Page 34 | I am glad Kate is feeling much better,however

portocristo · 2025-04-16T09:29:29+00:00

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.

Serenster · 25/04/2025 13:00

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 12:20

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?

Show quote history

You seem so sure about that, when experience shows us it is not the case.

From “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics” or CREW in Washington, writing about Trump’s first term:

“Trump’s refusal to divest from his businesses during his presidency was not only a notable departure from precedent, but a continual source of conflicts of interest. CREW tracked over 3,700 instances of conflicts of interest during his time in office, including hundreds of visits to his properties by US and foreign officials. His business interests also gave foreign players a unique opportunity for corrupting influence. Should Trump serve in government again, he has given no indication that he will adhere to the basic ethical standard of divestment”.

Then there was this concern last year:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-donors-transition-effort-secret-b2652831.html

And lest you think I’m picking on Trump, no-one knew any of the President of France’s salaries until last year. French public financial disclosure for officials has never included salaries, and is missing any declaration of assets. France trails behind 9 other European nations in the financial transparency of public officials, according to the European Public Accountability Index.

Ireland is in 20th place on that Index. I note that their top Civil Servant tried to stop the Public Accounts Committees to looking into Presidential Spending while President Higgins was seeking re-election. Once he was re-ex elected, President Higgins had to agree to a regular audit by the Public Accounts Committee, who were concerned that more than EUR 300,000 had been spent in his first time with no oversight at all.

So do forgive those of us who look at claims that having a republic would lead to a utopia with scepticism…

Trump accused of risking financial corruption as transition donors kept secret

Trump hasn’t signed a transition agreement requiring the disclosure of donor names and limiting the contribution amount, ‘opening Trump’s team to financial corruption with no public transparency even before he takes office,’ Sen. Elizabeth Warren said

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-donors-transition-effort-secret-b2652831.html

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:02

This sums it up for me. Yes, it's long. I make no apologies for that. Because it's worth reading although I doubt die-hard Royalists will read it. It's too uncomfortable reading.

-----------------
Think of the Royal Family as, in some respects, like an SME, a small or medium sized enterprise. At its heart there are just seven working royals, plus four retirees who gallantly put in a shift from time to time.
Unlike an average SME, the infrastructure to keep this one on the road is considerable, approaching 1,200 employees, numerous premises and multiple revenue streams. Much of it is hidden in a way that would be unthinkable with any SME. And the sums of money the very top employees earn are astronomical.
This particular SME is officially financed through the Sovereign Grant, a funding formula known as a “gold ratchet”, which ensures that the SME’s income can only ever go up. Last year it shot up 53 per cent. You read that right.
The reason for the cash surge is that the grant is linked (thank you, George Osborne in 2011) to profits from the Crown Estate. And the Crown Estate had a really good year because it owns our coastline (thank you Alec Douglas-Home); and the more wind farms we build the more the royals rake it in. For the royals, tackling climate change is a gift that keeps giving.
Astonishingly, the royal spin doctors tried to have us believe that the sovereign grant “golden ratchet” would be more modest in future. But it took a short sharp intervention from no less a figure than former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull to puncture that one: “I think it’s bollocks.”
But on top of that the King trousers an eye-watering sum from the Duchy of Lancaster, an outfit dating back to 1265 which requires no actual work from the monarch. Like a 13th-century baron, he just pockets the proceeds—£29.6m last year. Yes, you read that right, too. Nearly £30m on top of the Sovereign Grant.
On top of that the King gets a private income from investments, inherited wealth and income from estates such as Sandringham (where he owns some 300 houses) and Balmoral. These sums are not reported, nor is it known if he pays any tax on them, though he has let it be known that he has volunteered to pay tax on the Duchy wodge.
Then there is Prince William. How much do you think the deputy CEO of an SME should get? “More or less than the prime minister?” is the traditional question the headline writers, in other contexts, like to pose.
Way, way, way more is the answer. For William, in addition to whatever he gets from the Sovereign Grant for performing his modest duties (126 engagements in 2022, or just over two a week), there is the veritable gusher that is the Duchy of Cornwall (b.1337).
As with the Duchy of Lancaster, this requires little to no work from the beneficiary. By an accident of birth he has acquired the right to pocket the income from 53,000 hectares of land across 20 counties, as well as forests, rivers, quarries and coastline. Last year they paid out Prince William £23.6m. You read that right.
The Republic report has calculated that William’s personal income is six times the combined salaries of all the elected heads of state in Europe.
I am trying to think of any possible justification for paying a 42-year-old public servant more than £23m and of course there is none. It’s a world of make-believe, a kind of Harry Potter theme park rather than anything real. If you question it, the whole edifice crumbles. We cannot, as the 19th-century constitutional theorist Walter Bagehot wrote, “let daylight in upon the magic.”
Shutter that daylight. Otherwise we’d have to ask why the seven principal employees of this SME require all the homes listed in the House of Commons Library report. There are the nine Occupied Royal Palaces, as well as Balmoral and Sandringham. And then there’s Frogmore Cottage, the Royal Lodge and Adelaide Cottage in Windsor Great Park. Bagshot Park, south of Windsor, the Castle of Mey, Dumfries House, Anmer Hall and a farmhouse in Zalanpatak, Romania. I make that 19 houses, castles or palaces. Some of them have dozens of rooms, others have hundreds.
Happily for the royal family, the House of Commons report into the royal finances has not, so far as I can tell, attracted much press attention. But the media could hardly avoid reporting on the huge leap in this year’s Sovereign Grant. The NBC headline read: “King Charles’ monarchy gets a $60m pay raise as the UK grapples with a cost of living crisis.” Which is not a great look.
The last truly outspoken anti-monarchist MP was a man called Willie Hamilton, who died in 2000. But one day we will have our own Lidia Thorpe, and once they switch on the daylight the magic won’t look so magic.

smilesy · 25/04/2025 13:03

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 11:51

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

Show quote history

I’d you look at what it says about that face, it says “funny”. So laughing, not smiling ie thinking the post is funny, not agreeing with it. Agree is the thumbs up emoji 🤷‍♀️

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 13:04

Serenster · 25/04/2025 11:09

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).

You possibly won’t be surprised if I disagree with this Serenster.

First of all, none of us know precisely what happened at the Sandringham summit, although I bow to your superior knowledge about these things!

My suggestion fwiw is that had Harry been handled with a bit more emotional intelligence, and a bit more attention paid to his standing, things wouldn’t have escalated as far as they did.

Everyone who has had a bit of experience of life knows that when an adult child inherits a keepsake, some money, or even a house, from their parents, or is given a role within a family company, it represents more than the intrinsic value of that item or position. It also represents in their mind, how much they are loved and valued by their parents.

In almost every circumstance of this nature, siblings are usually very, very keen to ensure fairness among them.

Now we all know that the monarchy doesn’t work like that but there have traditionally been certain compensations so that the spares feel valued. Eg wasn’t Princess Margaret Counsellor of State for a period of time?

I am pretty sure there were faults on both sides and it was a stressful period of time for the RF with a changeover of power in progress plus Covid. But I also think they took their eye off the ball. And suffice to say, the situation with Camilla didn’t help.

What they failed to recognise was that this was Harry’s moment. Unlike his brother, he didn’t have any promotions to look forward to. His marriage was his zenith. And Harry felt hurt and humiliated in front of his wife.

Harry would also have been aware of his uncles living in £30 million pound mansions! And Princess Anne living at Gatcombe Park and felt that his lot was a bit miserly.

This is all relative obviously and bears no relation to how the rest of us live!

Also, many of the main players within the RF already have a “half in, half out” arrangement by any other name, but it’s hidden! As previously discussed, William and Charles run the Duchies, which are vast commercial enterprises which each make £20 million profit per year! Why does that not count as being half in and half out?

Add to that Meghan coming from a completely different world and leaving behind everything she had been familiar with in the US, plus attention from the particularly toxic British tabloids, I am not a bit surprised that they wanted a different sort of life for themselves and their dc.

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:10

@smilesy Oh dear. I have no idea why this is such a big thing with you. I made a passing comment on the regularity of someone posting laugh/funny/whatever you want to call it, on all my posts repeatedly. What does it matter to you?

So, people use the wrong emoji reaction? Love, agree, laugh whatever, I am totally bored with this now! And do not know what you want from me to be honest.

Baital · 25/04/2025 13:14

myrtleWilson · 25/04/2025 12:27

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

Show quote history

I was involved in a couple of Royal visits when working in the nonprofit sector (a couple of decades ago). There was no charge to the charities.

