Royal Gossip

The British Royal Family *Windsor* => Prince Charles and Camilla => Topic started by: True Brit on September 21, 2012, 02:42:48 pm



Title: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on September 21, 2012, 02:42:48 pm
Republic seem to be stepping things up a notch.

Here's their announcement

http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=655


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Snokitty on September 21, 2012, 02:48:42 pm
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f1073bf5d1e0166342e6a2f5b&id=eeefcfd40f

Quote
    Did you know that prince Charles has the power to veto and change laws before parliament gets to debate them?

    Did you know that Charles receives over £18m a year from land that he doesn't own, money that should be spent on public services?

    Did you know that Charles is exempt from Freedom of Information laws, which means he can lobby our elected politicians without any of us ever finding out?

Quote
Saturday, September 29
1:30 pm – 4:00 pm
Truro Community Library
Union Place
Truro TR1 1EP


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: True Brit on September 29, 2012, 06:26:15 pm
Republic has been in Truro today to launch its campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall and seem to have done reasonably OK with some coverage live on BBC Devn and BBC Cornwall this morning but I found this item in the Independent. This is the opening to the story the rest can be read via the link below:

Quote
Anti-royalists will descend on Cornwall today to rally support for a campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall, Prince Charles' £728m land and property portfolio.

Campaigners want the 53,000-hectare estate, most of which lies in the south-west, to be handed over to local people to boost the rural economy.

The protest comes amid growing disquiet in the region that the Duchy may be putting its own financial interests before those of the community.

The Duchy of Cornwall, which provides an income for the Prince, his sons and the Duchess of Cambridge, owns land in 23 counties and made a profit of £18m last year.

In June, it pushed through a plan to build one hundred houses and a Waitrose store on quality farmland east of Truro. Local councillor, Bert Biscoe, said the development marked the beginning of "the battle for Cornwall's land." He said: "Charles does not accept his constitutional responsibilities to Cornwall, he just wants the money. He says 'stand up for rural life and the farmer', and then builds a supermarket and a hundred houses on good quality farmland."

The £40m Truro East District Centre received planning permission earlier this year. More than 250 letters of objection were written by local residents who feared that the development would become "another Poundbury" – a reference to the "experimental" town near Dorchester, built to Prince Charles' own architectural specifications.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/give-us-your-duchy-demand-for-charles-728m-cornish-estate-8190493.html

And the BBC has picked it up on its web site but not sure if it will make the TV News:

Quote
Republic chief executive Graham Smith said the campaign would like the "abolition of the monarchy and this [duchy] is a microcosm of that".

"There is no reason why this arrangement should carry on. It is essentially public money that profits from the duchy which is going into Charles' pocket and it's not appropriate that the duchy then give him considerable personal influence with no control or accountability over that influence," he said.

John Kirkhope, a PHD student at Plymouth University studying the influence of the duchy, said the estate had the most "extraordinary range of privileges".

Continue reading the main story DUCHY OF CORNWALLCreated to provide an income for the Prince of WalesIncome from Duchy in 2009/10: £17.2mConsists of about 53,408 hectares of land in 23 counties, mostly in the South West of EnglandOwns most of Dartmoor - about 70,000 acres
"The duchy doesn't pay tax and the Prince of Wales pays tax on a voluntary basis, so you have a private citizen in charge of a private estate, exercising powers on our constitution which broadly speaking are unaccountable."

Mebyon Kernow Cornwall councillor, Loveday Jenkin, said it was calling for a full public enquiry into the workings of the duchy and how it influences Cornwall's constitutional position, which is "open to scrutiny because it has been a very secretive organisation".

Although a tenant farmer branded the campaign "unspeakable".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-19769503?print=true


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: meememe on September 29, 2012, 11:08:32 pm
Are they also planning a campaign to abolish the Duchy of Lancaster - which provides the private income for the monarch?

Are they aware that the same powers that The Duke of Cornwall has regarding laws that affect the Duchy of Cornwall also apply to the Duke of Lancaster with regards to laws that affect the Duchy of Lancaster?

Are they aware the the Duchy of Lancaster is used to support the rest of the royal family besides those supported by the Duchy of Cornwall?

What proposals are they putting in place to provide an income for these people or do they expect them to live on nothing?

The Sovereign's Grant doesn't provide money for the day to day living of the royal family but covers official expenses and maintenance of the royal palaces but income needed to pay their staff, to buy their food, buy their basic clothes - not clothes for a state visit but what they wear to relax around the house, all their private expenses come from these duchies.

So if they are abolished presumably the government will have to pay them a salary and as long as Britain remains a monarchy if only the monarch is being paid - and they wouldn't be able to justify anyone else getting paid - the people will have to put up with the other royals - spouse, heirs, cousins, etc all working for a living and that would mean commercial use of names - just imagine Princess Beatrice advertising hats, or Kate advertising underwear.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: True Brit on September 29, 2012, 11:26:22 pm
I think they expect them to live on the vast amounts of money that they have stashed away over the years thanks to being supported so generously from these incomes and not paying taxes until 1992.

Both Duchies received the estates of those who died intestate - no matter how humble the estates. Lancaster no longer receives this and Cornwall pays it over to a charitable fund of their own but both made vast amounts out of this in both world wars and no tax was ever paid at this time.

I wouldn't get too huffy about this MMM I doubt any of them will be found wearing an old overcoat and sleeping under Westminster Bridge. Are you seriously suggesting they won't be able to eat although in Kate's case going without clothing won't pose too much of a problem.

In actual fact the constitution has no obligation to support any of them. There is no official role for the heir to the throne. Dr David Starkey said he had examined every statute and there is no mention anywhere of the heir to the throne having any involvement.

The RF has created this notion that they need to be supported and we have to support their charity work when there is no such requirement. Most of the overseas tours such as the recent DJ tours are due to HM's role as Head of the Commonwealth which is neither an inherited role nor an essential part of our constitution.

Charles is already on the case of a pared down monarchy because he knows his own vast income and the Duchy's status is being increasingy threatened. He' s already said they'll have to go so what's the problem?

Poor old William and Harry down to their forces salaries and their multimillion inheritance plus whatever is given to them from the Duchy. And the SG now gives them 15% of the profits of the Crown Estate which is growing exponentially each year mainly down to EU grants and subsidies for such as vast wind farms. I doubt many will be shedding tears if this ever came to pass and I think Republic has a long road ahead before it does so.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Snokitty on September 30, 2012, 12:07:11 am
 :thumbsup:    :worship:   ITA True Brit but there are some who can see none of Charles's faults just as there is with William & Kate. I think it is the heir to the throne thing.

I think none of them should be supported but since someone is going to be supported then it should be the Monarch only. Everyone else can go to work like the rest of the world does.   :sigh:


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: rogue on September 30, 2012, 12:34:04 am
How much does the Queen get every year from her Duchy ??


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Magnolia on September 30, 2012, 01:04:46 am
http://us1.campaign-archive2.com/?u=f1073bf5d1e0166342e6a2f5b&id=eeefcfd40f

Quote
   Did you know that prince Charles has the power to veto and change laws before parliament gets to debate them?
Yes they do including the Queen.They make look like just "innocent statues" standing there waving and coming out ones in a while for the sheep to see them.But behind closed doors they do have power also to cover up for other people in power shadiness.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: meememe on September 30, 2012, 02:02:46 am
The Duchy of Lancaster produces about 14 million pounds a year.

Charles has always paid taxes on the income of the Duchy of Cornwall - not just since 1992.  He paid 50% until he married Diana when he cut it back to 25% to support her and her expenses.

In 1992 he encouraged The Queen to begin paying taxes on her private income - something her father had negatiated the royal family out of paying in 1936/7.

If it is the will of the people that the heir to the throne works for him/herself rather than the nation then they can't complain when they do commercials, or speak their minds - or even get involved in politics.

As Britain doesn't have a constitution it isn't surprising to find no mention of the heir to the throne - there would be no mention of the Queen/monarch, PM, Parliament, Cabinet etc in a non-existant document.

Statute law, common law and LPs have determined that the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster estates are there to provide the private incomes of the monarch and the heir to the throne.

It sounds to me as if some people expect the head of state to work for the nation for no pay - no other nation would expect that.  As for the rest of the family having to earn their living - fine - but that mean no overseas tours by any of them for any reason, no local engagements, much lower charity word as it would be the very occasional affair like the rest of us, and they would have no chance to learn the job of monarch as they would be busy going to work 9 - 5. 

If you are going to have a royal family then the state has to support that family or have a situation where all the work is done by one person and the rest make money off the connections.  They will have to make money on which to live.  The so-called 'vast fortune' isn't all that vast as most of it belongs to the people anyway.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: YooperModerator on September 30, 2012, 02:15:55 am
How much does the Queen get every year from her Duchy ??

The surplus for the year 2011/12 is about 13 M£ give ore take a few hundred. (here's an overview you have to add three zeros to the final number)
http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/2012-graphs-Accoun2D6678web.jpg
It can be found on the Lancaster duchy's website http://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/management-and-finance-2/accounts-annual-reports-and-investments/

Oh and in case your wondering Charles is doing better then his mum.
his annual surplus for 2011/12 is about 18 M£
http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i462/akasha2411/finacescornwal.png
again I found this info on the website of the Cornwall duchy (just click the pic a pdf will open)
http://www.duchyofcornwall.org/managementandfinances_finances_accounts.htm


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Snokitty on September 30, 2012, 03:03:00 am
MMM I am not suggesting that the Head of State receive nothing for their services. I am suggesting that the rest of the family receive nothing. If they want to work for the Monarchy then the Monarch can decide what to give them out of the Duchy of Lancaster monies.

Charles has used money that would better serve the people to support his Mistress and provide her with anything she wanted, he has employed to many on his staff to take care of his every whim. The largest expense out of the Prince's Trust is for employees in the PR and fund raising department while he also receives government monies that could go to the projects they were intended for.

Frankly I don't care if there are no more foreign tours because I see no purpose for them other than showcasing the royal family. I really don't care either if the work they choose is to do advertisements.

The heir to the throne already speaks his mind and gets involved in politics so I don't see where there would be any change there.

Some feel nothing Charles does is wrong and that is alright if that is their view but most people can see his faults and where he has made plenty of errors.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: meememe on September 30, 2012, 04:22:34 am
To me you can't abolish one duchy without abolishing both of them.

The Queen has the same rights as Duke of Lancaster to veto legislation as Charles does as Duke of Cornwall - but that seems ok to some.

If the heir is to earn his/her own living then they are as entitled as anyone else to stand for election for parliament, or to openly proclaim their political persuasion, or to do commercials for things that the government doesn't support, or that are controversial and as they have no independent source of wealth and no obligation to undertake duties on behalf of the nation - the tours are actually done on behalf of Britian at the behest of the British goverment most of the time e.g. The Gloucesters recent tour to Finland was on behalf of the British government and people.  This year there have been special tours on behalf of The Queen as part of the Jubilee celebrations but they have been to other Commonwealth realms or countries.  Even Harry's tour to Brazil was on behalf of the government not the Queen or himself.  These tours do serve a purpose - to cement relations between countries - between Britain and other countries whether outgoing or incoming.

To me you are either for the abolition of the monarch entirely, abolish both duchies and pay the monarch an annual salary with a government department responsible for funding all the things covered by the Sovereign's Grant, or you accept the way the monarchy is funded through both duchies and realise that providing employment for people is something that rich people actually should do.

I can't believe that in a time of very high unemployment someone is being criticised for employing too many people.  I am sure those that work for Charles are please that he has such a large staff as it means that they have jobs and aren't being a burden on the taxpayers with the need for them to be paid benefits.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Snokitty on September 30, 2012, 05:20:28 am
 :laugh:   Charles has been employing unnecessary people for unnecessary positions long before the unemployment crisis.

Frankly I don't care if they abolish the Monarchy. The only thing that will change for me is no tax dollars going to them.

I really don't care what occupation the heir chooses either. The heir working on a career will open their eyes to many things that none of them seem to understand now.

Having both duchies makes no sense to me. They can survive off of the money from one. Duchy of Cornwall isn't necessary for Charles to be able to live. Anne, Andrew & Edward seem to manage without their own personal duchies.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 30, 2012, 07:09:36 am
To be honest, if he's running the duchy well, why not? As it is, they are being taken off of the Civil List and running the Duchy has given him something constructive to do with his time and this is kind of petty. Charles does provide employment and really, why not?

Quote
can't believe that in a time of very high unemployment someone is being criticised for employing too many people.  I am sure those that work for Charles are please that he has such a large staff as it means that they have jobs and aren't being a burden on the taxpayers with the need for them to be paid benefits.

I agree; now isn't time to take a wrecking ball to jobs and after all, what will dismantling the Duchy do? There are bigger issues at stake right now and surely there should be something more constructive for the Republicans to worry about.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: True Brit on September 30, 2012, 09:30:20 am
Too many points to address first thing this morning but they wouldn't take a wrecking ball to the Duchy (either of them) they would be taken over by the Crown Estates - and arguably if they are getting 15% of those profits the profits of each would go into this.

Willie Hamilton MP tried to abolish both in 1972 and gained over 100 votes in the House for the motion which attracted strong support from right and left of the Labour and Liberal parties but were outnumbered by the Tories to the tune of 230 (approx). In any event it's unlikely it would have gained traction in the Lords which, at this time, was entirely hereditary peers.

Also MMM it was John Major who persuaded the Queen to pay her taxes in 1992 in the face of rising hostile public opinion (and I do know this through a direct contact); Charles joined the fray a year later. You are quite correct in that he did pay 50% tax on his income but he was allowed to reduce this to 25% on his marriage to Diana but it turned out he should have been paying tax at 80% so it was  a huge loss to the Treasury.

The QM's will was kept secret after a trip to the High Court probably because they did not wnat the truth about how much she actually left when all the time claiming she was heavily in debt.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1974678.stm

However according to Professor Hall the Duchy itself was not being taxed properly and active deceptions were taking place in under-reporting profits, over-estimating costs and trying every trick in the book to avoid publication of the accounts:
"Advantage was taken (in 1921) of a nineteenth-century Act of Parliament whereby publication was not required, only that the accounts be presented to Parliament. In practice, this meant one copy to the House of Commons Record Office and one to the House of Lords Record Office. This was complied with, but the Duchy accounts were not to be published again until 1982. To make discovery of what had happened eve more unlikely, a straightforward piece of deception was employed in the accounts. The £20,000 voluntary (Tax) contribution was included under the heading 'taxes and parish rates' in the accounts, to make it seem that the Duchy was still being taxed. A curious piece o accounting for a body that claimed and got tax exemption.

"Further deceptions have followed. As Andrew Duncan noted in his book The Reality of Monarchy, 'until the beginning of September 1969, Buckingham Palace authorities were underestimating the revenue from the Duchy and claiming publicly that it was subject to tax. He also mentioned how a Central Office of Information booklet, The Monarchy in Britain, which was 'intended to use for reference purposes', clearly suggested that Prince  Charles paid tax on all his income. Duncn discovered that this was not true and that the Prince on becoming 21 made a voluntary contribution of 50 per cent to the Treasury (25 per cent since 1981), in lieu of taxation, which at that time ould have been over 80%. The booklet stated that all royals except for the Queen were liable to death duties, but in fact the government did not hold the Duchly liable to this tax, or to capital gains tax."

This is why caution and indeed a healthy dose of scepticism applied when taking any information produced by either Duchies or the various Palaces at face value. Their web sites are part of their own PR/spin operation.

Unfortunately the whole subject requores so much independent investigation that most just accept their word as gospel. Perhaps caveat emptor should apply?

I believe the whole business of royal finances has been shrouded in deception and misinformation it is time a Govt department was set up to administer the lot with full accounting and transparent reporting and there is still no requirement whatsover for the UK taxpayer to support any royal family beyond the Queen.

There is also something deeply disturbing about taxpayers working hard to keep topping up the reserves of the richest woman in Britain (some say the world) in the 21st century. Check out the Bank of England Nominees Ltd - a secret offshoot of the BofE of which HM is a director and which handles the royals stocks and shares along with other overseas royals who have been invited to join in.


