Cullinan Diamond & The Queen
Flak
Phil was in the parlour eating bread and honey."
Someone in another Subject enquired about the Cullinan Diamond. In my search
for information about the stone I came across the following and it does
contain reference to the Cullinan - AND A LOT MORE.
Who said that the Queen generated a lot of wealth for this country? It
seems to be the other way round.
Queen's tax deal with Churchill 'worth £1bn'
Agreement allowed newly ascended monarch to reclaim money paid on dividends
and interest from British investments, analysts find
Stephen Bates
Monday October 15, 2001
The Guardian
A private tax deal which the Queen reached with the Conservative government
of Sir Winston Churchill when she ascended the throne nearly half a century
ago may have brought her a windfall income of over £1bn during her reign,
investment statisticians have calculated.
According to figures published yesterday, the secret arrangement allowed the
Queen, alone among British tax payers, to reclaim tax paid on dividends and
interest from her investments in British companies.
The statisticians from Barclays Capital, the investment division of Barclays
Bank, calculated that a £2m stock market investment in 1952, the year she
came to the throne, would be worth £1.4bn if all dividends had been
reinvested, and less than £300m if she had had to pay tax.
A newspaper report claimed that documents marked secret but released by the
public records office at Kew, south- west London, in 1995, though unnoticed
since, showed that the Queen's advisers secured the arrangement with the
then chancellor of the exchequer, RA Butler, though parliament was never
informed, and that the arrangement was even backdated to the start of her
reign.
Her father, George VI, and monarchs since Queen Victoria had paid income tax
but the Queen herself did not do so until 1993.
The report for the Mail on Sunday put the Queen's private wealth at £1.15bn,
excluding the main royal palaces and property held in trust for the nation,
such as the largest private art collection in the world. That is double the
figure of most recent estimates.
The figure is dwarfed by the wealth of Saudi royalty - King Fahd of Saudi
Arabia is reputedly worth 30 times as much - and is also much lower than
some other British nationals, including the Duke of Westminster, who is said
to be worth £3.9bn thanks to his family's extensive property ownership in
central London.
A spokesman for Buckingham Palace, while maintaining the standard policy of
refusing to comment on the royal family's private wealth, did not demur from
the general conclusions.
He said: "There is always speculation about the royal wealth. Historians and
archivists will argue about some of the details. We cannot place a value on
the Queen's fur coats or what deals were done with Sir Winston Churchill
half a century ago."
He added: "Any report needs to be balanced by the recognition that we are
more open than ever before about the expenditure of the royal family, which
has reduced its income from the state from £83m to £35m over the last 10
years."
The investigations valued the Queen's private assets from Balmoral, valued
at £14m, to race horses estimated to be worth £3.6m.
They calculated that the royal stamp collection was worth an estimated
£100m, and included some of the rarest stamps in the world - the most
valuable of which was said to be a 2d Mauritian bought for £1,450 by the
Queen's grandfather in 1904 and now thought to be worth £2m. It was claimed
that 30 fur coats, kept in a refrigerated chamber at Buckingham Palace and
regularly cleaned, but not worn for more than a decade, might be worth £1m.
Other private assets included £72m of jewels, £7.1m of cars and a £2m wine
cellar.
The palace claims that many of the Queen's apparent assets, such as the
stamp collection, are kept in trust for the nation and could never be
disposed of. But some of the royal possessions are to say the least
ambiguous. The income from the lands and investments of the Duchy of
Lancaster - which at one stage included the assets of anyone who died
intestate or without heirs in Lancashire - gives the Queen an annual income
of £7.3m, worth maybe £3m after tax. But although regarded by the palace as
a private estate, the duchy is actually held by her only as sovereign.
Prince Charles was placed second to the Queen in assets, with an estimated
£346m mainly tied up in the Duchy of Cornwall estates, which include a slice
of south London.
