AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

I can't get my head round why KC is pay the york womens rent.
It beggars belief.

Ditto.

Why? They don't perform Royal duties at all. Turning up with a Royal garden party once every few years is not being a working Royal

I believe I read that AMW insisted on this as a condition of him moving out of Royal Lodge but no idea if that is true

Obligation.
head of the family.
Dh pays for mil (& late fil) house for all our married life and from before.
my dad paid allowances for numerous relatives
my grandparents did the same

we have had requests from numerous relatives abroad on several occasions

you would be amazed and shocked at the same time at some people and the anger they feel if you say no, so you don’t to keep the family peace. It’s exhausting.

Dh and I have said no to a couple and they no longer talk to us. The fall out has been awful. I wish we hadn’t said no. It hasn’t been worth it.

the cycle and expectation continues

My god reckless that is awful to live with. I presume if your DH lost his job or things were not quite so easy for you both, they wouldn't be asking?
Obviously hoping for only good times for you! But maybe without the expectation...

@BillericayDickie
Well he was funding Andrew for years too - still is as far as I know.

We are told these peppercorn rent perks etc are for ‘working royals’

Firstly ‘working royals’ a misnomer as none of them do anything approaching work .

When did the term ‘working royals’ appear btw? It used to be just be enough that they were there , hanging around , privileged by dint of accident of birth, no further justification needed.
The repetition of the term ‘working royal’ is honestly gaslighting . They now know they need to try to justify themselves hence ‘working royal’ nonsense

Charles has kept up his normal activities despite being unwell I’ll agree on that and he has been active all his life ( he still does not approach a normal working life but he’s a workaholic in Windsor terms)

William does next to nothing . He does not work in any real sense but he’s self described as a ‘working royal’
His 20 room apartment in Kensington palace is free as he is a so called ‘working’ royal.

Eugenie and Beatrice have never been ‘working royals’ yet Charles is paying their rent in crown estate properties. We ( ie the state) own the crown estate . Its purpose is to maximise profit for the treasury to help support public services .
Is full market rent being paid ?

Before this report did we know that Charles was providing free accommodation for non working ‘royals’ such as Andrew’s daughters? I don’t think so. In fact I thought we were told that E and B were paying ‘market rent’.

Dh retired (ill health) the expectation is still there. When we married, it was explained to me that we would need to cut our cloth, so that their living expenses, would always be covered. Dh owns their 3 bedroom house, which had a mortgage which he paid, as well as ours, bills on theirs though when we married, he shared with BIL, carers (24 hours for MIL), CGT will need to be paid on the house when sold, I don’t think it’s fair, but it is what is is. We are not rich, we struggle at times, but he’s the eldest and it’s his duty. I imagine it’s similar for KC.

My big bugbear I only ever asked in-laws for help once and they refused. Lived in a house that we paid for and they refused - go figure. And I had to apologise for calling her out and upsetting the MIL. Ahh well. She’s very old now and not in good health so I’ll just stop ranting!

But basically I sort of understand the KC conundrum!

It is interesting to hear your perspective.
💐

And whilst I'm not a fan of any of them, I do think Charles is quite a softy and maybe just felt sorry for the daughters. However I do think they have taken advantage of his good nature and honestly, they have their own families now, and wealthy husbands so they should be voluntarily giving this up. Not sure they will. They are Yorks after all

Thank you

one more point that when I met the in laws and maybe I see this with the Yorks and to some extent maybe some other royals, MIL said to me that when dh qualified in his profession, she said in her language, “we are sorted for life”, ie he would forever now be paying for them, & his younger siblings, going forward.

I wonder whether it’s a similar mentality with RF.

They will always be provided for as long as they toe the imaginary line, which AMW has clearly crossed. Have his daughters in KCs eyes I wonder?

Oh yes
I don't think there is one Royal who hasn't done their best to cash in on their standing. All of them in very many different ways.
Obviously the Yorks are far more blatant and entitled about it but there isn't one of them who sometime or other hasn't used their position to get benefits or make money.
I am thinking of each one individually Charles William and the wider family and I think there are examples out there of each of them using their position to their advantage

The Royal family have dragged their feet for so long over the appalling allegedly criminal and fraudulent behaviour of AMW that it has now caused public interest in the practices of the wider family.

So, for example, the peppercorn rent issue at Royal Lodge has put the spotlight on other members of the extended family who enjoy grace and favour accommodation in London such as Eugenie and Beatrice.

And the spotlight has also fallen on Edward’s and Sophie’s peppercorn rent on the £30 million property Bagshott Park.

And on how AMW and Edward have been letting out parts of these properties which is deemed problematic because as Crown Estate properties, it is argued that any income generated should go back to the Treasury and not in to their pockets.

Andrew’s allegedly abusive treatment of vulnerable women have reminded us of the alleged rape allegations among staff at Buckingham Palace and St James’s palace:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/nov/09/monarchy.jamiewilson

Ditto alleged bullying allegations involving, allegedly, an equerry.

And AMW’s alleged financial corruption has reminded us of the alleged cash for honours debacle involving Prince Charles as he was then.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/aug/21/met-police-no-further-action-cash-for-honours-claims-king-charity-princes-foundation

If the Palace had wanted to keep all of the above under wraps, and remember these are only a few examples of poor, possibly and allegedly illegal or “sharp” practices among many, then they should have dealt with AMW much sooner when they were informed about his nefarious activities by diplomats, politicians and intelligence sources years ago.

So they only have themselves to blame.

Personally, I am very happy that the public are finally waking up to all of these allegedly shady practices that have been reported in the papers for years, but have then been allegedly suppressed, according to Lownie, by the use of confidentiality agreements, NDAs, threats, honours, influence, favours, reminders about pensions etc.

And as I keep saying on these pages, it’s my view that these practices have always been carried out to some degree or another, by the wider family for years eg Sophie and Fergie selling access to their husbands; they had to get the idea from somewhere! They weren’t operating in a vacuum! Do we truly believe that their husbands weren’t aware? But at the time, the criticisms seemed to be solely directed at the wives! How chivalrous!

We are beginning to understand how the palace PR works, If you are inside the circle of wagons, you are protected. If you are on the outside, you are exposed, as Harry has discovered.

AMW being dim and crass basically took things to greater extremes and didn’t have the skills to cover up his exploits as subtlety as the rest of them!

Prince William’s office vehemently and strongly denied any involvement in the cash for access scheme involving a charity sponsor and an art gallery owner and his office cut off all ties with this individual who allegedly offered wealthy individuals meetings with Prince William at his exclusive annual Royal Charity Polo Cup for £20,000.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-of-wales-swiss-jackie-tv-presenter-windsor-b2778925.html

It confuses me though how someone can allegedly offer lunch with a high profile person in exchange for a charity donation without the VIP’s knowledge? Perhaps it is possible? I don’t know! The individual involved allegedly couldn’t answer questions because she had allegedly signed a confidentiality agreement.

(There’s a nice little detail in that report btw about Laurence Llewelyn Bowen allegedly being present at this exclusive event with his wife driving around in a golf cart. Doesn’t he now host a quite pro-monarchy podcast?)

It’s becoming pretty clear how all of this works.

We know that Charles’s last minute intervention to save Dumfries House attracted a lot of scrutiny:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/05/dumfries-house-the-stately-home-at-the-heart-of-a-royal-crisis

Again, imho, despite vehement denials, and even investigations by supposedly independent bodies which usually find nothing untoward, the incidences above give an “impression” of shady practice and although we are fortunate that Charles has a genuine interest in preserving historic buildings rather than sharing AMW’s interests, again and again, it is the lack of transparency that is the issue and the Palace believing that it can operate secretly, and in some cases allegedly above the law, when the monarchy is supposedly an institution that first and foremost should serve the people.

B and E refused to allow an Ethical Advisor to check their finances so it is a bit surprising that KC is continuing to support them.

Thank you again @Verityandsquab654

Excellent summary

We are told these peppercorn rent perks etc are for ‘working royals’

This is incorrect.

As referenced on the Crown Estate thread, the NAO report describes the two types of leases (short and long-term) from the Crown Estate in sections 2.6 to 2.12 (figure 8 is a good summary).
Long-term leases have a premium payment up-front, and a peppercorn rent.

2.8 In 2024-25, 974 (39%) of TCE’s residential properties were leased on a
short‑term basis, with 1,501 (61%) on a long-term basis. The breakdown of the
residential portfolio by lease type varies between location. In London, the majority of properties (1,296 (80%)) are on long-term leases, whereas in Windsor, 511 (79%) are on short-term leases.

Eugenie and Beatrice have never been ‘working royals’ yet Charles is paying their rent in crown estate properties.

Eugenie and Beatrice (and the Michaels) do not live in CE properties but in Royal Household properties. The RH residential agreements are described in section 3.8 - 3.9, with figure 11 summarising.

Properties let to private tenants within the secure cordoned areas (requiring security clearance or vetting) have rent typically calculated at an adjusted rate using 60% of the open market valuation (independent third-party). There are 12 of these properties in total.

It's not entirely clear what rent has been paid in the past (prior to 2018). Currently the rent paid is 68% (B), 63% (E) and 63% (Ms) of market value.

We ( ie the state) own the crown estate

NAO: An independent commercial business set up by the Crown Estate Act 1961 to manage land and the seabed around England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is a non-financial public corporation with a wide portfolio of land and property managed on behalf of the government.
Crown Estate: The UK government does not own The Crown Estate either.
Established by an Act of Parliament in 1961 (see next answer), subsequently amended by The Crown Estate Act 2025, we are an independent, commercial business, managed by a Board (also known as The Crown Estate Commissioners).
This independence is critical to enable us to fulfil our core duties, act commercially and deliver our strategy to create environmental, social and financial value both now and for the long term.

@Mylovelygreendress

Has William subjected himself to an ethics audit ?

Maybe if he had he would have avoided having as a donor and co founder of Earthshot a close associate of Epstein?

Has William’s sell off of ancient farmland been through an ethics check ? He does not own that land

Has the selling of access to William mentioned above been through an ethics check ?
William is a hypocrite

@bluegreygreen

That’s a lot of text to say little

‘Managed on behalf of the government’ sums it up

This latest Windsor scandal involves lack of transparency. It’s not complicated, it’s hidden , like many problems associated with the Windsors .

Im aware of the different leases . I saw William chose a short lease unlike others. So upkeep comes from the tax payer .
His rent is covered many times over by the annual 1.5 million rent he takes from the taxpayer for an empty prison .
See how it works ?
As Cathy says , head they win, tails we lose

Maybe if he had he would have avoided having as a donor and co founder of Earthshot a close associate of Epstein?

Blinking at this CathyorClaire trying to take it in!

Very interesting question indeed,

They couldn’t possibly be so devious about this could they after making all the statements about paying their own way for their forever home, which incidentally, I believed, despite my cynicism about this family?

Kensington palace stated there would be no cost to the taxpayer

It's a pretty standard kind of thing for the palaces to say, @Ukisgaslit, and frankly anyone who takes it at face value is optimistic at best

Unfortunately the RF and their advisers tend to work on the old principle that it's not what's true that matters ... it's what appears to be true to the gullible and/or not particularly bothered

Regardless of the cost to the taxpeyer they'll aim for whatever suits them best, and if something stops suiting they'll use every trick in the book to have it changed

Didn’t Charles get a similar letter ?

What a remarkable coincidence.

As far as I know the charity commission checks paperwork

They do not investigate morals / ethics unless there is evidence of fraud .
So if there was paperwork from years ago , that box would be ticked .
Correct me if I’m wrong

My point was about ethics .

I don't understand your post buegreygreen. Seriously, it is baffling.
Bottom line is
They are not working Royals (B&E)
They have grace and favour properties.

Yes. The financial set up is imho deliberately and strategically baffling. I don’t understand why the royals can’t have a straightforward payment from the Treasury for services rendered in alignment with how many engagements they do and the expenses incurred.

It doesn’t have to be as convoluted as it is now. And it would allow for much more straightforward accounting.

(I also think it’s possible for the public to be more informed about security costs without comprising safety. Atm we receive a rough figure that’s not very informative. For example, Peter Phillips and Harriet Sperling are apparently covering security costs for their wedding today themselves. In the press pictures, you can see policeman placed strategically along the street where the guests are walking to church. I’d love to know a little more detail about how these rough rounded up figures are arrived at!)

And all royal finances should be subject to proper Parliamentary oversight and scrutiny (which is why imho the honours system is problematic for MPS, ministers and civil servants but that’s for another thread.)

The public and private wealth of the RF should be entirely separate.

Andrew Lownie and Norman Baker are apparently about to jointly launch a transparency campaign proposing some simple measures that would ensure much more openness about royal finances and improve parliamentary effectiveness in this area:

** that Parliament should be able to ask questions about royal finances without deference or fear

(Of course that process has begun with the public accounts committee looking at the Crown Estates.)

** but there should also be a review of the sovereign grant (which was effectively pushed through by three people one of whom was George Osborne who was then appointed as a Companion of Honour for that and his wider political and public service).

** Parliament should be able to ask questions about AMW’s time as a trade envoy, which happened briefly, but subsequent questions submitted by George Foulkes and Rosie Boycott have been responded to evasively.

** the appointment of a parliamentary spokesperson for the royal family who is accountable and responds to questions on the royal family’s behalf

** the establishment of a royal register similar to that which exists for MPs

** Parliament could amend the FOI Act so that the royal family are no longer exempt

**Parliament could amend the legislation governing the sealing of royal wills which has only been in place since 1911

**the financial management of the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall could be moved to be under the control of the Treasury

** and as the British taxpayer has just paid £386 million for the renovation of Buckingham Palace, this could now be opened up further for public use including the vast gardens. No member of the RF is living there so the security risk is minimal.

Imho the legislation surrounding King’s Consent should be looked at too.

None of the above needs to be unnecessarily complicated or time-consuming and I think Lownie and Baker have come up with an excellent and reasonable strategy. In fact, I cannot for the life of me understand why these measures haven’t been instigated long before now.

I agree B&E are not working royals - I don't recall saying they are.

They have grace and favour properties.

They do not have grace and favour properties.

As people are objecting to be copying portions of the NAO report, you will find details of grace and favour properties in the glossary, key finding 16, section 1.18 - 23 with figure 4 summarising.

I'm sorry you don't understand my post.

In other words, we British citizens should expect our head of state and his family to lie and accept they're corrupt

How depressing

Great post

I’d argue that reform needs to start with removing king’s consent . The rest flows from that .
Lance the boil.