Prince Philip’s will to be sealed for 90 years to protect the Queen’s ‘dignity’

167763PCN_QueenCanadaMGS024

Weeks after Prince Philip’s death, the Daily Mail had a curious story in which “royal sources” spilled some tea about Philip’s last will and testament. According to that report, Philip had accumulated around $42 million over his long life, and he spread out his wealth in his will. He left money to loyal aides for their years of service, he (likely) set up trusts for his grandchildren, and the rest of his wealth he left to his widow. I discussed at the time how weird it was that Philip had accumulated all that wealth, especially considering his “pauper prince” roots and the fact that he had not drawn any kind of salary since his Naval days. Instead of answering any questions about just how Philip made that kind of money over his lifetime, the royal lawyers have been granted their request to keep Philip’s will under seal for ninety years. Sure, I doubt this will lead to any more questions!

The Duke of Edinburgh’s will is to remain secret for at least 90 years to protect the “dignity and standing” of the Queen, the High Court has ruled. It has been convention for over a century that, after the death of a senior member of the Royal Family, the courts are asked to seal their wills. It means that, unlike most wills granted probate, it will not be open to public inspection. There will be a private process in 90 years to decide if it can be unsealed.

The hearing into the application to seal the will was also held in private in July by Sir Andrew McFarlane, the most senior judge in the family courts. He heard arguments from lawyers representing the duke’s estate and the attorney general, the government’s chief legal adviser, and published his ruling on Thursday. Sir Andrew said that as president of the Family Division of the High Court, he is the custodian of a safe containing more than 30 envelopes, each containing the sealed will of a dead member of the Royal Family. And for the first time in more than 100 years, he set out a process by which those wills could be made public.

Sir Andrew said: “I have held that, because of the constitutional position of the Sovereign, it is appropriate to have a special practice in relation to royal wills. There is a need to enhance the protection afforded to truly private aspects of the lives of this limited group of individuals in order to maintain the dignity of the Sovereign and close members of her family.”

The judge said he had not seen Prince Philip’s will or been told anything of its contents, other than the date of its execution and the identity of the appointed executor. He said he decided to hold the hearing in private because it would be likely to generate “very significant publicity and conjecture” that would “defeat the purpose of the application”.

“I accepted the submission that, whilst there may be public curiosity as to the private arrangements that a member of the Royal Family may choose to make in their will, there is no true public interest in the public knowing this wholly private information,” he said.

[From BBC]

It’s not that Philip’s will has not already been executed – it has, and it was likely executed in the weeks after his death, meaning Philip’s wealth and property were spread out and “bequeathed” to everyone in his will. The issue is simply a legal trickery, and it’s basically that Philip’s will won’t technically go into probate until the issue comes up in ninety years’ time. Apparently, the Queen Mother and Princess Margaret had similar arrangements – their wills were executed but never made public, and put under seal soon after they died. This is all about A) hiding the enormous wealth royals accumulate over their lifetimes, B) having to explain HOW the royals accumulated so much wealth, C) hiding the information about who got what. While Sir Andrew McFarlane says he hasn’t read or seen Philip’s will, he must have some idea or else he wouldn’t make such a big deal about protecting the Queen’s “dignity.” F–k, did Philip leave everything to Penelope Knatchbull?

HMS Queen Elizabeth

Royal Windsor Horse Show - Day 5

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, WENN and Backgrid.

Related stories

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

85 Responses to “Prince Philip’s will to be sealed for 90 years to protect the Queen’s ‘dignity’”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Belli says:

    No outrage about this from the same media that was adamant that Meghan’s letter to her father was “in the public interest”.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Absolutely none.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      It’s the double standards and rank hypocrisy for me. That family has to be one of the most amoral and dysfunctional ever and they have the audacity to look down their noses at those who escape?

    • Me says:

      Penny Knatchbull was the least of it—how many outside children got a final pay out?

      • EliseM says:

        I hate to say it, but I wondered the same thing. How many children did be sire outside the marriage? What else could impact someone’s dignity who is wealthy in their own right.

