William to sell off parts of Duchy of Cornwall "for positive impact"

[BasiliskStare]

On the face of it (& I have read the article once so reserve the right to change my mind , be persuaded by those more knowledgeable than me or by other arguments ) this looks like a good thing - or maybe a good start. I'm sure W can manage nicely with the income from 80% of. £1bn Duchy 😊

I don't think this excuses him from not being transparent about finances , but am I being naive to think this is edging towards a good thing? I know there is an argument the Duchy is ill-gotten gains he shouldn't have in the first place. I'm quite pleased to see affordable housing in London referred to , which having a DS who lives in London , I'm very aware of. That's obviously personal to me though.

Anyway - for what it's worth - here's the article

archive.ph/qi1V9

Thanks for this thread Basilisk

I posted most of this last night on another thread but as this is a dedicated discussion I'll repost here:

I think it's an odd move.

My view is that the Duchy rightfully belongs to the nation, isn't his to sell and he shouldn't be permitted to sink sale funds into his personal puff projects and interests however worthy they look on paper.

Will there be kickbacks profitable fees, licenses and sales of rights involved which have the effect of boosting Duchy profits and his income?

We know W has been aggressively chasing profit since he took over, employing some of his expert good old boys to help and that he's been micromanaging the holdings.

IMO he doesn't do anything that doesn't promote his own interests and I think we need to see far more detail although we won't.

Cathy could you tell me where the other thread about this is ?

The issue should be on other boards too in my opinion not just this . It affects us all

It's the thread on MW which I didn't want to take off track so was pleased to see a thread dedicated to this subject.

It's big news but not necessarily as great as W would like to portray IMO.

In my opinion this IS another scandal . William is selling land that was part of the Duchy for over 700 years .Arent we constantly sold the idea that the Windsors are the custodians of our heritage ?

He’s selling no doubt to increase his profits . The talk of affordable houses and ‘nature’ is a sop to try to deflect criticism of this scandal .

Maybe there will be a legal challenge
That might distract from the fact that the Windsors have protected Andrew from facing the law . What did they know about Epstein and when ?

Honestly how can any one state that they support this corrupt greedy family . If the Epstein and Saville links do not disturb royalists I doubt William turfing farmers out will. That’s what it is to be a royalist …

@flippantlydone Who receives the money if/when he sells?
The money from property sales goes directly back into the Duchy. William is unable by law to profit directly from capital sales (though obviously benefits if the Duchy is overall more profitable).
His income comes from the Duchy profits each year.

The Duchies are owned by the monarch and heir in the same way as other duchies are owned by other members of the aristocracy. The Duke of Devonshire does not pay corporation tax either; his duchy is set up in trust in a similar way.

The Treasury has to approve any property sale of value greater than £500k.

William voluntarily pays personal income tax on his income from the Duchy, after expenses (he pays for the Kensington palace office operations out of the Duchy money). Currently in the UK personal income tax is private between HMRC and the individual (even for politicians who are paid by the taxpayer, although some have recently decided to divulge their figures).
The government could, if it wished, pass a law to include him in the requirement to pay personal income tax.
He does not pay capital gains tax as he does not by law profit from capital sales (as above).

The Duchy accounts are audited by independent auditors and presented to the Public Accounts Committee each year (as are the Duchy of Lancaster accounts; the Sovereign Grant accounts, being public money, are overseen by the National Audit Office).

For anyone interested:
Duchy accounts for 2025 DoC 2025
Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982 DoC Management 1982
Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 DoC Management 1863

They could turn it into a nuclear power station, so the high levels of preexisting background radiation wouldn't matter any more 😆

I agree with many of you that the lack of transparency is deeply concerning. The timing also raises questions, we know he recently hired a crisis manager, and suddenly there’s a wave of indirect responses pushing back against any criticism (what's the favourite word here clapping back). It feels less like genuine openness and more like reputation management.

We’re also told he’s been inactive, yet now he’s appearing at numerous engagements. The sudden change is hard to ignore. Likewise, when concerns are raised about his tax contributions, we quickly see selective figures released claims of paying up to £7m and being among the top taxpayers. But without full disclosure, those claims are difficult to verify.

