The Cambridges News and Updates ( Prince William, Kate Middleton, George, Charlotte and Louis)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

You don’t think that after centuries on the throne monarchies would have figured some of these things out?

Considering all of the British heirs and monarchs have steadily sold off palaces and jewelry to pay for that tax + upkeep - no I don't think they have figured it all out. Though QEII did get in trouble for those secret offshort bank accounts last year, so there's that.

Hampton Court Palace and Osbourne House say hello.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

You don’t think that after centuries on the throne monarchies would have figured some of these things out?

The British tax system is designed to break the aristocracy, to stop generational wealth transfer. And it works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

You don’t think that after centuries on the throne monarchies would have figured some of these things out?

The British tax system is designed to break the aristocracy, to stop generational wealth transfer. And it works.

Really? We should adapt the American tax system so it’s more like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

You don’t think that after centuries on the throne monarchies would have figured some of these things out?

The British tax system is designed to break the aristocracy, to stop generational wealth transfer. And it works.

Lol. It doesn’t break the aristocracy. Between the Americans and the British, guess which ones still have royalty. (I’ll give you a hint if you need it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

You don’t think that after centuries on the throne monarchies would have figured some of these things out?

The British tax system is designed to break the aristocracy, to stop generational wealth transfer. And it works.

Lol. It doesn’t break the aristocracy. Between the Americans and the British, guess which ones still have royalty. (I’ll give you a hint if you need it.)

Um, yes. It did. That's why all those big old houses are now museums or whatever. Because their families cannot afford them anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

Huh? I don’t think I’ve seen Anne standing in line at the soup kitchen.

Well, I don't know - she's got a lot of mouths to feed. Neither her son, son-in-law, daughter, or daughter-in-law have jobs. And they have 8-9 mouths to feed, a nanny or two, and multiple private school educations between them.

The son-in-law is hocking weed capsules on Twitter while living in her house!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

Huh? I don’t think I’ve seen Anne standing in line at the soup kitchen.

Well, I don't know - she's got a lot of mouths to feed. Neither her son, son-in-law, daughter, or daughter-in-law have jobs. And they have 8-9 mouths to feed, a nanny or two, and multiple private school educations between them.

The son-in-law is hocking weed capsules on Twitter while living in her house!

They don’t have jobs because they don’t need jobs. Why does the obvious elude you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

Huh? I don’t think I’ve seen Anne standing in line at the soup kitchen.

Well, I don't know - she's got a lot of mouths to feed. Neither her son, son-in-law, daughter, or daughter-in-law have jobs. And they have 8-9 mouths to feed, a nanny or two, and multiple private school educations between them.

The son-in-law is hocking weed capsules on Twitter while living in her house!

They don’t have jobs because they don’t need jobs. Why does the obvious elude you?

If they don't need jobs why are they doing embarrassing milk commercials and marijuana ads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

Huh? I don’t think I’ve seen Anne standing in line at the soup kitchen.

Well, I don't know - she's got a lot of mouths to feed. Neither her son, son-in-law, daughter, or daughter-in-law have jobs. And they have 8-9 mouths to feed, a nanny or two, and multiple private school educations between them.

The son-in-law is hocking weed capsules on Twitter while living in her house!

They don’t have jobs because they don’t need jobs. Why does the obvious elude you?

If they don't need jobs why are they doing embarrassing milk commercials and marijuana ads?

The same reason Samuel Jackson shills everything under the sun. They’re making good money for practically no work. Why would they care if it’s embarrassing to you? You can sit there tut-tutting while they laugh on their way to the bank.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

Huh? I don’t think I’ve seen Anne standing in line at the soup kitchen.

Well, I don't know - she's got a lot of mouths to feed. Neither her son, son-in-law, daughter, or daughter-in-law have jobs. And they have 8-9 mouths to feed, a nanny or two, and multiple private school educations between them.

The son-in-law is hocking weed capsules on Twitter while living in her house!

They don’t have jobs because they don’t need jobs. Why does the obvious elude you?

If they don't need jobs why are they doing embarrassing milk commercials and marijuana ads?

The same reason Samuel Jackson shills everything under the sun. They’re making good money for practically no work. Why would they care if it’s embarrassing to you? You can sit there tut-tutting while they laugh on their way to the bank.

Hmm esteemed Hollywood leading man with multiple awards the same as a layabout schilling CBD on Twitter? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

I’m not saying this issue isn’t valid, but a good estate planner has already modeled out all the scenarios and made adjustments, when possible. I’d suspect the Queen has access to a good estate planner.

The estate planner for the BRF focuses on the monarch and the success line of monarchs - keeping them in power and income is the priority.

The 5th great-grandchild who is going to be living in a retrofitted barn in 40 years? Not so much. Ask King George's nieces, nephews and grand-nieces/nephews how life is now. Or his grandchildren outside of the monarch's line.

When he died the only grandchildren around were Anne and Charles - they certainly didn't get much. Not that Charles needed as he had the Cornwall income.

Huh? I don’t think I’ve seen Anne standing in line at the soup kitchen.

Well, I don't know - she's got a lot of mouths to feed. Neither her son, son-in-law, daughter, or daughter-in-law have jobs. And they have 8-9 mouths to feed, a nanny or two, and multiple private school educations between them.

The son-in-law is hocking weed capsules on Twitter while living in her house!

They don’t have jobs because they don’t need jobs. Why does the obvious elude you?

If they don't need jobs why are they doing embarrassing milk commercials and marijuana ads?

The same reason Samuel Jackson shills everything under the sun. They’re making good money for practically no work. Why would they care if it’s embarrassing to you? You can sit there tut-tutting while they laugh on their way to the bank.

You really think he’s making good money for this? Samuel Jackson is a Hollywood actor. His entire job is to act for money. Isn’t this guy part of the British aristocracy? Isn’t he supposed to be better than this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question-

Can the BRF keep the properties and jewels if monarchy is abolished or is there some sort of “divorce settlement”? I know QE2’s father had to purchase Sandringham and Balmoral which would imply they are privately owned. I’m sure they cost a fortune to maintain.

Was there some news about Buckingham Palace becoming accessible to the public for longer than just August or was that a Charles thing?

The Queen would hold on to her vast personal jewelry collection. The Crown Jewels will probably revert to the state. And if they have to personally pay for upkeep I’d imagine the BRF would jettison most of their properties.

They're going to be going through some strong financial problems in the next 5 years anyway. When the Queen dies anything she passes on directly to family members (and not the next monarch) will be hit by a 40% inheritance tax.

Imagine being given a jeweled choker worth $800,000 and being told you need to pay $375,000 for the pleasure of keeping it.

That's what her broke children, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren have to look forward to. That's also the reason Princess Margaret's children sold her beloved home on Mustique and her only personally owned tiara.

That's horrible. The royal family should be exempt from all that. How can they keep their jewels and palaces if they're made to pay taxes like regular people?? Isn't the whole point of royalty to put on a show? How can you do that without jewels and palaces and so forth?

I bet the Queen and her direct line is exempt. How could they not be? The whole point is that they're superior and above regular people.

Isn't this what most people do? When their parents pass the kids inherit the house and they usually sell it to split the proceeds. It's not always due to the taxes its just practical rather than trying to figure out how to split a house or decide who has to maintain it.

Yeah but the royal family actually NEEDS all that stuff to be royal. Without it they're just regular people...

What are you talking about? The further you get from the top the less it matters.