Trust Funds for the Queen's Children and Grandchildren

[Lumutqueen]

A nice idea, Lumutqueen, but we actually do not know this.

You may not know this yes you are right in saying that. But my point still stands, whatever trust fund B&E have received or shall receive can be used as they wish at their discretion.

That's just my information, on what you wrote.

 

[Diarist]

You may not know this yes you are right in saying that. But my point still stands, whatever trust fund B&E have received or shall receive can be used as they wish at their discretion.

Only insofar as the terms of the trust allow this. And this is law, not discretion........
.

 

[Lord_Royal]

A nice idea, Lumutqueen, but we actually do not know this. Under English law, Trusts are private and the terms of the trust are governed by a Trust Deed, which is a private legal instrument. Generally, there are two elements to a trust, income and capital. There are very often restrictions on the use of both income and capital. It is common with some trusts to prevent the beneficiaries accessing the capital until they are 25 years old or so. We don't know what the terms of Beatrice and Eugenie's trusts are. There may well be strict clauses about use of the money - athough thanks to Sarah, we know that apparently the restrictions on the use of trust income were lax enough to allow Sarah to 'leech' [as the papers put it] off her daughters' trust funds. I believe Lord_Royal is a solicitor; perhaps he could help us with English Trust law if he drops by here.

Indeed, I am. The trust for Beatrice and Eugenie that Sarah has spoken of is the one made for them by The Queen when Andrew and Sarah divorced. Now, something murky happened in the late 1990s regarding the 500,000 pounds budgeted for a home for Sarah and the girls (the house in Windlesham was said by Sarah to be too expensive to run, so a house was never purchased) and I recall Sarah had a meeting with the trustees of the the B&E trust. I wonder if that 500,000 was added to the trust. ANYWAY...

There is usually two components to a trust: income and capital, both of which can be managed by the terms of the trust. From various articles we know that 1.4 million pounds was put into trust in 1996. Since that time the money has surely generated a substantial income. The trust instrument would explain if and how that income could be spent, the lifespan of the trust and other conditions. The simple fact of the matter is that there is absolutely no way to discern what the trust says since it is a private document. What can be said, without hesitation, is that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie cannot do as they please with the trust money, they will always have trustees to answer to.

However, the trust will be wound up (as all trusts have a determined lifespan, they cannot go on indefinitely) and at that point the Princesses will have free reign over their funds. Additionally, Saunders v Vaughtier tells us that an adult can collapse their trust at will. As both Princesses are over the age of 18, this may have occurred.

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Andrew and Sarah Divorce Trust 1996 is not the only trust B&E are beneficiaries of. The late HM The Queen Mother established trusts in 1994, totaling 19 million pounds (the vast majority of her cash) for the benefit of her grandchildren so that none of them had to pay any taxes or duties.

So there are certainly two trusts that benefit the York Princesses. There could be as much as 6 million pounds of capital in The Queen Mother 1994 trust for the York girls. We'll never really know.

They should focus on charity and enhancing their image. The role Princess Alexandra fills would be ideal for them.

 

[Molly2101]

It's also worth keeping in mind that the Andrew and Sarah Divorce Trust 1996 is not the only trust B&E are beneficiaries of. The late HM The Queen Mother established trusts in 1994, totaling 19 million pounds (the vast majority of her cash) for the benefit of her grandchildren so that none of them had to pay any taxes or duties.

Does this Trust fund extend as far as Louise and James, as they were not around when this was set up?

Regarding the article with Prince Charles referring to the girls as twits, we can likely take it with a pinch of salt. We know the Royal brothers do not always necessarily get along, and during certain periods of their life have had rifts with each other. I don't, however, think Charles would call his nieces "twits" in public to members of the press. I could be wrong in thinking that though...

 

[Lord_Royal]

Does this Trust fund extend as far as Louise and James, as they were not around when this was set up?

The short answer is NO. As Lady Louise and Viscount Severn were not born (or conceived, nor were their parents married, 1994's a long time ago!) HM The Queen Mother could not establish a trust for any of HRH The Earl of Wessex's children because they didn't exist. For a trust to be valid 3 Certainties must be satisfied: Intention, Subject and Object. Lady Louise and Viscount Severn would have been the Objects (beneficiaries) of the trust but because they didn't exist it is an impossibility that such a trust could be made. As the HM The Queen Mother died in 2002, her estate would have been settled prior to Lady Louise's conception (she was born in November 2003).

Thus, 3 sets of grandchildren benefited from HM The Queen Mother's 1994 Trust. This trust absolutely provides TRH Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie an excellent income. Their wealth, quite simply, is underestimated by the media and they can likely support themselves with ease.

The article about Charles and the York Princesses is all gossip at this point, most unfortunate given the upcoming Diamond Jubilee.

 

[Molly2101]

Thank you Lord Royal for your infomation. I always imagined SOMETHING would have been put away for Edward's future children, even if he was not married at the time. I am guessing this means Louise and James inherit nothing from their great grandmother, except what they perhaps get from Edward via the Queen Mother?

 

[Lord_Royal]

Thank you Lord Royal for your infomation. I always imagined SOMETHING would have been put away for Edward's future children, even if he was not married at the time. I am guessing this means Louise and James inherit nothing from their great grandmother, except what they perhaps get from Edward via the Queen Mother?

Lady Louise and Viscount Severn will inherit from their father. Although it's pure speculation, I cannot see HM The Queen allowing the Wessex children to go without and possess substantially less wealth than their cousins. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if she's set up another trust for them, just as she did for the York princesses with the Sarah and Andrew Divorce Trust of 1996.

 

[tommy100]

I'm sorry HRH Kimetha, I meant when Princess Anne dies Peter will probably inherit Gatcombe Park. Yes, Princess Anne does own it. It was a wedding gift from the Queen to her and Mark Phillips when they got married. Sorry again for the confusion in my post.

In Brian Hoey's Not in Front of the Corgi's book (I have no clue how accurate it is but I remember it was previewed in newspapers in the UK) that Gatcombe was not purchased by the Queen in Anne and Mark's names 'in case they divorced'. Its also worth bearing in mind that Mark Phillips lives in Aston Farm which is right next door to Gatcombe and was apparently purchased by the Queen like Gatcombe was, in effect it means there are two houses that will one day be available. One for Peter (Gatcombe) and one for Zara (Aston Farm house) maybe?

It also discusses that Zara and Peter both had a trust fund set up for them when they were born. Apparently Trustees for them include Andrew Parker Bowles (Camilla's Ex husband and Anne's former flame) and Sir Jackie Stewart (Who was at Zara's wedding).

Like I say I don't know how accurate any of this is.

(A link to some extracts from the book)
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...0CCAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=gatcombe park&f=false

 

[janjan]

She also got money when the Queen Mother passed on I am just saying one day Charles is going to say to her thanks but no thanks your work isn't needed then she will be left with nothing to do

 

[Mirabel]

She also got money when the Queen Mother passed on

Yes, but I doubt that she got all that much if the Queen Mother left an inheritance to all of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

(At least, it probably wouldn't be enough to fund that sort of lifestyle).

 

[janjan]

The queen mother had more then u thought an article written just after she passed claimed she left them over 230 million pounds And get this Royals don't have to pay tax on the estate so no death dues divide that up is a pretty nice pile

 

[Iluvbertie]

Anything the Queen Mother left to anyone other than The Queen was subject to Death Duties. Only monarch to monarch is death duties' free.

 

[royal-blue]

It is completely unfair that the monarch does not have to pay inheritance tax even though every other citizen does where necessary. The monarch should not be above the law.

 

[Lord_Royal]

Yes, but I doubt that she got all that much if the Queen Mother left an inheritance to all of her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

(At least, it probably wouldn't be enough to fund that sort of lifestyle).

The Queen Mother didn't leave anything to her grandchildren. In 1994 2/3 of her money fortune, at the time 19 million pounds, went into a trust fund for her great grandchildren and Viscount Linley and Lady Sarah Chatto, on the gamble that she would live another 7 years and therefore avoid the 40% tax. It's perfectly legal and anyone can do it, and it's a gamble that paid off.

