According to the "Daily Mail" local time on March 11, Prince Andrew took the lead in being dissatisfied with his brother Charles III inheriting the entire inheritance of the Queen Mother. According to people familiar with the matter, the 63-year-old prince was already very unwilling, and coupled with the fact that he had no job after being stripped of his title, he could no longer be as lavish as before, so he felt "confused" and "hopeless".
And his sister Princess Anne and younger brother Prince Edward did not receive the cash inheritance of the queen's mother, and they were also somewhat dissatisfied. But fortunately, they are still high-ranking members of the royal family and can receive subsidies from past grants, which is much better off than Andrew.
Since the late Elizabeth II had four children, why should all the property be left to the eldest son, Charles?
According to reports, this is actually to avoid paying high inheritance taxes. The inheritance tax in the UK is indeed very high, for example, Princess Diana left a inheritance of 21 million pounds (about 170 million RMB) when she died, but about 8 million pounds (about 6647 RMB) was used for taxation, and the rest was divided equally between the two sons.
The report quoted a person familiar with the matter as saying that giving all of the Queen's property to Charles is equivalent to a direct "transfer from one monarch to another", which is not subject to inheritance tax. The rule was made in 1993, when then-Prime Minister John Major argued that "it is necessary to protect the independence of the monarchy".
"The royal family has done this before, and in 2002, Queen Elizabeth left everything to her eldest daughter," explains royal expert Hugo Vickers. "Since monarchs don't pay taxes, it's a way to avoid inheritance taxes and also keep wealth intact. The Queen Mother also gave instructions on which of her relatives should receive what gifts, but her daughter was in control."
Charles received a total fortune of about 650 million pounds (about 5.4 billion RMB) from the Queen, which is indeed a huge fortune.
And the reason why Charles did not divide his mother's property to his younger siblings was also due to tax considerations. Some analysts point out that if Charles dies within seven years, the queen's property he now gives to his family will still be regarded as part of the estate, so it may need to pay taxes.
But if Charles had lived longer, he would have been able to give generously without being subject to the estate tax. "If the king wishes to give cash gifts to his younger siblings or to any friends and family other than his heir, William, then he is tax-exempt as long as he lives for another seven years."
Returning to Andrew, who was dissatisfied with the king's brother, the death of the queen was indeed a big enough blow to him, not only spiritually, but also financially.
When the queen was alive, even if he did not stop performing his duties, the queen would give him financial help because she felt sorry for the child, and Andrew was still very comfortable at that time. But when the queen died, he did not have such treatment, although he had no worries about food and clothing, but after all, he could not get away with it as before. He hoped that his brother would be generous and energy-saving, but Charles could not let him continue to be lavish.
It is reported that Charles was originally quite critical of his second brother, who was like a son-in-law, and now it is his turn to take power, so how can he let him still be as willful as before?