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 .

And not are they limited companies, who would be liable for corporation tax.

@Throughthebluebells
”Please don't misquote. The 11.4m is over a 15 year deal.
I do however think that in the current climate the royals should forgo all or some of their rents on the buildings used for NHS or other public services. It would be the right thing to do’

Lol at the hair splitting! It’s not a misquote - the amount is accurate. Do you think spreading it out over years makes it any less egregious? I have said before it’s the principle here . You admit as much yourself by adding that the royals should forego it ( here’s a hint - they won’t unless forced to)

Its not just the NHS.
Its charities they are also patron of , the army, the navy, schools , prisons .

Like every other outrage they are guilty of the Windsors will be dragged kicking and screaming to make some concession only once the noise doesn’t go away or their attempts at tabloid distraction fail . And they wonder why their approval ratings are below 50 % even in England ( Scotland has had below 50% approval for a while now ) I’m not sure about Wales but William darent repeat the invented investiture that Charles had so that tells its own tale

The issue of the Duchys shady legal status is addressed here on the tax justice site

https://taxjustice.uk/blog/the-royal-family-must-be-made-to-pay-more-tax/

The article just fundamentally repeats the accusation that the Ducal estates are somehow shirking the corporation tax, something, along with every other similar estate in the UK, they are not liable for.

No you are making a false correlation here

Only Charles and William are not subject to tax law .
Other Dukes can make their own arrangements such as a trust ( which is also subject to regular taxes )

If the money raised by the Duchies goes towards salaries/maintenance etc and some posters think they shouldn’t be charging rent, how would these costs be paid otherwise?

Is there somewhere else the NHS could store their ambulances? If the land was owned by a Government department (nit NhS) do you think NHS would be charged rent?

I would add other Dukedoms will have had to open their books to the tax man as any other organisation would do .

Again the Duchys do not . They publish the limited reports that they choose to . William has stopped this btw- he has refused even the limited information that Charles offered

@crumblingschools
Im not a government minister .
The scandal is the Windsors costs us half a billion annually and are discovered to also be charging state bodies .
That’s the issue at hand . Let’s get that righted first

Also didn’t Charles tweet something about being happy to help the NHS with their ambulance storage - kept quiet about the 11.4 million charge though. How crass

Why not post from an unbiased source

Tax justice uk clearly state they want to take more from the rich…..that’s their whole purpose in reporting

This is biased reporting and does not state the full truth or facts

👏👏👏
exactly

Meanwhile the nhs, which is one of the biggest Landowners in England, is selling off their land for profits whilst apparently not required to pay rent on land they want to use.
Oh The irony

Agree @AzurePanda
see who wrote that article
🤣🤣
you’d struggle to find more biased reporting than
tax justice uk.
it’s spin for the masses

Okay some of you are fine with Charles and William charging a lot of money to charities, whilst posing for PR photos as their patrons.

So any individual or company who provides a good or a service to a charity at market rates should be precluded from bringing attention to the said charities or raising funds for them?

@AzurePanda
No not ‘any’ organisation As as been stated here ad nausem the Windsors have been granted special treatment above the law and they have taken that and used it to fill their own pockets .
They use charities as photo ops then we find they are charging them market rent !
They pledge to serve the people yet take from the same tax funded organisations ( taking twice from us)

You can try to make parallels with ordinary companies subject to law all you like , but it won’t stick because it isn’t true

They certainly should not be a Patron.

@SavingTheBestTillLast
Lol at objecting to tax justice website as ‘biased’ while pasting from the Duchy website

Is the Times also ‘biased’ in your opinion?
We all know to refer to the Guardian for proper detail on the royals- they have been in the vanguard for years. One of the few media outlets to do so .
But enough back and forth on this thread -
Here is an extract from the Times newspaper published report re the Windsor’s exploitation of the taxpayer :

“The tax and operating status of the duchies has long been a source of contention. The Duchy of Lancaster says it operates as a commercial company and the Duchy of Cornwall says it is a “private estate with a commercial imperative”. Under a memorandum of understanding with the Treasury, they receive special tax status.
This means they pay no capital gains or corporation tax and do not have to comply with property laws such as compulsory purchase orders.
The King and the prince both pay income tax voluntarily at the highest rate (45 per cent) on the duchy money they receive. The last time Charles published his taxes, for the year 2021-22, he paid income tax of £5.9 million, which amounted to just 25 per cent of the £23 million duchy profit because he deducted expenses he considered related to his official duties.
William says he adopts the same approach as his father, although neither royal has revealed how much they pay in tax from their duchy incomes since 2022. Charles’s predecessor as the head of the Duchy of Lancaster, Queen Elizabeth II, did not declare how much tax she paid.
Parliament has tried to scrutinise the two duchies. In 2005, a report by the public accounts committee, then chaired by the Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh, recommended Charles, the Prince of Wales at the time, be stripped of his power to control the Duchy of Cornwall’s affairs.”

I was posting their finances from the Duchy website not their personal opinions on stuff
There’s a huge difference

Its called facts!
This is your thread and seems to be based on your biased reading whilst ignoring pages and pages of facts posted by others.

at least everyone knows where you’re coming from now though

@SavingTheBestTillLast

Ah but they aren’t facts! Calling them facts is ‘biased’
This are the curated , managed limited reports that they chose to publish

Read the Times extract- this obfuscation on the part of the Duchys is the issue

@Ukisgaslit the Duchy’s accounts are obviously audited by an independent external financial auditor, in common with similar organisations. So their financial statements are indeed “facts”.

I’m curious as to why people are of the view that a patron of a charity shouldn’t have any commercial relationship with the said charity. A patron’s role is simply to support and promote the charity. It is entirely commonplace to have patrons, governors, board members and volunteers etc who also have commercial links to a charity. Every charity board meeting begins with a declaration of interests for this very reason.

Exactly 👏 Azure of course they are facts and are independently audited but this is what happens when people become obsessed with conspiracies.

It would normally be heavily criticised for a Board member to be making so much money from a charity they are helping to govern.
A Patron is about raising awareness of the charity and its work. It benefits the charity and often the Patron as well as it provides PR. This is fine. But you would not normally expect a Patron to be benefitting financially from a charity they are Patron of. It is unethical.

People would be shocked if they found out David Attenborough was making millions from the wildlife charities he is Patron of.
I am sure he makes no money from being a Patron

@MerryMaker how do the Royal’s make money specifically as the result of being a Patron of a charity?

I assure you it is completely normal for those who give up their time freely to a charity to separately have commercial and family interests that intersect with the same charity. I’m on the committee of a number of charities where the land and facilities used by the charity (RDA is one) are owned by the family of the Chair or other volunteers. Naturally such arrangements are on a completely commercial basis and the interests fully declared in line with Charity Commission guidelines. This is commonplace.

It would be impossible to run a great number of charities, particularly those linked with organisations of the size of the NHS, if you excluded anyone from volunteering who had a commercial or other link with the charity.

Why do charities want a royal patron? - BBC News