Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

The royal family

Royals took more than £1bn income

178 replies

ladykale · 05/04/2023 13:41

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/05/revealed-royals-took-more-than-1bn-income-from-controversial-estates-king-charles-queen-duchies-cornwall-lancaster

I just don't understand how high earners are taxed to death in this country and the average population still wants them to pay more and more tax, yet most are in favour of the Royal Familh whose income increased x16 during the Queen's reign and they took £1bn of income,

I don't know how they've successfully brainwashed the people of britain to continue supporting them.

I find it so ridiculous.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
16
Ineedwinenow · 05/04/2023 18:50

4plusthehound · 05/04/2023 17:31

And the GOLD MEDAL for naivety goes to.......

At least I hope you are niave......

Aren’t you delightful…

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 18:53

Re Duchy Originals, yes it was started by Charles, but i did not realise it is run separately to the duchy estates.

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 18:54

This is some of what I’ve read to base my comments on:

*Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, the panel that has led inquiries into the tax affairs of Amazon, Starbucks and Google, called on the finance ministry in a report to review the hereditary estate’s historic tax exemptions.
The vast Duchy, created in 1337 by King Edward III to provide an income for him and his heirs, pays no corporation tax or capital gains tax.
“This tax exemption might mean that competing businesses do not have a level playing field on which to operate,” said committee chairwoman Margaret Hodge. “The Treasury should examine the impact on the marketplace of the Duchy engaging in commercial transactions while exempt from tax.”
The estate, one of Britain’s biggest landowners, is worth some 763 million pounds. It owns farms, cottages and pubs, as well as islands, a green power plant and the Oval cricket ground in London, and makes most of its money from managing these commercially.
Labor lawmaker Austin Mitchell, one of the cross-party committee’s members, described the estate as a “medieval anomaly” during an evidence session in July.
The committee said the finance ministry should do more to check its accounts.

The Duchy’s 19 million pound surplus in 2012/13 funded Charles’s public and private activities, as well as those of his wife Camilla and his sons William and Harry.
Treasury official Paula Diggle told the committee that parliament had looked at the issue in depth 20 years ago and decided it would be unfair to tax Charles twice, on his personal income and on the revenue from the Duchy.
A Duchy of Cornwall spokesman said in a statement: “We will carefully consider the content of the report, and will contribute as necessary to any response by the Treasury.
“We do not believe the Duchy has an unfair tax advantage over its competitors.”*

www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-royal-tax-idCABRE9A400I20131105

*The Prince of Wales's estate should be investigated following claims that it is exploiting an "unfair advantage" over commercial rivals because it is exempt from business taxes, a committee of MPs will say on Tuesday.
The public accounts committee is to urge the Treasury to assess whether the Duchy of Cornwall is competing on an "unlevel playing field" because it is not liable for corporation tax or capital gains tax. The move follows a series of claims, first reported in the Guardian, that the duchy – which manages a portfolio of land, property and investments – is running a "well entrenched tax avoidance scheme".

MPs accused the Treasury of failing to properly scrutinise the duchy's finances because it relies on estate officials to provide it with accurate information and does not carry out independent checks.
The committee's chair, the Labour MP Margaret Hodge, said: "Details of the treasury's approvals for the duchy's proposed land transactions over £500,000 – of which there are around 15 a year – are not published. Greater transparency is needed. The duchy enjoys an exemption from paying tax even though it engages in a range of commercial activities. This tax exemption may give it an unfair advantage over its competitors who do pay corporation and capital gains tax. The treasury should examine whether the duchy's tax exemption creates an unlevel playing field."

The duchy owns large tracts of rural and commercial property as well as housing in the south-west of England. Among its assets are a Waitrose supermarket depot in Milton Keynes and a Holiday Inn hotel in Cornwall. In the last financial year the duchy generated £28.8m and the prince received an income of £19m – up 4% on the previous year. The money is partly used to fund his and his family's public, charitable and official duties and the prince voluntarily pays income tax on the cash left after costs, around £9.2m last year, the committee said.
Only the royal family, its advisers and HM Revenue and Customs currently know what the prince claims as his expenses before tax on his £19m income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
The MPs called for his income tax arrangements to be opened up to scrutiny to improve transparency. It said the combined income tax and VAT paid by the prince was £4.4m, but how this was broken down was unknown.
A Treasury spokesman said: "The Treasury has a constructive working relationship with the Duchy, and challenges decisions where appropriate."

A Duchy of Cornwall spokeswoman denied there was a tax advantage over competitors. "The Duke of Cornwall's income is taxed at income tax rates. The duchy is not subject to corporation tax and the duchy is not a corporation. The duchy is exempt from tax on capital gains, any capital gains have to be reinvested in the business and cannot be distributed."

amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/nov/05/duchy-of-cornwall-tax-prince-wales-charles

And the one in the OP https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/05/revealed-royals-took-more-than-1bn-income-from-controversial-estates-king-charles-queen-duchies-cornwall-lancaster

Revealed: royals took more than £1bn income from controversial estates

Investigation reveals King Charles and the late queen’s income from duchies grew sixteenfold during Elizabeth’s reign

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2023/apr/05/revealed-royals-took-more-than-1bn-income-from-controversial-estates-king-charles-queen-duchies-cornwall-lancaster

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 18:55

@Ineedwinenow yes but your comment they replied to was wrong

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 18:57

Sorry I didn’t @ the person who corrected me on the Duchy originals thing, can’t recall who!

MarshaMelrose · 05/04/2023 18:57

But all your reports are from 2013. The Treasury did actually investigate in 2014.

Ineedwinenow · 05/04/2023 18:57

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 18:55

@Ineedwinenow yes but your comment they replied to was wrong

How? I put screen shots of the amount they pay to the government and the amount we have to fund as taxpayers? What naive about that? Blame google not me

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:00

The palace has long stated that income received from both duchies is largely spent on the family’s official duties, public work or charitable causes. However, the royals have never provided a detailed account of how money from the estates is spent, describing them as “private financial arrangements”. Charles has reported that 49% to 51% of his duchy income was spent covering public and charitable functions in recent years.
As Prince of Wales, a large part of Charles’s duchy income was spent privately, including on secretaries, valets, gardeners, chefs, stable hands and farm workers.
The late queen was reported to have used Duchy of Lancaster income to help Prince Andrew pay an undisclosed sum – reported to be more than £9m – to end the sexual assault case filed against him by Virginia Giuffre.

From today. Who reported the Queen used that income to pay Andrews accuser? How would they know this?

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:02

From today:
The veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who led an inquiry into the Duchy of Cornwall in 2013when she chaired the public accounts committee, said parliament had been unable to establish how duchy income was spent.
“It was very unclear,” she said recently. “There is little transparency.”
She described the status of the duchies as a “deliberate ambiguity” and argued that income from them should be taken into consideration by the government when it calculates the next sovereign grant payment.
“If the money from the duchies is part of the state’s contribution to the monarchy, fine, but we should be able to see how it is spent and look at funding of the royal household in the round.”
The Guardian made eight visits to the archives to retrieve accounts for the duchies to reveal how they have transformed royal fortunes.

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:03

@Ineedwinenow oh no I’m not agreeing with calling you naive. But the duchy estates are private and income doesn’t go to the treasury, that’s why Labour MPs were requesting years ago that it should.

MarshaMelrose · 05/04/2023 19:05

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:02

From today:
The veteran Labour MP Margaret Hodge, who led an inquiry into the Duchy of Cornwall in 2013when she chaired the public accounts committee, said parliament had been unable to establish how duchy income was spent.
“It was very unclear,” she said recently. “There is little transparency.”
She described the status of the duchies as a “deliberate ambiguity” and argued that income from them should be taken into consideration by the government when it calculates the next sovereign grant payment.
“If the money from the duchies is part of the state’s contribution to the monarchy, fine, but we should be able to see how it is spent and look at funding of the royal household in the round.”
The Guardian made eight visits to the archives to retrieve accounts for the duchies to reveal how they have transformed royal fortunes.

This is her opinion based on her investigation as chair of the public accounts committee in 2013.

ssd · 05/04/2023 19:06

I think all the discussion over camilla being called queen camilla is a smokescreen to divert the plebs from looking too closely at these revelations. The Palace must have got wind they were coming out in the press and they thought, what will we do to stop this being discussed too much....i know, lets drop the consort bit, that'll have them all frothing!!

MarshaMelrose · 05/04/2023 19:10

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:00

The palace has long stated that income received from both duchies is largely spent on the family’s official duties, public work or charitable causes. However, the royals have never provided a detailed account of how money from the estates is spent, describing them as “private financial arrangements”. Charles has reported that 49% to 51% of his duchy income was spent covering public and charitable functions in recent years.
As Prince of Wales, a large part of Charles’s duchy income was spent privately, including on secretaries, valets, gardeners, chefs, stable hands and farm workers.
The late queen was reported to have used Duchy of Lancaster income to help Prince Andrew pay an undisclosed sum – reported to be more than £9m – to end the sexual assault case filed against him by Virginia Giuffre.

From today. Who reported the Queen used that income to pay Andrews accuser? How would they know this?

They don't know who paid Andrews fees, where the money came from or how much the settlement was. When they say it was reported, it could be the journalist at the next desk speculating. Certainly neither the Queen, Andrew, Andrews lawyers, nor the queens accountants gave ever commented.

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:14

Certainly neither the Queen, Andrew, Andrews lawyers, nor the queens accountants gave ever commented.

No, I didn’t think so. They really should have. I think the Queen paying a large sum of money like that in that circumstance, while receiving tax payer money every year, should have said where that came from. I don’t think media should make assumptions.

MarshaMelrose · 05/04/2023 19:18

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:03

@Ineedwinenow oh no I’m not agreeing with calling you naive. But the duchy estates are private and income doesn’t go to the treasury, that’s why Labour MPs were requesting years ago that it should.

The income tax the duke is liable for goes to the treasury. The treasury have control over things that can be done within the duchy. The duchy publishes their accounts.

vera99 · 05/04/2023 19:20

AskMeMore · 05/04/2023 17:24

And still Charles could not even pay for his own portrait to be sent out to institutions and schools. They get the taxpayer to fund everything they can while they continue to build up their own private wealth.

This. Greedy grasping entitles that have a seeming inability to read the room. Long to reign over us my arse. Our national anthem we the bloody people reduced to cap-doffing grateful serfs. Glad to report I have never sung it in the last 45 years of my 62 years and never will. God if she exists would send them back to the queue if they ever got to the pearly gates with "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Matthew 19:24) ringing in their ears, and Saint Diana going ....naaahhhh, Camilla you like smoking - over there !

God save our gracious King!
Long live our noble King!
God save the King!
Send him victorious,
Happy and glorious,
Long to reign over us,
God save the King.

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:25

Sorry @MarshaMelrose I’m not being clear because I’m doing 6 things at once. What I meant was the profits/income don’t get passed straight to the treasury like the crown estate revenue.

MarshaMelrose · 05/04/2023 19:26

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:14

Certainly neither the Queen, Andrew, Andrews lawyers, nor the queens accountants gave ever commented.

No, I didn’t think so. They really should have. I think the Queen paying a large sum of money like that in that circumstance, while receiving tax payer money every year, should have said where that came from. I don’t think media should make assumptions.

The Queen was wealthy in her own right. The court case was a private affair settled out of court. She doesn't need to reveal anything.
The sovereign grant did not pay her a wage. It overed the cost of royal duties, amongst other things. The sovereign grant paid for travel costs of members of the Royal family but not any wages. The Queen paid those out of her own money.
She inherited the duchy of Lancaster. She received an income from it and paid the accordant income tax owed.

Menstrualcycledisplayteam · 05/04/2023 19:26

I found this very sobering from Polly Toynbee in the Guardian.

Just £1m of the king’s income would buy five AgeUK day centres, reopening ones shut by austerity. Or it could train 250 early years educators for nurseries, says the Early Years Alliance. Just one of his millions would pay for 25,000 GP appointments, says the King’s Fund. The annual public funding for the royals would pay for 30 hours of childcare per week for almost 13,000 three- and four-year-olds for a year, says the IFS. The king is paid more than the cost of all London’s street lighting. That £1.2bn from the Duchies would pay for 30,000 nurses for a year. Money spent on the monarchy seems a lot or a little depending on whether you think one king is worth more than 4,000 teachers.

