King Charles treatment of AMW vs PH

[andIsaid]

Does anyone find the contrast really unsettling?

People can say it was wrong of PH to speak about the family etc BUT we cannot say that without also recognizing that KC did exactly the same thing - wrote a book, did the Dimbleby interview etc. In his case though, the late Queen did not cut him off, kick him out of his house etc. Perhaps because he was the heir and perhaps behind the scenes?

No matter what anyone thinks of the rights or wrongs of PH actions, they are not even a shade of grey to AMW.

Revelation after revelation strongly suggests that the family have known all along what they are dealing with.

It is probably why that high profile crisis manager was hired - it suggests they knew what was coming (how did they know?).

For me, this whole debacle highlights that there is real moral paucity in that family and I do wonder why we are stuck with them as our heads of state.

I think so, yes.

When the civil list was in operation it at least allowed for regular debates re costs and expenses.

The main effect of the change to the Sovereign grant was to put an end to regular parliamentary debates re Royal handouts .

Parliamentary debate is the sort of scrutiny the Windsors campaigned for years to end.

Their wish was granted by a Tory government and we’ve all been paying out many more unscrutinised millions ever since .

PS part of the rip off that is the sovereign grant is a clause which states that the amount the Windsors take can never go down no matter what the state the country is in.

It also has the effect of helping propagate the lie that the Windsors are generously ‘handing over ‘ the rest of the crown estate revenues to us .
Morons still repeat that lie today.

The main effect of the change to the Sovereign grant was to put an end to regular parliamentary debates re Royal handouts .
Parliamentary debate is the sort of scrutiny the Windsors campaigned for years to end.

Under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the Sovereign Grant is debated at accession of the new monarch and at least every 5 years.
The annual value must be calculated by the Royal Trustees (PM, Chancellor of Exchequer & Keeper of Privy Purse) yearly.
Any reduction in percentage can be passed by parliament without debate. Any increase in percentage must be debated.

PS part of the rip off that is the sovereign grant is a clause which states that the amount the Windsors take can never go down no matter what the state the country is in.
Not quite correct. There is a function for the annual amount to be reduced by the Trustees if the Sovereign Grant Reserve has increased.
The official functions of the head of state remain despite the situation of the country. The Sovereign Grant is used for official duties.
It is audited by the National Audit Office like any other government department (made easier now that it is one source - previously aspects of Royal household funding were overseen by Treasury, Dept of Culture, Media and Sport, Dept for Transport & Ministry of Defence).
The Sovereign Grant annual accounts are publicly available.

Under the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, the Sovereign Grant is debated at accession of the new monarch and at least every 5 years.

Not good enough. Cameron let us down. It should be debated every year. Look at the bloated £132.1 million they are about to receive. Up 53%.

There are less of them, they do less work, they receive more. I know it is for upkeep of properties too... maybe hand some of them over to the people

And this below...
The Sovereign Grant only accounts for one part of the total cost of running the monarchy. The Sovereign Grant does not cover the costs of police and military security and of armed services ceremonial duties nor does it cover the costs of royal ceremonies or local government costs for royal visits. These are generally paid by government from public tax receipts. It was estimated by the Treasury that the 10 days of mourning and state funeral of QE2 in 2022 cost the government £162 million, and that the coronation in 2023 cost £72 million.

Our poor cash strapped councils having to shell out hundreds of thousands when they poke their head above the balcony and decide to show their face.

It could be debated every year if parliament wished (or rather, if the government wanted to allow time). It must be debated at least every 5 years.

It was last debated at accession, so 2022, and will be debated again next year.
The current percentage is 12% of Crown Estates profits, reduced in 2022 from 25% (directly because of the improved profitability of the Crown Estates, which is what your 53% relates to). Remembering that this is the percentage of Crown Estates profits going to the Treasury, so the government is keeping 88%.

There would, of course, be security for any events involving the head of state, monarch or not. At one point last year I looked up security costs for US presidential inaugurations and funerals - could only find it in vague terms, but fairly substantial.

US president inauguration totally irrelevant

No one , not even the most supine royalist , can deny that the switch from Civil list to Sovereign grant has benefitted only the Windsors
The same Windsors who have hidden 17 or more years of Andrew’s activities .
The tax payer has been let down .
I did note that Windsor council - surely one of the more financially secure councils- has refused to pay for any more royal hosting
So councils stump up for that too .

Yes, but it was debated every year. Then that stopped with the introduction of the Sovereign Grant.
Complete stupidity.

I don't think comparing the US with UK is sensible given it's a totally different set up!. And they are nearly 50 times the size of us!

I know about the percentages

I am waiting for a big reduction next year when the Buckingham Palace repairs massive injection of cash should expire.

The one thing I think was improved when they moved systems from the civil list to the Sovereign Grant was that it’s not simply pocketed by the recipients to be used however they want.

So instead of someone like Andrew being given a lump sum each year to spend as he pleased and pocket anything left over if not spent on official Royal duties.

Everything the sovereign grant is spent on is documented, audited and published and Charles doesn’t get to keep anything left over for himself it gets put into the reserve account to be used if necessary at a future date for official head of state expenditure.

One big change I’d make is have the monarch keep the Duchy of Lancaster but they have to use it to fund all personal family expenditure including the heir and family.

And have the funds created by the Duchy of Cornwall all go to fund charities and public programmes. The heir can sit on the board alongside other non royal appointed people and work on managing the programmes and land management as good training for their future role.

