Can we do something about William and Charles profiting from the NHS etc ?

[Ukisgaslit]

If You haven’t seen it , the Times and Channel 4 Dispatches programme did some proper old fashioned investigative journalism and revealed how Charles and William via the Duchys are charging schools, the NHS and charities ( some they are patron of!) to use ‘their’ land.
It is not ‘their’ land - it is state land , as the crown estates are. The Duchys were overlooked in 1760 when George 111 handed his holdings over in return for annual handouts from the state - they were overlooked as they were worthless then.
They have made the Windsors billions since the mid 20th century and no corporation tax or capital gains tax paid. William recently refused to continue providing the little financial information that his father offered.

Aside from the obvious fact that the king is in a unique position, being above the law whether we like it or not ( though why is William treated as also above the law?) surely they are humiliated to be revealed as ripping off schools and charities and hospitals?

Where is the Windsor mea culpa and offer to repay with interest? Answer came there none.

So AIBU to expect MPs to please act and fold the Duchys into the crown estate ? The UK is in a weakened state and allowing this feudal greed to continue unchecked diminishes our society further .

@PlumHedgehog01
You need to re read that .

Hes saying it’s Duchys OR tax payer money.

fair points, but then would people agree with the arrangement if they chose the duchys even if it was netting £££££ etc ?

The duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are 'their' land (and the duchy of Cornwall was set up by Edward III to provide income for the Prince of Wales). Thye are not part of the Crown Estate, the revenues of which go to the Exchequer, with between 15 and 25% paying the Sovereign Grant, which supports the work of the RF (so they are paid a salary from the Sovereign's own money).
Why should the King and Prince of Wales not charge for use of what is theirs? Would you do this if the property belonged to you? Very likely not, so why should they?
Sorry, but if we are living in a capitalist world then land-owners are going to charge for use of their land. The real scandal is Tony Blair's PFI scams, where the NHS pays out billions to rent their hospitals, have cleaning done etc., so that Gordon Brown could keep the building costs out of the government accounts.

The duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are not part of the Crown Estates - which the sovereign hands to the state at the beginning of each reign.

The Crown Estates are owned by the sovereign, a body or notion that is different from the person of the current monarch, e.g. the sovereign never dies (otherwise Parliament and government would grind to a halt when a monarch dies). At the beginning of each new reign the monarch hands over the Crown Estates and from the Crown Estates a percentage is used to support the work the monarch and his/her family must do. Tax payers only contribute to pay for security for the monarch, his apparent heir and for any royals doing a public duty e.g. opening some theatre, visiting a hospital, touring a foreign country (to drum up trade, facilitate diplomatic relations) etc.

The RF don't own Buckingham Palace, the state does, i.e. it is already state owned which is why money to repair it is coming from the Crown Estate. And why build over nice gardens?
The state does not pay to do up Balmoral (which is owned by the RF) afaik.

Another one who thinks private is better than public. It isn't. Had a look at your energy bill lately or the state of UK rivers? Both run by private companies.

The duchy of Lancaster became part of the king's estate when Henry Bolingbroke usurped the throne as Henry IV in 1399 - he was Duke of Lancaster. The duchy of Cornwall was created by Edward III - 1327-1377 - to provide an income for the Prince of Wales. He already owned the relevant estates, I think.
Interestingly, the Duchy of Cornwall cannot be held by a woman (or could not, heaven knows what Tony Blair did to the constitution) so Elizabeth II never had the advantage of it. The holder of the duchy of Lancaster can only be a duke, so in the reign of the late Queen, it was possible to toast 'the Queen, Duke of Lancaster'. Thought that might lighten things up a bit.

That's a pretty poor explanation. See mine upthread.

My child goes to private school, which I pay for out of my fully taxed income as a "big shot city lawyer". I pay my way, I expect everyone else to do the same.

How do you know they have not earned the medals? They are campaign medals, military orders etc some of which are in the gift of the sovereign. They don't go round with Victoria Crosses etc, unless they have earned them, just like anyone else.

They have earned them by being born into the Royal family

Do all inherited land, i.e. land that a person has not bought themselves, should be confiscated? It's a thought - and would apply to all. Whether it would re-distribute property and income is a moot point, since if all such land reverted to the state the state would probably sell it off for development etc. Same problem, different rentiers.

@Grammarnut have you looked at the Government in the last few years! Public owned going to be better - not so sure

but if people can use fancy accountants etc then why should they not be used etc ?

The house I own and am currently sitting in (without a working boiler since before Christmas) is below current energy requirements. It is Victorian with 9 inch brick walls and very high ceilings. Getting it up to modern energy standards would wreck it, I suspect (and cost a fortune that I would never recoup). I don't rent it, I own it. Sometimes there isn't a solution to such a problem but not being energy efficient doesn't make a building sub-standard IMHO.

That was rather my point. Estates coming into the hands of the state does not improve anything. Most likely such estates are sold off for development - it's selling the family silver and you can only do it once.

My house was built in 1920 and meets the very minimum required by landlords. Usually decent insultation and low energy lightbulbs will be enough. Although you could not rent without a working boiler.

Then who pays for schools, roads, hospitals, lighting, bin collections? Someone else?

The ‘crown’ = the state. The monarch acts ‘in right of’ the crown in other words is our current representative of the state ( hence the outrage at his making millions of state assets while also being paid by the state ).

We could keep the crown as a symbol . I think the Dutch do that . The king or queen sits beside the crown but does not wear it. Why ? Because he/ she is inaugurated not crowned
No anointing , no ‘bestowing’ of the country No other European monarchy would dare impose a coronation on the taxpayer or impose the symbolism contained in a coronation.
This is why Charles and William ripping off state bodies is so offensive.
Back to crown estates. They do not own them- if the Windsors get the boot they will not be able to reclaim them .

Though there is the question of the tax owed

I think we will see when William is King and does very little work, just how unnecessary they are.

yes, if the legal services of fancy accountants are available to be used then yes either a private venture or other people that don't use tax accountant's etc to limit tax

@MerryMaker I think we saw that during the last national crisis- Covid

And @Grammarnut it’s not accurate to say the tax payer only covers security , official visits etc. The 25 % or whatever it currently is that Charles takes from the crown estates is tax payer money. The crown estates are no more his than Buckingham palace. Security costs are not revealed( why? Because they are bloody huge) . Annually the cost of the Windsors is pushing half a billion PLUS their 50 million take from the Duchys
When the royals were paid from the civil list there was greater control on costs. Elizabeth hated it and got it changed. There’s nothing ancient about the sovereign grant - George Osborne introduced it.

But to return to the topic of the thread- Can William and Charles now repay what they’ve taken from the NHS and charities etc?
No? Didn’t think so .
Can the government take the Duchys under the crown estate ? You won’t get any resistance - from the taxpayers, that is

but at what cost can the govt take control of them and is it worth it ? thats the important question

@PlumHedgehog01 you think they should carry on being a law unto themselves?