Prince William inherits £1bn estate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

If they did, then Andrew wouldn't have been able to receive a £12m gift off his mother without it being subject to tax either.

---

cash gifts are subject to potentially expect transfers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Now do land, which is what this thread was about at the start.

---

The Duchies or Cornwall and Lancaster are legal trusts therefore they are treated very differently. There is also no inheritance tax on agricultural land. This is sensible. If IHT was charged, then farms would not be passed down the generations and valuable farming skills would be lost.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Being against something doesn't make someone bitter and twisted. (If so, you are bitter and twisted against republicans).
Secondly, posters have given various reasons for their being against the concept of royalty and not just on financial grounds.
Thirdly, "being brought up on our history" is totally meaningless (and which included slavery, boys having to climb up chimneys, killing aboriginal people etc).
Fourthly, the concept of royalty is not unique to this country (even if their semi-deification seems that way).

---

Are you sure about that? slavery has never been legal in the UK. See Somerset v Stuart

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

ok, lets assume they are normal people like the rest of us. Why do you think a normal person would be taxed on the inheritance?

---

Because its the law. I haven't said that though that I agree with it, just questioning why the same rules apply.
For the record I don't like the concept of inheritance tax.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

Because its the law. I haven't said that though that I agree with it, just questioning why the same rules apply.
For the record I don't like the concept of inheritance tax.

---

there are arguments for and against inheritance tax, but whether you agree to have high or low inheritance tax it should at least be consistent for everyone. no reason at all that the personal wealth of the queen isn't taxed. the crown estate I can understand because they don't own it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bloop

Because its the law. I haven't said that though that I agree with it, just questioning why the same rules apply.
For the record I don't like the concept of inheritance tax.

---

Normal people aren't taxed on inheritance. In this respect William et al are being treated the same as everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

Normal people aren't taxed on inheritance. In this respect William et al are being treated the same as everyone else.

---

they are if its above a certain amount

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

The Duchies or Cornwall and Lancaster are legal trusts therefore they are treated very differently. There is also no inheritance tax on agricultural land. This is sensible. If IHT was charged, then farms would not be passed down the generations and valuable farming skills would be lost.

---

The thread wasn't begun to discuss tax implications. There is a ridiculous amount of land in the control of the royals. This should be remembered the next time people grumble that we're a small island and too full to accept immigration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

Are you sure about that? slavery has never been legal in the UK. See Somerset v Stuart

---

You seriously think that Britain never had any involvement with slavery?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

You seriously think that Britain never had any involvement with slavery?

---

I thought Colston took volunteer workers on his ships to America?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Zero inheritance tax applies when property passes from sovereign to sovereign.

---

Yup, also we can't know how much private wealth she left as royal wills are secret. And soon he will take an oath to maintain the Anglican protestant succession, a relic of 17th century bigotry which bars Catholics and non-Anglicans from the succession. Why is all this necessary?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poc

they are if its above a certain amount

---

the only time an individual is taxed on any inheritance they receive is if they have received a gift from the deceased's estate within 7 years of death and the value of the estate is above the combined nil rate band and residential nil rate band..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

You seriously think that Britain never had any involvement with slavery?

---

That's not what I said, but to clarify, the UK's involvement with slavery was apropos of Empire, which you'll understand no longer exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

That's not what I said, but to clarify, the UK's involvement with slavery was apropos of Empire, which you'll understand no longer exists.

---

I would suggest that you re-read the muddled post that I responded to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

the only time an individual is taxed on any inheritance they receive is if they have received a gift from the deceased's estate within 7 years of death and the value of the estate is above the combined nil rate band and residential nil rate band..

---

how about the 12 million quid that they paid to the girl that Andrew nonced.
should that be free from inheritance tax?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

how about the 12 million quid that they paid to the girl that Andrew nonced.
should that be free from inheritance tax?

---

Under current rules Andrew would be liable to around £4.8m in IHT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SLUDGE FACTORY

People die on the streets of Cardiff, in hostels and in hospitals most nights

The life expectancy of homeless people is around 50

But never mind that , God save the queen

---

God, you are so 8th Septermber!!! :biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

I would suggest that you re-read the muddled post that I responded to.