Lord Cobbold in 1971 listed the uses the Duchy of Lancaster revenues were put to apart from HM's personal expenditure and it included royal hosuehold pensions which were taken over by Government but his comment included a pension fund for not only employees but "her family" and this has never been fully explained.

"A double standard is allowed to operate in Government whereby a higher moral value is placed on the rich, including royalty when it comes to spending public money. This is a major reason why the financial privileges of the royal famiy should be ended, as well as the saving to the tax-payer this would afford."

OK that's me done for now - it's a beautiful September morning and I'm off to enjoy it.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: fyeah_harryshotabs on September 30, 2012, 09:52:19 am
^ Very interesting post True Brit :thumbsup:

Everytime The Duchy debate arises there's always something to knock it off the medias scope. I wonder what that could be now? Last time The Duchy was under some serious scrutiny Charles married Camilla :June:

It sounds to me as if some people expect the head of state to work for the nation for no pay - no other nation would expect that.  As for the rest of the family having to earn their living - fine - but that mean no overseas tours by any of them for any reason, no local engagements, much lower charity word as it would be the very occasional affair like the rest of us, and they would have no chance to learn the job of monarch as they would be busy going to work 9 - 5. 
Their overseas tours are funded by the countries they visit aren't they? :dontknow:


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: meememe on September 30, 2012, 10:53:27 am
Yes the tours are paid for by the country being visited but as the royals, besides the monarch will be working full time in jobs they need to support themselves rahter than the pretend time in the military where they can take off months at a time, they won't be able to represent the nation due to work commitments.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Snokitty on September 30, 2012, 02:21:14 pm
True Brit you stated it very well.   :worship:   I don't know where the demolishing of the Duchies came from but that is not what the Republicans are advocating at all. They just want the Duchy of Cornwall monies to be put to a better use for the people from all that I have read.

I also don't understand why it would mean putting people out of work because the same jobs would need to be done it is just the money wouldn't be going to Charles.

IMO if Charles thinks he needs as large a staff as he has then he could pay them out of his accumulated wealth and stop depending on the tax payers for everything.   :bored:

I hope you enjoy your beautiful September morning.  :bouncy:


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: True Brit on September 30, 2012, 05:37:58 pm
Thank you Snokitty had a lovely day  :thankyou:

Just realised that link re the QM's will gave us an interesting little extra bit of info with regard to the trust fund left to her great grandchildren - all ten of them not just HM's chldren but Princess Margaret's too.

It says she put 2/3rds of her fortune into a trust fund for them in 1993 when the tax situation became unavoidable.

It also says she left £70 million free of tax (anyone leaving over £250,000 has to pay tax on it)

Quote
Under a 1993 agreement with John Major's Conservative government, the Queen will pay no inheritance tax on her mother's estimated £70m fortune.


So by a rough calculation 2/3rds is approx £46 million - divided by 10 is a very nice £4.6 million each for the W&H, Zara and Peter, Bea and Eugenie, Lady Louise and James and the Linleys - David and Sarah.

As that will have increased through investment each appears to be sitting on a tidy sum and none of them has any need of any public funding.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1974678.stm

 


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Leila on September 30, 2012, 06:07:47 pm
Thanks for the great work, TB.  :thankyou:

I think you have to divide that by 8 great-grandchildren only as Louise (2003) and James (2007) were only born after the QM's death.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: True Brit on September 30, 2012, 06:10:30 pm
Aha! ^ so that's approx £5.9 million each off the top of my head. WOW!  :-


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 30, 2012, 06:13:14 pm
Thank you Snokitty had a lovely day  :thankyou:
Just realised that link re the QM's will gave us an interesting little extra bit of info with regard to the trust fund left to her great grandchildren - all ten of them not just HM's chldren but Princess Margaret's too.

It says she put 2/3rds of her fortune into a trust fund for them in 1993 when the tax situation became unavoidable.

It also says she left £70 million free of tax (anyone leaving over £250,000 has to pay tax on it)

Quote
Under a 1993 agreement with John Major's Conservative government, the Queen will pay no inheritance tax on her mother's estimated £70m fortune.

So by a rough calculation 2/3rds is approx £46 million - divided by 10 is a very nice £4.6 million each for the W&H, Zara and Peter, Bea and Eugenie, Lady Louise and James and the Linleys - David and Sarah.

As that will have increased through investment each appears to be sitting on a tidy sum and none of them has any need of any public funding.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1974678.stm

It's sounding to me that all the time, the money always goes back to the RF. As for the upkeep, I wonder just how much these palaces cost to actually maintain. Barely anything is paid to staff of these palaces and apparently they are hardly maintained in any modern manner, so where is it all going?


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: YooperModerator on September 30, 2012, 10:57:48 pm
@ leila: Ok so that would make it 5.75 M£ per head :tehe: (calculator told me so)
That was ten years ago, so keeping in mind the economy..
My guess is that roughly at the moment it's about 10M or perhaps 12M per kid just from QM
Add to that Diana's money and the Wales brothers seem to be rather comfy in the financial part..
It was a smart move to set that money into trust funds that way it couldn't be used to settle her debts 'cause that lady sure knew how to live well!
Now I can see how someone can have a multimillion fortune and still be short on cash 8)

But we are drifting..
Oh BTW TB the reason I give the websites as a source is simple: it's the only decent one I can find from behind my PC in Belgium.
I never said it was an objective or even a complete source  ;)
Heck most ppl don't even know what the duchy's are never mind having an good idea of the funds they move/make, for an outsider it's just too complicated/time consuming to find decent info on these constructs (which is what they are counting on of course)
But I fear that the 'mystery shroud' attitude might come back to bite them in the *rse sooner or later.
I mean it's the same thing as with the midd's business why hide it, if everything is done correct there's no need to hide it.

KF methinks some of it might be going to the Alps or the Caribbean or perhaps South of France?


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Kuei Fei on September 30, 2012, 11:19:49 pm
Quote
the Alps or the Caribbean or perhaps South of France?

Sooner or later I am certain that someone is going to find out; if Charles has been moving his money overseas to overseas accounts, I am certain that there would be a huge uproar since after all, it is certain that this time he would be caught out shirking his tax duties all the while pushing for more of a say in British affairs.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: YooperModerator on September 30, 2012, 11:47:39 pm
you know...
Sometimes I think Charles senses/knows the end of the system is drawing nearer, like a dog can sense the storm before it happens.
And that why he's twisting, turning and moving stuff now he still can, making sure his family is financially safe when it all comes crashing down.
He knows that as king he won't be this flexible or unwatched so he acts while he still can.
The titanic is still sailing but i think he sees the iceberg ahead.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Snokitty on September 30, 2012, 11:51:37 pm
I think you are right but I think his family is more than financially secure right now.

I have wondered many times whether or not Charles will be allowed to be King or if the Monarchy will be able to survive with him as King but between the two of them Charles would be better than William.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: YooperModerator on October 01, 2012, 12:12:12 am
Ah who was it again that said 'you can never be to thin or to rich'? 8)


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: memyselfandroyals on October 01, 2012, 12:24:04 am
Quote
The titanic is still sailing but i think he sees the iceberg ahead.

how poetic!!  :BFF:


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Snokitty on October 01, 2012, 12:25:40 am
@ akasha  I don't remember but I think they were wrong.   ???

If you get to thin you are taking a chance of dying and if you get to rich you can't really trust anyone because they will be wanting your riches even if they have to kill you to get it.   :laugh:


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 01, 2012, 02:37:42 am
you know...
Sometimes I think Charles senses/knows the end of the system is drawing nearer, like a dog can sense the storm before it happens.
And that why he's twisting, turning and moving stuff now he still can, making sure his family is financially safe when it all comes crashing down.
He knows that as king he won't be this flexible or unwatched so he acts while he still can.
The titanic is still sailing but i think he sees the iceberg ahead.

I believe you're right mainly because there is realistically no way that a collapse is avoidable.


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: fyeah_harryshotabs on October 01, 2012, 02:47:35 am
No wonder Linley can afford to buy a luxury villa in France :-


Title: Re: Campaign to abolish the Duchy of Cornwall to launched on September 29th
Post by: True Brit on October 01, 2012, 09:40:54 am
you know...
Sometimes I think Charles senses/knows the end of the system is drawing nearer, like a dog can sense the storm before it happens.
And that why he's twisting, turning and moving stuff now he still can, making sure his family is financially safe when it all comes crashing down.
He knows that as king he won't be this flexible or unwatched so he acts while he still can.
The titanic is still sailing but i think he sees the iceberg ahead.

^   :worship: Completely agree Akasha he's grabbing it while he can and I belive this is why he has pushed for a percentage of the Crown Estates. Charles has always believed these are his family's private property although they were handed over to the Govt 300 years ago. They do renew the arrangement with each new Sovereign but it's merely a procedure and as we have no written constiution everything is based on statute and to a large degree - custom and practice.

The constitutional experts will argue it all but there is an important legal precedent concerning the exiled King Constantine of Greece who now lives in London. He tried to claim back what was his family's former summer palace which is situated north of Athens. It went all the way to the Strasbourg Courts of Human Rights but they ruled he no longer had any claim over it.

The Greek Govt did pay some 10% of its value in compensation although the value was that of a ruined estate. By a quirk of fate the palace has now been put up for sale by the Greek Govt as they attempt to reduce their debts. He could buy it back from them. Who knows?

BTW Found a bit more re the QM's legacy:

Quote
In 1994, the Queen Mother reportedly put aside two-thirds of her money into a trust fund for her great grandchildren.
Princes William and Harry will reportedly share about £14m from the estate of their late great grandmother.
St James's Palace could be let to Crown bodies for functions
The bulk of the cash will go to the younger brother, since William will benefit financially by becoming king.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1993665.stm




Title: £1m from those who die without wills passes to Prince Charles's estate
Post by: rogue on October 03, 2012, 08:30:05 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/9583920/1m-from-those-who-die-without-wills-passes-to-Prince-Charless-estate.html

Quote
Under powers dating back to medieval times, the Duchy is entitled to all unclaimed property and estates left when someone dies in Cornwall, in an arrangement known as bona vacantia.
In the last financial year alone, £552,000 passed to the Duchy under the ancient law, which was put in place when the Duchy was created by Edward III in 1337 for his son and heir, Edward, the Black Prince.



Title: Re: £1m from those who die without wills passes to Prince Charles's estate
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 03, 2012, 08:53:28 pm
Obscene.


Title: Re: £1m from those who die without wills passes to Prince Charles's estate
Post by: Spice on October 03, 2012, 09:44:34 pm
^Totally.

There's some further reading about bona vacantia here:
http://www.republic.org.uk/What%20we%20want/In%20depth/Bona%20Vacantia/index.php


Title: Re: £1m from those who die without wills passes to Prince Charles's estate
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 03, 2012, 10:44:54 pm
That is ridiculous. Completely ridiculous; he hardly needs the money and I think there is some chicanery going on.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: meememe on October 03, 2012, 11:49:45 pm
And what has Charles been doing with this money for the last 40 years?

He has given it to charity in Cornwall - as has been known also for years.If

There is no chicanery just the law - an ancient law but still the law.

The same right exists for the Queen in relation to the Duchy of Lancaster lands - she gets personally all intestate estates - but it isn't known what she does with that money.

Elsewhere in the UK the money goes to the government to spend on whatever it wants.  If the person is in Cornwall the money stays in Cornwall because that is what Charles wanted to have happen 40 years ago so it helps the people of Cornwall.  If the law is changed the money will go whereever the government decides and that probably won't be all to Cornwall.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 03, 2012, 11:53:38 pm
It doesn't really matter who is getting the money or if the Duchy of Lancaster is also doing it. IMO that does not make it right everything should go to the closest relative.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: YooperModerator on October 04, 2012, 03:12:48 am
and what if there are none?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 03:18:32 am
If there are none then it should revert to the elected government thereby giving the benefit to the people.

Charles always acts so charitable (and he does do many charitable things) but he wants credit for all of it and that is just not the facts. He should take his share of the credit and give others their share of the credit. Just my opinion though and I can't change any of it but I do donate to causes that want to change it.   :tehe:

I also believe the Duchy monies belong to the people.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: YooperModerator on October 04, 2012, 03:38:16 am
but as mememe said this way the money flows back to locals rather then the big national pot who would spend it on god knows what.

I disagree with your last statement.
If it weren't for the duchy Charles wouldn't have an income since being in his position virtually forbid him from getting a regular 9/5 job:
He can't work for the gov because that would be to political,
It would be frowned upon if he started to work in the private sector as well claims of 'gaining favour' would be made sooner or later.
The military isn't really good either, look at what William is doing or rather isn't.
If he did what he's doing now with getting a substitute pay from the gov in stead of the duchy income ppl would moan even more about how much he is costing the taxpayers!
And you honestly can't expect a grown man to live of his parents for half his life?

So if the duchy income belongs to the ppl
Who's gonna pay for Charles and his family?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 03:49:18 am
The Duchy of Lancaster brings in enough to support them. The communities pay for their visits so it is basically just their living that would have to be supplied. I would not consider that living off of his parents because I think considering how the Duchies came into existence they don't really deserve them more than the people do.

The objective of the Duchy is more about providing wealth than providing necessities. Should the tax payers give up the money so one man can obtain great wealth because he was born into a certain family first?

I am interested in the personalities that make up the worlds Monarchies but at heart I am a republican. I find it rather silly for a nation of people to support one family because they were born to a certain person. It resembles benefits to me but they are excessive benefits.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: YooperModerator on October 04, 2012, 04:09:38 am
I see your point from a logical POV as a person I believe all people are equal and I wouldn't bow to anyone or give automatic respect (it has to be earned)
But for some reason my system is soo used to the wealthy royal and aristo class I find it hard to agree with you :laugh:

I know this makes no sense but there you have it. :- :tehe:

It's one of the reasons I find American high society so fascinating they removed nearly all traces of this 'old European wealthy bloodlines' class.
 


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 04:28:12 am
I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. We all have different experiences that we draw from to form our opinions.

As people we are all equal IMO money and class doesn't make you a better person. I have seen some real lowlifes that have money but I have met some really genuine goodness in some wealthy people also.

 


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: YooperModerator on October 04, 2012, 04:48:21 am
 :thumbsup: that I can agree to, money is no indicator for behaviour or morals.

I think personally that I'm mostly in awe with the history and the power struggles that is connected to these old bloodlines not the wealth that much.
But then again as I said before I like pretty things with a good story connected to it  (art, jewels, houses) and these ppl seem to have a lot of those.
i think that's why I like royals so much they have history running trough their veins even if they don't want to acknowledge it (like william) or turn it into a farce (like harry)


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 04:57:32 am
I love the history of the Monarchies also and not just the BRF. I also find it fascinating how they could fool so many through history yet some people finally stood up and took their rights back and others got some rights but chose to still support them.   ???

They do have some very interesting ancestors though and they also have quite a few crazy ones.    :tehe:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kettlefish on October 04, 2012, 04:59:31 am
Charles inherited the Duchy as a birthright, it is an entailed private estate.  It is his.  Just like Henry Percy inherited his and any other person in GB who inherited an estate as a birthright.  It sucks,  but thats the way it is.  If people want a birthright removed from one aristo then where do you stop?  Do you insist on other aristos give up their inheritance??  


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 05:08:49 am
Most of the nobles got their estates by providing services to the crown or buying it. They didn't just murder the inhabitants and then take the land or steal the land from monasteries etc.

The crown estates were given away so the people could take care of the responsibilities of the crown yet the crown was still allowed to receive the benefits. Benefits and no responsibilities Hmmm that sounds like W&K.

If they want all the benefits of being the crown then IMO they can have the responsibilities also. This is not the 13th or 14 etc century.

I don't base my opinions on outdated documents but I base it on what I think is right. I think it is wrong for the people of the country to have to take care of a certain family just because they were born.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: meememe on October 04, 2012, 06:03:53 am
Most nobles got their lands by providing services to the monarch - true - but what were those services - killing the locals and running the local area for the monarch and so they were rewarded with their lands for their services to the monarch.  The monarchs didn't do the actual killing but left that to their underlings whose descendents are now the older noble families.

