Prince Charles has jeopardised his reign. amoneyccepting

I’m not going down the rabbit hole of imaginary scenarios volver.

Fair enough. I just find that when famous people are involved then people have a pre-conceived idea about their characters and how they will react to things. I find it interesting to think about the same situation being enacted by people we don't have opinions about, to think if we would be equally as accepting of things. (We could replace Johnson with Starmer, or Sturgeon, or anybody)

Politicians and Heads of State need not just to be honest, but to be seen to be honest.

The thought of Johnson being honest, or even being seen to be honest, is a such a mad scenario, that most can't stretch their imaginations that far lol.

?

This is now sooo funny, Corbyn gave Labour the worse general
election defeat since 1935 ,but his days were numbered because of his views of the RF.

Charles should do a Corbyn who attended a wreath laying ceremony for terrorists who murder an Olympic team,

‘I was there but I don’t know if I was involved ‘

And now we get Diana again, wonder what Mrs Manakee,
Mrs.Carling and Mrs Hoare thinks of affairs

I would never have voted for Corbyn - after nearly 30 years, I stopped my Labour Party membership because of him.

I lost a friend in the IRA bombings, and could never support a terrorist supporter.

Nothing to do with his views on the RF - I think they are a waste of space.

But, I honestly believe that once the Queen dies, the royal appeal with either on the branch of apathy.

Sooner or later, younger people will just remove the need for them

Their main support comes from older people.

DiamondLily

I would never have voted for Corbyn - after nearly 30 years, I stopped my Labour Party membership because of him.

I lost a friend in the IRA bombings, and could never support a terrorist supporter.

Nothing to do with his views on the RF - I think they are a waste of space.

But, I honestly believe that once the Queen dies, the royal appeal with either on the branch of apathy.

Sooner or later, younger people will just remove the need for them

Their main support comes from older people.

It should be "will wither" not "with either". Predictive texts.,?

Has no one on here read this book then. Written by a former Privy Councillor about the Windsors finances Why would anyone be surprised at anything the Royal Family do?

And What Do You Do?: What the royal family don't want you to know Paperback published Sept. 2020
by Norman Baker

Callistemon21

Where are all those who would cry "It's in the Daily Mail, it must be lies!"
?

Fawcett too? Must be dodgy then.

Do we just think of all the young people who have been helped by this money for charity in exchange for an OBE then knighthood (honorary) which some say is outdated or meaningless anyway?

Or condemn the subterfuge by a future HofS?

It is an illegal act, whatever they say the money was spent on. Were would you draw the line, a new polo horse, range rover, a new Palace? Corruption is Corruption, however you like to dress it u.

Yes it was corruption and those sitting on the story (Murdoch) should have released it into the public domain years ago.

Now ask yourself why release it now?

It is obvious, Charles rightly called Johnson’s Rwanda plan “appalling”

It is a revenge story.

What monsters they all are.

When was it declared an illegal act ? Not on the news today

@Volver… you can’t help some people.

It was inappropriate to happen once. Three times? Three lots of cash?

It’s maddening that people will believe any old tripe!

WWM2 “the wheels grind slow but they grind exceedingly small”. We don’t know how long this has been in the hatching but if it’s anything like HMRC they will catch up with you sooner or later.

Some republicans salivate over any old tripe which is critical
of the RF,

Whitewavemark2

Yes it was corruption and those sitting on the story (Murdoch) should have released it into the public domain years ago.

Now ask yourself why release it now?

It is obvious, Charles rightly called Johnson’s Rwanda plan “appalling”

It is a revenge story.

What monsters they all are.

Yes, as I said earlier

What monsters they all are

I know which one worries me more

And some monarchists refuse to believe that favoured members of the Royal Family could be anything other than blameless in all things. Heaven forfend that they might have human failings.

Anyone else who takes a shopping bag full of notes to the bank and tries to pay it in will be asked some very awkward questions indeed.

But then, to a Royal, this isn't unusual. This is a family founded on theft and greed, to the extent that people have been giving them cash bungs for centuries.

What was he thinking? How come the sheik had a bag of cash? Had he gone to a bank and taken it out to stuff in a bag? Why didn’t he just give a cheque or a bank transfer? These are the questions that need to be answered. If the cash was not dodgy we should be told where it came from. It’s definitely in the public interest to know, if it’s legit then all well and good, but it smells a bit whiffy.

Volver I think that you have hit the nail on the head. Anyone else who behaved in this way would be in trouble.I think your analogy of Boris Johnson to be very good. Everyone has been throwing their hands up about expensive wallpaper and a an expensive tree house, not without cause either. Of course it’s seen as dodgy. But Prince Charles, that paragon of virtue, is exonerated. Why? Because he’s the heir to the throne of course. The more I think about this, the more I think it’s suspect.

I agree with maddyone and volver. There would be an outcry if it was the Archbishop of Canterbury, a politician or the like and people would definitely want to know where the cash came from. Something about the whole thing just doesn't smell right and although I am not a fan of Charles, I am not anti-monarchy at all.

DaisyAnne

There is no suggestion that anything about these payments was illegal.

Any chance of the OP asking GN to change the headline? Either "Do you think" or "Could this" at the beginning would do. Learn the lesson from the papers and make it a question then it cannot be seen as the spreading of lies (possible libel as it has now been published).

Statement from Clarance House:

Charitable donations received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim were passed immediately to one of the prince's charities who carried out the appropriate governance and have assured us that all the correct processes were followed.

Statement from Sir Ian Cheshire, PWCF chairman:

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.

The donation was made in cash and that was the donor's choice.

As it was a rehash of an old story and first went around the right-wing, Conservative supporting media, I imagine this was another deflection from the current news.

Either that or Johnson is actually aiming to be World King and is starting with the UK

Just to keep everything above board. I will declare an interest as I, too, have given cash to charities in the past.

Try reading DaisyAnne's informative post again, folks

Try reading my posts again, folks.

In summary.

I think he probably didn't do anything underhand.

There are rules about where charitable donations come from. Especially if the donor is a foreign national.

People in the public eye who want to be considered as good examples must be above suspicion and must behave as though they are.

If they find themselves in a compromising position, they should take steps not to be in that position again.

If the Charities Comission are considering investigating your donations, it doesn't matter if your trustees and auditors say everything's fine. There's clearly enough concern for the independent authorities to investigate you.

Whether it happened last week or twenty years ago, there is still a suspicion of a problem. If there wasn't a suspicion of a problem, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Why didn’t he just give a cheque or a bank transfer?

Yes, strange isn't it!
Won it at the bookies?

As I said above, these people deal in cash. It’s absolutely normal for them. Very different culture and refusal of cash would have caused great offence.

money laundering!

Nobody's saying he should have refused it. Is the man who is going to be our Head of State really incapable of explaining to another person that in our country dealing in carrier bags full of cash is not usually the way things are done? That usually people who want to deal in cash are the ones trying to stay outside the system and that it wouldn't do for the future HoS to behave like that? And he let it happen 3 times?

Pull the other one.