      • Detnow359 says:

        That is what this is really about. Phillip was rumored to have had I believe four outside children. That’s why they want to protect the dignity of the queen. She knew but didn’t divorce him. But let’s keep talking about their storybook fairytale love affair

    • PrincessK says:

      To avoid embarrassment to the Queen and protect the privacy of others for the next 90 years is the clue. Some of the many skeletons in the Windsor wardrobe are being kept under lock and key for 90 years. Rumour has it that he expressly put it in his will that Penny Knatbull and Princess Alexandra, one long term love replaced the other should be present at his funeral, and they were. Rumour has it that Fergie’s mother was one of his mistresses, which is the real reason why he never wanted Fergie in his sight and why Fergie holds a lot of power within the RF, she knows all the secrets, the Queen keeps her close for many reasons. There are rumours that Philip has outside children. For some reason, new to me, Pamela Hicks name has come up. When in his nineties he was surprisingly made a godfather to a child, some believed this had something to do with his will…….

      • Muisje says:

        If Pamela Hicks is mentioned, India will tell us in her podcast ;)
        I saw the name of Pennys daughter mentioned very often in the last days, and I think he was made godfather of her first son, but I thought the explanations that she looks like a female William and therefore might be one of this outside children were a bit far fetched.

  2. OriginalLala says:

    This is disgusting – they leech off the public teat and somehow also still manage to hoard, accumulate and sit on enormous piles of private/secret wealth??? My god when will people see them for the grifters they are??? The Trump family wishes they were as successful at grifting as the BRF has been.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      To see them for what they are will require a lot of the British public to admit that the royal family is nothing special and with Brexit and the Covid chaos battering the UK, they need the symbolism of a “once-great” monarchy the RF provides.

    • GraceB says:

      I think the majority of Brits do see them as grifters. Not much gets the British public riled up like a good discussion on how much the Royals take from tax payers. I feel like on here, people assume that the Brits are obsessed and protective over their monarchy, but as someone who’s lived here for a long time, I don’t think that’s true at all. There are Royalists but not many of them, and they tend to be of an older generation.

      The issue is more with the media protecting them and using them for their own agenda. That agenda is clearly to sell stories, for whom Brits might not be the target audience. While travelling, often one of the first things people would mention, if I told them I lived in the UK, would be the RF. I’m surprised by the following they have, when there are so many other monarchies in the world. If you lose the monarchy, you’ve lost so many clicks.

      The press will write whatever sells. It’s really interesting that prior to Meghan, we’d frequently get stories about Royal spending or tax costs. Now we don’t, because the anti-Sussex stories sell better. They know the RF’s reputation has suffered and they don’t want to risk adding to that and seeing their income source fall apart.

      That’s just my take on it anyway.

  3. Seraphina says:

    It’s BS like this that is just another reason that makes the BRF think they are above everyone and everything. Things like this add up. No wonder Andrew thinks he is above being brought to justice and answering for his crimes. Trickery is correct. Another reason why the establishment needs to be brought down. My children won’t be living in 90 years and no one will care. Another way to ensure they are above the rest of us and that they get away with their thievery, their manipulation and Lord knows what else.

    • Merricat says:

      +1, Seraphina. It’s despicable that they ask people to go lean, to tighten their belts, while the rf is hoarding goods and monies like they’re saving up to be gods. Sell the gold piano and feed the peasants, you filth.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      “No wonder Andrew thinks he is above being brought to justice and answering for his crimes”

      Uh, he doesn’t just THINK it, he IS above being brought to justice. Nothing will happen to him, he still has his HRH title and money that only the queen can take away (which she hasn’t). And IF by some miracle it looks like Andrew could be indicted criminally, all the queen would have to say is that he was acting as her emissary while he was in America, and Andrew gets immunity.

      • Seraphina says:

        Wow Mrs.Krabapple – what a buzzkill. You are so correct in what you said. And I don’t have the excuse of youth in my naïve comment either (although I wish I did).

  4. Haylie says:

    All this to hide monies he left to Penelope and his kids born of women who weren’t his wife?

    • Seraphina says:

      That’s where Liz’s dignity comes into the picture. And Lord knows what else.

      • Mrs.Krabapple says:

        What dignity? The queen protects rapists, racists, and grifters. That’s not dignity, no matter how expensive her jewelry is.

    • Belli says:

      That would be in keeping with tradition! This “protocol” was set up in the first place to hide some emeralds left to a mistress!

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      No wonder his children are the way they are. What a role model eh?

    • Merricat says:

      That’s the convenient implication. There are plenty of other reasons that are truer and more important to them.

    • Esmerelda says:

      My mind went immediately to “natural children” too. And, even if I’m writing on a gossip site, I can’t say I disagree withe the sealing.
      The monarchy should be over because it doesn’t make any sense in modern democratic times, not because the Queen’s husband got around.

