Queen's Role Rewritten

[antelopevalley]

In The Telegraph an article about how the Queen's duties have been rewritten giving many to Charles. This is unsurprising in some ways. She is a very old woman and no longer capable of fulfilling all the previous essential duties. But I find two things interesting about this development.

First I think this is a compromise position by the aides for a Queen who refuses to abdicate, but is no longer capable of being Queen in terms of duties. It hands over duties to Charles so he is the de facto King, but allows the Queen to appear at things when she is able to.

Secondly, the press always insist the Royal Family is about never changing tradition. But rewriting the essential duties of the Queen is a pretty massive change. It is a pragmatic change, but it lays bare the nonsense concept that the Royalty never changes. In reality, it constantly changes, and at times in pretty major ways.

"The Queen’s role has been rewritten by Buckingham Palace, as it removes duties she “must fulfil” as monarch and entrusts more to the Prince of Wales. The Queen’s “official duties” have been edited in the palace’s annual report for the first time in at least a decade, to take out specific events such as the State Opening of Parliament that were previously considered necessary by “constitutional convention”.
The new version, published following the Platinum Jubilee, places greater emphasis on the support of the wider Royal family. According to the Sovereign Grant report, signed off by Sir Michael Stevens, Keeper of the Privy Purse, the Queen’s role still comprises two key elements: Head of State and Head of Nation.
As Head of State, the “formal constitutional concept”, the Queen “must fulfil” specific duties. These were previously laid out as a 13-point list, including the State Opening of Parliament, the appointment of the Prime Minister, and paying and receiving state visits. The new version instead offers a more loose definition, saying that the Queen’s role “encompasses a range of parliamentary and diplomatic duties” and that she only “receives” other visiting heads of state.
It comes after the Prince of Wales and Duke of Cambridge jointly attended the State Opening of Parliament on the Queen’s behalf this year, as much-reported mobility problems made it too difficult for her to attend in person.
The second part of the monarch’s job description, the symbolic role of Head of Nation, is carried out by the Queen “where appropriate or necessary”. It focuses on her position inspiring “unity and national identity” and “continuity and stability”, recognising the “achievement and success” of others and ensuring “support of service” from volunteers to the emergency services and the military."

What lies? Nothing you wrote contests the fact that we do not pay for them. None of their income comes from taxpayer funds. None.

As for being exempt from certain taxes, so what if they are? Lots of people are exempt from various taxes for different reasons. As for why Charles doesn’t pay corporation tax, obviously it’s because he’s a human not a corporation so no idea what you are on about there. Perhaps you are referring to the Duchy Organics business he started? Well he doesn’t own it, Waitrose does and 100% of its profits go to charity. So not sure why he should owe corporation tax on a business he doesn’t own and donates all its profits to charity.

They don't pay for their security or transport
Well no, they only pay for personal security and transport. They get reimbursed for official business security and transport….as does every other working stiff that goes on a business trip and is a high value individual. You think Elon Musk doesn’t have Space X or Tesla or Boring pay for his security and private jet?

Oh, and Prince Charles does in fact pay income tax and capital gains tax on his personal wealth.

There are plenty of bodies that straddle the line between public and private and don’t pay tax, also. Take the Financial Conduct Authority for example. It is funded by fees paid by all participants in the financial services industry. It accumulates reserves each year from this, which it uses for its own purposes. It doesn’t pay tax on its income.

They don't pay for their security or transport

And, as I’ve pointed out previously, the same would be true of whomever takes over as Head of State in whatever system you choose to impose. Plus past Heads of State would also need ongoing security once their term is over (see what happened to former PM Shinzo Abe today in politically moderate Japan for immediate proof of that…). So those costs aren’t going away, Royals or no Royals.

@Serenster And does the Financial Conduct Authority use some of its assets to benefit rich people?

It performs a public function, antelopevalley, like the working Royals do. It also pays its CEO a salary of £455,000 so I guess the answer to your question is yes.

Public function?
Aaannd we're back to bags of cash .
That sort of public function ?

@Discovereads

I don't where to start with some of your incorrect statements .
You must be confused .

You state that Charles doesn't have to pay corporation tax because he's a 'person not a corporation'
Try that argument with the tax man if you own land or rental properties or any of the other many businesses that the Duchy of Cornwall operates . Tell the taxman that you aren't a corporation!

Only Charles gets away with that. Why?

And the tax he does now pay was only 'volunteered ' in 2013 after a rather uncomfortable investigation.
And despite that the Duchy lumps vat and tax into the same payment making it more difficult ( murky as I said before ) to work out exactly what he is paying .

Believe he's only making some biscuits and giving the proceeds to charity if you want .

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

@Serenster / @Discovereads

This was linked on another thread .
Did you read it ?

At least know the facts when you are trying to defend the royals

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

@Novella4
The Duchy of Cornwall isn’t a corporation….so no corporation tax is due. And yes, we can “try that argument with the tax man if we own land or rental properties” because corporation tax is a tax on for profit corporations not on rental property income (you’d pay income tax), or on land lease income (you’d pay income tax). Although some huge landlords DO avoid income tax by setting up a shell corporation and getting away with paying corporation tax, but Prince Charles isn’t doing this very common tax avoidance technique which is perfectly legal but morally questionable.

