Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

The British government could figure out a way to protect its heritage by making those physical assets part of a public trust. There’s no reason for $40 bn in national treasures to be exclusively in the hands of one person. The Spanish king has assets under $10 mn. All their palaces and stuff are owned by the government and administered by the national trust.

Charles is reportedly planning to open Balmoral to the public as a memorial to QEII.

That’s a great idea. My family would make a point visit it on our next trip to Scotland.

The English Heritage society manages several historical sites in England, including Stonehenge and the Osborne House, but I’m not sure what would need to happen for a similar organization in Scotland to do this.

The property would still be retained by the BRF. They would just sell tour tickets certain times of the year like they do for their other properties, such as Windsor Castle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

The British government could figure out a way to protect its heritage by making those physical assets part of a public trust. There’s no reason for $40 bn in national treasures to be exclusively in the hands of one person. The Spanish king has assets under $10 mn. All their palaces and stuff are owned by the government and administered by the national trust.

Charles is reportedly planning to open Balmoral to the public as a memorial to QEII.

That’s a great idea. My family would make a point visit it on our next trip to Scotland.

The English Heritage society manages several historical sites in England, including Stonehenge and the Osborne House, but I’m not sure what would need to happen for a similar organization in Scotland to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

The British government could figure out a way to protect its heritage by making those physical assets part of a public trust. There’s no reason for $40 bn in national treasures to be exclusively in the hands of one person. The Spanish king has assets under $10 mn. All their palaces and stuff are owned by the government and administered by the national trust.

Charles is reportedly planning to open Balmoral to the public as a memorial to QEII.

That’s a great idea. My family would make a point visit it on our next trip to Scotland.

The English Heritage society manages several historical sites in England, including Stonehenge and the Osborne House, but I’m not sure what would need to happen for a similar organization in Scotland to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

The British government could figure out a way to protect its heritage by making those physical assets part of a public trust. There’s no reason for $40 bn in national treasures to be exclusively in the hands of one person. The Spanish king has assets under $10 mn. All their palaces and stuff are owned by the government and administered by the national trust.

Charles is reportedly planning to open Balmoral to the public as a memorial to QEII.

That’s a great idea. My family would make a point visit it on our next trip to Scotland.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

The British government could figure out a way to protect its heritage by making those physical assets part of a public trust. There’s no reason for $40 bn in national treasures to be exclusively in the hands of one person. The Spanish king has assets under $10 mn. All their palaces and stuff are owned by the government and administered by the national trust.

Charles is reportedly planning to open Balmoral to the public as a memorial to QEII.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

The British government could figure out a way to protect its heritage by making those physical assets part of a public trust. There’s no reason for $40 bn in national treasures to be exclusively in the hands of one person. The Spanish king has assets under $10 mn. All their palaces and stuff are owned by the government and administered by the national trust.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Per New York Times, the Queen's death certificate reveals she died of "old age" at 3:10 pm on Sept. 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/world/europe/queen-elizabeth-death-time.html

I’m not buying it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

The British government could figure out a way to protect its heritage by making those physical assets part of a public trust. There’s no reason for $40 bn in national treasures to be exclusively in the hands of one person. The Spanish king has assets under $10 mn. All their palaces and stuff are owned by the government and administered by the national trust.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Per New York Times, the Queen's death certificate reveals she died of "old age" at 3:10 pm on Sept. 8. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/29/world/europe/queen-elizabeth-death-time.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the rationale/justification for exempting the inheritance of the sovereign’s estate from the 40% inheritance tax that applies to everyone else? Does the sovereign need so much independent wealth to avoid being beholden to any legislator and he truly independent? It doesn’t make sense from a legal or policy perspective.

There is the concern that if two monarchs die in close succession the whole fortune could essentially be wiped. Also, the RF is asset rich but cash light, which means they’d be forced to sell assets to pay the tax bill. Doesn’t make sense.

Oh, so they might have to sell one of their 15 castles? Yes, I can see how that doesn’t make sense.

No it does not make sense for the Brits for their heritage to be bought off by a Qatari or a Russian billionaire.

Anonymous wrote:She is no longer doing most engagements. She's had a good life, if it's her time, then it's her time. [/quote Britain takes an LLLL