A suitcase with a million euros in cash given to Charles

[antelopevalley]

The real question is what the Prime Minister was expecting in return.

"The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing a million euros in cash from a former Qatari prime minister, the Sunday Times has reported.
The paper says this was one of three cash donations from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim totalling three million euros.
Clarence House said donations from the sheikh were passed immediately to one of the prince's charities and all the correct processes were followed.
There is no suggestion the payments were illegal.
According to the Sunday Times, Prince Charles received the three cash donations in person from the former prime minister between 2011 and 2015.
It is claimed that on one occasion the money was handed over in a holdall at a meeting at Clarence House. On another, the paper reported the cash was contained in carrier bags from the department store Fortnum and Mason."

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61941113

The British press is owned by a handful of __ (inset here).

Would that make things better?

One more for the road...!
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10976487/Letters-Prince-Charles-DIDNT-seat-fundraising-despite-courtiers-claims.html

Well that doesn't paint him in a very flattering light does it?

It's a waste of his time making small talk with people who haven't committed to coughing up the readies and wanting to put the screws on someone who hasn't donated 'enough'.

Astoundingly entitled.

"‘I can’t tell you what a difference it made to my morale to know, in advance, that the money had already been raised!’"

Oh look, another one who focuses on his own feelings, as opposed to whatever the "charity's" supposed to be about ... as if that comes as any surprise

What I took away was his foundation was paying half a million quid to a guy in the US & he actually has a foundation set up there.
I wonder how much money's been raised over the years and exactly what they used it for.

A foolish error to take money like this, but can't see PC keeping it for himself, would not have the need to. Error of judgement or bad advice.

' a foolish error'

I assume each and every one of us would have the same view applied if we had 1000000 in cash in a carrier bag ?

'I can't see him keeping it himself '

So that's alright then .
Nothing to see here .

Or is that his yet another 'blunder' 'opportunity for reflection' ad nauseum

Weren't there three separate occasions of cash in a bag?

Three occasions.
Each of those was an error of judgment @ginghamstarfish ??

We can only assume there aren't more of these occasions yet to be uncovered .

Handy isn't it that the British public seems so accepting/ gullible / does as they are told ?

The Scottish Charity Regulator is also investigating activities relating to house purchases.

*An investigation has been launched into payments made by a property company that reportedly bought homes on Prince Charles’ failed eco development in Ayrshire.

The Scottish Charity Regulator has confirmed it will look into 11 purchases made by Havisham Properties on Knockroon, a development intiated by the heir to the throne as part of regeneration plans around the nearby Dumfries House estate, the Observer reports.*

At what age do you think one comes into good old common sense? Do you think we can all get there? Do you think some are past the point of no return before they even turn 40?
Charlieboy is 73 y.o., I'll say that again 73, so it's been 55 years since he turned 18, 55 years since he's legally become an adult, let me repeat that fifty-five (55) years as an adult. Yet he thinks it's ok for sb to go to his house and hand him 1,000,000 euros (one million!) in cash! No alarm bells rang in his head when he got a bag with that amount the first time. No alarm bells rang the second time and no alarm bells rang the third time either.
When (Or if...!) he becomes king, is he likely to ever come into some good old common sense? Or do you think he's going to start obeying his courtiers and ask for advice before doing anything at all?
How many of you believe that was the end of the bad press for PC or do you believe we're going to keep on getting more of these stories? Do you think the DM and the rest are going to put a ring-fence around future KC and not make any more bad stories known? British media might keep the lid on things is the international press willing to do the same?
I'm going to get a comfy chair and some popcorn, and wait for the fireworks to start!

What you are suggesting @Oceanus is that the mainstream British press make a habit of censoring royal scandals .

The very idea ! smelling salts

On the other hand the population have been fed a constant stream of PR so that some deluded individuals have come to believe the old line that 'royals' are appointed by God , are a superior class of being etc

I used to think monarchists were a bit thick, a bit narrow minded and uneducated ( sorry !) . I still think that but the posts I've read here also makes we wonder if some of them prefer their make believe world and don't want the truth .

@Novella4 Hmmm... I'm past suggesting or implying, I think it's a fact. The way the latest scandal around PC played out in the British press was very very different from what ran in the international media. And I'll say the same for Boris, the bad articles about him, published in the UK and then pulled back after a few hours were talked about abroad but I think most people living in the UK probably don't even know what I'm talking about...

