AMW continuing his effort to end the monarchy part 4

[simpsonthecat]

New thread. This is not ending

In which case it is for the government to change the law. It is not William's fault that the government hasn't done this

But we know this doesn’t work because historically, successive governments have been very deferential in their dealings with monarchy.

Concrete examples of this would be exemptions from laws that affect the rest of us eg royalty are shielded from criminal and civil prosecution. The royal family have many exemptions from employment and land laws that apply to the rest of us. And of course they are not obliged to publish wills either.

While the Monarch voluntarily pays income and capital gains tax, they are not legally liable for them and they are completely exempt from inheritance tax on their private estates, avoiding the standard 40% rate levied on other UK citizens.

In addition, King’s consent tradition means that before Parliament can pass laws that affect the prince's or monarch's private property or interests, the government must formally seek King’s consent and this has been used repeatedly by royal lawyers to request amendments to draft legislation, effectively altering government policy behind closed doors.

George Osborne and David Cameron agreed very favourable terms for the Royals in 2011 when they replaced the Civil List with the Sovereign Grant which meant that instead of parliament voting on an annual allowance, the system guaranteed the monarch a sum equivalent to a percentage of the Crown Estate’s profits. Osborne included a stipulation stating that while the royal funding could increase when Crown Estate profits grew, it was legally guaranteed never to fall!

And very conveniently certain constitutional conventions prevent issues such as this being discussed in Parliament!

As we have come to understand more recently through Andrew Lownie’s work, the Royal Family are exempt from certain aspects of Freedom of Information legislation. The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 Act makes communications with the sovereign and the direct heirs strictly exempt from disclosure, keeping the monarch's political lobbying entirely hidden from the public view.

We know that in the past Ministers have accepted behind-the-scenes lobbying from the royals rather than confronted it, and haven’t sought any statutory means of limiting this secret lobbying.

Given the above, we have to ask the question, who precisely is being served here?

The Duchy of Cornwall doesn't pay corporation tax because legally it's not s corporation. Neither does the Duchy of Devonshire. (As I understand it, not being an expert, both are set up relatively legally, held in a form of trust with a beneficiary.)

Yes this is true. But is it fair? And is the Monarchy’s representation of the Duchies wholly accurate?

Have a look at the Ditch the Duchies report, “a call for honesty, scrutiny and abolition” by Republic UK, which highlights the usual “muddying of the waters” necessary to present the Duchies as private property .

But as Republic points out, “Parliament does have an indirect interest in them, as the
income they generate is used in part to support the official duties of the royal family, and if this was insufficient, there would be pressure on the Sovereign Grant.”

The Duchy of Cornwall claims it
its not a “publicly owned entity” but again declines to explicitly say that it is owned by William. This way all claims upon them can be rebutted!

The Treasury has to approve any sale of property of value over £500k. I suspect most of what you're talking about will come into this category.

My point is we shouldn’t have to guess or suspect. These transactions should be transparent.

Where they covered it up they are culpable; as also are all those cabinet ministers who were responsible for AMW while he was in a government role for 11 years and did not act to stop him

I agree but as highlighted above, given that power, wealth and extensive influence is exerted continuously from the Monarchy upon successive governments, parliaments, and individual ministers, one doesn’t have to look far as to why this sorry state of affairs came about, leaving ordinary British citizens with very little collective ability to influence things themselves.

It’s neatly sewn up isn’t it?

Time for Andrew to get worried again .

Surrey police are investigating the Surrey incident that it was reported that ANW might have been at

Only saying what’s in the public domain already .

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0k2d2pl6x0o

There is now another thread discussing this but to answer some points here -

historically, successive governments have been very deferential in their dealings with monarchy.

Why would a government failing in its constitutional duty mean the problem is with the monarch?

they are completely exempt from inheritance tax on their private estates, avoiding the standard 40% rate levied on other UK citizens.

In relation to assets which can properly be regarded as
private, the arrangements provide that inheritance tax will not be
paid on gifts or bequests from one Sovereign to the next, but will
be payable on gifts and bequests to anyone else.
Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation 2023

In addition, King’s consent tradition means that before Parliament can pass laws that affect the prince's or monarch's private property or interests, the government must formally seek King’s consent

And if you look at the government guidance, there is no constitutional capacity for the monarch to refuse that consent (and no, I'm not mixing it up with Royal Assent to laws).

stipulation stating that while the royal funding could increase when Crown Estate profits grew, it was legally guaranteed never to fall!

Inaccurate - see post on the other thread

certain constitutional conventions prevent issues such as this being discussed in Parliament!

