The monarchy

I don’t care how much wealth people have so long as it’s been worked for or inherited with the proper amount of tax paid on it. King or pauper, we should all pay tax at the rate set by the government and no one should receive special tax avoidances because of who they are. The public were quite outraged by the fact that Rishi Sunak’s wife was not paying her taxes in the country where she chooses to live. And yet, rightly or wrongly, she was doing nothing illegal. The same applies to the royals.

I don’t mind being agreed with or indeed disagreed with, but I don’t particularly like posters commenting on my posts and drawing the wrong conclusions from them. So long as what I have said is properly understood then I feel okay about posters agreeing or disagreeing with what I’ve said.

Volver dear, your words are so-self reflective rather than being applicable to me.
You don't like being disagreed with, do you?

Mollygo I agree what volver just said about not how much money people have as long as they pay their taxes.

But the monarchy money goes up and up a golden rachet clause by George Osbourne means money goes up never down. I think it would be only fair if like other public bodies the monarchy had a calculation of their funding and what they would need to do their 'job' then allocate Not just throw money at them.

You don't like being disagreed with, do you?

Grany it doesn’t matter. You don’t like the monarchy.
With extremely bad manners and no proof or justification except your own bitterness, you and others who want a republic are rude, and cast aspersions about the education level, of those who do like the monarchy or those who don’t see a republic as the solution to all the country’s problems like you do.
I don’t see those people being rude about would be republicans.

I wish I had more money. I could do a lot with it, but I don’t begrudge or covet what others have in the same way that you do, just because they belong to a family that you don’t like.

Just as a matter of record...

I don't care how much money anybody has, royal or footballer, as long as they pay their taxes according to the same rules the rest of us do.

I do care if anybody gets to have undue influence on the government because of who their parents are/were.

Mollygo

Footballers, tv ‘personalities’ anyone who has unnecessary wealth or has inherited wealth, has money the country needs more than they do.
Where shall we stop?

How do you decide who deserves to keep inherited wealth, however little or much it is and whatever it’s source?
Perhaps it’s sufficient in your mind to say, “He’s royal, he doesn’t need that much money, therefore he should give it up.”
Who would you move onto next?

I hope that none of you on GN are benefitting from bequests from your parents or ancestors, or that any of you have set up an account which will benefit your children, or your grandchildren.
First they came for . . .
The republicans may be coming for you next.

HoS is a publicly funded body costing £345 million.

Lots of unaccountablility in their financial report.

£44 million between Charles and William £100million Sovereign Grant

100 million around the clock security for each of their twenty grand homes

Lots of travel unaccountable under £15,000

Exempt from Freedom of information

Casdon

Grany

Casdon

Glorianny

Casdon

Glorianny

I was just wondering if the new monarch had been Andrew and not Charles how many people would still be supporting the monarchy?

That’s not relevant is it, because it’s not the case. Only if Charles, William or George turned out to have done what Andrew did would we know, and he’s becoming further down the line of succession with every new child of William and Kate and Harry and Meghan. What is he, 7th in line of succession now? Life is full of ‘what ifs’, we don’t base our decision making on them.

Of course he is Casdon. It's purely a "what if" scenario. But it was at one time a possibility, and what it vividly illustrates is that in a hereditary monarchy you cannot choose who is to be the next monarch, no matter how obviously unsuitable they may turn out to be.
So who would still support the monarchy if the king had links with paedophiles? Because it may be a "what if" but it isn't an impossibility.

The point I was making is that it’s hypothetical, and the Regent option is available. If the same issue happened with a president before the end of his term, or the president had major issues of any other kind, the process of getting them out would be equally problematic - eg Trump scenario.

The great thing about an elected head of state is that their actions, behaviour and public spending are all open to proper scrutiny, and if they do something wrong they can be sacked. So unlike Prince Charles, who ignores the unwritten rule that he shouldn't become political, in a republic the head of state could be challenged if they step out of line.

Once elected by the people the head of state is expected to abide by the rules that set out how they should behave. If they break those rules then parliament will have the power to remove them and call a fresh election. The number of votes needed in parliament to do this would be high enough to ensure that the decision must have cross-party support. No decision to sack the head of state could be taken for political reasons, only on the grounds that they have broken the rules that go with the job.

So if the President was exposed as a Nazi, for example, that would be political so not a reason for getting rid of him/her. Hmm. I think a lot more thinking through is required.

King Edward was a Nazi sympathiser He was called the traitor king.

Footballers, tv ‘personalities’ anyone who has unnecessary wealth or has inherited wealth, has money the country needs more than they do.
Where shall we stop?

How do you decide who deserves to keep inherited wealth, however little or much it is and whatever it’s source?
Perhaps it’s sufficient in your mind to say, “He’s royal, he doesn’t need that much money, therefore he should give it up.”
Who would you move onto next?

I hope that none of you on GN are benefitting from bequests from your parents or ancestors, or that any of you have set up an account which will benefit your children, or your grandchildren.
First they came for . . .
The republicans may be coming for you next.

^It's not money from the taxpayer.
It is income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
It is taxable.^

Not the point Callistemon.
The Duchy was set up hundreds of years ago by Edward III to provide an income for his son.
It provides William with a huge amount of money.
Money he doesn't need, and the country does.
Is it right and fair that he still gets this?

Campaigners have written to Prince Charles, calling on him to stop referring to the Duchy of Cornwall as a private estate.

Republic, which campaigns for the abolition of the monarchy, has pointed out to Charles that the Duchy of Cornwall is Crown property, and is only in his possession for as long as he is the heir to the throne.

The letter says:

"The Duchy is the property of the Crown. As such these statements on your websites are misleading, and give a distorted view of the financial support given to the Royal Household, and the total cost to the country for maintaining the monarchy."

It goes on to set out why it is wrong to claim the Duchy is private, pointing out that, among other things:

"...in the event of there being no Duke of Cornwall, “the Duchy reverts to the Monarch, and the annual Sovereign Grant is reduced annually by the amount of the Duchy’s income.”"

In other words, the current arrangements explicitly accept that the income of the Duchy is there as part of a state funding arrangement, not as a personal income derived from personal property.

Prince Charles has two websites, princeofwales.gov.uk, and the Duchy’s website, duchyofcornwall.org. Both make the erroneous claim that the Duchy is private property, implying that it is the personal possession of the prince.

The claim allows Charles to suggest that he supports himself, and does not rely on public funding.

Speaking for Republic today, Graham Smith said:

"Prince Charles has successfully spun the line that he receives no financial support from the public. The truth is that the Duchy is state property and without a Duke of Cornwall the Duchy's income could instead pay for teachers, nurses and police officers."

"There is no reasonable argument that supports the view the Duchy is private. It belongs to the Crown, which is a national institution under the control of parliament and government."

"Duchy land should be part of the Crown Estate, raising revenue for the government that it can spend on public services."

"Instead the taxpayer effectively pays Prince Charles an annual salary in excess of £20m. That's at least 127 times what we pay the prime minister and is estimated to be more than the combined salaries of all the world's democratic leaders."

"It's time for Charles to come clean, and make it perfectly clear that the Duchy of Cornwall is a benefit afforded to him in his role as heir, and is therefore part of the cost to the nation of maintaining the monarchy."

Ministers have looked at the financial dealings of the Duchy and said Charles should pay tax but he doesn't.

Now William has over £20 million.

Plus Charles now has Duchy of Lancaster over £20 million the queen paid £12 million from that and also shares in off shore tax haven

Callistemon
We need a slapped wrist emoji.
Just take it that I’ve given you one ?

Thank you for clarification Normandygirl on the tax position of crown estates, in particular the Duchy estate. I had a feeling that was the case, but wasn’t sure.

No, I’m not saying that monarchists (or republicans) can’t think for themselves, but as an ex primary teacher, who therefore has studied child development and taught a lot of children, I know that people are influenced, very influenced by what they are immersed in as children.

Give me a child till the age of seven, and I will give you the man.

It wasn’t said for nothing, it was said because children are the product of the way they were brought up. And that can include opinions on the monarchy, along with anything else. Of course there are other influences as children grow older, and we can hope that the education that children receive, and the experiences that they have, will help them to be able to think about things critically and make up their minds. But nobody should even begin to think that early experiences don’t have a huge effect on developing minds, and those effects can be lifelong.

Callistemon21

It's taxable.

The Duchy of Cornwall is a crown estate and is therefore tax exempt. Charles decided a few years ago to voluntarily pay some tax , but he is not legally required to do so.

I broke my own rule!
Mistake
?

Callistemon21

So you're saying monarchist can't think for themselves, evaluate and decide?

Ergo, stupid.

Who has said or implied anything like that Callistemon? Nobody has said any such thing.

So you're saying monarchist can't think for themselves, evaluate and decide?

Ergo, stupid.

It’s still a lot of money though.

Yes, I believe that the Duchy earnings are taxable. I’m not sure if that’s the law, or simply within the agreement to pay some tax that the royals made a few years ago.

I have absolutely no evidence, but I wouldn’t have thought that either republicans or monarchists would be more or less educated than the other group. Surely it’s a matter of simple opinion? Sometimes it seems posters were brought up to admire the monarchy. It may be hard for them to start to think the opposite from that which they were taught as children. My mother was a very strong monarchist and it took many years before I was able to really question that, because it was learnt at my mother’s knee.

It's taxable.

JaneJudge

what can you even spend 20m a year on? it's an incredibly vulgar amount of money when social care isn't even funded properly

Yes it is.

nadateturbe

nadateturbe

^What about William gets over £20 million
Like winning the lottery every year^

Any comments from monarchists?

No? Thought so.

It's not money from the taxpayer.

It is income from the Duchy of Cornwall.
It is taxable.