General News for The Prince of Wales and The Duchess of Cornwall 1: Feb 2015-Sep 2022


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Time to move on from critiquing UK Covid rules. Anything further along those lines here will be deleted.

If you want to debate Covid rules, do it on the Covid thread.
 
Hopefully any now postponed meetings and engagements that the couple were scheduled to be present at can be rescheduled soon.
 
They could have continued doing meetings via phone or video link.
 
Here's hoping that Charles and Camilla's Covid is just a redux. Time for them to wear slacks and slippers under the table while they "Zoom" their respective engagements where possible.
 
What special and relevant Easter words from Prince Charles, and referencing Jesus washing his disciples' feet.

So glad to read and reflect on the whole of this message.
And glad that our highest leaders are free to express such a heartfelt human message.
 
I always enjoy the annual Easter message from The Prince of Wales!
 
The Duchess of Cornwall will be on the cover of Vogue to mark her 75th birthday in July. According to press reports the photo shoot and interview took place last week.


** dm article **
 
No room at the palace: Privy Counsellors told to stay away from Prince Charles’ accession
Archive

(...)

In a letter seen by The Telegraph, Richard Tilbrook, Clerk of the Privy Council, wrote: “With the agreement of Number 10 and the Lord President of the Council, we have advised the Royal Household that - for strong safety and operational reasons - there is no option but to reduce the number of attendees to 200 if we are to deliver the first high profile event of the King’s reign to the high presentational and safety standards required of the occasion.

“The historic nature of St James’s Palace presents a number of significant challenges in terms of capacity, accessibility and crowd flow.

“The pace at which an Accession Council must take place limits significantly the additional security, infrastructure and provision we are able to make on the day.

“Taken together, these issues posed a considerable risk to the dignified delivery of an Accession Council. Even with a number of mitigations in place, there was a significant risk of overcrowding and lengthy queuing, resulting in safety issues and a compromised experience for attendees, and potentially delaying the start of the Accession Council.

“The revised attendee list will now comprise Privy Counsellors selected on an ex-officio basis, a small number of Privy Counsellors selected via an annual ballot, and certain other dignitaries.”

The number of Privy Counsellors has swelled from 175 when the Queen took the throne in 1952 to more than 700 today.

(...)
 
Last edited:
Charles accepted €1m cash in suitcase from sheikh

Archive

(...)

It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.

(...)

Palace aides then asked Coutts to collect the cash. The private bank, which is headquartered in the Strand in central London, and has served the royal family for centuries, is understood to have retrieved the suitcase from Charles’s London residence.

Each payment was deposited into the accounts of the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund (PWCF), a low-profile grant-making entity which bankrolls the prince’s pet projects and his country estate in Scotland. There is no suggestion the payments were illegal.

(...)

There are questions over a “cash-for-access” culture at Clarence House, with the Metropolitan Police and Charity Commission investigating fundraising practices, including the sale of honours. Last year The Sunday Times reported that Michael Fawcett, Charles’s closest confidant, fixed an honour for a Saudi billionaire. There is no evidence the sheikh did not intend the monies to go to the charity and Sheikh Hamad did not comment on Saturday.

However, the new revelations will raise serious questions about the personal judgment of the heir to the throne — including how much he knew, what he asked about the cash, and his impartiality in representing Britain on the world stage. Charles is regularly tasked with communicating the country’s foreign policy and position on issues such as human rights during official overseas visits. He visited Qatar repeatedly after accepting the cash, including during Sheikh Hamad’s premiership.

(...)

The cash also poses questions about the governance of Charles’s flagship charity. Trustees have a legal duty to protect a charity’s reputation. One of the trustees of the PWCF at the time said they had no knowledge of Sheikh Hamad’s gifts.

The PWCF was approached on Friday evening. Sir Ian Cheshire, its chairman, stated: “At a few hours’ notice from The Sunday Times, we have checked into this event in the past, and confirm that the previous trustees of PWCF discussed the governance and donor relationship, (confirming that the donor was a legitimate and verified counterparty) and our auditors signed off on the donation after a specific enquiry during the audit. There was no failure of governance”. He confirmed the latest donation was given in cash. He said: “The donation was made in cash and that was the donor’s choice.”

(...)

Charles typically meets foreign dignitaries in sessions attended by a private secretary who can take minutes, follow up on any sensitive matters and forward relevant information to government bodies such as the Foreign Office. But the future king met Sheikh Hamad with no other aides present.

(...)

This certainly doesn't look good for Charles. I know some ppl prefer cash over electronic transactions, but not for such large sums of money (even the Qatari PM's team advised against it). It'd surely raise questions, not to mention with the private meeting with no aides in attendance makes it more suspicious.

Well, at least it went to charity, not tree house for a barely a year-old baby ...
 
It will end when the British wise up and remove the concept of hereditary monarchy - then they will be free to take any cash they won't without anyone really caring. Charles, like Andrew, is arrogant enough to believe that the normal rules of behaviour don't apply to him, only his relates to the way he does financial dealings.
 
I think it shows, again, that when lack of judgement in all senses was handed out Charles headed the queue. It’s not just his friends and acquaintances’ behaviour in the past, which he often supported and enabled, but several scandals involving money. Once more….
 
I can't even imagine why he thought that accepting that much cash was acceptable. It also begs the question of why the Shiekh wanted to use cash instead of an electronic transfer. It's very suspicious.
 
It will end when the British wise up and remove the concept of hereditary monarchy - then they will be free to take any cash they won't without anyone really caring. Charles, like Andrew, is arrogant enough to believe that the normal rules of behaviour don't apply to him, only his relates to the way he does financial dealings.

