Duchy of Cornwall


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
That's not entirely accurate.

The Sovereign Grant Act states that, where the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in Her Majesty, the Treasury is to pay a grant to any person who is the heir to the throne in the relevant period. That is really no different to the provisions made for previous heirs to the Throne who were not Dukes of Cornwall. However, nowhere does it say that the entire income of the Duchy will be automatically paid to the heir, if not the current Duke of Cornwall.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/15/crossheading/the-sovereign-grant/enacted
.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nico said:
"Republic" strikes again :
Prince Charles reported to the revenue over 'well entrenched tax avoidance scheme' on £18m earnings | Mail Online
Click to expand...
And when they find that everything is aboveboard , and that Charles and the Duchy pay more than their fair share of tax (A tax he voluntarily offered to pay), Republic looks like a bunch of mugs.

This is how sad and pathetic the 'republican movement' is in Britain.
Grasping and straws come to mind.

Hollie said:
Secret royal veto powers over new laws to be exposed
Prince Charles: public duty v private power
Click to expand...
Typical gruel from the "The People's Paper" - The Guardian. A rag that lost 44 millions pounds last year and has to rely on the BBC and Labour party to buy bulk subscriptions to keep it a float.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prince Charles paid £1m a year to support Prince William and Harry in official duties | Royal | News | Daily Express

PRINCE Charles is paying £1 million a year to support his sons and the Duchess of Cambridge in their official duties, it emerged today.

But the heir to the throne may struggle to foot the growing bill if Prince William, Kate, and Prince Harry end up taking on much more royal work as the Queen and Prince Philip slow down. That may come to a head if William decides in September to quit his job as an RAF search and rescue helicopter pilot and become a fulltime working royal. "Whatever the Duke of Cambridge's plans, the Prince of Wales would have to look carefully at how he continues to fund the official activities of the staff and support for the five senior members of the Royal Family whom he is paying for," said Mr Nye.

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.

Figures published yesterday showed he received a record £19 million in profits from the Duchy in the year to the end of March, up 4% on last year.

Charles, who paid £4.4 million in tax after deducting expenses, spent 67 per cent of the remainder on official and charitable duties. His 17 charities raised £139 million in the year. 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.
 
Prince Charles' public funding costs drop by half | Royal | News | Daily Express

OFFICIAL accounts have revealed that public funding for Prince Charles has fallen by almost half, falling from £2.2m to £1.2m in a year.

The dramatic fall has been largely due to foreign countries footing the bill for any overseas visits, which worked out at over 58,000 miles of travellingto and from official engagements. "In 2012-13, the Prince of Wales undertook a total of 657 official engagements, of which 154 were overseas, and the Duchess of Cornwall undertook 277 engagements, of which 122 were overseas," the prince's annual report said.

It was also revealed that the Prince's private income from the Duchy of Cornwall - the landed estate given to the heir to the throne to provide him or her with an income - went up by 4% to just over £19m but official have said that more than half of his after-tax income is spent on official and charitable duties. The Prince allocated £11m to "official expenditure" and £2.5m to "non-official expenditure", while also paying £4.4m in tax.
 
William, Kate, Harry, Camilla....who is the 5th he is supporting?
 
"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. :D

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.
.
 
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.
 
Warren said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
COUNTESS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Neither of the Duchies pay Corporations tax so why just attack Cornwall - simply - it is an attack on Charles.
 
Yes, its all an attack on the angel Charles.
 
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.
 
COUNTESS said:
Actually, the United States is the largest charity donating nation in the world.
Click to expand...

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%.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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).
 
sthreats said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

iceflower
The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall: Royal Tour to Canada, May 2022
Replies
22
Views
2K
Mbruno
M
M
Family Bylaws Concerning the House Law of the House of Luxembourg-Nassau
Replies
1
Views
455
Tatiana Maria
T
Blog Real
Prince Edward, Duke of Kent & Strathearn & Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld
Replies
7
Views
1K
Prinsara
Prinsara
M
Laws of the House of Grimaldi
Replies
3
Views
504
Tatiana Maria
T
Blog Real
King Carlo Alberto (1798-1849) and Queen Maria Theresa of Austria
Replies
2
Views
551
Blog Real
Blog Real

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom