AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

I’m not sure what it is that you don’t understand about this .

The messaging was clearly ‘ William and Kate are paying for everything themselves , no cost to tax payer’

This report makes clear that in fact the tax payer was paying out £400 000 renovations .
Are you seriously trying to suggest that William and Kate were incompletely unaware that they’d be moving in a few months later and it’s a coincidence!!
Lol even the most supine royalists would not buy that line .
We were not told the whole truth .
We never are

Or are you saying @bluegreygreen that William and Kate paid for the external renovations ? Because that is not what I have read . Do you know that they paid for both the summer renovations and the internal decoration a few months later ?

All we heard was the trumpeting that W and K were paying for the renovations for their 5th forever home themselves .I do not remember any distinction being made regarding 400 000 renovations to exterior

That reminds me, William and Kate commandeered acres of land and closed a children’s nature centre . We were told the closure of the children’s nature centre was temporary so has it reopened?

I should have added that I would prefer a gradual decline, rather than wham as I think that will be better for the country ...

This is a very reasonable point, @Recklessismymiddlename, but there's a risk in that, if they knew they were going, they'd use the time to plunder whatever they've not already managed to get their hands on

A bit like the last Tory government, if you like, but with crowns on

Power often corrupts @Puzzledandpissedoff whether a crown is on the head or not.

We only need to look at Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, Hitler, Mussolini as those without crowns. The Kaiser, The Tsar Nicholas, as two with crowns.

@bluegreygreen

Is your point that I said ‘years’ when this happened last year .

I was focussing on the fact that W and K were misleading . But sure :

this report shows that William and Kate allowed misleading and incomplete information go uncorrected for 11 months .

I’d confidently say that were it not for the report we’d still be none the wiser

I am particularly interested in how they police the 150 Acres that they commandeered. The security bill for the perimeter fence must be absolutely horrendous but of course we will never know how much

On another note I see that AMW was almost headlining the news this morning for his subletting of properties at Royal Lodge and making a mint

Sadly this is so very true, so it seems the best we can hope for is for the most powerful positions to be elected ones, giving at least some chance of getting rid of the worst offenders

And in the case of the RF we don't even have that ...

Is your point that I said ‘years’ when this happened last year .

Yes, my point was that you made a factually incorrect statement: William and Kate have allowed misleading incomplete information to go uncorrected for several years.

I said that this was not possible.

This report makes clear that in fact the tax payer was paying out £400 000 renovations

This is also a factually incorrect statement: the Crown Estate does not receive (and therefore does not use) any taxpayers' money.

The Crown Estate does not receive (and therefore does not use) any taxpayers' money.
Profits from the Crown Estate to go The Treasury for the provision of services to the nation. The £400,000 used in the refurbishment of Forest Lodge was therefore paid for by the taxpayer.
What is the point of nitpicking?
The Windsors are grifters - from the top down.

Money that goes into the Treasury from one source cannot be said to have come from a different source.

That is highly illogical, Captain.

Hmm.

So you take the time to nitpick over my minor errors but do not address the most pertinent fact that William and Kate were not honest in their messaging?

Crown estate money IS public money .

We paid for nearly half a million worth of renovations

William and Kate made no mention of this fact when trumpeting that they paid for decorating . They allowed the message to be broadcast that the tax payer was not out of pocket. This was not the truth was it ?

We would still not know the truth were it not for this report .

Maybe we can all accept that £400k was paid in respect of the exterior renovations to the forever home to the indirect detriment of the public purse?

I don't think that sum has been highlighted before. I wasn't aware W&K hadn't covered the entire cost themselves despite the trumpeting of assorted sums they were covering.

Whatever.

Heads Windsors win, tails we lose as per.

Yes agreed @CathyorClaire

So nearly half a million last year that the tax payer stumped up for William and Kate’s fifth home . That was not mentioned at all. In fact the public was misled
So logically , there may well be many other issues that we are being misled over .
Now we learn that Andrew was charging rents on other crown estate properties . Also new information .

What else still hasn’t come out ?
And I’m only referring to financial abuse and greed here .

I’ve added the whole national audit report to the Crown Estate thread if anyone wants to discuss it there.

Another odd thing.

Forever home.5 is on a short term 20 year lease (makes you wonder whether a £400k spend on it represents particularly good value but that's another debate) and W&K apparently intend to extend the lease later. Why not tailor it to the length of time they want anyway?

Is it to get another reno at our expense later on?

May I ask a genuine question if I buy or lease a property/Estate and then sublet some of the properties or land on the estate I am legally allowed to do that as long as I declare the rent as income for tax purposes.

If, and I mean if, a member of the RF buys or leases a property/estate at market rates provided they declare the income to HMRC would there still be an issue?

To be transparent I do believe we need clarity between Crown Estate, the Duchies and the RF personal properties. I have no issue with the RF being required to pay tax etc. but I believe that includes them having the ability to use legal tax avoidance measures.

I don't recall W&K trumpeting anything.

Several news sources said several different things. If they spent time correcting every incorrect statement that was made about them, they would waste a lot of money and do nothing else.

@Kirschcherries You would be allowed to do that as long as your lease permitted it.

Maybe think again .
Look at the media quotes.
It was Kensington palace which offered the information. No one asked .

Kensington palace stated there would be no cost to the taxpayer
This from BBC Scotland :
‘The Prince and Princess of Wales are funding the move privately and they will pay market rent on the property.’

This ‘funding the move privately’ ‘no cost to the taxpayer ’ message was repeated in print media

No mention of the £400 000 chip in from the taxpayer .

More likely that their mouthpieces sources let it 'slip'.

Would they waste vast amounts correcting inaccuracies with online statements? Isn't that what the crisis manager (among other sundry lackeys) is paid for?

As for doing nothing else, it's not like they're overwhelmed with workload as it stands. Might give 'em something to do 😉

I mean, if they were paying market rent ( although how could they possibly afford it without skimming money from somewhere when they don't work?) and were subletting property and paying the same tax as everyone else on the profits in order to maintain their lifestyle or so they could pay for their own security/ repairs etc, then I don't think that would be a problem per se. They would be at least being self sufficient and not being a drain on the taxpayer. But were they doing that? I don't think the setup is sustainable. The RF are condemning their younger children to this pointless life where they will be increasingly scrutinised yet not prepared for anything else but to put their hands out for money from their dad/brother for all eternity. To be honest, I'm not surprised Harry's gone off the rails. He probably was envious of his brother getting everything, handed everything when his destiny was to stand around being more and more irrelevant. Hes gone about it in a stupid way, but it must mess with your head. But I cant see what will be different for Charlotte and Louis.

As far as i understand it, according to the the NAO report, TCE have differing obligations as determined by the type of lease/tenancy

For Forest Lodge, they have repair responsibility for short term leases, for long term leases on AMW's property or that of the Edinburghs, this is different

Re FL,TCE accepted a repair liabilty (as per the lease and the NAO) for the FL 'compound' of £400k after the relinquised tenancy. The £400k is across 4 different buildings - £230k on FL and about £45k each on the other buildlings

Lease terms and types: Within the six leases we reviewed, the length of lease varied significantly. Forest Lodge, recently leased, is on a 20-year short-term lease with quarterly rent payments and no upfront deposit. This is due to
The Prince and Princess of Wales paying for all the internal refurbishments as is TCE’s standard practice for leases of 20 years. Forest Lodge’s comparator property is leased on a two-year short-term lease with an upfront deposit, and TCE responsible for the costs of all internal refurbishments. The other long-term leases range in term from 70 to 150 years, all requiring an upfront premium payment, with either an annual ground rent (Thatched House Lodge) or peppercorn rent (Royal Lodge, Bagshot Park and comparator property).

Repair and refurbishment costs: The six properties at the time of leasing were in different states of repair and required different levels of investment.
In 2003, Royal Lodge needed significant refurbishment estimated to cost
£5 million. As the lease was signed, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor agreed
to spend £7.5 million on improvements. Eclipse Nominees Limited (Bagshot Park) and Princess Alexandra (Thatched House Lodge) also both committed to funding initial repairs and improvements. A minimum spend of £10,000 was committed to as part of the lease terms for Thatched House Lodge in 1971. Eclipse Nominees held a lease for Bagshot Park from 1998 to 2007, which committed a restoration spend of £1.38 million. TCE is responsible for funding the renovation costs on short-term leases. Prior to The Prince and Princess of Wales moving into Forest Lodge, TCE paid around £400,000 to repair Forest Lodge, the three cottages and property grounds in line with their obligations as landlords

The NAO report references the PPoW having a licence waiver re their rental agreement to make their own renovations (paid for by themselves)

Thanks @myrtleWilson.

Also being discussed on the Crown Estate thread.

@CathyorClaire you were wondering why William had a short lease .

Maybe we have your answer now ( see above) .
Did William and Kate deliberately choose a short lease to stiff the taxpayer with the renovation costs?? Surely not…

We know the long leases such as Edward’s and Andrew’s require the leasee to cover upkeep.

So William and Kate have been very economical with the truth , leaving the renovation costs unmentioned when claiming to be funding the move themselves

Have they also cynically chosen a short lease to avoid the 400 000 renovation and kick it back to the taxpayer?

The rent they pay is a complete red herring. He takes over 4 times that figure annually from the taxpayer for the rent for an empty prison .

I thought this was a thread about AMW?

It won't be any different. The whole royal financial setup is absolutely sickening. Who in their right mind would want to be a grown adult with zero control over their own life and livelihood?

Look at the humiliating reality for the spares

Complete Financial Infantalisation: Adults in their 30s and 40s are forced to beg the reigning monarch for an allowance like children waiting for pocket money.

A Golden Leash: They have zero say in how much they get. Their entire existence is a compliance test where one wrong move means getting financially cast out.

The Cruel Catch-22: If they want to escape this toxic dependency and earn their own living or earn more money, they are punished by losing every penny of family support.

It is disgusting that a modern institution operates like a high-stakes mafia where financial survival requires absolute, lifelong submission. It is a golden cage designed to strip you of basic adult independence. Who would actually choose that?

And here we have examples of this starting with Andrew wanting to earn more money ....

Yet was is changing for the future spares..nothing as we can see, no modernising...zilch