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 .

well as they are immune from the laws with regard's to crown immunity then its all legal and who am i to argue the finer details of the laws and setups as im not qualified enough and at a guess no one on this thread is either

It's not inherited.

It's land attached to a title and it's utter bollox.

So did my three
but that wasn’t the point of my post at all

Perhaps we could make NHS immune from paying rates or other charges. Then it wouldn't matter if they were on Dutchy of Cornwall property or Duke of Westmister"s or council.

We could then raise more taxes by getting those companies that avoid paying tax or use of-shore havens to pay tax.

Low energy light bulbs a) cost a fortune b) are environmentally unfriendly because of manufacturing and component processes/materials c) have been forced on us rather than winning a market share in a free market (the neo-liberal creed de jure).
How do you insulate a room 10 - 11ft high with cornice, picture rail and rose without spoiling it? I have heavy curtains etc and low energy light bulbs since it's impossible to buy anything else.
I have solar panels, too. Lofts are insulated. House is 98% double glazed (which I hate but it's too expensive to replace). Conservatory across the back keeps heat in as well.
House was built c.1877 - so not that old.
I would replace the boiler of a property I rented out far faster than I am able to replace the one in my own house - it's Christmas and so it's difficult to get a boiler. As a landlord, I would move heaven and earth to fix it by Christmas and provide heaters and a rent reduction to cover electricity costs.

So the state pays the state money which comes from the estates the state hands to the state at the beginning of each new reign.
We practise coronation and as a nation choose to do so, making the sovereign (and his consort when we have a king) one with the land itself and the people. The Dutch do it differently. That's their prerogative. The UK does it the way it prefers and our constitution differs from much of continental Europe, being a pre-enlightenment settlement (1688), which uses the entity of the sovereign to enable government through an elected (and appointed) parliament.

To change the role of the sovereign would be a huge constitutional upheaval. And for what? So we could have President Blair instead?
The royal duchies have been in contention for centuries and resolved to various satisfaction in each new reign. Nationalising them would not make anyone but the government richer; the lot would be sold off to overseas buyers - 'investors' who would take the profits elsewhere and not pay any tax here. I prefer the system I can see, which pays some tax (tax avoidance is legal in the UK) and keeps ownership of assets in the UK.

It's real estate and companies. It's inherited. Mind, any members of the de Montfort family could argue about the duchy of Lancaster since those lands were sequestered after Evesham (1265). One problem is that the current RF is also partly de Montfort, being descended from Simon de Montfort's younger son, Guy. Family feud?

@Grammarnut It is not true that coronations are the way we want it

We have never been asked . And based on the response to this thread and on opinion polls generally, people would be happy not to have to pay out millions for that folderol. If the Windsors want it they can pay for it .

And I’ve recently learned an interesting and relevant detail re the Duchys. Parliament centuries ago legislated that the King and heir at that time could have the INCOME from the Duchys but that the land itself was state land
The income from the duchy of Cornwall can only go to a male heir btw .
Reference to the 13th century only makes the Windsors look more foolish . They are now filling their boots from the NHS and chemical extraction earthworks - the scam has gone on long enough .

It was in the last century that the income of the Windsors has ballooned along with the introduction of the Sovereign grant by George Osborne. That grant cannot go down . Nice little boost for the Windsors there . The rest of the uk is on its uppers but the take of the Mountbattens must never go down . This new arrangement stopped parliamentary debate on the issue of the royals and this drain on the state . They know. They know they would be gone if we had a voice on this matter .
BTW Charles and Elizabeth also campaigned Blair and Brown to replace the Civil list with a grant - they were refused .

@Grammarnut It is not just the Dutch who ‘do it differently’ no other European monarch has a coronation. Some have never had coronations .
They pledge allegiance to the state and the people .

Not here . MPs the police , the judiciary, the forces , all must swear allegiance to Charles . Look at the fact that Clive Lewis MP , who refused to swear the full oath to Charles William and was told if he didn’t he couldn’t speak in parliament , vote or receive his salary . And this is a full democracy we are told . The people voted for Clive Lewis . And if he didn’t swear the oath they would all be disenfranchised. This also needs to stop

@pizzaHeart

Your post has stayed with me .

You can google template letter to mp and copy that .
Change or add wording to ‘ I wish to register my anger regarding the revelations contained in the Dispatches and the Times ‘ or whatever it is you wish to say .
You have every right to contact your MP. A short paragraph is all that’s needed . Google your MP and email them .

@pizzaHeart

Here is a link where you can put in your postcode to get your MPs details. You could copy the paragraph above the search box . Job done .

yes the link is from the ‘republic’ organisation but I’ve heard from many royalists who are also outraged by this issue . There is a lot of common ground
I’d argue that royalists should be be in the vanguard of reform on these issues to protect the current system .

https://www.republic.org.uk/tell_your_mp_abolish_the_duchies

That the police, the armed forces etc. swear allegiance to the sovereign and not to the government is a constitutional protection against elected dictatorship or a government deciding it will not call an election, or against a coup - the army, police etc. would back the Crown, against an insurgency by a government determined to overthrow democracy. The armed forces, judiciary etc. are thus separated from the government and not beholden to it, nor do they have to support it if it acts unconstitutionally. It's to safeguard Parliamentary democracy.

Clive Lewis knew he would have to swear allegiance to the head of state when he stood for Parliament, so he has disenfranchised his constituents by not following the rules. Sein Finn MPs don't sit for the same reason (and disenfranchise their constituents including the ones who did not vote for them).

