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

Yes I know you see no issues despite the problems pointed out above - there are many many more

As you are a legal expert I was asking for you to set out how the Dutchy can deem itself ‘not a legal entity as regards tax law ‘ yet accept an improvement notice under the Health and Safety at work Act - never mind the housing estates and shopping centres it owns and takes rent from ?

But of course you can’t explain it .
Its just another ‘shrug shoulders , ‘royals’ doing as they please ‘ isn’t it ?

I absolutely can explain it, but what’s the point?

If you want a primer on legal
personality, you can Google. The information is all out there, is well settled, and despite your best efforts to cast aspersions, all entirely normal and uncontroversial.

I see no issues with the Duchy’s structure, legal status and tax arrangements for the reasons I have provided already

You might not, but others clearly feel different to you.

The duchy insists it "is not subject to corporation tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes". But John Angel, principal judge at the information rights tribunal, ruled last December it was a separate legal body to the prince

As usual, transparency is not at its core.

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.

Please can you provide a link confirming this transfer?

You were the one who said it! You tell us how the Duchy became the owner of Highgrove, then

Charles (as PoW) paid the rent on Highgrove to his landlord- the Duchy of Cornwall.

The duchy insists it "is not subject to corporation tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes". But John Angel, principal judge at the information rights tribunal, ruled last December it was a separate legal body to the prince

Because it is. In the same way that a company is separate from its directors and shareholders, a trust is a separate entity to its trustees, a partnership is separate to its partners and a sports club or scout troop is separate to its officers.

Clearly, you have no interest in listening to any information from me though.

@Serenster
Anyone can google ‘legal personality ‘
That is irrelevant once again

That does not explain your defence of the Dutchy and its peculiar arrangements , apart from blind royalism of course . And long term that will not help the Windsors

You can’t explain it . That’s fine .

You were the one who said it! You tell us how the Duchy became the owner of Highgrove, then

I didn't say Charles purchased it in a private capacity and never have as I know it's not the case.

Highgrove was purchased by the Duchy on Charles's behalf hence him paying rent to his 'landlord'.

The tribunal ruling that you are quoting from was overturned on appeal. See paragraphs 71 onwards: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5784f4b7ed915d622c000119/GIA01588_2012-00.pdf

Highgrove was purchased by the Duchy on Charles's behalf hence him paying rent to his 'landlord'.

Actually on further reflection a very neat trick indeed.

Charles didn't have to cough the purchase price out of his own pocket and he got the rent he paid recycled back to himself. Ingenious 🤓

The arrangements are peculiar because the Duchy is peculiar. And it's peculiarity isn't because it is royal, it is because it is old. Uniquely so - there aren't any comparable organisations that were formed 700 years ago. It doesn't just predate the Companies Act, it predates any modern understanding of company law. It predates the entire law of trust! It's a feudal hangover in the modern legal system.

I dare say that any perceived lack of transparency is because most people are not interested in deciphering charters from 1337 or learning about the history of trust law - it's less a matter of transparency, more a lack of accessibility of a very niche topic to a casual audience.

Why would an employer's compliance with health and safety legislation be dependent on whether the employer has chosen to incorporate?

Why are you so determined for the Duchy's profits to be subject to corporation tax (rate of 25%) instead of income tax (paid by the Duke at the rate of 45%, pursuant to the MoU)?

Thanks Dolma. Certain Cambridge and Oxford colleges, the Inns of Court and the City Livery Companies are other examples of similar legal dinosaurs that manage to exist perfectly well, despite predating modern law by several centuries too of course. And they aren’t “Royal” either.

@Serenster you have the patience of a saint !

@Mylovelygreendress - took the words right out of my mouth......

No @dolma
Im afraid you have swallowed the PR line on tue I come tax story

The ‘royals ‘ were pressured into paying a voluntary offering of tax - I think not was the year of the Windsor fire and the queen was asking for more money

Anyway - you cannot state that the Dutchy pays income tax when the tax they offer is decided on by the ‘royals ‘ themsoves . See my posts above re Charles declaring a camilla’s clothes jewelry staff horses horses etc were all tax deductible
The ‘royals ‘ decide how much income is left as taxable . No tax man does .
Its a sop to their critics and it clearly still works if you dont look too closely

Do their members comply with tax law ?

Sorry that was for @Serenster
re inns of court etc

Its a rhetorical question of course -
the answer is yes

Tbe core of the issue here is the ‘royals’ unilaterally declare that the Dutchy is ‘ not a legal entity for tax purposes ‘

But is a legal entity for all other purposes so being old is no excuse / explanation at all !

@Dolma
You are right about one thing - ‘lack of accessibility ‘ as you put it is at the heart of this .

No @dolma
Im afraid you have swallowed the PR line on tue I come tax story

Have I? Or have I just read the primary document that sets out the arrangement with HMRC?

The ‘royals ‘ were pressured into paying a voluntary offering of tax - I think not was the year of the Windsor fire and the queen was asking for more money

Yep. And they pay that voluntary offering, which is the same amount as if they were subject to income tax. As long as HMRC gets its money, the administrative arrangements around the legal obligations are little more than a technicality, put in place to accommodate the historic quirks of a 700 year old body. You're not railing against the substantive issue that you think you are.

Anyway - you cannot state that the Dutchy pays income tax when the tax they offer is decided on by the ‘royals ‘ themsoves . See my posts above re Charles declaring a camilla’s clothes jewelry staff horses horses etc were all tax deductible
The ‘royals ‘ decide how much income is left as taxable . No tax man does .
Its a sop to their critics and it clearly still works if you dont look too closely

You might refer to that as doing a self assessment for tax. And then you might recognise that that is how everyone who is not PAYE conducts their tax affairs.

Well I was not PAYE for a very long time and no, I didn't get to 'decide' a voluntary tax contribution! Thats hilarious....

Absolutely.

The royals have not unilaterally declared this. You just think that they have because you haven't read any of the relevant documentation from other sources.

Why are you so determined for the Duchy's profits to be subject to corporation tax (rate of 25%) instead of income tax (paid by the Duke at the rate of 45%, pursuant to the MoU)?

It's not 'instead of'. Charles (and Willy too) should be paying both.

This link explains why many of the arguments made for Charles ducking his tax responsibilities are invalid.

House of Commons - Public Accounts Committee: Written evidence from Republic (parliament.uk)

I thought this part of what @CathyorClaire has linked to included some good points on what you raise:

*The Duchy is wrong to claim it is not a legal person or to suggest it does not exist separately from the Duke of Cornwall10. The Duchy’s 2012 financial statements state that it is “not subject to Corporation Tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes”. There is substantial evidence that the Duchy’s claim not to be a body or other legal person existing separately from Prince Charles is incorrect:

(a)“If there is a living male son of the Monarch who is also heir apparent then the Duchy is managed by the Duke. When there is no Duke then the Duchy is managed by the Crown, but it does not belong to the Crown or to the Monarch.” (source: EA 2010/0182 para 33)

(b)The Duchy’s 1997 financial statements (which were audited and presented to Parliament) state that “The Duchy of Cornwall is a body created by charter in 1337”. (source: EA 2010/0182 para 33)

(c)“There have been transactions between the Duchy and Duke, for example the Duke pays rent to the Duchy for his occupancy of Highgrove House and the Duchy has purchased quantities of timber from the Duke.” (source: EA 2010/0182 para 43)

(d)The Duchy’s Staff Handbook headed “Duchy of Cornwall” refers to “employment by the Duchy”. (source: EA 2010/0182 para 44)
(e)Contracts with employees are entered into with the Duchy. (source: EA 2010/0182 para 44)

(f)The Duchy is notified as the Data Controller under the Data Protection Act 1998. (source: EA 2010/0182 para 44)

(g)The Information Rights Tribunal was “given to understand that the Duchy contracts in its own name and has sued and been sued in its name …” (source: EA 2010/0182 para 45)

(h)The Duchy holds bank accounts in its own name. (source: EA 2010/0182 para 48)

(i)Walter Ross described himself to the Information Rights Tribunal as “in effect, the Chief Executive Officer”. The Tribunal found that “From the evidence before us he can only be the CEO of the Duchy.” (source: EA 2010/0182 para 51)

(j)The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) issued an improvement notice against the Duchy of Cornwall under Section 21 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. The notice was not challenged either by the Duchy or by the Duke. If the Duchy was not a legal person in its own right the HSE would have had no power to issue the notice against it.

(k)The Environmental Agency has granted more than fifteen environmental permits to the Duchy of Cornwall, which could only have been granted to a legal person. (source: Environment Agency public registers)*