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."

@Novella4
I see you’ve finally realised that your idea of calling the Duchy of Cornwall a corporation would actually make Prince Charles a tax dodger. After all it would cut his tax rate from the 45% he is currently paying to only 19%. Less than a basic rate taxpayer. Prepared to retract the “getting away with it comment” yet? After all he’s “getting away with” paying more than twice the tax you think he should be paying….

@Discovereads

whoosh

( that was the purpose of my question going over your head).

Of course I know what the crown estate is .
I was asking the poster because she seemed to imply that the queen owns the crown estate and was graciously giving a little donation back to the people .
She doesn't own it of course .
More obsfuscation re the monarchy.

It is public property .
Yet somehow also the 'crown corporation' owns it . Ie the ' idea ' of the monarch .
A bit like Charles paying rent on his own homes . Paying rent to himself that is .

It depends when he dies. If he predeceases the Queen, then yes he’ll pay inheritance tax (because he obviously will never have been the monarch).

The Queen is a net contributor to the U.K. to the tune of billions over her lifetime

Can you provide a link to back this up?

he’s “getting away with” paying more than twice the tax you think he should be paying….

He pays tax on the residue of his income after he's deducted whatever he deems to be 'expenses' including hs own spending. At one stage he was paying a smaller proportion in tax than his servants:

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-pays-lower-tax-2055838

@CathyorClaire
“Can you provide a link to back this up?”
But of course, as I said the Queen pays in 75% of the income from the Crown Estate to the Treasury for benefit of we taxpayers. Which has been £2.6 billion to HMRC in the past ten years alone. Over the seventy years….it’s billions more.
www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-crown-estate

“He pays tax on the residue of his income after he's deducted whatever he deems to be 'expenses' including hs own spending”

No, it’s not what he deems to be expenses it’s what are factually considered to be deductible expenses per U.K. accountancy regulations. This is no different from any U.K. landlord who leases land/properties. They are able to deduct allowable expenses from their income, you then pay tax on the remaining income. Conceptually, it’s similar to how corporations only pay tax on gross profits- income minus all costs/expenses. There are strict regulations in place, no one, not even Prince Charles has the authority to “deem” something an expense that isn’t allowable.

@Novella4
The Crown Estate is not public property it’s an independent business. The Queen owns it by right of being the current Sovereign. It’s not her private/personal property, but she owns it for so long as she wears the crown.

www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-crown-estate

Ive also attached an infographic from BBC that shows how the Crown Estate works…..

@Discovereads

There are strict regulations in place, no one, not even Prince Charles has the authority to “deem” something an expense that isn’t allowable

Really? And the fact that he and the queen are allowed to vet proposed legislation and make changes that is also just like any other citizen , right ?

Lord Berkeley has made 4 attempts to get his Duchy of Cornwall bill through . Hansard recorded the following

'I note that this Bill requires the consent of both the Queen and the Duke of Cornwall. I question why the Duke of Cornwall: is there not a conflict of interest? I do not think we will get that far, but it is an interesting question to debate'

Rather than a tiresome back and forth I suggested that any readers who have made it this far read the Hansard link as it is more detailed and interesting than my posts

I link it here again:

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

They aren’t allowed to vet or edit Acts of Parliament per the Constitution. Media sources claiming that they can are telling porkies. The Queen cannot even vote in an election for an MP or PM like we can.

“All the same, there seems to be a misconception that the Queen and her heir personally decide which Bills are to be vetoed.”

“As a constitutional monarch, anyone who understands our (sometimes perplexing) constitution can only be aware that Queen’s Consent (and the correlative Prince’s Consent) is given automatically by the Government and refused only on ministerial advice. With no policy or executive role, the Queen having an active veto over proposed legislation would breach the two golden rules and would therefore be unconstitutional.”

”Buckingham Palace has confirmed that Queen’s Consent is refused only upon the advice of Ministers; reading between the lines in what this statement does not say, this means that the Queen’s Consent is automatic to Bills, unless advised by Ministers to refuse. Queen’s Consent is given (by a Privy Counsellor in the Commons at the relevant legislative stage) as a matter of course unless refused on ministerial advice. Refusal of Queen’s Consent happens when an MP introduces a Private Member’s Bill which the Government does not support; it is never refused for Government Bills, which underlines the facts that not only does the Queen refuse such consent on ministerial advice but also that it is wielded by the Government against Private Members’ Bills as aforesaid.