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 13:15

BemusedAmerican · 25/04/2025 12:31

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

Show quote history

Very good question! MPs are certainly letting us down by not asking enough probing questions!

smilesy · 25/04/2025 13:16

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:10

@smilesy Oh dear. I have no idea why this is such a big thing with you. I made a passing comment on the regularity of someone posting laugh/funny/whatever you want to call it, on all my posts repeatedly. What does it matter to you?

So, people use the wrong emoji reaction? Love, agree, laugh whatever, I am totally bored with this now! And do not know what you want from me to be honest.

It’s not. I was joist pointing out that someone laughing at your post might not be agreeing with you. That’s all 😊

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 13:20

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:02

This sums it up for me. Yes, it's long. I make no apologies for that. Because it's worth reading although I doubt die-hard Royalists will read it. It's too uncomfortable reading.

-----------------
Think of the Royal Family as, in some respects, like an SME, a small or medium sized enterprise. At its heart there are just seven working royals, plus four retirees who gallantly put in a shift from time to time.
Unlike an average SME, the infrastructure to keep this one on the road is considerable, approaching 1,200 employees, numerous premises and multiple revenue streams. Much of it is hidden in a way that would be unthinkable with any SME. And the sums of money the very top employees earn are astronomical.
This particular SME is officially financed through the Sovereign Grant, a funding formula known as a “gold ratchet”, which ensures that the SME’s income can only ever go up. Last year it shot up 53 per cent. You read that right.
The reason for the cash surge is that the grant is linked (thank you, George Osborne in 2011) to profits from the Crown Estate. And the Crown Estate had a really good year because it owns our coastline (thank you Alec Douglas-Home); and the more wind farms we build the more the royals rake it in. For the royals, tackling climate change is a gift that keeps giving.
Astonishingly, the royal spin doctors tried to have us believe that the sovereign grant “golden ratchet” would be more modest in future. But it took a short sharp intervention from no less a figure than former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull to puncture that one: “I think it’s bollocks.”
But on top of that the King trousers an eye-watering sum from the Duchy of Lancaster, an outfit dating back to 1265 which requires no actual work from the monarch. Like a 13th-century baron, he just pockets the proceeds—£29.6m last year. Yes, you read that right, too. Nearly £30m on top of the Sovereign Grant.
On top of that the King gets a private income from investments, inherited wealth and income from estates such as Sandringham (where he owns some 300 houses) and Balmoral. These sums are not reported, nor is it known if he pays any tax on them, though he has let it be known that he has volunteered to pay tax on the Duchy wodge.
Then there is Prince William. How much do you think the deputy CEO of an SME should get? “More or less than the prime minister?” is the traditional question the headline writers, in other contexts, like to pose.
Way, way, way more is the answer. For William, in addition to whatever he gets from the Sovereign Grant for performing his modest duties (126 engagements in 2022, or just over two a week), there is the veritable gusher that is the Duchy of Cornwall (b.1337).
As with the Duchy of Lancaster, this requires little to no work from the beneficiary. By an accident of birth he has acquired the right to pocket the income from 53,000 hectares of land across 20 counties, as well as forests, rivers, quarries and coastline. Last year they paid out Prince William £23.6m. You read that right.
The Republic report has calculated that William’s personal income is six times the combined salaries of all the elected heads of state in Europe.
I am trying to think of any possible justification for paying a 42-year-old public servant more than £23m and of course there is none. It’s a world of make-believe, a kind of Harry Potter theme park rather than anything real. If you question it, the whole edifice crumbles. We cannot, as the 19th-century constitutional theorist Walter Bagehot wrote, “let daylight in upon the magic.”
Shutter that daylight. Otherwise we’d have to ask why the seven principal employees of this SME require all the homes listed in the House of Commons Library report. There are the nine Occupied Royal Palaces, as well as Balmoral and Sandringham. And then there’s Frogmore Cottage, the Royal Lodge and Adelaide Cottage in Windsor Great Park. Bagshot Park, south of Windsor, the Castle of Mey, Dumfries House, Anmer Hall and a farmhouse in Zalanpatak, Romania. I make that 19 houses, castles or palaces. Some of them have dozens of rooms, others have hundreds.
Happily for the royal family, the House of Commons report into the royal finances has not, so far as I can tell, attracted much press attention. But the media could hardly avoid reporting on the huge leap in this year’s Sovereign Grant. The NBC headline read: “King Charles’ monarchy gets a $60m pay raise as the UK grapples with a cost of living crisis.” Which is not a great look.
The last truly outspoken anti-monarchist MP was a man called Willie Hamilton, who died in 2000. But one day we will have our own Lidia Thorpe, and once they switch on the daylight the magic won’t look so magic.

