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 .

@BustingBaoBun the article you linked to simply lists the various debates surrounding and challenges to the Duchies over the years. In the opening paragraph it actually states “Buckingham Palace insists the duchies are “private” estates and the current UK government agrees”. Now saying the government agrees is an odd way to confirm that the estates are indeed private entities under UK law but that is exactly what that sentence means.

They do own both estates and whether or not they can sell them is irrelevant. Many estates up and down the country (which btw routinely engage in commercial activities and are not corporations) cannot be sold. Does this mean they automatically don’t actually belong to the family and are somehow the property of the government?

You say if the monarchy ceases to exist the Duchies would return to public ownership, well perhaps so in some sort of fantasy French Revolution scenario but thankfully the UK doesn’t have a history of expropriating private property in this country.

And of course by “own” I mean they are held via “an interest in possession”, as is the case for many large estates.

They do own both estates and whether or not they can sell them is irrelevant.

That is totally relevant. As I pointed out, if there was no monarchy, both Duchies would be returned to the state, to us. They are just an income stream for the royals. I can tell you think the royals own these massive duchies. They dont

They do, I presume you’re familiar with the history of Dukedoms and Earldoms in Great Britain?

I think I know why William has refused to confirm whether or not he’s paying tax .

He knows the days of the tax payer rip off are numbered and he’s taking all he can, while he can.
Such duty .
Still not a word of apology for picking the tax payers pocket re the NHS / charities / schools

Reference other Dukedoms is not relevant here only William and Charles are above the law .
And reference to HMRC is also irrelevant - the point being William and Charles send accounts that they themselves decide on.
Can you see the difference?

Taking issue with posters who are unhappy with the ripoff Willaim and Charles are perpetuating is really pointless when we already know a Westminster select committee in 2013 was ALSO dissatisfied with the opaque nature of financial information provided by the Duchys and asked for proper scrutiny of the accounts

They were ignored
They are still being ignored

Foolish to allow property to be controlled from abroad. This means the UK gets little benefit from what they own. This thread is intent on bashing the RF without any idea how changing the rules they work by would affect the UK. Criticise the Duke of Westminster instead.

read the select committed report 2013

‘Control from abroad ‘ is irrelevant
Its a bit like the ‘ you are controlled by Putin’ when anyone hits the nail on the head re the Royals and the abuse they get away with

The Select Committee asked for greater accountability, they asked for proper payment of corporation tax as the Duchy nonpayment gave them an unfair advantage .
The Duchy tax rip off is one thing - the real heart of this thread was the fact that the Windsors costs us half a billion a year and they were secretly also taking from the NHS and charities and schools
The Windsors are in a privileged position , able to pick and choose which law they will tolerate and which they won’t, which tax they will say they will pay ( though they decide for themselves what is tax deductible and what isn’t ) - and yet they still make money from the services we all pay for
That was the real scandal here and people won’t forget it

How were they “secretly taking from the NHS, charities and schools”? These are all commercially negotiated contracts and nobody has been able to provide any evidence that they were at anything other than at market rates. All of the contracts were detailed as required in the respective bodies’ annual statements. I find it truly bizarre the notion that there’s something somehow underhand in supplying goods or services at commercial rates to the NHS or charities for that matter.

Margaret Hodge has long expressed Republican views and it’s completely her right to ask questions as chairman of the Select Committee but asking questions and making demands doesn’t mean anything beyond raising the issues. It’s also worth pointing out that of course her own family company uses extremely aggressive tax avoidance measures.

You are obviously right that the Royals are above the law in many respects but given the obligations of the Monarchy, ie the heir is committed to a life of service to the nation whether they like it or not, they also lack many of the rights that the general public enjoy. How many 90+ year olds were still receiving red boxes full of government papers virtually every day of the year? The fact that the Queen’s funeral was watched by a global audience of around 4 billion shows what a weird life and indeed role it is. Fortunately in terms of having a functioning democracy it appears to work.

@AzurePanda so when William tweeted about having helped the NHS find somewhere to park their ambulances, he mentioned how much they were being charged?
Answer - he did not. It read like a charitable act

@MerryMaker isn’t the contract between Guy’s and :
St Thomas’s and the Duchy of Lancaster? So not sure why William would have tweeted?

@AzurePanda well he did

Would you mind linking?

@AzurePanda How do I find a single tweet from yonks ago? I remember him tweeting it. So does someone else on this thread.

It doesn’t come up on his Twitter account and nor
is it referenced anywhere else - happy to be corrected!!

All of the contracts were detailed as required in the respective bodies’ annual statements.

I wonder why journalists had to spend months piecing it all together.

A simple footnote to duchy accounts would suffice. Not strictly required legally of course but you'd think a modern, progressive monarchy keen on transparency and especially keen on promoting a positive public image might be on board.

@CathyorClaire if they listed the names of every single individual or organisation they rented a property to it would be more than a footnote.

As you say, there is no requirement to do this and I don’t know of any entity that does, for obvious reasons.

You were talking about 'bodies' not individuals.

Has it changed?

Nope, it’s up to the lessee to publish specific details of their long term rental obligations, not the lessor. It would seem quite odd if the Duchies tried to second guess which names were likely to make the Guardian froth at the mouth and only publish those.

Well yes. That's what I said but you've ignored the wider PR benefits in doing so.

No guesswork required, just a simple list all in the interests of transparency and modernity.

After all C3 is happy to splash his donation to the 'wider public good' all over without prompting...

Again this is complete nonsense. I'm not sure what your sources are but they are definitely not reliable!

I am fairly sure it was Republic that put forward the argument to the PAC that the Duchies should pay CT. The Select Committee did not ask for CT - if you know different please link to the report as I can't find it anywhere so assume it doesn't exist and you are making stuff up.

Eleven years ago the Public Accounts Committee did request an explanation of the tax status of the Duchies and received their answer - they are not liable.
The Duchies can never be liable to CT as they do not fit the description laid down in law.

At an appeal, in the Upper Tribunal, The Duchy of Cornwall was confirmed not to be a legal body in its own right (the definition required under the Taxes Acts):

"The Duchy of Cornwall does not have legal personality (unless it is being used
as a reference to the Duke of Cornwall) and is not a person, body or entity
that has a separate identity of its own."
The A-G for the Prince of Wales v the IC and Mr Michael Bruton
[2016] UKUT 0154 (AAC) GIA/158/2012

Once again the Crown Estate is being confused with the Duchies - You are completely wrong!

The Duchies would not 'return to the state' - they never belonged to the state so they cannot be returned!

The legal position is that in the event that there is no successor for the Duchy of Cornwall, the Duchy reverts to the Monarch, and the annual Sovereign Grant is reduced annually by the amount of the Duchy’s income.

The Duchies are private estates belonging to the royal family, managed by trustees for the benefit of the royal family, and the state has absolutely no claim on them. The only role of the Treasury (as defined in law) is to ensure that the estates' capital is protected for future generations.

I personally think William should stick to something he knows about which is very sadly and tragically, loosing a parent whilst young.

The contrast of the earth shit thing and him backing environmental poor investment which netted him 250 grand was awful. Good editing

Stick to what he knows

Throughthebluebells I can see where you have copied and pasted all that from actually. It's not your own words.

So you are insisting that if there were no Monarchy and we became a Republic that Charles / William would own the Duchies and it would be their estates to do with as they wish?
No.

Here is my copy and paste from the same article (I don't pretend it's my own words)

there is no clear pathway for what would happen to the Duchy if the monarchy was abolished as it would depend on what terms Britain decided to get rid of the monarchy, which are not speculatively laid out in any legislation.
There is the possibility that the money Prince William currently receives would go into the UK’s public purse in some form. But exactly how a centuries-old system would be unravelled is far from straightforward or clear

@BustingBaoBun That was not my source at all - think your source must have copied it from mine!

This was my source:

https://duchyofcornwall.org

Yes I am insisting that the current position is that legally the Duchies are owned by the royal family and unless they are confiscated or compusorily purchased by a new Republican Government then they will remain the personal property of that family.

I tend to look anywhere but the actual Duchy websites as they will always be biaised.

On your last para, it's obvious that one individual would not own the two Duchies without there being a huge outcry