Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles 5: Nov 2004 - Feb 2005

[GrandDuchess]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

doesn't he have his own money besides the allowance given to him yearly by the state (the taxpayer) assuming the revenues from the duchy are not his private property.

Here is a very precise answer to your question, from the official website of the Prince of Wales, you can find the whole text here

The Duchy of Cornwall

The Duchy of Cornwall is one of the largest and oldest landed estates in Britain. It was created in 1337 by Edward III for his son, Prince Edward (the Black Prince). A charter ruled that each future Duke of Cornwall would be the eldest surviving son of the monarch - and the heir to the throne.

Since the 14th century the Duchy's main purpose has been to provide an income, independent of the Monarch, for the heir apparent. That income covers the cost of the public and private life of the current Duke, The Prince of Wales. Neither he nor his sons receive an allowance from the Civil List. When there is no male heir, the Duchy reverts to the Monarch, and its income to the Exchequer.

The Prince of Wales became the 24th Duke of Cornwall on The Queen's accession to the throne, in 1952. When he was 21, in 1969, he became entitled to the full income of the Duchy and took over its management. As Duke of Cornwall, His Royal Highness chairs The Prince's Council, the equivalent of a modern day non-executive board, which includes:

The Lord Warden of the Stannaries, the Receiver General, the Attorney-General to The Prince of Wales, and the Secretary and Keeper of the Records.

While the titles of the four officers reflect the antiquity of the estate, they are drawn from a number of modern day professions to advise on the estate's activities. The Secretary and Keeper of the Records acts as the Duchy's chief executive, responsible for the day to day running of the estate.

FINANCE
The Duchy is publicly regulated by a number of Acts of Parliament to make sure that it is run efficiently - and that the estate's capital, currently valued at around £357 million, is kept in the best possible condition to enable it to provide for future Dukes. Every year, the Duchy's latest accounts are submitted to the Treasury, which then lays them in the libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Annual net surplus profit of £7,475,000 was reported for 2001 and the Duchy of Cornwall's 2002 annual report, recorded an annual net surplus of £7,827,000.

Annual net surplus profit in 2003 rose to £9,943,000, a 27% increase compared to the previous year.

As a Crown body, the Duchy is tax-exempt, but since 1993 The Prince has voluntarily paid income tax - currently at 40% - on his income from it. The Prince had always paid a voluntary contribution to the Treasury - of 50% of his Duchy income from the time he became eligible for its full income at the age of 21 in 1969, and 25% after his marriage in 1981. Tax is calculated after deducting business expenditure, the biggest source of which is The Prince's staff of around 80 - from private secretaries to valets - working in his office at St James's Palace, and at Highgrove. Detailed records are kept to determine the split between public and private expenditure.

Staff duties include organisation of engagements - more than 500 last year in the UK and abroad - and handling contacts with the 400-plus organisations with which the Prince is formally involved. His staff also handle letters sent by the public to The Prince of Wales and his two sons - over 300,000 last year. But staff time for private engagements, together with spending on clothes, school fees for Prince William and Prince Harry, and Royal travel for private purposes, is met from taxed income.

Total Duchy income for the 12 months amounted to £15,668,000. The estate's lettings of agricultural, commercial, and residential properties contributed £14,232,000, the balance of income coming from investments in the Stock Exchange and interest on cash holdings. Operating costs for the Duchy rose, from £6,664,000 the previous year, to £6,757,000.

Investment in improvements, maintenance, and repairs totalled £1,900,000.

[Reina]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

reina,

loving someone is surely not a disfunction and we can not expect him to go alone to all the parties etc. they are not married but she is his "girlfriend" and he is too old to be engaged and getting married is a problem, so this is it.

I do not know that the president and other americans will not approve, they will not want to "cast the first stone" to such a distinguishd guest and knowing the americans as I do, they will be VERY hospitable, to him and to her.

I read later that she would not go to the official dinner, but to a private party so that is ok. But if it was official than I would not agree.
ANd yes the Americans are very hospitable, whic is why I did not like CHarles trying to tkae advantage of this. But as I said a private fdunction is ok.

[Reina]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

That there are trashy shows in the U.S. (or in any other country for that matter) is distinctly different and wholly separate from Charles' relationship with Camilla. It's not as if Charles' relationship with Camilla is the reason why there are trashy shows on in the U.S. or in another country.