The Earl of Harewood, 37th in line to the throne, whose most prominent
public role is as president of Leeds United and who was once the black sheep
of the family when he divorced and had a child out of wedlock, was estimated
to be worth £133m, due to an extensive family art collection and a family
trust.
The Queen Mother was said to be worth £53.5m, Prince Philip £28m and Prince
William £22m, inherited from his mother's estate. His younger brother,
Prince Harry, was said to be worth £25m because he had been slightly better
provided for because he would not inherit the Duchy of Cornwall.
Even the Earl and Countess of Wessex, whose antics in business have been
said to be due to money worries, are reputedly worth £9m.
Although Prince Charles may find his income - estimated at £7.5m from his
duchy lands - dented next year because of the agriculture crisis, the
compilers of the report estimated that the royal family's properties had
held their value better than some whose wealth was based exclusively on
investments.
Royal Assets
· Property, £61m Includes official residences provided by the state but also
properties including a stud farm near Newbury, a deer forest in the
Highlands, a flat in Edinburgh and a town house in London
· Racehorses, £3.6m The Queen had 30 racehorses which won £256,597 in 11
races last year - but she
spent £489,000 on training and stabling costs
· Stamps and medals, £102m Royal stamp collection, kept in 300 albums and
200 boxes, may be world's largest. Also, 800 medals
· Jewels, £72m The most valuable are the Cullinan diamonds - 105 gems cut
from the world's biggest diamond, now valued at £29m
· Furs, £1m The Queen has 30 furs in refrigerated storage at Buckingham
Palace
· Cars, £7.1m The Queen owns a Daimler and a Vauxhall estate, plus a dozen
royal cars dating back to 1900
Flak
Volcaran
>Date: 26/11/2003 16:29 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <Ox4xb.3925$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>
>
>"The Queen was in the parlour counting out her money,
>Phil was in the parlour eating bread and honey."
>
>Someone in another Subject enquired about the Cullinan Diamond. In my search
>for information about the stone I came across the following and it does
>contain reference to the Cullinan - AND A LOT MORE.
>Who said that the Queen generated a lot of wealth for this country? It
>seems to be the other way round.
>
>Queen's tax deal with Churchill 'worth £1bn'
>
>Agreement allowed newly ascended monarch to reclaim money paid on dividends
>and interest from British investments, analysts find
>
>Stephen Bates
>Monday October 15, 2001
>The Guardian
>
>A private tax deal which the Queen reached with the Conservative government
>of Sir Winston Churchill when she ascended the throne nearly half a century
>ago may have brought her a windfall income of over £1bn during her reign,
>investment statisticians have calculated.
>
>According to figures published yesterday, the secret arrangement allowed the
>Queen, alone among British tax payers, to reclaim tax paid on dividends and
>interest from her investments in British companies.
>
>The statisticians from Barclays Capital, the investment division of Barclays
>Bank, calculated that a £2m stock market investment in 1952, the year she
>came to the throne, would be worth £1.4bn if all dividends had been
>reinvested, and less than £300m if she had had to pay tax.
My only suggestion to you friend Flak is that if you are a British taxpayer and
this is what they said, don't go to Barclays Capital for tax advice.
Toady of Toad Hall
"Volcaran" <volc...@aol.comnopost> wrote in message
news:20031126114656...@mb-m06.aol.com...
I'm a British tax payer too. This really fucks me off, if you will excuse
the language. I pay nearly 50% of my income in tax when you take into
account corporation tax etc on the company I run. And these bastards avoid
it all. Shameful.
Volcaran
>Date: 26/11/2003 18:31 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <3fc4f20d$0$25021$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>
It doesn't make the statement any more correct by being aggrieved. Its still
wrong.
Sacha
pmt...@somethingorother.com3fc4f20d$0$25021$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk
Huh? The Queen pays tax and so do all other members of the RF. She is the
only one to start doing so in recent years, the others have always done so.