The Crown Estates are worth over 300 million pounds to the government and the monarch gets 15% back.  That 15% is used to carry out the official duties of the monarchy e.g. pay for state visits etc as well as the upkeep of the royal palaces (but it is way behind on that schedule as they aren't getting enough money to keep up the maintenance).  The bulk of the Crown Estates is used by the government for its own purposes e.g. running the country.

The Duchies are to give them a private income so they can live in a manner befitting their position.  The Duchies are not part of the Crown Estates.

The Duchy of Lancaster currently supports all of the royal family except the Wales and Cambridges.

As the situation is currently with intestate people in the Duchy of Cornwall because Charles give that money to charity in the Duchy Cornwall that money stays in the Duchy rather than have the government spend it on people anywhere it likes - this means that local money stays local rather than leaves the local area because someone forgot to leave a will and has no living relatives who could make a claim on the estate.

Take away the Duchies and you can't logically take away one and not the other then the governmen would have to pay a salary to the Head of State but also couldn't complain when the rest of the family do other things such as stand for election to parliament, openly criticise the government, not turn up to state occasions etc etc as they would have to have a real job.



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 06:16:55 am
I have said it before but I shall repeat it. I don't care if the rest of them get outside jobs. Beatrice and Eugenie are royals and they are getting outside jobs and the world did not come to an end because of it.

If the Nobles didn't do as they were told by the King then their own lives would have been forfeit, it is called survival. It was also during a time where life wasn't as important to people as it is now. The Nobles did earn the land given to them by the Crown by rendering a service. If you feel they should abolish the entire class system then I can go along with that. Take it all back and use it only for the people.   :tehe:

Some want to live in the past and some look towards the future. The money will not be removed locally because the business etc. will remain where they are.

I understand why they put out all this PR to hold onto the lifestyles that they have now but that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

You can logically take one away without the other because there is only one Head of State and they can all live off of the proceeds from one. Then Charles would have to do as he is told and keep his mouth shut.   :-X


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on October 04, 2012, 06:41:09 am
but as mememe said this way the money flows back to locals rather then the big national pot who would spend it on god knows what.

I disagree with your last statement.
If it weren't for the duchy Charles wouldn't have an income since being in his position virtually forbid him from getting a regular 9/5 job:
He can't work for the gov because that would be to political,
It would be frowned upon if he started to work in the private sector as well claims of 'gaining favour' would be made sooner or later.
The military isn't really good either, look at what William is doing or rather isn't.
If he did what he's doing now with getting a substitute pay from the gov in stead of the duchy income ppl would moan even more about how much he is costing the taxpayers!
And you honestly can't expect a grown man to live of his parents for half his life?

So if the duchy income belongs to the ppl
Who's gonna pay for Charles and his family?

Charles has had the Civil List payments and the RF charges their travel/wardrobe expenses to the Foreign Office; second, Charles has income from private investments, as does the entire RF on the side. The Queen Mother had quite a lot of money to give to her grandchildren and I don't think that he needs so many castles, palaces, etc. since after all, Buckingham, Sandringham, Kensington, Windsor can easily provide space if he needs it so much. If he got rid of Highgrove and got rid of several other manors I am certain that he could end up with more than enough sliced off. As for staff, it's not like the RF pays them much anyway.

I don't care wherever someone is born, life isn't fair, never has been, but Charles needs to cut back on his real estate, land holdings, and frankly I don't care about the class system since class will never really go away anyhow.

Quote
And what has Charles been doing with this money for the last 40 years?

*Supporting himself in lavish style
*Using it as an experimental ground for his farming theories
*Supporting his ex-wife in lavish style
*Supporting his sons in lavish style
*Supporting his mistress (now his new wife) in lavish style

All the while, he plays at being poor and penniless and is now apparently getting money/goods/property from people who don't have wills drawn up after they die. It might be a law, but it looks to me like the entire RF is grubbing for all they can get out of the citizenry. In a while they will be getting the Crown Estates and then he will ahve that to play with and end up enjoying the whole income from the Duchies and Estates.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on October 04, 2012, 11:42:46 am
Once again the misleading yarn is being peddled of the Duchy of Cornwall (and Lancaster) being the personal property of Prince Charles. It is not.

It is a constitutional arrangement dating from the middle ages whereby the Duchy provides an income for the heir to the throne but only if that heir is the Prince of Wales.

If there is no Prince of Wales and that has happened a few times the income from the Duchy reverts to the Treasury. If there were no monarchy (i.e Republic) neither PC nor HM would be able to gallop off into the sunset with theses estates.

If it is PC's personal property how is it that he canot sell any of the assets? Or he has to supply the Public Accounts Committee with the accounts?

Neither the Duke of Northumberland nor Devonshire nor any other aristos who truly own their private estates have to do any of this and neither do they get tax breaks like the Duchy of Cornwall which does not pay corporation or capital gains tax and PC himself makes an offer on his tax. The Queen does not pay death duties - it was this that crippled most of the old grand estates after World War 1.

The Duke of Devonshire has just trotted down to Southebys again with a Titian drawing to raise a few million to carry on their work on Chatsworth.

All they own is Sandringham and Balmoral however there some interesting details in Hansard from the 1830/40s which shows that public money even found its way into those.

As for Bon Vacantia I should bloody well think they have paid the deceased money into something more worthy than their bank accounts.Charles may have given it up a few decades ago but everyone living on both Duchies throughout WW1 and WW2 who died intestate had their estates paid into both Duchies - how many people died in the 20th century? Further they were not paying any tax on these amounts so it was a double bonus.

I urge everyone to take a look at the following link. You can download and save it as apdf if you haven't time right now.
All 55 pages whereby the the Public Accounts Committee really put both Duchies on the spot - Cornwall more than Lancaster. You will see that PC runs his "own private fiefdom" and states it is a public estate when it suits them and a private one when they try to avoid such as FOI.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmpubacc/313/313.pdf


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 01:33:04 pm
The Law of the Land should be followed.

Quote
In Britain, dying without a will, known as ‘dying intestate’, means money left by the deceased goes to the Government.

But in Cornwall, their property passes to Prince Charles in what critics say amounts to the Royal overseeing a secret fiefdom.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2212319/Prince-Charles-earns-1m-estates-people-dying-just-years-thanks-medieval-law.html

Quote
The powers date back to the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall estate in 1337 by King Edward III. The estate was created to provide an income for the King's son and heir, Prince Edward, otherwise known as The Black Prince, who became the first Duke of Cornwall.

Following Medieval Laws to Hold onto Profit is wrong in my Opinion. This is 2012 and everything should be updated.
Quote
The money received through the law is donated to a selection of charities through the Duke of Cornwall's Benevolent Fund, minus an amount for "ex gratia payments and other associated costs" – which accounted for £86,000 last year.

The Benevolent Fund received £450,000 last year, while £154,000 was held back to meet the cost of any future claims on currently unclaimed properties.

Not quite using it all for charity but uses some to make sure he gets more.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/how-princes-duchy-estate-is-paid-a-packet-by-cornwalls-dead-8196546.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 02:05:48 pm
True Brit   :thankyou:  for the article. It is filled with a lot of interesting things that I was unaware of. It shows there is a need for the Duchy of Cornwall and Charles's dealings need to be investigated thoroughly.

He doesn't even own Highgrove. He went through let's call them back channels to acquire it.

Everyone should read the article you posted it would teach them a lot.   :thankyou:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on October 04, 2012, 02:43:32 pm
 :thankyou: Snokitty re Highgrove he bought this using Duchy funds so it belongs to the Duchy but they claim in the PAC minutes that PC "pays the market rate" for the rental - however the Duchy won't say how they set the market rate for a start and in any case the rental goes into the Duchy profits which in turn go back to PC so he is in effect paying his rent on one hand and getting it back again.

Thre as similar sleight of hand when he grew some trees as Charles Windsor Esquire on Duchy owned land using EU grants and then when the trees grew they were flle and sold back to the Duchy i.e. he was selling them to himself.

If Parliament decided to abolish both duchies (but still retain the monarchy) they would be able to do so.

The PAC pdf  attached in my last post is the one I keep intending to take apart for forum members to read in sections so they can see just what is going on there. Which ever way you cut it this is public money.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 02:51:48 pm
You are welcome True Brit.

It says he pays £336,000 a year as rent for Highgrove and to me it seems like it would be more when you consider the property and all the improvements.

He also makes more than the Monarch but she supports more royal family members. The Queen also doesn't have anything to do with the running of the Duchy but Charles has his hand in all aspects of the Duchy of Cornwall including appointing the people who oversee it.

It just all seems so shady.  


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: meememe on October 04, 2012, 10:40:38 pm
The Law of the Land should be followed.

Charles is following 'the law of the land' - that law is that anyone dying intestate in the Duchy means the money goes to the Duchy - that is the law and Charles is following that law.


Quote
In Britain, dying without a will, known as ‘dying intestate’, means money left by the deceased goes to the Government.

But in Cornwall, their property passes to Prince Charles in what critics say amounts to the Royal overseeing a secret fiefdom.

Perfectly legal.


Quote
The powers date back to the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall estate in 1337 by King Edward III. The estate was created to provide an income for the King's son and heir, Prince Edward, otherwise known as The Black Prince, who became the first Duke of Cornwall.

Quote
Following Medieval Laws to Hold onto Profit is wrong in my Opinion. This is 2012 and everything should be updated.

You are entitled to your opinion of course but please don't try to make out that Charles is breaking the law by having these monies paid to him when he is in fact following the law.

Quote
The money received through the law is donated to a selection of charities through the Duke of Cornwall's Benevolent Fund, minus an amount for "ex gratia payments and other associated costs" – which accounted for £86,000 last year.

The Benevolent Fund received £450,000 last year, while £154,000 was held back to meet the cost of any future claims on currently unclaimed properties.

Quote
Not quite using it all for charity but uses some to make sure he gets more.

You did read the latter part of the quote I assume.

....to meet the cost of any future claims on currently unclaimed properties.


That means that some of the money is kept aside in case a claimant comes forward in the future and can prove that they are entitled to the money.  If they didn't have that reserve they would have to find the money from some other source if a claimant comes forward.  This is simply a sensible business practice.



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: meememe on October 04, 2012, 10:58:55 pm

=Charles has had the Civil List payments

Charles has never been on the Civil List for the simple reason that as Duke of Cornwall he has always had an independent income.


Quote
and the RF charges their travel/wardrobe expenses to the Foreign Office;

Only when they were sent on behalf of the Foreign Office - so their employer for the trip picked up their expenses - my employer pays my expenses when I have to go somewhere for work - doesn't yours?

Quote
second, Charles has income from private investments, as does the entire RF on the side.

Sure he has but that doesn't mean that he should have to support himself and work for the government and people at the same time with no income or support from them - it is more than 100 years since the idea of people having to work for the government unpaid went out the window when the British starting paying their MPs -

Quote
The Queen Mother had quite a lot of money to give to her grandchildren

We actually don't know how much money she had but we do know that to avoid tax she left the bulk of her estate to The Queen - no death duties on monarch to monarch inheritance but there are death duties on anything she left to anyone else including Charles and as he is the future King past examples would suggest that he would have received the smallest amount considering he will get the largest amount in the end

Quote
and I don't think that he needs so many castles, palaces, etc. since after all, Buckingham, Sandringham, Kensington, Windsor can easily provide space if he needs it so much. If he got rid of Highgrove

Can't sell Highgrove as it the way it was purchased it is now part of the assets of the Duchy of Cornwall and so can't be sold - the Duke of Cornwall can't sell any of the assets - he lives on the income alone

Quote
and got rid of several other manors I am certain that he could end up with more than enough sliced off.
 

Most of the other houses he uses are actually part of larger estates which he doesn't own e.g. Birkhall is part of the Balmoral estate and that belongs to The Queen.l  We are assuming that she will leave Balmoral to Charles but like Sandringham it is a personal possession so it is possible she could leave it to any of her children or grandchildren and not to Charles at all.

Quote
As for staff, it's not like the RF pays them much anyway.
 

But theyy do get paid more than the handouts from the government so they are better off with a job than unemployed.  From personal knowledge of people who have worked for the RF the money isn't good but having BP on the CV does open doors to much better paid jobs later on - a small sacrifice now for a bigger return later.

Quote
I don't care wherever someone is born, life isn't fair, never has been, but Charles needs to cut back on his real estate, land holdings, and frankly I don't care about the class system since class will never really go away anyhow.

You do understand that a large amount of the real estate is part of the Duchy and so can't be sold - it is his whether he wants it or not.  

Quote
And what has Charles been doing with this money for the last 40 years?

*Supporting himself in lavish style
*Using it as an experimental ground for his farming theories
*Supporting his ex-wife in lavish style
*Supporting his sons in lavish style
*Supporting his mistress (now his new wife) in lavish style

He is a rich man living as a rich man - don't most rich men support their families in lavish styles.  Hardly a crime

Quote
All the while, he plays at being poor and penniless and is now apparently getting money/goods/property from people who don't have wills drawn up after they die. It might be a law, but it looks to me like the entire RF is grubbing for all they can get out of the citizenry. In a while they will be getting the Crown Estates and then he will ahve that to play with and end up enjoying the whole income from the Duchies and Estates.

Charles is abiding by the law - this isn't something new that he is doing with the estates but something that has been happening since the middle ages - and what does he do with this money - keep it - no - he puts it back into the Duchy - hardly 'moneygrubbing' but returning it the best, legal way he can.  If he does lose this right then the government will use it for who knows what purpose but most likely not back into the Duchy from which it came.

The Royal Family will NOT be getting the Crown Estates - they will be getting 15% of the income of the Crown Estates which will amount to around 30 million pounds and there is a cap in there as well to limit it to about that amount.  Guess what they get from the Civil List (The Queen and Philip - the only two on the Civil List), Grants-in-Aid (for the maintenance of the palaces) and other sources - about 30 million pounds.  They won't be getting an increase with the change in the funding but the Queen will have more control over how the money is spent - so rather than having to spend xxxxx pounds on maintenance at Windsor she can decide to spend yyyy on Windsor and up to zzzz on BP because it is in more need - or some other need.  She will still have to pay her official staff - the ones like her secretaries who communicate with the government, and the cost of State Visits etc from that money.  This money is simply the money needed to run the office of the Head of State and the maintenance of the government owned royal palaces.



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on October 04, 2012, 11:00:53 pm
The law of the land is that the state gets the property. The laws for the Duchy are different from the laws that everyone else has to follow.

Just because something is legal does not make it right. There are many laws still on the books that allow a man to beat his wife, I guess you approve of those laws also. Most laws are never removed just updated to match the times so to speak and that is what needs to be done with the Duchy of Cornwall.

I didn't make out like Charles was doing anything I said medieval laws should be updated IMO. Get over it MMM I do have a right to my opinion just because it doesn't match your book doesn't mean I don't have that right.

Quote
You did read the latter part of the quote I assume.

....to meet the cost of any future claims on currently unclaimed properties.

Yes I did read the latter part and what it says is this
Quote
The Benevolent Fund received £450,000 last year, while £154,000 was held back to meet the cost of any future claims on currently unclaimed properties.
Which means he keeps part of the money to make sure he continues to get more of the people's properties. Why would he need the extra money and do the right thing by giving it to people who have a claim to the property. It clearly states that all properties where no will is left goes to the Duchy. If there is no will left it automatically goes to the Duchy. The people would have no chance against  the Duchy because apparently Charles sets money aside to make sure he gets to keep the land.

This is not a classroom and you are not my teacher MMM I can read and comprehend what I read. I also do not have such a hard on for Prince Charles that it blinds my judgement in everything about him.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on April 04, 2013, 04:20:26 pm
A Cornish peer wants the Duchy of Cornwall to pay its income over to the Cornish people and the people of the Scillies instead of paying it to Charles. The Duchy refuses to comment - well they won't. He is introducing a Private Members Bill but I suspect it will probably fail.

