I posted this Tweet this morning:
I very firmly believe that the monarch has to be our equal before the law.
This abuse has to end.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I totally agree with you the facts are that the Royals are totally out of step with the people of the United Kingdom, and look at the poverty in the United Kingdom, the billions of pounds given to them could go towards ending poverty in the United Kingdom. And Charles is a Adulterer and Camilla Parker Bowles, they are making a mockery of the Church of England .
As far as I am concerned it is simple.
This is a reward for being a compliant constitutional monarch.
It’s a bung.
But it’s how power works these days when it comes to scruples.
You just pay enough to make them disappear.
Completely.
The City and corporate bonus structures work on the same principle.
Camilla has looked nothing but totally uncomfortable throughout all of this.
I’ve often wondered about a question I’ve not heard yet.
Why did the Queen wait so long and until her death before a succession was enabled? Charles and his partner are no spring chickens themselves. Surely it made sense for them to ‘rule’ in their prime?
It makes no sense to me at all hanging on that long. The Queen is not the Pope. And apparently, she had a say in Harold Wilson’s departure. I don’t know. It all seems silly and impenetrable to me.
She thought, like the Pope, that she was the unalienable, divinely appointed, head of a church
……………….or she knew something else that we know?
That for all her brood’s privileges, private education, investment and wealth, they’re just not up to it?
I suspect she was not convinced by the quality of her replacement.
I think it is more to do with that once a monarch there is no right of resignation. You are just it. Same with Popes.
The real argument is we don’t need to give the monarch any political or other power beyond what everyone else is given the right to.
You seem angry, Richard. There is a huge list of issues that it is possible to get angry about associated with our imperial legacy. My choice was to avoid the BBC completely as soon as I heard that Mrs. Windsor was ‘comfortable’, and will ease myself back into the politically charged BBC when this is all over, with a couple of David Attenborough’s. Sadly, we are likely to spend the rest of our lives campaigning against this shite. Meantime, I shall do my best to ignore the hard-of-thinking and their imperial delusions. I comfort myself that royalty is a mental health issue, and am grateful every day for being spared. I am taking great comfort from the wonderful PBS ‘Space Time’ channel on YouTube. Just the facts.
Ignoring abuse encourages it
It does not make it go away
“The Queens Private Estate”.
And that would be?
Kevin Cahill’s “Who Owns the World” has a very useful section on who owns the UK. Simplifying – the Queen (or now the King) does. All of it (& New Zealand & Australia etc).
Freehold? a tennacy in fee simple. You do not own the land on which your house sits – Charles Windsor does – & not in theory – in practise.
I submit that the private estate of the Queen/King is … the UK etc. As a lawyer said to me not long ago – we learn all this in 1st year law school.
This is not to say that the (personal) estate of Mrs Windsor should not be hit with tax – however that estate is defined.
But what is also needed is reform of land ownership – which will never happen under either under a tory or liebore government.
Last observation: even if Mrs Windsor’s estate could be taxed, I question the capacity of HMRC to do it. They failed miserably back in 1949 with the Duke of Westminsters estate and I do not think they would do any better now.
Richard,
I dont in principal disagree, BUT…
There are a lot of issues about what is and is not the ‘Private’ property of The Monarch, eg The Royal Stamp Collection and I suspect that if we make The Monarch the subject of Inheritance Tax then there might be all sorts of unexpected ramifications.
My view is that rather than tinkering at the edges we need a properly thought out debate with proposals about how we go forward either with a monarchy or as a republic. This would include financial arrangements.
Given his age Charles will be on the Throne for about 20 years, the Heir Apparent is 40, so were we to decide to end with King Charles could play a supporting role until the end of his fathers reign then be ‘retired’ while his children could be prepared for life in the world not as members if The Royal Family.
I am afraid the Royal finances have quite deliberately been made opaque and difficult to tease out. There are at least three separate strands:
– Assets used principally for carrying out the duties of being Head of State, which would similarly be used by a non-hereditary Head of State (like Buckingham Palace)
– Assets of the nation referred to as under the ownership of the Crown, like the sea bed, where there is no logic in the Royal Family getting any financial benefit whatsoever
– Family assets which are considerable given history, which as you say ought to be treated in the same way as anyone else’s private assets. These will include financial investments, and property used by the family and not for State occasions (like Balmoral).
I suspect just preparing an inventory in each category would be a pretty daunting job, and I wouldn’t be surprised if some ownership is disguised by trusts and shell companies as it is for most of the very wealthy. And that is before considering whether any of the assets were obtained improperly in historic times when the Sovereign had dictatorial powers.
… They’re just the human equivalent of dragons, sitting on huge piles of gold and jewels, lauding it over their ‘subjects’.
