Gransnet forums


To be furious at further royal privileges

(158 Posts)
bluebell Sat 29-Jun-13 11:06:28

mollie Sat 29-Jun-13 15:40:10

Surely everyone is entitled to an opinion? Any of us can write to the government with our views. They don't have to do anything, do they!

Why do you consider Charles stupid? Is that an opinion or a fact based on evidence Bluebell?

JessM Sat 29-Jun-13 16:33:00

There was a recent refusal of a F or Info request regarding the content of a number of meetings that Prince Charles had with ministers. This was refused, presumably either because the contents were embarrassing or inappropriate - or rather, both. If nothing to hide, why refuse? I suspect this move stems from that event. I think we should all write to our MPs. Particularly if the are lib dems or labour.

KatyK Sat 29-Jun-13 16:39:04

I am no royalist. I can take them or leave them. Apparently they bring a lot of revenue into the country with tourism etc. I was invited to a garden party at the palace a couple of years ago and loved every minute of it ! I don't know why but it felt special.

Bags Sat 29-Jun-13 17:55:09

The reason a Freedom of Information request was made about Charles's letters to MPs was because it was feared that he was interfering with politics, which he is not supposed to do. The fact that the FOI was refused suggests that the fears are justified.

HUNTERF Sat 29-Jun-13 18:08:29

The taxpayer should have the right to know where every penny of the money goes.


Lilygran Sat 29-Jun-13 18:10:37

The Queen's discussions with the PM or any other officers of state are privileged ie content is private. Same doesn't apply to the heir to the throne who is equally entitled to express his views. And as mollie says, we're all entitled to tell ministers what we think.

Lilygran Sat 29-Jun-13 18:11:36

Frank the finances of the Crown are public.

Bags Sat 29-Jun-13 18:14:09

But I suspect ministers will not give the ear to just anyone quite so readily as they will give it to Charles. Anyway, lily says Charles is not entitled to the privacy that the Queen is entitled to, in which case one wonders why the letters could not be made public.

ginny Sat 29-Jun-13 18:26:32

The Queen is the the only Head of State who does not have a private jet. All the Presidents do.

Bez They do have a 'Royal train' though. This train did around 15 trips last year at a cost of £703,000 !

Butty Sat 29-Jun-13 18:27:45

It's not all about money. Bluebell's question centered around Freedom Of Information, and the new right of secrecy that some members of the royal family have now been granted.

I am quite sure this has happened to prevent evidence of political involvement, particularly as the queen and prince phillip are now old, in readiness for prince charles to be king. As I said earlier, I think it's an attempt at controlling information once this happens.

There will always be concerns about the monetary value of the Business, but I suspect that can be weathered, whereas political involvement would be far more serious and damaging.

JessM Sat 29-Jun-13 18:59:41

Quite bags twice over for your last 2 posts. Well put. I gather it is really hard to get an appointment with a minister for the rest of us, even those who have a very legitimate professional interest in such meetings, with civil servants trying hard to set meeting up. And then they tend to grant you about 15 minutes, during which they do not listen well. PC probably found it easier to get their time and even, maybe, their attention.

absent Sat 29-Jun-13 19:51:19

Both the Queen and the Prince of Wales have the right to be consulted about and to seek changes to proposed legislation that affects them and/or their property and businesses. The changes to legislation that they have sought have not been made public.

In answer to the person who queried the accusation that the Prince of Wales is stupid, I would ask in return, has she ever listened to anything he has said at length about society, education or ambition? He's probably reasonably sound on organic farming as he would have been guided by his own land/farm managers.

henetha Mon 01-Jul-13 10:34:05

I'm a huge supporter of the Monarchy and always will be. Rather them any time than the alternative of a republican voting circus every few years
which would probably cost as much, and we would lose all the history and fascination for our monarchy which brings milions of tourists here.
The only thing I would say though is that the monarchy needs to be slimmed down so that we only see the immediate family, rather than all the relatives who used to gather on the balcony etc...
Also, they should be more mindful of our economic problems and be prepared to make cuts just like we are all having to endure.
But, apart from that, Long Live the Monarchy!

Eloethan Mon 01-Jul-13 23:57:53

In an effort to ward off criticism of their no-tax status, the monarchy agreed some years ago to pay income tax. However, in exchange they got a much more favourable deal in terms of how their Civil List income was calculated.

In a Dispatches documentary re the Duchy of Cornwall this evening, it was shown how its whole operation is shrouded in secrecy. What is not secret, however, is that the Duchy pays no Capital Gains or Corporation tax. People and towns who have come up against the Duchy of Cornwall felt that Prince Charles's supposed commitment to the environment was not evident in the sort of deals that the Duchy has been involved in.