The head of state of the UK also pledges him/herself to the service of the nation - or didn't you watch the coronation? The oath has been in place since Aethelstan became king of all England.
You'd think people would understand why the army, judiciary, police, MPs etc don't swear allegiance to the party in power but to the non-political head of state. It's an elementary protection against military coups (we had one of those in the 1600s - it didn't end well, and we have learned our lesson).

@Grammarnut

They can swear to the people - as all other European monarchs do

No one swears to political parties by the way .
Lol at the idea that the Windaors would do anything to prevent dictatorship. A recent king was a Nazi and in touch with foreign.enemies .
Elizabeth stood by while Boris prorogued parliament .
The Windsors protect no one but themselves

And looking at your post again @Grammarnut I think you are wrong re swearing to the king . If they swear to ‘the crown surely that is the body politic ?

But it is nonsense to suggest that the Windsors represent a defence of democracy!

Did you not read what I wrote? The monarch swears to uphold the laws and customs of the UK.
'Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, your other Realms and the Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
The King replies
I solemnly promise so to do.'
(There's a lot more of this, but it's a salient point).
Edward VIII was forced to abdicate mainly because of his pro-Nazi stance - the Simpson business was the excuse rather than the full reason for his removal. He was treated as a traitor and exiled where he could do no harm (Barbados).
The Queen had no option but to allow prorogation of parliament unless she wished to cause a constitutional crisis (and I think Johnson had good reason for a prorogation, but that's by the way).
Swearing to the people is the equivalent of swearing to no-one. The people cannot enforce an oath of allegiance - see what happened in Greece when the people voted against austerity measures and the EU imposed them anyway; much good an oath to the people did. Ditto the protests by the gillete jaune in France, and the truck drivers in Canada (where afaik the oath is to the monarch). So, other European monarchs swearing to the people is no better than Charles' oath to uphold the laws and customs of the UK or MPs oaths/affirmations to the sovereign etc. And kings have acted against the perceived wisdom of parliament e.g. George VI backed Churchill for PM over his rival, who thought terms should be made with Germany.
Of course the Windsors protect themselves. Do you not protect your own interests in the main?
If you are unhappy (and I am not that happy) then the focus of your ire should be world leaders and the world elite who impose their preferences on the rest of us.

@Grammarnut

”The Queen had no option but to allow prorogation of parliament”

I think this is nub of it .
Your essay aside, there is no role for a Windsor leading an army to defend democracy …
Im afraid you need to leave the 17th century as your test ground for monarchism v democracy .
Aren’t we frequently told that the Windsors are just a figurehead and have no power ? How exactly will they defend us against dictatorship? I’m sorry that just word salad .

I see you have missed my point though . Charles swears to ‘govern ‘ but is himself exempt from any law he doesn’t like the look of ( and no this not the same as diplomatic immunity)

You may find it ‘empty’ that other European monarchs swear to the people and the constitution. . I don’t .

And by the way, you can add William and Charles and the Duchy scandal to the list of ‘ world elite imposing their will on the rest of us’

Prorogation showed clearly that the Monarch does not defend democracy. It was the courts and a Judge who ordered Johnson to open Parliament.

I agree that Edward VIII was forced to abdicate mainly because of his pro-Nazi stance. There is credible evidence that he passed information about British troop movements to the Nazis. It may have led directly to deaths.

And this is the main issue. You do not choose who the Monarch is. It is not a meritocracy. So we had a Nazi supporter as Monarch until he was manoeuvred out. It is simply an accident of birth that we do not have a man who has been credibly accused of raping a sex trafficked teenager. You get who you are given.

Well, yes they are. And you misunderstand how the UK constitution works and why the Queen had to be consulted even though she was not going to refuse to prorogue parliament. She probably told Johnson he was out of his head and on his head be it.

Haven't RTFT but the Duchies have long been scandalously used to boost royal income in murky ways.

See Charles using DoC land to grow trees he claimed as personal property, sell them back to the Duchy and trouser some £2m in the process.

Willy skimming the armed forces who'll be sworn to protect him in due course, the prison service protecting his future 'subjects' and negotiating environmentally damaging mining rights contracts while strutting the global stage as an eco-warrior is nauseating.

It is a pretend consultation. The Monarch could not stop it.

See results of the last poll. ( not a referendum, a poll )
I noted this upthread!

In 2019 70% of those asked wanted to keep the Royal Family

Exactly . It’s a nonsense

The monarch could advise strongly against it - which is part of the monarch's job. That's what they are there for - and cheaper than having an elected head of state who would also be overtly political.
I've had a thought about this entire thread and Channel 4's programme. In the last couple of weeks Channel 4 has been advertising a series about a fake grooming gang. This sounds fine until given a little thought. Just as women who make false accusations of rape undermine the testimony of rape victims, so this series looks intended to undermine and diminish the suffering of thousands of young girls (and some boys) in the UK - because you can't necessarily believe what you are told is going on, look, here is someone who lied!
I am not saying abuse such as falsifying grooming gangs should not be exposed, but such matters are/will be used to question other such allegations, which turn out to be true, so we should be careful how we examine and discuss the allegations. (We should certainly discuss them!)
Much the same is Channel 4's take on the royal duchies. Did they also look at other landowners who rent property to e.g. the NHS? Are they charging the market rent - which the duchies are required to do (it's part of the neo-liberal 'level playing field' to make sure no-one undercuts someone else's profits). If not, why not?
Charles and William (who should publish his accounts and is foolish not to) are not the richest people in the UK by a long chalk. Maybe see what those other rich people are doing before criticising two people who have no choice but to be totally in the public eye?