And why is the relationship so dysfunctional? Because it's not a society-cut out relationship of two people who are in love getting married and living happily ever after? Charles tried that and it didn't work. And in Camilla he obviously has someone who cares about and supports him; someone who's opinon matters in his life and someone whom Charles obviously loves very deeply.

Charles and Camilla's relationship is much more functional than Charles and Diana's relationship ever was.

And just why exactly should Charles test the waters out "in Canada or some other place!"? As a Canadian I take great offence to that; it seems to imply superiority of one nation to all the others -- and that certainly isn't right.

I was not implying superiority. I was implying that Canada and a whole lotta other nations tolerate dysfunctional/immoral stuff anyway, so why not not?

ANd I was not talking about their relationship being dsyfunctional, but the situation.

And I knwo I will get in hot water for my 1st statement, but seeing what the Canadian govt. and ppl have allowed than you can see what I am coming from.

[susan alicia]

Warren and Grandduchess, thank you for your answers, I understand the situation better now.

[susan alicia]

Originally Posted by Reina

I read later that she would not go to the official dinner, but to a private party so that is ok. But if it was official than I would not agree.
ANd yes the Americans are very hospitable, whic is why I did not like CHarles trying to tkae advantage of this. But as I said a private fdunction is ok.

reina,

if the americans and who ever is lucky enough to be invited to an official dinner and charles and camilla can not enjoy themselves for an evening in a civilised manner and go home feeling the better for it, what hope is there for most of us.

[Reina]

What other world leaders or future world leaders brought their girlfriends to official dinners? WHy should Charles get an excuse?

[susan alicia]

I think the white house will go along with anyone charles wants to bring and be wonderfull to that person but I base my information on unbelievably polite americans and on the movie with michael douglas and annette bening.

[Alexandria]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

I think the white house will go along with anyone charles wants to bring and be wonderfull to that person but I base my information on unbelievably polite americans and on the movie with michael douglas and annette bening.

I agree susan alicia that whomever Charles chose to bring to dinner with him the Americans in attendance would be polite and cordial to that guest, regardless of how they felt about her or their relationship. To say that they would be rude or snub Camilla or whomever is to say that those Americans don't have manners themselves (which is not true); and then they would be as "bad" as Charles and Camilla's relationship.

Originally Posted by Reina

And I knwo I will get in hot water for my 1st statement, but seeing what the Canadian govt. and ppl have allowed than you can see what I am coming from.

I haven't a clue what you mean by this. The Canadian government isn't perfect, historically or presently, but neither is any other government so perfect.

But that's a digression. Back to Charles and Camilla.

[kinneret5764]

Originally Posted by Alexandria

That there are trashy shows in the U.S. (or in any other country for that matter) is distinctly different and wholly separate from Charles' relationship with Camilla. It's not as if Charles' relationship with Camilla is the reason why there are trashy shows on in the U.S. or in another country.

And why is the relationship so dysfunctional? Because it's not a society-cut out relationship of two people who are in love getting married and living happily ever after? Charles tried that and it didn't work. And in Camilla he obviously has someone who cares about and supports him; someone who's opinon matters in his life and someone whom Charles obviously loves very deeply.

Charles and Camilla's relationship is much more functional than Charles and Diana's relationship ever was.

And just why exactly should Charles test the waters out "in Canada or some other place!"? As a Canadian I take great offence to that; it seems to imply superiority of one nation to all the others -- and that certainly isn't right.

A higher standard of behavior is expected from public figures, especially royalty, especialty a future sovereign who will one day become head of the Church of England.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by theprincess

How about if Ms. Parker-Bowles pays for her own clothes, travel, ect. Afterall, they are not married and she is merely his significant other. Why shouldn't she support her own lifestyle?

Because it isn't her lifestyle, it's his. She didn't live like this when she was married to Andrew Parker Bowles; she's living this way now because it's the way Prince Charles lives. That being the case, he shouldn't be expecting her to shoulder the whole financial burden of the lifestyle herself.

These days a lot of people are together but not married; most of the time that doesn't mean there's a strict financial demarcation line between the two, but the income is pooled and shared in much the same way as for married couples.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by susan alicia

Elspeth,

doesn't he have his own money besides the allowance given to him yearly by the state (the taxpayer) assuming the revenues from the duchy are not his private property.

