Prince Andrew no surprise

[Pixxie7]

No surprise that the met have stopped. Their investigation into PA.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall do NOT belong to us. They are the sovereign's private estates

This is true - people confuse them with the Crown estates - but again it doesn't tell the whole story

The crown estates were once their private property too, so for a start there's the unanswered question of why the Duchies weren't rolled up with the rest when it was ceded in return for the Civil list

Then there's the issue of how they came by the estates in the first place, though admittedly that one would take some unpicking

Worst of all though, there's the nasty little ruse that each new monarch has to agree the continued passing-over of the crown estates at the start of their reign. Of course we're expected to take it on trust this will happen ... but is that necessarily so if a future monarch was even more venal than the current one?

[Roussette]

They are the sovereign's private estates

They are private estates when it suits them. If they were, they would be liable to the taxes the rest of the population pay on such land. No corporation tax. No CGT.

It's not her own personal estate. It's held by her whilst she is in the position of Head of State. So it's not her personal property like Balmoral or Sandringham. She can't sell it. She can't pass it on to anyone other than her direct heir. It's temporarily owned by her really... and belongs to the nation as a crown estate.
Ditto Duchy of Cornwall.

[julieca]

It has really annoyed me that the Queen is lecturing others on climate change when she lobbied for the RF to be exempt from any laws relating to tackling it. Bunch of hypocrites.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

They are private estates when it suits them. If they were, they would be liable to the taxes the rest of the population pay on such land. No corporation tax. No CGT

Also very true - and yet another example of them finagling whatever they want whenever they want it

And it reminds me of that other nasty ruse, whereby the agreement the Queen made to pay some income tax also has to be re-confirmed by each new monarch
Be interesting to see if that happens, won't it?

[ChurchofLatterDayPaints]

prh47bridge So if Republic.org are wrong or inflating the figures, where are people supposed to get more accurate info from, and why should they even have to ask anyway?

If they are private, then the same corporate disclosure rules need to apply to the RF's business interests as those that apply to any other private enterprise. That's not the case, is it?

[Viviennemary]

Its not as simple as the Duchy of Cornwall is the Queens private property She cannot sell any part of it. No death duties are payable
On it. The whole set up is a great big con in favour of the royals.

[prh47bridge]

so for a start there's the unanswered question of why the Duchies weren't rolled up with the rest when it was ceded in return for the Civil list

That isn't unanswered. They've always been separate. Wikipedia has a decent explanation of the history.

They are private estates when it suits them. If they were, they would be liable to the taxes the rest of the population pay on such land. No corporation tax. No CGT.

The duchies have the same tax status as unincorporated associations. That means they are not liable for Corporation Tax as they are not corporations, and they are not liable for CGT. The rest of the population don't pay Corporation Tax either. That is only payable by limited companies.

The Queen voluntarily pays both income tax and CGT on the money she receives from the Duchy of Lancaster. Charles voluntarily pays income tax on the income he receives from the Duchy of Cornwall. He doesn't pay CGT as he doesn't receive the Duchy's capital gains.

[ChurchofLatterDayPaints]

...but PC still gets taxpayer-funded travel.

The unincorporated association thing is just a massive tax avoidance scam.

One reason the Duchies weren't transferred with the rest of the C estates is that their income used to be very low. Strangely their income is now very very high. Any non-royal enterprise making that kind of money would have thresholds slapped on it. How is Edward IV's decision in 1399 and the 1780 decision (I think was that year, Friday eve not optimum time for complex history) still relevant in 2021?

HMRC would've been down like a ton of bricks on the RF if the UK was only slightly less corrupt.

[Roussette]

prh you talk like they are doing us a big favour by paying any tax.

So they should

Voluntarily = when forced by public opinion

The royals are very good at hanging on to their money

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

Voluntarily = when forced by public opinion

Indeed

We may well ask why it was only agreed on a voluntary basis, but then perhaps we're lucky (?) to get anything at all, considering that even with the law the Queen can veto what doesn't suit the Duchy or her personal interests under "Queen's Consent"

[prh47bridge]

you talk like they are doing us a big favour by paying any tax.

Not at all. Simply setting out the facts.

the Queen can veto what doesn't suit the Duchy or her personal interests under "Queen's Consent"

Whilst this is an anachronism and should go, please don't believe everything you read in the Guardian about this. Their articles have been poorly researched and a number of their assertions about the way it has been used are the opposite of the truth.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

I don't read the Guardian, prh47bridge - or the Mail, come to that - which is why I stuck with the basic fact of the Queen's veto rather than the rubbish that sometimes gets written about it

I roll my eyes, though, when folk insist the Queen has no more powers around the law than anyone else

[IrishMel]

His face looks distorted into a grey evil mess.. Can see the nastiness on his sweaty face. Shocking he has avoided being questioned. If it was anyone else things would be different. Royal Family, think on the name what is royal about so much of the behaviour

[Viviennemary]

His face was distorted into a grey evil mess. No fans of Andrew here. But are you writing a script for a hammer house of horror film.

[tickingthebox73]

@IrishMel

His face looks distorted into a grey evil mess.. Can see the nastiness on his sweaty face. Shocking he has avoided being questioned. If it was anyone else things would be different. Royal Family, think on the name what is royal about so much of the behaviour

What a load of tripe.

Do people have no critical thinking anymore, just because you read it in a newspaper doesn't mean its true.

