Women distributing newborns, who are sired by the appropriate man, silly.
That may be because his other clock is out for repair.
Henry has very publicly moved his residence to the United States. Why do you think he is “almost certainly” domiciled in the United Kingdom?
For example, passing a law that says you are disqualified from becoming a monarch if you are a Catholic or if you are married to a Catholic?
Residency and domicile are not the same thing. My conflict of laws class was a long time ago, but I remember studying English cases on the issue that were … difficult.
But doesn’t “domicile” require at least an intention to make a place your permanent home , the one that you will return to after residing someplace else for a time?
Yes, they are not the same thing, but they are related. If you choose a particular place as your permanent residence, then it can become your domicile. It can be difficult to untangle the two matters. It’s a complex legal question. And that is exactly the reason why I asked how one could know that he is “almost certainly” domiciled in the United Kingdom.
he retains a residence in england.
That’s not necessarily a dispositive fact. As I said, the question of domicile is a complex legal question. It’s an entire area of law, at least in the United States, and I would assume in any other common law country. So, do you have a concrete reason to be so sure that you know the answer to the question of whether a particular person is domiciled in the United Kingdom? A statement by the government of the United Kingdom, for example?
To be fair Prince George of Wales could serve as permanent monarch tomorrow, but won’t be able to serve as Counsellor of State or Prince-Regent until the early 2030s. I doubt the Regency Act will be amended to disqualify Andrew (or Harry aside from the domicile issue) per se, but it seems prudent to expand the pool of eligible royal family members and provide the King-in-Council with more flexibly in deciding who can stand in for the monarch instead of defaulting to automatic appointments.
But wouldn’t his series of very public statements about his intent to reside in North America, coupled with his very public move to North America, make it difficult to claim to be domiciled in England?
On a side note, his wife (as an American citizen) is required to report ALL of his financial data to the IRS if they live abroad, but not necessarily if they reside in the USA. I wonder if that’s a factor?
From what I’ve read, he has renewed his lease on frogmore cottage. Searching…. Ah, from wiki:
Counsellor of State - Wikipedia, (posted by acsenray) the paragraph following the current lists does mention his lease renewal.
As he is living mostly outside the uk and commonwealth, I can understand why there is talk of changing the rules.
Here is an interesting read https://www.tax.org.uk/uk-domicile-and-non-doms-an-explainer this has been raised due to the new pm’s wife.
Because domicile in English law is extremely sticky; it requires a lot of evidence to show that you have changed your domicile. The only way Harry can lose his UK domicile is by acquiring domicile in another country; simply relocating your primary residence to another country is not enough to do this.
As others have pointed out, Harry keeps a residence in the UK. He also retains several UK peerages, which he could disclaim but hasn’t; that might point to a desire to maintain a recognised place in UK society. He also announced, when he stepped back from royal activities in late 2019, that he and his wife would split their time between the United Kingdom and North America; SFAIK no change to that position has been announced. He still retains patronage of/involvement with a number of UK-based charities.
None of this is conclusive, but that’s the point. The default is that you retain your domicile, unless it is shown to have been changed, and that requires fairly clear evidence pointing consistently to a change.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. From my time as a tax practitioner, my understanding of the disclosure of foreign assets is as follows: If his wife owns foreign bank accounts or securities accounts, whether in her own name or jointly, then they would need to be disclosed as part of her tax return, assuming she has to file one and they are of large enough magnitude to be covered by the disclosure rules. If Harry is not a resident of the US (which again, is different than being domiciled there), then he does not have to file a US tax return, and his wife can file as married filing separately so as to not have to disclose his foreign financial holdings to the IRS.
If they have to file these disclosures though, it’s not like the public is getting the information. Just look at the fight to get Trump’s tax return disclosed. The IRS does not publicly divulge any information that is on individuals’ tax returns. The only tax returns that are open for public inspection are for non-profits, and anyone who voluntarily discloses the information. Also, I’m sure they have people who do these filings for them, and it’s simply another one of the burdens of being in charge of the royals’ finances. As far as such people are concerned, having to make those disclosures may very well be a revenue source.
Now it’s true that Congresscritters can get access to anyone’s tax return, but part of the fight with Trump was Congress showing due cause for requesting that access, IIRC. If Congress has a good reason to want to know about someone’s finances, the IRS will let them know, but they don’t just do it as a means of getting juicy gossip. And I doubt there’s anything there that’s not pretty much openly known in the UK anyway. If the royals own stuff there, people know about it. I don’t think they hide it in shell companies.
FATCA & FBAR. If you’re an American who lives abroad, there are specific requirements that don’t apply to Americans domiciled in the USA.
…and why not be Charles III since he is actually the third Charles?? Can we no longer count any more? Besides there were plenty of good/back kings with same names.
He’s the first kind of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to be named “Charles”. Charles I and Charles II were each King of England and (separately) King of Scotland - two separate kingdoms. The single United Kingdom didn’t come into existence until well after their time. So you could argue that present King is not - or should not be - Charles III of the UK.
William IV, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI seem to have established a precedent.
Churchill proposed that where there was a difference in regnal numbering between England and Scotland for a regnal name, the higher of the two should be used. So Charles is Charles III, William (assuming he uses that name) would be William V and so forth. Were a James to succeed to the throne, he would be James VIII rather than James III under this system (because James II of England was James VII of Scotland). However, I don’t believe this has been codified in any formal manner.
Mind you, by the time this matters Scotland will probably have gone independent anyway.
Welcome, Marylou!
He holds Scottish titles, of course, but he was born in Buckingham Palace, in England.
Hadn’t seen this earlier; the new PM will also not be attending:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/02/uk/uk-charles-climate-cop27-gbr-intl/index.html