Royal Gossip
August 24, 2017, 05:59:37 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 11   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Duchy of Cornwall  (Read 25275 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
True Brit
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4434


« 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
Logged

" Kate, Pippa and Carole Middleton seen at Manolo Blahnik today.. overheard asking if they carried shoes for cloven hooves. "
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #1 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
Logged
True Brit
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4434


« Reply #2 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
Logged

" Kate, Pippa and Carole Middleton seen at Manolo Blahnik today.. overheard asking if they carried shoes for cloven hooves. "
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #3 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.
Logged
True Brit
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4434


« Reply #4 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.
Logged

" Kate, Pippa and Carole Middleton seen at Manolo Blahnik today.. overheard asking if they carried shoes for cloven hooves. "
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #5 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
Logged
rogue
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2661



« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2012, 12:34:04 am »

How much does the Queen get every year from her Duchy ??
Logged
Magnolia
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3929


« Reply #7 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.
Logged


THIS IS YOU:NET- FXCKER A PERSON WHO SPENDS DAYS ON THE INTERNET AT A TIME USUALLY LATE AT NIGHT OR VERY EARLY IN THE MORNING HE OR SHE IS A RECLUSE AND A NET-FXCKER! THIS IS YOU:NET-JUNKIES TEND TO NOT HAVE LIVES ALTHOUGH ON RARE OCCASIONS ONE OF THEM UNWITTINGLY DOWNLOADS IT FROM THE INTERNET
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #8 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.
Logged
YooperModerator
Super Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12988



« Reply #9 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
Logged


\\\"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.\\\"  Thomas Jefferson
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #10 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.
Logged
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #11 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.
Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #12 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.
Logged
Kuei Fei
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 35957


Moderator/I'm so royal I piss blue


WWW
« Reply #13 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.
Logged

To receive regular news, go to "@gossippsychotic" to get updates from various other gossip websites such as "Downtown Chatter" or "Royal Gossip Psychotic" and end up reading all about all sorts of peccadilloes.
True Brit
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4434


« Reply #14 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.
Logged

" Kate, Pippa and Carole Middleton seen at Manolo Blahnik today.. overheard asking if they carried shoes for cloven hooves. "
fyeah_harryshotabs
courtier
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 245


Iz ther sumfin in muh teef?


« Reply #15 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 shifty

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
Logged

MiniMidds OrganiSSr...pm meh 4 A nUmbA iFz uz LuV pinkheart DuCheSS CaTheRinE pinkheart pinkheart

BElievE ThA Pr...itz 4reeL. ShEz STUNNING..Uz jUz JeLLuS!!
meememe
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2190



« Reply #16 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.
Logged
Snokitty
Princess
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 6377



« Reply #17 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.   bored3

I hope you enjoy your beautiful September morning.  easter-bunny
Logged
True Brit
Duchess
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4434


« Reply #18 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

 
« Last Edit: September 30, 2012, 05:39:59 pm by True Brit » Logged

" Kate, Pippa and Carole Middleton seen at Manolo Blahnik today.. overheard asking if they carried shoes for cloven hooves. "
Leila
Countess
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1399


« Reply #19 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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 11   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines | Imprint Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!