C4 Dispatches on Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster

[Babadookinthewardrobe]

I couldn’t find another thread on this. I watched this yesterday. I am so angry. The royal family are grim parasites funding their luxury lifestyle from the sweat of the British people. Via the duchies they are rinsing the NHS and charities for millions. It’s horrific. No IHT, no CGT, no transparency, no consideration for the environment of which they are supposed to be stewards in the duchies.

Their behaviour and greed is absolutely grim
and I am so sick of the lot of them. I’m joining republic, I’m so shocked at what I’ve just seen. The French had the right idea.

I know wealthy people who have created homes for people. Or given away land for hospices and similar for free.

Like William building and funding a £3 million social housing development on Duchy of Cornwall land to tackle homelessness, along with giving £500k from his Foundation to the project? A project that was only launched in June last year, and in relation to a Duchy he’s only been the steward of for just over two years?

They have never paid 45% income tax.
They have never paid income tax on all the profits of the duchy/s.

And you can give sources for this…?

Do you have the same outrage for the government over scrapping the winter fuel allowance @Babadookinthewardrobe? While MPs claim thousands to heat their homes.

Some of these tenants are not paying their rent and won’t allow access so what would you do in that situation? As a landlord?

Well said @Delphigirl

If Charles and William were paying a fair tax they would tell us. They quite obviously are not. William has broken with tradition of showing what tax he paid... Charles used to.

But if that is the case, "pick a lane", then they need to as well surely.

So, the king needs to stop the weekly lobby meeting with the PM where he gets heads up of all that is going on and where he can lobby for his own interests.

The tax benefits and breaks they have need to be removed immediately.

They need to be completely transparent with their business dealings, and they need to one open to scrutiny, same as any other company.

And on and on.

Their greed is beyond measure.

In his last full year of running Duchy of Cornwall, Charles paid £5.9 million in tax. His income from it was £24million

Since then, neither Charles or William have disclosed how much tax they have paid.

ONE tenant.

What would you do though is the question @BustingBaoBun

What would I do about what?

I cannot solve this in a post on MN! I am not a historian, a constitutional expert, or a Minister

I know the Monarchy isn't going anywhere. However, programmes like the Dispatches one, lift the curtain just a small bit on what goes on, and if that means more transparency and a severely slimmed down Monarchy, all well and good.

Landowners make a lot of money by owning land their ancestors stole. It's a fact of life in the UK. I doubt the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are the worst, particularly as they have government oversight.

Do I think that the Royal Finances need looking at to see if they are appropriately structured for the 21st century? Yes of course, it's been pretty obvious since the Queen died that some of the ways the monarchy works are no longer for for purpose. Do I think that the royals are evil landowners cackling at their tenants, no.

The problem with online discussion is that it tends towards black and white thinking. William can be a landowner and care about the homeless. Something needs to done about the detail but I do wonder if the process is slightly affected by the other wealthy landowners out there who are maybe sheltered from criticism, by Lancaster and Cornwall because they are held by the royals, and whose owners are not keen to be more open to scrutiny.

Maybe Dispatches will start a debate about the system that reaches beyond social media comments, I hope it does but somehow I'm not that optimistic.

Agree OP, except I wouldn’t go about it the way the French did 😆 🩸 🪓

I do agree with PPs that Charles and W can’t bear all of the blame. But it’s up to them to address the matter of £££ assuming the public is still in favour of a monarchy (I’m not, but I would respect the majority view).

They are grifting of MacMillan Cancer (sorry, “Dutchy charging rent”) according to some sources, which seems particularly foul in light of what C and C have gone through this year. 200 redundancies last month. Some towns down to one nurse available for all those who might need one. Disgraceful.

This feels like a turning point for the gravy train tbh despite the royal fangirls and fanboys on TwitterX saying, “nothing to see here”.

Exactly, so it’s not as easy to resolve this situation as you’d have us all believe.
There is only one tenant we can discuss as only one has gone on record and all of the photos are from their property.

I do agree with you though @BustingBaoBun that any poor standards need addressing. 😊

The problem with online discussion is that it tends towards black and white thinking. William can be a landowner and care about the homeless. Something needs to done about the detail but I do wonder if the process is slightly affected by the other wealthy landowners out there who are maybe sheltered from criticism, by Lancaster and Cornwall because they are held by the royals, and whose owners are not keen to be more open to scrutiny.

I completely agree @MrsLeonFarrell.