This is fascinating stuff Extiainoiapeial

May I please ask the source?

Norman Baker? I haven’t read his book yet but I intend to.

Btw, I like the sound of Lord Turnbull 😀👍

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:20

@smilesy I know! That was my point exactly back when this convo started! Everything I posted was met with the laughing reaction emoji which was just a scoffing at my post thing. I only use that laughing one when I find a post really funny in a normal, that made me laugh, way!

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 13:20

smilesy · 25/04/2025 13:16

It’s not. I was joist pointing out that someone laughing at your post might not be agreeing with you. That’s all 😊

Show quote history

Yeah I think we all twigged that pages back 🙄

smilesy · 25/04/2025 13:22

My suggestion fwiw is that had Harry been handled with a bit more emotional intelligence, and a bit more attention paid to his standing, things wouldn’t have escalated as far as they did.

What standing? He is fifth in line to the throne and will eventually slip further down the line. Do you not think he could have employed a bit more emotional intelligence rather than put out a statement of intent of “collaborating with the Queen” before any agreement had been made? Harry has shown by his actions since leaving that he has an over inflated sense of his own importance (his constant litigations and demands for security, for example). Why should everyone bend over backwards to accommodate his toddlerish behaviour? Yes he had a rough time when his mother died, but so did his brother. Lots of people have a rough time. Doesn’t mean they get to have their own way all the time

smilesy · 25/04/2025 13:24

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:20

@smilesy I know! That was my point exactly back when this convo started! Everything I posted was met with the laughing reaction emoji which was just a scoffing at my post thing. I only use that laughing one when I find a post really funny in a normal, that made me laugh, way!

Oh ok. That was not clear to me. I picked up the wrong tone from your post 😆

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:24

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 13:20

This is fascinating stuff Extiainoiapeial

May I please ask the source?

Norman Baker? I haven’t read his book yet but I intend to.

Btw, I like the sound of Lord Turnbull 😀👍

Show quote history

Oh heck, you must must read the book. Honestly, I would make it law that everyone has to, we're supposed to accept our Monarchy after all.... we all need to read what that means!

Here is the source https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/monarchy/68349/the-royal-familys-finances-are-shrouded-in-mysteryits-time-to-open-the-books?s=03

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:26

smilesy · 25/04/2025 13:24

Oh ok. That was not clear to me. I picked up the wrong tone from your post 😆

Show quote history

No probs 😊

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 13:26

Serenster · 25/04/2025 13:00

You seem so sure about that, when experience shows us it is not the case.

From “Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics” or CREW in Washington, writing about Trump’s first term:

“Trump’s refusal to divest from his businesses during his presidency was not only a notable departure from precedent, but a continual source of conflicts of interest. CREW tracked over 3,700 instances of conflicts of interest during his time in office, including hundreds of visits to his properties by US and foreign officials. His business interests also gave foreign players a unique opportunity for corrupting influence. Should Trump serve in government again, he has given no indication that he will adhere to the basic ethical standard of divestment”.

Then there was this concern last year:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-donors-transition-effort-secret-b2652831.html

And lest you think I’m picking on Trump, no-one knew any of the President of France’s salaries until last year. French public financial disclosure for officials has never included salaries, and is missing any declaration of assets. France trails behind 9 other European nations in the financial transparency of public officials, according to the European Public Accountability Index.

Ireland is in 20th place on that Index. I note that their top Civil Servant tried to stop the Public Accounts Committees to looking into Presidential Spending while President Higgins was seeking re-election. Once he was re-ex elected, President Higgins had to agree to a regular audit by the Public Accounts Committee, who were concerned that more than EUR 300,000 had been spent in his first time with no oversight at all.

So do forgive those of us who look at claims that having a republic would lead to a utopia with scepticism…

Show quote history

No system is going to be perfect but you are missing out the rather vital detail Serenster that elected Heads of State have a fixed term, not an unopposed job for life, and they can be voted out and held much more accountable than a monarch! There isn’t the same amount of deference accorded to them for a start. And the fact that President Higgins had to agree to a regular audit is a good thing is it not?

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 13:31

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:24

Oh heck, you must must read the book. Honestly, I would make it law that everyone has to, we're supposed to accept our Monarchy after all.... we all need to read what that means!

Here is the source https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/world/monarchy/68349/the-royal-familys-finances-are-shrouded-in-mysteryits-time-to-open-the-books?s=03

Show quote history

Thank you! I will put in an order!

There is another book I am trying to track down about royal finances too written by a female journalist. I wrote the title down somewhere and can’t find it atm.

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:32

I'll look out for your post if you should find it. 👍😊

HazelKoala · 25/04/2025 13:42

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:02

This sums it up for me. Yes, it's long. I make no apologies for that. Because it's worth reading although I doubt die-hard Royalists will read it. It's too uncomfortable reading.

-----------------
Think of the Royal Family as, in some respects, like an SME, a small or medium sized enterprise. At its heart there are just seven working royals, plus four retirees who gallantly put in a shift from time to time.
Unlike an average SME, the infrastructure to keep this one on the road is considerable, approaching 1,200 employees, numerous premises and multiple revenue streams. Much of it is hidden in a way that would be unthinkable with any SME. And the sums of money the very top employees earn are astronomical.
This particular SME is officially financed through the Sovereign Grant, a funding formula known as a “gold ratchet”, which ensures that the SME’s income can only ever go up. Last year it shot up 53 per cent. You read that right.
The reason for the cash surge is that the grant is linked (thank you, George Osborne in 2011) to profits from the Crown Estate. And the Crown Estate had a really good year because it owns our coastline (thank you Alec Douglas-Home); and the more wind farms we build the more the royals rake it in. For the royals, tackling climate change is a gift that keeps giving.
Astonishingly, the royal spin doctors tried to have us believe that the sovereign grant “golden ratchet” would be more modest in future. But it took a short sharp intervention from no less a figure than former Cabinet Secretary Lord Turnbull to puncture that one: “I think it’s bollocks.”
But on top of that the King trousers an eye-watering sum from the Duchy of Lancaster, an outfit dating back to 1265 which requires no actual work from the monarch. Like a 13th-century baron, he just pockets the proceeds—£29.6m last year. Yes, you read that right, too. Nearly £30m on top of the Sovereign Grant.
On top of that the King gets a private income from investments, inherited wealth and income from estates such as Sandringham (where he owns some 300 houses) and Balmoral. These sums are not reported, nor is it known if he pays any tax on them, though he has let it be known that he has volunteered to pay tax on the Duchy wodge.
Then there is Prince William. How much do you think the deputy CEO of an SME should get? “More or less than the prime minister?” is the traditional question the headline writers, in other contexts, like to pose.
Way, way, way more is the answer. For William, in addition to whatever he gets from the Sovereign Grant for performing his modest duties (126 engagements in 2022, or just over two a week), there is the veritable gusher that is the Duchy of Cornwall (b.1337).
As with the Duchy of Lancaster, this requires little to no work from the beneficiary. By an accident of birth he has acquired the right to pocket the income from 53,000 hectares of land across 20 counties, as well as forests, rivers, quarries and coastline. Last year they paid out Prince William £23.6m. You read that right.
The Republic report has calculated that William’s personal income is six times the combined salaries of all the elected heads of state in Europe.
I am trying to think of any possible justification for paying a 42-year-old public servant more than £23m and of course there is none. It’s a world of make-believe, a kind of Harry Potter theme park rather than anything real. If you question it, the whole edifice crumbles. We cannot, as the 19th-century constitutional theorist Walter Bagehot wrote, “let daylight in upon the magic.”
Shutter that daylight. Otherwise we’d have to ask why the seven principal employees of this SME require all the homes listed in the House of Commons Library report. There are the nine Occupied Royal Palaces, as well as Balmoral and Sandringham. And then there’s Frogmore Cottage, the Royal Lodge and Adelaide Cottage in Windsor Great Park. Bagshot Park, south of Windsor, the Castle of Mey, Dumfries House, Anmer Hall and a farmhouse in Zalanpatak, Romania. I make that 19 houses, castles or palaces. Some of them have dozens of rooms, others have hundreds.
Happily for the royal family, the House of Commons report into the royal finances has not, so far as I can tell, attracted much press attention. But the media could hardly avoid reporting on the huge leap in this year’s Sovereign Grant. The NBC headline read: “King Charles’ monarchy gets a $60m pay raise as the UK grapples with a cost of living crisis.” Which is not a great look.
The last truly outspoken anti-monarchist MP was a man called Willie Hamilton, who died in 2000. But one day we will have our own Lidia Thorpe, and once they switch on the daylight the magic won’t look so magic.

