Not to Be Served , but to Serve.

Except that the late Queen Mother was exempt form inheritance tax as well. Philip might have been if he left everything to the Queen, but royal wills are not published so we will never know.
Inheritance tax would usually be payable if the Queen left assets to anyone other than Charles. However, the Sovereign to Sovereign deal was applied to the Queen Mother’s estate despite her never having actually been a Sovereign, so it remains to be seen what happens here. Prince Philip’s estate would not have qualified for the exemption and so efficient tax planning on his part could have been to leave the bulk of his estate to the Queen on the basis that the Queen then left it exempt to Charles
The special rules applied to this family are incredible

I assume that if the monarch had to pay inheritance tax at 40% (?) each time, their wealth would eventually be eroded because they can't exactly start a new business or earn a weekly wage to replenish the coffers?

Bizziebe

I assume that if the monarch had to pay inheritance tax at 40% (?) each time, their wealth would eventually be eroded because they can't exactly start a new business or earn a weekly wage to replenish the coffers?

Money makes money. It's doubtful if the billions owned by the RF would be drastically reduced by inheritance tax being paid once in 70 years.

Bizziebe

I assume that if the monarch had to pay inheritance tax at 40% (?) each time, their wealth would eventually be eroded because they can't exactly start a new business or earn a weekly wage to replenish the coffers?

They'd be forced to do what others have done, open their homes to the public, let people roam across their land ....

Oh, wait a minute- don't they do that already?

Diversify: Safari parks, rent them out for filming, host weddings, caravan and camping sites, Centre Parks, hand them over to the National Trust or English Heritage.
The possibilities are endless.

They already get a wage from us.

nadateturbe

I didn't know that Maddyone - about exemption from monarch to monarch. Deliberate avoidance of tax.

And I didn't know that about Edward VI *Callistemon. I must have a look at that, interesting.

Yes nadateturbe, the avoidance of inheritance tax applies only monarch to monarch, but Gloryannie says it was also applied to the Queen Mother’s estate, which I didn’t know. She was never a sovereign and so it must have been applied because she was a crowned Queen. I believe she left money to her grandchildren though, and so not all her estate went to the monarch.

Since wills are public documents and will be retained by Probate, I find it difficult to accept that royal wills are sealed. As we, the public pay for them, and their wealth has come from the public over centuries, including the gifting of lands which yield huge dividends, I find it hard to comprehend why the public are not allowed to see, if they so desire, the wills of these immensely rich people. It should be a matter of public concern.

I agree too Anniebach why disagree about God when it’s with disbelievers.
I’m not doing any harm believing in God .I have good friends who are atheists . Everyone to their own .

I am the first to agree that believing in God does no harm, but I can also see that blindly accepting all the stories and teachings in The Bible, without some form of questioning, would be neither sensible nor realistic.
It's the same with the monarchy. I am a royalist, but learning about all their wealth and avoidance of taxes has made me realise that they do indeed have shortcomings, even failings, which need to be addressed.
I see a parallel that if God and the Royal Family lose too many of these attributes, then they lose their mystique and with it their power and status, which is after all their very essence.
I see it as a fine line, but one that we can argue about in a constructive manner on both sides. Maybe gradually some form of moderation and compromise can be achieved. Charles should be given a chance to prove himself.

(Off to walk a dog who has a dodgy stomach.)

Most Christians I know ( actually all) study the Bible and read and re-read it a lot. Many also belong to study groups . I would not say any of them blindly accept the Bible without thought. Some are incredibly scholarly and go back to old Greek translations etc ( not me, I’m too slack for that though the spirit is willing !). Just saying.

I think some do blindly accept it, nanna8 without questioning anything. I can't do that. As Bizziebe says it's not sensible.
I agree Maddyone.

Representatives of the religious authorities asked Jesus about paying taxes in the hope of tripping him up. They expected a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

If Jesus had said they shouldn't pay their taxes, he would have been viewed by the Roman authorities as a rebel, a political enemy.

Many expected him to be a political messiah, to lead his people in a rebellion against Rome but that was never the reason for his ministry.

posted too soon. His ministry was one of service, which was also the focus of the coronation.

Glorianny

Isn't the point about wealth that if you believe Jesus was God's voice on earth then you know what God thinks about it. Unfortunately for many Christians that doesn't seem to translate into actions. They continue to acquire wealth.

This is how I feel. I asked the question to see what other Christians think. I find it difficult that other Christians say we can't know what God thinks about the topic of wealth and loving each other.

If you think you know the answer why ask the question

Having wealth and loving one another are not mutually exclusive. The 'poor' are just as capable of not caring for their neighbour as the wealthy.

I don't think anyone has said they are. What has been said is that having vast wealth means the person responsible for that wealth should do more than just sit on it.
And a poor person making a donation is recognised by Jesus as having more value.

Charles' wealth does appear to be seen by some as a contradiction to his faith.

And a poor person making a donation is recognised by Jesus as having more value.

Yes Glorianny! Exactly, so.
What is more, giving should be done in secret, (Matthew 6) rather than vs. So we’ll never know whether or to what the RF has contributed, or how much.
Equally, we will never know whether or not the apparently wealthy GNs are doing more with their wealth, than just sitting on it. Or if the poor GNs are making a more valued donation.
Anyone know what happens to all the takings from people visiting royal residences?

HM QE II promised to serve the people in a speech given on her coronation day. She and Charles III promising to do so is admirable and nothing to do with M and H and what H might have said.

"A deeply religous man"- he does not strike me as being such.🤔

Nannan2

"A deeply religous man"- he does not strike me as being such.🤔

Yes but you/we only know what the media feeds us. What do you imply by
“A deeply religious man’?
If he doesn’t fulfil your implication . . . does that mean he isn’t?

Just putting my two pennyworth in.
Why did Charles not at least contribute to the cost of his Coronation, since he has so much wealth? What happens to all the Royal wealth since it appears never to be used?
As Charles is presumably now head of the Church of England, how will he uphold the late Queen's belief that divorce is not allowed since he is divorced or was that just the Queen's idea? I never understood how it could be the rules of the C of E anyway, since the C of E was only formed so that Henry V111 could get divorced. Please enlighten me if possible.

The C of E teaches that marriage is for life but does recognise that marriages fail and in some circumstances will marry someone whose divorced while their former spouse is still living.

The Queen's sister and 3 of her children were divorced. She may not have approved but clearly didn't disallow it.

Glenco

Just putting my two pennyworth in.
Why did Charles not at least contribute to the cost of his Coronation, since he has so much wealth? What happens to all the Royal wealth since it appears never to be used?
As Charles is presumably now head of the Church of England, how will he uphold the late Queen's belief that divorce is not allowed since he is divorced or was that just the Queen's idea? I never understood how it could be the rules of the C of E anyway, since the C of E was only formed so that Henry V111 could get divorced. Please enlighten me if possible.

I think you'll find that the Church's view on divorce has changed somewhat. I was divorced but allowed to make my marriage vows to my new husband in Church.