Royal Gossip
August 24, 2017, 05:59:31 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Charles's Will  (Read 1121 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Tatiana
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1730


I come from a long line of Monarchists.


« on: September 10, 2016, 05:44:27 am »

  Charles settled 1 million quid on each of Camilla's children, to thank them for "use" of their mother, throughout their childhood.  bignono
Logged

HennyPenny
gossip insider
*
Online Online

Posts: 108


« Reply #1 on: September 10, 2016, 06:05:04 am »


^I always thought Charles had trust funds set up for Camilla's children.. Question: Let's say Charles has died  and Billy Cambridge  is now King George VIII, would he have the power to stop Camilla's children from inheriting the money?   
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #2 on: September 10, 2016, 06:32:46 am »

If there are Trust Funds in the names of Camilla's children - no he can't.

If there is only mention in the will then he and Harry could challenge the will in court. Then the will would become public (and royal wills are sealed) and they would have to argue why their father's stepchildren shouldn't inherit something.

Given the 'monarch to monarch' tax free transfer it is highly doubtful that Charles would leave anything in his will to anyone other than Camilla - his spouse and so free of death duties and William - his successor as monarch. Anything he is leaving to Harry will also be via a Trust Fund or it will be subject to the standard death duties as everyone else.

I suspect he has trust funds for the step-grandchildren and Charlotte (not need for one for George as he too will inherit the vast bulk of the royal wealth as King).

If Charles dies now I would suspect that to avoid death duties he has left the vast bulk of his estate to Camilla as then there would be no death duties - until she dies and she would then have years to set things up to avoid death duties (such as putting most of the estate in a family trust). If he dies once he is King then he has the two options to avoid death duties - Camilla and William.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2016, 06:35:49 am by meememe » Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2926


« Reply #3 on: September 10, 2016, 07:34:45 am »

I read years ago that substantial amounts of money, (the article spoke of 'millions',) had been tucked away by Charles in trust funds for Tom, Laura and for Harry. This was at rhe time when Charles was newly married to Camilla. Harry would be getting more because he's Charles's blood relative and a dearly loved son, but even a couple of million each to Camilla's children isn't a bad legacy at all!

I would imagine that Charles will have spoken to both his sons and his step-children over the years about these arrangements so they won't come as any surprise to Willie and Harry. As Tom is Charles's godson there might well have been money put away for him from his birth.

Charles probably also has arranged for trust funds for both grandchildren too. (It's unknown how long it will be before George gets his paws on Duchy of Conwall money. He could be in his late twenties before he's Prince of Wales, and will need some money to live on till then!)
Logged
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3195


« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2016, 09:07:29 am »

I don't see a huge problem with giving them money, actually. They are his step-children, after all. But saying it's a thank-you for the "use" of their mother during their childhood is a bit gross, no?

When George becomes Prince of Wales will depend on how long Charles lives. Charles could still be alive 25 years from now (he'd be 92, younger than his father is right now), it's too soon to tell. It does make things more interesting with such long lifespans these days. HM's father died young so I don't think anyone will ever match the length of her reign. Although she will need to live another 13 years (age 103) to be the longest-reigning monarch in world history.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #5 on: September 10, 2016, 09:22:03 am »

Isn't the King of Thailand the longest serving at the moment at over 70 years? As he is still alive we don't really know how long the Queen will have to go to reach the longest reign. He is younger than her - although he hasn't been well for some time.

As for the will and Trust Funds etc - the reason why Charles may have set up Trust Funds for Tom and Laura would be private and any term such as 'thank you for the 'use' of your mother' would be very much a media beat-up. He doesn't have to have a reason.

I read it was one million each. I also read he emptied Harry's trust fund - as did the Queen and Queen Mum - to pay off Diana - and that none of them have ever re-established such a fund - who knows???

A lot of their financial arrangements are private.

What we do know is that the monarch funds the entire royal family - official duties and private lives from the Duchy of Lancaster and other investments put in their respective names (e.g. the Queen put money each year into the Trust Funds for her younger children from the income of the Duchy). The Duke of Cornwall funds the expenses of his own family - which will include Harry's family.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2926


« Reply #6 on: September 10, 2016, 12:46:07 pm »

I do not believe that while Tom and Laura will receive sizeable sums from their Trust Funds as stepchildren, that Charles intends to leave his son Harry with less or with nothing. We don't know how Diana's divorce settlement was funded. It may have come from Charles's investments plus a loan from the Queen. Previous Kings have left their younger sons money in order that they not be dependent for largesse on the next monarch, (the Queen does so with her younger children)  and IMO Charles will undoubtedly do so for Harry.
Logged
HRHOlya
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540



« Reply #7 on: September 10, 2016, 01:13:43 pm »

I highly doubt that Harry's trust fund was touched, esp to pay off Diana. I'd say that both Charles and Diana would not touch their children's inheritance, as many parents refuse to do so. They have enough stuff to liquidate, no need to endanger their children's (financial) future/ security.
Logged
india
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6226


« Reply #8 on: September 10, 2016, 01:21:15 pm »

I hope that Charles did not do this to Harry.
Logged
HennyPenny
gossip insider
*
Online Online

Posts: 108


« Reply #9 on: September 10, 2016, 08:20:01 pm »


What a treat it would be for all royal Wills & Trusts  be made public.....
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #10 on: September 10, 2016, 11:25:47 pm »

I highly doubt that Harry's trust fund was touched, esp to pay off Diana. I'd say that both Charles and Diana would not touch their children's inheritance, as many parents refuse to do so. They have enough stuff to liquidate, no need to endanger their children's (financial) future/ security.