I'm not sure what he has other than the Duchy income. Often, legacies from royal family members are given to daughters and younger sons because it's known that the eldest son will inherit the throne and the Duchy of Lancaster with its income, as well as having the Civil List to pay for expenses. Prince Charles doesn't get any money from the Civil List; as far as I know, all his income related to his position comes from the Duchy of Cornwall.

wonder whether Mrs. Keppel was kept by her lover or by the state.

Beats me. It's a bit hard to know whether something like savings from Duchy income that were invested years ago would now count as state income or private income. I think this fuzzy demarcation between public and private income is something that's been a bit of a problem with the royal family for a long time.

If he is basically giving her an allowance through the english taxpayers there is something unmasculine about his not paying for his own, very personal bills.

Well, if she's attending functions with him that he's attending because of his position, it isn't really all that personal. I mean, I'm not sure where the demarcation is in terms of either his sources of income or the official nature of his duties or her function when she attends them.

[Elspeth]

Originally Posted by kinneret5764

A higher standard of behavior is expected from public figures, especially royalty, especialty a future sovereign who will one day become head of the Church of England.

His behaviour as far as this trip to the USA is concerned is no different from his behaviour for years. If the CofE doesn't approve - and I gather some of the senior bishops don't - then it's for the church to sort out with Charles and the Queen. However, as long as the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't making loudly disapproving noises, which so far he isn't, Charles could be forgiven for thinking that the church isn't opposed to what he's doing.

[sara1981]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

His behaviour as far as this trip to the USA is concerned is no different from his behaviour for years. If the CofE doesn't approve - and I gather some of the senior bishops don't - then it's for the church to sort out with Charles and the Queen. However, as long as the Archbishop of Canterbury isn't making loudly disapproving noises, which so far he isn't, Charles could be forgiven for thinking that the church isn't opposed to what he's doing.

yes i agree it!

if Prince Charles would become Monarchy one day! they dont have affair with Camilla if his ex-wives the Princess Diana would alives anytimes nor the English people wanted him to re-marry since 1996 of divorces for Wales.

Camilla and her ex-husband is not Royals! but i dont think so Camilla dont have Diana's famous engagement rings i would damn know it! but Diana have it!

im sure about HM Queen Mother would alives anytimes because HM Queen Mother wanted Prince Charles to getting re-marry they cant getting married to Camilla because they knew had affairs in 1970's for long times before Prince Charles married to Diana Spencer in 1981 but Prince Charles intives Camilla to watch Prince Charles's wedding in 1981 but Diana wont wanted Camilla attend reception after ceremony in 1981! because Charles and Camilla had affairs since 1970's but Diana is really totally pissed off!

Sara Boyce

[susan alicia]

Originally Posted by Elspeth

I'm not sure what he has other than the Duchy income. Often, legacies from royal family members are given to daughters and younger sons because it's known that the eldest son will inherit the throne and the Duchy of Lancaster with its income, as well as having the Civil List to pay for expenses. Prince Charles doesn't get any money from the Civil List; as far as I know, all his income related to his position comes from the Duchy of Cornwall.




Beats me. It's a bit hard to know whether something like savings from Duchy income that were invested years ago would now count as state income or private income. I think this fuzzy demarcation between public and private income is something that's been a bit of a problem with the royal family for a long time.



Well, if she's attending functions with him that he's attending because of his position, it isn't really all that personal. I mean, I'm not sure where the demarcation is in terms of either his sources of income or the official nature of his duties or her function when she attends them.

I understand the money bit now since it was explained to me.
But if she is attending functions with him it is because he wants her to, and since she is not a relative nor a servant my point was that he has to take care of her bills.

By the way:
you have become a SUPER moderator:) , or was you always one?

[Elspeth]

All the moderators have become super moderators; that means that if need be we can all moderate in other forums than our own if the local mods or admins happen to not be around when there are problems.

[GrandDuchess]

The Prince of Wales one a visit to Boscastle in the north of his duchy Cornwall today. Six months ago the village was flooded when a wall of water crashed through it after 3in of rain fell in just a couple of hours. Pictures by Getty: