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 .

If you’d ever been to one you would know how thrilled and excited people are to be there.

I know a number of people who have been. One was thrilled and excited. One was embarrassed he went, but went because his mum said she would never forgive him if he did not, and one said it was fine and the sandwiches were delicious. I know people who have turned down invitations. I am anti Royalty, but if I was invited I would go from curiousity

I'm (entirely inexplicably) unlikely ever to find out 😁

We seem to enjoy coronations and be very happy with the system we have. We decided to have coronations again in 1660, when parliament recalled Charles Stuart to be king. I am not interested in how other European monarchies work, ours works the way we decided in the seventeenth century, with some tweaks to remove some powers from the monarch. The majority of British people like the way it runs and do not want to try another republic (it would be our third).
The income from the duchy of Cornwall is the PoW's. The land belongs to the soveriegn and the duchy is devolved upon the male heir apparent. Were the lands owned by anyone else, e.g. a foreign company, a Russian oligarch etc they would charge the NHS a market rent - as other entities to rent/lease land to the NHS do. We live - for better or worse - in a neo-liberal capitalist world where commercial enterprises must charge the market rent. Neo-liberalism doesn't work very well for anyone but the very rich and multi-nationals but we have never been asked if we want to have our economies run in such a way, and when the Greeks were asked if they wanted neo-liberal austerity (which has not worked in the 20 years it has been applied to the world because austerity just causes economic depression) they said they did not - and got it any way courtesy of Brussels and Berlin.
I think many on this thread display the politcs of envy and I find that deeply unattractive.

We had no choice about the Kings coronation

The politics of envy is such a thought-shortening cliché. I would hate to be in their shoes and think bringing up children in the system is actively cruel. If you want to perpetuate the system, you need to explain why forcing kids into it is ok.

The Sovereign Grant enables The King to discharge his duties as Head of State. It is the monarch's share of the Crown Estate surplus to spend on the upkeep and maintenance of all royal property and covers other expenses including travel, staff costs, entertaining costs etc. It follows a complex laid down formula governed by The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 but in general terms equates to 15% of the surplus from the Crown Estates each year.

The Keeper of the Privy Purse manages the Sovereign Grant and is accountable to HM Treasury and Parliament. The Sovereign Grant accounts are audited by the National Audit Office (NAO) and laid before Parliament. If you have an issue with how it's being spent, I suggest you put your complaints to the National Audit Office or Parliament itself, who were presumably satisfied that maintaining and refurbishing the property was a legitimate expense.

The whole raison d'etre of the Sovereign Grant is to cover the upkeep and refurbishment of royal properties so that the working royal family can continue to use them as required. It also reflects the Monarch's responsibility for ensuring the upkeep and maintenance of our historical buildings. No rental return is expected - do you expect the King to pay to live in Buckingham Palace?

You appear to believe that the royals are much more involved in the financial detail of these arrangements than they are. It is all managed for them by well-qualified individuals and scrutinised by auditors. It is not like the cash is handed over in a paper bag and doled out for royal individuals to do what they like with.

@Throughthebluebells

No. Just no.
This thread is about the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster and the fact that they have been secretly ripping off the NHS and charities and also demonstrate the hypocrisy of the Windsors - pontificating on the environment while excluding themselves from environmental law and describing how their heart bleeds for the homeless while being slumlords !

You are describing the Sovereign Grant and crown estates - these are separate issues . The crown estate is overseen by the government as it is state owned . Issues remain with the Sovereign grant that the Tories brought it - parliament can’t debate it and the amount the Windsors take cannot go down . And nothing the Windsors do is transparent . Nothing .

Oh - and as for bags of cash that’s exactly what Charles was show to have taken ! Didn’t you know about that ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/25/prince-charles-is-said-to-have-been-given-3m-in-qatari-cash

@grammarnut
Your ‘seem’ is doing a lot of work there . Can we be asked if we want to continue paying for the gaudy nonsense that is a coronation. Or the Windsors can pay

The crowds are dropping so routes are shortened and for William and Charles’ day to day visits - crowds are often non existent !

Again referring to events 3 and 4 centuries ago as your justification is weak

I assume you’d support a question on a ballot paper asking if we wish to continue with the current ( scam ) situation?

Voting has closed .
69% think I’m not being unreasonable to expect something to be done about William and Charles ripping off the NHS and charities
Interestingly that number stabilised within a day or so and didn’t change much . People know how they feel on a gut level and no lectures on Byzantine admin trying to excuse the Windsors will change that

We know an outrage when we see one

Thank you everyone who voted read and posted .

I think many on this thread display the politcs of envy and I find that deeply unattractive

I find the regular charge of 'envy' on these threads overused and deeply unattractive.

No rental return is expected - do you expect the King to pay to live in Buckingham Palace?

It's not unreasonable to expect minor royals to pay 'market rent' for luxury accommodation maintained and/or improved at the taxpayer's expense with a concomitant reduction in the SG.

Just as the Windsors expect 'market rent' on the use of their Duchy holdings.

I was responding to @CathyorClaire who brought up the subject of royal properties outside the Duchies. Are you not reading your own thread?