It has nothing to with hereditary monarchy. Any public official (e.g. a prime minister) who accepted a "gift" from a foreign ruler or a foreign government would raise eyebrows, especially if that gift were not declared as ministerial codes normally require.

The US, which was one of the first modern republics in the world and is a fiercely republican country, even has a special provision about that in the federal constitution, the so-called "emoluments clause".

And, of course, Charles would not have been offered that gift (or "donation") to begin with if he were not who he is. As we have seen with King Juan Carlos in Spain, relationships with those Gulf rulers can be very tricky.
 
Last edited:
It has nothing to with hereditary monarchy. Any public official (e.g. a prime minister) who accepted a "gift" from a foreign ruler or a foreign government would raise eyebrows, especially if that gift were not declared as ministerial codes normally require.

The US, which was one of the first modern republics in the world and is a fiercely republican country, even has a special provision about that in the federal constitution, the so-called "emoluments clause".

And, of course, Charles would not have been offered that gift (or "donation") to begin with if he were not who he is. As we have seen with King Juan Carlos in Spain, relationships with those Gulf rulers can be very tricky.

> Lets be clear, this is not cash that the PoW accepted for personal use.

> The monies went immediately to charities.

> Appropriate guidelines were followed by the charities and Clarence House. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the appropriate charity has confirmed this. More specifically, the Chair goes on to to confirm that there was no failure of governance.

> The auditors of the charity also signed off on the donation. There was a specific query during the audit process, but after due verification, the auditors signed off on the donation

> As a regulated financial institution, Coutts would have carried out its own AML and KYC procedures, and only then would they have accepted the deposit of the size.

> Whilst the optics of accepting cash are never great, this was not concealed and accepted when queries by the news organisation and confirmed that the matter was dealt with in accordance with guidelines in place at the time.

Another disaster ! When will it end ?
Its not a disaster, just sensationalism by a newspaper looking to attract sales in a declining sales environment.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not close to Andrew's level of messy headlines. But it is stories like this one that sometimes makes me roll my eyes at Charles's aggressive efforts to put his younger brother out to permanent pasture.

Especially considering this is not the first of the skeletons that have a habit of tumbling out of the PoW's closet from time to time.

Andrew must be loving this.:whistling:
 
To be honest, creating "Breaking News" is the tabloid's bread and butter. I find myself amazed that there is anyone that wouldn't recognise it as a smear using the oldest of tactics . . . half the truth is worse than an actual lie.

As already noted, the POW pocketed not one penny and the charities followed the requirements of the laws regarding charities and the financial institutes such as Coutts all did their due diligence, so what's the big deal?

Why is it so surprising that the Sheik should hand over bags of money for charities? I don't know, my bank doesn't use or accept cheques anymore so it's either cash or an electronic transfer. There is no grandiose gesture in that, and for countries that operate on grand gestures, it is a perfectly normal alternative.

Charles did what was required of him just the same as he has when millions of dollars worth of jewellery have been bestowed on visiting royalty within the BRF and British diplomats and dignitaries did theirs.

When did these donations take place? I haven't found a date or place anywhere yet. The only thing I know from the media and the forum is that the gift was bestowed and it went where it was intended, to the POW Charities. I don't know about anyone else but since the anniversary weekend there seem to be a plethora of nasty little "comment" pieces about how Charles is out of touch and should let William be King or that the government should "make that happen".

Raking up instances such as this is called mud-slinging where I come from and equating this situation with that of Prince Andrew's is, quite simply, outrageous. A cheap, nasty and vicious canard.

This leaves me feeling uneasy about the power of the very very loud minority trying to manipulate the majority, to change the way that the people see the monarchy more, how the government of the United Kingdom and the monarchy itself function and govern.
 
> Lets be clear, this is not cash that the PoW accepted for personal use.

> The monies went immediately to charities.

> Appropriate guidelines were followed by the charities and Clarence House. The Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the appropriate charity has confirmed this. More specifically, the Chair goes on to to confirm that there was no failure of governance.

> The auditors of the charity also signed off on the donation. There was a specific query during the audit process, but after due verification, the auditors signed off on the donation

> As a regulated financial institution, Coutts would have carried out its own AML and KYC procedures, and only then would they have accepted the deposit of the size.

> Whilst the optics of accepting cash are never great, this was not concealed and accepted when queries by the news organisation and confirmed that the matter was dealt with in accordance with guidelines in place at the time.

That is right. I should have made that qualification and there is indeed no evidence that the PoW did anything illegal. I was just replying to a suggestion from another member that this incident is somehow related to the inherent flaws of a hereditary monarchy.
 
Why is this revelation that Prince Charles received $3 million dollars in cash allotments from 2011 through 2015 appropriately handled by Coutts and deposited into the Princes Charitable Fund suddenly making news? From what I've read in the Times article and comments here on TRF this all seems above board, no money laundering or personal financial gain. As tirelessly as Prince Charles works for Great Britain and the betterment of society I hope these Qatari donations will be put to good use.
 
Its not a disaster, just sensationalism by a newspaper looking to attract sales in a declining sales environment.
Thank you, I appreciate him very much and I was afraid he would get another problem, after all the pain Harry must have caused him.
 
The papers just love trying to stir up trouble. There's no law against accepting donations in cash. But the idea of a suitcase full of cash does smack of a gangster movie.
 
The only disaster in this is that people are unable to critically receive information and rely on tabloid sensationalism
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom