At one point the press office announced it was too busy to respond to further questions until after the coronation. Questions about which jewels were owned by the state went unanswered. Palace responses to questions about the king’s wealth ranged from “we’re too busy, perhaps we’ll respond next week” to “that’s really none of your business”. It has created a culture in which the royal institution itself is above normal standards of scrutiny, and where any remotely uncomfortable or probing question, no matter how valid, is ignored or dismissed by default. This is partly a result of a media environment that covers the Windsors as dysfunctional celebrity aristocrats, rather than figures of serious political or constitutional significance. The second problem is the culture of extreme deference and secrecy that surrounds the royal family. But by modern standards, they were clearly official gifts, so shouldn’t they be national heritage? That indicates that the jewels are private. Elizabeth inherited the brooch in 1953 when Mary died, rather than in 1952 when she became queen. She wore them in her coronation crown and later as a pair in a brooch, which was left to the queen and then, presumably, the king (the family pays no inheritance tax as long as assets are bequeathed monarch-to-monarch). Take the Cullinan III and IV diamonds: two gems cleaved from the largest diamond ever discovered and presented as a gift from the South African government to the king’s great-grandmother Queen Mary in 1910. Centuries of dynastic marriages with the British aristocracy and the royal houses of Europe have produced a family whose personal history is intertwined with Britain’s national story, and whose personal wealth is inextricable from their public position. The first problem with valuing King Charles III’s private wealth is that nobody knows precisely how rich he is, probably including him. The question is not merely how wealthy he is, the question is: how much of the king’s private wealth is derived from his public role? Only once Britain has an answer to that can it discuss the most important question of all: is this really a good way to spend public money? Just how rich is he? This is not the behaviour of a family relaxed about the prospect of an informed citizenry.
The judiciary has sealed their wills from public scrutiny in secret hearings for the past century. For several decades their shareholdings were owned through a secret shell company at the Bank of England that was immune from national transparency law.
The finances are murky as hell, and structured according to a formula that means their annual handouts can only go up, never down. The second answer is that, to be blunt, the Windsors act as if they have something to hide. The Prince and Princess of Wales – then known as the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge – take part in a royal procession to Buckingham Palace in 2012.
0 kommentar(er)
