Because some assets, such as the official residences, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection of paintings and other works of art are not sold to provide income or capital for the personal use of the king, and pass from one sovereign to the next, it would be inappropriate for inheritance tax to be paid on them, the agreement argues.<\/p>\n
A former senior official involved in past decisions about royal finances said this system had been designed to ensure the British monarchy, which still has public support<\/a>, is \u201cnot placed in a position of subservience\u201d to the government of the day. It is also meant to allow the royals the \u201csame principle of confidentiality\u201d as other British citizens.<\/p>\n But that same former official, granted anonymity to speak candidly, warned there was a \u201cquid pro quo\u201d to that.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe public will acquiesce in these arrangements if it is seen that the members of the royal family conduct themselves in a way that is, although privileged, not extravagant, and not flagrant. Things break down if there are members of the royal family who aren\u2019t keeping that side of the bargain,\u201d the former official added.\u00a0<\/p>\n