"No rental return is expected - do you expect the King to pay to live in Buckingham Palace?
It's not unreasonable to expect minor royals to pay 'market rent' for luxury accommodation maintained and/or improved at the taxpayer's expense with a concomitant reduction in the SG."

Again I need to repeat myself. The upkeep and maintenance of these properties comes out of the SG. As you put it earlier, nothing to do with the Duchies and not at the expense of the taxpayer! The property technically falls within the private assets of the monarch, as I stated previously.

@Throughthebluebells
I have been in this thread daily for a week ( my mistake - I didn’t realise I’d set it for 7 days)
I have seen other posters confuse the crown estate with the Duchys.
Fair enough you were replying to someone .
But I’d repeat- nothing is clear about the Windsors finances and it’s deliberately so

There’s no evidence that the Royals are “ripping off” any charity or institution with the rents they are charging. There’s also no evidence of them being “slum landlords”.

The latter allegations all centre around EPC requirements, as anyone with any experience of period properties knows, there are a number of exemptions applicable as in many cases it is simply not possible to make the necessary changes to older properties. EPC requirements also obviously only apply when a property is newly tenanted. They do not apply to long standing tenants. So anyone with a rental portfolio who is able to keep tenants for a long term will likely have a good chunk of properties which don’t meet EPC standards.

The upkeep and maintenance of these properties comes out of the SG. As you put it earlier, nothing to do with the Duchies and not at the expense of the taxpayer! The property technically falls within the private assets of the monarch, as I stated previously.

The SG derives from funds diverted to royal expenditure from the profits of the Crown Estate and away from the public purse which leaves the taxpayer picking up the tab albeit indirectly.

Can you explain why property falling within the private assets of the monarch shouldn't be maintained by him/her?

@AzurePanda
Have you watched the programme or read the Times report on the rip off?
The Duchys claim to be ‘special’ because ‘ Windsor’ and therefore law does not apply to them ( and no other Duchys are not above the law in this way)
Meanwhile the Windsors are secretly charging the very state they supposedly dedicate themselves to and which is currently allowing them these legal exceptions

Thats a rip off whatever way you look at it

@AzurePanda
You are focusing on EPC regs

Care to address the issue of the royals charging schools, hospitals, charities ( even this they are patron of like MacMillan and the RNLI !) the army and the navy ?

And @AzurePanda as for ‘no evidence’ that is simply not true!
Many tenants have spoken out but they wanted a guarantee of anonymity- that says a lot in itself .
William is trying ( very unadvisedly) to position himself as dedicated to eradicating homelessness. Has he not the intelligence to fix his own rentals before posturing ?

quote:
Campaigner Jonathan Bean, a spokesperson for Fuel Poverty Action, said: “It’s a disgrace that a billion pound royal estate appears to be acting like a rogue landlord. And getting away with it. King Charles and Prince William have profited from renting out property that fails to meet even basic standards. These low standards cause misery by making heating unaffordable, leading to major health risks from cold and mould. F and G rated homes can cost three times more to heat, which is unaffordable for those on lower incomes. Renters are scared to complain about grim conditions, for fear of being evicted or subjected to rent increases. People are forced to suffer in silence. This royal mess demonstrates the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of this country’s broken housing system. Tenants may have rights in law, but in reality they are at the mercy of their landlords

As I said the complaints relating to properties relate entirely to EPC regulations. What evidence has Mr Bean actually presented? I live in a listed property that wouldn’t have a hope in hell of complying as do millions of other Britons.

Where is the evidence that the commercial rents the Royals are paying are a “rip off”? Why would any organisation, charity or otherwise, elect to pay above market rents?

You seem to think that if law or rule is old then it is obsolete, This is not necessarily the case. Ditto a tradition or a ceremony.
The cost of the coronations, only the second in over 70 years was far smaller than the cost of the US' president's inaugaration, which happens every four years. Cheap, I think, and brought in lots of tourists, too.

@Grammarnut not to mention the fact that the Coronation is fundamentally a religious ceremony which dates back over 1,000 years.

One change Charles did make was to not invite the vast majority of hereditary peers and instead replace them with charity and community volunteers.

I accept that it is very confusing. As I have explained previously, the agreement is that the SG is used to fund repairs to any property occupied by the royal family. The monarch has no right to sell any of these properties (as they are held for the Crown in perpetuity) so could not benefit from any restoration of a capital nature. It would be like asking a tenant of a rented property to fix the roof.

Maybe you could tell me how much rent did pass hands and how much you think it should have been. I am not privy to the arrangements made so have very little to go on other than the reported £2.4m that included repayment of both the refurbishment costs and the rent.

As part of a royal palace of state (Windsor) and a designated heritage site, Frogmore Cottage was scheduled to be renovated in any event, regardless of occupant. It therefore appears to me that the repayment was more than generous as the empty property would have been repaired even if it had remained empty.

@Grammarnut
Maybe it wasn’t you but either you or @AzurePanda stated that they had no interest in how other European monarchies do things when I compared their cost and scope to the UK - you say it’s irrelevant.

But you are happy to use another country to help deflect from the cost to the taxpayer of our imposed coronation . And for the Billionth time- the US and France are completely different systems . They combine the role of PM and President into one.