King Charles To Get A 45% Pay Rise

[BuxFizz]

“The review of the Royal funding settlement was heavily spun by the Treasury to give the impression that the King would be taking a pay cut so the Crown Estates funds could instead be spent on public services.

In fact, the report reveals the Monarchy is due to receive a huge pay increase.

In 2025, the King’s public funding will increase by a projected £38.5 million.

Lord Turnbull, a former cabinet secretary and Whitehall’s most senior civil servant, who was involved in the official discussions accused the Treasury of seeking to obfuscate how the Monarchy was funded.

He said that linking the Royal finances to the profits of the Crown Estates was “silly” and motivated by a desire to promote the idea that the King was paying for himself and was reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

The complicated formula used to determine the Sovereign Grant was introduced in 2011 by then Prime Minister David Cameron, and his Chancellor George Osborne. Removing Parliament’s centuries old control over Royal funding. They created a new formula that tied the Monarch’s funding to a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estates.”

I’m surprised that this formula to calculate the Sovereign Grant was so recent, does anyone know how it was calculated before?

Also, the irony isn’t lost on me that this new formula was proposed by George Osborne, one the chief architects of Austerity.

King Charles Set To Receive A Huge Pay Rise From UK Taxpayers

Honestly, how can anyone support this greed?

Entirely agree but it seems people do 😕

Yes, it’s all smoke, mirrors and twisting technicalities like a pretzel to hoard wealth without any accountability.

Charles doesn’t pay corporation tax on a £Billion real estate portfolio (where he also merches Duchy original biscuits to Waitrose) because the Duchies aren’t technically ‘corporations’ but still pays a voluntary equivalent. My guess is that the equivalent is 10p 😂

Well I never.... the Met has dropped the case for Cash for Honours. What a surprise. Not.

In 2021 the Sunday Times published a letter from Charles's closest aide, Michael Fawcett, in which he offered a Middle Eastern donor help in acquiring an honour in exchange for a large donation to one of Charles's charities. That charity in turn spent money on Charles's own private home, Dumfries House.
It's a criminal offence to offer honours in exchange for donations.
Now the police have decided to do nothing. Yet the evidence was fairly clear. Here's that letter:

**

Thanks for the update @Roussette I knew this wouldn't go anywhere but its still disgusting.

Thanks, R.

Disingenuous Charles escapes with a bound once again.

Just waiting for the indispensable Fawcett to enter through his personal revolving door.

Disingenuous Charles escapes with a bound once again

Considering he's now quite literally beyond the law it was always going to happen - perhaps the long delay in the Met's decision was spent waiting for his mother to go, so they could say they now can't take it any further?

Only wondering if whoever made the decision is in line for a decoration of some sort ...

No further action is like the Scottish Court's not proven verdict - we know you did it, but you got off anyway. Disgusting - they really do reign over us and cow the establishment into craven compliance less they lose their place in the gong gravy train.

I've tracked up 47 years as a Republican all started as a 15-year-old after I bought Willie Hamilton's book My Queen and I at a jumble sale. Our day will come. He was right then, and he is right now in this clip from 1981 Today programme - with a splendid splenetic rage at Charles' and Diana's wedding !

@vera99 what a brilliant clip. Literally nothing has changed since 1981. And during Coronation threads, I kept saying why the actual fuck could Charles not pay for it himself. To set an example. A once in a lifetime thing. Then William would. And people would actually admire that decision. He is a double billionaire FFS! And a tight wad.

Same thoughts from Willie Hamilton about the Royal Wedding.

@vera99 I heard that the 'not proven' verdict is disappearing in Scotland?

in any case #notmybloodyKing!!

Thanks ! Wasn't aware it that it always seemed a bit dodgy to me - we know you did but can't prove it beyond reasonable doubt.

The coppers "no further action" when it is crystal clear to any reasonable person what is going on in that memo is in a similar vein. Some may say well it was being done for good causes so why the fuss ? Well apart from a natural sense of justice and the rule of law Charles is then padding out his various causes with others money, gaining kudos as a result and providing a smokescreen where much bigger money grabs are going on personally enrich the monarch and his family.

Literally selling honours for cash. Something is rotten in the state - and to make it worse he can't wait to get his 'capo' back in the field with unseemly haste.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/victims-witnesses-and-justice-reform-bill-factsheet/pages/not-proven-jury-reforms/

Even Julia Hartley-Brewer who is an out and out Royalist, has slammed the Met's decision. It must be bad.

We always knew this would happen. Opening an investigation on the King and Fawcett the Fence would not look good. The relationship between the Met and the Monarchy is very very wrong. The Met never even interviewed Charles, even before he was made King.

So carrier bags full of cash = nothing wrong with that. When it is obviously BRIBERY.

This will not go away and will linger like a bad smell.

#cashforhonours

No wonder the public are getting even more cynical about the Monarchy

Punishment of abuses in connection with the grant of honours.

(1)If any person accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, or for any purpose, any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour.

(2)If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour

(3)Any person guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine [F1of any amount], or to both such imprisonment and such fine, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding [F2the prescribed sum], or to both such imprisonment and such fine, and where the person convicted (whether on indictment or summarily) received any such gift, money, or consideration as aforesaid which is capable of forfeiture, he shall in addition to any other punishment be liable to forfeit the same to His Majesty.

GOD SAVE THE KING !

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honours_(Prevention_of_Abuses)_Act_1925

JHB is actually a republican. (I am not happy to share common ground with someone with many views which are antithetical to my own - but here we are - I've always remembered this because I was surprised to hear her speak on it once and wouldn't have thought that this would be her position)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Hartley-Brewer#:~:text=She%20has%20declared%20that%20she,of%20the%20National%20Secular%20Society.

Back on track - brilliant Willie Hamilton video @vera99 - plus ca change eh?

Oooh @skullbabe I didn't know that, especially as she slates H&M so much. You live and learn! 😂

Republic are asking for people to contact their MPs about this issue .

The UK is sick at its core and it’s caused by the rotting remains of monarchy .
We need the diseased parts excised .
No one can claim we have a democracy when the Windsors are above the law
It is not too much to ask

And by a stroke of luck they are beyond the reach of FOI. One can imagine the late Queen's regular meeting when she was going through the box and thanking her PM for the exemption. "I don't think anyone would want that, do you Prime Minister...."

"Blair chuckles - no ma'am, certainly not...!

Kerching !

The Royal Household is not a public authority within the meaning of the FOI Acts, and is therefore exempt from their provisions. Despite its exemption from the FOI Acts, the Royal Household's policy is to provide information as freely as possible in other areas, and to account openly for its use of public money.