Still interesting way to keep the debate going.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-22012547


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on April 04, 2013, 05:52:26 pm
 :laugh:  I agree it will probably fail but it will be a thorn in Charles's side and make people start thinking about all that money and all the places it would be better to spend it.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Fly on the wall on April 23, 2013, 04:16:19 am
Give Charles’s Duchy money to Cornwall’s serfs’

A LABOUR peer is demanding Prince Charles hand over the vast wealth of the Duchy of Cornwall to the county’s residents.

Lord Berkeley has tabled a Private Members’ Bill calling for radical change to the estate, which provides Prince Charles with his income.

He wants to see all money generated go to local people and not the heir to the throne.

One of the largest private estates in Britain, the Duchy owns more than 120,000 acres of land, including two per cent of Cornwall and most of the Scilly Isles.

What we need is a dialogue about the Duchy because it is not transparent enough. It acts as if it is above the law.
Lord Berkeley
Created in 1337 by Edward III for his heir, Prince Edward, the Duchy’s assets are placed in trust for the benefit of present and future Dukes of Cornwall, the title also held by the Prince of Wales.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/390043/Give-Charles-s-Duchy-money-to-Cornwall-s-serfs


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on April 23, 2013, 05:38:52 am
^Why not give a little back? The royals are always bugging people for funding for their charities and pestering the rich to sponsor their events to raise funds. Second, Charles has become such a pious little hypocrite he has a lot of nerve grubbing for money via commercial enterprises (selling green/farmland to companies who turn the areas into one big giant parking lot and commercial buildings) and also charging large rents to his tenants. He has more than enough in his checkbook for now. Second, his tours are funded by the foreign office and his security is funded by the taxpayers so he hardly has ongoing expenses that he has to be thrifty to meet.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on April 23, 2013, 12:57:21 pm
William should be ready for not receiving Duchy monies then because if there is a change it will be around the time of transition.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Tatiana on April 24, 2013, 03:52:32 am
^Why not give a little back? The royals are always bugging people for funding for their charities and pestering the rich to sponsor their events to raise funds. Second, Charles has become such a pious little hypocrite he has a lot of nerve grubbing for money via commercial enterprises (selling green/farmland to companies who turn the areas into one big giant parking lot and commercial buildings) and also charging large rents to his tenants. He has more than enough in his checkbook for now. Second, his tours are funded by the foreign office and his security is funded by the taxpayers so he hardly has ongoing expenses that he has to be thrifty to meet.

   :thumbsup:

   Many people are questioning this, and yes,  I believe public pressure will set in motion some rather different royal financial rights.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on April 24, 2013, 04:08:27 pm
 ^ I think so too - the Duchy is becoming far too controversial for its own good and seems to have embarked upon a pretty aggressive money making path. It's almost as if they are making hay while the sun shines as they know that when HM goes everything could and probably will change and not to their benefit.

The story below shows how they were trying to create an activity centre on an area of Dartmoor known for its wildlife.

The good news is a pair of breeding Peregrine Falcons managed to see them orf!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/393473/Prince-Charles-s-activity-centre-nest-egg-ruined-by-rare-peregrine-falcon


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Fly on the wall on May 02, 2013, 02:35:52 pm
Prince Charles slammed for using £3.3 million feudal cash to fund his own charities

PRINCE Charles has sparked criticism after using his feudal entitlement to £3.3m of the unclaimed legacies of people who die without wills to fund his own charities.



The royal, whose title already lands him an £18m private annual income, also used the money to support his old Scottish private school.

His title as Duke of Cornwall means he becomes the owner of the assets of anyone living in the county who dies "intestate".

Last year this entitlement provided him with more than £450,000 and he is sitting on £3.3m in cash from years of collecting Cornish legacies, according to latest accounts seen by the Guardian.

In 2012 the benevolent fund he set up to use the money made its biggest grant of £20,000 to Charles’s charity Business in the Community, whose supporters include some of the biggest companies in Britain.

Another of its largest grants was of £5,000 to Gordonstoun, the Scottish public school, which Charles attended in 1962 and reportedly hated, and where a place now costs £30,000 a year.

The money was also provided to support bursaries for Cornish children who otherwise would not be able to afford the fees.

A total of £1,000 went to his London-based Prince’s Foundation for Building Communities, which backs the prince’s controversial ideas about architecture and planning.

The donations provided by deceased people in Cornwall have drawn particular criticism in Cornwall, where there were calls for the inheritances to be channelled into the public purse as they are in the rest of England.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/396491/Prince-Charles-slammed-for-using-3-3-million-feudal-cash-to-fund-his-own-charities


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on May 02, 2013, 05:09:37 pm
The Guardian has this story too-

Quote
Charles has also been criticised for only distributing £100,000 – less than a quarter of the assets received from the deceased last year.

"Many people will be shocked to learn that Charles receives money from the dead, but we were always told that it went to charity," said Graham Smith, director of Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state. "Now we see that only a tiny proportion actually goes to good causes. Charles is sitting on those funds when they could be supporting the vital work of charities, many of whom are really struggling at the moment. The trust has only negligible costs and doesn't deliver any services so there's no reason why that money can't be used by voluntary and community organisations right now."

The Charity Commission's guidance on reserves states it will stage "regulatory intervention" if a charity's reserves are excessive. "While the funds remain in the trustees' hands, the charity's current users or beneficiaries – actual or potential – are not being as well served as they could be," it warns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/may/01/prince-charles-intestate-cash-cornwall

The Duchy of Lancaster used to have this right too but I am not sure what happened to it as there was a story I read that HM had relinquished it.


Title: Charles gets 3 million a year .. from Dead People ..
Post by: Tatiana on May 03, 2013, 02:37:44 am
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2318064/Prince-Charles-criticised-using-3million-feudal-cash-fund-charities.html


Title: Re: Charles gets 3 million a year .. from Dead People ..
Post by: CathyJane on May 03, 2013, 03:21:43 am
Must be nice. not


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on June 15, 2013, 12:27:39 am
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-prince-charless-secret-property-deals--including-a-38-million-industrial-carbuncle-8659596.html
Quote


Prince Charles, renowned for his aversion to “monstrous carbuncle” buildings, has spent £38m on an industrial depot in Milton Keynes as part of a £102m series of confidential property deals, The Independent can reveal. The purchase of the vast supermarket warehouse through his estate – one of the single largest  acquisitions by the Duchy of Cornwall in its 670-year history – was  completed 18 months ago but the Prince’s officials had sought to keep it private.

A recent judicial ruling declared the Duchy to be a “public body” potentially liable to freedom of information rules.

But Clarence House has repeatedly refused to disclose any details of the expensive acquisition due to what the Prince’s officials said was the Duchy’s “private” status.

The Prince bought the sprawling grey warehouse complex in Milton Keynes from an Anglo-Indian property fund, The Independent has established. His tenants are Waitrose, who are using the depot as a lorry distribution hub. The deal offers a glimpse into the hard-nosed business ethos of the Duchy, established in the 14th century to provide an income for the Prince of Wales and his heirs, as well as the multiple layers of confidentiality and opaque procedure that govern the Prince’s commercial dealings.

I guess Charles is going to continue being a hypocrite the rest of his life. He has not changed at all.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Anne-Elliot on June 15, 2013, 08:36:44 am
Quote
The depot, built in 1993 to withstand 20 million lorry journeys over its lifetime, sits awkwardly with the heir to the throne’s well-publicised love of traditional architecture along with his emphasis on rural life and environmental sustainability.

The purchase of the 396,000 sq ft warehouse is not the first link between Charles and the John Lewis Partnership supermarket. A previous deal between the Duchy and Waitrose in 2009 saw it take over the once-troubled Duchy Originals organic food brand, which now generates more than £1m a year for the prince’s charities.

When The Independent yesterday approached Clarence House with evidence of the warehouse purchase, it insisted there was no connection with the Duchy Originals tie-up, adding it was a “coincidence” that Waitrose was the tenant of the industrial complex.

Good work by The Independent.  The MPs will eventually grind PC down.



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on June 24, 2013, 10:01:21 pm
Peter Hunt ‏@BBCPeterHunt 4h
Quote
Prince Charles' senior aide, William Nye, will give evidence to the Commons Public Accounts Committee about the Duchy of Cornwall on July 15


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on June 25, 2013, 08:28:17 pm
Peter Hunt ‏@BBCPeterHunt 24 Jun
Also giving evidence on July 15 will be the Duchy of Cornwall's Finance Director Keith Willis and Paula Diggle from the Treasury.

Peter Hunt ‏@BBCPeterHunt 10h
When Prince Charles' senior official appears before MPs next month, initial questions will focus on tax status of Duchy of Cornwall.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on June 28, 2013, 10:26:52 pm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10148901/Prince-Charless-duchy-taxes-questioned-by-MPs.html
Quote
His representatives have been called before the Commons public accounts committee to answer questions about the Duchy of Cornwall’s tax arrangements.

The vast majority of the Prince’s £20 million annual income is generated by the duchy, which owns agricultural, commercial and residential property, predominantly in the South West. But the estate does not pay corporation tax on profits from its rents and commercial activity.

Instead the Prince has chosen to pay income tax on the income generated by the Duchy at the highest rate of 50 per cent, after his official expenses and costs have been taken into account.

Last year his tax bill came to £4.4 million, down slightly on the previous year.

Margaret Hodge, the chairman of the MPs’ committee, said today: “Several members of the public have raised with us their concerns that the Duchy of Cornwall may be engaged in tax avoidance on the basis that it does not pay corporation tax. This is a serious and legitimate question, particularly in the current climate, and one that we are keen to put to representatives of the Duchy.”


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on June 29, 2013, 03:37:33 am
He's only paying a sixth of what he makes!


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Fly on the wall on July 01, 2013, 04:56:19 am
Prince Charles accused of rent rip-off: Peer demands action over tenants council rate


A LABOUR peer is calling for an urgent investigation into Duchy of Cornwall rents, accusing Prince Charles of ripping off his tenants.

Lord Berkeley is demanding an independent review of the Duchy's housing policy after it emerged the estate, which provides the Prince with a multi-million pound income, is sometimes charging almost double what council tenants pay.

Charles prides himself on the principle that the Duchy offers accommodation for "local people at local prices".

However, the latest figures from the Council of the Isles of Scilly, where the Duchy has 700 tenancies, show that his tenants are charged an average of £130 a week, compared to £70 for council tenants and £100 for those in housing association accommodation.

The statistics come from Richard McCarthy, chairman of the Community Housing Association and secretary of the Duchy Tenants Association

http://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/411387/Prince-Charles-accused-of-rent-rip-off-Peer-demands-action-over-tenants-council-rate



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Tatiana on July 01, 2013, 05:02:16 am
He's only paying a sixth of what he makes!

  alas it's even worse than that .. smoke and mirrors .. and lawyers,  accountants ... and various brownnosers in the govt


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 01, 2013, 10:34:15 am
I posted this on another thread but it's worth adding here.

Quote
Quote
Quote from: meememe on June 30, 2013, 04:08:21 am
Charles was paying tax long before 1992 - he was paying 50% before marrying Diana and dropped it to 25% to cover her expenses when he married her.

Now this is technically correct he claimed he was paying 50% but as there was some serious under-declaring of the Duchy's profits going on they were getting away with as little as possible and when PC was allowed to reduce his tax bill to 25% on his marriage to Diana they were laughing all the way to the bank. 1993 was the year when John Major said it couldn't carry on. Charles was claiming Crown Immunity and yet was not in possession of the Crown.

This is from Professor Hall's 1996 book on the royal finances and he had a devil of a job unearthing most of the information due to documents suddenly not being available or moved; no-one willing to confirm even the smallest fact in short he was stonewalled but still managed to extract a lot of information. He is still around and I have often wondered if he has plans to update this book - Royal Fortune. You can get old copies on Amazon and it's a very interesting read for anyone who's interested.

(Italicised comments are mine as the extract starts with the Duke of Windsor in 1921)

"Advantage (in 1921 when the Duke of Windsor was PoW) was taken of a nineteenth-century Act of Parliament whereby publication (of the accounts) was not required, only that the accounts be presented to Parliament. In practice, this meant one copy to the House of Commons and one to the House of Lords Record Office. This was complied with, but the Duchy accounts were not to be published again until 1982. To make discovery of what happened even more unlikely, a straightforward piece of deception was employed in the accounts. The £20,000 voluntary contribution (paid by the Duke) was included in the heading 'taxes and parish rates' in the accounts to make it seem that the Duchy was still being taxed. A curious piece of accounting practice for a body that claimed and got tax exemption.

Further deceptions have followed. As Andrew Duncan noted in his book The Reality of Monarchy, 'until the beginning of 1969, Buckingham Palace authorities were underestimating the revenue from the Duchy and claiming publicly that it was subject to tax'. He also mentioned how a Central Office of Information booklet, The Monarchy in Britain, which was 'intended to be used for reference purposes', clearly suggested that Prince Charles paid income tax on all his income. Duncan discovered that this was simply not true and that the Prince on becoming 21 made a voluntary contribution of 50 per cent to the Treasury (25 per cent since 1981) in lieu of taxation, which at that time would have been over 80 per cent."


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 01, 2013, 10:57:37 am
People in the US have been jailed over less.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on July 02, 2013, 11:21:55 am
http://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/news-and-diary/statement-the-duchy-of-cornwall-relation-the-dispatches-programme-broadcast-1st-july#.UdKoPgFed9Q.twitter

Quote
The following is a statement from The Duchy of Cornwall in response to the broadcast on 1st July 2013 of an edition of the Dispatches programme relating to some aspects of The Duchy.

A Duchy of Cornwall spokesperson said:

“The Duchy of Cornwall is a private landed estate.  It is not a public body, nor is it funded by the taxpayer.

“The primary function of The Duchy is to provide an income for the present Duke of Cornwall while ensuring that the value of the Duchy’s capital is maintained for future Dukes of Cornwall.  The financial performance and the quality and condition of the estate as a whole have thrived under the current Duke of Cornwall.

“The Prince of Wales chooses to use his income from the Duchy, rather than public money, to cover the great majority of the cost of the public duties of both himself and The Duchess of Cornwall, as well as The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry.

“The Prince pays Income Tax voluntarily on the surplus of the Duchy of Cornwall at the highest rate, which was 50 per cent in 2012-13, resulting in a total of £4.4million (including an element of VAT). The Duchy is not a company and is not therefore liable to pay corporation tax and The Prince is not entitled to receive any capital gains from the Duchy, and therefore does not pay Capital Gains Tax. “


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 02, 2013, 11:57:15 am
The palace is running scared.

They don't normally respond publicly unless it's something that hit a nerve.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 02, 2013, 03:41:27 pm
^ Agreed. Republic sent a letter of complaint to HRMC about the Duchy's tax status and Dispatches also took up their complaint. I watched it and it was a sorry tale of greed and sheer hypocrisy.

http://www.republic.org.uk/updates/?p=994

I suspect they know they are in for drubbing on 15th July when they are in front of the PAC. Chair Margaret Hodge was on the programme and made it perfectly clear that she considers it to be a public body "part of our constitutional arrangements" is what she said and not a private affair. In any event a high court hearing over Freedom of Information and environmental issues clearly determined the Duchy performs a public function.

There was some footage from 2005 when Duchy officials were last in  front of the PAC ( incidentally this was the first time in their history that they had been called to account for themselves) and there was an extremely snooty and condescending man who was the keeper of the Duchy archives who made it clear he was above being questioned by Parliament and there was a Scottish MP who really put him in his place.

What I found particularly galling is PC going around pontificating on sustainability and locally sourced produce etc and all the time his Duchy has invested in a vast distribution depot at Milton Keynes which is rented by Waitrose (and they seem to be in a bit deep in this saga) which sends out dozens of massive lorries each day pumping out greenhouse gases.

In Truro they are up in arms as the Duchy is selling off good agricultural land worked by a dairy farmer who will no longer be able to survive as a dairy farmer and the land is being sold for housing.

