AIBU in thinking that King Charles' passing will devastate Britain?

There is a lot of pressure on William to get things right that’s for sure.

On the positive side he spoke
about change in his recent interview.

And it’s reported by Lownie that he doesn’t get on with his father, to the extent they don’t stay in the same house when visiting Balmoral at the same time, hence the need for an official summit between the two of them.

So perhaps the latter indicates that William will do things very differently?

On the other hand, PW has opted not to be as transparent about his finances as KC3. (Not that KC3 is that transparent tbh) but W is even less so!

So the jury is out atm!

I agree with that last post, to me it’s like being a colleague in a workplace. I just want to know if they’re going to be in or not to work. It’s been quite clear so far whether the King has had duties that he can’t do or can do, so that’s all fine then. That’s all we need to know. Anything more is just nosiness and not public interest.

People whoever they are are always entitled to medical privacy.

As far as announcing medical matters; I don’t think we have the right to know every detail, but I do think the public should be informed if an illness compromises the monarch’s ability to carry out their duties.

I'm the same. I'm in no way in favour or a fan of the monarchy but I still think like everyone else they have a right to keep their medical information private if they wish.

I'm also in absolutely no way defending how they are financed and think the amount we fund them through tax is a disgrace but I still don't think that means we "own" them and can demand they release highly personal details of their medical history or somehow make them personally responsible for raising awareness of early screening of which there is already a lot of work and awareness about.

I believe Charles became a billionaire in no small part thanks to the then PM, Sir John Major who, in 1993 introduced a series of special arrangements which ensured that assets passed from a reigning monarch to their successor would be exempt from inheritance tax.

Now even I as a 99% Republican can understand the tax exemption to maintain the value of state assets eg the Crown Jewels and Buckingham Palace, but what I can’t understand is that private assets such as Sandringham and Balmoral were also included in the arrangement!

The primary justification at the time was to prevent the monarchy's assets from being gradually diminished, or "salami-sliced away by capital taxation," across generations, potentially compromising the institution's financial independence and ability to perform its official functions.

But of course they are also funded by the British tax payer to do their job!

The other reason was because the RF can’t accrue wealth through work like ordinary people! (No but they let off-shore accounts and trust funds shoulder that burden for them!)

To be strictly fair, any assets QE2 left to anyone other than KC3 were subject to the standard 40% UK inheritance tax rules.

And these exemptions were part of a wider arrangement where QE2 voluntarily agreed to pay income tax and capital gains tax on her private income, which were put in to place after the Windsor fire.

Nonetheless, overall, Charles's personal net worth is estimated to have increased by an estimated £640 million since becoming King, almost double his mother's last reported personal wealth. According to three Times, this was largely due to the inheritance of private estates and the performance of his inherited investment portfolios.

So imho it’s high time the question is asked whether financial exemptions designed to protect state assets, should also personally benefit the monarch to such a huge extent?

.

Then they should stop expecting the tax payer to fund their lives.

George III had to go cap in hand to the government in 1760 because they were broke (although a monarch's idea of broke I imagine will differ from ours...). That's when the civil list started, then recently that was changed to the sovereign grant.

If Charles is a billionaire we don't need to be giving the monarchy any money at all! For anything! Because they can pay for it themselves.

When I read about Athena's christening at St James's Palace, I thought how ridiculous it is for them to have a handful of personal palaces with adjoining chapels for them to choose from for this stuff.

If they want to make more money, they can slim down the number of palaces and residences they use, have the various households all in one palace in London, then turn the rest into full on tourist going concerns.

You know every time I see the title of this thread on my feed it makes me chuckle! 😂

But why?

This is what truly puzzles me.

A family wealthy beyond measure, who are in their position because they've been born into it, what is the difference between them and any other extremely wealthy family. The Duke of Westminster for instance. No one gave a hoot when his father died.

It's only because we're fed a media picture of these people that makes us think we know them. Their PR works hard to try to make them relatable and to make us feel they're relevant.

It's all about marketing. That's all.

I believe much of it is through buying up property. Same with William. Some of it rented out, and all of it exempt from CGT or Corporation tax, so pure profit. After the revelations into the state of properties on the Duchy of Cornwall (somehow conveniently forgotten about yet people can still manage to remember an Oprah interview from 5 years ago) they don't spend much money maintaining them either. So they just sit on piles and piles of property, renting it out for commercial purposes but without any commercial liabilities. They also make money from owning the seabeds for oil exploration and windfarms after The Late Queen asked for them and they were just given to her! I reckon there would be a few more billionnaires out there if no one had to pay any tax on their commercial enterprises and they could just ask for stuff and it was given to them no questions asked!

Not at all. I didn’t feel like this either when the Queen died. The monarchy is way past its sell by date.

I agree up to a point. But we are supposed to look up to them, they are powerful and can send important messages to the great british public, which is why I think Charles and Kate could have done more to highlight early screening. It's good that Charles is putting out a message tonight for Stand Up To Cancer, how much more powerful it would have been if Kate had joined him.
They don't have to go into personal details, although apparently Charles is going to disclose more about his cancer tonight.

The principle that your medical information is private unless you want it made public applies to everyone.

Rich people, not billionaires funded by the tax payer.

There should be a massive magnifying glass on them.

How the hell did Charles become a billionaire for a start. How much of that is his privately? Where did he get that private income? I thought he worked for the public.

As someone mentioned upthread, the figure for their tax avoidance is one that should be calculated and disclosed.

Yes the Knights of the Garter attire is straight out of Ruritania!

To think they are meant to be twenty or so of the most prestigious, noble, worthy people in the UK; and until very recently, Prince Andrew was among their number is quite mind boggling!

I'm totally anti monarchy but even I don't think we should know any of that.

Rich people pay for better healthcare, always will. Even then lots end up with NHS care it goes tits up

They don't want to tell you this because the difference to how normal people are treated would draw so much unwanted attention to them.

And you know, they are just like us, so nothing to see here.

I’m aware it’s wishful thinking but I think as a population we should be looking at them a lot closer than we do.

@reallyffspeople

Nothing like that will ever ever happen. They are shrouded in mystery, anything that can be picked up on is hidden, it's all smoke and mirrors

Which is absolutely disgusting.

Let’s say, for example, Kate had bowel cancer (of course we don’t know, it’s an example). We should know when and how it was diagnosed, how long it took from first symptoms to diagnosis and how long it took from diagnosis to surgery. Were any of her surgeries cancelled due to strikes, lack of theatre space or staff? How does that compare to a normal woman in her 40s experience of treatment? How does it compare to national averages for that type of cancer?

That is the bare minimum we should be having. They should then be made to explain why they are seemingly so deserving of such levels of healthcare when the ordinary person is not. In Kate’s case is marriage enough to justify it?

I don't think you're unreasonable. Thinking on it though, if I had cancer, seeing a real contrast in treatment options, speed and cost might be quite upsetting. As humans, they are not more deserving of good care than I am.

They will be handled by the very best cancer specialists probably in the world. It will bear no resemblance to anything that the general public go through. Palaces have their own medical centres within them and I imagine they ship in equipment for treatment when needed.

We deserve to know what, when and at how much cost. We are paying for them to live in extreme luxury. The king is the first billionaire royal. All off our hard work. We should be given even the most basic of information.

That is a very fair question. I have always assumed they had private treatment, which would be faster by nature.