God Save The King

[OttoVonBismarck]

The British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy.  There is no "in between". 

Not really true. I don't want a monarchy and if a republic could be instituted reasonably easily I'd support abolition. But the reality is that it would suck up so much Parliamentary time and create such horrendous divisions that we would do nothing else politically for half a decade.

If I was a British Republican, which I am not, my philosophy would be that you get rid of the monarchy by gradual erosion. A first step, which the current King even appears to favor, is shrinking the number of "working royals", make the family have a smaller footprint at official events by basically only having the current monarch, their spouse, and his immediate heir and their spouse involved in working royal activities.

At some later point, my next step might be trimming their military involvement. I posit that a decent chunk of the prestige the monarchy has maintained involves their convoluted relationship with the military. While many of the recent male Royals have had a "normal" military career of x number of years for PR purposes, they then later get a bunch of ceremonial ranks and positions that let them engage in a lot of military pageantry. I would probably seek to dial a lot of that back, some of that military pageantry itself does not need to exist, and is not seen in many other countries (like we don't really have anything quite like it in the United States.) The new status quo should be if an appropriate age royal wants to serve in the military, they certainly can, but under the exact same parameters as any other British person.

I would then look into reforms of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which appear to be ran as private piggy banks for the royals, and that do not pay corporation tax. I am curious how appropriate that is, I feel those estates should either be merged into the Crown Estate and essentially managed by the government, or treated like a true private asset and taxed appropriately (including having to pay inheritance tax--ownership of these Duchies presently transfers with no tax bill.)

[OttoVonBismarck]

The New York Times actually has an article today about the royals private holdings:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html

King Charles Inherits Untold Riches, and Passes Off His Own Empire
As prince, Charles used tax breaks, offshore accounts and canny real estate investments to turn a sleepy estate into a billion-dollar business.

By Jane Bradley and Euan Ward
Sept. 13, 2022
Updated 9:08 a.m. ET

LONDON — King Charles III built his own empire long before he inherited his mother's.

Charles, who formally acceded to the British throne on Saturday, spent half a century turning his royal estate into a billion-dollar portfolio and one of the most lucrative moneymakers in the royal family business.

While his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, largely delegated responsibility for her portfolio, Charles was far more deeply involved in developing the private estate known as the Duchy of Cornwall. Over the past decade, he has assembled a large team of professional managers who increased his portfolio's value and profits by about 50 percent.

Today, the Duchy of Cornwall owns the landmark cricket ground known as The Oval, lush farmland in the south of England, seaside vacation rentals, office space in London and a suburban supermarket depot. (A duchy is a territory traditionally governed by a duke or duchess.) The 130,000-acre real estate portfolio is nearly the size of Chicago and generates millions of dollars a year in rental income.

The conglomerate's holdings are valued at roughly $1.4 billion, compared with around $949 million in the late queen's private portfolio. These two estates represent a small fraction of the royal family's estimated $28 billion fortune. On top of that, the family has personal wealth that remains a closely guarded secret.

As king, Charles will take over his mother's portfolio and inherit a share of this untold personal fortune. While British citizens normally pay around 40 percent inheritance tax, King Charles gets this tax free. And he will pass control of his duchy to his elder son, William, to develop further without having to pay corporate taxes.

The growth in the royal family's coffers and King Charles's personal wealth over the past decade came at a time when Britain faced deep austerity budget cuts. Poverty levels soared, and the use of food banks almost doubled. His lifestyle of palaces and polo has long fueled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. And he has at times been the unwitting symbol of that disconnect — such as when his limo was mobbed by students protesting rising tuition in 2010 or when he perched atop a golden throne in his royal finery this year to pledge help for struggling families.

Today, he ascends to the throne as the country buckles under a cost-of-living crisis that is expected to see poverty get even worse. A more divisive figure than his mother, King Charles is likely to give fresh energy to those questioning the relevance of a royal family at a time of public hardship.

Laura Clancy, the author of "Running the Family Firm: How the Monarchy Manages Its Image and Our Money," said King Charles transformed the once-sleepy royal accounts.

"The duchy has been steadily commercializing over the past few decades," Ms. Clancy said. "It is run like a commercial business with a C.E.O. and over 150 staff." What used to be thought of as simply a "landed gentry pile of land" now operates like a corporation, she said.

The Duchy of Cornwall was established in the 14th century as a way to generate income for the heir to the throne and has essentially funded Charles's private and official expenses. One example of its financial might: The $28 million profit he made from it last year dwarfed his official salary as prince, just over $1.1 million.

Piecing together the royal family's assets is complicated, but the fortune falls generally into four groups.

First, and most prominent, is the Crown Estate, which oversees the assets of the monarchy through a board of directors. Charles, as king, will serve as its chairman, but he does not have final say over how the business is managed.