The need for the heir to have such a large income is very outdated - we don’t need to worry about distracting the heir with their own source of income to prevent them threatening the position of the monarch.

It is the annual debate that the Windsors really wanted to stop with this change and the Tories gave them that

I hope that this latest Windsor scandal , revealing decades of what looks like a cover up , will prompt proper scrutiny of the Windsors . Finally .

Disageeed, the reality shows otherwise. Also is Kate that popular? She seems like a bully and everything she does doesn't sell or generate many views. If Meghan wanted the fairytale thing she would had endured in the institution, so this narrative doesn't make much sense as she does want even want to put one feet in UK seeing how the racism she faces from media while they protected pedophiles and who know else. It makes Meghan wise, not jealous which makes absolutely zero sense

Also is Kate that popular? She seems like a bully and everything she does doesn't sell or generate many views.

To the contrary, according to TheTimes fashion editor she boosts the British fashion industry by an estimated £1billion per year - May 2025 https://archive.is/wNwUa

YouGov polls show consistently high personal approval ratings since 2011

Kicking the production and admin costs into touch was the motivation behind the sale.

I'm not convinced it's a great deal for consumers who may not realise they're not necessarily purchasing food grown and produced produced on royal farms - especially international buyers.

I suppose we've also got to wonder yet again about C's enthusiasm for the environment when a royal adjacent label his charity benefits from is clocking up the airmiles in both imports and exports.

www.waitrose.ae/en/inspiration/facts-about-waitrose-duchy-organic/

There remain unanswered questions about the illegal shooting of protected birds of prey at Sandringham some years back:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/nov/07/monarchy.wildlife

There is a function for the annual amount to be reduced by the Trustees if the Sovereign Grant Reserve has increased.

The SG reserve fund is another vehicle for diverting public assets.

It's been used to part fund royal jollies like the Jubilee in recent years.

Any excess should be returned to the Treasury.

I don't know yougov seems a lot of propaganda, I and no one form my family were ever asked to answer that.

About Catherine fashion, the effect seems weird as many of the houses she dressed closed etc. If the effect was so big around her, her favourite fashion brands wouldnt have had closed, for a start, so it seems like another kind of fake propaganda without many anchor in reality.

This is one example this in the sun:

OUT OF FASHION
Princess of Wales’ favourite fashion brand to shut its doors after 15 years in business
The brand was founded by Jet Shenkman in 2011

Keir Starmer nearly lost his job due to still interacting with an associate of Epstein post conviction. Isn’t that exactly what the RF have sine? Only worse as they tried to smear the victims and paid them off. The whole institution is despicable. Sack them all.

That and the assault allegations. I would very much like both of them to be investigated for these.

Yougov is actually considered one of the most accurate and robust options among online polling sites. They have over 30 million registered members chosen specifically to cover as many demographics as possible.

But there are other polling sites out there and William and Catherine remain consistently the most popular royals with very high personal approval ratings above what the institution of the monarchy has.

That’s why it’s important for anyone hoping for a republic in the UK within the next 4-5 decades to try to destroy their current reputation and likability.

I have no doubt that if anyone else was currently next in line (apart from Anne) even mild mannered Edward and likable Sophie, then Andrew’s conduct and likely criminal behaviour and the potential coverup would have a serious enough effect to destabilize the Establishment and bring about a serious attempt to create a republic.

The idea that people are trying to destroy their reputation' is a total reversal of reality. The destruction is coming from their own behaviour and unsealed documents, not the people talking about them. If the reputation of the Monarchy is so fragile that it depends entirely on the fragile likability of two people while ignoring documented links to sex traffickers and financial opacity, then the establishment is already destabilized. You’re basically admitting that the only thing keeping the Republic at bay is a PR halo which is geared towards monarchists, which is exactly why the public needs to see what’s behind the curtain.

Personal approval ratings aren't a defense against the Epstein emails and Williams business connections of torturer arab princes, Gates, Richard Branson and alikes. You can be the most likable person among royalists (which is questionable per se), and still be part of a system that lacks basic vetting and transparency. Relying on the popularity of William and Catherine among conservatives just serve to distract from Andrew’s and the whole royal family conduct and the potential cover-ups is exactly how the establishment avoids accountability. Sorry I'm not buying that Catherine is solo likeable, maybe for her niche of roualisr Ans racists but she doesn't do many things for the people overall.

I can see you doing exactly what I’m talking about in your posts on this thread right now.

It’s a common tactic - done to extremes on other social media sites but repeatedly on here too.

It’s okay - if I was pushing for a republic I’d possibly do the same tactic too.

I suspect most of Catherine’s diehard fans would never be able to afford clothes from those fashion brands.

I went to my local Trader Joe's yesterday. Many of the cheeses were from the UK. I personally like the coastal cheddar. My local supermarket has cheese from the Isle of Mull as well as Cathedral cheese. I prefer UK cheddar so I buy it.

You should go after your cheese industry for ruining the environment. 😁

Oooh cheese 🧀 😋
Loving that for you @BemusedAmerican😊

I don’t think any of them have ‘die hard fans’ or a die hard fanbase as such. I think they have Big PR, and nutters.

I completely agree. I’m no PH/MM fan but having seen the clear disparity in treatment and the way he and his wife were continually fed to the wolves did make me sympathise with them despite disagreeing with some of their choices.