The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #161  
Old 06-28-2013, 05:56 PM
Warren's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 15,423
"Charles pays for much of the work involving himself, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry".
Thus 'himself" must be the fifth senior royal that Charles is supporting financially.

It would have been less ambiguous for the journo to have written instead that the Duchy income was being used to support five senior royals.
.
__________________

__________________
Seeking information? Check out the extensive Royal A-Z
Reply With Quote
  #162  
Old 06-28-2013, 06:05 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,510
If William and Catherine go full-time, then there will be even more expenditure for the Duchy. Everyone has been clamouring for them to do more, but no one has really considered the cost.

Three generations of full time royals will be considered v expensive, particularly by the media.
__________________

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #163  
Old 06-28-2013, 06:07 PM
AdmirerUS's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Midwest, United States
Posts: 2,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Warren View Post
Prince Charles paid 1m a year to support Prince William and Harry in official duties | Royal | News | Daily Express


At the moment, Buckingham Palace receives the bulk of 36 million in taxpayer funding for the Royal Family but Charles pays for much of the work involving himself, Camilla, William, Kate and Harry, who are increasingly becoming the focus of the future of the monarchy. Charles, 64, pays for them from the income he receives from his hereditary landed estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, which owns 131,000 acres in 24 counties, mostly in south-west England but also in London.
Royal sources confirmed that the 1 million he pays for William, Kate and Harry - mainly to fund their St James's Palace office and travel by car on official duties in Britain - is part of a figure of 2.1 million described as other expenditure in the accounts. William, Kate and Harry also receive financial support from Charles to fund their private lives. The cost of Kate's dresses are thought to be included in Charles's 2.4 million private expenditure but the figure is not detailed in the accounts.
A bit off topic - but I ask to put the sums and issue in perspective - has Her Majesty ever disclosed how much of a tab she picks up (out of the 36 million, I assume) for the work the Kents, Yorks, Essex's and Gloucesters carry out? Are there line items as such for that? And I am assuming none of them foot their own bill for official duties?

Finally, I assume any costs for use of the Royal Fleet of transport types (limos, buses, royal train, the Sikorski, copter, etc.) are paid for by the Queen?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #164  
Old 06-28-2013, 07:05 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
The Queen pays the cost of the official duties of all members of her family, except those supported by Charles and herelf and Philip from her private income and has done so now for over 20 years. Their costs don't come from the Sovereign Grant at all.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #165  
Old 06-28-2013, 08:23 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,515
I hate to say this, no I don't, but all the lands they live off they never were purchased or worked for, they inherited them. Don't tell me that Sandringham was bought. It was bought with funds that they gleaned from not paying taxes and robbing the land in the past. Which one would think that their forebears worked for or inherited, but they have them because their ancestors appropriated them for them, their in no ethic that they should have these monies, when pensioners live on a pittance, while they live in the lap of luxury, always. The many years of no taxes, big swords and fear gained them this proprietary advantage. The amount of their lifestyles is excessive, but not their fault, they were raised to think this is their due. And the "work" of cutting ribbons and waving for all the family has been amply rewarded.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #166  
Old 06-28-2013, 08:29 PM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,510
The world is full of people who's ancestors avoided paying taxes, and did things that by today's standards you should never do. But you cant unravel it.

What about giving back all the land rights and ownerships to native americans? Tricky cos other people now believe they own that land. Think of all the rich people in the US who made money through prohibition and bribed their way to avoiding prosecution. Dead now but their families kept the money.

We are were we are, there is no going back and people need to be realistic. And it isnt just about cutting ribbons - such a ridiculously simplistic definition IMO. It is also about, in the case of PoW, raising over 139m for charity in one year.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #167  
Old 06-28-2013, 08:43 PM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Green Bay, United States
Posts: 525
Thank you for a sensible statement.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #168  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:13 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,449
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iluvbertie View Post
....um .... himself.
Well, he's not supporting another royal if it's himself.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #169  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:48 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,515
We did take away native American territory and today, on may of these lands they have casinos, which wisely take away a great deal of money from those who put them there. Other suffer and there is no pride in that.
Bootleggers are a different story, as all nations have had men who made money from tribulations. And yes, they were, thieves, and this took place in many other nation with other similar problems.
Raising money for charity when you have an unlimited amount for yourself and never have had to work for one thing in your life in not a plus. There are many in this country, Bill Gates, for instance, that had humble backgrounds, did much and give far more in time and money from themselves. And raised far more. We have many more like that. Actually, the United States is the largest charity donating nation in the world.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #170  
Old 06-28-2013, 09:55 PM
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, United States
Posts: 2,515
Oh and by the way, as a P.S., where do you think all those jewels in crowns, tiaras and such came from, many stolen from India, South Africa, Granny's chip weren't found on the ground in Yorkshire.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #171  
Old 06-28-2013, 11:32 PM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Top End, Australia
Posts: 331
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Oh and by the way, as a P.S., where do you think all those jewels in crowns, tiaras and such came from, many stolen from India, South Africa, Granny's chip weren't found on the ground in Yorkshire.
That's right they weren't found in Yorkshire. In many cases they were gifts from the executives of the mining companies or foreign leaders hoping to gain advantage. No different to executives doing favors for politicians in the hope of being awarded a lucrative contract or political favors.