Asking the Queen’s or the Duke of Cornwall’s permission to pass a new law is therefore not only nominal but also nothing to do with either of them, but entirely in the Government’s control.

royalcentral.co.uk/uk/queen/the-queens-consent-and-legislative-veto-powers-explained-155588/

There are strict regulations in place, no one, not even Prince Charles has the authority to “deem” something an expense that isn’t allowable

He pays tax on a voluntary basis so there's no likelihood of him falling foul of any regulations. There's no detailed breakdown of his expenditure which means no detail as to what he's offsetting against his tax bill. He's been known to have tried to offset the cost of his polo ponies against tax and even recently it was reported to be Camilla's and Kate's clothes.

This is an interesting read reflecting why his finances came under scrutiny in the first place:

www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jan/30/monarchy.immigrationpolicy

But of course, as I said the Queen pays in 75% of the income from the Crown Estate to the Treasury for benefit of we taxpayers. Which has been £2.6 billion to HMRC in the past ten years alone. Over the seventy years….it’s billions more

The queen reluctantly started paying voluntary income tax some thirty years ago so she's been coughing for less than half her reign.

You do understand that if her ancestors hadn't given up the income from the CE in return for the Civil List she'd still be funding the entire costs of running the country?

A few billion is a bargain.

They aren’t allowed to vet or edit Acts of Parliament per the Constitution

I suggest you familiarise yourself with both Queen's and Prince's Consent.

So when are you going to publish your Income Tax Self Assessment? And all it’s supporting documents you don’t send to HMRC? Why should Prince Charles have to do more than a regular U.K. resident? And btw, the finances for the Duchy of Cornwall are actually published in a detailed breakdown. That’s how he came under scrutiny for passing through costs that should not have been deducted as expenses and as a result, corrected his accounting. Could your finances withstand the same fine tooth comb?

You are confusing the income tax the Queen pays on her private income with the income from the Crown Estate that is sent direct to the Treasury (for benefit of all U.K. taxpayers). Yes, she started to also voluntarily pay income tax on her private income thirty years ago, but the income from the Crown Estate she has always paid between 85%-75% to the Treasury every year.

You do understand that if her ancestors hadn't given up the income from the CE in return for the Civil List she'd still be funding the entire costs of running the country? Her ancestors then also got 100% of our tax revenues and 100% of customs/trade tariffs to spend as they wished. No monarch has funded the entire costs of running the country…we have had taxes, customs duties and trade tariffs since the bloody Romans introduced them to us…so actually you’re wrong she would not be funding the entire costs of running the country if her ancestors had never given up the income from the CE.

Why should Prince Charles have to do more than a regular U.K. resident?

I think you answer this on behalf of the future monarch here:

That’s how he came under scrutiny for passing through costs that should not have been deducted as expenses

the income from the Crown Estate she has always paid between 85%-75% to the Treasury every year

And if she wasn't diverting proceeds deriving from historical land grabs and wars into her own pocket we'd cop the lot.

Her ancestors then also got 100% of our tax revenues and 100% of customs/trade tariffs to spend as they wished

Except they weren't spending them as they wished which was no doubt new tiaras and trinkets and a replacement jester. They were being forced to spend them on civil costs then defaulting on them hence the deal.

I have. Suggest you do so, because it doesn’t mean what you think it does. Reference my earlier post for a quick summary, or check out the privy council webpages for more detail.

Suggest you do so, because it doesn’t mean what you think it does

Oh, you tease

What do you think I think it means?!

check out the privy council webpages for more detail

Arf.

From your post it is obvious you think it means they are allowed to vet and edit Acts of Parliament. It doesn’t. That is a common misconception.

And if she wasn't diverting proceeds deriving from historical land grabs and wars into her own pocket we'd cop the lot.

No we wouldn’t cop the lot. Not we commoners. There wouldn’t be an England without these land grabs and wars you are talking about. We’d probably be part of France tbh. But you can rest assured if those land grabs and wars had not happened or had ended with the English monarch losing instead of winning, some other aristo or nouveau riche would privately own all that land and property….it wouldn’t ever fall into our hands.

Except they weren't spending them as they wished which was no doubt new tiaras and trinkets and a replacement jester. They were being forced to spend them on civil costs then defaulting on them hence the deal.

Except they were spending tax/customs/tariff revenue as they wished. Henry VIII famously spent the entire years tax revenues on a Christmas party in 1509. (Pretty typical of a 19yr old teenager to have to admit.)