I'm so tired of the Bread and Circuses of it all. Look over here at a picture of Louis and Charlotte....oooh, what a lovely dress Kate is wearing. Whilst simultaneously concealing their wills and having the right to pass comment on legislation that affects them. I'd love to get rid.

Key facts and figures about the NHS

What's the NHS annual budget? How many doctors and nurses are there? What's the cost of an operation? We answer some of the most frequently asked questions we receive about health and social care.

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/audio-video/key-facts-figures-nhs

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:27

The Queen paid those out of her own money.
She inherited the duchy of Lancaster. She received an income from it and paid the accordant income tax owed.

How did they come to own the duchy of Lancaster?
They don’t pay inheritance tax either do they?

Serenster · 05/04/2023 19:31

They don’t pay inheritance tax either do they?

”They” do pay inheritance tax. The only one who doesn’t is the monarch on items left directly to the new monarch. If the monarch leaves money or gifts to other family members however they are subject to inheritance tax in the usual way.

Serenster · 05/04/2023 19:34

How did they come to own the duchy of Lancaster?

Because Henry III defeated Simon de Montfort and other English peers in the 1200s. After his victory he seized their assets and bestowed them on his son and heir.

vera99 · 05/04/2023 19:39

Menstrualcycledisplayteam · 05/04/2023 19:26

I found this very sobering from Polly Toynbee in the Guardian.

Just £1m of the king’s income would buy five AgeUK day centres, reopening ones shut by austerity. Or it could train 250 early years educators for nurseries, says the Early Years Alliance. Just one of his millions would pay for 25,000 GP appointments, says the King’s Fund. The annual public funding for the royals would pay for 30 hours of childcare per week for almost 13,000 three- and four-year-olds for a year, says the IFS. The king is paid more than the cost of all London’s street lighting. That £1.2bn from the Duchies would pay for 30,000 nurses for a year. Money spent on the monarchy seems a lot or a little depending on whether you think one king is worth more than 4,000 teachers.

I'm so tired of the Bread and Circuses of it all. Look over here at a picture of Louis and Charlotte....oooh, what a lovely dress Kate is wearing. Whilst simultaneously concealing their wills and having the right to pass comment on legislation that affects them. I'd love to get rid.

I think we have entered the end game now it maybe a decade or two, but it is the beginning of the end. I can't see 'Queen' Camilla being functional for more than a few years at best having hammered her body with booze and fags over decades and a diminished 'Heir of Sorrows' Charles will cut a sad figure. Then we have the Dolittles having to get off their arses and do stuff that for most folk will have no connectivity and like Brexit their biggest fans will have to face their maker and won't be able to do 24 hours in the mall waving plastic Chinese flags. Then there will be a Gadarene rush in the Commonwealth to go full Republic and declare their true independence from the colonial mothership of yore. That leaves a huge amount of heavy lifting from the '120 room mansion' Edward and Sophie singing for their suppers with an assorted cast of also-rans. The fact is the monarchy died with the late Queen - it will just take a few years for that to fully sink in.

MarshaMelrose · 05/04/2023 19:40

Whaeanui · 05/04/2023 19:25

Sorry @MarshaMelrose I’m not being clear because I’m doing 6 things at once. What I meant was the profits/income don’t get passed straight to the treasury like the crown estate revenue.

They're two different entities, though. The Crown Estate officially belongs to the monarch but they just a title holder really so they don't have any say over it - and fortunately neither do the govt or they'd be selling it off right, left and centre. The Crown Estate Commissioners look after the estate and the profits go to the Treasury.

But the Duchy is the monarch's own private, estate where they get their income from. It's handed down like other Duchies. And they pay tax on it. But there are controls of what can be done within the Duchy. And, unlike the Duchy of Cornwall, the monarch is not directly involved in running the Duchy of Lancaster. (I guess the queen used to ask the odd question or two, though. 😄)

The Crown Estates generate public money for the state and the Duchy of Lancaster generates private money for the monarch. That's a bit of a clumsy generalisation but it's basically right.

MarshaMelrose · 05/04/2023 19:43

I think we have entered the end game now it maybe a decade or two, but it is the beginning of the end.

Do you think so, Vera? Is this a new view because I don't think I've heard you say that before? 😉 😁

Swipe left for the next trending thread