I am glad Kate is feeling much better,however

[portocristo]

Watching the news about the horrendous rubbish problem in Birmingham,this was followed by Kates film clip rambling about Windermere saying we need to connect with nature and couldn’t help thinking it was inappropriate.I bet cancer sufferers in Birmingham would love to do this instead of holding down a job worrying about col doing chores that I bet she never does and have stinking rubbish with rats in the streets. I have no problem with her video but thought the timing was so off. They sometimes need to read the room.

I don’t agree with everything Harry does or necessariily the way he has gone about some things, but I do think a lot of the current situation came about because of crack-handed handling by the palace. They probably could have kept Harry and Meghan on-side had they all paid a bit more attention to the family dynamics, which are hurtful and toxic if you are not one of the main players.

And it’s not a good look the King being estranged from one of his sons, however much you spin it as solely being the son’s fault.

The system does seem to create a lot of collateral damage eg the wives whose marriages didn’t survive and the spare siblings. Princess Margaret was a classic example which you think they would have taken on board and learned a few lessons from.

And the separate offices seem to be in competition with one another which creates a degree of dysfunction in itself. Why don’t they save money and have one big office?

@Therovingsunlight77 I'm not seeing aging nuns getting financial support and health care.

Therovingsunlight77 - you do realise that the government also charges commercial rents to the military, the NHS, to charities as well? And as a matter of general prudent management principles, llowing organisations, whatever their purpose, to operate on non-commercial basis is not generally considered to be a sensible idea, as it means they are unable to manage financially if something changes.

I do realise that Serenster. Fair points.

Is the government exempt from paying tax on any of the profits it makes when charging commercial rents?

Are the accounts of the commercial rents available publically?

I don’t agree with everything Harry does or necessariily the way he has gone about some things, but I do think a lot of the current situation came about because of crack-handed handling by the palace. They probably could have kept Harry and Meghan on-side had they all paid a bit more attention to the family dynamics, which are hurtful and toxic if you are not one of the main players.
….
And the separate offices seem to be in competition with one another which creates a degree of dysfunction in itself. Why don’t they save money and have one big office?

The obviously underlying conflict here is clear in these two paragraphs. What do you do if keeping Meghan and Harry on side (as you suggest should have been done) means’s bowing to them wanting a separate office and court (as it appears they wanted) so they could act in competition with others in the family?

Saying no to them, as we learned, led to them flouncing. If that was the likely outcome of any constraints, I’m not sure bowing to their wishes to keep the peace was the right thing to do when you consider the big picture (in which I presume organisational stability over the long term is the primary objective).

Charles and William, as the beneficiaries of the profits of the two duchies, do pay tax on the profits though. So I don’t see why the question is relevant.

(And no, they are not publicly available from the government! Far from it)

Actually, as an American and a NYC resident, I'm pissed that I had to supply two police cars last night to H & M. I have frightening experiences on the subway at least once a week. Someone tried to steal my bag a few months ago. Yet two entitled people who inherited more money than I will ever see in my lifetime and who NEVER have to take mass transit whine non- stop about how oppressed they are by the RF. The problem isn't Charles, the problem is H & M are selfish, stupid, and entitled.

My government is currently trying to destroy our natural parks. My ethics - challenged mayor is trying to destroy a wonderful garden just to appear his real estate friends. At least the RF appears to have some concern for the UK environment.

And? Sorry I don’t understand your point?

It’s obviously not good if nuns are left stranded financially.

As far as I understand it, part of the ethos of community life is that you take care of each other when ill or old, which mitigates the poverty somewhat. I am not an expert on the subject though!

Could you let me know what tax W pays. He won't disclose it.

The point is the Church isn't using all its billions to take care of its own employees. Priests can inherit and own property. They don't have to take a vow of poverty. Nuns are living in extreme poverty. They are selling off land to live. Women employees of the Church are treated like second-class citizens. I find that appalling.

A bit misleading Serenster!

Charles and William may pay a limited amount of voluntary tax on profits but they are certainly not subject to the same taxation compliance that we are subject to, and according to the following article:

“The duchies – worth £1.8 billion – are the personal property of King Charles and Prince William, but they are exempt from corporation tax and capital gains tax.”

So Charles and William pay no corporation or inheritance tax which basically allows them to get richer and richer, year on year.

https://taxjustice.uk/blog/the-royal-family-must-be-made-to-pay-more-tax/#:~:text=The%20duchies%20%E2%80%93%20worth%20%C2%A31.8,tax%20and%20capital%20gains%20tax.

Doesn't that apply to all rich people around the world? In the US, the extreme rich pay a lower percentage of income taxes:

https://inequality.org/facts/taxes-inequality-in-united-states/

And how about the indigenous people in the Americas and the RC Church? My brother -in- law is a member of the First Nations in Canada. They really benefited from the RC, didn't they?

https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.7485980

Well the point is, they don’t necessarily mean the same thing….

Whoever it applies to, it doesn’t make it right does it? The RF gets richer year on year while the reverse is true for the majority of Brits? Last time I looked the monarchy was meant to serve its people, not the other way around!

I am talking about the 'reaction' capability. There is only one laughing face. I called it smiling by mistake, that is all. 😲

Yes. We all know money grows money.

The QE2 was said to be worth approx £500million at her death. No IHT on passing it to Charles and his worth is said to be £1.8 billion. His worth at her death was around about £600M and then he received all her wealth.
It's eye watering

This will then increase William's wealth when Charles dies, and it will grow and grow.
It's about time this lot paid for their own coronations! And paid IHT

Quoted a wrong figure!

Sorry but again I fail to see the relevance to this thread BemusedAmerican?

You said down thread that you don’t deliberately derail but frankly I am beginning to wonder! 😁

To take your questions at face value;

I don’t know what you want me to say about poor nuns or the indigenous peoples of S Americas when neither situation, especially the latter, is defensible?

As far as I understand it, and I am no
expert, community life is intended to mitigate against poverty somewhat.

The RC church has been intrinsically misogynistic and patriarchal for centuries, and has done dreadful things in the name of evangelism and you won’t find me defending it on that score.

My point on this thread, about the RF, which you seem to have missed several times, deliberately or otherwise, was specifically about Pope Francis and his humble and modest leadership, shunning the trappings of office, not allowing wealth to come between you and your flock, and not profiting financially from your elevated position.

Yes! Absolutely this!

And an elected head of state would allow there to be precise clarity over what is state money and what is personal wealth. Who pays for what and who pays tax on what. All set out in open public accounts which could be challenged in parliament. No smoke and mirrors.

Even a greatly slimmed down monarchy would allow for greater transparency.

We just seem to accept that the RF are entitled to private accounts when they profit off their ownership of public land, but honestly, if there is nothing to hide or feel ashamed about, why are their finances cloaked in secrecy?

He was the pope. He never had to worry about food or healthcare or heating bills. He didn't have to cook or clean. I'm sure he didn't wash his own vestments. He also wasn't wearing cotton for state occasions. He had multiple houses. He had servants. He was the prince of the princes of the Church. When he died, all that he had will go to the next of his title.

The difference is that Charles is essentially ceremonial because you have a constitutional monarchy. However, a pope has actual power. I remember the changes of Vatican II. They rocked the world. There is nothing that Charles can do on that level.

So where did you find out about this supposed practice of charging charities a fee?

So your parliament doesn't actually run your country? Why do you have elected officials?

“The duchies – worth £1.8 billion – are the personal property of King Charles and Prince William, but they are exempt from corporation tax and capital gains tax.”

I’m not misleading, no. Your statement above is misleading in three separate respects, though!

The Duchies are legally independent from Charles and William. So William and Charles are not liable to pay corporation tax (no individual pays corporation tax, by the way). And neither of them are entitles to the proceeds or profit on the sale of capital assets held by the Duchy – they only receives the annual income which they generate. So they would have no liability to pay capital gains tax, given that.

It’s also not correct that the Duchies are their personal property. In some respects, they are more akin to trusts - the assets are managed by a board of trustees for defined purposes. As noted above, neither Charles nor William can sell an asset and take the proceeds of sale.

They way they operate for tax purposes is similar to the way a partnership works int the UK. If you take a large firm like KPMG for example, its turnover is in the hundreds of millions, and its profit is in the millions. It doesn’t pay corporation tax, however. Its profits are distributed between its many partners, and each of them personally pays income tax on those. That’s what William and Charles do with the profits of the Duchies.

Also, on charging rents to tenants like the NHS or the army, the Duchies are actually legally required by Parliament to do this, and Treasury policies it. From HMT’s Memorandum about them approving the Duchy’s transactions:

When assessing proposed large property transactions under s11 of the Act,
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
level

This was a really interesting Guardian article. We have radon issues in the US in houses. It's a relatively new discovery. It's a very old prison.

What I thought was interesting was that many businesses have been paying 100 pounds a year in rent for thirty years, which is way below market value. It reminds me of small landlords in NYC with rent-controlled tenants.

William inherited a mess. If he cancels the lease for the prison wouldn't he get flack from the Treasury?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/12/a-dartmoor-village-is-paying-prince-william-15m-a-year-for-an-abandoned-prison-and-former-inmates-say-it-gave-them-cancer

Also on the charging tenants, I seem to recall that the charities in the Millbank (or similar) building were sub tenants. The Duchy was complying with its requirements in meeting HMT obligations set out by @Serenster and let the property to a company who then managed sub - letting. I also recall the charities in question saying they had carried out the required due diligence to give their boards assurance around value for money. My honest opinion is that I'm not sure charities needed to be in those buildings, but they clearly did - presumably for ability around influencing from policy/public affairs perspective and if the trustees were assured then my opinion of the usefulness of occupying prime london estate space is neither here nor there.