Aka Tue 02-Jul-13 07:07:36

Watching the Dispatches programme last night made me view Prince Charles in a less favourable light. I'd previously applauded his commitment to the environment but now I'm left wondering.

Ariadne Tue 02-Jul-13 09:30:11

I meant to watch that, Aka. It had to do with the Duchy of Cornwall being exempt from Corporation tax etc? Must find it and watch.

MOGGSY77 Wed 10-Jul-13 08:25:00

The most recent FOI by a blacktop newspaper report Mrs Windsor had vetoed 31 bills that would have affected the PRIVATE income of herself and her son. My Regiment, The First Royal Tank Regiment decided in order to improve equipment ranks below SNCO would not be provided with No 2 Service dress, just two pair of black tank overalls one for working on tanks, the other for ceremonial parades. The sight of the huge number of Guards Regiments, both mounted and dismounted with their mega expensive uniforms, horses and acrutiments amounts to very many millions on The Queens Birthday Parade . We were very lucky to have an aristocracy with the foresight to invite KG1 to take the throne. He was only 58th in line, but the first protestant they could find, he hated England, could not and would not speak English and was buried in his beloved Germany. QV1,s children were reported to still speak with a very heavy German accent when visiting any one of the huge number of " holiday homes" we theoretically own but definitely pay for,The, then, Duke of Windsor, who put self before country sums up the monarchy superbly, self before the peasants who pay for their luxurious lifestyle. Do you, your children, or grandchildren fall under the Bedroom Tax rules, surprisingly Mrs Windsor and her dysfunctional family appear to be exempt. Tourism, only cost us a few pence a year each, very lucky to have them! Yes you can plait fog.

Bags Wed 10-Jul-13 09:54:22

It does all seem a bit medieval when you think about it, doesn't it moggsy? Can't be bothered getting hot under the collar about it myself, but I would vote for changes that reduce their priviledges if I was ever given the chance. Fat chance, probably.

Bags Wed 10-Jul-13 09:54:50


I always think it needs a d

Maniac Wed 10-Jul-13 22:18:19

This week’s Dispatches on Channel 4?alleged that Prince Charles is dodging taxes on his 800-million pound business empire.
I got a petition in my email from 'sumofus' demanding that Prince Charles should pay his taxes.!!!

MOGGSY77 Wed 10-Jul-13 23:50:13

Holding your breath cost even Houdini his life
I Admit to being a Republican
Wonder why
Join my (non existent as yet) petition, why you charlie and liz but not me.
ps Special Branch, defenders of the faith, go screw yourself. 72, disabled, no support from the community, apart from screwing my testicles you cant make my life much more miserable. Or can you.

Eloethan Thu 11-Jul-13 00:29:22

Living the privileged and comfortable lives that they do, how could they even contemplate an attempt to obtain money from a poverty fund, that was set up to help people in dire need, in order to pay their heating bills. I find it sickening. When such injustices occur in other countries we, rightly, hold our hands up in horror and wonder how their populations are so submissive - and even supportive. Why is there no real public outcry - could it be that we are force fed royalist propaganda at every opportunity?

MOGGSY77 Thu 11-Jul-13 00:51:17

Got it in one Eloethan, we have been conned for centuries, special branch, up yours

gillybob Thu 11-Jul-13 08:25:56

Too right we are "force fed royal propaganda at every opportunity" Eloethan just take this baby for example. It it like the second coming of the Christ child. Helicopters at the ready. Hospital and staff on standby. Best stop "working" (ha ha that's another story in itself) shaking hands and dressing up Kate and put your feet up, millions spent renovating a mansion (there will be three of them after all, no bedroom tax there). The whole thing makes me sick. As for that hypocrite Charles (don't do as I do, do as I say) why should he not pay corporation tax and capital gains tax in his pile? When i have been hounded to the ends of the earth for a few thousands of corporation tax on my micro engineering business. He thinks because he has someone sew a badly fitting patch on his old jacket that we all feel sorry for him. Bless him poor grandad to be, how on earth can he manage?

bluebell Thu 11-Jul-13 08:52:56

I agree with all the comments above about their privileges re various taxes but what I think is even worse is Charles' interference in government and the fact that the Guardian has lost its challenge for these letters to be made public. I've given the link to his appalling interference in health information made available on NHS Choices as a particularly egregious example. It's a DM link by the way deliberately to show it wasn't just the Guardian who thought this was a newsworthy story.

As for the baby - I am serious when I say I wish I could be in Outer Mongolia when it happens - but of course that will only be the's the sycophantic, semi- religious, mystical way in which it will be reported that is I find stomach churning and insulting to our intelligence as grown ups in a supposedly mature, rational democracy.