He absolutely has been questioned, just not in the USA - this he "avoided" - he was questioned remotely in the UK. Nothing is being pursued. It only now a civil suit by a woman who failed to write any of this in her "tell all" book....but has conveniently now remembered it, and who settled (for money) the previous case rather than pursuing justice.

[Roussette]

He absolutely has been questioned

Who by?

Great bit of victim blaming by you there.

[tickingthebox73]

@Roussette

He absolutely has been questioned

Who by?

Great bit of victim blaming by you there.

I am finding myself increasingly annoyed that people are unable to understand the law....

He is an smug, self satisfied, annoying git, but that still doesn't make him guilty.

[Roussette]

No one has said he is guilty, apart from being guilty of being an entitled arse.

But he hasn't been questioned.

He's consulted with lawyers who he's employing over here and US based ones too. Is that what you mean by questioning?

[Duckrace]

I have always thought he was guilty after that tv interview.

[Essexmum321]

So he's said that he didn't do anything, but the sealed document protects him from being sued? seems a bit contradictory.

[prh47bridge]

@Essexmum321

So he's said that he didn't do anything, but the sealed document protects him from being sued? seems a bit contradictory.

Not contradictory at all.

His lawyers say the sealed documents (an agreement between Giuffre and Epstein) prevent her taking action regardless of the merit or otherwise of her claims. If true, this would have been intended, in part, to stop her making baseless allegations against random celebrities in Epstein's circle in order to extract payment from them. There is nothing contradictory in saying that this document means she can't sue him whilst also saying her allegations are untrue.

Note that I am not saying her allegations are baseless.

[Essexmum321]

Ah, that makes sense thank you - Maxwell paid Giuffre millions when Giuffre sued her for calling Giuffre a liar for the PA and other allegations, maybe PA will settle.

[Roussette]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/prince-andrew-accuses-virginia-giuffre-of-procuring-slutty-girls-for-sexual-abuse-by-epstein-9zlbk8dwt

Prince Andrew accuses Virginia Giuffre of ‘procuring slutty girls for sexual abuse by Epstein’

Interesting. First of all... he had no recollection apart from Woking Pizza place. Can't remember her, can't explain the picture, didn't sleep with her.
Now he's accusing her of procuring girls and by this logic he knew about the procuring but did nothing, and carried on his JE friendship despite this.

[Puzzledandpissedoff]

The Times article's behind a paywall, Roussette, but according to the Mirror (god help us ) The court filing adds: “While lurid allegations are made against Prince Andrew by Giuffre, the only party to this claim whose conduct has involved the wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse is Giuffre herself"

Note the "only party" ... so if that's right, there's no involvement by Ghislaine or whoever else and it's all down to Giuffre herself

Seems to me that's a hell of a risk they're taking there ...

[Roussette]

Yes indeed @Puzzledandpissedoff

Here's the article....

Prince Andrew has sought to turn the tables on the woman accusing him of teenage rape by claiming that she was involved in the “wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse”.

In a controversial attempt to prove his innocence, lawyers for the Duke of York have painted Virginia Giuffre as an alleged criminal who worked to procure underage “slutty girls” for Jeffrey Epstein, the paedophile billionaire.

They also indicate that by making false allegations against the prince and using up court time, Giuffre is allowing real predators to get away with their crimes.

Andrew’s decision to come out fighting marks a significant change in his legal strategy, but potentially leaves him open to claims of “victim-blaming” from women’s rights groups.

Giuffre, who is also known by her maiden name, Virginia Roberts, has accused the prince in a civil lawsuit in New York of “rape in the first degree” and sexual assault on three occasions when she was 17.

The attacks are alleged to have taken place in 2001 in London, New York and on Epstein’s private Caribbean island, Little St James.

Giuffre, now 38, is seeking unspecified “punitive damages” that could run into millions of pounds.

In a legal response filed late on Friday, Andrew, 61, sought to get the “baseless” claims thrown out of court for multiple reasons.

One of the sections is headed: “Giuffre’s role in Epstein’s criminal enterprise”.

It alleges Giuffre was involved in the procurement of underage girls for Epstein, the American financier who killed himself in 2019 while awaiting trial for child sex offences.

The court papers quote Crystal Figueroa, the sister of one of Giuffre’s ex-boyfriends, who claims she was asked by Andrew’s accuser for help in recruiting minors: “She [Giuffre] would say to me, ‘Do you know any girls who are kind of slutty?’”

The court filing continues: “It is a striking feature of this case that while lurid allegations are made against Prince Andrew by Giuffre, the only party to this claim whose conduct has involved the wilful recruitment and trafficking of young girls for sexual abuse is Giuffre herself, including while she was an adult.”

The prince’s US-based lawyer, Andrew Brettler, suggests Giuffre’s modus operandi may allow genuine paedophiles to escape justice.

“Giuffre’s pattern of filing a series of lawsuits against numerous high-profile individuals should no longer be tolerated, as it continues to irreparably harm many innocent people and diverts already limited judicial resources from the adjudication of meritorious claims asserted against those who have actually perpetrated sexual offences against minors,” the document states.

Giuffre’s lawyer, Sigrid McCawley claimed yesterday: “If Virginia Giuffre had stood silent in the face of outrageous statements like those Prince Andrew routinely churns out — his motion to dismiss the litigation being no exception — the decades-long sex-trafficking ring his friend Jeffrey Epstein operated and he participated in would have never been exposed.

“On the subject of money, let’s be clear: the only party to this litigation using money to his benefit is Prince Andrew.”