    • Nina says:

      No wonder that the Queen looks super happy these past few weeks

    • Gobo says:

      Oh 110% yes. Definitely.

    • Lucy says:

      100% this. I wonder how many children (they’d be older than me, but still) there are floating around out there. They had to get a big payout since we haven’t heard from them.

    • February-Pisces says:

      That’s exactly what I was thinking. He clearly made sure his mistresses and illegitimate children and grandchildren were covered. He probably didn’t leave anything to his official children because he knows they will be taken care of when the queen dies.

  5. Amy Bee says:

    All 3 legal representatives were on the same page and there’s precedent for this action so I guess the judge had no other choice but rule in the Queen’s favour. But a good question was raised on Twitter which was whose dignity are they really protecting by keeping the will sealed for 90 years? It’s not the Queen because she’s not going to live that long. Upon hearing the news, the popular conclusion was that he left money to Penny that’s why the will stays private. I think it was in the public’s interest for the will to be revealed but as Kaiser points out that would raisea number of other questions about how he accumulated so much wealth. Even without the will, the press should be asking these questions but they won’t. Only Meghan’s letter to her father was in the public’s interest. It makes the Royal Family look even worse that they didn’t protect Meghan and didn’t back her in her lawsuit against the Mail on Sunday.

    • Elizabeth Regina says:

      Not just Meghan’s letter but the way the press scrutinises the Sussexes earnings whilst ignoring the rest of the gin/milk/grocery/ticket selling, pay for play family reeks

      • Amy Bee says:

        @Elizabeth regina: The press behaves like Harry and Meghan are still working royals and haven’t found a way to cover them. But you’re right that the finances of the other royals and their adjacents are not scrutinized in the same way.

  6. Becks1 says:

    90 years?? I mean…..I think 30 years would be sufficient or something. I just don’t get it. To me, there is a significant public interest in seeing exactly how much money these people have and where it goes after they die. But apparently that violates their dignity? Why, because then the public might start asking too many questions?

    Margaret’s will was made public at some point, and I think she had something like 7 or 10 million pounds in it that she left to people, which is a fair amount when you consider she never worked. (that does not include her estate on Mustique because she left that to her son a few years before she died.)

    My question is – aren’t there tax implications from these wills, so the wills aren’t completely private, its not just between the beneficiaries and the deceased, there are a variety of other people who know. If Penelope Knatchbull got everything, that’s going to come out in her taxes, right? I know taxes are private here in the US though, not sure about the UK.

    • Sofia says:

      The Queen’s lawyers apparently wanted it sealed for 125 years but the judge said 90 was enough. 90 years means that not only will the kids be dead, the grandkids will be too and maybe even some of the great-grandkids. So anyone who could remember Philip would be dead and he just becomes a historical figure for those alive in year 2111 and even for the rest of his descendants who are alive.

      So if it comes out that he made money how he shouldn’t have or if he handed money to mistress and out of wedlock kids, no one is really going to kick up a fuss because finding out someone who died 90 years ago had money/mistresses isn’t shocking and the ones who remember him are going to be gone.

      Am I making sense? I want to add that I don’t think it’s right but that’s probably why they’re doing it.

      • Merricat says:

        You are right on.

      • Becks1 says:

        Yeah, that makes sense. 125 years is ridiculous lol. But it’s definitely about making sure no one actually cares about seeing the will, which will be the case in 90 years.

        I mean heck who knows how things will look in 90 years, monarchy-wise.

      • Seraphina says:

        Thank you, great explanation. Much better job than I could do.

      • Lionel says:

        @Sofia: Exactly this. I admit I was doing the math on 90 years, because I always like to think I’m younger than I am! 100+ years psychologically feels like “the future” in which none of us will be alive. In 90 years none of us will be alive either, nor most of our current children, nor anyone who might possibly care today about how much money Philip had or to whom he left it, but it seems more gentle than a century. Like pricing something at $4.99 instead of $5.00.

      • BeanieBean says:

        I’m late to the discussion, but I do know Mark Twain embargoed his autobiography for 100 years–also 75 years 50 years 500 years, he changed his mind a lot. The purpose was, I think, not to embarrass anyone–particularly his children–while they were still alive.

    • MMadison says:

      43 million and there is no explanation as to how he accumulated so much wealth. We know the British Media will ask ZERO questions. I think the Queen and Phillip had an understanding in their marriage. I’m sure she mourned Phillip’s death but I have never seen her smiled as much since he died.

    • TabithaD says:

      The tax question is an interesting one. The BRF’s tax affairs are pretty murky, as the Crown is exempt from the usual tax legislation. The Queen and Charles have “voluntarily” paid tax since the time of the Windsor Castle fire in the early 90’s (in response to a huge public outcry about TQ asking for donations to foot the repair costs, when the BRF paid no tax at the time).
      But the Queen Mother apparently paid no tax on her estate when she died, and she left £70m.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Tabitha – she left most of it (all of it?) to the Queen, and anything passed from monarch to monarch is not taxed. I think at the time there was some debate as to whether the QM qualified under this , since she wasn’t the monarch, but I think they decided she did.

        but we also haven’t seen her will if I recall correctly, so who knows.

      • Larisa says:

        Because monarchs need all the help they can get? What an odd law. But then again everything about monarchy seems odd to me, so maybe I’m not the best judge.

      • Nic919 says:

        The estate tax thing is supposed to be from monarch to monarch only, so the Queen mother technically shouldn’t have been able to skip the estate tax. (In the past married women didn’t own anything anyway so they was rarely an issue). Supposedly she transferred a lot of her stuff in a trust prior to her death, but of course no one looked very hard at this.
        Honestly the UK needs to crack open this mess. To give so much money to one family of idiots is beyond absurd.

  7. Noki says:

    What kind of hoarse s*** is this ? Nothing should be sealed for generations several times over.Same with the JFK ,when is that opened again ? 😂

  8. Snuffles says:

    He probably (illegally and unethically) accumulated more money than anyone knows AND probably has a ton of bastard children and grandchildren out there he left money to.

  9. Chica1971 says:

    He left money to mistresses or organizations that shared his racist sentiments. It’s a mix all that is not good.

  10. TabithaD says:

    I understand that this is a “convention” that has been done for senior BRF members for over 100 years. But that doesn’t mean this should continue. Wills are made public in the UK, so once again the BRF illustrate that they’re above the law.
    So are they public figures working for the “nation”, in whose affairs we (the UK public) have a legitimate interest – or are they not? Why do they get to have it both ways? And why are they so secretive about their enormous, mysteriously acquired “private” wealth? Why is TQ’s “dignity” so important in this context, when she has a son in flight from the law on sex charges (very dignified)?
    There is also the separate question of who benefits from Prince Philip’s will. I bet *that* makes for some interesting reading.

  11. Snuffles says:

    From now on, every time I hear someone talk about “protecting the dignity” of anyone in The Firm, I’m going to assume they did some illegal, unethical and amoral shit.

    • Merricat says:

      And your assumption will be right.

    • Belli says:

      We’ll just have to assume that the worst indignity the Queen could face is the right one.

      So Philip said in his will that none of the Queen’s children are legitimate, made all his money illegally and gifted it all to the family’s dealer.

      If they want to prove otherwise they’ll have to open the will.

      • Steph says:

        Since the monarch is a woman, can her children still be called illegitimate of they born out of wedlock?

      • SnoodleDumpling says:

        @Steph Yes they can, because UK law regarding hereditary titles is gleefully archaic and strict!

        A ‘legitimate heir, lawfully begotten’ must be the biological child of both the title holder and their lawful spouse so no sperm/egg donors (MUST be born AFTER the legal marriage but BEFORE divorce is finalized!), MUST be carried by the biological mother so no surrogates (source of eggs regardless), and also no adopted kids.

        In vitro fertilization is regarded as merely a modern evolution of the vaunted turkey baster, and thus is permitted for difficult cases.

  12. Eurydice says:

    I have to laugh at “the Queen’s dignity.” Sure, seal the will. What’s not sealed are Charles and his foundation scandals, Andrew and his sex scandals, BP’s diversity issues, W&K’s embarrassing stupidity and the RF’s obvious jockeying for position as they openly wait for her to die. I guess her dignity doesn’t need to be protected from that.

  13. Nic919 says:

    While the focus is on whether or not he gave money to his mistresses and possible out of wedlock children, the real issue is where did this guy get any money? He was supposedly poor when he got married and quit the navy decades ago. So how did he acquire anything seeing as he never got a salary as such? That’s the bigger issue they are hiding from the public.

    • Becks1 says:

      Okay so we discussed this around the time the first news about his will came out, and someone said that he was able to invest his civil list money up until the 70s, when reforms were passed. Like if he was allotted 100k a year in civil list money for his staff and expenses, and only spent 75k of that, he was able to invest that extra 25k. So let’s say he did that from 1955 to 1975 and so had 500k invested, and then was able to make investments off of that and that money grew. Growing to 40 million seems like a lot to me but at least it gives a starting point. I’m sure the queen sent money his way on a regular basis as well, like regular fund transfers from the duchy of lancaster or something.