The estate, which official accounts value at more than $19 billion, includes shopping malls, busy streets in London's West End and a growing number of wind farms. The royals are entitled to take only rental income from their official estates and may not profit from any sales, as they do not personally own the assets.

The estate's profits, valued at about $363 million this year, are turned over to the Treasury, which in return gives the royal household a payment called a sovereign grant based on those profits — which must be topped up by the government if it is lower than the previous year. In 2017, the government increased the family's payment to 25 percent of the profits to cover the costs of renovating Buckingham Palace.

The latest sovereign grant received by the royals was around $100 million, which the family, including Charles, has used for official royal duties, like visits, payroll and housekeeping. It does not cover the royals' security costs, which is also paid by the government, but the cost is kept secret.

The next major pot of money is the Duchy of Lancaster. This $949 million portfolio is owned by whomever sits on the throne.

But the value of that trust is dwarfed by the Duchy of Cornwall, the third significant home of royal money, which Charles has long presided over as prince. Generating tens of millions of dollars a year, the duchy has funded his private and official spending, and has bankrolled William, the heir to the throne, and Kate, William's wife.

It has done so without paying corporation taxes like most businesses in Britain are obliged to, and without publishing details about where the estate invests its money.

"When Charles took over at age 21, the duchy was not in a good financial state," Marlene Koenig, a royal expert and writer, said, citing poor management and a lack of diversification. Charles took a more active role in the portfolio in the 1980s and began hiring experienced managers.

"It was at this time that the duchy became financially aggressive," she said.

In 2017, leaked financial documents known as the Paradise Papers revealed that Charles's duchy estate had invested millions in offshore companies, including a Bermuda-registered business run by one of his best friends.

The final pool of money, and the most secretive, is the family's private fortune. According to the Rich List, the annual catalog of British wealth published in The Sunday Times, the queen had a net worth of about $430 million. That includes her personal assets, such as Balmoral Castle and Sandringham Estate, which she inherited from her father. Much of her personal wealth has been kept private.

King Charles has also made financial headlines unrelated to his wealth but tied to the charitable foundation that he chairs and operates in his name. His stewardship of the foundation has been marred by controversy, most recently this spring, when The Sunday Times reported that Charles had accepted 3 million euros in cash — including money stuffed in shopping bags and a suitcase — from a former Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani.

The money was for his foundation, which finances philanthropic causes around the world. Charles does not benefit financially from such contributions.

"He's willing to take money from anybody, really, without questioning whether it's the wise thing to do," said Norman Baker, a former government minister and author of the book " ... And What Do You Do? What the Royal Family Don't Want You to Know."

Mr. Baker described Charles as the most progressive, caring member of the royal family. But he said he had also filed a police complaint accusing him of improperly selling honorary titles.

"That's no way to behave for a royal," he said, referring to an ongoing scandal over whether Charles had granted knighthood and citizenship to a Saudi businessman in exchange for donations to one of Charles's charitable ventures.

Charles denied knowing about this, one of his top aides who was implicated stepped down, and the authorities began investigating. The king's representatives did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Charles has also courted controversy with his outspoken views and campaigning. He has lobbied senior government ministers, including Tony Blair, through dozens of letters on issues from the Iraq war to alternative therapies. Though English law does not require it, royal protocol calls for political neutrality.

In his inaugural address on Saturday, the king indicated that he planned to step back from his outside endeavors. "It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply," he said.

Ms. Clancy, the author, said the new king, in theory, would be expected to drop his lobbying and business ventures entirely.

"Whether that will pan out is a different question," she said.

Sarah Hurtes contributed reporting from Brussels.

[Josephus]

So he's pretty well off.

[Syt]

Somehow this looks like a fantasy uniform to me, not a real one.  (*expects to get schooled on how this is the uniform of one of the most storied regiments and true nerds should know this* )

[Gups]

I would then look into reforms of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which appear to be ran as private piggy banks for the royals, and that do not pay corporation tax. I am curious how appropriate that is, I feel those estates should either be merged into the Crown Estate and essentially managed by the government, or treated like a true private asset and taxed appropriately (including having to pay inheritance tax--ownership of these Duchies presently transfers with no tax bill.)

True - there's no legal liability for either Duchy to pay tax of any sort but both have voluntary paid income tax at 45% (much higher than corporation tax) since 1993. I think you are right about inheritance tax.

[Oexmelin]

Indeed. It seems like a great irony that public pressure is able to achieve higher fiscal returns with the Royals than corporate tax would be - which is fitting as it's pretty much an early modern strategy.

[The Brain]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.

[The Brain]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.

Thankfully here in Socialist Sweden we're doing great without it.

[Tamas]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.

I don't want to restart the argument I had with the forum's towering intellect (Martinus) years ago, but there are plenty of families with emotional attachments -to ignore financial dependency- to things like homes. I would NOT be fine with my childhood home coming under state ownership once my parents die. Fuck that communist BS.

[Syt]

I think social mobility needs to improve. Study after study after study shows that a lot of one's life's path depends very much on one's own financial and social background. Do you inherit property, money, or other valuables upon death of your forbears? Are your parents academics? Etc. In Germany, the most common way, by far, to come into property or money is through inheritance. So there's room for improvement there to create equal chances for everyone. Speaking from experience, even figuring out how to navigate higher education systems, or financial matters, or how to start saving money is kind of difficult when you come from a family where nobody has any idea of any of those items and who upon their demise leave you nothing but debts (so you have to formally decline the inheritance or be on the hook, in my case, for ca. 200k in debts from a botched attempt at building a house 30+ years prior - also because my Mom was too proud - or unwilling to learn how to - go through the private bankruptcy process ... ). That I got where I am today is despite my background, and quite frankly, if my parents had gone to university, or left me some money that I could have used to buy a little place for myself, my life would likely have gone very, very differently; it would have been almost certainly materially a lot better and less stressful. And I'm likely luckier than most, because my parents at least valued education and book learning. A lot of families in the lower income strata may not hold it in as high of an esteem, and being "the nerd" is rather something that's frowned upon and being good in school or doing an office job might be actively discouraged (again, grew up among many such people; when I see some of those people's Facebook pages it's quite depressing - to me, anyways; they're probably quite happy, which is good; but upward mobility it is not).

That being said. Leaving a legacy, or at least material security for one's children is a natural instinct and desire, and starting from 0 for everyone might look good on paper, but would also quite inhumane to ask of people. I'd rather see measures to level the playing field in different ways, by providing more opportunities, support, and guidance to create more social mobility. Education is one thing, but it must be attractive, attainable, and affordable. But there's also soft skills that I, having lived on welfare for much of my childhood/teen years had to figure out when interacting with people whose parents owned a big house, where everyone in the family owned a car and traveled for vacation at least twice a year. Stuff like, "How to eat at a restaurant", "How to behave in a pub", "How to not stand out in conversation as the one who has a very different life experience from the others I'm meeting" etc.

[Tamas]

Looking at how to mitigate wealth disadvantages in getting proper education and opportunities is worthwhile and important but nationalising people's wealth on their death is not the way to do it.

[The Brain]

Looking at how to mitigate wealth disadvantages in getting proper education and opportunities is worthwhile and important but nationalising people's wealth on their death is not the way to do it.

Exactly. In Sweden (for instance) healthcare and education is tax-funded (there are symbolic amounts to pay for a visit to the doctor, and because reasons your teeth have to fend for themselves). If you want to become well-off you can just get an attractive education and make money on the job market. If you want to get rich you have to start a business, which is fairly simple, and business climate in Sweden is pretty good. Basically, the only thing stopping a person is crippling disability or choice. My grandparents were dirt poor and had only primary education, yet their many kids all became successful professionals.

[Sheilbh]

Indeed. It seems like a great irony that public pressure is able to achieve higher fiscal returns with the Royals than corporate tax would be - which is fitting as it's pretty much an early modern strategy.

While there's some distinct legal form for the Crown Estate and the Duchies - they're basically trusts. They cannot dispose of anything they own, they are purely to live on revenue.

So an additional irony is that those entities probably pay more tax (particularly because there's never any capital gains) than most trusts which the wealthy use to hide their wealth. Plus the position of trusts themselves where a modern vehicle for tax avoidance is a legacy of the law of "equity" and doing justice when the law itself isn't a solution.

Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.

Totally agree.

Somehow this looks like a fantasy uniform to me, not a real one.  (*expects to get schooled on how this is the uniform of one of the most storied regiments and true nerds should know this* )

It's Scottish I know that much.

If I was a British Republican, which I am not, my philosophy would be that you get rid of the monarchy by gradual erosion. A first step, which the current King even appears to favor, is shrinking the number of "working royals", make the family have a smaller footprint at official events by basically only having the current monarch, their spouse, and his immediate heir and their spouse involved in working royal activities.

Yeah Charles has always been in favour of a "core royalty" approach. It's partly happened - there were lots of scandals in the 90s about how little tax the royals paid and how many hangers on there were. I think the extended family only really made appearances when it's with the Queen for one of "her" events because ultimately Prince Michael of Kent etc don't mean anything to people - neither, really, does Edward and Andrew needs to be locked away.

I think a lot of them are still "working" royals. So they do those opening fairs, drug treatment centres, community halls etc bit of the job and they act as patron for various charities - the Princess Royal is particularly popular as she does a lot of that.

[OttoVonBismarck]

Inheritance tax is unsound.

Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.

Thankfully here in Socialist Sweden we're doing great without it.

Sweden is a cultural abyss. It's the evolutionary dead end of societies. And in a few generations will be a northern Sheikdom.