It will be online soon and I will post a link as it is just 30 minutes and, to be honest, I know (and they know) they are just scratching the surface.


And there is also trouble in the Duchy of Lancaster and I have started a thread over on HM's section. They'll be rolling out the tumbrils soon.

http://royalgossip.forumprofi.de/index.php/topic,6536.0.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 02, 2013, 05:21:38 pm
The Channel 4 Dispatches programme link

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/4od


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Adeline on July 02, 2013, 06:36:30 pm
The palace is running scared.

They don't normally respond publicly unless it's something that hit a nerve.

Yep. Perhaps someone is getting to close to the truth? When the Queen dies, I think that all hell is going to break loose. It's going to be fun to watch.   8)


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: MOSAIC on July 02, 2013, 06:46:03 pm

Very good piece True Brit.  Highly informative althrough there is obviously much more for them to find out.  Hopefully the Committee on July 15 will be able to do that.
Yes, Adeline. A great many truths are going to start tumbling out, about a great many things.  Maybe William is right after all about wanting the whole thing to come tumbling down and be seen for what it really is. 


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 09, 2013, 03:21:24 pm
Does Charles have any house that is not owned by the Duchy...?

His Wales homes is also part of the duchy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llwynywermod  :bored:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 09, 2013, 05:53:00 pm
I think the Castle of Mey is his personally via his grandmother - The QM - and I wonder if those Romanian estates and villages he is buying are in his own name. Apart from that such as Sandringham and Balmoral are owned by a family trust to avoid inheritance tax.

The cunning ruse re Highgrove is the Duchy pays its profits to him and they own the house; PC pays what they claim is full market rent which means it boosts the profits which in turn are paid over to him. So they could charge him £1million a year for Highgrove he'd still pay it because it's simply on the financial merry-go-round.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 09, 2013, 05:55:57 pm
^Thanks. He must be doing the same with the Wales home.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 15, 2013, 09:32:46 am
Duchy before Public Accounts Committee

On Monday the Duchy goes before the Public Accounts Committee to be questioned by MPs. The Committee "focuses on value-for-money criteria which are based on economy, effectiveness and efficiency."
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/public-accounts-committee/role/

Subject: Duchy of Cornwall Accounts
Witness(es): William Nye, Principal Private Secretary to the Royal Highnesses the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, Keith Willis, Finance Director of the Duchy and Paula Diggle, Treasury Officer of Accounts, HM Treasury
Location: Room 15, Palace of Westminster

Well well, this is interesting. It's actually happening and now Charles must be sweating bullets out of nervousness.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 10:32:52 am
Yes it's today and we'll probably be able to follow it on the Parliament channel but if not there will be a full record in Hansard.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 03:39:21 pm
If anyone wants to follow the hearing live on the Guardian's website, the link's here. The meeting was due to start at 3.15pm but it's 20 minutes late.

Interesting quote from Andrew George Lib Dem MP ahead of the meeting who calls for the contract between PW and the nation to be reviewed.

Quote
We need to enter into a new contract. I’m not suggesting that the Duchy [of Cornwall] is engaged in the kind of tax avoidance on an industrial scale that you see with Starbucks and Google, but nevertheless I do think that the [prince] will want to review the contract with the country as a whole, with his subjects. And indeed on all accounts the duchy claims to be a private estate when it suits it, but also different to a private estate when it comes to paying its own taxes.

So I think we need to review both the position of the Duchy and also the contribution, which I think a lot of people believe it should rightly make to the restoring of the public finances.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2013/jul/15/prince-charles-tax-live-blog

Opening comment from William Nye of the Duchy who claims it is PC's private estate which chair Margaret Hodge says this implies it is not tied to the throne. Await his response to that one.

Ah I think I know which way this is heading. It has been a long held claim by the Cornish republicans that Cornwall was never formally turned over to the British Crown and it is like Jersey - a Crown dependency. This actually is a problem for PC as it means he will have to use all his money to run the dependency (if they accept it is such) and he will have to repay the historic wealth of the tin miners which was seized by the Duke which would bankrupt him. This is why they claim it's a private estate.



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 03:45:18 pm
Not very related but a comment from the article

Quote
A vague friend of ours is a royal protection officer. She drunkenly revealed some interesting tidbits a few weeks ago.
- Charles and Camilla don't actually live together. When they attend public engagements, they leave together, but Camilla then returns to her house and Charles goes separately to his Highgrove house.
- William is very arrogant and can be unpleasant and controlling to Kate. This is not revealed by the media. He prevents Kate from speaking to 'sorts of people' he doesn't like. He also drives at excessive speeds and his protection team struggle to keep up with him on the road.
- Harry is a nice bloke, but not very bright
- Kate and Camilla are apparently genuinely quite nice.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 03:51:11 pm
^ Interesting stuff Alexandrine

I think they have just admitted what I've just said that the Duke of Cornwall basically is the King of Cornwall and they are trying to play it both ways - dodge his responsibility to maintain the state and just take the income but claim it's private.

This is the opening remark which says it all - they are admitting the Duchy is not under the Crown but who could amend the charter?:


Quote
Margaret Hodge, the chair, starts.

Q: We are waiting for the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's new baby. If it's a girl, will she become Duchess of Cornwall.

No, says William Nye.

The sovereign would be Duke of Cornwall.

But the charter could be amended, he says.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 03:53:54 pm
^so if it's a girl she will be Duke of Cornwall or there will be no change


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 03:58:21 pm
^ No a girl cannot be Duke of Cornwall even though they are messing with the succession. The charter (I believe there are three charters from the 14th century) says the title and income goes to the eldest son of the reigning monarch. If it's a girl the income reverts to the Treasury. That alone tells you it can't be a private estate.

P.S. Who left that comment? It's even better when I re-read it.

P.P.S. It is Bastille Day today.  :nervous:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 04:04:31 pm
^it's from this article http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/14/prince-charles-aide-questions-tax nearly at the top.

So if a girl she is not getting the $$$ ? Even when they change the succession?

I can understand why they do it because it would mean that titles wouldn't be salic which could affect the aristos but it's ridiculous.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 04:12:22 pm
where is this happening house of commons..? But MPs are talking about Europe?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 04:14:27 pm
Yes I just tried to look on TV and it was the H of C this is the H of C Public Accounts Committee. It's obviously not being televised live but there will be a recording to catch up later so we are reliant on the blog for now.

It's here on the BBC!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/21006886


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 04:40:56 pm
If you're watching this I think the Treasury needs a more dynamic Auditor than Paula Diggle - I bet the Duchy runs rings around her.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 04:49:32 pm
It works thanks!!!!!!!!!!!

I was reading the updated on the guardian and thought they were going too easy on the duchy


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 04:50:08 pm
uuuh he paid with his own money for trees....


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on July 15, 2013, 04:52:06 pm
He has found a way to get back any money that he spends.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 04:52:14 pm
Hodge is cool


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on July 15, 2013, 04:53:29 pm
Yes Hodge did her homework. I bet they didn't expect that.  :tehe:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 04:55:52 pm
Nye is doing such a bad job  :laugh: He is using the same argument Charles always uses when he wants to do something, "I have rights!"


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 04:59:26 pm
William Nye is very slippery the other man is very nervous. Believe it or not Paula Diggle works for the Government (Treasury).

The Duchy people keep switching it about - private estate yet it reports to the Treasury.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 05:01:26 pm
^He pays rent for Highgrove! LOL


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 05:04:21 pm
But the Queen would have a male heir--> Andrew. What happens with that?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 05:09:01 pm
It isn't hers it reverts to the Treasury he's talking rowlocks. It can only go to the eldest son of a reigning monarch and as Patricia Hodge said at the beginning it is not a private estate it is given as part and parcel of the Crown.

If the Windsors were overthrown by some, say, distant Russian relatives and a new dynasty took over the Crown and the Duchies which go with them as part of our constitutional arrangement and the Windsors would not be able to take them with them into exile.

WN has just got himself into a right tangle when he said if the PoW died tomorrow the estate would not go to his son (PW) it would revert to the Queen (in possession of the Crown) so he has confirmed again it is not a private estate as he would be able to leave it to his sons, Camilla, the dog's home...whoever he flipping well likes.

I see the Labour member (South Wales) was keen to establish how many properties he occupies and what tax range he is liable for.

P.S. The Queen never held the Duchy of Cornwall when her father George VI was king as she was a daughter and not a son. The income reverted to the Treasury who then reduced the amount given out in the Civil List (I have this info in a book somewhere) so the money went to support the monarchy.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 15, 2013, 05:25:44 pm
^Hodge is trying to solve this but they are so bad they don't find the good sources. Gosh.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 05:29:23 pm
^ She's very tenacious but I must say this session wasn't anywhere near as abrasive and revealing as the one in 2005. However the Duchy team were undoubtedly being lead into stating that it is a very commercial operation.

If you also check the lawbooks a "body corporate" is not just a corporation - there's a whole list of set ups which apply and the Duchy falls into this category. I notice she's asking for some information in writing.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 15, 2013, 06:37:25 pm
So who won?  lol


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 15, 2013, 06:48:32 pm
No-one. The ministers insisted it was a commercial entity and part of our constitutional arrangements and as such should pay corporation tax...the Duchy agreed it was part of our constitutional arrangements and then wrapped themselves in knots insisting that it was a private estate and shouldn't pay any tax other than the tax offered up.

Nothing will change Jane - yet. Remember this is only the second time in the Duchy's history (dated 1347) that they have been brought before Parliament. The last time was 2005.

The mills of God grinding exceeding slow and small as Wadsworth wrote

Quote
Though the mills of God grind slowly;
Yet they grind exceeding small;
Though with patience he stands waiting,
With exactness grinds he all. 


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Fly on the wall on July 16, 2013, 02:06:30 am
Duchy of Cornwall made record £19million profits in 2012-13, up 4%
   Public Accounts Committee says it looks and acts like a corporation
   But courtier William Nye insists it is just 'a large set of properties'



Prince Charles was last night accused of paying a lower tax rate than his servants.

Labour MP Austin Mitchell claimed the Prince of Wales was ‘dodging around’ to avoid tax.

He said that by refusing to classify the Duchy of Cornwall property empire as a corporation, Charles did not pay corporation tax like other big profit-making firms.

Mr Mitchell also criticised him for paying too little income tax on the £19million he received from the duchy last year year.

He demanded to know why Charles paid just 23.6 per cent of his income in direct and indirect tax, compared with an average of 38 per cent paid by the poorest quarter of the population.

Describing the Duchy of Cornwall, which owns land across the South West and provides Charles with his income as heir to the throne, as a ‘medieval anomaly’, Mr Mitchell suggested the only reason it was not registered as a company was so the Prince could avoid tax.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2364231/Charles-pays-tax-servants-MPs-blast-shockingly-wrong-deal-Duchy-Cornwalls-19million-profits.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 16, 2013, 09:00:45 am
If only all this energy was spend on real tax evaders ...


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on July 16, 2013, 11:21:30 am
It is because Charles and the Duchy are tax evaders.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 16, 2013, 01:09:55 pm
^ Yup

There's some good stories on the Indy and in the Guardian but the DT has ignored it apart from a rather feeble "sketch" buried deep in the website and I haven't checked the Times yet but that's a paywall so whatever is said won't be able to access.

Alexandrine you mentioned that PC pays rent for Highgrove and they also said he rents Birkhall from his mother so he'll be running that as an expense whilst still enriching the family. You've got to admire his style.

However they didn't mention the estates he owns in Transylvania and so can only conclude that he HAS bought these under his own name but probably charged that off to expenses before tax too.

What was interesting was Margaret Hodge asked for a breakdown of the expenses before tax which gave his lackeys an uncomfortable moment but this is a good step forward because everything goes in that - I'm guessing butlers, Camilla's house, ditto's horses, Cams and Kate's expensive dresses, top marque cars which we know he owns...even his vintage wines and the finest food.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 16, 2013, 01:15:21 pm
^They said that he uses the duchy for his public work. They worded that like he could be using other sources of money but he is so good that he will the duchy money. Hodge said that one of the objectives of the duchy was to help the duke of cornwall on his public duties!  :bored:

I think Hodge was on the right way but she should have researched more. They didn't know the inheritance laws of the duchy which clearly show that it cannot be private property.

Now I have a doubt when Queen Alexandra's oldest son died who was duke of cornwall and then the heir was king George, did king George got the duchy or not? Or were the laws different at that time?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 16, 2013, 01:19:15 pm
^That's a good question Alexandrine I'll have a dig around but my thoughts on this are that if a PoW died that would be it and it would revert to the Treasury. If, say PW, died I doubt it would go to Harry.

I found this on Wiki which confirms that George V did become Duke of Cornwall but he was the eldest living son at the time of his father's accession the Duke of Clarence having before his father became monarch. So it looks like if PW popped off now PH would still gain the Duchy but only when his father becomes king.

Quote
The Prince George, 1st Duke of York Edward VII 1901 (father's accession) 1910 (acceded as George V)


HOWEVER we all know how they can twist all the details to suit themselves.

The DT have run the story but buried way down the website. And yes I agree the MPs seemed to be very poorly informed about the Duchy - I was muttering at them to ask this or that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/prince-charles/10181244/Prince-of-Wales-tax-arrangements-attacked-by-MPs.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on July 16, 2013, 01:20:40 pm
^thank you


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 16, 2013, 01:29:21 pm
P.S. It wouldn't go to K&W's child whether male or female if PW had died as it will be grandchild and it doesn't go to any grandchild. Oh hang on that means Harry wouldn't get the Duchy as he wouldn't be heir to the throne the child would be. Phew!

Ah I have an expert on this John Kirkhope who has studied the whole subject in depth for years.


Quote
“A mode of descent unknown to common law"

 To have some understanding of the Duchy it is necessary to have an appreciation of theunique form of descent created by the Charter of 17th March 1337 (“the Charter”) which established the Duchy of Cornwall. There is nothing like it in English Law and it has been the source of much confusion for centuries. As Rowse said the consequence is that:“There may not be a Duke there is always a Duchy.”

 The Duke of Cornwall is the eldest living son of the monarch being heir to the throne

.What does this mean? As example will illustrate. When George VI ascended the thronethere was no Duke of Cornwall since his heir was female. Upon Elizabeth II becomingmonarch Prince Charles immediately became Duke of Cornwall. During the period of theminority of Prince Charles the Duchy was managed by the Crown. If the Prince had diedbefore having children his brother Prince Andrew, who would then have become theeldest living son of the sovereign being heir to the throne, would have become Duke of Cornwall. If Prince Charles dies before becoming King his son Prince William would notbe Duke of Cornwall since he is the grandson of the monarch and not the son. Duringperiods when there is no Duke the Duchy reverts to but remains distinct from the Crown.The sovereign is, in effect, a trustee until a Duke of Cornwall appears. For about half theperiod since the Duchy was created there has been no Duke of Cornwall. The titles of Prince of Wales and Earl of Chester are always new creations and are traditionallybestowed upon male heirs to the throne who may not be Dukes of Cornwall.

I would recommend reading his information as he has published academic papers on the subject and is a Cornish based lawyer

http://www.academia.edu/2438730/The_duchy_of_cornwall_and_the_crown_1


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Freya on July 16, 2013, 03:13:34 pm
^
If anything happened to Charles before the Queen my understanding that the Duchy would revert to the Crown for the time being. If this scenario happened it would be the ideal opportunity to knock this on the head.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 16, 2013, 03:28:16 pm
It is because Charles and the Duchy are tax evaders.
But he isn't ... some want him to pay corporation tax when The Duchy ISN'T a Corporation (obviously) it is a PRIVATE ESTATE the people who want him to pay the tax he shouldn't pay need to PROVE without a shadow of a doubt The Duchy is a Corporation which obviously isn't !!!


