Prince Charles has jeopardised his reign. amoneyccepting

The donor was a sheikh, whose view of "giving money to a royal charity" may have been rather biased by the custom in his own sheikhdom. Paper money in a suitcase could be the normal method there, with no questions asked about how much of it reaches the charity and how much mysteriously vanishes on the way.

The charity received it, and presumably counted it (with witnesses) and put it through the accounts as a donation from the Sheikh under that day's date.

Is anyone suggesting that less arrived at the charity office than were handed to Prince Charles or his representative? Who physically carried the (rather heavy) suitcase to the charity? Who counted the notes? Has the sheikh claimed that he expected to receive a knighthood in return for his generosity - and was he disappointed? Does his name appear in the honours lists? Who was PM when this cash-for-honours story is set, since the honours list is compiled by the PM to be signed off by the monarch. What is Fawcett's story, and why is he referred to as a dodgy character?

We are getting a rather sketchy account of the affair. More details and some confirmations are needed. An independent enquiry would clarify the murk.

I don’t understand why anyone would think this isn’t a problem. All that huge amount of money has been donated for a reason. Sheiks don’t care a jot about human rights in their own countries. How many of the Arab states have cruel and degrading treatment such as public executions as part of their culture? Why would they therefore want to support something such as The Princes Trust? Obviously they think there’s something in it for them. How can anyone reasonably think that these actions are totally altruistic? It’s simply unbelievable, based on the record of the behaviour of these states. It’s only recently that we heard of the attempt of one sheik to buy a knighthood in this country. And who was he trying to bribe, yes it was, Prince Charles!

It is the scale of the cash donation that causes the controversy. Loose change into a collection box or a tenner from your neighbour doesn't equate with the sum that the sheik gave to Charles. Still, the RF are lauded for their contribution to charities so who am I to question how they get the donations. I expect that the sheik was concerned by the plight of young people in the UK and wanted to help Charles continue his good work. At least Clarence House are not denying that the cash was accepted.

Of course someone is stirring.

Doesn't mean it didn't happen.

volver

And some won't hear anything against the sainted Royal Family.

*Clarence House have confirmed it happened.*

Clarence House have also stated that this was declared at the time of receipt of donations.

Seven year old story, someone is definitely stirring

25Avalon I am sorry, I didn’t know Clarence House had
announced Charles doesn’t put toothpaste on his toothbrush

And some won't hear anything against the sainted Royal Family.

Clarence House have confirmed it happened.

Some believe everything they read

I can’t imagine Charles himself carrying the bags of cash. This is a man who doesn’t even put his toothpaste on his brush!
I read the cash went to his Prince of Wales Charitable Fund that bankrolls his pet projects and his country estates in Scotland, which makes is sound even more dodgy to me.

DaisyAnne what are you talking about?

Questioning what is being put forward is fine; shouting la la la I don't believe you because you are nasty with one's fingers in one's ears is not.

And we're not changing the constitution any time soon. For the second time since Friday let me agree with someone that the republicans are in a minority. That doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about republicanism! Or have our ideas minimised because not everyone thinks like us.

It’s ludicrous to expect the public will swallow this twaddle about the Shiek always intending it to be a charitable gift. Firstly, I don’t believe they’re known for their charity and human rights; secondly, there are ways to donate huge amounts of cash which generally don’t include 3 million euros being shoved into a shopping bag. A posh shopping bag, albeit. And thirdly, having had a heads up, Charles’s former valet Michael Fawcett resigned as CEO of The Prince’s Foundation, after apparently offering a KBE and citizenship to a wealthy Saudi.

Are we seriously to believe that Fawcett, a former employee then heading up the Prince’s Foundation, took it upon himself to offer these things? Charles immediately denied any knowledge and Fawcett resigned. Fawcett; essentially a valet made good. Ridiculous!

We’ll never know the shady dealings of all these charities and Foundations. Money laundering in the guise of good works. And yes, I KNOW they do some fantastic work but behind it all are some wealthy donors who don’t give their money away, for nothing in return.

MaizieD

DaisyAnne

It feels like the minority who don't want constitutional sovereignty- all 26% who hold that perfectly acceptable view - have gathered here to swop their nasty, malicious gossip.

My worry is that you are probably the same people who have listened to non-facts and changed my life once and this level of so-called debate may do so once again - with rarely a fact in sight.