As a matter of fact, Prince Charles does pay income taxes on his net revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall…which is the proper tax due on income from land leases and rental properties and it is at the 45% rate which is more than double the corporate tax rate of 19%. So why are you even arguing he should pay corporation tax on the Duchy of Cornwall? You’d be giving him a huge tax break.

The “biscuits” you are referring to are not made by Prince Charles. Prince Charles did start a non-profit business called Duchy Organics (all profits donated to charity) but again, he doesn’t own it, Waitrose does as one of its many brands and as a non profit subsidiary, it also doesn’t owe corporation tax just like all other non profit businesses in the U.K. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waitrose_Duchy_Organic
www.outsourcedacc.co.uk/businesscentre/tax-exempt-status-for-a-non-profit-organisation/

And despite that the Duchy lumps vat and tax into the same payment making it more difficult ( murky as I said before ) to work out exactly what he is paying.

There is no VAT on property rentals or land leases, so no such “lumping” can happen. His financials are published for all to see so you can see exactly what his income is from the Duchy and his annual income tax paid for the Duchy.

Again, the only VAT possible would be on the sale of Duchy Organics goods, which again is a Waitrose owned brand, not owned by Prince Charles, so there’s really no way VAT and Prince Charles intersect anywhere.

What is your agenda? The RF aren’t the only owners of leasehold properties and there is no legal right to buy out the owner of the land your home sits on for anyone.

Again @Discovereads you fail to grasp the point .
The Duchy operates as a corporation. But Charles says isn't one. So that's alright then .

The Duchy has chosen its own status .
'Unaccountable ' is how its operations are described in Hansard .

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2018-10-26/debates/BD8D3651-F53D-4F90-96A3-87FBE02752CC/DuchyOfCornwallBill(HL)

@Novella4
No you are failing to grasp very simple concepts in regards to business and tax management. You seem to have no idea what type of tax is actually due on which type of income- your comment on arguing with the tax man you’re not a corporation just highlights this.

The Duchy of Cornwall is not a corporation and does not operate as a corporation. It’s not based on what “Charles says” it’s a basic legal U.K. definition of what is and is not a corporation. The income Charles gets from the Duchy is taxed as income tax at 45%, which is more than double the corporation tax rate of 19%…so he is not getting away with fuck all.

In fact, if he did try and say the Duchy is a corporation (like you seem to mistakenly think it is), he would be getting away with cutting his tax bill in half!!

Did you read the Hansard link @Discovereads ?

'The trouble is, the Duchy sometimes chooses to be treated as a private estate and sometimes as a Crown body, which receives privileges and is largely unaccountable and silent on many issues. It is wrong that the Duchy should be able to choose its own status based on what is apparently the most financially advantageous option. It should be one or the other—and it has chosen the private option.'

I did. And the quote is regarding its status as public or private. By the way “private” doesn’t mean “corporation”. There are also many other organisations that are neither fully public or fully private…the FCA was mentioned up thread as an example.

The point is that it doesn’t matter what the Duchy is exactly, because Prince Charles is paying the highest possible tax on his income from it. If we say it is public, well then the Duchy would be tax exempt- so Prince Charles would then pay no taxes on his income from it. Since, as Hansard, has said it has “chosen” private, there are many types of private organisations. If we say the Duchy is a charity or nonprofit…well then also tax exempt, if we say it is a corporation….then taxes are at only 19%. By saying it is private and the income is private, personal income, this means Prince Charles is paying 45% tax.

Hansard was mostly talking about ancient history when he was saying it was wrong the Duchy could change status…because it used to be tax exempt. It isn’t now.

An interesting development.

It lays bare the fact that the monarchy - and actually the monarch him or herself too - are convenient fictions.

So when Charles dies inheritance tax will be paid? Because we all know the royals never pay inheritance tax.

Of course it does

The crown estate pays most of its income to HMRC. I like the fact that it protects our beaches and other areas so that everyone is free to enjoy them

It’s only inheritance from monarch to monarch that is exempt from IHT. The rest of the royals pay IHT. Princes William and Harry had a hefty IHT bill when Princess Diana died.

And what do you mean by crown estate ?

In other words, no he won’t pay inheritance tax

You don’t even know what the Crown Estate is? It’s what funds the Sovereign Grant. It has an income of around £350m per year and 25% goes to the Queen as the Sovereign Grant, the other 75% goes to the U.K. Treasury for us taxpayers to benefit from. As I said ZERO taxpayer funds go to the RF, while 75% of the Crown Estate income goes from the Queen to the taxpayers. The Queen is a net contributor to the U.K. to the tune of billions over her lifetime. You seriously need to read up on some facts and stop believing the smears calling her a benefits scrounger and such like.

He won’t pay IHT on what he inherits from the Queen, if he accepts the crown. Anything else he inherits from any other member of the RF, he will owe IHT.