!!!  Would that comment have applied to the funerals of King George VI and Winston Churchill?"Oh wait, our taxes are going into funding this royal mourning (edited) instead."  Can anyone categorically say that taxes have been raided and people in need will not be helped?  Proof would be welcome.As you say, state funerals do happen the world over, mostly in countries that are republics.  Whether this type of funerals should be discontinued worldwide, it is up to each country to decide.How the sovereign and royal family accumulated the assets that support their current wealth and income?  I think we all know how the wealth was accumulated - but mainly from century(ies) ago.  They have not been accumulated only under Queen Elizabeth's reign - mostly inherited.  I am not aware that Queen Elizabeth II sent people to "far away lands" in order to plunder them or had pirates in high seas to do the same.  Am I wrong?  Please, do tell me!As far as Commonwealth nations are concerned, perhaps they should contribute - provided the funeral was held in their countries.  On the other hand, are we certain that no contributions towards the cost of the funeral have been made towards it through the Commonwealth Secretariat?  Please enlighten me.I do not wish to be rude to anyone, I cannot see why I should put up with offensive posts.  Thank you.

Ivonne Holliday ● 558d

I agree with Sandra and Carole, a horrible  comment.Michael W, yes, the Royal Family are wealthy.  As I indicated in a separate post initiated by Simon Sharp on inheritance tax and King Charles:Charles is exempt from inheritance tax after the agreement signed by John Major in 1993, I think.This is because it is an inheritance from sovereign to sovereign - anything else other royals inherit from the Queen is liable to inheritance tax.The reason for this is:  "The crown estate has an estimated £15.2bn in assets, of which 25% of the profits are given to the royal family as the sovereign grant. The estate includes the royal archives and the royal collection of paintings, which are held by the monarch “in right of the crown”.These assets cannot be sold by the King and they are in effect surrendered to the government in return for a grant. The government’s guidance concludes that it would therefore be “inappropriate for inheritance tax to be paid in respect of such assets”.King Charles will, as he did previously as Prince of Wales and also as did the Queen, pay income tax.The Queen's funeral is a State funeral, as was Winston Churchill's.  Perhaps funerals for members of the Royal Family should revert to private affairs.  And not have a bank holiday as some were relishing on.  Oh, and perhaps their patronage should be withdrawn from everyone.But more importantly, it would probably be wise to tax the rich bankers who will be getting higher bonuses to contribute more towards the public purse.  Would you not agree?  They receive these vast amounts of money but remain totally anonymous and have no responsibility towards the country......And I say this because the Royal Family contributed to enormously to the wealth of the nation, through tourism, which is the first to come to mind. The bankers on the other hand............

Ivonne Holliday ● 559d