What would actually build trust is consistent, detailed transparency. Instead of isolated figures for a single year, why not publish comprehensive records covering the past five years? That would allow people to see whether he truly pays his fair share year after year, rather than relying on carefully timed statements that only address criticism in the moment.

As for his rent, the £300k figure sounds impressive, especially as it’s higher than what previous tenants paid but this isn’t just rent for a single home its covers additional buildings like staff cottages.

Framing it as if it’s comparable to a normal residential rent is misleading. It’s a lease for a multi-property estate in Windsor Great Park, not a standard house.

And it’s also worth noting that other members of the Royal Family have historically paid peppercorn rent essentially nominal amounts for similar properties. So while £300k is being presented as evidence of fairness, the broader context of royal housing arrangements makes that claim far less clear-cut

Oh dear @bluegreygreen you seem to have inadvertently skipped over the pertinent point

Yes the profits form the sale of this land must be ploughed into the Duchy. This is the same Duchy from which William will pocket the profits.
William will be scooping more each year as a result of these land sales

Mps have asked for greater clarity re the finances of the Duchies ( and been ignored) so your claims of ‘clarity’ seem moot .
William can decide what he will pay ‘tax’ on before he does so . That’s not transparent in any way.

Very informative and factually interesting! Many thanks @bluegreygreen🙏

Jokes aside! That would not have been a bad idea at some point of time! 😁

@BasiliskStarein answer to your original question, at first glance this seems like a good plan and the man employed to oversee it seems competent, however I think it’s too soon to scream scandal and corruption, just as it’s too soon to exclaim victory! 🤷‍♀️

He pays £300,000 a year to rent his house in Windsor plus paid personally for the renovations to the property

It's £307,000 (the previous tenant paid £216,000). The £307,000 also includes the rent for 2 houses on the estate for staff. Would he be paying £30,000 each per annum for those?

@jeffgoldblum

Ah the old ‘ it’s too soon to say’ . How convenient . Funnily enough I suspect the 20 year plan helps with exactly that . Who will still be counting how many ‘affordable’ homes have been built by 2040 ? I hope ( quite reasonably ) that the monarchy will be half dismantled by then

This may be part of William’s ( or more likely an advisor - William isn’t the brightest bulb) plan. Better stuff those coffers while the going is good . Didn’t old granny have secret millions stashed abroad in the paradise papers ?

However it’s interesting that you give the benefit of the doubt to a family that has covered up decades of links to Epstein ( William accepted 1 million from a close associate of Epstein- still waiting for the verdict on that ) , that happily picks the pockets of the intestate , that charges charities and public services - need I go on ?

Why are your posts so aggressive?
do you honestly think that anyone who doesn’t agree with you, will be moved to change their mind after reading your comments?

this has literally just been announced! So yes it’s to soon to say either way and your opinion is only yours, other people’s opinions may vary and are just as relevant.

please don’t tag me again, I would rather not confer with you.

Absolutely agree.

The Crisis Manager is desperately doing all she can possibly do. She was described by a previous colleague as 'bulletproof sunshine'. She must be working her socks off!

On the rent of the Forever Home. Yes, they are paying £300K. The previous tenants paid just over £200K. Of course it would go up when the tenancy changes! Especially when two (or is it three?) cottages for staff are now included. (Tenants who had been there years had to move out these cottages to allow this). And of course the huge extending of the perimeter to 150 acres, all security monitored, being an exclusion zone, and getting rid of a carpark, an area open for visitors, and a children's play centre. I would have though £300K quite reasonable for all that!

It is perfectly reasonable to make a judgement now rather than letting the usual Windsor grift run on

Dont take my word for it . As far as I know Norman Baker has questioned the make up of the board of the Duchy and the ‘good causes’ line

I feel very angry and disgusted by the Windsors - my main disgust concerns their decades , maybe centuries , of links to pedophiles and sex abusers . I expect Andrew will get away it all in full view of the people of this country . I make no apologies for this feeling . And yes it now extends to those who continue to support this disgusting family . I judge the Windsors and their remaining supporters as the latter can no longer claim ignorance.

Well it’s not normal private rent it’s basically money moving around within a state monarchy financial loop.

He’s effectively leasing the properties (as they are part of the Crown Estate) paying the money to the Crown Estate, which is a state-owned body whose profits go to the Treasury, yet the monarchy is funded through the Sovereign Grant, which comes from those same Crown Estate profits. So even though it’s not a direct payment back to him, it’s still money circulating within a system that ultimately funds the royal household.

