Prince Charles getting laws changed to financially benefit him

[antelopevalley]

We knew the Royal Family got new proposed laws changed to personally benefit them. But these newly released documents provide an example where Prince Charles got laws changed so his properties were exempt from leasehold laws. It is a national disgrace.

"But the newly revealed documents, concerning a leasehold reform act that became law in 1993, provide detailed evidence of Charles applying pressure on elected ministers to ensure an exemption to prevent his own tenants from having the right to buy their own homes.
The Windsor family has used the consent procedure to vet at least four draft acts that have changed leasehold laws since the 1960s. Under such laws tenants live in properties for a specific number of years on a lease, instead of owning it outright. The changes have given tenants across the country the legal power in certain circumstances to buy their homes from their landlords.
Letters and internal memos from September and October 1992 show Charles took a “close personal interest” in Newton St Loe, a small Somerset village that is part of the £1bn Duchy of Cornwall estate, and insisted his properties there should be excluded from the proposed bill. His lobbying secured a special exemption for the village that has to this day left the tenants financially worse off."

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/28/prince-charles-pressured-ministers-change-law-queen-consent

Everything he does is a national disgrace. Time the Guardian did a more comprehensive investigation of the RF rather than dripfeeding us rage-inducing pieces about individual members.

Hardly surprising from a man who was born into power, privilege and wealth and sees nothing wrong with the concept of inherited influence.

this would be proper journalism. I have just about had enough of the cheeky fuckery of the RF

I too am struggling to understand why someone like PC with so much inherited wealth comes across so grabby on behalf of his "charities". Perhaps some wise person can come along and explain!

I agree with you, antelopevalley, but am more concerned with the bigger picture of why the "Consent" procedure has been extended to Charles at all

The very name Queen's Consent impies that it's an (IMO unjustifiable) concession for the sovereign alone, and IIRC that's how it was presented, but hey presto Charles has muscled in on it too

And then some try to argue with a straight face that the RF have no power at all

I knew it had been extended to Charles, although the name is misleading.

Wikipedia is illuminating about Queen's Consent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Consent#:~:text=Consent%20is%20usually%20signified%20in,and%20is%20recorded%20in%20Hansard.

The whole royal consent thing is an absolute travesty. Very far from the harmless sounding 'convention' trumpeted on the RF website.

The queen has also used it to make sure none of her subjects could poke their peasanty noses into the finances they underwrite:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

Seems our overlord to be has put the longest apprenticeship in history to good use when learning the tricks of the trade.

Yes. RIP proper journalism, you are sorely missed.

Tbh I am no fan of Prince Charles meddling. To me that’s the fundamental line that royals cannot cross. We want to see you, we do not want to hear you and we definitely don’t want you influencing politics.

But I do think is probably less about money and more about not wanting the peasants to ownership rights to try to save his estate from the hideous extensions of varying quality, the AstroTurfing of back gardens and asphalting over driveways.

Doesn’t make it right but I can’t say I blame him. He does like landscape planning and conservation.

The RF were probably glad Megan came along to whip certain members of the public into a frenzy, takes the spotlight away from their grubby grabby interests.
Its the royal arse kissers who confound me, talking about the Queen like she's everyone's favourite granny. Or Charles like he's a harmless old soul.

Shower of greedy entitled fuckers the lot of them.

@LemonSwan Being rich does not give you the right to dictate how other people live.

Well let’s be honest - it does if you own the estate they live on.

They shoot anything that moves and would then like to lecture us about small patches of astroturf?

www.rspb.org.uk/our-work/policy-insight/england-westminster/farming-and-land-use/driven-grouse-shooting/#:~:text=An%20immediate%20end%20to%20the,and%20in%20drinking%20water%20catchments

@LemonSwan except the law was changed because it was unfair, but Charles gets an exemption. So he has the legal right, but no moral right. An odious little man.

I am not sure what your arguing with me about OP.

I am just sharing my thoughts that I would guess it’s more about wanting to keep control over the town planning of his estate than money.

Sorry for contributing

The Queen's Consent procedure is fascinating. Have a look at this blog: davidallengreen.com/2021/02/the-queens-consent-a-strange-and-obscure-feature-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-kingdom-and-why-it-should-be-abolished/

It has absolutely no legal basis. Ministers just randomly started doing it, and then just never stopped. There is no law that says the gov needs Queen's Consent. Ministers could just not do it.

@LemonSwan why should Charles have special control that no other landlord has?

He's not exactly an ordinary landlord. The government considers the duchy to be a crown body.

Exactly antelope.
Dont hold your breath waiting for a logical reply from a royalist .
‘But he’s royal! is the best you can expect. They actually believe other human beings are ‘royal’
Brainwashed the lot of them

See?
It’s ‘crown’ land so above the law!

But it is crown land when it suits them, and private land when it does not.

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall have remained independent of the Crown Estate. The revenues go to the Monarch and his eldest son respectively.
But they can not sell them.

The Duchy of Cornwall automatically owns all mines in Cornwall, irrespective of the individual ownership of the land. This includes mines under the sea extending beyond Cornwall but originating there.
It has the right to mine underneath privately owned homes without the consent of the owners.
The Duchy owns any ship wrecked on Cornish shores which is not claimed within 1 year.
The Duchy owns about two thirds of the foreshore (tidal land and riverbeds) in Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, although parts of this land have been sold.
The Duke has the exclusive right to the carcass of any whale or sturgeon washed up on Cornish shores.

The Duchy of Cornwall has the right to claim “Bona Vacantia” within Cornwall. That is to say, where property within Cornwall becomes ownerless, it belongs to the Duke of Cornwall instead of the government. Typically this would arise where a person dies without leaving a will and without having any traceable relatives. The Duke also administers the estates of people who die without a will, even if the rightful owner is eventually traced.

The Duke owns “treasure troves” in Cornwall: finds of buried valuable metalwork of a certain age. It has only enjoyed this right in law since 1996.

Special provisions and exemptions allow the Duchy to commit any act under the following laws which would be a crime for anyone else:
The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
Water Industry Act 1991
Countryside & Rights of Way Act 2000.
Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2015.

In 1967, long-term leaseholders in England and Wales acquired the right to have those leases extended automatically, whether the landlord agreed or not, albeit on payment of compensation. This added enormous value to long-term leases and security to hold property down the generations.
This does not apply to the Duchy of Cornwall.

And more here
www.republic.org.uk/the_duchy_s_powers_and_privileges

He's not exactly an ordinary landlord.

Indeed.

Most ordinary landlords don't get the rent they pay from one pocket magically recycled into another. They also don't get to sell 'personally owned' trees grown on 'crown body' land back to themselves and pocket the proceeds.

The government considers the duchy to be a crown body

All that means is that despite its extensive business and commercial activities it's not subject to Corporation tax which suits Charles down to the ground and saves him millions.

Such an odd thread! Your title literally says ‘Prince Charles getting laws changed to financially benefit him’ and I have said I doubt it’s about the money.

Why everyone has taken umbrage at that I have no idea 🤷‍♀️

I remember when he lobbied parliament to abolish the minimum wage as it was affecting profitability on his lands. Apparently he often tries to apply the pressure to suit himself!

Your title literally says ‘Prince Charles getting laws changed to financially benefit him’ and I have said I doubt it’s about the money

And yet it's been shown it is.

Charles indisputably has short arms, deep pockets, and an ocean-going sense of self entitlement.

All backed up by documented evidence on the way he runs his personal wallet the duchy.