---

I have, it was this post.

Alfresco makes it clear they are discussing "this country" and "this island"...not empire, not commonwealth. Ergo its not clear why you feel the need to mention slavery, given its never been legal in any part of the UK (certainly not since Harold Godwinson).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

I have, it was this post.

Alfresco makes it clear they are discussing "this country" and "this island"...not empire, not commonwealth. Ergo its not clear why you feel the need to mention slavery, given its never been legal in any part of the UK (certainly not since Harold Godwinson).

---

He stated "Get rid of them so we can save a few bob, beggars belief that people who were brought up on our history want to get shot of it."

My point is that just because something is part of our history doesn't mean we have to like it or maintain it. And as for being 'brought up' on our history, when I was being 'brought up' I learned about all sorts of things in 'our history' which we do not condone today. It's as simple as that.
I now realise who the poster was and shouldn't have wasted my time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

He stated "Get rid of them so we can save a few bob, beggars belief that people who were brought up on our history want to get shot of it."

My point is that just because something is part of our history doesn't mean we have to like it or maintain it. And as for being 'brought up' on our history, when I was being 'brought up' I learned about all sorts of things in 'our history' which we do not condone today. It's as simple as that.
I now realise who the poster was and shouldn't have wasted my time.

---

My comment was in response to your claim that slavery was part of UK's history. Its never been legal here, and the UK did its utmost to stamp out the slave trade (West Africa Squadron). Slavery has as much to do with the UK's history as the international drug trade today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

My comment was in response to your claim that slavery was part of UK's history. Its never been legal here, and the UK did its utmost to stamp out the slave trade (West Africa Squadron). Slavery has as much to do with the UK's history as the international drug trade today.

---

you are extremely naïve.

Wasn't it Orwell who said Britain was like a wealthy family that maintains a guilty silence about the sources of its wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

My comment was in response to your claim that slavery was part of UK's history. Its never been legal here, and the UK did its utmost to stamp out the slave trade (West Africa Squadron). Slavery has as much to do with the UK's history as the international drug trade today.

---

Well we will have to disagree about Britain's history being/not being involved with slavery. Funny you should mention the international drug trade though: I was listening to a podcast only last week that was about the UK being second in the international money-laundering stakes due to laxity and a lack or rigour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

My comment was in response to your claim that slavery was part of UK's history. Its never been legal here, and the UK did its utmost to stamp out the slave trade (West Africa Squadron). Slavery has as much to do with the UK's history as the international drug trade today.

---

https://tinyurl.com/esap732a
"Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade officially began, with royal approval, in 1663. In less than 150 years, Britain was responsible for transporting millions of enslaved Africans to colonies in the Americas, where men, women and children were forced to work on plantations and denied basic rights. This inhumane system led to the emergence of racist ideas and pseudoscience that were used to justify it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain
"British merchants became major participants in the Atlantic slave trade in the early modern period. As part of the triangular trade-system, ship-owners transported enslaved West Africans to European possessions in the New World (especially to British colonies in the West Indies) to be sold there. The ships brought commodities back to Britain then exported goods to Africa. Some plantation owners brought slaves to Britain, where many of them ran away from their masters."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...scale-revealed
"A new BBC documentary tells how a trove of documents lays bare the names of Britain’s 46,000 slave owners, including relatives of Gladstone and Orwell"
"Whereas the cotton plantations of the American south were established on the soil of the continental United States, British slavery took place 3,000 miles away in the Caribbean."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston
"Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, slave trader, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament. Colston followed his father in the family business becoming a sea merchant, initially trading in wine, fruits and textiles, mainly in Spain, Portugal and other European ports. By 1680, he became involved in the slave trade as a senior executive of the Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on the English trade in African slaves. He was deputy governor of the company in 1689–90."