Kings, Queens, princes and princesses, ‘God-given’ rights, palaces, royal estates, golden carriages, all of it is a very sick joke in the 21st century, so archaic as to be more sensible in a Disney film.
….I for one can’t WAIT for the pitchforks!
I suspect Inheritance Tax was a quid pro quo in the negotiations in 1992 when the queen volunteered to pay Income Tax & Capital Gains Tax as from 1993. Perhaps something along the lines of “henceforth we’ll pay taxes like everyone else, but what’s already ours remains ours in perpetuity”?
I had a look at https://www.royal.uk/royal-finances-0 but there are no clues (quelle surprise!), although a trawl through the rest of the site will no doubt yield some nuggets. However, all data will doubtless have been well “sanitised” before publication.
This is exactly why the provision was made in the 1993 act. Previously HMQ paid zero tax and the State paid for upkeep of various Royal properties. The trade-off was made that the monarch would look after the properties using the income from investments etc and would pay tax/CGT.
It makes zero sense to make that agreement then cut the value of those investments by 40% every time the monarch dies.
Labour got their headline that the Queen was now paying tax, nobody cared about the details.
My mistake, Tory govt, but reason correct
I do
And I see no reason for this
Argue on the basis of principles, not deals in 1992 from which we need to move on
Gordom,
I note your explanation for the non-application of Inheritance Tax rules to the Royals. Isn’t it a bit one-sided that it doesn’t apply to anyone else in the UK? It’s not as if the Royals are short of a bob or two. Like all their subjects, if my house needs expensive repairs, I have to pay for them myself out of a pension which is rapidly declining in value or, more likely, dig into my savings, possibly having to sell income-yielding investments. Either way I take a hefty financial hit and there’ll be less to pass on to my family in due course. In a so-called democracy, how come the Royals get to pick the bits of the tax system they’re prepared to abide by and swerve the bits that erode their capital base? Come to that, why were they exempted from the tax system until 1992?
Then my argument is, that *probably* it’s cheaper (and fairer) than the old system and arguably means that the properties have a more reliable source of funding for upkeep (demonstrably so, as Buckingham Palace had hundreds of millions in backlogged work at the time).
If you want to argue on the basis of republicanism – at least that’s an honest position. If not, then the bills need to be paid by some means and as with many State-owned assets (witness Palace of Westminster, with Water and Rail being the most egregious past examples) repairing the roof always takes second place to some politico’s shiny bauble project, usually leaving the house in total disrepair.
Ah, so let’s keep abuse of the generality of law going to favour the rich who have all the means they need to maintain their properties without state support but want it nonetheless
I get it….
I agree with your sentiments/views, Richard.
Although far from perfect, at least in Scotland the net revenue/profits of the Crown Estate Scotland (separate from the Crown Estate for the rest of the UK) from leasing the seabed to offshore wind developers, etc., is passed to the Scottish government for their use. As I understand it though, it (the seabed) still seems to remain in the ownership of Crown Estate Scotland.
As posited by Andy Wightman in his book ‘The poor had no lawyers’ essentially the royalty/aristocracy had lawyers draw up ownership of land that was till then owned by everyone / no-one. We are still paying for that legacy till today. It is small comfort that at least ‘freedom to roam’ is enshrined in law.
It is nonetheless galling that an individual seems to have inalienable rights to own and profit from land and properties, etc., yet is not subject to the same inheritance tax, etc., as the rest of us. It simply defies all measures of fairness, equity and even rationale
It’s also the aristocracy don’t forget because their houses classify as “historical monuments”. Look I’m anti-inheritance tax anyway which puts me out there for a socialist. But I much rather people have the certainly of being taxed fully one on earned income. The crown estate and the duchy of Cornwall should pay exactly the same rates
Who earned most of their wealth?
My father dies with most of it generated by the fluke of prop[ertry ownership and inflation
He was not taxed twice
You are offering a deeply ill informed argument
I was referring to income only. That must be fixed before we start to redistribute wealth. I suggest that capital gains are treated very differently but most the solutions I see will hammer millionaires but not the billionaires. How do you stop A Philip Green taking his wealth offshore? I’ve seen this all before with the Netherlands, the wealth tax is paid by the middle class not the very rich. I’m open to solutions
We have solutions: because of automatic information exchange from tax havens (which I did a fair bit to deliver) we can trace tax haven wealth now
Next problem?
Yes it’s all a step in the right direction. If we can make it even more difficult for business creators to avoid UK CGT, at the moment after 5 years you have effectively severed all ties and that share sale can be free of UK tax. To me that still seems a bit of a loophole?
Better than it used to be
But I helped write those rules
with the exception of Philip and Elizabeth the royal family has become the Real Coronation Street with their rows , sexual misdemeanours etc