The Sovereign Grant Act 2011 requires this funding to be discussed at minimun every 5 years (so more often if the government often the day wishes).

If you are referring to Erskine May, it does not prevent discussion of the Royal Family in proper form and never has. I have quoted the passage several times on this board - feel free to search, as I don't want to keep derailing this thread.

Interesting.

Thank you.

I will move to the other thread too in that case but we can go on quoting the minutiae of the legislation at one another forever but it is what happens in reality that counts despite what is written down on paper.

It’s evident that the system is skewed to favour the great and good.

As I said the government fails to ask the right questions because the Royal Family wields power and influence over ministers in a variety of hidden ways, not least the honours system.

And the sovereign grant and duchies are organised in a way that is deliberately confusing and impenetrable if you ask me so that there is deliberate obfuscation around what money is private and what is public. It could easily be organised in to a much simpler more transparent system.

As for Erskine May, there have been hundreds of articles written about Andrew in the press over two decades or more hinting at his nefarious activities. And yet it took until recently and him losing his titles before MPs were given permission by the Cabinet Office to discuss him openly in Parliament. If they had felt able to speak openly sooner, some of his activities could have been curtailed and exposed long before now.

Also, how can any sane, intelligent person support the royal family after this debacle? They literally paid millions to cover up AMW’s abuse of vulnerable women. Why on earth would anyone continue to trust an institution after this?

Even now, Lownie says that the BP PR machine is whirring away putting pressure on ex police protection staff not to speak and reminding them about the conditions of their pensions, while pretending publically to do everything in their power to support the investigation! It’s despicable!

Still waiting for the RF to apologise for smearing Virginia Guiffre in November 2019.
The statement issued at the time bears repeating.
“It is emphatically denied that The Duke of York had any form of sexual contact or relationship with Virginia Roberts. Any claim to the contrary is false and without foundation.”
Yet, 2 1/2 years after that statement they pay her millions to shut up and not wreck the Platty Jubes of TLQ.

That must have been absolutely crushing for her.

And AMW didn't attend the Platinum jubilee, not because he was in disgrace, but they (or him, who knows) used the Covid excuse.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

There won't be one but it has exposed the Royal Family and how they use their power to do harm. It is absolutely disgusting how they discredited her to save themselves, their reputation and cover for him. How anyone can defend them or any member of the family is mindblowing. They are all silently complicit.

Camilla and Sarah are advocates for victims of abuse and they stay quiet, not even speaking out and saying fhe statement was wrong we owe that family a sincere apology. Hypcrocrisy runs deep on the institution and the family.

Thank you @Verityandsquab654
I agree with every word you wrote.

Ive asked the same myself - how can a decent person continue to defend and support the Windsor abuse and corruption?

@bluegreygreen

”The Duchy of Cornwall doesn't pay corporation tax because legally it's not s corporation. Neither does the Duchy of Devonshire. (As I understand it, not being an expert, both are set up relatively legally, held in a form of trust with a beneficiary”

No you are wrong about this .
It is important to reiterate that ONLY William and Charles are above the law re tax and neither pay the tax they are due to pay.

You are confused re Devonshire and I’ve seen this mistake repeated by those trying to defend William . The law applies to the Duke of Devonshire as equally as it does to the rest of us, only William and Charles insist that they will not pay taxes. The duke will have set up a trust . Trusts pay taxes - not as one lump sum but spread out over years .

It is pure greed that has William and Charles sneaking around pretending their capitalist enterprises are public when it suits them and private when it suits them .
William selling off farmland which has been part of duchy since 1300 in order to invest in property development rather blows this image of medieval custodians out of the water

if he was genuinely concerned for homelessness he would pay ALL his taxes and /or donate land and building costs. How many billions does he need?

So it sounds like the Queen pushed for Andrew to be a trade envoy. But what qualification did he have for this role? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2026/may/21/keir-starmer-labour-leadership-rachel-reeves-cost-of-living-echr-single-sex-spaces-latest-news-updates?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with%3Ablock-6a0edf798f089d6dcf6c19dd#block-6a0edf798f089d6dcf6c19dd

Was just coming on to post the same. On what basis I’d like to know?

He was her favourite, ergo what he asked for he got 🤷🏼‍♀️
He probably thought it sounded like a cushy number, lots of travel, freebies, access to unscrupulous people and a supply of pretty girls throwing themselves at his feet? What’s not to like?

And no one to answer to except mummy dearest. 🤷🏻‍♀️ 😳

Aside from the corruption and horrific abuses associated with the Windsors . They are just thick . Andrew was paid to be useless on top of giving him access to money and exploitation opportunities

We are told Parliament is sovereign - yet when Elizabeth was told of Andrew’s abuses she ignored it all .

