Previous Message

In the absence of an actual answer, we have to step back and apply some good old fashioned common sense. The Queen is not going to behave improperly. With gifts she has received from foreign rulers, she will inevitably either leave these to her heir to ensure they remain with the line main and are exempt from tax or they will be donated to the Royal Collection.

Let’s play out a scenario here.

For bizarre reasons Queen Elizabeth II has a personality change and decides to leave her son the Earl of Wessex her Dubai sapphires. These are worth a million pounds. He now faces a huge inheritance tax bill, which he cannot pay, so he must sell them. There would be public outcry. It may cause some kind of diplomatic incident. The sapphires would be lost.

Common sense query, why would Elizabeth II knowingly put her youngest son in that situation?

If Elizabeth II wanted to pass jewels to her descendants other than the Prince of Wales, she would have done so by now and gifted them some time ago to try and take advantage of the 7-year rule exempting gifts from inheritance tax.

All of Elizabeth II’s adult children and grandchildren are married and despite this, it isn’t apparent that any of her granddaughters or grandson’s spouses have received important gifts of jewellery. They are **loaned** items, loaned being the key word. It is clear Elizabeth II intends to preserve these assets and pass them to the next monarch.

We aren’t going to have all of the definitive answers that it seems some people require. If people are unhappy with this, so be it but people need to look at the facts that we do know and try and reach a sensible conclusion.