The royals and Dan Wootton: Byline Times part 1 of 3-year investigation into how Wootton got information about the royal family

[queentim]

Following their series about the Crisis in British Journalism and MediaToo movement, Byline Times reporters have recently released the first report of the 3 year investigation into the link between the royals and (disgraced) TV presenter Dan Wootton.

The first report reveals how Charles and William were angered that Harry refused to remove the name of an aide (William's aide in Kensington) who was paid cash to leak stories about his wife Meghan, and son Archie. This included investigations by the Met.

As a result, Charles removed the $700,000 granted to support them, which would have seen Harry and Meghan living in Canada and representing the Queen, in an effort to bring them back to the UK by exposing their location in Canada and removing their security. This was the collapse of the 'Sandringham Agreement', which resulted in the signing of the Sussexes media deals.

Some highlights, but can be bought for £3.6:

▪ It followed news that a partner of a key aide to Prince William received £4,000 from The Sun allegedly for stories about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex when Wootton was executive editor.

▪ The Metropolitan Police looked into the alleged leaking but could not go to a judge for a warrant to search royal staff property without knowing the identity of the whistle-blowers.

▪ Two internal royal investigations followed – one involving Simon Case, who is today the embattled head of the civil service facing questions over the Government’s response to the pandemic.

▪ Byline Times has uncovered new photographic evidence of Wootton, the aide and the aide’s partner at a lavish private birthday party Wootton threw for his close friends in a £1,675-a-night hotel suite.

▪ Prince Harry sent formal ‘letters before action’ detailing the claims about Wootton and the palace to News UK.

▪ When the aide’s name was not removed from the legal letters, the Sussexes were cut adrift financially and left unable to protect themselves despite having a security threat level equal to the monarch.

▪ The royal household had thought the threat of exposure would force Harry and Meghan to return to the UK, where their profile could be controlled preventing them from eclipsing the future King

Exploding ‘Megxit’: How Dan Wootton and a Cash-for-Leaks Scandal Split the Monarchy

I’m not entirely convinced you are being consistent about how you define a brand, Novella?

And I definitely disagree with this statement - “Thank god the young see through it all”. The young western generations are as much in thrall to the power as marketing as the rest of humans.

They are not in thrall to the Windsors

So can this ‘Windsor ‘ brand please pay its taxes and be subject to the law ?

Again, not sure what you mean by a brand here. Brands don’t pay taxes. Individuals and entities do. They are different things.

"quick google for South London just now shows a junior position being advertised within the Communications Team at Lewisham Council:*

Every organisation is allowed to advertise for staff!

How effing patronising to posters on here.

I am just imagining me posting something equally crass and rude about those that support the Monarchy and dislike H&M

It would be reported and deleted before I could blink

Of course they are.

I was responding directly to your comment that “I don't see local Councils promoting themselves via the media, they've just got to get to on and do the job of providing services to the public”.

They clearly do promote themselves via the media, as the advert I posted makes clear. They have a whole team to help them do so.

The Windsors dont pay their due taxes whether viewed as individuals or as their ‘brand’ so I’m don’t know what your point is exactly

Oh and on inheritance tax / they used to pay inheritance tax - they didn’t like it poor dears so had thrmselves made a special case and stopped paying .

So it’s nothing to do with some ‘they are excluded because they are not viewed as individuals, they are specia blah blah

They wormed out of it

Who are “ the young “ ?

I completely agree with this. However, investigative journalist (a) costs money and (b) isn’t really amendable to having a new revelation every day. So that can’t be the only thing the media platform does. Unless it is for example Panorama, which is funded by the licence fee and only has an episode when it has a story to tell. But that is very much the exception.

Yes that is true, and as long as thst isn't all they are doing, that's fine. Print the utterings of random Royal ' experts with opinions they have often pulled out of their backsides because the car insurance is due yo their hearts content. But they have a duty to be impartial so that they are also highlighting things the Royals do that are not in the Public Interest. How much of that are they doing when their owners are being schmoozed at Buckingham Palace and their revenue stream.depends on gossip ' leaked'from the inside? The Tabloids are now no better than the National Enquirer when it comes to journalism.

Absolutely. Who cares what the RRs think, they rabbit on like they know. They know nothing, just what members of the RF feed them so they can spin it out for dosh. Most unsavoury.

And there's a lot of these non stories that are plastered all over the media. Just to show that the Royals actually do ... ahem.... "work hard" for their millions from the taxpayer

Your post is so vague it’s hard to know what you are referring to, but it sounds a bit off base. To clarify, every single member of the Royal Family is fully liable to pay tax in the normal way, except for:

The Monarch - who is not liable to pay tax but voluntarily pays income, capital gains and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax is however only paid on assets that are regarded as private assets. The official Crown residences, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection and other assets held by the Monarch as sovereign rather than as a private individual are not subject to inheritance tax, however, as they pass directly to the next Monarch on death (the Monarch also doesn’t receive any of the income from these assets either, while they are alive). The Monarch is also entitled to an exemption on inheritance tax from assets transferred on their death directly to the new Monarch. Also, unlike the rest of us who benefit from a threshold of £325,000 (or £700,00 for a married couple) before you have to pay Inheritance, there is no threshold applicable for bequests from a Monarch to anyone else - all gifts to anyone but the Monarch are taxed.