Did I read that Stansted was used by Andrew to facilitate Epstein’s plane !?

I think so. I hope this isn’t brushed under the carpet.

Sky have it. Despite the palace pushing for him to have this role they were warning "the duke of York should not be offered golfing opportunities abroad" BC they knew he'd mix personal interests with business

So even they could see red flags

From the article:

“Finally, we would want the Duke of York to be available to receive prominent trade visitors from overseas here in London and perhaps act as host at meals or receptions as appropriate.”
The senior official said he “did not envisage that the Duke of York would want to be burdened with the regularity of meetings of the board of British Trade International or the burden of paper which goes along with the board membership”.

So he wanted the perks but not the work!

So essentially in 2001 the palace knew what he was like and the risks he posed. And yet his mother forced the issue.

No you are wrong about this .

I may be, but I've had the opinion of a lawyer I trust who says they are set up in similar fashion.

Both are set up in the general form of trusts (the Devonshire case is the Chatsworth Settlement Trust); the Duchy of Cornwall has specific input from the government due to the importance of the beneficiary.

It is important to reiterate that ONLY William and Charles are above the law re tax and neither pay the tax they are due to pay.

This is contradictory: either they are above the law re tax OR they are due to pay tax, not both.

The Monarch is not subject to tax; regarding the Prince of Wales, he is not subject to tax on the income from the Duchy of Cornwall, but is subject to tax on any other private income.

The memorandum I quoted above details the tax both do pay, including how expenses are calculated.

Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation

(Apologies to others for going off topic again)

As for Erskine May, there have been hundreds of articles written about Andrew in the press over two decades or more hinting at his nefarious activities. And yet it took until recently and him losing his titles before MPs were given permission by the Cabinet Office to discuss him openly in Parliament. If they had felt able to speak openly sooner, some of his activities could have been curtailed and exposed long before now.

In other words, the government told parliament that they could do what the parliamentary rules had always said they could do?

Apologies to those who have seen my posts on Erskine May before, but this is really important, and I am still very frustrated at the lack of willingness of government ministers and opposition parties to do their constitutional duty.

Successive governments have found it convenient to allow the myth to take hold that 'Erskine May'* prevents them from discussing the Royals in parliament - meaning they can therefore easily avoid their responsibilities.
It doesn't - and never has.
What it says is that discussing the conduct of the Royal family (and certain other public figures such as judges) must be done properly in a formal motion, not incidentally in another discussion (or in 'questions' about a different topic).

The only thing that prevents this discussion is that governments don't want to give up parliamentary time to do so. They may not take their responsibilities seriously, or they may wish to avoid the discussion for fear of what else may come to light.

This was clarified in public by the Speaker on the floor of the House in October 2025, when there were calls for AMW's behaviour to be discussed.
In a statement to the Commons, Sir Lindsay said: “I know there has been some commentary on what members of this House may or may not discuss in the chamber in relation to Prince Andrew, some of which is inaccurate.
“There is understandably great interest from members and from the public on this matter. For the benefit of the House, I would like to be clear that there are ways for the House to properly consider this matter.
“Any discussions about the conduct or reflections on members of the royal family can be properly discussed on the substantive motions. And I know some members have already tabled such a motion. I am not able to allocate time for a debate on such a motion, but others are able to do so, if wishing to do that.
“But on questions, the long-standing practice of the House, as set out in Erskine May, is that criticism of members of the royal family cannot be made as part of questions. I hope this is helpful clarification, as there is lots of online speculation.” (My emphasis.)
Reported by the Independent https://archive.is/pg1F6

Link to Erskine May text: Incidental criticism of conduct of certain persons not permitted
Paragraph 21.23
As indicated at para 20.10, unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of the Sovereign, the heir to the throne, or other members of the royal family.1 The same principle applies to the Lord Chancellor,2 the Governor-General of an independent territory,3 and judges of the superior courts of the United Kingdom4 (including persons holding the position of a judge, such as circuit judges and their deputies, as well as recorders).
(My emphasis.)

*Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice, for anyone who doesn't know, is the definitive work on parliamentary procedure, currently in its 25th edition, and is available free online for anyone to consult.

I know in her later years TLQ was portrayed as a sweet old lady, grandmother of the nation etc and not to be bothered about upsetting issues. But in 2001 that was certainly not the case. She knew exactly what her son was like.

Full text of letter (from Sir David Wright, BTI Chief Exec)

Email re Duke of York's travel (at this point he seems to be still in the Navy and doing some additional travel as RF member ?for UK business)

Media questions for DoY role announcement (I think the Q15 is linked)