OPINION: Royal Lucre
By Kent Barker
Even the staunchest republican might, so soon after the Queen’s funeral, hesitate to step on her grave by raising the sordid question of money. But the new King’s apparent desire for a cut-back coronation and a slimmed down monarchy does make one wonder if he might also be considering some reformation of the royal finances.
An analysis a few years ago suggested that, together, the Royal Family had nominal assets of around £23 billion. Yes, billion! Even though the Queen’s personal wealth was never disclosed (she’s said to have argued it would be too embarrassing) it is known to have included investments, jewellery, horses, art, real estate, the Royal Philatelic Collection, and other assets including her two private homes – Balmoral Castle in Scotland and Sandringham House in Norfolk.
All of these are expected to be inherited by King Charles III completely exempt of Inheritance Tax – old fashioned death duties. Indeed, the new monarch is not legally liable to pay capital gains tax or even income tax either. The chances are that he will adopt his late mother’s practice of voluntarily paying some income tax – though it was never actually disclosed how much – after all he probably wouldn’t welcome the 1990s Daily Mirror headline dubbing the monarch “Britain’s biggest tax dodger”.
But will Charles go further? Will he, for instance, cease using the offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands and Bermuda into which his mother apparently deposited around £10 million? Will he stop hiding money in the ‘state backed shell company’ which, as the Guardian revealed, for three decades held the Queens’s private shareholdings and investments? And talking about shares, will he reverse the dodge by which the monarch was able to reclaim from the Treasury (that is we the citizens) the tax paid at source on company dividends – ie the income from her share portfolio. Two years ago, investigative reporter David McClure revealed that she had been reclaiming this tax since her accession. He cited Treasury memos from 1959 and 1989, one confirming that “similar claims are now made at regular intervals and the tax deducted is repaid”.
Of course, King Charles might not need so much money if he instead reduced the number of royal dependants and hangers on. Perhaps he’ll take a page out of the book of his Danish counterpart Queen Margrethe II and simply cut out an entire branch. From January four of her eight grandchildren – the sons and daughter of her younger son Prince Joachim – will no longer be able to use the titles prince and princess. The Queen argues – perhaps with some reason – that it’s in their own best interest and will “create the framework to be able to shape their own lives, without being limited by the special considerations and duties that a formal affiliation with the Royal House of Denmark involves”. Mind you that’s pretty much what’s already happened to Harry and Megan along with their children Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, and Lilibet Diana Mountbatten-Windsor.
There’s another rather pressing item in the King’s in-tray – whether Queen Consort Camilla should wear the Koh-i-Noor diamond at the coronation. Although it was ‘ceded’ to Queen Victoria, her great- great- great-grandson might worry it could be seen as the worst sort of cultural appropriation and imperialistic trapping. Well, if so, may I humbly offer his Majesty a solution? Why don’t you sell it back to India? It’s said to be worth a cool £400 million and might plug any gaps in your finances. Better do it soon though while you’re still exempt from Capital Gains Tax and before they abolish off-shore tax havens!
We hope you have enjoyed reading this article. The future of our volunteer led, non-profit publication would be far more secure with the aid of a small donation. You can also support local journalism by becoming a friend of HIP. It only takes a minute and we would be very grateful.
Leave a Reply