The Prince of Wales - who is liable to pay tax in the normal way on all taxable activities except for income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays tax on income from the Duchy of Cornwall, however.

This was agreed between the Queen, John Major and HMRC in 1993 and has been applied ever since.

Good lord . You had that screed handy

Obsfucate all you like

We all know the Windsors do not pay their due tax .
The little income tax William offers is based on what HE decides he’ll offer . No tax man has calculated what he owes.
As the UK gets increasingly poor these grifters will come under greater pressure to stop ripping off the people

Monarch to Monarch = no IHT. It saved ££££££

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/13/king-charles-will-not-pay-tax-on-inheritance-from-the-queen

I agree @Novella4 the Monarchy do not pay their due tax. Corporation tax - No. IHT No.

According to the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, “the Monarch is not legally liable to pay income tax, capital gains tax, or inheritance tax because the relevant enactments do not apply to the Crown.”

Charles could pay 50p tax voluntarily and say 'I pay tax'

Monarch to Monarch = no IHT. It saved ££££££

Yes - that was included in my summary above.

The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall aren’t corporates, so I’m not sure why you think they should pay corporation tax? If it was a corporation of course its structure would doubtless be set up to be considerably more tax efficient and its income likewise would be in a different form and differently taxed. I’d be interested to hear the details of how you think the tax take would be higher than it currently is if it was a corporation?

I have no idea what you're talking about so mark that as a 0-1 to you as opposed to stupid me
I get a bit bored of being blinded by science as it were
I didn't actually know you were a Tax Accountant with such knowledge. Another string to your bow!

Oh so does that mean that the Dutchies are ‘private ‘ @Serenster

Private when it suits them, public when it suits them

Here is a cautionary tale re the Windsors and financial honesty :

There was a public accounts committee investigation into the Dutchys in 2005.
One conclusion was to have Charles removed from any direct involvement as among the tax deductible expenses he had listed where his personal butlers valets and toothpaste squeezers.
Also listed by Charles as tax deductible where some personal costs of a certain Mrs Parker Bowles . This was before they were married and included costs for staff for her house, travel , jewellery and her clothes . Even stabling for her horses

I read this in Norman Baker’s excellent book ‘and what do you ?’ .
He had been privy councillor to the Queen and as he learned more about the the Windsors he became a Republican campaigner …

There was a public accounts committee investigation into the Dutchys in 2005.
One conclusion was to have Charles removed from any direct involvement

That’s not quite true. The Public Accounts Committee’s conclusion was that there was a potential conflict of interest in the Prince of Wales having involvement in the management of the Duchy (as opposed to an actual conflict of interest, which is quite different). The Duchy pointed to the controls it has in place to manage this potential conflict of interest in its response, including the role of HMT in approving its transactions.

it appears that the Public Accounts Committee must have been satisfied with this position, as when they completed their next review, in 2013, they did not raise this point again, or revisit their earlier recommendation.

Serenster · Today 15:28
The Monarch - who is not liable to pay tax but voluntarily pays income, capital gains and inheritance tax. Inheritance tax is however only paid on assets that are regarded as private assets. The official Crown residences, the Royal Archives, the Royal Collection and other assets held by the Monarch as sovereign rather than as a private individual are not subject to inheritance tax, however, as they pass directly to the next Monarch on death (the Monarch also doesn’t receive any of the income from these assets either, while they are alive). The Monarch is also entitled to an exemption on inheritance tax from assets transferred on their death directly to the new Monarch. Also, unlike the rest of us who benefit from a threshold of £325,000 (or £700,00 for a married couple) before you have to pay Inheritance, there is no threshold applicable for bequests from a Monarch to anyone else - all gifts to anyone but the Monarch are taxed.

The Prince of Wales - who is liable to pay tax in the normal way on all taxable activities except for income from the Duchy of Cornwall. The Prince of Wales voluntarily pays tax on income from the Duchy of Cornwall, however.

This was agreed between the Queen, John Major and HMRC in 1993 and has been applied ever since.

Thank you for that, Serenstar.

I knew some of it but not all. Doesn't seem to have stopped the cries of "They take our hard-earned taxes and contribute nothing", from the usual posters though.
Seems a case of "if you don't like the information, don't believe it"

Seems a case of "if you don't like the information, don't believe it"

No
Personally I like to be able to question all public bodies. Don't you?

@serenster
Charles was removed from direct involvement in the management of the Dutchys as a result of his activities . His mistress’s jewellery clothes staff travel and horses were being claimed as tax deductible plus his own servants .

‘Potential ‘ for conflict of interest is public body speak for ‘FO you chancer’ as I’m sure you well know .

The committee’s look at how the estate was run in 2005 was the first time it was looked at in 600 years . Yes SIX HUNDRED.
Im delighted to see they are keeping things in a tighter leash with a review in 2013 . More reform
is needed .