How nice for you to be so rich that you have to pay nearly 50% in tax - look
at it that way. ;-) And yes, that was a sick joke. And then there's
increased tax on petrol, increased Council tax, the possibilities are
endless, aren't they and can't even be blamed on the Queen.......
--
Sacha
(remove the 'x' to email me)
Flak
"Sacha" <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BBEAA66F.101EC%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
>
And did our Gracious and Noble Queen pay back tax for all the years she
didn't pay a bean?
But they don't pay the same tax as the rest of we poor suckers. What about
Inheritance Tax?
MPs angry at confidential royal will and tax deal
Stephen Bates
Thursday May 9, 2002
The Guardian
Labour MPs reacted with fury yesterday to Buckingham Palace's admission that
the Queen Mother's will, detailing the disposal of an estate valued at
between £50-70m, will not be published.
The decision follows a private application made to the high court for the
will to be sealed - an application open to anyone - which has already been
granted.
The move would have been a formality and was not publicised. Although there
are no recent precedents, the will of the last queen consort, Queen Mary,
widow of George V, who died in 1953, was also not published, though that of
Princess Diana, who had left the royal family at the time of her death in
1997, was.
The palace confirmed that the Queen will not have to pay inheritance tax on
her mother's estate following a so-called "sovereign to sovereign" deal
concluded by the Queen with the Major government nine years ago, when she
agreed to pay income tax. At that time MPs claim they were denied
information about the nature of the deal by ministers.
A palace spokeswoman said: "There is an understanding that the sovereign
should not pay inheritance duty on property bequeathed by the consort of a
former sovereign.
"This arises because the sovereign must have an appropriate degree of
financial independence to be constitutionally impartial. It is also a
recognition that the sovereign does not have the opportunity to earn a
living through taking a job." (THEY DON'T HAVE TO EARN A LIVING - THEY GET
THE CIVIL LIST AND SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO PAY TAXES ON IT, BUDGET AND MAKE
PROVISION FOR THEIR OLD AGE AS THE REST OF US MUST. Flak) Any property
bequeathed by the Queen Mother, who died at the age of 101, at the end of
March, to other members of the royal family, will be subject to inheritance
tax. But a £19m trust fund apparently set up by the Queen Mother for the
benefit of her great grandchildren - a procedure open to the public - also
appears to have escaped death duties because she lived for more than seven
years after it was set up in 1994.
Although some of the Queen Mother's property cannot be disposed of, such as
her main residences which are being parcelled out to her grandchildren,
other possessions, including much of her jewellery and art collection, were
privately owned.
The Queen Mother's paintings are thought to be worth at least £36m. They
include a Monet, bought in 1945 for £2,000, now valued at £15m, as well as
works by Augustus John, Graham Sutherland, John Piper and LS Lowry.
Her private home, the Castle of Mey, with its 1,800 acre estate near John
O'Groats, bought cheaply when derelict in the early 1950s with money
bequeathed by her husband George VI, was made over to a charitable trust in
1996.
Paul Flynn, Labour backbencher and veteran republican, said yesterday: "If
some of the richest people in the country can avoid inheritance tax, why not
the butcher or baker, or anyone on a lower income than the royal family?
Anyone who owns a house in London these days will be liable to have
inheritance tax levied on their estate. This bullshit must end.
"In 1993 we tried to discover the details of the Queen's agreement on tax
but the government then said it was confidential, like anyone else's tax
bill. But the point is that tax bands are known."
Alan Williams, an MP on the Commons public accounts committee, said: "There
should be transparency. The Queen Mother, whose family has benefited from
the most remarkable deal on taxation in decades, should be treated the same
as everyone else."
>
Sacha
pmf...@gon.com9N6xb.4049$qn4....@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net
I don't think royal wills are usually published. And it sounds - may be
wrong - as if the QM took advantage of the avenues open to all to arrange
their affairs before their death.
As to the Queen paying back taxes, where is there law that says she should
have done so? She neither avoided nor evaded tax and paid it when it was
agreed she should start to do so. No law breaking there, sorry.
Flak
I understand that Diana's will was published.
You're right of course. Our Noble and Gracious Queen was not legally obliged
to pay back taxes but one might have hoped that the Noble and Gracious One
would magnanimously have done so to show solidarity with her subjects - some
hope!
It's interesting to note that the Royals are granted income tax concessions
by Conservative Governments.
Flak
>
>
Toady of Toad Hall
"Sacha" <sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:BBEAA66F.101EC%sa...@xgarden506.fsnet.co.uk...
inheritance tax on the QMs legacy was neatly avoided. And just so we didn't
know just how much was avoided, the Will (all wills are public documents,
well yours will be as will mine) was kept secret. Ahh more censorship to
keep the ailing Windsor gravy train on the rails.
If I only started paying tax (voluntarily) in 1993, the IR would be after me
for the tax I'd avoided before that. And I would be in prison. Ahh to be a
Windsor.
Toady of Toad Hall
Of course she can't break laws. If Tony B passed a law to mean he's exempt
from tax, that doesn't make it right. Its called corruption.
So Royal Wills aren't normally published. Diana's was. And everybody else's
is. The only reason these scroungers don't get theirs published is
a) we'd know how much money they have looted
b) they'd been under pressure to pay tax, like us paupers have to.
Do you pay tax on your salary Sacha? Do you think it is right that the super
rich Windsors should avoid such tax?
Silly question, of course you do. They can do no wrong can they? And if they
do, just fire off another gagging order so the scummers who pay the wages
don't hear about what is going on.
Volcaran
>Message-id: <3fc60e03$0$27468$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>
<snip>
Do you mean the statutory exemption provided by section 3A IHTA 1984? Yep,
neatly avoided. If you can't get hold of the legislation, the Inland Revnue
website will explain to you, along with any other potential taxpayer, how to do
it. They even publish a leaflet without the strange legal language if that
helps. Or do you mean she avoided tax by living for 7 years? - how
disgraceful.
Flak
"Toady of Toad Hall" <to...@somethingorother.com> wrote in message
news:3fc60e03$0$27468$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk...
I've already posted this elsewhere but it seems appropriate to pop it here.
Once again it demonstrates how generous the Tory Sleaze Party is to those
in need.
MPs angry at confidential royal will and tax deal
Stephen Bates
Thursday May 9, 2002
The Guardian
Labour MPs reacted with fury yesterday to Buckingham Palace's admission that
the Queen Mother's will, detailing the disposal of an estate valued at
between £50-70m, will not be published.
The decision follows a private application made to the high court for the
will to be sealed - an application open to anyone - which has already been
granted.
The move would have been a formality and was not publicised. Although there
are no recent precedents, the will of the last queen consort, Queen Mary,
widow of George V, who died in 1953, was also not published, though that of
Princess Diana, who had left the royal family at the time of her death in
1997, was.
The palace confirmed that the Queen will not have to pay inheritance tax on
her mother's estate following a so-called "sovereign to sovereign" deal
concluded by the Queen with the Major government nine years ago, when she
agreed to pay income tax. At that time MPs claim they were denied
information about the nature of the deal by ministers.
A palace spokeswoman said: "There is an understanding (WITH THE TORYS) that
the sovereign should not pay inheritance duty on property bequeathed by the
consort of a former sovereign.
"This arises because the sovereign must have an appropriate degree of
financial independence to be constitutionally impartial. It is also a
recognition that the sovereign does not have the opportunity to earn a
living through taking a job." (AS IF THE CIVIL LIST WERE NOT GENEROUS ENOUGH
TO LIVE OFF AND MAKE PROVISION FOR ONE'S OLD AGE.)
