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 find saying 'She' did this or that, rude, when I am obviously on the thread and have a name.
Just accept that please

In the interests of harmony, I will refrain from saying what my thoughts are. Let's move on.

History.

That's not really an answer though given the Isles were never specifically mentioned in the original charter, there are no records to show them being annexed and the Duchy has never been able to answer questions on how and when they were acquired as part of the holdings.

Absolutely Rousette. It’s not okay.

Now you're making me laugh gloriously ! Surely you can find a better example from my posts to pull apart? That's a bit weak!

The post I responded to I consider was goading and I pointed it out. No one on here has talked of 'robbing the people' which was repeated two or three times on this thread

Today I am rude, accusatory, overbearing, and have no credibility! Is there anyone else who would like to join in with any insults?!

p.s. I am more than happy for you to report any of my posts if you feel so inclined and if you think they break TG. Let MNHQ help you with it, it's only fair to me.

I'd like to point out that the phrase I used, "they are robbing the people" was not implying that anyone had used those exact words.

Surely most people would have understood it as a short and pithy paraphrase of the many objections raised on here so often, about how much money they have, how much of it should be taken off them, how it impoverishes "us".

I admire your patience

@Roussette You are none of those things.

Yes you are right @CathyorClaire

The Dutchy claims the Scilly Isles as theirs since the 14th century but rather like @Serensters one word vague explanation ‘ history’ - there is zero evidence to support this claim .
They are not mentioned in the charter .
When questioned as to how and when the Dutchy came to claim the Isles , there is no answer .

And as for claiming the Dutchy is not a corporation but a partnership - where is the evidence for this ?

The Dutchy simply says corporation tax will not be paid becasue ‘it is not payable ‘They simply say it is ‘not a legal entity for tax purposes ‘

Sound familiar?
More nonsense and obfuscation from the ‘royals’ when it comes to putting their hand in their pocket .
Interestingly the Dutchy was put under notice to improve under the Health and Safety at work Act . How were they able to do that if the Dutchy isn’t a legal entity ( as the Windsors claim)

Charles WAS removed from direct management of the Dutchy after the committee’s investigation.
Oh no doubt his name is still there but he was found to have claimed his own servants , Camillas clothes travel jewellery horses staff as tax deductible which they clearly were not .

OP this thread has gone off topic again but I await the next part of the Bylin eTimes investigation into deals between the ‘royals’ and the tabloids

I meant to add for the sake of clarity , when the Public Accounts Committee investigated the Dutchy they concluded that Charles should be removed from direct involvement as it was a conflict of interest ( ie dodgy practices as above)
The committee also asked why the Dutchy was exempt from corporation tax and Capital Gains tax. In other words the tax arrangements of 1337 were still be applied to the Dutchy
Says it all

Yes we are being ‘robbed’

‘They simply say it is ‘not a legal entity for tax purposes ‘
Sound familiar?
More nonsense and obfuscation from the ‘royals’ when it comes to putting their hand in their pocket

You may not personally understand something Novella. That doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.

Charles WAS removed from direct management of the Dutchy after the committee’s investigation. Oh no doubt his name is still there…

So you have no evidence that he was removed, as you claim, but you still assert it.

And as for claiming the Dutchy is not a corporation but a partnership - where is the evidence for this ?

I never said the Duchy is a partnership. I said it’s not a corporation. Not everything is a corporation, and the way non-corporation businesses are taxed is consistent with how the Duchy is taxed. A partnership is just a very common example of a non-corporation business model that is taxed the same way as the Duchy.

Interestingly the Dutchy was put under notice to improve under the Health and Safety at work Act . How were they able to do that if the Dutchy isn’t a legal entity ( as the Windsors claim)

It’s not a mystery if you know anything about the law. I repeat, you may not personally understand something Novella. That doesn’t mean it’s nonsense.

You wrote a long section about ‘partnerships ‘ for tax purposes .
I couldn’t see the relevance so thank you for confirming that it wasn’t relevant

So could you set out for us @Serenster how the ‘royals’ can claim that the Dutchy is not a legal entity but it can also at the same time accept an improvement notice form the Health and Safety at work Act ?

No doubt the answer is ‘not a legal entity when it comes to paying tax’
Because …… ‘royal’

Such duty

No, because it is an employer. You don’t need to be a corporation to be an employer. The most obvious example is if you yourself were to hire a nanny. The legal obligations on employers, including having notices served on you if necessary, all apply to you too.

Oh is that what happened with the last thread? I missed the last few pages and when I came back saw it was deleted, which is a shame as posters actually had thoughtful comments the first few pages.

@Novella4 yes, posters tend to do that rather purposefully don't they.

No matter, we'll look forward to parts 2 and 3 soon.

I'm curious as to who has actually read the Bylines times peices. 11 pages, easy and very interesting read.

I'm enjoying rereading the other Press and royals related threads as well, as much as others try and obfuscate the main issue/thread topic

No the last thread just turned nasty.
I was making a general comment.
I just find it boring

No, because it is an employer.

That's not the only discrepancy.

The Duchy reverts to the Crown when there's no Duke of Cornwall which means it exists as a legal entity in its own right.

Charles (as PoW) paid the rent on Highgrove to his landlord- the Duchy of Cornwall. Incidentally recycled back into his own pocket as Duchy profit. Nice one. At least until Willy got to trouser it instead.

He sold his 'personally owned' trees grown and nurtured on duchy land back to the duchy and pocketed some £2m in the process.

He claimed polo ponies as a business expense.

But it's all just royals royalling 🙄

Charles (as PoW) paid the rent on Highgrove to his landlord- the Duchy of Cornwall. Incidentally recycled back into his own pocket as Duchy profit. Nice one. At least until Willy got to trouser it instead.

Charles makes an arrangement to transfer a valuable asset to the Duchy, meaning he’s has to pay rent on a property he could otherwise be living in for free? What a heel etc etc.

An interesting article on The Duchy of Cornwall, tax avoidance, Highgrove etc. Although maybe certain posters think everything is above board and totally transparent, that does not appear to be the case.

This article argues the case much better than me. Charles calls the Duchy a Trust to avoid Corporation Tax but if it is a Trust, it should be liable for CGT.

It is obviously not as transparent as some think... if it was there would not be HMRC investigations. Yes this article is ten years old but the problem hasn't gone away. it's just moved from Charles to William. It is likened to Starbucks by a Tax expert as 'a token PR gesture'.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/dec/14/prince-charles-estate-tax-avoidance

No @Serenster you have not understood the question

Your example of being responsible for a nanny is not an answer and is irrelevant ( btw the nanny’s employer is subject to tax law which is the point - the Dutchy isn’t subject to tax law )
The Dutchy states it is not a legal entity re tax law .
However as they accepted a warning ( the improvement notice) re their Health and Safety practices they clearly are a legal entity - nevermind the rents , contracts etc they hold all over the country .
You can’t explain it because it is nonsense and more ‘special pleading ‘for ‘royal ‘ tax affairs etc to continue as they did in 1337 !
How many people know about this and the points made by @CathyorClaire ?
Very few- let’s just look at shiny hats and ribbons while the ‘royals’ don’t pay tax , invest in Brighthouse and in foreign tax havens ( paradise papers) all while trumpeting their life of ‘duty’

There is absolutely no point in discussing this with you further Novella, that much is true. I see no issues with the Duchy’s structure, legal status and tax arrangements for the reasons I have provided already. You do. Clearly, we won’t agree.