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 .

I’d have to as there are no coronations in Europe

Some monarchs never had them others would not dare .
Only in this benighted isle ….

As per my original post, no rent was paid in addition to the original £2.4m refurb cost, saving the Henrys an estimated £690k on the 'commercial rent' originally reported to have been agreed.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/harry-meghan-frogmore-cottage-rent-duke-duchess-sussex-b1068368.html

https://archive.ph/19gm0

Odd that you should cite the monarch being unable to benefit financially from any restoration when it seems the repayment was deemed to have wiped out rental obligations on the grounds of the improvements having increased the value of the property. It's not clear why this is relevant when it remains empty and will never in any case be let on the open market but as ever it seems the Windsors both have their cake and eat it.

Frogmore may have been due to be repaired at some point but as it was being used to house estate, it's unlikely to have been a priority particularly when we see the current heir happy to let out sub-standard property and profit from it.

Plus it’s not just a coronation- there will be a taxpayer funded funeral first .

Worth noting that the recent official events were part funded by the SG grant reserve which is comprised of funds granted yet unspent in previous financial years rather than being returned to the public purse:

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/28/europe/uk-royal-household-financial-statement-2022-2023-intl/index.html

estate

estate workers

@CathyorClaire in the USA presidents all get a State Funeral as do other prominent people who are viewed to have served the nation. Australia gives State Funerals to a wide range of people ; they’re common for Heads of State in tonnes of countries. In the UK they’re largely confined to monarchs (Thatcher’s was a rare exception in modern times).

Sure international ceremonies are unlikely to cost as much as Queen Elizabeth’s but then her service attracted a global viewing audience of an estimated 4 billion people. Hard to imagine any other Head of State attracting figures anything like that.

Sure international ceremonies are unlikely to cost as much as Queen Elizabeth’s but then her service attracted a global viewing audience of an estimated 4 billion people. Hard to imagine any other Head of State attracting figures anything like that.

Disappointing then that the royals have been given the right to veto sections of footage filmed by MSM outlets including our public service broadcaster.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/22/royal-family-veto-footage-coverage-queen-elizabeth-ii-funeral

It’s still a family funeral - is that so unreasonable? The family still has a say in the State Funerals of heads of state elsewhere.

I think having a power of veto over what can and can't be shown of an historic event thereby potentially eliminating unfavourable footage and sanitising the result is unreasonable, yes.

The coronation footage is under similar royal control. Also wrong when we should be requiring more not less transparency from the family.

Totally agree. It's the BRITISH broadcasting corporation that we pay for by licence fee that have been directed to remove a massive amount of footage that the RF have decided they want scrubbed. You couldn't make it up!

Gosh, I find it really hard to condemn a family for not wanting footage of grieving children in attendance at their grandmother’s funeral broadcast to the world without any say over it.

Oops, I meant great grandmother!

@AzurePanda @BustingBaoBun

We know that William has refused to reveal how much, if any, tax he is paying on the Duchy of Cornwall millions . William is far worse than his father terms of reading the room and offering even a small degree of transparency . He has closed the books and told the taxpayer and parliament to FO
( metaphorically of course but who knows lol)

I wanted to add that although Charles when Duke of Cornwall said he’d pay income tax ( but not the other taxes due ) at 45% we don’t know if he did or for how long he did. We have a right to know re both William and Charles .
I remember a newspaper article about 10 years stating Charles was in fact estimated to be paying around 23% tax

The headline stated that Charles was paying less tax than workers on the estate !
This must have been around the time the select committee asked for a proper examination of the accounts but they were refused
I think it was the same select committee which found Charles to be putting Camilla’s separate household expenses through his accounts .

Utter nonsense

The children are exploited by that family virtually from the day they are born . They were filmed walking behind their mother’s coffin!
George will be put to work any day now and now doubt Louis will be his fall guy

In fact this use of the children is another argument against this ‘royal family’ .

Any royal bbc footage be censored by the Windsors to remove protestors ( if not already removed) and or kept to sell at at better price.

I read that there is a minute by minute comment by BP to the BBC re what to keep and what to destroy during the live event
Has anyone seen Charles’s’ temper tantrum over William and Kate being late ( though that was v rude of them) recently ? Is it still around

But yes we pay for the BBC and the Windsors - but what’s new ?

The 23% tax figure represented the fact that expenses were deducted from the Duchy’s gross income, in line with tax law.

I’m really confused now, on the one hand it’s apparently appalling that they reserved the right to veto footage of the family at the Queen’s funeral and on the other it’s appalling that they allowed William and Harry to be filmed walking behind their mother’s coffin in a public place.

No need to be confused @AzurePanda both things are appalling

And again you are quoting the Windsor line but not giving the full picture

After excluding which expenses exactly ? the whole point of the Public Accounts select committee’s objection was that Charles was deciding for himself what he’d include ! He tried to include his polo horses !
He tried to include Camilla’s household expenses when she was not a member of the family !
It’s a nonsense and long past time for reform

The guardian has a whole series on this
This article concerns Charles in 2013 - God knows what William’s up to
He is even less transparent if that is possible

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/15/prince-charles-tax-duchy-cornwall

Again this is entirely based on unsubstantiated allegations together with the continued accusation that the Duchy doesn’t pay corporation tax (it isn’t a corporation).

Apparently the one hand Prince Charles’ tax affairs are entirely opaque and on the other his tax affairs are so public that attempted deductions for polo ponies are on the public record?

It's only huge investigating that unearths some of what is going on. I bet he hated that about the polo ponies was identified..

Yes, the Duchy is not a corporation so does not pay corporation tax. Or capital gains tax. It is a tax avoidance scheme and calls itself an 'estate'. There are no independent checks and any scrutiny is carried out by estate officials. They've got it all sewn up! The Duchies engage in commercial activities whilst enjoying tax exemption

The great irony is of course that the corporation tax rate in the UK is only 25%.

Great if you don't pay it

Well both William and Charles have made it clear they both do pay income tax on the net profit from their respective Duchies and given the historical figures released by Charles it seems pretty unlikely that either of them are paying a income tax rate below 25%.

You think?

Obviously not or William would confirm that. He has chosen not to.

In the UK we don’t force people to publicly release their tax returns.

It is nothing to do with tax returns, why on earth would you think that? 🤣

For the last few years, the Clarence House review has provided the figures that Charles's paid on the massive income he received. This annual review also details income and expenditure of the Duchy money, details of the number of valets, housekeepers, dressers, chefs, butlers etc

William has declined. He is not following what his father did, and has provided no information at all. You may think that's OK. I don't.

From the article I posted:

The palace provided guidance on what footage and photography would be considered acceptable, with a particular request to avoid intruding on the grief of individual members of the royal family.

There is nothing indicating that entirely reasonable request wasn't respected or formed any part of the vetoed material but if you have links indicating otherwise I'd be interested to see them.