The death of Queen Elizabeth II

[Hafnia]

12 hours ago, Formby said:

I presume you mean the money they bring in through tourism? There is no reliabe figure for that although huge sums are bandied around by supporters of the RF. The fact is, people come to the UK for many different reasons. I don't doubt that beautiful, old 'royal' buildings are part of the appeal. Hoping to see an actual living royal is probably not. The RF and the state has been particularly good in reminding us of their own inestimable worth. They're also very good at saying, yes but what would you replace them with? That is not an argument for keeping them. Ditto, institutions like the House of Lords. I have no animus against the Queen or the people who loved her, but Philip, Charles, Andrew, Edward and the rest? Cmon, people, we can do a lot better than this.   

That’s a hard read tbh. Break it up.

I’ll keep it short. 3rd biggest brand in the world, biggest source of income isn’t tourism - but trade.  You will find more out by quick Google searches vs typing contrary views.  

 

 

[Cornish Steve]

4 hours ago, Gwlad all over said:

I like having a monarchy as opposed to a republic. Steve, do you have a choice where your taxes go in the US?

Nope.

[Cornish Steve]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

An interesting concept but not at any cost to defence for me and totally unworkable in practice. I am reminded of a meme  and a response to the meme I saw on FB recently.

Someone had written 'If you child can read, thank a teacher'

Underneath it, a Veteran had written: 'And if your child reads in English, thank a Veteran.' - thereby perfectly, yet easily, demonstrating the inextricable link between education and defence in UK our society. We need them both (and many more) and they each have to be paid for by all of us. Freedom doesn't come for free.

Also, if you choose to not spend 'your' tax contribution on defence, I may choose to make up your defence shortfall for you and I may also choose to pay for it by an appropriate reduction in my contribution to Cornish education, Cornish health, Cornish roads, Cornish energy subsidies and Cornish welfare., So, your proposal then just becomes an added admin cost for no overall benefit. I presume those who choose not to pay tax to support any particular aspect of society will also do the decent thing and not try to claim any benefit from that aspect of society too? Which part of Cornwall would you like us not to defend? Which multi national corporation would you like the Duchy of Cornwall to sell all the land to? It must be ripe for 'development.'

A slightly tongue in cheek riposte to your suggestion but I hope it makes my point.

There is far too much potential for 'thin end of the wedge' division in your concept for me. We do actually have a degree of control how our taxes are spent. Every 5 years or so we have a general election and manifesto pledges are made with regard to, inter alia, taxation spending which we can then vote on. Its worked well for quite some time and I see no need to change it now. ✌

In fairness, I did write "some or all". I've been a believer in allowing taxpayers to individually choose how their tax money is spent ever since I was an approved parliamentary candidate years ago. I'm realistic enough to understand that, if it could prove to be practical, it might only apply to 10 percent or at most 20 percent of our tax burden - but it would send a strong message to government. Right now, they treat tax money as if it's their own, whereas it's actually ours.

[Cornish Steve]

34 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

That’s a hard read tbh. Break it up.

I’ll keep it short. 3rd biggest brand in the world, biggest source of income isn’t tourism - but trade.  You will find more out by quick Google searches vs typing contrary views.  

 

 

I reckon the Premier League brings in more revenue than the Royals, and it's not subsidized by taxpayers.

[RPG]

3 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

In fairness, I did write "some or all". I've been a believer in allowing taxpayers to individually choose how their tax money is spent ever since I was an approved parliamentary candidate years ago. I'm realistic enough to understand that, if it could prove to be practical, it might only apply to 10 percent or at most 20 percent of our tax burden - but it would send a strong message to government. Right now, they treat tax money as if it's their own, whereas it's actually ours.

Fair enough, but I still think the concept is flawed. Surely, the best way forward is via a united approach where we each pay our fair share of everything - whether we personally approve or not. After all, that is a major part of the concept of democracy is it not. To open up a debate along the lines of ‘I am not going to pay tax (or pay a reduced tax) on xyz as I  don’t agree with it’ could be the first step on a dangerous and divisive path imho.

Far better to ban corporate lobbying (also not easy I admit) which would ensure a fairer distribution and much better use of of tax revenue imho.

[RPG]

3 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I reckon the Premier League brings in more revenue than the Royals, and it's not subsidized by taxpayers.

More revenue for who? Who gets the benefit? And its a subjective argument in any event as the material benefits brought by the Royal Family to UK are huge but not easily quantifiable. My money would still be on the Royal Family though.

Two minutes with google did find this though. A 2017 study on Royal Family benefit to UK GDP was estimated at 1.7 billion which, oddly enough, is almost the same as Premier League revenue for 2017/18 season. See https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1667085/queen-elizabeth-ii-worth-royal-cost-uk-economy-spt/amp

and

 

https://www.skysports.com/amp/football/news/11661/11376150/manchester-united-just-top-of-premier-league-revenue-table-for-2017-18

I would suggest that the revenue generated by the Royal Family is put to far greater benefit of UK than that used to pay 400k pw salaries of Premier League top earners though.

[Formby]

9 hours ago, Hafnia said:

That’s a hard read tbh. Break it up.

I’ll keep it short. 3rd biggest brand in the world, biggest source of income isn’t tourism - but trade.  You will find more out by quick Google searches vs typing contrary views. 

 

Now, if only your brevity were matched by clarity. Whose biggest source of income?   

[Palfy]

21 hours ago, MikeO said:

That'd be a logistical nightmare surely, does it actually happen anywhere? Like the idea but don't see it being workable.

Exactly this, but I do like Steve’s idea more based on wouldn’t it be nice to allocate your tax burden into pots that you believe your tax deductions should go towards helping, but as you rightly say Mike more a dream than reality. 

[Hafnia]

9 hours ago, Formby said:

Now, if only your brevity were matched by clarity. Whose biggest source of income?   

The country. £6bn spent by the country in the jubilee alone massive economic stimulus

[Formby]

1 hour ago, Hafnia said:

The country. £6bn spent by the country in the jubilee alone massive economic stimulus

A brief check online - that figure appears to be a predicted stimulus. Not sure it reached it.

Whatever the amount, Forbes say:  

The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism

Inside ‘The Firm’: How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works (forbes.com)

[Cornish Steve]

2 hours ago, Palfy said:

Exactly this, but I do like Steve’s idea more based on wouldn’t it be nice to allocate your tax burden into pots that you believe your tax deductions should go towards helping, but as you rightly say Mike more a dream than reality. 

I don't see why it would be a problem. Everyone could log in to their "tax" account and allocate percentages for their tax amount. Change it whenever you wish. These numbers would be used to assign your tax money with every paycheck. Technology-wise, it would be very simple. It's no different than assigning how your 401(k) deductions are assigned to stock funds here in the US.

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, Formby said:

A brief check online - that figure appears to be a predicted stimulus. Not sure it reached it.

Whatever the amount, Forbes say:  

The impact the royal family has on the U.K. economy is mostly through tourism

Inside ‘The Firm’: How The Royal Family’s $28 Billion Money Machine Really Works (forbes.com)

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/
 

here is says the crown estate, but also says that trade deals are worth an absolute fortune.

 

either way, it puts pay to the notion that they are an unnecessary expense. They make us far more than they cost

[RPG]

3 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I don't see why it would be a problem. Everyone could log in to their "tax" account and allocate percentages for their tax amount. Change it whenever you wish. These numbers would be used to assign your tax money with every paycheck. Technology-wise, it would be very simple. It's no different than assigning how your 401(k) deductions are assigned to stock funds here in the US.

We elect a government which includes a Chancellor of the Exchequer to manage the country's financial affairs. We get to tell government what we want tax revenue spent on every 5 years or so via a general election. We have to work together as a United Kingdom and share (not be selective about) our tax burden.

[Cornish Steve]

28 minutes ago, RPG said:

We elect a government which includes a Chancellor of the Exchequer to manage the country's financial affairs. We get to tell government what we want tax revenue spent on every 5 years or so via a general election. We have to work together as a United Kingdom and share (not be selective about) our tax burden.

They lie to you during the election campaign and pretty much ignore your priorities when in power. Giving citizens the right to control aspects of their spending would change that.

[Cornish Steve]

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

[RPG]

2 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

They lie to you during the election campaign and pretty much ignore your priorities when in power. Giving citizens the right to control aspects of their spending would change that.

No, it wouldn't. Not at all. All it would do is deny government the ability to spend money on areas of society that needed it. We all would have our pet projects but we surely have to accept that, for all its imperfections, the current system is far better (in terms of flexibility of delivering funds to required areas) than what you suggest. It's also a fairly jaundiced attitude to just state that candidates lie. Sure, they present the best possible case for themselves based on their selected facts but all parties do that and democracy trusts the electorate to sort the wheat from the chaff and vote accordingly. Government has a difficult enough job anyway. You would just be making it even more difficult, by adding unnecessary costs to the administration of government, denying funds to areas that needed it and sowing division among the population. It's not for me Steve thank you. We need to unite this country, not divide it.

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

It's not 'fawning' imho. It's called respect. HM gave 70 years (and more) of her life to the service of our country. I can willingly spare a week or so of my life to show my respect and appreciation.

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

Just think we could have had a Trump figure as our head of State, how inspirational would that have been, yet no we had Elizebeth R, one of if not the most inspirational people of my life time and head of state for over 70 years. For me there are not enough superlatives to describe all the good she has done in her illustrious life time has our head State and the Monarchy. 

[Formby]

11 hours ago, Hafnia said:

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/they-cost-us-a-mint-but-bring-in-much-more/
 

here is says the crown estate, but also says that trade deals are worth an absolute fortune.

 

either way, it puts pay to the notion that they are an unnecessary expense. They make us far more than they cost

On the contary. If they're earning as much as you say, with such  huge revenue streams, why are they being funded by the UK tax payer at all? They clearly don't need it. 

[Formby]

8 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

Not watching the BBC has spared me the worst of it, thankfully.

[Hafnia]

8 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Am I the only one becoming fed up with the ever-more ridiculous fawning over royalty? I'm wondering how much longer before the head of an inter-galactic alliance shows up to claim the queen was an inspiration to them, too.

I don’t actually think people put much thought into a fair evaluation of the royals. For me most of it stinks of jealousy. 
 

for example the hypocrisy is startling.  We get uneducated nob heads who sit on their arses claiming benefits galore, watching tv all day, having 4-5 children who run amock and behave in an antisocial way, they in turn decide to do the “baby making, not work, stay at home”.   But I’m sure they have nothing but “sponge off tax payers money” shouts out of their pizza stained gobs. 

[Hafnia]

4 minutes ago, Formby said:

On the contary. If they're earning as much as you say, with such  huge revenue streams, why are they being funded by the UK tax payer at all? They clearly don't need it. 

They are paid by the sovereign grant which is 15% of the profits of the crown estate. 

[Hafnia]

7 hours ago, Palfy said:

Just think we could have had a Trump figure as our head of State, how inspirational would that have been, yet no we had Elizebeth R, one of if not the most inspirational people of my life time and head of state for over 70 years. For me there are not enough superlatives to describe all the good she has done in her illustrious life time has our head State and the Monarchy. 

Absolutely mate.  Scary isn’t it. A lady who absolutely smashed it in terms of devotion to her job and country is attracting all sorts of negativity in her death.  
 

we live in a country full of “whataboutery” experts who spend half their lives finding things to be offended about when they feel they don’t get their fair cut of things.  Pathetic really.  Half of them don’t realise the Queen and Charles voluntarily pay tax. 
 

im sure Liverpool fans will do a fine job representing those in the country who have become desktop republicans over the past week or so. 

[Cornish Steve]

7 hours ago, Palfy said:

Just think we could have had a Trump figure as our head of State, how inspirational would that have been, yet no we had Elizebeth R, one of if not the most inspirational people of my life time and head of state for over 70 years. For me there are not enough superlatives to describe all the good she has done in her illustrious life time has our head State and the Monarchy. 

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

[Hafnia]

1 minute ago, Cornish Steve said:

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

It’s not over the top, it’s accurate in the sense that we have 70 years of service to convey in a relatively short space of time. The consequences of the Queens death also means that we need to see Charles do certain duties that are important but not been done in 70 years. 

[Formby]

2 hours ago, Hafnia said:

They are paid by the sovereign grant which is 15% of the profits of the crown estate. 

The sovereign grant is a taxpayer-funded payment.

[Hafnia]

2 minutes ago, Formby said:

The sovereign grant is a taxpayer-funded payment.

I seen that quoted on the bbc page but it comes from the profits of crown estate, which is the royal families property business. 
 

Whether it’s taxpayers money, of which I’ve seen the quoted figure of £1.45 per year per person or another source - the reality is our economy is boosted by the royals not drained.  The amount we spend on them is a fraction of what we earn, whether that comes out of taxes, whether they themselves fund it from a proportion of money that is calculated from the income that they bring - I’m not arsed as it has literally no impact to the average person - other than the fact that we are better off financially  for having them. 

[RPG]

3 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

There is such a thing as the 'OFF' button on tv, radio etc.

I do understand that it can be a bit OTT (and have some sympathy) but I think it is the price we pay for the internet/social media/instant news type of society that we have made for ourselves.

[MikeO]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

There is such a thing as the 'OFF' button on tv, radio etc.

You came to realise that eh? Good for you, wasn't long ago James O'Brien was able to, "force those (his) opinions into the ears of his thousands or millions of listeners".

It's good to evolve.

[Formby]

3 hours ago, Hafnia said:

I seen that quoted on the bbc page but it comes from the profits of crown estate, which is the royal families property business. 
 

Whether it’s taxpayers money, of which I’ve seen the quoted figure of £1.45 per year per person or another source - the reality is our economy is boosted by the royals not drained.  The amount we spend on them is a fraction of what we earn, whether that comes out of taxes, whether they themselves fund it from a proportion of money that is calculated from the income that they bring - I’m not arsed as it has literally no impact to the average person - other than the fact that we are better off financially  for having them. 

I think we've come full circle here. My view on how much benefit we get from them was dealt with in my OP.

[Palfy]

5 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

I’m an atheist but would never call God fearing people nauseating and the religious content which is continually broadcast on all forms of media as force fed, I respect millions of people get something from their beliefs, what I do is just avoid and ignore that sort of content and accept others like it , I would suggest you try to do the same and respect the millions of people around the world who enjoy our royal family instead of trying to belittle what they enjoy, because as I can see it offers no personal harm to you or anyone you know. Just show some respect for other people and pray that they respect you in the same way, and try to remember that this is a monumental moment in this country and the world, and to millions of people who held the queen and monarchy in high esteem, if it takes 1 or 2 months to settle down then so be it, it’s not going to kill you, and who knows if you let go of your prejudices you may see the good that millions of others see, after all doesn’t your religion try to teach you that. 

[Hafnia]

1 hour ago, Formby said:

I think we've come full circle here. My view on how much benefit we get from them was dealt with in my OP.

If you want a finite figure putting on it you can’t, but it is certainly above £1bn. But let’s just agree….. it’s pisses all over the amount they cost which is the original argument 

[Formby]

1 hour ago, Hafnia said:

If you want a finite figure putting on it you can’t, but it is certainly above £1bn. But let’s just agree….. it’s pisses all over the amount they cost which is the original argument 

 

Whose original argument? This was my original post, which I stand by. 

I presume you mean the money they bring in through tourism? There is no reliable figure for that although huge sums are bandied around by supporters of the RF. The fact is, people come to the UK for many different reasons. I don't doubt that beautiful, old 'royal' buildings are part of the appeal. Hoping to see an actual living royal is probably not. The RF and the state has been particularly good in reminding us of their own inestimable worth. They're also very good at saying, yes but what would you replace them with? That is not an argument for keeping them. Ditto, institutions like the House of Lords. I have no animus against the Queen or the people who loved her, but Philip, Charles, Andrew, Edward and the rest? Cmon, people, we can do a lot better than this. 

[Gwlad all over]

9 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

I get it: She was a decent sort and very hard-working. I made clear my opinion on that earlier. What's nauseating is the over-the-top reporting; that's my complaint. It's like being force-fed on a diet of pure saccharin with no end in sight.

Steve I respect your views about the monarchy and Kernow but out of interest are you ever likely to come back and live on this side of the pond?

[MikeO]

"Non-urgent" hospital appointments and procedures, including cancer treatments, being put off for the funeral; try telling a cancer patient that their treatment isn't urgent.

Respect should go both ways; and I actually truly believe that if the queen was able to comment on it she'd be appalled at the idea.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-funeral-nhs-hospital-appointment-cancelled-b2165958.html

[Palfy]

18 minutes ago, MikeO said:

"Non-urgent" hospital appointments and procedures, including cancer treatments, being put off for the funeral; try telling a cancer patient that their treatment isn't urgent.

Respect should go both ways; and I actually truly believe that if the queen was able to comment on it she'd be appalled at the idea.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-funeral-nhs-hospital-appointment-cancelled-b2165958.html

I think she would as well as I would hope anyone with an ounce of decency would. 

[Cornish Steve]

1 hour ago, Gwlad all over said:

Steve I respect your views about the monarchy and Kernow but out of interest are you ever likely to come back and live on this side of the pond?

Much as I will always visit Cornwall (no Celt can ever forget their homeland - just look at the Irish in America!), it's highly unlikely I will return to Britain. The longer you live overseas, the less likely you are to return. Previous generations die and the next generation grows - meaning most of my family, at this point, are in the US.

I'll always remain a British citizen, though, and have chosen not to become a US citizen. This means I'm entitled to vote precisely nowhere!

[Cornish Steve]

46 minutes ago, Palfy said:

I think she would as well as I would hope anyone with an ounce of decency would. 

Let's see whether the new king agrees, shall we?

[Cornish Steve]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html

By the way, did you know that if anyone dies in Cornwall without a will, everything they own passes automatically to the Duke of Cornwall?

[MikeO]

1 minute ago, Cornish Steve said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html

Paywall on that Steve, can you copy/paste.

[Romey 1878]

6 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Paywall on that Steve, can you copy/paste.

Think it’s free, you just have to put your email address in to create a free account. 

[MikeO]

8 minutes ago, Romey 1878 said:

Think it’s free, you just have to put your email address in to create a free account. 

Ah yes, but it seems I've reached my limit of free articles.

[Cornish Steve]

25 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Paywall on that Steve, can you copy/paste.

