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

Oh dear 😂

Agree.

I find the focus in some of these discussions quite concerning - it suggests a lack of understanding of constitutional monarchy.

The power in our country is not with the monarch but with parliament. Those responsible are those with oversight: primarily government ministers and those who sit on parliamentary committees to scrutinise accounts.

I think most people would imagine the SG would cover the costs of travel to and from overseas state visits and official gifts to the host country but it doesn't.

The Sovereign Grant does cover these; the Civil List didn't. It's one of the reasons that direct comparison between SG and Civil List is unhelpful.

Prior to the Sovereign Grant, as well as the Civil List (for funding official duties of the monarch's household) there were grants-in-aid: for official travel (through the Department for Transport) and upkeep of Royal palaces (through the Department of Culture, Media and Sport).

The Sovereign Grant Act pulled these separate sources together and consolidated them in one grant provided through the Treasury and overseen by NAO.

The Sovereign Grant does cover these

I'll concede travel for the principals but as far as I can make out the cost of any associated advance visits, travel for accompanying staff and official gifts to the host country are met separately by the government.

I don't believe the consolidation of disparate funding sources into a single grant arbitrarily linked to the performance of a state asset has been beneficial to anyone but the royals.

I’m assuming the foreign office have a specific budget for that as they are staffing the advance teams and planning? It does seem oddly complicated.

I wouldn’t mind some extra transparency around the foreign office expenditures too now we know to what extent they were facilitating and funding AMW in his overseas ‘trade’ trips.

I cannot see inside the posters mind, but if I interpret well her meaning, I agree with her.

Talk about child poverty - fine. But when wearing a crown?

Perhaps wait for a more appropriate occasion.

It is all rather convenient though, isn't it?

The checks and balances are there but ...

See, attacking the poster as a complainer, as spouting nonsense, and making a silly either/or makes me think that you cannot defend your point.

But we all know that the top % tend to look after each other.

Very few would stand up to the royals. How long would they last if they did?

And in the words of Shakespeare - therein lies the rub.
It's a political hot potato to make any comments about anything to do with the monarchy. It could lose elections. But one day the noise from the public will get too much and I think that one of the parties will have to address that noise. Not in my lifetime I fear.

’lack of understanding’ - is that your explanation for how the Windsors exclude themselves from laws and cancel bills ( bills cancelled 3 times in recent years via queen / king consent)?
oh yes we are told the government told them
to blah blah but the fact is the mechanism exists - maybe you ‘lack understanding’. Andrew and his disgusting life has shown just how much is hidden from us .

And as for Charles with his ugly crown studded with blood diamonds reading ‘his’ government’s plans to deal with child poverty - if you can’t see the dissonance there , you have more than ‘lack of understanding’ as a problem.

out of interest. is PW going to be building houses to sell or social housing?

This....
former Home Office minister and a critic of royal finances Norman Baker said the duchy would still be a "royal fruit machine... he pulls the handle and gets a jackpot every time".
He said that the switch to more housing would not leave the duchy any worse off: "More houses, more tenants, more income," Mr Baker said.

It is said to be for ' affordable housing and environmental projects'. No details of that known yet.

I don’t look at the BBC any more - they are not balanced re royal reporting in my opinion . Channel 4 and byline times do the proper digging . But I expect the headline will be something like ‘William selling 25% of duchy land for good causes’

Excuse me for not believing that the family which charges public services , protected Andrew and Mountbatten , happily pocket a ballooning take from the taxpayer annually and exempt themselves from 1000s of laws , will do anything but benefit themselves in the long term .

@MrShadows , it not a matter of choice. The law states that builders must provide a minimum of 10% social housing though many local councils push that to 35-40 % . If William does above 50% I’ll be amazed

He still does not have the right to sell that land and I am convinced that the ‘social housing ‘ and ‘nature’ buzzwords are a veneer covering up millions of profit into Windsor pockets .
Stolen from us .

The plan says over 20 years . Will you be checking in 20 years to see how the social housing % is going ?

They have learnt from their ‘sealed for 100 years’ wills. Hide your secrets , ignore the offences and outrage and hope it’s all forgotten.

Unfortunately for the Windsors there are no longer enough people easily distracted by a gaudy gold coach and a shiny hat .

Thank you @bluegreygreen for trying to eplain Royal finances . I think there is a very good argument for making these clearer to the public. Many will not be interested , many (I count myself) will be interested but haven't had the will to look properly at the detail. And this gets back to my OP - is W doing a good thing here , is this an act of charity, is it some complex way of paying for a pet project which also benefits him , I just don't know. I'm absolutely in favour of more financial transparency. Equally , is W is trying to use the Duchy for good (& again I get @CathyorClaire 's point abut his favoured causes )

That was my question. I'm not the thread police so there will be diversions re AMW , appropriateness of KC wearing a crown at State opening of parliament etc . Fill your boots everyone.

I'm interested in whether this statement of intent ( It doesn't look like anything more to me at the moment) is a step towards using Duchy of Cornwall revenue / holdings for a more "wider good" than before. That's all 😊

ETA - I agree with @Ukisgaslit New builds do have a responsibility to keep a certain percentage for social / affordable housing. Not negotiable in my borough I don't know whether that is general law , I'll take gaslit's word for that. The two nearest boroughs to me I think are 15 and 20 %. However , one borough does not require the affordable housing to be on the actual site , it can be elsewhere in the borough.

@BasiliskStare

Your comment made me go and check - apparently it’s not a single law but a ‘major planning policy requirement’

The absolute minimum is 10 %. If building over green belt the minimum is 50 %

The labour government is planning that social housing should be 60% rent .

Thank you @Ukisgaslit nearly 20 years ago I lived in Wandsworth so I was minded to look them up given your post - Here is their latest re affordable housing. https://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/news-march-2026/affordable-housing-in-wandsworth-boosted-by-changes-to-local-planning-rules/

Their aim is 70% rental. I do agree that affordable rentals are important . IIRC affordable housing for sale in Wandsworth was limited to key workers with shared ownership. I'm sorry I haven't given the details for that

However , I do think your point about affordable housing and ownership / rent is pertinent. How that meshes with Duchy of Cornwall financing I don't know.

Anyway - thank you for making me look that up !