      And then I think as part of the sovereign grant he got a salary – someone on the last post said it was 500k a year…..and figuring that most of his expenses (like housing) were otherwise covered, even if there was an extra 100k out of that he was investing – I guess it could add up quickly?

      Even with all that said, 40 million seems like a lot of “adding up quickly” so then you do have to wonder where he got the rest of the money.

      but of course we peasants are not supposed to ask too many questions about that.

      • Tigerlily says:

        Did Lord Mountbatten leave Philip any money? Or was his will sealed too?

      • Lionel says:

        @Becks1: Yes I think you’ve got it. Add to your post the fact that he as the male consort had access to lucrative investment opportunities the rest of us never see, starting in the late 1940s. As you say, he had few, if any, personal expenses. Dude never had to pay for housing, transportation, food, clothing, children’s education, home upkeep; all the stuff that sucks the rest of us dry. And all the while he collected more annually from the CL or SG than the rest of us could even dream of. Adjust it for inflation. He lived to 99, a life encompassing several decades of enormous economic prosperity, even in the UK. You can bet he got in on US deals as well during those growth periods. For all his faults, including being ludicrously out of touch, I never got the impression that he was dumb. I can easily see how he was shrewdly able to amass that kind of personal fortune, even while remaining on the right (*cough* privileged) side of the law.

  14. Jay says:

    See, this just makes me curious about why exactly her late husband’s will could be said to hurt the Queen’s dignity. And yeah, my first thought is that maybe he left some bequests to past “companions” or whatnot. This won’t stop people from speculating about where the money went to, or didn’t, and how exactly he got to have so much fortune to distribute in the first place…

    Also, it never fails to amaze me that although the entire institution of the monarchy arguably centres on death and inheritance, the people that most want to uphold that system seem the least comfortable talking about it. Now the queen herself is nearly 100 and has seen some things, so I would be surprised if she’s really bothered. Didn’t she long ago make arrangements for her Corgis?

    Now, if her staff could only deal with Andrew with the same kind of vigour they bring to other perceived embarrassments to the queen, we’d be better off.

  15. Harper says:

    If Penny suddenly lands a new home in Mustique or a fancy yacht or whatever then I think we can assume what was in Philip’s will.

  16. Prairiegirl says:

    Anyone know where to look to read Edward VII’s will? TQ’s great grandfather’s will is the most recently eligible to be unsealed, based on this standard. He died in 1910!

  17. Chantal says:

    They mean “protect the Queen from humiliation and the sycophants/govt from exposure.” I think the 43 million estimate is probably too low. Andrew is reportedly worth 32 million and he wasn’t nearly as smart/successful as Philip was when it came to grifting nor at it as long. Philip was reportedly a very
    proud man. He also was a senior “working” Royal for decades and knew how to play the game. Wonder how many millions the Queen gifted him over the decades. Philip definitely wasn’t walking behind Liz all those years for free.

  18. MY3CENTS says:

    Another day another reason to #ABOLISHTHEMONARCHY

  19. Lizzie Bathory says:

    Kaiser, (US) lawyer here. The judge said he knew of the “date of execution” of the Will, which means the date Philip signed his Will & had it acknowledged. That’s different from when the estate was settled. That can take months or years, even for a person whose estate is less complex than Philip’s.

    His estate is going through some version of probate, the records are just not public. The purpose of probate is to legally transfer the decedent’s assets to the executor, who will then discharge any debts & pay out the estate to the beneficiaries, establish trusts, etc.

    In the US, it’s easy to set up revocable trusts to bypass the public probate process. I guess the royals have their own system of just…keeping things sealed for a century.

  20. Rea says:

    Damn it I’ll probably be dead by then😭 I want to know how his finances looked like. That’s petty of the Queen she’s a public figure so the royals finance should be publicly made. Their getting tax funded people should be able to see their money goes. I hope people in the UK aren’t buying this shit and demand change. There’s definitely something up if QE is demanding 90 years to make sure those involved are death.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Rea, I agree!! I don’t understand how those who are paying for this draconian family have not become wiser and angrier at their vast wealth and excessive properties, jewelry and lifestyle. The taxpayers are the ones supporting this greedy family and they are perfectly fine with having to pay for the upkeep of the Monarchy’s properties! I would be up in arms every day if I lived to support these vile, greedy and criminals!! Not only do they live rent free, but they also manipulate laws to benefit them solely, not anyone else.

      The Monarchy should be abolished!!!

  21. Jess says:

    I didn’t care about what was in his will until now, when they’ve told me I can’t see it. What’s hiding?

    • February-Pisces says:

      The royal family always seem to inadvertently draw more attention to the things they don’t want you to see. Now I know they are hiding something, I’m more intrigued than ever.

  22. Lizzie says:

    He probably left a lot to his German family and they like to hide those connections.

  23. Lizzie says:

    He probably made the money from some cash for access scheme similar to Charles. Is that basically what pedo’s pitch@palace ? I think they probably all have a version of this and some are more clever at hiding it.
    IMHO, none of his cash should be left to the queen. Better to walk down the street and hand it out than to give to a billionaire.

  24. VegasSchmegas says:

    Set myself an Outlook meeting notice to remind myself in 90 years.

  25. LMR says:

    TINFOIL TIARA ON

    I think Prince Phil accumulated all those millions by being paid to stay on as Liz’s husband. I think he was ready and willing to divorce her, and she had to pay him to stay. Millions and millions of pounds per year to stay in a life he didn’t want.

    He may have also inherited something when his sisters died. Because of who their husbands were, such money could have Nazi origins.

  26. LynnInTX says:

    If the reasoning the judge gave at the end of the excerpt was really the truth (“there is no true public interest in the public knowing this wholly private information”) then why are wills public information in to begin with? Why is their “true public interest” in what John Rando leaves his money to when he dies, and why isn’t his information considered “wholly private”? If plebs have to deal with it, then so should the BRF. If anything, it should be private individuals that have sealed wills, and “public figures” (BRF, politicians, anyone in the House of Lords) should be the ones with public wills.

    Anyone with half a brain can see it’s really about hiding money, hiding “indiscretions”, hiding his interests, and preventing the plebs from asking where he got as much money as he did.

  27. LovesitinNM says:

    Of course there’s true public interest. Otherwise there is no accountability, guard against corruption or way to verify that these people are being held to the same laws as British citizens. Or are the British citizens truly only subjects of the royal family and anything done to appear otherwise is a ruse?

  28. candy says:

    I’m sure it’s not that salacious. Anything that was really worth hiding was dealt with in his lifetime. But yea, some of it definitely went to Penny, and probably his German relations.

  29. Isabella says:

    I would love it if Penny acquired a young, handsome boyfriend to get her through her later years. Queen Elizabeth should do the same.

  30. RoyalBlue says:

    no one should show up at her jubilee to wave flags. they continue to grift and we have to wave and adore her? no.

    • Lady D says:

      I’m expecting an undertone of dissatisfaction and resentment from the crowd by next June. I’m predicting that it’s not going to all be flowers and balloons by Jubilee time.

  31. Well Wisher says:

    I suppose that the law differs than the US, where the will is airtight with the bulk of the estate placed in trust then the contents are no longer accessable to the public. Some people will distribute some of their wealth like selling second homes to children for $1.etc.
    I read some of the fameous people’s wills who died like Johh F Kenndy Jr. His will was similar to his father’s , Whitney Houston’s, David Bowie’s etc. Forbes Mag. usually share the available details, the legality and how airtight the will is. Deliberately there is no way of knowing how much the estate is worth. I have come to the realization that all individuals involved are entitled to their privacy.

    • Nic919 says:

      In the US no one gets their money from the taxpayers for generations though. And since the law in the UK is to make wills public for the peasants, there is even less reason for the royals who live entirely off taxpayer money to be placed above that. Besides it’s only something they started in 1910 to hide the fact that one of them gave money to his mistress. There is no justifiable legal reason to keep them private. Especially the money part.

      • Well Wisher says:

        There is no legal nor moral reason for Prince Philip will to be public. In the US, only the little people pay taxes, so while the rich do not get their money from taxpayers, they are exempt from paying income tax, via favourable laws, their corporations do not pay taxes but get the government grants.
        The populations from the western nations will be better served, if they insist on hyper democracy rather than tolerate hyper capitalism based on unrealtic materalism and greed.
        The monarchy is the benign face of the goverment, they are not captains of industry nor elected officals. They do not have to be perfect for £1.5 per person, per year. Meanwhile the offical newspapers and media who torment some of the royal members do not even pay taxes muchless £1.50.