Source: The gamble that foiled the taxman | UK news | The Guardian

Given the length of time the Queen Mother Trust held that money for Beatrice and Eugenie, who would have been 6 and 4 at the time the money was invested, it likely had 15 - 20 years to grow - and then there is the trust fund that Her Majesty The Queen set up for Beatrice and Eugenie when Andrew and Sarah divorced in 1996, when the Princesses were 8 and 6, again, another 15 years to grow at the minimum.

And who knows if Sarah saved money for her girls - although she has encountered many financial difficulties over the years, Sarah is generous to a fault and it's well known she contributed to her daughter's lifestyle. I would not be at all surprised to discover that some of her earnings went into trust funds for her girls.

Ultimately, the York Princesses are wealthy women in their own right and it's that independent wealth that undoubtedly shapes some of the decisions they take with the roles and duties they wish to/are allowed to pursue as members of the Royal Family and as private citizens in careers.

 

[janjan]

But there are ways around it after the queen mother died there was mentioned that The queen mother estate would not be subjected to death taxes since she once was Queen People were pretty mad about it I will see if I can find that article

 

[Iluvbertie]

The law is clear - the Queen Mother didn't have to pay death duties on what she left to The Queen and she left her most of her estate for that reason.


What else she did was set up a trust fund early enough that it was in existence for over 7 years and that was also not subject to death duties. If she had died within that 7 year period it would have been - the same as for everyone else.

 

[janjan]

Ann said a long time ago that her children have trust funds set up for them They also got money from the Queen Mother

 

[muriel]

It is completely unfair that the monarch does not have to pay inheritance tax even though every other citizen does where necessary. The monarch should not be above the law.

The monarch is not above the law, it is just a different law that applies.

 

[Nice Nofret]

The Monach is paying taxes - just not death duties (which in Switzerland, no one has to pay, anyway).

 

[Mirabel]

And who knows if Sarah saved money for her girls - although she has encountered many financial difficulties over the years, Sarah is generous to a fault and it's well known she contributed to her daughter's lifestyle. I would not be at all surprised to discover that some of her earnings went into trust funds for her girls.

I thought that there was an interview in which Fergie admitted having to use money from those trust funds because she was broke?
So it seems unlikely she'd have contributed to them at any point.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Ann said a long time ago that her children have trust funds set up for them They also got money from the Queen Mother

No one is disputing that they all have trust funds and money from the Queen Mother in those trust funds.

The facts are that because The Queen Mother set up the trust fund more than 7 years before she died there was no death duties to be paid on that money. That law applies to everyone.

Had she died within the 7 years of setting up the fund then there would have been appropriate taxes to be paid.

 

[janjan]

No cause the Queen got Parliament to pass an act my cousin lives in London and was pissed off big time because he thought that she should have paid

 

[Osipi]

According to www.royal.gov.uk it states

"In 1992, The Queen volunteered to pay income tax and capital gains tax, and since 1993 her personal income has been taxable as for any other taxpayer. The Queen has always been subject to Value Added Tax and pays local rates on a voluntary basis."

This applies to her personal income.

 

[VictoriaB]

No cause the Queen got Parliament to pass an act my cousin lives in London and was pissed off big time because he thought that she should have paid

The Queen cannot dictate to Parliament what they should & should not do.

I think you've been watching too much Wolf Hall. That might have been the case in the days of Henry VIII but it has not applied during this Queen's reign. She had the benefit of customs and laws passed in previous reigns as Iluvbertie and others have pointed out several times.


Sent from my iPhone using The Royals Community mobile app

 

[Iluvbertie]

The tax situation is well known. Until George VI ascended the throne the monarch paid normal taxes like everyone else on income. George VI negotiated not to have to pay the taxes as he had to pay his older brother for Balmoral and Sandringham so from 1937 until 1992 the monarch didn't pay income tax but it was George VI who negotiated that right not The Queen.

As has been pointed out, she was forced to agree to voluntarily pay tax in 1992 (Charles had been voluntarily paying tax since he took control of the Cornwall estate in 1969 - paid at 50% until he married Diana when he reduced it to 25% to cover the additional expenses he had in having a wife and family).

In 1894 inheritance tax was introduced in the Finance Act (actually simplified the then existing five laws that covered inheritance laws and taxes into one). In most of those laws the monarch was expressly excluded - so it isn't The Queen but her ancestors from her father back to Queen Victoria and even further back to George III who negotiated those exceptions.

A lot of British people get upset about the financial arrangements to do with the monarchy largely out of ignorance and largely because the press likes to stir up the people and use misinformation to do so. I don't know how many times I read about the Civil List and who is supposedly on it - when if people actually do their research they would learn:

a) the Civil List did exist to cover the official expenses of members of the royal family - not their private expenses
b) that in 1992 The Queen agreed to repay to the government the payments made to all members of the royal family other than herself, Philip and her mother.
c) the Civil List itself was abolished in 2012 and replaced with the Sovereign Grant Act that provides The Queen with the money to run her official life, maintain the royal palaces and cover the transport costs. This includes, for instance, all the expenses associated with State Banquets and events like the Garter Ceremony.
d) Charles covers the expenses of himself, Camilla, William, Kate, George and Harry - officially and privately

 

[tommy100]

I was thinking about this the other day, someone was asking why the Queen hasn't put all her jewels into a trust fund at the Dutch, Swedish and I think Luxembourg royals have. I guess the most simple answer is that there is no need for her to. While property left by one Sovereign to another is not subject to inheritance tax there is no need for a trust fund, I guess most jewels are put into a trust funds to prevent inheritance tax forcing them to be sold off and to stop the jewels from leaving the royal line. At the moment as long as the Sovereign keeps ownership of the jewels and does not give them away to others then they pass tax free onto the next sovereign, this is almost certainly why all the loans the Queen makes are one offs or 'lifetime loans'.

As for trust funds for her children and grandchildren, it was widely reported that Anne benefitted from a trust fund as a child and I have no doubt the Queen's children and grandchildren have. Surprisingly maybe we hear more about Trust Funds for the grandchildren than we ever have about Trust Funds for the Queens' own children.

 

[Osipi]

Although the monarch has the use of many wonderful treasures from the Crown jewels to the Royal Art collection and many different residences at her disposal, very little of it is actually the Queen's. The Crown Estate holds onto ownership in the name of Britain and it is 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate that is audited and makes up for what the Queen receives in the Sovereign Grant.

Although many things are transferable from sovereign to sovereign specifically, the Queen could not "will" any of these things to specific people.

The Queen's own personal jewelry and land such as Balmoral and Sandringham which are her own personal holdings though are at her discretion but tradition holds that it is transfered monarch to monarch.

Here is a bit of information I found.

The Crown Estate, which runs the Queen's land and property empire, posts record profits of £285.1 million | The Independent

 

[Mbruno]

Although the monarch has the use of many wonderful treasures from the Crown jewels to the Royal Art collection and many different residences at her disposal, very little of it is actually the Queen's. The Crown Estate holds onto ownership in the name of Britain and it is 15% of the profits from the Crown Estate that is audited and makes up for what the Queen receives in the Sovereign Grant.

Although many things are transferable from sovereign to sovereign specifically, the Queen could not "will" any of these things to specific people.

The Queen's own personal jewelry and land such as Balmoral and Sandringham which are her own personal holdings though are at her discretion but tradition holds that it is transfered monarch to monarch.

Here is a bit of information I found.

The Crown Estate, which runs the Queen's land and property empire, posts record profits of £285.1 million | The Independent

Most of the jewels the Queen wears on a regular basis are owned by her personally and she can leave them to whoever she wants. It is true that most of it will go to Charles, but I'm pretty sure the Queen's younger children will also inherit some items , just as part of Queen Mary's jewels are now with the Gloucesters and the Kents.


The jewels that are part of the Royal Collection are the Crown jewels properly and older pieces dating back to the Victorian age. Pretty much everything acquired or inherited throughout the 20th century is private property.

 

[Osipi]

Ah thanks for explaining that.

 

[SLV]

A very interesting thread.
I have a question, though.
The idea is that the Queen Mother put her money into trustfunds for her greatgrandchildren so that they would not have to pay deathduty over it. Correct? And that Queen Elisabeth II did the same.
But I wonder. Any interest the receipients recieved and bulk at the end, would count as income. And therefor be taxed for incometax. So, how high is incometax and compared to deathtax? There seems to be quite a difference, otherwise they would not go through such lenghts.