Could you reconsider this post please, DaisyAnne.

What do you want me to look at in particular Maizie?

Are you suggesting this thread is not full of malicious gossip and unstructured argument? I will accept that some have tried to put a reasoned argument forward but they seem to have given up and let the gossip run riot.

Are you suggesting that such undermining propaganda has not recently changed our lives in a way the majority of the country did not vote for?

Are you suggesting that we should not fight for a proper discussion and proper voting if we are going to change our constitution yet again?

I will look at whatever you think I have missed Maizie but I will also fight for knowledge and an acceptable majority to be what such momentous decisions are based on.

Grany

The Sunday Times reported it was one of three cash donations from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim totalling €3m handed over between 2011 and 2015.

Clarence House has responded saying all the money was passed immediately to one of the prince's charities and all correct processes were followed.

There is no suggestion the payments were illegal.

But the immediate reaction of some posters is to assume the worst, to ask (*Grany*) "Is the RF corrupt?" even Grany quotes that "There is no suggestion the payments were illegal."

If your charity is running a fundraiser, and your neighbour hands you personally a ten-pound note to take in as a contribution, you are only corrupt if you put it into your own purse instead of the collecting tin. Clarence House has said that the money was handed over straight away - that is veriiftable, unless the whole organisation is about to come under suspicion of diverting donations.

An inquiry would be a good thing - we would hear the evidence from those who witnessed the actual handover (royalty is hardly ever unobserved, whatever they are doing), the Sheikh who can vouch for how much was in the infamous suitcase/carriers, the charity for how much was there when they counted it (charity regulations state that there should be two people counting donated cash)

I will repeat that this has all surfaced at a very convenient time for those who are working to discredit the RF. Could be a coincidence, could be relevant.

DaisyAnne

It feels like the minority who don't want constitutional sovereignty- all 26% who hold that perfectly acceptable view - have gathered here to swop their nasty, malicious gossip.

My worry is that you are probably the same people who have listened to non-facts and changed my life once and this level of so-called debate may do so once again - with rarely a fact in sight.

Could you reconsider this post please, DaisyAnne.

It feels like the minority who don't want constitutional sovereignty- all 26% who hold that perfectly acceptable view - have gathered here to swop their nasty, malicious gossip.

My worry is that you are probably the same people who have listened to non-facts and changed my life once and this level of so-called debate may do so once again - with rarely a fact in sight.

It is not right accepting cash in carrier bags for a charity. Open to fiddling, who satthere and counted the millions? Easy for loads to go unaccounted for.Highly irregular behaviour, could you see H M doing it?

My SiL worked at an establishment in Mayfair and on occasions sheiks would give her gifts like expensive earrings concealed in boxes of chocolates. It was totally against the rules to accept bribes, so the gifts were returned. It does happen.

Well at least they're posh carrier bags.

From the Sunday Times no less......
Prince Charles accepted a suitcase full of cash as a charitable donation from the former prime minister of Qatar, it has been claimed.

The Sunday Times says it was one of three bundles of cash given as charitable donations which the Prince of Wales received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani.

The three lots, which totalled €3m, were handed to the prince personally between 2011 and 2015, the paper adds.

It claims that on one occasion, Sheikh Hamad, 62, presented the prince with €1m reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury food store that has a royal charter to provide the Royal Family with groceries.

volver

So in summary...

Clarence House has confirmed that cash was handed over to the Prince, on more than one occasion, and this was all happening while the DoE was alive, and so Charles is actually stupid enough to accept it.

People thinking that Charles is a paragon of virtue when it comes to behaving with probity, or that what it needs is his dad to sort him out, might want to consider what else they are getting wrong about the RF.

Yes indeed.

It's not just Middle Eastern crooks Charles cosies up to.

How close are the British royals to Russian oligarchs?

I always used to give whatever loose change I had in my purse to someone doing a street collection. This is the same thing, Charlie boy asks for a donation to his charity and Qatari gives him his loose change. That's why it was in a Harrods bag! I really don't know what all the fuss is about! .

I just think it is an odd thing to do to make such a large donation in cash, whether it was in a suitcase or carrier bags. I'd have wanted it paid through a bank if it were me.

Quite correct Volver.

I still think the story of carrier bags of cash in exchange for a Knighthood is far fetched and unworthy. I do not believe it!

Thanks.