Charles doesn't have stuff to liquidate as he buys anything through the Duchy of Cornwall and that can't be sold. That is why it increases in wealth all the time. It was deliberately set up so that the heir to the throne couldn't sell what belonged to the Duchy (same with the Queen and the Duchy of Lancaster - she can't sell any of the stuff it owns either).

It wasn't just Harry's Trust Fund but William's and not just Charles' but the Queen's  thus made and the Queen Mum's. Diana was responsible for her sons' money and we know how irresponsible she was with that as she didn't immediately put the money into a family trust and so a lot of the money ended up with the government as the boys had to pay the full amount of death duties on the 17 million she had been paid.

Whether Charles and the Queen Mum or the Queen re-established those trust funds I don't know but Diana had to be paid and like most of the landed gentry sacrifices had to be made so it was the boys' trust funds. When Margaret died her children had to sell some of her jewellery to pay her death duties while the Duke of Gloucester had to sell the family home to pay the death duties when his mother died.

Family Trusts can protect the money, and most intelligent landed families in the UK now have done exactly that - e.g. the new Duke of Westminster will pay very little in death duties as his inheritance is protected via a series of Trusts.
Logged
Rosella
Duchess
*****
Online Online

Posts: 2926


« Reply #11 on: September 11, 2016, 03:32:14 am »

Charles has access to some of the best financial advice in Britain. It's been nearly twenty years since Diana's divorce. Charles is a very wealthy man and my guess is that he has protected his sons (especially his younger son who won't be getting Duchy of Cornwall money) with a trust fund. None of us know how Diana's divorce settlement was funded. Diana didn't know that she was going to die within a year of her divorce. The money was probably being sorted out when she died. Her financial advisers should have put the money she left after her premature death into a fund so death duties wouldn't eat into it.
Logged
Alexandrine
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 13950



« Reply #12 on: September 11, 2016, 10:40:26 pm »

^ I thought Diana's will was public? Though I've read it and at least what I found was really sparse.
Logged



“Three things are to be looked to in a building: that it stand on the right spot, that it be securely founded, that it be successfully executed.” ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2016, 11:42:47 pm »

Diana's will was made public. She basically left everything to the boys equally but they had to pay around 6 million in death duties. Had it been set up in a Trust they would have paid no death duties.

As Diana had lost the HRH her will wasn't covered by the royal wills aren't made public rule which protects Margaret's and the Queen Mum's for instance.
Logged
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3195


« Reply #14 on: September 12, 2016, 12:51:10 am »

I am not a fan of death duties. The government fines you because your parent died?  thumbsdown
Logged
HRHOlya
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1540



« Reply #15 on: September 12, 2016, 01:03:02 am »

^ It really is daylight robbery. Most taxes are in fact. The death duty taxes are one of the most ridiculous I have heard of (well, one of the many really) and I don't begrudge anyone for avoiding them as well as they can (trust funds etc).

If at least they were good for something and education were free and healthcare better, good and cheap care homes for the disabled and elderly, better support for veterans, decent salaries, the possibilities of doing good with all those taxes are endless, but nope. Those in power gotta line their pockets somehow, and what better way but to rob citizens of their property.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35957


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #16 on: September 12, 2016, 01:11:54 am »

You know, I think it's wrong for T&L to inherit anything from Charles. Tom has skived off enough of Charles by association and frankly I am beginning ot see why monarchs were expected to marry women with no past marriages. Just creates complications and resentments.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
leogirl
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3195


« Reply #17 on: September 12, 2016, 01:34:47 am »

Yes, it is complicated. It does seem unfair to not leave something to a stepchild. But then again, he's not his son so should he get anything? Both sides could be argued.

An interesting thought: what if, for example, Tom turned out to be PC's child? Would marrying his mother legitimize him? And he's older than William, so he would be heir.  Lips Sealed

This whole multiple spouses thing creates such a mess. I can see on a practical level why divorce/remarriage wasn't allowed in the past.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #18 on: September 12, 2016, 04:03:32 am »

Tom is also Charles' godson and I really doubt that anyone here would argue that a person can't leave something to a godchild.

I see nothing wrong with a person leaving something to whomever they please - friend, child of a friend, godchild, charity, school etc as well as personal family. My own will leaves money to my godchildren, my former schools, my current school and my family.

If it is ok for me to leave something to my godchildren why shouldn't Charles do so?
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35957


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 12, 2016, 03:52:28 pm »

Tom has made a fortune off of being the stepson of Charles and frankly that should be more than enough. I am sure that while his mother was mistress, that Tom got perks and so did Laura. No way has Tom and Laura wanted for anything at all. Supposedly Tom acted out so bad that Tom had to be thrown out and basically told not to come back to Clarence House. Enough should be enough at some point.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!