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 16, 2013, 05:16:04 pm
The Duchy most definitely fits in with the legal description as laid down under the Companies Act 2006 - all of these defined companies are liable to corporation and capital gains tax

Quote
Types of company
3Limited and unlimited companies
(1)A company is a “limited company” if the liability of its members is limited by its constitution.
It may be limited by shares or limited by guarantee.
(2)If their liability is limited to the amount, if any, unpaid on the shares held by them, the company is “limited by shares”.
(3)If their liability is limited to such amount as the members undertake to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its being wound up, the company is “limited by guarantee”.
(4)If there is no limit on the liability of its members, the company is an “unlimited company”.
4Private and public companies
.(1)A “private company” is any company that is not a public company.
(2)A “public company” is a company limited by shares or limited by guarantee and having a share capital—
(a)whose certificate of incorporation states that it is a public company, and
(b)in relation to which the requirements of this Act, or the former Companies Acts, as to registration or re-registration as a public company have been complied with on or after the relevant date.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the relevant date is—
(a)in relation to registration or re-registration in Great Britain, 22nd December 1980;
(b)in relation to registration or re-registration in Northern Ireland, 1st July 1983.
(4)For the two major differences between private and public companies, see Part 20.
5Companies limited by guarantee and having share capita
1)A company cannot be formed as, or become, a company limited by guarantee with a share capital.
(2)Provision to this effect has been in force—
(a)in Great Britain since 22nd December 1980, and
(b)in Northern Ireland since 1st July 1983.
(3)Any provision in the constitution of a company limited by guarantee that purports to divide the company's undertaking into shares or interests is a provision for a share capital.
This applies whether or not the nominal value or number of the shares or interests is specified by the provision.
6Community interest companies
(1)In accordance with Part 2 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 (c. 27)—
(a)a company limited by shares or a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital may be formed as or become a community interest company, and
(b)a company limited by guarantee and having a share capital may become a community interest company.
(2)The other provisions of the Companies Acts have effect subject to that Part.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/1/crossheading/types-of-company


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 16, 2013, 05:39:08 pm
From the Indy an amusing sketch from Donald McIntyre and he's right about the 17th century MPs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-macintyres-sketch-our-mps-weremade-of-sterner-stuff-in-the-17th-century-8710074.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 16, 2013, 05:43:43 pm
I don't know what "description" The Duchy "fits" all I know it is that it wasn't built as a Corporation and it's obviously NOT a Corporation ... this is so unfair ... I bet if we looked in the people's in the room pointing their gun at The Prince tax history I bet we would find interesting things ... those hypocrites are the last people who should hold any gun at The Duchy ...


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 16, 2013, 05:55:29 pm
You need to really do much more reading of this subject as you are making off the cuff statements just because you like Charles and who knows he may be a nice chap but that doesn't make any of this acceptable.

Had you watched the PAC in action PC's PPS William Nye was tying himself in knots

With this


Quote
It was very complicated. The committee insisted that the Duchy of Cornwall was actually a corporation, but a corporation that didn't pay tax.

Since it owns a lot of property, including, we were surprised to hear, the Holiday Inn, Reading, it may be thought unfair to other corporations in the same line of business.

Mr Nye disagreed. He kept pointing out that the duchy had been founded in 1337 as a means of giving the heir to the throne an independent income. So, he agreed, it was a medieval institution, but it had tried to keep up.

The committee seemed sceptical

and this, which is priceless.


Quote
Nick Smith MP said that if it looked like a duck, quacked like a duck and swam like a duck it must be, well, a corporation and so ought to pay.

Mr Nye said that the duchy, or ducky, was no such thing. It was "a private estate, like a private estate, but in many respects is not a private estate. But that does not make it, per se, a corporation."

So that was very clear.

It was also revealed that HM is known as the Duke of Normandy in Jersey which came as a complete surprise to all concerned and there's probably another unopened can of worms in that statement. It is no coincidence that PC has been on a well publicised and stage managed tour of...yes Cornwall over the past two days to divert attention away from this issue.

If he is genuine about modernising the monarchy and making them closer to the people etc etc he needs to stop all this shifty stuff and be open and accountable. Even if he did pay corporation and capital gains tax and income tax he would simply still be stinking filthy rich.

It's greed that's behind this and probably the recognition that the monarchy may well be on its way out after HM goes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/15/prince-charles-secretary-duchy-cornwall-tax


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on July 16, 2013, 07:02:47 pm
 :thumbsup:   :goodpost:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 16, 2013, 07:34:53 pm
You need to really do much more reading of this subject as you are making off the cuff statements just because you like Charles and who knows he may be a nice chap but that doesn't make any of this acceptable.

Had you watched the PAC in action PC's PPS William Nye was tying himself in knots

With this


Quote
It was very complicated. The committee insisted that the Duchy of Cornwall was actually a corporation, but a corporation that didn't pay tax.

Since it owns a lot of property, including, we were surprised to hear, the Holiday Inn, Reading, it may be thought unfair to other corporations in the same line of business.

Mr Nye disagreed. He kept pointing out that the duchy had been founded in 1337 as a means of giving the heir to the throne an independent income. So, he agreed, it was a medieval institution, but it had tried to keep up.

The committee seemed sceptical

and this, which is priceless.


Quote
Nick Smith MP said that if it looked like a duck, quacked like a duck and swam like a duck it must be, well, a corporation and so ought to pay.

Mr Nye said that the duchy, or ducky, was no such thing. It was "a private estate, like a private estate, but in many respects is not a private estate. But that does not make it, per se, a corporation."

So that was very clear.

It was also revealed that HM is known as the Duke of Normandy in Jersey which came as a complete surprise to all concerned and there's probably another unopened can of worms in that statement. It is no coincidence that PC has been on a well publicised and stage managed tour of...yes Cornwall over the past two days to divert attention away from this issue.

If he is genuine about modernising the monarchy and making them closer to the people etc etc he needs to stop all this shifty stuff and be open and accountable. Even if he did pay corporation and capital gains tax and income tax he would simply still be stinking filthy rich.

It's greed that's behind this and probably the recognition that the monarchy may well be on its way out after HM goes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk-news/2013/jul/15/prince-charles-secretary-duchy-cornwall-tax
So one side says it is a corporation the other says it isn't ... but again that doesn't make it a Corporation given that it's obviously wasn't created as such !!!  And The Guardian really?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 16, 2013, 08:53:09 pm
Quote
It was also revealed that HM is known as the Duke of Normandy in Jersey which came as a complete surprise

Odd how HM 'forgot' to tell anyone this interesting piece of news.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: mysha on July 16, 2013, 08:57:53 pm
60 years is a long time to forget to mention she is Duke of Normandy.......................more hidden stuff in a d at this ratecupboard, that cupboard is going to be the size of Scotland


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on July 17, 2013, 03:58:28 am
I betcha that this Duchy inquiry is just a start to getting into the rest of the finances of the RF; that will be the start of the fall of the House of Windsor.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Tatiana on July 17, 2013, 04:27:48 am
The Duchy most definitely fits in with the legal description as laid down under the Companies Act 2006 - all of these defined companies are liable to corporation and capital gains tax

Quote
Types of company
3Limited and unlimited companies
(1)A company is a “limited company” if the liability of its members is limited by its constitution.
It may be limited by shares or limited by guarantee.
(2)If their liability is limited to the amount, if any, unpaid on the shares held by them, the company is “limited by shares”.
(3)If their liability is limited to such amount as the members undertake to contribute to the assets of the company in the event of its being wound up, the company is “limited by guarantee”.
(4)If there is no limit on the liability of its members, the company is an “unlimited company”.
4Private and public companies
.(1)A “private company” is any company that is not a public company.
(2)A “public company” is a company limited by shares or limited by guarantee and having a share capital—
(a)whose certificate of incorporation states that it is a public company, and
(b)in relation to which the requirements of this Act, or the former Companies Acts, as to registration or re-registration as a public company have been complied with on or after the relevant date.
(3)For the purposes of subsection (2)(b) the relevant date is—
(a)in relation to registration or re-registration in Great Britain, 22nd December 1980;
(b)in relation to registration or re-registration in Northern Ireland, 1st July 1983.
(4)For the two major differences between private and public companies, see Part 20.
5Companies limited by guarantee and having share capita
1)A company cannot be formed as, or become, a company limited by guarantee with a share capital.
(2)Provision to this effect has been in force—
(a)in Great Britain since 22nd December 1980, and
(b)in Northern Ireland since 1st July 1983.
(3)Any provision in the constitution of a company limited by guarantee that purports to divide the company's undertaking into shares or interests is a provision for a share capital.
This applies whether or not the nominal value or number of the shares or interests is specified by the provision.
6Community interest companies
(1)In accordance with Part 2 of the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004 (c. 27)—
(a)a company limited by shares or a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital may be formed as or become a community interest company, and
(b)a company limited by guarantee and having a share capital may become a community interest company.
(2)The other provisions of the Companies Acts have effect subject to that Part.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/46/part/1/crossheading/types-of-company


  Absolutely spot on ! :thankyou:

   Should be fun watching Charles try to struggle off this one.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 17, 2013, 09:38:33 am
^ Tatiana yes won't it?

^^ KF yes I think so - the telling part was when Margaret Hodge in the chair asked to see details of all the expenses that were offset against PC's tax bill and William Nye had to muster all his powers of the unruffled public servant. Here's part of the exchange

Quote
Q171 Chair: I have a few final questions. Last year, he got an income of some £19 million from the Duchy of Cornwall. He said that, of that £19 million-help me with my figures, because I have forgotten them-a certain amount was to pay for carrying out his public function duties.

William Nye: A very large amount.

Q172 Chair: How much?

William Nye: On his own official duties and those of the Duchess of Cornwall, £9.8 million.

Q173 Chair: £9.8 million of the £19 million, so £10 million was left to pay tax on. Is that right?

William Nye: He also pays for the official duties of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry as well.

Q174 Chair: Who decides that? Is that based on the memorandum?

William Nye: It is based on the memorandum.

Q175 Chair: Why can’t that be in the open?

William Nye: Why can’t what be in the open?

Q176 Chair: I will tell you what crosses my mind. The Prime Minister has to publish all the dinners he has in Chequers, many of which will be related to his position as Prime Minister. It seems to me that it would be healthy for our understanding and acceptance of this and for the reputation of the Prince of Wales-the Duke of Cornwall in this instance-if we had greater public understanding of how he has assessed his own expenses and what counts and what does not count and so on.

William Nye: This relates to the private tax affairs of the Prince of Wales. In general, the private tax affairs of individuals are not made public.

Q177 Chair: But he is carrying out public duties. That is the whole point.

William Nye: He chooses to use his private income for public duties. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has a very strong culture-I recall from dealing with them-of not discussing the tax affairs of private individuals.

Q178 Chair: You say, "He chooses," but he does not choose. The Duchy of Cornwall was established, as Richard said, to ensure that there was an income for the Duke of Cornwall to carry out his functions and duties. That is why it was established. It is not a choice. Let us at least get that agreed.

William Nye: He chooses how many official duties to do.

Q179 Chair: No. He will spend part of it on his own living expenses, and he will spend part of it on his public functions, but it is there to provide independence and income to enable him to carry out his public duties. It is not a choice.

William Nye: It is there to provide him with an income to do with as he sees fit. The present Prince of Wales chooses to use the great bulk of it on a wide range of official duties-

Q180 Chair: No, sorry, but it was established not for him to use it as he sees fit, but to enable him to carry out his functions as the Prince of Wales without recourse to other public funds.


William Nye: Yes, but the official duties of the Prince of Wales, like many other things, are things that have evolved. He has chosen, in the long period that he has been the heir to the throne, to undertake a lot of official duties on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen. It is not the case automatically that the income generated by the Duchy of Cornwall has always been spent on what we would now call official duties. Edward VII, when Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall, was allowed to undertake very few official duties, but still had the benefit of the income from the Duchy of Cornwall. What the official duties were in 1337 is a matter for speculation; they probably did not think of it in quite those terms. The Prince of Wales himself does not have a list of things that he is obliged to do with a bill attached. He does a series of things on the behalf of the Queen and the country, and the cost of doing those things he chooses to pay for himself from his private income.

Q181 Chair: But from income that was established-

William Nye: For him to do with as he chooses.

Q182 Chair: All I want to know is: how does anybody oversee what he charges?

William Nye: There are rules that are set out in broad principles in the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation.

Q183 Chair: Why can’t he be more transparent about that? Because he chooses not to be.

William Nye: I believe he is very transparent. This is about him paying his tax bill. My finance department-the Prince of Wales’s finance department-fills in a tax return with HMRC. I think it is fair to say that HMRC looks at it rather carefully and ensures that it is content with the amount of tax that the Prince of Wales is paying and that the deductions for business expenses-in this case, the costs of official duties-are appropriate and in line with the Memorandum of Understanding on Royal Taxation. As a result, he pays income tax. I have indicated a broad figure to you, which is the vast majority of the £4.4 million that he chooses to publish. He could, like every other private individual in the country, not publish his income tax bill at all, but he chooses to publish it.

Q184 Chair: We have established one thing this afternoon. He is not like any other private individual. That is the whole thesis on which the current settlement is based. It is a bit daft to say, "like any other private individual". He is not like any other private individual.

William Nye: No, but even the Prince of Wales should benefit from some of the privacy of private individuals.

Q185 Chair: Well, it depends. The greatest benefit is that he has this peculiar taxation status on corporation tax, capital gains tax and income tax. There is a bit of choice in there for him around income tax. All I am saying is that given his status, I think it would help public confidence if he was more transparent about it all.



Here is the link to the full hearing and I read the whole lot last night and it's funny how you see it more clearly than when a few of us were watching on the BBC link when it was live. Margaret Hodge is an impressive chair of the PACs and like a terrier wrestling with a bone she wouldn't let go.

Richard Bacon the Tory MP had to declare that one of the Duchy's council is a constituent and judging by his supportive and leading comments to William Nye it's probably fair to say he's been "lobbied". The committee had also obviously been on a FAM trip to Poundbury as another Tory Stewart Jackson said the quality of the work was impressive but asked why such big contractors such as Bovis couldn't build to such standards. The answer never came but it was clearly because they pay taxes.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/uc475-i/uc47501.htm





Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 17, 2013, 12:52:31 pm
^ Yeah , yeah but is The Duchy a Corporation or not ... I guess not ... but that won't stop certain people ... this is a disgrace !!! If they want to call a CENTURIES OLD Duchy a Corporation why not break the news to the current Prince of Wales and tell him to pay his taxes? Why all this noise? Why aren't they on Liz's behind calling her Duchy a Corporation?  :June: Some know they can't touch Liz and they are taking it all on Chuck ... they must be feeling George VII coming  :king:...


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 17, 2013, 02:01:46 pm
Jane what are you wittering on about? You fire off half baked comments and clearly haven't read any of it in any depth...if at all. The same process actually happens to the Duchy of Lancaster which operates in a slightly different way and they are brought before MPs too.  It doesn't have to be a corporation in order to be liable for Corporation and CG taxes as the extract from the Companies Act 2006 a couple of posts back confirmed.





Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 17, 2013, 02:12:53 pm
^ So when it is pointed out The Duchy OBVIOUSLY isn't a Corporation it doesn't have to be a Corporation to pay Corporation Tax? It seems to me they should have sorted this out in 2006 why in the World is this issue not sorted out in 2013?












Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on July 17, 2013, 03:34:17 pm
Charles's greed has insured that he pay as little tax as possible and then try to get tax money to reimburse his extravagant lifestyle. He should just pay his fair share voluntarily without any monies returned through his dodgy accounting practices.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 17, 2013, 04:05:14 pm
^ Jane I wish we could set you on them and get it sorted  :bat:  but this is only the second time in the Duchy's, what, 700 year history that it has been scrutinised in this way the first time being 2005. We're only just finding out about it all.

They have hidden behind courtiers/politicians/clergymen doing their bidding for centuries and this process became even more complex with the birth of the "Windsor" dynasty in 1917.

It isn't just Charles either. The Duke of Windsor inherited the title when he was just a boy but couldn't access any income until he was 21 at which point he came into an utter fortune the equivalent of £20 million plus the annual profits and he proceeded to live the life of a gilded playboy until Wallis arrived and then he showered her with millions.

