Drama between Eugenie/Jack and William/Kate

[AmandaJonah]

I missed this last year. Apparently Eugenie and Jack had wanted to love into Adelaide Cottage as their main British residence (they also live part-time in Portugal for Jack's work). But William and Kate successfully claimed Adelaide Cottage instead as their fourth or fifth house?
This apparently led to tension between the two families. Instead Jack and Eugenie live in Nottingham Cottage which has two bedrooms. They already have one child and Eugenie is pregnant. I am guessing this is why they wanted a slightly bigger house.

www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/celebs/a42035692/where-does-princess-eugenie-live-nottingham-cottage/

Quite. If it bothers them that much they've got enough money to buy a property anyway.

Yep. The ex-main owner of Casamigos was Mike Meldman. Clooney and Rande Gerber were minority shareholders/show ponies.

Oh, thanks.

Didn't realise the two jobs were so closely connected.

I'm still not convinced Brooksbank has ponied up on the mews place though. This is after all a man who's been living in a property provided and subsidised by us his wife's relatives and who chooses to holiday with his conscience-free MIL.

Strikes me he likes to hang on to whatever he's got in his wallet.

Musing further on this, Andrew was once cited as the third richest royal and has long benefited from hugely questionable associations, many despicably flourishing under the laughable 'trade envoy' role he enjoyed.

WTF has he done with it all when Royal Lodge was a done deal?

He surely can't have spunked the lot on respraying £200k cars to his taste...

It would be interesting to know how much he’s spent of the nearly £8million on renovations he committed on spending on Royal Lodge.

I wonder if that could be one of the tactics for leaving - if he leaves early then he’d likely get some of it back perhaps?

@wordler I have definitely been nosy about wills. I have obtained copies of probate and the attached wills of family members.

Very interesting reading and made me really think about my will.

From reading this thread it’s apparent that the “slimming down” of the RF is very much a relative concept!

The number of properties they own is obscene given the level of homelessness in the general populace, much of which is hidden, as it includes families who are being housed temporarily in hostels and people who are sofa surfing. And we all sit and meekly wave flags!

Slimming down was always, imo, simply about the number of working royals being paid by the tax payers, rather than properties (though they only own a few - the rest are rented albeit cheaply) and occasions.

Back in the 80’s the number of working royals, or those expected to be working royals, all being paid was high, and expected to stay high.

You had the Queen & Philip, the Queen Mother, Princess Margaret, Charles & his wife, Andrew & his wife, Edward & his future wife, Anne, D&D Gloucester & Princess Alice, D&D of Kent, Princess Alexandra.

The slimming down was meant to signify that it would go on to be Charles, his wife, plus his children & their wives along with th Andrew, his wife but not their children, Edward and his wife but not their children, to pull the numbers down significantly. No cousins of his generation or of his children’s generation.

Slimming down was always, imo, simply about the number of working royals being paid by the tax payers, rather than properties (though they only own a few - the rest are rented albeit cheaply) and occasions.

Well that might be how it is sold to the public but they all need somewhere to live don’t they? And if they are working royals it can’t be just anywhere as they require a degree of privacy and security. So the RF and their roles and their accommodation are inextricably linked, which is where the expression “grace and favour” comes in!

Also, there is so much smoke and mirror obfuscation around the subject of what is state and privately owned that it is hard for the ordinary person to gain an accurate picture of what is being spent on what, and who exactly funds each property or estate or duchy.

And who determines what “slimming down” actually means is rather significant isn’t it?

Are there any official means through which we as individual British citizens are allowed to voice an opinion?

And if the purported “slimming down” doesn’t include properties then why not? Because imho no one person or institution can justify the assets as described in the following article:

www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2022/10/21/inside-king-charles-iiis-25-billion-real-estate-empire/?sh=11bcbe1e41ec

Slimming down does not mean less money. It means the same money for less people so each gets more.

That not quite correct either . He did inherit the rest of the Queen Mother's lease on the property.
According to the Crown Estate and Wikipedia, he paid for the extended lease and part of the renovation cost himself. The deal has been independently scrutinised after it was discovered no increase to rent was factored in annually. It was found to still be considered a fair deal in that scrutiny.
I don't really understand why that was. Edward and Sophie have a yearly rent increase at market value and started at £52,000 a year when they first bought a lease to their house- must be 20+ years ago. They also paid millions for the lease and the renovations/refurb, so why Andrew pays only£10,000 a year rent with no annual increase is beyond me. You couldn't rent anything in London for £10,000 a year.
The running coasts for the properties are ontop of that.
I have no personal sympathy for him and think he's an arrogant, greedy, quite dim man who seems to feel entitled to allsorts of things in life. He also seems unable to read public mood and thinks people will come round to him and his oaf of an ex-wife. However, he has spent millions on a property he has a lease on for whatever is left of the 85 years.
He is fortunate to be offered any other Crown Estate property. I don't know why he and his ex-wife can't live in the house she has bought in London. The market rent on Frogmore Cottage will be more than £10,000 a year plus upkeep.
But let's not be conned by the 'can't afford it' moan. He is a multi-millionaire with inheritances and trust funds from The Queen Mother and his parents.

Their apartment at Kensington Palace has 20 rooms.

The Sovereign grant doesn't cover wages. It never has. The queen used to pay a stipend to Anne and Edward. I guess Charles will do the same. The Sovereign grant does pay their travel expenses though.