Any property bequeathed by the Queen Mother, who died at the age of 101, at
the end of March, to other members of the royal family, will be subject to
inheritance tax. But a £19m trust fund apparently set up by the Queen Mother
for the benefit of her great grandchildren - a procedure open to the
public - also appears to have escaped death duties because she lived for
more than seven years after it was set up in 1994.
Although some of the Queen Mother's property cannot be disposed of, such as
her main residences which are being parcelled out to her grandchildren,
other possessions, including much of her jewellery and art collection, were
privately owned.
The Queen Mother's paintings are thought to be worth at least £36m. They
include a Monet, bought in 1945 for £2,000, now valued at £15m, as well as
works by Augustus John, Graham Sutherland, John Piper and LS Lowry.
Her private home, the Castle of Mey, with its 1,800 acre estate near John
Janet Schmidt
Diana was not Royal when she died.
Janet
Flak
Has it ever occured to you that these people are not toadies. It's much
more likely that they're on the Palace payroll and are briefed and paid to
defend the Royal corner in agr.- not even toadies would eat royal shit the
way these people do.
And please don't dismiss this as a conspiracy theory ( Hush! I've been
planted by MI5.)
Flak
>
>
Sacha
pmt...@somethingorother.com3fc60e03$0$27468$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk
Bad luck for you but dare I say, good luck for us.
Toady of Toad Hall
"Janet Schmidt" <janets...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:Lepxb.5944$aw2.2...@newssrv26.news.prodigy.com...
Ahh yes, hence the royal funeral.
And will be why the appointed the royal coroner?
Or would it be because the royal coroner doesn't have to have a jury made up
of normal people who might be more difficult to nobble. If the inquest ever
reopens that is...
Toady of Toad Hall
No, you don't know that all her property was transferred 7 years before her
death do you. And why do you not know? Because the will was secret. If she
had have used this exemption then there would be no reason to keep the will
secret. But you toadies love all the bad stuff about these scumbags to be
censored don't ya?
Toady of Toad Hall
Why is it good luck for you that royals don't pay tax? Are you on the gravy
train too???
Volcaran
>Message-id: <3fc72ef5$0$27466$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk>
Ah another highly informed piece of posting. Perhaps you might like to explain
what the public filing or not of a will has to do with IHT or for that matter
what you think it might inform you about whether transfers happened 7 years
before or two weeks before.
For all those who don't subscribe to the "everything is a conspiracy and
censored" school of thought, whether or not the will is public does not affect
the statutory obligations of the executors of an estate to file returns etc.
Details of Probate are available to the Inland Revenue.
Sacha
amt...@somethingorother.com3fc72e89$0$27478$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk
If she hadn't had a good send off you'd be moaning about that.
>
> And will be why the appointed the royal coroner?
>
> Or would it be because the royal coroner doesn't have to have a jury made up
> of normal people who might be more difficult to nobble. If the inquest ever
> reopens that is...
>
>
The coroner is because of where the body was brought back to, AIUI.
Sacha
amt...@somethingorother.com3fc72ef5$0$27466$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk
My dear chap, as one who think the entire idea of inheritance tax is
absolutely iniquitous and who grew up in a place where there is no such
thing, I am ALL for people keeping the grubby hands of the taxman off
anything they can manage, legally.
Sacha
amt...@somethingorother.com3fc72f21$0$27474$afc3...@news.easynet.co.uk
I meant good luck for us that you are not a Windsor.
Flak
I quite agree with you Sacha. But the Royals didn't rely on legal means
available to the rest of we taxpayers. Their "legality" was specially handed
to them on a golden plate by the Tories and they are the only family in the
UK to be so favoured. But as none of the RF has a real job perhaps we should
just write it off as National Assistance.
Flak
>
>
Sacha
pmf...@gon.comXXJxb.1036$Hy3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net
> available to the rest of we taxpayers. <snip>
>
I think you better find a means of proving that assertion.
Owen
"Flak" <fl...@gon.com> wrote in message
news:XXJxb.1036$Hy3...@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
Yawn..........
Owen
Yawn.............