I used to think monarchists were a bit thick, a bit narrow minded and uneducated ( sorry !) . I still think that but the posts I've read here also makes we wonder if some of them prefer their make believe world and don't want the truth

No, that's not the case. Reasons for why the monarchy is supported have already been addressed by several posters. People are being cautious, not "thick" or unrealistic. Removing the royals may be a case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. Look around the world. Who lives better lives? Those living under 'everyone is equal' communism? How about people living under an absolute monarchy like Saudi Arabia? There will always be leaders of countries and those leaders will always take from the taxpayers no matter how 'equal' they profess to be in case you think that a fair re-distribution of a country's wealth is just around the corner, only stymied by our choice of leader. Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world so things could be a lot worse. As long as it remains so, I can't see much appetite for the removal of the RF. We can jangle the RF chains with our public discussions but getting rid of them is an entirely different ball game.

You simply aren't comparing like with like .
The uk ( so far!) is not like living under a Middle East regime . Not is it Russia.

It could well be like Italy , Ireland , France , etc. countries who got rid of monarchies and are doing well as republics

The wealth of an economy or its health has nothing to do with the Windsors . They are a useful distraction - I will grant you that - especially when the average person is suffering .
Bread and circuses .

A mature democracy has no need of them .
As you'll know if you have friends internationally , the royals are laughing stock

@MaulPerton You seem to have a very bleak view of life. Basically the rich screw us, so why try to do anything about it?

A mature democracy has no need of them.

Considering 7 of the 10 most politically stable economies of the world, and 7 of the top ten “best” countries of the world are constitutional monarchies, it seems the mature democracies themselves disagree with you*

11 of the 20 least corrupt countries in the world, according to Transparency International’s index, are also constitutional monarchies.

The suggestion that the British Royal Family is an international laughing stock is quite ludicrous, you know. It might be what you want to believe, but it doesn’t reflect reality. Read Michelle Obama’s autobiography, for starters. Boris Johnson relied heavily on their soft diplomacy appeal at rage G7 in Cornwall. Just this weekend, Jacinda Arden put a photo of her meeting with Prince William top in her instagram gallery of photos from her UK trip.

(* there are any number of international assessments you can look at but these results will be broadly replicated by most of them - the figures above come from US News & World Report)

@Serenster

Where to start?

Are you claiming that the UK isn't corrupt ?

You claim the uk is one of the 'best' countries in the world - yet best is not defined .

None of these factors can be categorically linked to the fact that a royal family is still ensconced .
You really have no idea . Maybe things would be better here if we'd got rid long ago!

It's triue that the elderly do tend to support the monarchy. The young do not .
So demographics will have an impact .
In any case , once Elizabeth goes things will look very different .

When commonwealth countries are removing the royals as fast as they can what does that tell you about how they are viewed ?

The nature of leadership, hierarchies and inequality is such that these will always exist whichever mode of governance is selected. There is absolutely no debate about this although some may, through wishful thinking, believe that a society may exist differently. It’s one and the same system, just under different labels and definitions.

@MaulPerton

I take your point but there are degrees of inequality .
Look at Sweden , Norway , Germany,

I’m not claiming anything. Transparency International is. They are a well respected organisation, but certainly take it up with them if you disagree.

Likewise, you personally may disagree with these findings. Again, they are not my findings, but they are generally replicated across the bodies that produce rankings on these issues. It’s doubtless inconvenient for your arguments, but it is what it is - Japan, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the UK, Australia, New Zealand Luxembourg and the Netherlands etc all regularly come out very highly in surveys of stable and prosperous states. So where’s the incentive to radically change our government?

I think you might be confused about Commonwealth countries, @Novella4 The 14 countries that still have the Queen as their head of state are all at various points along the path to independence and self governance, depending on sentiment in their own territories. That seems entirely normal and expected to me - I would be very surprised if the UK sovereign remained the head of state in any foreign states in 50 years time. The journey to national self-determination is an entirely different matter to popular views of the UK royal family though.

They are certainly not removing the royals as fast as they can, either - that was a more accurate description of the situation in the 60s and 70s when 20 states transitioned to full independence (despite the Queen herself being internationally well-respected in this period). And almost every single country that has chosen to remove the UK monarch as their head of state has voluntarily chosen to remain in the Commonwealth, as they see the ties it brings as desirable. In fact at the last Heads of Government meeting two new states, with no historical ties at all to the UK, sought membership. It’s a wholly voluntary organisation, and membership is clearly seen as valuable.

Look at Sweden , Norway , Germany

You do realise two of those are monarchies…?

Yes of course.