Yes that was very long but largely pointless because it was a false equivalence.

I'm no hard-core royalist and don't think it would be uncomfortable reading for anyone that was.

It's just lots of waffle after stating the Royal family are equivalent to a small business enterprise.

Which is just silly. And people will dismiss your post just because of the false equivalence.

IAmATorturedPoet · 25/04/2025 13:48

@Extiainoiapeial the Norman Baker book you say?

I’m a bit of a stalwart on the RF board and have seen this book mentioned a few times. I’m pleased you found it interesting and informative, not sure it’s my bag, lol 😂😂

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:48

HazelKoala · 25/04/2025 13:42

Yes that was very long but largely pointless because it was a false equivalence.

I'm no hard-core royalist and don't think it would be uncomfortable reading for anyone that was.

It's just lots of waffle after stating the Royal family are equivalent to a small business enterprise.

Which is just silly. And people will dismiss your post just because of the false equivalence.

Show quote history

You say false equivalence twice. I might have the meaning wrong but I understand that to mean comparing two subjects as an argument, and based on faulty info.
So I don't understand your post, sorry. Is it because of the comparison to them as a small business enterprise? Maybe ignore that bit, and look at the rest which is based on fact!

Anyone can dismiss it if they so choose!

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:50

IAmATorturedPoet · 25/04/2025 13:48

@Extiainoiapeial the Norman Baker book you say?

I’m a bit of a stalwart on the RF board and have seen this book mentioned a few times. I’m pleased you found it interesting and informative, not sure it’s my bag, lol 😂😂

Yes, that's the one. I have read it twice because it has been updated with some reference to he who can't be mentioned whose name begins with A 🤣

IAmATorturedPoet · 25/04/2025 13:54

Extiainoiapeial · 25/04/2025 13:50

Yes, that's the one. I have read it twice because it has been updated with some reference to he who can't be mentioned whose name begins with A 🤣

Show quote history

Goodness, it must be good🤣🤣
I think it’s ok for you to mention ‘Andrew’ lol😂

myrtleWilson · 25/04/2025 14:00

Quite, @Baital. However, as a charity ceo, if @Therovingsunlight77 is correct in their assertion, I need to know how much on may be on the hook for should The Call come! Should I make a budget provision each year?

Therovingsunlight77 · 25/04/2025 14:07

Serenster · 25/04/2025 12:38

“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

But hang on Serenster your post is all predicated on accepting that the RF have the right to control and manage huge chunks of our countryside through some ancient right handed down over centuries, and that they are entitled to benefit from the profits!

It’s like you or me saying “I am going to buy Manchester and take all the private and public rents and plough them back in to my business”.

Is it right that in 2025 that the RF own huge chunks of our Cornish coast for example, which should be a state asset, and make money off the wind farms? It’s not like the state doesn’t need the money, especially in the poorer parts of Cornwall where there is high unemployment and scarce public services.

However you choose to describe it, these “special bits” of the Cornish coast or any of the vast Duchy lands are already part of our countryside? It shouldn’t be like a trust at all! Why is that right of ownership passed down through one special family for years and years without that right ever being challenged? Why are we all so complacent about keeping this unequal status quo?

This is land which belongs to the state and yet somehow as you describe it, it’s held in a kind of trust for the royal family! And they are lining their pockets from the profits!

There is absolutely no reason in 2025 why the RF should have them under their control as a profit producing asset!

And morally they should not be charging the RNLI rent to operate a much needed and valued charity for fishermen, sailors and tourists off the British coastline either. The coastlines of our sea-going nations should, at the very least, belong to the people.