Just a few snippets of "our history" and the slave trade that Britons and Britain benefitted from.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

https://tinyurl.com/esap732a
"Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade officially began, with royal approval, in 1663. In less than 150 years, Britain was responsible for transporting millions of enslaved Africans to colonies in the Americas, where men, women and children were forced to work on plantations and denied basic rights. This inhumane system led to the emergence of racist ideas and pseudoscience that were used to justify it."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain
"British merchants became major participants in the Atlantic slave trade in the early modern period. As part of the triangular trade-system, ship-owners transported enslaved West Africans to European possessions in the New World (especially to British colonies in the West Indies) to be sold there. The ships brought commodities back to Britain then exported goods to Africa. Some plantation owners brought slaves to Britain, where many of them ran away from their masters."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...scale-revealed
"A new BBC documentary tells how a trove of documents lays bare the names of Britain’s 46,000 slave owners, including relatives of Gladstone and Orwell"
"Whereas the cotton plantations of the American south were established on the soil of the continental United States, British slavery took place 3,000 miles away in the Caribbean."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Colston
"Edward Colston (2 November 1636 – 11 October 1721) was an English merchant, slave trader, philanthropist, and Tory Member of Parliament. Colston followed his father in the family business becoming a sea merchant, initially trading in wine, fruits and textiles, mainly in Spain, Portugal and other European ports. By 1680, he became involved in the slave trade as a senior executive of the Royal African Company, which held a monopoly on the English trade in African slaves. He was deputy governor of the company in 1689–90."

Just a few snippets of "our history" and the slave trade that Britons and Britain benefitted from.

---

All very interesting but not relevant. For want of repeating myself, Alfresco referred to "this island". If you think the history of this island includes slavery then you are mistaken.

NB just to be clear, no one is disputing the facts around the slave trade in empire. You'll also no doubt be aware of the concept of salutary neglect, and the fact that the UK did not legislate for its colonies or empire in respect of its trade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

Well we will have to disagree about Britain's history being/not being involved with slavery. Funny you should mention the international drug trade though: I was listening to a podcast only last week that was about the UK being second in the international money-laundering stakes due to laxity and a lack or rigour.

---

I have not said Britain played no part in the slave trade. My comment was that it never occurred on this island, which was specifically referred to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

you are extremely naïve.

Wasn't it Orwell who said Britain was like a wealthy family that maintains a guilty silence about the sources of its wealth.

---

Has anyone disputed where lots of the UK's current wealth has come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

I have not said Britain played no part in the slave trade. My comment was that it never occurred on this island, which was specifically referred to.

---

You stated "My comment was in response to your claim that slavery was part of UK's history."
It was indeed part of the UK's history - but I see no point in going around in circles.
I'll leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

Has anyone disputed where lots of the UK's current wealth has come from?

---

is that not part of the UK'S history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

how about the 12 million quid that they paid to the girl that Andrew nonced.
should that be free from inheritance tax?

---

Careful slating Andrew. Didn't work out too well for a bloke in Edinburgh today. Evidently pedos have to be respected after their mum has died.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Taunton Blue Genie

You stated "My comment was in response to your claim that slavery was part of UK's history."
It was indeed part of the UK's history - but I see no point in going around in circles.
I'll leave it at that.

---

Slavery was not part of the UKs history. Empire yes, but it was never legal in the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

is that not part of the UK'S history?

---

No, as its never been legal, there have been no slave markets and any slave that set foot on British soil was deemed to be a freeman.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

Slavery was not part of the UKs history. Empire yes, but it was never legal in the UK.

---

Slavery may not have been legal within the UK after the Norman Conquest (although indentured servitude was - and became a sentence of UK courts) but slavery ran through UK history like a seaside name in a stick of rock. Not just the big slave traders and the wealth (over centuries) of ports like London, Bristol and Liverpool - but also the income and interests of vast numbers of ordinary people with a financial stake in ‘the trade’.

It was 100% ‘legal’ for someone living in the UK to invest in and benefit from the Atlantic slave trade. It was therefore absolutely part of the UK’s history. That history would have been dramatically different without ‘the trade’.

To argue otherwise is pedantic nit picking of a ludicrous kind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Slavery may not have been legal within the UK after the Norman Conquest (although indentured servitude was - and became a sentence of UK courts) but slavery ran through UK history like a seaside name in a stick of rock. Not just the big slave traders and the wealth (over centuries) of ports like London, Bristol and Liverpool - but also the income and interests of vast numbers of ordinary people with a financial stake in ‘the trade’.

