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

I'm just reading And What Do You Do by Norman Baker. I really recommend it. A lot of exemptions to the Law are orchestrated personally by the Queen and Prince Charles. This is an extract about how they treat their tenants below. Lord Berkeley tried to introduce measures to moderate things, which were unsuccessful.

"Lord Berkeley complains that leases that are issued are often for only very short periods such as twenty-one years or less. He cites one example where the Duchy allowed someone to fund and build a house on an off-island but then required the leaseholder to sign up to a short lease on which the property transferred free of charge to the Duchy on the death of the leaseholder and his wife. Some people might call that daylight robbery. "

We know!

It is daylight robbery.

I've just finished reading 'And What do you Do'. I was astounded by a lot of it. What a bunch of thieves and vagabonds!

It's gobsmacking isn't it?

I've read it twice!

I'm tempted to start reading again too. I think I might have whizzed over important parts by reading it in bed. Although it did make me too shocked and angry to fall asleep like most books in bed.

There were bits I wanted to keep to hand as facts to quote on MN!.
Norman Baker was interviewed recently on something to do with the RF, he's very knowledgeable so it's not an opinion piece but factual. !

@thenightsky
I'm glad you've read it and feel the same. One the things it highlights to me is how very little understanding there seems to be about the Constitution on these threads.

Everyone has "feelings ' about things that are then ratified another poster who "feels" the same and this seems to shape "wisdom ". Everyone seems to feel the "Queen has done a good job", for example. She's had a generous reign from the taxpayer. She's invested in the Cayman islands (Paradise Papers) and she's invested in Brighthouse. For me, these aren't the actions of a person who loves the people of this country.

Norman Baker suggests that the RF are facilitated by some members of the parliament, often Tories.

And Norman Baker is very right. Which is why there is anger that they are not allowed to be discussed in parliament. The RF are a no-go subject. Which is ridiculous. Anything else can be brought up. But not them. There is a ruling in parliamentary procedures.

Ugh. Why isn’t this common knowledge. It’s an absolute disgrace that this was allowed to happen. Charles Windsor is an utter embarrassment.

Does anyone actually like or respect Prince Charles? I'm sure the Queen has overseen many similar arrangements, but it's the blatant audacity of PC that always winds me up the most. Accepting suitcases of cash and what not. I won't be surprised if the monarchy ends when he is King.

Hardly a surprise though, the royal family are a fucking disgrace.

Honestly, I used not to have a problem with living in a constitutional monarchy but these endless stories of corruption and worse make me think we should just get rid of the lot of them.

Their wills are sealed too. Yours and mine are public documents. I know other stuff about their greedy self serving behaviour. Don’t be fooled!

The other thing that scares me is you just don't know who you're getting in a hereditary monarchy. Edward V111 was a Nazi sympathiser. A lot of the aristocracy of the time were, tbf (Nazi Vs Bolsheviks). But he actually gave information away to Germany which compromised England's war efforts. When he died, his equerry said he hated this country.

Yes, I think that was talked about in the book too. I was more and more angry as it went on.

Thanks for the article - I hadn’t seen it before. Sounds as though Major’s government had to go along with his tantrum to avoid a constitutional crisis! Shocking that someone with such privilege could stand in the way of ordinary leaseholders having the right to own their own homes for a bit of extra cash. Like he needs it!

I only read a fairly small amount of Norman Baker's book as I got angrier and angrier about how corrupt these poeple are. Starting from the woman at the top.

I'm sure the Queen has overseen many similar arrangements, but it's the blatant audacity of PC that always winds me up the most. Accepting suitcases of cash and what not

TBH I'm more bothered that he's a proven enabler of paedophiles.
Some seem to feel that this is acceptable in a king and that it's all been some sort of misunderstanding or "just one of those things that happen", but I'm not one of them - especially given that he'll be literally beyond the law as monarch and that he already has a well developed taste for resisting publication of anything he'd rather keep secret

100% agree.

It is entitled but well hidden. But we know.

But of course the usual suspects completely ignore this thread, the way they ignore and stonewall anything about royals that's negative.

@StolenWillowTree

Of course! You can only post negativity about Royals if it's H&M! Or at a push, Andrew but those threads were sparsely populated.

This really stood out for me. He’s an incredibly wealthy man, why on earth would he want to do this? To me this proves him and probably the rest of them don’t give a flying f* for anyone but their ilk.

It's sheer entitlement and arrogance. They're raised from birth to believe they're masters of the universe. Look at the incident last year with William's people threatening and making up lies to try to get Krishnan Guru-Murthy and the C4 news team arrested to cover up his secret political meetings at Holyroodhouse. They're absolutely not supposed to be political, but believe they know best and can do whatever they like.

@StolenWillowTree
I agree.

I've had royalists on other threads say ' they are so rich they could walk away and live a life of luxury'

When I ask why they don't , there's no reply...