Phillip Zeigler states that he gave Wallis cash from the Duchy to the tune of £250,000 in 1936 (millions in today's terms) and all that breath-taking and priceless jewellery was financed by, well guess what...the Duchy. Her jewellery was so valuable that they paid for private security guards to accompany her to the South of France with it just after the abdication.

The reason George V didn't leave him any money as he thought he would be well set up from the Duchy but he was ripping through it however he was a very wealthy man for the rest of his life as he was getting a regular income from his brother and later his niece HM.

It's crazy.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 17, 2013, 04:38:29 pm
I don't see greed here obviously one can't wake up one morning and call  A CENTURIES old Duchy whatever one wants and ask for money obviously Chuck ain't gonna just sit back and ask "how much I own you? " ...


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on July 17, 2013, 04:41:52 pm
When one isn't willing to pay their fair share of taxes it is either greed or they do not care about the country to whom the taxes are owed. Charles may not care about the UK because he seems to be setting himself up in other countries but I still think Greed is his motive.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 17, 2013, 05:37:29 pm
^ Greed and grabbing what he can while he can. They know they cannot justify this any longer.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on July 17, 2013, 05:43:55 pm
When one isn't willing to pay their fair share of taxes it is either greed or they do not care about the country to whom the taxes are owed. Charles may not care about the UK because he seems to be setting himself up in other countries but I still think Greed is his motive.
He does pay his fair share of taxes ...taxes that by law he shouldn't I must add  :June: ...


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on July 17, 2013, 05:55:23 pm
No he doesn't. The PAC established that after taking off his entire living expenses most of which have little to do with any public duties he then included VAT in the total he paid which is why Austin Mitchell MP estimated he was paying a much lower rate than his domestic servants - people on minimum wage.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-charles-pays-lower-tax-2055838

And they have a duty to pay their taxes. History shows Queen Victoria paid hers without much trouble, her son Edward VII attempted to get his reduced but in the end stumped up . This not paying taxes started with George V and gained a foothold from then onwards until Sir John Major as PM knew he could not hold off public opinion in this matter and in 1992 HM grudgingly gave in, followed by PC in 1993.

They claim to "lead the nation" well start bloody well leading by example - it's a price they should pay for the privilege of being the hereditary head of state and stop being greedy and deceptive.

 


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Tatiana on July 17, 2013, 07:32:50 pm


    Well said True Brit.

    The People are waking up .. FINALLY  :thumbsup:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: mysha on August 12, 2013, 05:00:00 pm
So Upchuck has
1. gay issues
2. sells his gifts
3. Knee deep with Saville and co, odd bit of other silly muck
4. Letters and secret meetings . see link
5. kills his wife ( did he ever act at school ? fake tears are rather good )
6. kinky as all get out and illegal stuff, loves sodomy to boot
7. Tax avoidance and bleeding money out of the govt, always trying to get more and more

the expression give and inch take a mile comes to mind


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on August 12, 2013, 05:05:59 pm
Not sure where to post this, or if it has already been posted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2389554/Prince-Charless-meddling-puts-monarchy-risk.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: RoyalWatcher on August 30, 2013, 04:36:13 pm
Any updates on this situation?


I don't get how Chuck can get away with deductions that are normally only taken by a corporation (expenses), yet he pays a personal rate on the net?

You're either a corporation or not.  If you're a corporation, then you get to deduct ALL of your expenses and pay taxes on the net at corporate rates. 

If you're a persona paying "private taxes", you get a set deduction and pay ALL of the tax minus the standard deduction (which would be just him and his wife, since his children are older than 18.)

Either way....taxes should be coming in from not only the Duchy, but additional taxes from Prince Charles himself minus his standard deduction...

Paying an extra few million a year isn't going to hurt him....nor his heirs, nor his wife.  But it may help keep another family from having no heat, or anything to eat.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Snokitty on August 31, 2013, 12:43:44 pm
^   :thumbsup: :goodpost:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on October 22, 2013, 06:53:13 pm
I think the Duchy of Cornwall should submit property transactions for scrutiny.  This family own nothing from merit so why are they allowed to hide their dealings  -  shady methinks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-charless-duchy-of-cornwall-estate-condemned-over-nondisclosure-of-private-property-deals--including-384m-waitrose-warehouse-8892854.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Val on October 22, 2013, 07:10:36 pm
The RF unfortunately make the rules to suit themselves and nobody else can do anything about it.   The public however are asking more questions now and these are being asked in parliament.   Lets hope that this will lead to a fairer system but I doubt it.   By continuing in this way however, the RF aren't doing themselves any favours and one day hopefully it will all rebound on them.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on October 22, 2013, 08:18:12 pm
The Duchy isn't "of the people"  it was created Centuries ago for The Prince of Wales to provide for himself so he wouldn't aggravate on the people it is a private ... I repeat private Estate not that I expect for some to get that ...


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on October 22, 2013, 08:40:18 pm
Not sure what you mean Jane23  -  that the rf should use the Duchy of Cornwall for whatever purposes they want to without anyone knowing what is going on?  Charles did not earn that Duchy and does not own it personally, as you said created for Prince of Wales to have an income, so why can´t the public know what he is up to.  He could be committing fraud, bankrupting the Duchy, how do we know if it is all done beneath a cloak of secrecy.  It is for him to have an income from and to keep safe and secure to pass along to the next Prince of Wales, it is not his private estate, he does  not own it.  He is fortunate to have a free income, if all is above board then there s no problem, he is causing speculation himself by keeping it all secret.  I think myself, and others, feel it is the right of the public to know what is going on.  At the end of the day it was probably taxes of Joe Public that enabled the purchase it in the first place many, many years ago.

If I have misunderstood your comment then I apologise, but I do feel there should not be all this cloak and dagger stuff with the rf, unfortunately for them the are answerable to the public whether they like it or not




















Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Royal Lowness on October 23, 2013, 01:09:42 am
 :goodpost:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on October 23, 2013, 09:37:24 am
Not sure what you mean Jane23  -  that the rf should use the Duchy of Cornwall for whatever purposes they want to without anyone knowing what is going on?  Charles did not earn that Duchy and does not own it personally, as you said created for Prince of Wales to have an income, so why can´t the public know what he is up to.  He could be committing fraud, bankrupting the Duchy, how do we know if it is all done beneath a cloak of secrecy.  It is for him to have an income from and to keep safe and secure to pass along to the next Prince of Wales, it is not his private estate, he does  not own it.  He is fortunate to have a free income, if all is above board then there s no problem, he is causing speculation himself by keeping it all secret.  I think myself, and others, feel it is the right of the public to know what is going on.  At the end of the day it was probably taxes of Joe Public that enabled the purchase it in the first place many, many years ago.

If I have misunderstood your comment then I apologise, but I do feel there should not be all this cloak and dagger stuff with the rf, unfortunately for them the are answerable to the public whether they like it or not



















Why think the worse? Why in the World would The Prince bank rob the Duchy?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 23, 2013, 03:51:38 pm
The problem is that if its Chuck's private income, then why are they treating the Duchy like a corporation, only paying taxes after expenses?



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on October 23, 2013, 04:09:17 pm
Charles is only allowed to take the profits as income under an arrangement with Parliament in his formal role as the Duke of Cornwall. The Duke of Cornwall is the always the eldest son of the reigning monarch.

When Charles becomes King he will have to give up the title which will then go to the next oldest son of the reinging monarch (i.e. William) who will take the title of the Duke of Cornwall and the £19 million or whatever annual income will be his and Kate's (and the Middletons).

However this is only their income under the constitutional arrangements of the nation. The Duke has a statutory duty (i.e. laid down by law) to run the estates profitably. He cannot sell the estates as they are not his to sell. Neither can he leave them to any member of the Windsor family as an inheritance in a private capacity.

If the monarchy was to be thrown out tomorrow neither Charles nor any other Windsor would be able to take the estates as their own and the income would go to the Treasury i.e. the Government.

It is NOT a privately owned estate this is just Duchy offiicials trying to pull the wool over the eyes of Parliament to enable PC to make as much as possible without paying taxes. Successive Governments have allowed this transparency to gather steam as they are too lily livered to challenge the PoW.

A High Court Hearing some 3/4 years ago established that the Duchy is a public body as it performed such as it acts as the harbour and ports authority for Cornwall and has responsibilities in particular under the Environmental regulations and Act.

PC manages to offset ALL his personal (lavish) living expenses and such as Kate's dress bill against tax and then he only makes on offer on personal taxation and uses the private estate rubbish to avoid corporation taxes.

Do any other owners of the great estates have to present their accounts to Parliament? Such as the Duke of Westminster or Devonshire? No they don't because their estates are genuinely private and fully owned by them.

The Duchies both Cornwall and Lancaster only go with the job and if they no longer do that job they hand them back t the nation. The best analogy I can think of is if you get a job with a house, car and expense account. It's only yours for the duration of that job and you can't give them to anyone else or sell them.


Sorry it's long but it is hard getting this across.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: RoyalWatcher on October 23, 2013, 05:01:33 pm
Not really that hard to understand.

Chuck is paying miniscule amounts when he should be paying more.  And if the powers that be can't see that, they aren't looking that close.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Yooper on November 05, 2013, 04:23:06 am
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/131104/lawmakers-demand-review-prince-charless-tax-affairs (http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/thomson-reuters/131104/lawmakers-demand-review-prince-charless-tax-affairs)

Quote
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's Prince Charles should face greater tax scrutiny of his multi-million pound income from his centuries-old Duchy of Cornwall estate, an influential committee of lawmakers said on Tuesday.

Parliament's Public Accounts Committee, the panel that has led inquiries into the tax affairs of Amazon, Starbucks and Google, called on the finance ministry in a report to review the hereditary estate's historic tax exemptions.

The vast Duchy, created in 1337 by King Edward III to provide an income for him and his heirs, pays no corporation tax or capital gains tax.

Quote
The report coincides with greater scrutiny of the tax affairs of individuals and large corporations, and a heated political debate over the high cost of living. Prime Minister David Cameron put tax evasion and aggressive avoidance at the center of Britain's presidency of the Group of Eight developed nations.

The Duchy's 19 million pound surplus in 2012/13 funded Charles's public and private activities, as well as those of his wife Camilla and his sons William and Harry.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: cate1949 on December 04, 2013, 10:06:12 am
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/dec/03/prince-charles-secret-communications-ministers-leaseholder-duchy-of-cornwallhttp://




interesting article - seems that Charles and the Queen have a little known power to veto some laws. 


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on December 04, 2013, 10:36:20 am
Some have a very hard time getting that The UK is a Monarchy of course The Queen and the next in line to The Throne have vetos ... and The Gurdian really?  :laundry:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on December 04, 2013, 12:58:58 pm
^ How many times? It's a constitutional monarchy and they are supposed to be figureheads. They are NOT supposed to veto anything, particularly Prince Charles who is only IN LINE to the throne and not in possession of it.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on December 04, 2013, 01:13:09 pm
Timed but wanted to add:


This could turn out to be a very interesting case as the Duchy always it maintains it is a private estate (despite a recent High Court ruling that it performs public duties). It seems this man is using the private argument so sit back and wait for the squeals of protest:

Quote
Davis argues in his written submission that the rule exempting the government from releasing correspondence with the heir to the throne should not apply in this instance because the prince, in his capacity as the Duke of Cornwall, oversees a private estate.

And as this leaseholder points out:

Quote
Jane Giddins, a leaseholder in Newton St Loe who is prevented from buying the freehold, said when she bought her home she "naively assumed something so patently unjust would be corrected" and said it was wrong that it has not been when the rest of the population of England and Wales has the right.

They should take these cases to the ECHR but PC won't risk that as he knows which way it will go...with costs.

Also look out for the people who own their homes but have been served notice that the Duchy suddenly claims to own the mineral rights beneath their properties - that has just kicked off. (BBC story but it's in the DM, Telegraph and yes the Guardian too shock horror)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-16962119

Here's the DM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2510737/Villagers-brand-Prince-Charles-bully-sending-letters-invoking-ancient-right-homes.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: cate1949 on December 04, 2013, 09:10:57 pm
a constitutional monarchy - operating under rule of law - so the laws apply to all.  A little known veto power of the monarch re:laws that affect  their ability to get money is not "laws applying to all".  There is no basis in common law for special classes that can be denied rights that everyone else in the country  has.  If everyone else has the right to buy their leaseholds - then why deny that right to those in the Duchy?  What rational basis is there to do that other than " I will support their right to trod all over everyone else so they can rip a couple more pounds from the common folk?"

People believe the monarchy is justified in part because the Queen and by extension her family (like the next in line) represent everyone - not just the banker class - but if the RF are increasingly seen as being just like the banker class - then the peasants will get unhappy.  PC had best be a bit more circumspect - for the sake of a million or two more - he could lose it all.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Spice on December 04, 2013, 10:14:27 pm
Some have a very hard time getting that The UK is a Monarchy of course The Queen and the next in line to The Throne have vetos ... and The Gurdian really?  :laundry:

Silly me, and here I was thinking that the UK was a democracy.  Just goes to show that constitutional monarchy is inherently undemocratic.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: india on December 04, 2013, 10:31:04 pm
There is nothing democratic about it.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on December 04, 2013, 10:41:36 pm
Quote
They should take these cases to the ECHR but PC won't risk that as he knows which way it will go...with costs.

PC may not be interested but what about the other party? Or do you think Charles will try to reach an agreement before anything goes to the ECHR?

Because I don't see the Guardian in the press case not trying to reach the ECHR.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on December 04, 2013, 11:02:00 pm
 :hello: Alexandrine - from what I've read about this the householders are held back by the potential legal costs of all this.

However, I would hazard a guess that Republic may well get involved or at the very least one of their sympathetic barristers or even the Guardian but they have been financing other important legal and FOI issues re the Duchies. Also Liberty - the Human Rights organisation- is also known to give legal support so there are a few options.

Best to keep an eye on these stories and see how they develop.

Let's also not forget that the Kernow movement has always maintained that English law has no standing whatsoever in what was the ancient kingdom of Cornwall (Kernow) and it is certainly true that if you wish to pursue a legal case in Cornwall you have to use a Cornish based lawyer. That in itself tells us something is very odd about its status.

In short, the argument is that Kernow was not taken into GB during the Act of Union days (I think it was then must check) and has remained an anomaly ever since. This appears to be why PC refuses to acknowledge Kernow as it really means he is King of Cornwall not a duke and, as such, would have to pay for all of the ancient kingdom's costs of governance, policing, armed forces etc etc. and it would bankrupt him. He would also have to settle old tin mining claims against him which are running into millions but which the Duchy refuses to acknowledge.

It really is about time both Duchies were integrated with the Crown Estates as handing over tens of millions to PC (and HM) each year to spend as they wish is lavish and unsustainable in the 21st century. It may change post HM but I wouldn't get excited.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on December 04, 2013, 11:10:13 pm
TB  kisss

Gosh Cornwall even has their own law? But I thought the Duchy is not exactly in Cornwall so it affects more areas than Cornwall which creates more confusion to this.



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on December 04, 2013, 11:34:09 pm
^ It's very complicated and hidden under the fog of time but originally the Duchy was just Cornwall and it was grabbed by the monarchy to provide an income for the eldest son of the monarch as it was so rich in mineral resources, notably tin. The reason the Romans wanted retain was mainly for its mineral resources - it was like an ancient middle eastern oil bonanza and made the owners of these rights rich beyond comprehension.

Over the years the Duchy has acquired lands across the UK which has muddled things even further. Cromwell actually abolished it during the time of the Commonwealth.

Incidentally the claim by the PoW that he shouldn't pay tax on the Duchy income only extends as far back as 1913 when the then PoW (latterly Duke of Windsor/Edward VIII) decided he didn't want to pay any despite previous PoWs having paid up. People also probably aren't aware that he bought Mrs Simpson's fabulous pre marriage jewels using Duchy funds and when she fled to the South of France in 1936 following the abdication he provided her with security guards as she was carrying £250,000 from the Duchy for spending money. Lord knows the value of that £250,000 today but must be millions.