It was 100% ‘legal’ for someone living in the UK to invest in and benefit from the Atlantic slave trade. It was therefore absolutely part of the UK’s history. That history would have been dramatically different without ‘the trade’.

To argue otherwise is pedantic nit picking of a ludicrous kind.

---

Indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Slavery may not have been legal within the UK after the Norman Conquest (although indentured servitude was - and became a sentence of UK courts) but slavery ran through UK history like a seaside name in a stick of rock. Not just the big slave traders and the wealth (over centuries) of ports like London, Bristol and Liverpool - but also the income and interests of vast numbers of ordinary people with a financial stake in ‘the trade’.

It was 100% ‘legal’ for someone living in the UK to invest in and benefit from the Atlantic slave trade. It was therefore absolutely part of the UK’s history. That history would have been dramatically different without ‘the trade’.

To argue otherwise is pedantic nit picking of a ludicrous kind.

---

If slavery ran through the UK all you need to do is show me where the slave markets were held? The undeniable fact is that no slaves were brought to the UK to be bought, sold or traded. Our merchants may have been involved in the (triangular) slave trade, but the UK was not involved and certainly did not encourage it.

And there is a difference between a debtors/penal colony such as Georgia or New South Wales and slavery. In the case of the former you can work off your debt/punishment whereas in the case of the latter manumission was very rare indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

If slavery ran through the UK all you need to do is show me where the slave markets were held? The undeniable fact is that no slaves were brought to the UK to be bought, sold or traded. Our merchants may have been involved in the (triangular) slave trade, but the UK was not involved and certainly did not encourage it.

And there is a difference between a debtors/penal colony such as Georgia or New South Wales and slavery. In the case of the former you can work off your debt/punishment whereas in the case of the latter manumission was very rare indeed.

---

Why are you persisting with this nonsense?

The slave trade enriched cities in Britain (pre UK), it enriched a large swathe of the population (not just merchants and aristocratic investors) and it funded the industrial revolution. You cannot understand the history of Britain without acknowledging the impact of the slave trade. To reduce ‘UK history’ to what was on the statute book at a particular time is plain perverse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

Why are you persisting with this nonsense?

The slave trade enriched cities in Britain (pre UK), it enriched a large swathe of the population (not just merchants and aristocratic investors) and it funded the industrial revolution. You cannot understand the history of Britain without acknowledging the impact of the slave trade. To reduce ‘UK history’ to what was on the statute book at a particular time is plain perverse.

---

Slavery did not fund the industrial revolution. The UK finance system was way ahead of its time and is why London is still the financial capital of the world. If anyone is talking nonsense, its you.

You'll also need to explain how UK cities got fat off slavery. The Industrial revolution happened in the early 19th century, by which time slavery had been shown to be illegal in the UK and the British government had already taken an active role is stopping the slave trade. By this time the UK had lost its first empire with the 13 colonies forming their own government - a government who turned a blind eye to slavery. The wealth of the UK came not from slavery, but the trading network that was built up via the protection of the Royal Navy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DryCleaning

Slavery did not fund the industrial revolution. The UK finance system was way ahead of its time and is why London is still the financial capital of the world. If anyone is talking nonsense, its you.

You'll also need to explain how UK cities got fat off slavery. The Industrial revolution happened in the early 19th century, by which time slavery had been shown to be illegal in the UK and the British government had already taken an active role is stopping the slave trade. By this time the UK had lost its first empire with the 13 colonies forming their own government - a government who turned a blind eye to slavery. The wealth of the UK came not from slavery, but the trading network that was built up via the protection of the Royal Navy.

---

so imperialism you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rjk

so imperialism you mean?

---

No, Imperialism is a political aim. It was mercantilism, then capitalism, which are economic systems (that allowed the UK to flourish).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...from-the-queen

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...from-the-queen

---

Keep up, TOBW, old fruit. This matter has raised in numerous posts in this thread. See post #4 in this thread by yours truly.