Diana's Jewels: Potential Division Between William and Harry

[Pranter]

Even so...perhaps there are ways to get around it...leaving them in a Trust, giving to the children before they die or adding them to the Royal Collection etc. Not sure what the options are in the U.K. ..there are often ways around this here.


LaRae

 

[O-H Anglophile]

That leaves them with 60% of the value of the asset that they personally own. Whereas otherwise they are left with 0%.

No, it still leaves them with 0% because they'll sell the jewelry to pay the taxes-- because otherwise they'll only have jewelry instead of money or land. And they wouldn't pay taxes on the jewelry if they didn't inherit it.

 

[cepe]

That leaves them with 60% of the value of the asset that they personally own. Whereas otherwise they are left with 0%.

death duties are paid on all the assets - it could run into millions and that is what happened to P Margarets children. by removing some of the assets to the Crown (which they would wear probably once or twice a year at the most, perhaps even less) then they reduce the overall debt.

This is why royal foundations have been set up by other royal families to remove the financial risks involved. Giving them to the crown, and using only when needed would make more sense.

Death duties against an asset is not a one-off. its forever as long as the family owns the asset.

 

[jacqui24]

No, it still leaves them with 0% because they'll sell the jewelry to pay the taxes-- because otherwise they'll only have jewelry instead of money or land. And they wouldn't pay taxes on the jewelry if they didn't inherit it.

If they decide to sell some pieces, they still have 60% of the value. Why should Harry give that up for his children? Unless the sovereign wants to buy it out.

 

[jacqui24]

This is why royal foundations have been set up by other royal families to remove the financial risks involved. Giving them to the crown, and using only when needed would make more sense.

Death duties against an asset is not a one-off. its forever as long as the family owns the asset.

For jewels belonging to the sovereign. Not someone else's personal asset. And they can gift it to the children. As long as they live for 7 years or more, it's not subject to inheritance tax based on a quick research. And quite frankly, it's up to the future generations to decide what they want to do with it. If the monarch at that time want to buy it back and add it to the vault, I'm sure a deal can worked out where they get first dibs like Queen had, but choose not to buy. Regardless, I don't see why Harry should hand over his personal property to someone else. If they want to do a sale, then that's one thing. I've not heard someone just handing their assets over without receiving consideration any recent times.

Even so...perhaps there are ways to get around it...leaving them in a Trust, giving to the children before they die or adding them to the Royal Collection etc. Not sure what the options are in the U.K. ..there are often ways around this here.


LaRae

There are. It's not as easy as in US because there has to be a 7 year gap between gifting and death.

 

[Queen Claude]

Are all bequests whether it is cash, jewels, securities, land, et. al. subject to death taxes? If that is the case the beneficiary will pay death duties regardless of what the bequest is, right?

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

There is a whole discussion going on about Diana's jewels but the point is missed that her collection was pretty limited, to royal standards. Diana owned no parures, no diadems, no stomachers. We are talking about less jewels than Princess Margaret and almost none with royal provenance, as her major jewels (Spencer diadem, Lovers' Knot) were loans.

The future King William and the Duke of Sussex will have half each of their mother's legacy . Their children will furtherer water down Dianas limited jewelry collection. There will be no dramas in inheritances as we are not talking about priceless, exceptional, historic or eye-popping items, apart from a ring here or a centrestone there.

 

[Osipi]

You make a good point here, Duc_et_Pair. When we see Kate wearing her engagement ring that was, at one time, William's mother or Meghan wearing her engagement ring with stones that belonged at one time to Harry's mother or the aquamarine ring that was also Harry's mother's, what we're seeing here is the *sentimental* value these pieces of jewelry hold. The value isn't in the worth of the piece of jewelry but what it serves to do. William himself said at the time of his engagement that giving the ring to Catherine was his way of making sure his mother didn’t miss out on his wedding day.

Most likely, like so many other people on this planet, things that remind one of a loved one that has passed on are priceless because of their sentimental value rather than the actually monetary value or history behind the item.

To this day I snuggle up in a Aran wool blanket that was my dad's and will dab a few drops of my mother's favorite perfume on. It keeps them close to me still.