Have a read of the following link from political party Merbyon Kernow.

Quote
This follows the announcement that the Information Commissioner has ruled that the Cabinet Office must release the guidelines on how the consent of “The Crown” and “The Duchy of Cornwall” need to be obtained before certain bills can be passed into law.

The Information Commissioner has also ruled that the Cabinet Office must detail which criteria ministers apply before asking the royals to amend draft laws, which has been described by constitutional lawyers as “a royal nuclear deterrent.”

Speaking on behalf of Mebyon Kernow, Cllr Loveday Jenkin said:
“For many years, there has been a cloak of secrecy surrounding the position and role of the Duchy of Cornwall. The powers-that-be have also refused to debate the constitutional significance of the Duchy and how this relates to Cornwall’s past and future. 

“This recent ruling from the Information Commissioner may shed some much-needed light on the Duchy, but we need to go further.

“We need a full Public Inquiry into the Duchy of Cornwall and Cornwall's ambiguous constitutional relationship with the Crown, as well as the contradictions between Cornwall’s constitutional status and current administrative arrangements.”

https://www.mebyonkernow.org/news/article.php?id=60

This second


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: india on December 05, 2013, 01:22:39 am
Thank you True Brit. That was quite interesting.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Jane23 on December 05, 2013, 11:51:50 am
^ How many times? It's a constitutional monarchy and they are supposed to be figureheads. They are NOT supposed to veto anything, particularly Prince Charles who is only IN LINE to the throne and not in possession of it.
Silly me I thought Liz was The Head of State !!!


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: True Brit on December 05, 2013, 12:19:51 pm
^ Do get a grip please. She is titular HoS but ONLY as a figurehead and is not supposed to engage in any activity which will compromise political neutrality. She isn't HoS as an absolute monarch or as a president would be.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Dasher on January 12, 2014, 10:11:34 pm
Eye opening link from Cornwall Community News.

http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2011/06/30/ask-the-duchy/ (http://www.cornwallcommunitynews.co.uk/2011/06/30/ask-the-duchy/)


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: FortressODaveBarry on January 12, 2014, 11:07:06 pm
^"A massive chunk of it probably also went on the Royal Wedding – but the Royals refuse to say what that cost.
The Prince’s private secretary Sir Michael Peat told reporters: “I don’t think generally people say how much weddings cost do they?”
Citing nobless oblige, the aristocrat went on to say “what really counted” was that William and Kate’s day had been “happy”.

This is some Enron logic right there.  :ick: I'd be "happy" too if someone handed me a thirty four million wedding :easter-sly:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: RoyalWatcher on January 12, 2014, 11:08:17 pm
I'd be more thrilled with the cash.....


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: cate1949 on January 12, 2014, 11:47:06 pm
well there is also the gold recently found.....

what is interesting is the seperatist movement in Cornwall.  I am too lazy to look the exact details up but apparently there are documents going back to medieval times which assert the Duchy of Cornwall - the county that is - as seperate from the KIngdom of England - it is on this basis that seperatists are claiming Cornwall is not part of England nor by extension the UK - would be something if they were to actually succeed and make Cornwall a seperate state - there goes a big chunk of the cash cow.

The Duke of Windsor is hardly one to choose as a role model - LOL - pay the taxes Charles!


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Queen of the Hill on February 01, 2014, 08:56:41 pm
^ITA, all that money going to waste after the divorce.  Tragic, really tragic.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Tpearl on June 17, 2015, 02:55:52 am
Interesting.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: My2Pence on July 18, 2015, 02:53:51 pm
Not sure if this belongs under Royal Finances or the Duchy of Cornwall (or Lancaster), so it is going both. If I can find her similar posts about the two Duchies I'll post that too, but it also shows none of these lands are the private property of the Windsors.

From a great poster over at Celebitchy, LAK. One who is extremely well-versed in royal history, far beyond what anybody might write on wikipedia.  It is from this article if copying her response isn't allowed.

http://www.celebitchy.com/429104/queen_elizabeth_fired_four_senior_staffers_royal_staff_morale_is_at_rock-bottom/
 (http://www.celebitchy.com/429104/queen_elizabeth_fired_four_senior_staffers_royal_staff_morale_is_at_rock-bottom/)

"The Sovereign grant money is 15% of the profits of the crown estates. The other 85% goes into the treasury to pay for public services.

Please note, one of the often repeated lies about the crown estates is that they belonged to the royal family once upon a time which makes people throw out the argument that we’d all be worse off if they ‘reclaimed’ the crown estates in the event of a republic.

The crown estates were carved out back during the Norman conquest to pay for the instrument of government. Since the royal household, particularly the monarch, was the government, this included them in the payment. However, the Crown estates never belonged to them, they were merely administrators the estates. The revenues were supposed to pay for government eg parliament, army, Royal household. With time, the definition of government services has expanded to included Judiciary, Police, NHS and other public services.

The governance of the crown estate became problematic for successive monarchs who frequently mismanaged it such that it was debt ridden. This recurring debt forced them to go to parliament to beg for tax raising measures to pay debts and ongoing obligations.

In 1760, George 3 transferred the management of the crown estates to parliament in exchange for a portion that covered the royal household. This became a ‘salary’ of sorts and was termed the civil list. Over the years, it’s been re-negotiated as far as what it is allowed to cover rather than blanket payment for everything that constitutes the royal household.

Unfortunately, the civil list was paid in arrears and was proving equally inadequate at meeting the costs of the royal household so it was renegotiated recently and decided that a blanket 15% of the crown estates profits should cover the costs, and renamed the Sovereign grant.

A list of what is covered by the sovereign grant is available and annual accounts are made public every year. "


"it wasn’t sold to the government. It has always belonged to the govt, but managed by the sovereign. The management of it was transferred from the sovereign to the government with condition that the sovereign’s *expenses were met. Those expenses are what was known as the civil list and are now covered by the Sovereign grant.

*Sovereign is/was still government which means their expenses in the service of govt is/was recompensed in the form of the civil list/sovereign grant. "

Edit, found more of their discussions about the Duchies not belonging to the Windsors

http://www.celebitchy.com/434264/prince_charles_spent_46_million_funding_the_cambridges_prince_harry (http://www.celebitchy.com/434264/prince_charles_spent_46_million_funding_the_cambridges_prince_harry)



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Val on August 20, 2015, 07:58:01 am
Many comments everywhere on the above - an example below

Anyway this is a big one. I wondered when Chas would make his bid for the entire Crown Estate to be handed over to him and he's making his move. That was why he pushed for the SSG to be linked to the profits of the CE aided an abetted by Osbourne and pushed through Parliament without much debate. If anyone tries telling you it's theirs anyway. It isn't. They do not receive any money from the CE it is being used as a bench mark and could just as easily have been pinned to the retail price index. Further the SSG comes out of general taxation.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3202953/EPHRAIM-HARDCASTLE-Prince-Wales-wants-financial-independence-state-King.html

I am sure Chas would like nothing better than to be handed over all the profits of this, and the Duchy of Lancaster whilst his useless son moves on to take the profits of the Duchy of Cornwall.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Val on August 20, 2015, 08:04:16 am
^

More -


'I understand that there is to be a review of the SSG this autumn as many MPs are angry at the increases and a fair few also annoyed at the way it was pushed through. PC was lobbying for this but so far no letters or emails have emerged.

The  crafty b----r is banking on being able to turn around and say ah well old boy it belonged to the monarch 300 years ago and I have now staked my bid to reclaim. However, the money comes from all our taxes and the 15% link to the CE is simply a marker and Osborne stated it could have easily have been linked to the RPI which is what I suspect MPs may well push for. In a way I do hope Corbyn forms an opposition as he is a republican and will hold the Tories feet to the fire over this.

There would be a constitional crisis if PC did try this on. Not least of which would be due to the Queen signing the Lisbon Treaty and with it her and our sovereignty. Technically she ain't the queen of anything any more.'





Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 20, 2016, 02:13:31 pm
Well of course chucky does not want to pen up info ret he Duchy of Cornwall  - we could see how extravagant he is then, that would never do  lol


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/12108576/Prince-of-Wales-should-not-have-to-open-up-Duchy-of-Cornwall-to-public-scrutiny.html


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Ariel on January 20, 2016, 08:57:52 pm
i didn't get it - is the 20mil a year dutchy private or public property and into whose pocket does the 20 mil go?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: meememe on January 20, 2016, 11:11:55 pm
The Duchy was set up in the Middle Ages to provide the Duke of Cornwall and thus heir apparent to the throne with a private income to fund his private life.

The books of the Duchy are available to parliament annually with the breakdown as to how much is paid for official expenses for Charles, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry and how much he pays in salaries to official staff (not the exact amount per person of course but the total) and the amount he pays in tax (which under the terms of the Duchy he isn't required to pay at all but has done so voluntarily since he took over running it in 1966. He used to pay 50% in tax but cut it back to 25% when he married Diana so that he could cover her expenses.

What we don't get told is what he spends the money on for his private life - and we have no right to now that, any more than we have a right to know what other people want to spend their income on. He may give a lot to his charities, or other charities, spend it on luxuries, or hire lots of movies or who knows but he has as much right to spend his private income his way as anyone else. Some people will argue that as the money comes from taxpayers (but then so does the money for any other landlord e.g. the Duke of Westminster or Duke of Devonshire) they have a right to know what he spends it all on.

Note that it is only Charles that the press and Republic go after and not The Queen whose income from the Duchy of Lancaster estate is set up the same way. She didn't even pay any tax on that income until 1992 (so she had 40 tax free years) and had to be forced to do so kicking and screaming while Charles did so voluntarily from 1966 but it is always Charles who is targeted. No doubt when he becomes King they will go after the Duchy of Lancaster and leave the Duchy of Cornwall alone as William will be in charge of that then and so will get the permanent pass he gets as Diana's son.

Many people believe Charles shouldn't get any income from any source at all - meaning that the heir to the British throne would need to go to the job centre and register for unemployment benefits.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 21, 2016, 09:58:09 am
^^  The 20 million goes to chucky to fund his lavish lifestyle, including keeping the lazy lamebridges.  As it is taxpayer money then we still fund him, irrespective of the fact that it comes from the Duchy.  All stems from the taxpayer, whatever way you look at it.

Prince Charles's farm accused of eco-vandalism
Tribunal rules that Prince must hand over data on whether Duchy oyster farm is a risk to wildlife

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-charless-farm-accused-of-eco-vandalism-6256927.html

I hope they carry through and make this definitely public, the Duchies do not belong to the royals personally, they get the benefits from them and therefore information should be made to the public.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Freya on January 21, 2016, 10:54:19 am
^
Everyone seems to think that Duchy products are made by Duchy. Some years ago I had a box of Duchy chocolates. They tasted vaguely familiar and I looked at where they were made. They were made by a firm that made Woolworths pick and mix chocolates and tasted very much like them. Now I quite liked Woolworth's pick and mix however there was a big difference in the price.

http://www.ashbury.co.uk/


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Ariel on January 22, 2016, 05:21:18 am
thanks for all the clarifications. seems like to be a heir to the English throne comes with mil of income gifted by the public. pretty sweet job.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Val on January 22, 2016, 09:13:57 am
^^^

All this greed and money grabbing is just setting himself up to be even more disliked if he does become King.   


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 22, 2016, 09:22:02 am
Yes, such a greedy man, totally selfish, self centred and all me, me, me,me and me all the time.  If he only realised what a total dork he is and what people really think of him.  Wonder what he would have turned out like had he been born to an everyday working person  -  I personally very much doubt he would have amounted to much.  Everything he has is given to him, never had to work a day in his life.  Even the Princes Trust is run by others, he attend various meetings etc but he is not a worker bee.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Val on January 22, 2016, 10:31:14 am
At least they have (hopefully) stopped trying to turn him in to a popular, man of the people, loveable funny man with a great sense of humour.  He just came across as a daft, sad dork, more of the village idiot variety.  Definitely shouldn't have anything to do with the running of the Duchy of Cornwall.  Whose dumb idea was it to have him reading the weather forecast a while  back too?  Doesn't anyone understand that we want a King we can respect?


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: marion on January 22, 2016, 03:01:32 pm
Is anyone in that family normal? 


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on January 22, 2016, 05:36:38 pm
^Does not look like it. As dumb as they come and full of paedophiles, what a family to marry into, they think they are above everyone else when in fact there are better people, with morals and compassion, living in trailer parks.  Look up to and respect the rf  -  I don´t think so, never will I ever think of them as good people.  Not that I am ever likely to, but if I was in the same room as HM I would walk out, I would not want to be tainted by breathing the same air, that is how much she and her family disgust me now, and with just cause.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Tatiana on January 18, 2017, 06:57:35 am
 
    A quote from someone from Truro Cornwall  re his "booklet" on global warming.

      "While I am a Royalist, I have no time for the greedy self aggrandising Prince Charles. He should take a leaf out of his Mothers book and keep clear of political issues. He is a hypocrite and a foolish one at that. If he is that concerned why does he not live the simple life, after all if anyone can afford it he can.."



Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Kuei Fei on January 18, 2017, 07:44:47 am
I wonder how different things would be if in fact Charles were actually interested in making an educated study of the issue beyond asinine speeches. With his time and money, he could easily drown in the library with books and tutors and probably be able to make a much better speech at least.

It sounds to me like he would like to go back to the middle ages when people used herbal remedies instead of medical technology and lived off of naturally grown crops, even though chemicals have helped reduce pestilence and people don't starve if a single crop fails. I really do question his mind at times.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Tatiana on January 21, 2017, 06:55:16 am
  Charles believes his own PR.   :tehe:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: marion on July 22, 2017, 02:34:57 pm
Interesting piece re Betty's income from the Duchy of Lancaster - click on the link in the story to the Duchy of Cornwall accounts to shows that Charles gave £3 plus million to Bill Midds and Harry in 2017. I seriously cannot see either duchy surviving after the Queen goes. Extravagance beyond comprehension.


https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jul/19/queen-spend-mushrooming-pay-revenue-estate


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 22, 2017, 05:15:24 pm
And she had to cheek to ask for a grant to repair the roof of BP a few years ago, the front of the woman.  It might not belong to her but she does get the glory of living there for free.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: leogirl on July 22, 2017, 07:24:14 pm
If it doesn't belong to her, she might not legally be allowed to make repairs. For example, if you're renting a home you can't just decide to replace the roof or whatever, even if it is leaking.

She does live there for free and is very wealthy. I guess that's how they stay rich: hoard their stash and never spend it, and get the government/taxpayers to cover all their expenses.  :dontknow:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: marion on July 22, 2017, 08:22:25 pm
Oh I think if Betty wants to do something enough she will always get her own way


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on July 22, 2017, 10:00:45 pm
If not her home and she is not legally allowed to do things then why did she apply for a grant to do help with the leaking roof.  One assumes from that she is legally entitled to do so.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: leogirl on July 22, 2017, 10:14:45 pm
I am not sure how the process would work for that. Grants are money from the government and if the government owns the building then I guess they would have to fix it?  :dontknow:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Alexandrine on September 11, 2017, 08:48:39 pm
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/sep/11/duchy-of-cornwall-residents-fight-freehold-ban-prince-charles?CMP=share_btn_tw

 Duchy of Cornwall residents fight 'unfair' freehold ban

Villagers on Prince Charles’s estate submit response to government consultation on leasehold abuses in effort to overturn ban


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: gingerboy24 on September 11, 2017, 08:55:28 pm
About time they stood up and fought back, good for them, hope they win.


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: D.I.R. on July 28, 2018, 06:29:54 pm
The Real Camilla: HRH The Duchess of Cornwall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9e82ODqXxU


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: marion on July 28, 2018, 08:32:17 pm
This video appears to be banned in the UK for copyright reasons


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: Little light on July 28, 2018, 11:06:15 pm
is there's anything in this video that is of importance please?

 :thankyou:


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: india on July 28, 2018, 11:45:39 pm
^ No


Title: Re: The Duchy of Cornwall
Post by: lesken on February 23, 2019, 04:10:00 pm
Get the duchies back for the people!