Please read here on how to use images on RoyalDish. - Please read the RoyalDish message on board purpose and rules.
Images containing full nudity or sexual activities are strongly forbidden on RoyalDish.


Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What Dukedom Will Harry Get When He Gets Married?  (Read 63971 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 531

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1713





Ignore
« Reply #240 on: May 07, 2016, 01:32:46 AM »

Diana wanted to be buried with her father at Althorp and so she was buried at her ancestral home.

The Duchy of Cornwall - the entity - can sell property but not the Duke of Cornwall.

Charles will leave everything to William for one simple reason - no death duties. Anything he leaves to Harry will be subject to death duties while anything left to William will be free of death duties. Monarch to monarch inheritance is death duties free. This is why Edward VIII inherited everything from George V and George VI had to buy Sandringham and Balmoral from his brother after the abdication.

There was an earlier post in this thread that suggested that the title of the second son was traditionally Clarence and not York - not true.

Henry VIII was created Duke of York by his father as the second son. When his older brother died he became Duke of Cornwall and then was created Prince of Wales.

James I created his second son Duke of York - later Charles I - who again moved up to Duke of Cornwall and Prince of Wales when his older brother died.

Charles I also created his second son Duke of York - the later James II.

The Hanoverians all used York for their second son - usually with an additional dukedom e.g. York and Albany.

Queen Victoria was loathe to use York and Clarence as titles at all as they had been held by her uncles and so her sons didn't have these titles but when her grandsons entered their 20s she used both titles - Clarence for the elder son and York for the younger son of Edward VII. The idea was that the York title would be with the second son of the next King while Clarence would add Cornwall and become Prince of Wales when his father eventually inherited. As it turned out George V became the heir apparent to his father following the death of his older brother and so added Cornwall to York for most of 1901 and then was created Prince of Wales on his father's birthday that year.

George V and Elizabeth have both used York for their second sons.

The reason for using York for the second son was to do with the Wars of the Roses - The Duke of Lancaster title is held by the monarch and York - the defeated house and the house from which Henry VII's wife came - was then used for the second son.

Would Harry get York - only if Andrew died in a reasonable time period of Harry getting married. If Harry is given an earldom now with the intention of York later on it could easily be another 30 - 40 years before it becomes available.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2016, 01:41:31 AM by luvcharles » Logged
LadyCate

Warned
Medium Member
*****

Reputation: 291

Offline Offline

Posts: 964





Ignore
« Reply #241 on: May 07, 2016, 04:43:07 AM »

luvcharles - thanks for your answer.  I remain confused in that - the Duchy (governed by a council) can decide to sell property but Charles cannot sell for personal benefit?  So if the governing council decided to sell Highgrove they could?

Good point re: inheritance tax.  But if as the Queen did for Anne - Harry got Highgrove (or some other property) as a gift when he say married - he would have to pay tax on that gift?  If avoidance of tax is a main factor - than Harry cannot receive any property in his  name as a gift because he would then have to pay tax

I'd think if Willie has a second son that is where Duke of York title would go.
Logged
MidnightDiamond

Gigantic Member
*********

Reputation: 405

Offline Offline

Posts: 4057





Ignore
« Reply #242 on: May 07, 2016, 04:50:51 AM »

I'd say wedding present, there wouldn't be tax but idk! If anything Charles/Queen would pay the tax.

If the Duchy wants to sell a property, Charles get a say. If Charles wants to buy a property, like Highgrove, then he can go to the Duchy, I believe he also owns personal property so he could probably even trade.
Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 531

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1713





Ignore
« Reply #243 on: May 07, 2016, 05:48:07 AM »

The Duchy, obviously with the approval and agreement of the Duke, can buy and sell property etc.

What can't happen is the Duke of Cornwall (or Lancaster) sell property without the approval of the Board/Council of the respective Duchies.

This is why the Duchies have accumulated so much land - because successive Duchies Councils have bought more and more and haven't sold.

The Dukes, as private individuals can use the profits from the Duchies - which is their private incomes - to purchase property separately from the Duchies, which Charles has also done and which is how the royal family acquired Sandringham and Balmoral. Charles could have bought Highrove that way but chose to buy it through the Duchy and not with the profits from the Duchy meaning it is part of the Duchy and thus can't be sold in the ordinary way by a single person.

If Harry was to be given a property, as Anne was, it would be subject to gift taxes etc. I doubt that The Queen would buy something for Harry when she hasn't done so for her own younger sons.
Logged
vivee

Small Member
****

Reputation: 153

Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 436





Ignore
« Reply #244 on: May 07, 2016, 06:16:00 AM »

There was an earlier post in this thread that suggested that the title of the second son was traditionally Clarence and not York - not true.

Henry VIII was created Duke of York by his father as the second son. When his older brother died he became Duke of Cornwall and then was created Prince of Wales.

Good post  Thumb up I was going to address this, too.

Even before Henry VIII, Edward IV gave his second son (Richard) the Duke of York title.  Smiley
Logged
emtishell

Small Member
****

Reputation: 129

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 592





Ignore
« Reply #245 on: May 07, 2016, 12:09:28 PM »

I did read, when Edward was only given an earldom, that it was expected he would inherit Edinburgh when Philip dies.

I think Clarence would be great for Harry.
Logged
rosella

Warned
Huge Member
********

Reputation: 517

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 2370





Ignore
« Reply #246 on: May 07, 2016, 01:05:48 PM »

Clarence as a Dukedom has a very sad history though. There was not only that Duke of Clarence, Richard III's brother who was killed by being shoved in a barrel of wine according to Shakespeare, but George V's older brother Albert Victor was Duke of Clarence and died prematurely from flu complications. I do think that Harry will get Sussex.

Just one little thing from an earlier post. George V didn't leave all his money to Edward (David) Prince of Wales. In fact David's younger brothers received several hundreds of thousands of pounds each from King George's personal fortune. It was reported by the family's solicitor at the time that when the will was read David kept asking "Where do I come in?" It was later explained to him that as he was in receipt of Duchy of Cornwall money already, and as King would also inherit Balmoral and Sandringham, the old King had not put aside any money from his private fortune for him. David was not a happy bunny for some time afterwards.

It's always been said that Charles has put a lot of money away in Trust Funds for his children and stepchildren for years. Harry will be able to buy any home he wants from this, I believe. If Highgrove is too expensive to maintain Harry could well have an apartment or house at KP and a house on the Sandringham estate after marriage.
Logged
luvcharles

Warned
Big Member
*******

Reputation: 531

Offline Offline

Australia Australia

Posts: 1713





Ignore
« Reply #247 on: May 08, 2016, 05:22:19 AM »

George V did leave the money to his younger children, as earlier monarchs had done, because the weren't affected by death duties. A lot of what George V did leave ended up going in death duties which is why George VI and presumably the Queen will follow the monarch to monarch inheritance and leave it all to Charles.

It is also assumed that The Queen has set up substantial trust funds for her children and possibly grandchildren and even her niece and nephew (as did The Queen Mum). Anything in those funds that has been there for more than 7 years is free of death taxes.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 [17]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to: