No, the article says it’s going to the King’s estate, i.e. the crown, not to the privy purse, i.e. Charles’ pocket.
Is some of it being used that will ultimately benefit him? Probably. But according to the article, the policy governing this says any benefit to the king himself should be merely incidental.
This article does not appear to allege that they are violating that policy.
Everywhere but in this Duchy, it goes to the crown (which, confusingly, means the treasury, not the King). In this case, it goes to a foundation run by the Palace, and they decide what to do with it (which already is a problem, Parliament should be deciding what to do with the money). And some of that money is used to renovate properties owned by the King (and from which he personally collects rent).
The Royal family is already fabulously wealthy, they get a stipend from the state, and on top of that you want them to be able to use money that should be going to the treasury to maintain their rental properties?
I’d say renovating properties rented by Charles for his private gain. I’d that is more than incidental. Also aren’t those properties part of his private wealth and not the crown’s?
It usually goes into the state slush fund like tax revenue, AKA the crown.
In this case, it’s claimed that it was ‘donated to charity’.
In this case, it was being spent on upkeep/repairs/renovations on properties that are rented out, with the rent going to the ‘privy purse’ - the king’s personal funds, not the state’s funds. Spending the money to improve the properties directly increases the rent that can be charged, and offsets upkeep costs that would otherwise come out of the rent.
Yeah, people who die with no heir typically get their stuff claimed by the state. This is pretty common around the world.
And that’s fine. In this case it’s going to the King personally, however.
No, the article says it’s going to the King’s estate, i.e. the crown, not to the privy purse, i.e. Charles’ pocket.
Is some of it being used that will ultimately benefit him? Probably. But according to the article, the policy governing this says any benefit to the king himself should be merely incidental.
This article does not appear to allege that they are violating that policy.
Everywhere but in this Duchy, it goes to the crown (which, confusingly, means the treasury, not the King). In this case, it goes to a foundation run by the Palace, and they decide what to do with it (which already is a problem, Parliament should be deciding what to do with the money). And some of that money is used to renovate properties owned by the King (and from which he personally collects rent).
The Royal family is already fabulously wealthy, they get a stipend from the state, and on top of that you want them to be able to use money that should be going to the treasury to maintain their rental properties?
I’d say renovating properties rented by Charles for his private gain. I’d that is more than incidental. Also aren’t those properties part of his private wealth and not the crown’s?
It usually goes into the state slush fund like tax revenue, AKA the crown.
In this case, it’s claimed that it was ‘donated to charity’.
In this case, it was being spent on upkeep/repairs/renovations on properties that are rented out, with the rent going to the ‘privy purse’ - the king’s personal funds, not the state’s funds. Spending the money to improve the properties directly increases the rent that can be charged, and offsets upkeep costs that would otherwise come out of the rent.
Money laundering.
Is it really money laundering when his (mom’s) face is on the money?