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 .

The evidence does not support your assertion @AzurePanda

Research a few years ago showed not only is there little to no benefit to charity when they have a royal patron, it can in fact cost the charity money

Now if the Windsors are sincere in their support for charity they will refund all the rents they have taken from charities in secret over the decades won’t they? They are billionaires. Charites have never been in such need as they are today with the cost of living .
We are waiting …

https://giving-evidence.com/2020/07/16/royal-findings/

It’s Duchies not Duchys

@Ukisgaslit another biased source which actually doesn’t prove anything.

With over 1000 patronages it is self evident that the vast majority aren’t even going to get an annual visit.

Why on earth would charities be constantly seeking a Royal connnection if not only did it not add anything but it cost them?

Having a Royal Patron is very helpful to a charity, irrespective if it ever has any actual visits.

I really wonder how many of you are actually involved in charity work that you can’t see this?

Can you explain why you think UKisgaslit's source is biased please?

It seems to confirm similar reports and also confirms reports royals are far more active in respect of their own charities.

Because it’s extremely depressing to think that the best (and it would seem, only) measure of a charity’s success is its revenue.

I don't really understand your point here, sorry.

Isn't the primary aim of a charity to raise revenue for its cause?

No that is not the primary reason - there are a huge number of extremely effective charities which have relatively small revenues. They rely on volunteeers to give up their free time and help their local communities and vulnerable groups in a myriad of ways.

It’s the Belgian Red Cross which did the research @AzurePanda
They are ‘biased’ in your opinion ?

I agree many small local charities are effective Good thing they aren’t relying on the Windsors

I’ d add @AzurePanda that the author of the report you dismissed was a CEO of a charity . It was her experience which she says prompted her to produce the report
Research methods are included as is best practice

The statement “only 1% of charities with a Royal Patronage had more than visit in a year” is self evidently pointless given the number of Royal Patronages versus the number of working Royals. By its own account the “report” discounts any benefit that is not financial, again utterly farcical to anyone actually involved in charities. Finally the report commits the cardinal sin of confusing correlation with causation.

Funnily enough I’m off to a do a shift at a charity which is lucky enough to have the Queen as patron so I’ll leave it there. Enjoy your sniping from the sidelines.

Wow

I don’t care one way or another re royal patrons as I believe it’s the royals who benefit not the charities but if you believe otherwise you must be very annoyed that William has made it clear he’s not doing any day to day work . He’s dropping the charities PR and will be a small ‘r’ zoom king .

It’s not right to boast about your charity you know @AzurePanda but you have made me wonder
I bet I and many others give a far greater proportion of our time and money to charities than the Windsors ever will.

Was that report a good use of the charity’s funds?

You have misunderstood @crumblingschools . Perhaps I wasn’t clear .
The author of the report I linked to worked in the charity sector for 15 years

She then moved to the organisation which organised the report - this organisation specialises in maximising effectiveness when giving to charity - hence the report

But back to the Windsors - can they return the money they took from the NHS, schools ( your username relevant here @crumblingschools ) and charities ? That is the focus of my thread

@Ukisgaslit reading the report says the research was funded by Belgian Red Cross, that's why I was asking whether that was good use of that charity's funds?

You are confusing the Crown Estate, the Duchies and the Monarch's personal assets.

The Crown Estate is managed and controlled by the Crown Commissioners for the benefit of the nation. The Treasury receives the income (and pays out a small percentage to the royals as a Sovereign Grant, replacing the old civil list which was abolished in 2011). Neither the King or any other royal has any control or controlling financial interest in the Crown Estate and is not involved in any way in its management.

The Duchies are are managed for the benefit of the individual dukes. Effectively the hold the Estates in trust in perpetuity for the Dukes. These Duchies are not corporations, they are trusts so are not liable to corporation tax. The beneficiaries of a trust are liable to tax on funds received. In accordance with this, Income tax and Capital Gains Tax have been paid on the Duchies since 1993. There has been no special treatment for many years!

“Frogmore Cottage forms part of Frogmore House and Gardens, which
were annexed to Windsor Castle for use by the Sovereign in perpetuity
by an enactment in 1841 under Queen Victoria [redacted]. Frogmore
Cottage is therefore a property which is at the disposal of His Majesty,
a fact further reflected in section 5(5) of the Crown Estate Act 1961
which makes provision for such properties. As such, while the land on
which Frogmore Cottage stands forms part of The Crown Estate it is, as
part of Frogmore House and Gardens and while at the disposal of His
Majesty, a property which the Crown Estate Commissioners are not
permitted to sell, lease or deal with in any way.” (Reference: IC-169686-B6J6)

The lease on Frogmore was therefore negotiated between the Sovereign and the lessee, nothing to do with either the Crown Estate or the Duchies and the amount due under the lease is nothing to do with the public purse!

I have no idea what Mayfair flat you are referring to so am unable to clarify the position with the Crown Estate. If it is the Crown Estate, then it is up to the Government appointed Crown Commissioners and the royal family have no say in the matter so your assumptions are very unfair.

In your final paragraph you ask if the Windsors can return the funds to NHS and schools etc.

I believe that the arrangement is that the Council of the Duchies (effectively the Trustees) manage the property portfolios and are under a legal obligation to maximise the overall returns. That doesn't necessarily mean that they need to charge maximum rent, but in the absense of any good reason not to, they would be open to challenge if they didn't. I'm sure the reigning Monarch could have some influence here, but legally, a beneficiary has very little control over how the Duchies are managed in the long term.

@Throughthebluebells I was thinking that about the Trustees and how they would have to answer if large parts of the estates were being rented out for peppercorn rent, even if rented to charities.

Anything stopping em donating that money right back? No? Thought not

@AwardGiselePelicotTheNobelPeacePrize how would that work for the NHS?

They could easily donate it to NHS charities.

The lease on Frogmore was therefore negotiated between the Sovereign and the lessee, nothing to do with either the Crown Estate or the Duchies and the amount due under the lease is nothing to do with the public purse!

Harold's refurb was originally paid from then repaid to the Sovereign Grant. If the SG is being used to underwrite maintenance and refurbishment costs on royal properties with no realistic rental return required even on occupied property to set-off said costs it has everything to do with the public purse.

The statement “only 1% of charities with a Royal Patronage had more than visit in a year” is self evidently pointless given the number of Royal Patronages versus the number of working Royals.

Equally pointless then for the royals to retain such an unfeasible number of patronages. We can only assume they're retained for PR purposes.

@CathyorClaire There’s a hell of a lot more to a Royal Patronage than a visit from the Patron. For a start there’s multiple events every year at Buckingham Palace, St James etc for volunteers.

Do you think batch receptions (as must be the case for the unfeasible numbers of charitable up-fronts you've pointed out) make them feel as valued as an individual visit might?