According to the papers, H&M were said to be paying up 360k annually. This, I imagine, is speculation. But going back to the 2.4m H&M are said to have paid part in rent, part in renovation costs, I do think Charles or possibly HMQ paid this or a large chunk thereof and to save face it was portrayed as H&M. It would also make sense then as to why KC has asked for the property back as he has made clear he isn’t going to subsidise them when they’re permanently abroad, non working royals and all the other stuff, which has been much discussed.

I think we need to increasingly democratise their privileges, removing some glaring inconsistencies between the family and ordinary citizens, like death duties, taxation and sealed wills and the sovereign grant. Short of abolition and given their huge wealth, if they still wish to occupy the role as the nation's first family then let's look at those, maybe have a Royal Commission ! and a debate and vote in Parliament. How about crowdsourcing the Sovereign Grant, so these loyal monarchists can fund the institution through their own monies rather than mine. And at any point they can have a family meeting and say - you know what in this modern age of constant scrutiny and criticism and with the death of the almost blameless late Queen we've had enough, we have decided to become just another hugely wealthy aristocratic family, subject to the laws as everybody else in the country and break voluntarily the link constitutionally between the monarchy and state.

Heck, once they have made that leap of faith, we can even have a transition between monarch and Republic and have Charles as the last monarch and first President where we work out how to divvy up the spoils to the benefit of all. William and Kate would be free to separate if that's what they wanted to do, and William could give the finger to the press and take on lucrative private work if desired. But whatever they did as long as it was legal it would be none of our business as they are private citizens rather than agents of State.

I think @vera99 makes some good points - it certainly seems the height of absurdity that someone like Andrew - not positively contributing to our nation in any way - can live in such a place as Royal Lodge on a peppercorn rent, and have that level of privilege and subsidy.

How about crowdsourcing the Sovereign Grant, so these loyal monarchists can fund the institution through their own monies rather than mine.

How about if we replace the monarchy with an elected head of state, we don't pay them anything either and they can pay for the entertaining of foreign dignitaries, celebrations of national achievements and upkeep of protected buildings out of their own pocket too. Of course, it will restrict who can be elected to only the extremely wealthy, but it's a necessary evil.

And if we don't like our local MP, let's not pay them either. Let them pay for themselves. Of course, they'd need to be wealthy too. In fact, let's just become a plutocracy. Think how much money we could save.

@Zeroplucks202

That Forbes article is gobsmacking. Every Royalist should be forced to read it, along with Norman Baker's "and what do you do?"

Maybe their views would be a bit more balanced then.

The massive billion pound wealth of the Monarchy is just so wrong without the usual laws and taxes that the great british public have to pay. It's obscene

William and Kate would be free to separate if that's what they wanted to do Oh give up

William and Kate would be free to separate if that's what they wanted to do

Why slip that snidey bit in?

Thank you @vera99

You've summarised a lot of the very sensible objections that non royalists have.
We are in a ridiculous position - having a the very ordinary Mountbatten Winsdorr living a life of medieval privilege off the backs of the population
And for what ?
To fill the pages of the tabloids with distraction while the Windsors fill their boots

The major difference there is that dratted word democratic i.e. elected and accountable and subject to scrutiny and transparency and hopefully part of the parliamentary decision-making process rather than just an impotent, irrelevant signer of laws that they can't affect (didn't stop Charles black spider memos though did it lest we forget). I would pay royally for that and happen to think MPs should be paid a lot more given the responsibility they carry if they carry out their roles responsibly and represents their constituents rather than powerful corporate interests.

Tony Benn's 5 Questions

“What power have you got?”

“Where did you get it from?”

“In whose interests do you use it?”

“To whom are you accountable?”

“How do we get rid of you?”

www.thenation.com/article/archive/tony-benn-and-five-essential-questions-democracy/

@nilsoften
The five questions - yes.

Perhaps some of our royalist 'prococol' experts could answer them ?

@vera99 · Today 07:27
I think we need to increasingly democratise their privileges, removing some glaring inconsistencies between the family and ordinary citizens, like death duties, taxation and sealed wills and the sovereign grant.

Surely the alternatives are:

• Death duties - these can be avoided/significantly reduced by becoming non-does and by putting their wealth in off-shore trusts and using other legal tax avoidance measures. www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions
• Taxation - this can be avoided/significantly reduced again by becoming non-does and putting their wealth in off-shore trust and using other legal tax avoidance measures . trust.www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/amazon-tax-avoidance-luxembourg-proft-shifting-b1898781.html
• Sovereign Grant - The RF no longer required to do any public duties and if they do, then legally they must be paid NMW plus reasonable travel expenses. RF gain the ability significantly expand their commercial activities e.g. paid for adverts, reality TV, sponsored for events, expand duchy of Cornwall range, commercialise properties, official souvenirs, after dinner speaking - If Boris can get £276,000 for one speech in the US there is a lucrative market to explore. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-hourly-rate-speech-b2228233.html
• Opening up wills - If they become non-dome there may be countries that allow wills to be kept private after death and probate.

If you fundamentally remove glaring inconsistencies between RF and ordinary citizens there are a lot more things the RF can do which are perfectly legal, and many people and businesses do all the time, to maximise income and reduce expenditure (taxes) etc. that they can’t or chose not to do now.

bloody auto correct non-doms

That situation makes the most sense to me too.