And that there is the real grift

And the more money the Duchy makes, the more he is paid out.

This describes it perfectly. I think it's difficult for people (myself included) to actually pinpoint what's going on because, taken as separate things - renting a house, sovereign grant, etc. - it's difficult to hone in and focus on what the problem is. And it seems fairly easy for the monarchy and its supporters to pick out each smaller thing and highlight how fair or acceptable it is.

But you're absolutely right. It's circular, what is given comes right back to them in another form, and they have really spent nothing at all.

Fine so long as it’s the tenant farmers buying. Not fine if sold to a greedy developer throwing up more environment destroying housing.

you seem to have inadvertently skipped over the pertinent point
Yes the profits form the sale of this land must be ploughed into the Duchy. This is the same Duchy from which William will pocket the profits.

I don't think I skipped anything. From my post:

The money from property sales goes directly back into the Duchy. William is unable by law to profit directly from capital sales (though obviously benefits if the Duchy is overall more profitable).

your claims of ‘clarity’ seem moot
You will be able to point to where I used the word 'clarity' in my post?

William can decide what he will pay ‘tax’ on before he does so . That’s not transparent in any way.
It is on record in legal documents that the Prince of Wales pays the prevailing rate of income tax on the net income from the Duchy after business-related costs.
Any self-employed business owner in the country will be used to that concept.
'The arrangements for providing information and making payments
follow normal self assessment rules.' - from the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation 2023.

Thanks for bringing me back to the thread - I've realised my wording was inaccurate here:
The government could, if it wished, pass a law to include him in the requirement to pay personal income tax.
He is subject to taxation on income other than from the Duchy.
I assume the government could, if it wished, alter the Duchy of Cornwall Act to require him to pay personal income tax on that income, but that is my assumption and would need a legal opinion.

It is a complex system but the majority of money made by the Crown Estates goes to the government of the day not the royal family.

And the Sovereign Grant isn’t a bunch of money handed to the King that can be pocketed by him for personal use. It’s audited and accounted for very specific areas - buildings upkeep, staff wages and pensions, travel expenses for official engagements, state banquets etc.

None is for personal expenses or rent. Any money not used goes back into the SG fund and is not kept by the monarch. Accounts are independently audited and published by the government department overseeing it each year.

I think "too soon to say" is not an unreasonable comment at the moment as @jeffgoldblum said. As far as the article I posted goes this looks like a statement of intent. There will have to be a lot more detail before people can analyse it properly ( I know Transparency ) . I do get @CathyorClaire 's point about puff projects - I'd probably call them pet projects but I think we might be meaning the same thing. I personally am greatly in favour of affordable housing where it is needed , but I know in that instance that is my bias aligning with W's. @FernFaery makes a good point about farmers. I don't know anything about that world but I can see the point.
Thanks @bluegreygreen - I was hoping someone would turn up with some facts I don't know.

I keep seeing Norman Baker's book referred to - I might actually get round to reading it 😊

Edit - to remove double negative for meaning.

I do think it could be made much more straightforward for an ordinary person to see what is private, what is public, what is overseen by which part of parliament etc.

As @wordler says, the income from the Crown Estates goes to the Treasury.
They give a percentage of that (currently 12%) to the monarch as the Sovereign Grant, for official expenses / for the upkeep of official palaces.
The Royal Household in effect acts as a government department, and since 2011 its accounts are scrutinised by the National Audit Office in the same way as other departments.
The Duchy of Cornwall (for the PoW) and the Duchy of Lancaster (for the monarch) exist since 1337 and 1351. In the same way as other aristocratic duchies, they exist to provide an income to the family, and are set up similar to trusts. Because the family happens to be the Royal Family, there are laws to ensure they remain profitable, the Treasury is responsible for significant decisions, and responsible officials are Cabinet ministers.
The accounts of each are public documents but they are scrutinised independent auditors and reviewed by the Public Accounts Committee as they are not funded by public money.

I have linked to this parliamentary research briefing on other threads, which I have found a helpful summary. It also discusses some of the history and parliamentary debates over the years.

Finances of the Monarchy

Many thanks 🙏 @bluegreygreen, once again.