BTW, the Cullinan, the source of the granny chips was accepted by Edward VII on the advice of the British Government.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #172  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:45 AM
cepe's Avatar
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 4,510
On 17 July, the Duchy of Cornwall is the subject for a parliamentary finance committee. Key question is why isnt the Duchy paying corporation tax? This meeting has been known about for some time.

however, and probably because they want to give the MPs some ammunition, Channel 4 are airing a documentary on Monday 1st July at 20:00. It is called The Prince and His Secret Properties: Dispatches Special.

Im anticipating a hatchet job.
__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,
Reply With Quote
  #173  
Old 06-29-2013, 08:24 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
Neither of the Duchies pay Corporations tax so why just attack Cornwall - simply - it is an attack on Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #174  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:25 PM
scooter's Avatar
Heir Presumptive
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: katonah, United States
Posts: 2,449
Yes, its all an attack on the angel Charles.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #175  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:40 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
No one said he was an 'angel' but it is an attack on Charles as The Queen isn't also being investigated for exactly the same arrangements regarding the Duchy of Lancaster, and interestingly Charles voluntarily has paid tax since he took over the running of the Duchy of Cornwall but The Queen had to be pressured into paying any taxes in 1992 - 40 years after she took over The Duchy of Lancaster.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #176  
Old 06-30-2013, 02:35 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 312
Quote:
Originally Posted by COUNTESS View Post
Actually, the United States is the largest charity donating nation in the world.
If you mean in absolute numbers, then you are right. In percentage of gross national income, the US is nr 19 with 0.19%. Luxembourg is nr. 1 with 1%.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #177  
Old 06-30-2013, 03:36 AM
sthreats's Avatar
Nobility
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: midwest, United States
Posts: 332
I must be missing something. It's my understanding that both Prince William and Prince Harry have inherited over $20 million each from their late mother, Princess Diane's estate. . They are adults. Why would Prince Charles continue to pay for their official duties expenses as well as their personal expenditures. Why would Price Charles need to pay 1.2 million for Duchess Katherine's dresses.

Prince William and Prince Harry do carry out official duties, they are not official duties that directly benefit the Prince of Wales but rather the government, the Queen or their charities they are interested in. So it seems me that they're men now and they should be able to cover their expenses. Also Prince William should pay for his wife's dresses, shoes ,hair ,and makeup.

Could someone please understand explain the structure here? . Is the Duchy of Cornwall responsible for all the business and personal expenses of the Prince of Wales/Duke of Cornwall and his family no matter how old they are? Is the personal inherited income of the Princes meant to be not spent until after the Prince of Wales sends the throne?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #178  
Old 06-30-2013, 03:40 AM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,153
I guess you can put it in to the perspective of a father taking care of his children. The Duke pf York covers the expenses of his two daughters. Their inherited wealth is their private wealth to do with as they please. Every BRF member has their own private wealth but receives income in different ways.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #179  
Old 06-30-2013, 03:53 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,534
In the past when a member of the royal family came of age - aged 21 for most of history - they were voted an allowance from the government for living and official expenses. As the 20th C unfolded these moneys started to be repaid by The Queen from her personal wealth.

Charles therefore follows the example of his mother who pays the official expenses of her adult cousins and children and also supports her children and other grandchildren so that they don't have to dip into their private wealth. Charles seems happy to continue to allow the princes to grow Diana's wealth (which was largely his in the first place) as if they didn't have that money.

In time when he is king he will have the cost of supporting any living older royals - such as his siblings - but not his nieces and nephews who won't be working for The Firm - if the reports are correct (and they are based on one comment nearly 20 years ago and never confirmed).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #180  
Old 06-30-2013, 08:13 AM
Nobility
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Balmoral, United Kingdom
Posts: 273
Quote:
Originally Posted by sthreats View Post
I must be missing something. It's my understanding that both Prince William and Prince Harry have inherited over $20 million each from their late mother, Princess Diane's estate. . They are adults. Why would Prince Charles continue to pay for their official duties expenses as well as their personal expenditures. Why would Price Charles need to pay 1.2 million for Duchess Katherine's dresses.
My thoughts exactly - it's often in the papers that Charles spends thousands and thousands of pounds on dresses for Kate, I see no reason she shouldn't buy her own wardrobe.
__________________

__________________
Virtually Royalty
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
duchy of cornwall, duke of cornwall, prince charles, prince of wales


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Relationship of the Royal Family with The Duchess of Cornwall? HMQueenElizabethII The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall 383 04-29-2014 06:25 AM
Duchess of Cornwall Fashion and Style Part 1: April 2005 - December 2009 A.C.C. Archives 399 12-25-2009 01:30 AM




Additional Links
Popular Tags
abdication birth charlene crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess letizia crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria dutch royal history engagement fashion grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king abdullah ii king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander luxembourg olympic games ottoman pom pregnancy president hollande president komorowski prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince constantijn prince felipe prince floris prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess laurentien princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess marilene princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen rania queen silvia queen sofia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit sweden the hague visit wedding winter olympics 2014



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:07 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]