 

[jacqui24]

Are all bequests whether it is cash, jewels, securities, land, et. al. subject to death taxes? If that is the case the beneficiary will pay death duties regardless of what the bequest is, right?

Yes. It's all treated the same. The difficulty is a cash flow issue. And that's why estates will sell a few pieces, to come up with the cash to pay the taxes. However, they get to keep the remainder 60%.

 

[Denville]

It was the 80s-everything was bigger and bolder. Big hair, big shoulders, lots of bling.

No it was Diana's being able to carry off the jewellery.. the present royal ladies don't have her looks or ability to do so. Kate looks best in rather delicate ornaments, she hasn't got much presence. Nor does Meghan

 

[Osipi]

I think a good term to use in this part of the discussion would be staturesque. Diana, as tall as she was, could be defined by this term and was well able to carry off wearing larger pieces of jewelry.

I would have to actually see Kate or Meghan in a larger piece to see if they could carry it off or not. Kate did seem to be able to wear the necklace (I forget offhand exactly what the piece was) she wore to the recent state dinner.

 

[Denville]

She was tall, yes and had strong features.. and that helped... Kate looks best IMO in small delicate tiaras etc. because she is pretty but not in the least striking in her looks.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

No it was Diana's being able to carry off the jewellery.. the present royal ladies don't have her looks or ability to do so. Kate looks best in rather delicate ornaments, she hasn't got much presence. Nor does Meghan

I think that Camilla of Cornwall is certainly able to wear big, bold jewelry with panache and pride. The same can be said about Marie-Christine of Kent. Last Tuesday we saw Catherine of Cambridge with fabulous diamond-and-pearl jewelry, but her gown was not helping her. I heard a comment during a broadcast on Blauw Bloed: how is it possible that someone can look like a grey mouse, with such jewels? Camilla, Marie-Christine but also the late Queen Elizabeth, the late Princess Margaret could dress stately, to appear statuesque. If Catherine learns that ability, she can wear the grandest pieces of the House to great acclaim.

 

[Denville]

I meant Meghan and Kate, not the older ones..

 

[Pranter]

I think a good term to use in this part of the discussion would be staturesque. Diana, as tall as she was, could be defined by this term and was well able to carry off wearing larger pieces of jewelry.

I would have to actually see Kate or Meghan in a larger piece to see if they could carry it off or not. Kate did seem to be able to wear the necklace (I forget offhand exactly what the piece was) she wore to the recent state dinner.

Queen Alexandra's Diamond and Pearl Necklace...that's what Kate had on.

I think Kate is tall enough and has enough presence as she's matured to wear big pieces (I mean that QM Lover's Knot is not a small piece) if they are the right design.




LaRae

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Queen Alexandra's Diamond and Pearl Necklace...that's what Kate had on.

I think Kate is tall enough and has enough presence as she's matured to wear big pieces (I mean that QM Lover's Knot is not a small piece) if they are the right design.




LaRae

Catherine should wear better dresses and most importantly: to walk upright and not with slouching shoulders. "Here I am, The Duchess of Cambrige!". The grey dress during the Dutch State Banquet and the red dress during the Chinese state banquet did not help Catherine in combination with grand jewels. But that is difficult because taste lies in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Pranter]

The blue/grey dress from this week, combined with the pearl and diamonds (earring/tiara/necklace) was a gorgeous look.


LaRae

 

[muriel]

death duties are paid on all the assets - it could run into millions and that is what happened to P Margarets children. by removing some of the assets to the Crown (which they would wear probably once or twice a year at the most, perhaps even less) then they reduce the overall debt.

This is why royal foundations have been set up by other royal families to remove the financial risks involved. Giving them to the crown, and using only when needed would make more sense.

Thats right, Inheritance Tax or Death Duty is payable on all assets, including cash and real estate. Irrespective of how William and Harry divide up the jewellery and assets between them, they would broadly be equal in value. So to that extent, inheritance tax is a moot point from the perspective of Harry's children. They will need to pay on whatever they inherit, be it cash, real estate, art or jewels.

 

[Tarlita]

I have never understood why Britain continues with this disgusting Tax. Australian states abolished Death Duties/Inheritance tax in 1979.
It is bad enough people are dealing with the loss of a loved one without having to deal with money worries as well.

 

[muriel]

I have never understood why Britain continues with this disgusting Tax. Australian states abolished Death Duties/Inheritance tax in 1979.
It is bad enough people are dealing with the loss of a loved one without having to deal with money worries as well.

The tax is designed to deal with historic inequalities in wealth, and stop these inequalities continuing generation after generation. It does not impact the "inheritance" of property from husband to wife and vice-versa, it only impacts inter-generational transfer of wealth.

 

[wymanda]

For all we know, William and Harry may decide that the best thing to do with some of Diana's pieces is what Diana, herself, did with her gowns. Auction them off with the proceeds going to a joint cause under the Royal Foundation's umbrella.

We'll just have to watch and see what pieces appear in public. Keeps us on our toes.

Given the fact that so many of the items were gifts to The Princess of Wales from foreign heads of state & governments it would be a dangerous task to start selling things off. Serious offence could be taken.
Put it this way - as an Australian I would be very displeased if Her Majesty was to suddenly sell off the Wattle Brooch that was given to her on her tour here in the 1950's. Same goes with the Innaminka Opal.

 

[muriel]

Given the fact that so many of the items were gifts to The Princess of Wales from foreign heads of state & governments it would be a dangerous task to start selling things off. Serious offence could be taken.
Put it this way - as an Australian I would be very displeased if Her Majesty was to suddenly sell off the Wattle Brooch that was given to her on her tour here in the 1950's. Same goes with the Innaminka Opal.

Not only do I think the idea of selling her jewels ridiculous, I think yuor point is very valid. She received a fair amount of jewellery in her role as then consort to the Prince of Wales, and those items cannot be sold. They will need to remain with the family, or ideally become a part of the Royal Collection.

 

[Mbruno]

Not only do I think the idea of selling her jewels ridiculous, I think yuor point is very valid. She received a fair amount of jewellery in her role as then consort to the Prince of Wales, and those items cannot be sold. They will need to remain with the family, or ideally become a part of the Royal Collection.

Placing her estate in the Royal Collection is the best solution in my opinion. That would guarantee none of the items would be sold or lost in future generations.

 

[Dman]

I think those jewels are already placed in the collection.

 

[muriel]

Placing her estate in the Royal Collection is the best solution in my opinion. That would guarantee none of the items would be sold or lost in future generations.

I don't think there is any need for her estate to be placed in the Royal Collection, just the specific pieces of jewellery that she had received as then consort to the PoW.

Jewels that were privately owned should be free to be distributed between William and Harry, as they might agree.

 

[MARG]

The bottom line is that the jewellery belongs to William and Harry and how they decide to dispose of it is entirely their choice. The jewels that were gifted to Diana remained hers to dispose of how she chose. She chose to leave them to her sons for their future wives.

 

[muriel]

My updated suggestions for splitting:

CATHERINE
Sapphire choker
Saudi sapphire parure - though this may now be with the Royal Collection
Collingwood Pearl drop earrings (already used)
Pearl and diamond bracelet (already used)
Crescent shaped diamond earrings with pearl drop (used by Catherine at BAFTA 2019)
Ruby earrings with pearl drop (Pearl drop rumoured to be used by Catherine for BAFTA 2019)

MEGHAN
Emerald and diamond earrings and matching bracelet
Pearl and diamond pendant earrings from Qatar - though these may now be with the Royal Collection
Omani sapphire suite - though these may now be with the Royal Collection
Aquamarines: Ring, bracelet with pearls, drop earrings
Gold bracelet (already used in Australia)
Butterfly earrings (already used in Australia)
Gold Cartier Tank watch

 

[PrincessofEurope]

The emerald and diamond earrings and Art Deco bracelet are high on my list to see again - I am hoping that Meghan has been gifted them as we already know Kate has a modern emerald set.


Another piece that would be interesting to see is the Prince of Wales diamond necklace - (often used with an emerald pendant attached) I hope Kate gets this piece when she is likely to be the next Princess of Wales

 

[Pranter]

As the POW Kate will have access to scads of jewelry along with whatever William got for his share of Diana's jewelry...and some of that is loose stones so we may see something later and not even know (unless they tell us) they were from Diana's collection.


LaRae

 

[Kitty1224]

Who will get the famous sapphire choker?