Just on that and taken directly from the Hansard record where the Duchy was debated in Parliament (as it regularly is):

“The income of the Duchy is now well in excess of £20 million a year. The Prince pays voluntary income tax of about £4.9 million, but only on his income after meeting the expenditure on royal duties”

Like any other taxpayer, the Prince of Wales deducts work expenses from gross taxable income, and pays tax on the remaining sum. In the years when this was Charles, this means for example that Camilla, Kate and Meghan’s work wardrobes were tax deductible expenses.

Not everything is a corporation, and the way non-corporation businesses are taxed is consistent with how the Duchy is taxed

No, it isn’t.
Unincorporated businesses do not get to choose whether they pay income tax or not. Unlike the Duchy.

I haven't asked you to believe anything. I am confused by you saying that.

This is not just about tenants in the Duchy of Cornwall. (There is more than one tenant unhappy) Have you read the article I've linked or seen Dispatches documentary? There is far more to it than one tenant.

do agree with PPs that Charles and W can’t bear all of the blame.

They do bear the blame for this additional scrutiny I think.

As soon as the queen died, they showed who they actually are. The queen did a much better job of hiding it - she said nothing and turned up etc.

Charles wanted a "slimed down monarchy" which quickly and clearly translated to wanting all the dosh for himself.

William and Kate pretty much retired (before the cancer), behaving in a manner fit for kings. Of a bygone era.

Every high profile tour has been a mess, a terrible throwback to condescension and an uncomfortable reminder of all that is bad in our class system. All other tours show how ineffective the second tier are - nobody cares.The dreadful, sad, seedy family affairs that they cannot seem to manage - no leadership.

They stopped playing the game but did not stop taking the money.

We pay into their system but they take out of ours.

I’m sorry - I don’t understand your post. Unincorporated businesses don’t pay corporation tax. That is not controversial.

The Duchy doesn’t pay tax at all. The Prince of Wales, as its sole beneficiary, does however, as we’ve been discussing. That’s voluntary not compulsory, but if Parliament and HMRC were unhappy with how the heir’s tax affairs were being managed, they of course have the power to change that to make it compulsory. To date they have not. I suppose there are a numberof ways you could take that, but certainly one option is that they are happy with the status quo.

This is a non-issue. The Royal Duchies are landowners, and have been for centuries. Of course they absolutely should be paid rent at market value for properties they let out.
Equally, if the NHS or similar need to rent a building, then they should pay for it. That is how the world works. We are a capitalist society. So if the landowner in this instance was Company X or Lord Y, nobody would care. Why should it make a difference that the (ultimate) landowner is King C or Prince W? I find it odd that some people get in such a state about something so simple.

What utter rot. Why should the royals give "charity" to a service that already wastes huge amounts of public money?

Have you actually seen the Dispatches documentary? It's not just about 'market rates' for rent.
There is far more to the whole subject than that.
But if you haven't seen the documentary, it really won't mean a lot.

I mean, the only reason their tax affairs are legal are because they have a secret direct line to the prime minister.

They are grifting of MacMillan Cancer (sorry, “Dutchy charging rent”) according to some sources, which seems particularly foul in light of what C and C have gone through this year. 200 redundancies last month. Some towns down to one nurse available for all those who might need one. Disgraceful.

Just on this point (and not leasing lands to NHS Trusts for a peppercorn rental) Treasury actually doesn’t allow the Duchy to do that. By law the Duchy can’t act to devalue its assets, and HMT’s published memorandum of understanding with the Duchy of Cornwall confirms this when it states in relation to its own oversight:

When assessing proposed large property transactions the Treasury seeks evidence that the terms are commercial. Helpful indicators include:
• for sales, competition among potential purchasers and at settlement prices in
line with estate agents’ guide prices;
• for investment and development projects, actual or expected returns at market
levels.
Where an investment transaction is part of a larger programme, the Treasury
seeks evidence that the project overall will satisfy the Duchy’s statutory duties striking an appropriate balance between the interests of the present and future Dukes. So in any development phase, short term costs and risks may be acceptable if they are likely to deliver a longer term commercial return.

If HMT wanted the Duchy to into transactions at an undervalue, it would have to change the law, and rewrite its own Memorandum, to enable this to be done. Again, to date, it has not shown any appetite to do so.

I wasn’t talking about corporation tax. Unincorporated businesses don’t pay corporation tax, which is what I said.
I was talking about income tax. You’re correct, the beneficiary of the duchy, not the duchy, chooses whether to pay that tax. Or not. You’ve repeatedly stated that taxation is exactly as other unincorporated businesses. It isn’t, because other unincorporated businesses don’t get to choose whether or not they pay the tax they owe.