King Charles III built his own empire long before he inherited his mother’s.

Charles, who formally acceded to the British throne on Saturday, spent half a century turning his royal estate into a billion-dollar portfolio and one of the most lucrative moneymakers in the royal family business.

While his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, largely delegated responsibility for her portfolio, Charles was far more deeply involved in developing the private estate known as the Duchy of Cornwall. Over the past decade, he has assembled a large team of professional managers who increased his portfolio’s value and profits by about 50 percent.

Today, the Duchy of Cornwall owns the landmark cricket ground known as The Oval, lush farmland in the south of England, seaside vacation rentals, office space in London and a suburban supermarket depot. (A duchy is a territory traditionally governed by a duke or duchess.) The 130,000-acre real estate portfolio is nearly the size of Chicago and generates millions of dollars a year in rental income.

The conglomerate’s holdings are valued at roughly $1.4 billion, compared with around $949 million in the late queen’s private portfolio. These two estates represent a small fraction of the royal family’s estimated $28 billion fortune. On top of that, the family has personal wealth that remains a closely guarded secret.

As king, Charles will take over his mother’s portfolio and inherit a share of this untold personal fortune. While British citizens normally pay around 40 percent inheritance tax, King Charles gets this tax free. And he will pass control of his duchy to his elder son, William, to develop further without having to pay corporate taxes.

The growth in the royal family’s coffers and King Charles’s personal wealth over the past decade came at a time when Britain faced deep austerity budget cuts. Poverty levels soared, and the use of food banks almost doubled. His lifestyle of palaces and polo has long fueled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. And he has at times been the unwitting symbol of that disconnect — such as when his limo was mobbed by students protesting rising tuition in 2010 or when he perched atop a golden throne in his royal finery this year to pledge help for struggling families.

Today, he ascends to the throne as the country buckles under a cost-of-living crisis that is expected to see poverty get even worse. A more divisive figure than his mother, King Charles is likely to give fresh energy to those questioning the relevance of a royal family at a time of public hardship.

Laura Clancy, the author of “Running the Family Firm: How the Monarchy Manages Its Image and Our Money,” said King Charles transformed the once-sleepy royal accounts.

“The duchy has been steadily commercializing over the past few decades,” Ms. Clancy said. “It is run like a commercial business with a C.E.O. and over 150 staff.” What used to be thought of as simply a “landed gentry pile of land” now operates like a corporation, she said.

 

The Duchy of Cornwall was established in the 14th century as a way to generate income for the heir to the throne and has essentially funded Charles’s private and official expenses. One example of its financial might: The $28 million profit he made from it last year dwarfed his official salary as prince, just over $1.1 million.

Piecing together the royal family’s assets is complicated, but the fortune falls generally into four groups.

First, and most prominent, is the Crown Estate, which oversees the assets of the monarchy through a board of directors. Charles, as king, will serve as its chairman, but he does not have final say over how the business is managed.

The estate, which official accounts value at more than $19 billion, includes shopping malls, busy streets in London’s West End and a growing number of wind farms. The royals are entitled to take only rental income from their official estates and may not profit from any sales, as they do not personally own the assets.

The estate’s profits, valued at about $363 million this year, are turned over to the Treasury, which in return gives the royal household a payment called a sovereign grant based on those profits — which must be topped up by the government if it is lower than the previous year. In 2017, the government increased the family’s payment to 25 percent of the profits to cover the costs of renovating Buckingham Palace.

The latest sovereign grant received by the royals was around $100 million, which the family, including Charles, has used for official royal duties, like visits, payroll and housekeeping. It does not cover the royals’ security costs, which is also paid by the government, but the cost is kept secret.

 

The next major pot of money is the Duchy of Lancaster. This $949 million portfolio is owned by whomever sits on the throne.

But the value of that trust is dwarfed by the Duchy of Cornwall, the third significant home of royal money, which Charles has long presided over as prince. Generating tens of millions of dollars a year, the duchy has funded his private and official spending, and has bankrolled William, the heir to the throne, and Kate, William’s wife.

It has done so without paying corporation taxes like most businesses in Britain are obliged to, and without publishing details about where the estate invests its money.

“When Charles took over at age 21, the duchy was not in a good financial state,” Marlene Koenig, a royal expert and writer, said, citing poor management and a lack of diversification. Charles took a more active role in the portfolio in the 1980s and began hiring experienced managers.

“It was at this time that the duchy became financially aggressive,” she said.

In 2017, leaked financial documents known as the Paradise Papers revealed that Charles’s duchy estate had invested millions in offshore companies, including a Bermuda-registered business run by one of his best friends.

The final pool of money, and the most secretive, is the family’s private fortune. According to the Rich List, the annual catalog of British wealth published in The Sunday Times, the queen had a net worth of about $430 million. That includes her personal assets, such as Balmoral Castle and Sandringham Estate, which she inherited from her father. Much of her personal wealth has been kept private.

King Charles has also made financial headlines unrelated to his wealth but tied to the charitable foundation that he chairs and operates in his name. His stewardship of the foundation has been marred by controversy, most recently this spring, when The Sunday Times reported that Charles had accepted 3 million euros in cash — including money stuffed in shopping bags and a suitcase — from a former Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani.

The money was for his foundation, which finances philanthropic causes around the world. Charles does not benefit financially from such contributions.

“He’s willing to take money from anybody, really, without questioning whether it’s the wise thing to do,” said Norman Baker, a former government minister and author of the book “ … And What Do You Do? What the Royal Family Don’t Want You to Know.”

Mr. Baker described Charles as the most progressive, caring member of the royal family. But he said he had also filed a police complaint accusing him of improperly selling honorary titles.

“That’s no way to behave for a royal,” he said, referring to an ongoing scandal over whether Charles had granted knighthood and citizenship to a Saudi businessman in exchange for donations to one of Charles’s charitable ventures.

Charles denied knowing about this, one of his top aides who was implicated stepped down, and the authorities began investigating. The king’s representatives did not respond to a message seeking comment.

Charles has also courted controversy with his outspoken views and campaigning. He has lobbied senior government ministers, including Tony Blair, through dozens of letters on issues from the Iraq war to alternative therapies. Though English law does not require it, royal protocol calls for political neutrality.

In his inaugural address on Saturday, the king indicated that he planned to step back from his outside endeavors. “It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply,” he said.

Ms. Clancy, the author, said the new king, in theory, would be expected to drop his lobbying and business ventures entirely.

“Whether that will pan out is a different question,” she said.

[StevO]

On 12/09/2022 at 22:23, Cornish Steve said:

I don't see why it would be a problem. Everyone could log in to their "tax" account and allocate percentages for their tax amount. Change it whenever you wish. These numbers would be used to assign your tax money with every paycheck. Technology-wise, it would be very simple. It's no different than assigning how your 401(k) deductions are assigned to stock funds here in the US.

One day a few too many people make a change, the next day a department doesn’t have enough to support all of its staff. Mass redundancy.

The next day, too many people move the money back. Now that department needs to hire. It begins the expensive and time consuming process of recruitment. 

During the recruitment the output of that department hasn’t improved, the new staff aren’t on board within a couple of months as it takes time, so people move the funding again. They now can’t afford to hire the people they are in the process of hiring. These people have already handed in notice in old jobs and don’t have a new job to go to. 
 

In any form of business there needs to be a level of certainty and consistency. It’s not practical for money/funding to just be moved on a whim. Someone, or a team of people, have to make these decisions and make them for a prolonged period of time for them to work. There is a reason no countries do it like this. 

[RPG]

12 hours ago, MikeO said:

You came to realise that eh? Good for you, wasn't long ago James O'Brien was able to, "force those (his) opinions into the ears of his thousands or millions of listeners".

It's good to evolve.

This is a once in 70 years event and the OFF button is therefore an appropriate option as it will only be required for 2 weeks maximum. O'Brien (and others like him across the political spectrum) just go on ad nauseum.

The other big difference is that the coverage of HM death is genuine news coverage, broadcast, in most cases, to a watching world. O’Brien and his ilk is not really news, but propaganda, broadcast to a mainly UK only audience that they are trying to politically influence and manipulate. I would have thought someone as 'evolved' as you tacitly claim to be would have taken that on board Mike and appreciated these subtle yet important differences. Perhaps you might consider your own ‘evolution’ in these matters?

The subject matter, itself, is very different too. I'm not talking about the personal politics aspect here. This is a big, one off, news story that is grabbing the attention of the entire world yet we still have a minority of small minded people in UK who want to try to score personal or party political points out of it. Politics we can argue about anytime and this particular thread should not, imho, be devalued into a personal pointscoring medium.

The death of our monarch is, I suggest, a time to show respect if you can or to say nothing if you can't (hence the ref to the OFF button) - for a couple of weeks.

 Generally I find that respect has been shown on this thread. I guess 100% is too much to hope for and expect though.

[RPG]

4 hours ago, MikeO said:

"Non-urgent" hospital appointments and procedures, including cancer treatments, being put off for the funeral; try telling a cancer patient that their treatment isn't urgent.

Respect should go both ways; and I actually truly believe that if the queen was able to comment on it she'd be appalled at the idea.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-funeral-nhs-hospital-appointment-cancelled-b2165958.html

If that is really happening then I agree 100%. It would be interesting to know why the appointments are being cancelled though as I suspect that neither the doctors, hospitals or patients wish to cancel the appointments. I don't see this as a lack of respect though. More of a fuck up.

[Palfy]

4 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html

By the way, did you know that if anyone dies in Cornwall without a will, everything they own passes automatically to the Duke of Cornwall?

If someone dies in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster without making a will or having any heirs, the money goes to now William and the King respectfully if any where else in the UK it goes to the Crown meaning the Government. The money is then but into an account for a certain amount of time in case heir’s come forward to claim it, if no heirs are found or come forward in the allotted time the money goes to the Crown/Government who do what ever they wish with it, in the case of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster the money doesn’t go to now William and the King it goes into a benevolent fund which occurs interest and the funds are used to support charities in the area’s of the Duchy it came from, which I would say is far better for the area’s of Cornwall and Lancaster than the rest of the country who’s unclaimed estates go into the Government's big melting pot and get no doubt wasted. 
Steve I’m slowly losing any respect I have had for you as a person, you are deliberately going out of your way to create fake stories in the most sensational way you can, you statement of did you know is a disgusting attempt to try and make people think the Duchy of Cornwall keeps the money of anyone who dies without a will for themselves, what a shocking and disgusting accusation to make in an attempt to smear any good the Monarchy you dislike does. That in my book is evil. 

[Hafnia]

15 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html

By the way, did you know that if anyone dies in Cornwall without a will, everything they own passes automatically to the Duke of Cornwall?

As stated by Palfy… and sourced separately by myself.  Charles “chooses to donate all monies from bona vacantia (which is where such monies go) to the Duchy of Cornwall Benevolent Fund, from which donations are made to local communities in the South West of England”. 
 

ffs Steve, I’m pretty sure you would be aware of that fact stated above.   We get that you have an agenda but behave, I like to think you are better than that.

[MikeO]

10 hours ago, Palfy said:

By the way, did you know that if anyone dies in Cornwall without a will, everything they own passes automatically to the Duke of Cornwall?

Only if they don't have surviving relatives.

[Hafnia]

28 minutes ago, MikeO said:

Only if they don't have surviving relatives.

And even then it goes to the benevolent fund which goes to southwest communities.

I like Steve but he is being naughty here, I don’t doubt for one second a bloke as clued up on this wasn’t aware of this fact. 

[Cornish Steve]

33 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

And even then it goes to the benevolent fund which goes to southwest communities.

I like Steve but he is being naughty here, I don’t doubt for one second a bloke as clued up on this wasn’t aware of this fact. 

The point is that huge sums of money go to the Duchy, an amount that far outstrips the Duke's supposed annual allowance. It's been a precedent in recent years that some amount goes to charity, but you can afford it when all the profits pass from one generation to the next with no death taxes.

The point is I was commenting on the NY Times article, which was largely about the Duchy of Cornwall. I'll stop commenting until the current Royals' press coverage dies down. April maybe?

[Cornish Steve]

11 hours ago, Palfy said:

If someone dies in the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster without making a will or having any heirs, the money goes to now William and the King respectfully if any where else in the UK it goes to the Crown meaning the Government. The money is then but into an account for a certain amount of time in case heir’s come forward to claim it, if no heirs are found or come forward in the allotted time the money goes to the Crown/Government who do what ever they wish with it, in the case of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster the money doesn’t go to now William and the King it goes into a benevolent fund which occurs interest and the funds are used to support charities in the area’s of the Duchy it came from, which I would say is far better for the area’s of Cornwall and Lancaster than the rest of the country who’s unclaimed estates go into the Government's big melting pot and get no doubt wasted. 
Steve I’m slowly losing any respect I have had for you as a person, you are deliberately going out of your way to create fake stories in the most sensational way you can, you statement of did you know is a disgusting attempt to try and make people think the Duchy of Cornwall keeps the money of anyone who dies without a will for themselves, what a shocking and disgusting accusation to make in an attempt to smear any good the Monarchy you dislike does. That in my book is evil. 

Oh come off it, Palfy. Evil is joining Jeffrey Epstein and his under-age victims.

[Hafnia]

16 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

The point is that huge sums of money go to the Duchy, an amount that far outstrips the Duke's supposed annual allowance. It's been a precedent in recent years that some amount goes to charity, but you can afford it when all the profits pass from one generation to the next with no death taxes.

The point is I was commenting on the NY Times article, which was largely about the Duchy of Cornwall. I'll stop commenting until the current Royals' press coverage dies down. April maybe?

 

16 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

The point is that huge sums of money go to the Duchy, an amount that far outstrips the Duke's supposed annual allowance. It's been a precedent in recent years that some amount goes to charity, but you can afford it when all the profits pass from one generation to the next with no death taxes.

The point is I was commenting on the NY Times article, which was largely about the Duchy of Cornwall. I'll stop commenting until the current Royals' press coverage dies down. April maybe?

The point is you purposely told half the story to create a sensational story, which was incredibly misleading. 
 

nothing will stop you commentating your anti English posts.  Considering most of us on here are English it’s very disrespectful, we have people from all over the world with the USA well represented. Have some respect Steve, not all of us are monarchists but don’t treat us like we are stupid either…. Some of us can use Google. 

[Palfy]

15 minutes ago, Hafnia said:

 

The point is you purposely told half the story to create a sensational story, which was incredibly misleading. 
 

nothing will stop you commentating your anti English posts.  Considering most of us on here are English it’s very disrespectful, we have people from all over the world with the USA well represented. Have some respect Steve, not all of us are monarchs but don’t treat us like we are stupid either…. Some of us can use Google. 

100% a shocking post to try to deceive. 

[Palfy]

1 hour ago, MikeO said:

Only if they don't have surviving relatives.

If you read on I did say if no heirs to their State could be found within a certain time frame or make themselves known. There are companies that try to find heirs of unclaimed estates for a hefty percentage of the estate. But not as Steve tried to sensationalise and have us believe that if someone in Cornwall didn’t leave a will everything they own automatically goes to the Duke of Cornwall. 

[MikeO]

45 minutes ago, Palfy said:

If you read on I did say if no heirs to their State could be found within a certain time frame or make themselves known.

Read a post by you? Now there's a novel idea, never bothered before

[Palfy]

3 hours ago, MikeO said:

Read a post by you? Now there's a novel idea, never bothered before

nearly spat me red wine out. 

[RPG]

11 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Oh come off it, Palfy. Evil is joining Jeffrey Epstein and his under-age victims.

There are different types of evil, Steve, and for you to even attempt to try and deflect your bad behaviour (as you just did) merely exacerbates your particular brand of evil. At the very least, man up, take ownership of your behaviour and acknowledge that you deliberately tried to present a negative and totally false picture of the Duchy of Cornwall during a period of national mourning.

To wilfully try to deceive fellow Evertonians with personal agenda driven misinformation regarding the Duchy of Cornwall at such a time of national mourning is an act of evil (not to mention incredibly poor judgement) in a class of its own in my book.

I don't wish to argue with you Steve but from now on, if you tell me that the sun will rise above the horizon tomorrow morning, I will need to see proof before I can believe you.

[MikeO]

 

[RPG]

That link is out of date Mike and, in several instances, now plain wrong or misleading due an outbreak of common sense taking place.

I did a bit of digging on NHS appointments and due to the Monday being declared a Bank Holiday many essential staff are not allowed to work due various contractual/union agreements. I don't think anyone wants to be postponing operations but if essential staff are not contractually allowed to work because it is now a bank holiday there is not a lot that anyone can do. Maybe the unions involved can recommend that their members go to work on the bank holiday or that the 'non monarchists' shouldn't be having the bank holiday anyway?

Centre Parks have already reversed their (admittedly, ridiculous) decision so no real story there.

I got bored after those items and couldn't really be bothered to properly listen to or respond to any of the other niff naff/ridiculous points. Some of them did seem stupid to me and are probably driven, at least in part, by virtue signalling, I agree.

But none of it detracts from the fact that people should be free to pay their (genuine) respects however they wish. That some of their actions are now deemed by you (I believe) and me (to be fair) as plain stupid will hopefully help us to shine a spotlight on all the other PC, wokist, virtue signalling behaviour that we have to suffer in the name of countless other 'projects' that the virtue signalling, woke activists constantly force upon us and I trust you will be even handed in your future comments and posted links regarding their idiotic behaviour too.

Just to clarify, I am convincinced that 99% of all mourning is totally genuine and from the heart. So, whilst this radio link may have a very small point, it is by no means representative of the country at large and it would be very wrong and misleading to try to make it appear that it is. The presenter also placed his own subjective interpretations on the reasons for the actions of various groups without even offering them the right of an on air reply. That is unprofessional and unbalanced broadcasting. Their actions may seem odd to you (and I) but if they are going to be vilified on live radio then surely they should be offered the opportunity to explain?

And, none of it detracts or deflects from most of the previous dozen or so posts not being happy with Cornish, not that I am suggesting that is what you were trying to do.

[MikeO]

11 minutes ago, RPG said:

That link is out of date Mike and, in several instances, now plain wrong or misleading due an outbreak of common sense taking place.

It was yesterday, and wasn't misleading or wrong at the time, the fact that people have seen sense doesn't alter the point the presenter was making at the time; in fact it reinforces it.