Posted on 09/09/2022 11:56:42 PM PDT by Jonty30
King Charles will receive a massive inheritance after his mother’s death – but it may not be as large as many people think.
The British monarchy has assets estimated at roughly US$27-billion, largely in real estate, including a number of castles and palaces. The King, like his mother Queen Elizabeth before him, and his successors after, receive income from many of the assets. They do not, however, have personal, legal ownership of those assets, so they are unable to sell them.
(Excerpt) Read more at theglobeandmail.com ...
What a racket !
As for the monarchy's finances, the late Queen had a reputation for thrift and closely monitored the family books. Decade after decade of that can add up, with much of it though quickly passed on via gifts and trusts for her family. Ole' Liz and her advisers knew that large personal accumulations of cash and equities were to be avoided lest they inspire public resentment and controversy.
That would be the palaces and lands and crown jewels.
It is my understanding the Royal Family actually owns one estate in Scotland.
I could seeing something that isn’t there, sure. It just seems like they have been financial underperformers if the public information is, in fact, correct.
I just did a quick calculation, for example. If I invested an amount and rolled it over at a modest 4% interest for the past 300 years, it would have increased in value by 128,000%.
I believe there is financial assets that they have somehow legally maneuvered off the books.
Take Joe Bidon, (please!). He has been using Hunter and his brother to hide his wealth from selling corruption. Should he retire and claim that wealth, it will be unquestionable as long as he has paid the tax upon receiving it.
Charles is the same way as his mother in this respect. He’s basically cutting back on whom can receive the royal allowance to just those who are in position to assume the throne, which is basically I think, Prince William and possibly Prince Harry.
Camilla was older than Diana. Once free of Diana, Charles didn't use his position to chase much younger women, as he could have. Instead, he stayed true to his first love.
And he didn't have freedom to pick a job. He was born and trained to be king. Then had to wait until he was 73 to assume the job.
His mother became queen early in life because her mother stepped aside. Whereupon Charles's mother clung to the title, long past when she should have stepped aside for him.
Forced to marry Dianna? I don’t know about that. I’m no fan of royalty, as you can probably tell, and I don’t like the way Dianna was treated by the royal family. Charles married her under false pretenses and then tossed her aside once she did her duty and produced capable heirs. One problem they had with her is that she continued to treat servants as “equals”, which they didn’t like. I remember at Dianna’s funeral Charles was yelling at Dianna’s brother for some reason while he just stood there saying nothing. Very classy. Royalty in my opinion is just a bunch of rich, inbred people with power thinking they’re better than everyone else.
Held in trust. The Crown may not be able to liquidate its holdings, and certainly would not be able to realize all the “value” it holds if actually sold but then, they have had a millennium to ride the ups and downs.
But like the real estate, its value lies in the historic nature and not the commercial nature of much of the Crown holdings. No doubt a HUGE upkeep on all the structures that make up this array of wealth. Got an image to keep, you know.
“His mother became queen early in life because her mother stepped aside.”
His mother became Queen because her father, the King, died and she was next in succession. There was nothing for the Queen Mother to step aside from.
“His mother became queen early in life because her mother stepped aside.”
That’s not how it works. The succession is through bloodline.
“Who made you King? I didn’t vote for ya.”
Not a fan of the current monarchy, but I’m glad to see some real, tradition, favorable toward a Western country and see a people who take pride in their nation, and I enjoyed it.
Instead of twerking, condescending victim mentality, and hip hop, huffy, big, black women yelling and crying victim, and Hollywood garbage in the White House with constant shaming.
Continuing coverage. Now showing King Charles III travelling to the Palace
Sky News Livestream https://youtu.be/9Auq9mYxFEE
Watching the hundreds of uniformed men marching, in mostly red clothing - I have to ask ‘are they military’? and/or what do they do when not attending these royal functions?
“It seems to me that we are off, probably at least 99%...”
Maybe not. And I say that because back in the late 50s and early 60s the Kennedys were considered very wealthy.
By today’s standards they were not that well off as supposed, comparatively speaking. Plus they didn’t have the hurdles as we do today in the form of grossly inflated text schemes, real estate prices, the cost of money, and hard goods, but as wealthy as Camelot clan presented themsrlves, they were hardly filthy rich and anything they did have was probably purchased in the halcyon days of Old Joe Kennedy’s bootleg operation.
There’s a bunch of property that is held in trust which they can’t touch. So its not really “theirs” personally and shouldn’t be counted in their personal net worth.
On the other hand, they do get the lifetime use of it. That’s worth something. Those palaces are quite luxurious after all. How do you calculate a monetary value to them personally for the use of these properties? That’s a tough one.
Clearly 500 million pounds sterling is a low estimate and 27 billion pounds sterling a high estimate. I don’t know exactly how to calculate their net worth though.
That’s true....but unlike say, Trump’s Mar-A-Lago they can’t sell any of them. So do they really own them? I’d say the trusts own them and the royal family merely gets to use those real estate holdings.
That’s clearly worth something....but its also clearly not the same as owning them and being able to sell them off and pocket the money if you want to.
Uhhh negative. Queen Elizabeth II definitely should not have stepped aside for Charles. He though, should step aside for William.
Charles is quite unpopular unlike his mother and unlike his son. That is entirely due to his marital infidelity and him constantly shooting his mouth off about political issues which is something the royal family is not supposed to do.
I always felt Diana was scheming, publicity seeking....that she was more than happy to use the media to advance her schemes and interests but then would turn right around 180 degrees and whine about the constant media scrutiny.
Yes they are active duty military. Its a MOS for members of the British military. They cycle through - maybe one MOS in Afghanistan or Iraq, another back at base somewhere in the UK, another as one of the Queen’s guards, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.