Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

But that's not the case. Tax is paid on income from the Duchy of Cornwall, after deduction of "official expenditure" in much the same way as any other landowner deducts expenses from tax liabilities. The only significant difference is that the NAO does not audit those expenses nor the tax paid - in that regard, I would agree that there is a case for an external audit of the tax situation, but it is absolutely a matter of public record (and has been since the Duchy was granted to Charles in 1969) that income tax is paid on the estate income.

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

No, the point is that they go to great lengths to describe it as a private estate when it isn't. The spin is saying that they're not funded by the nation.

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

Yes but does how does it belong to the nation? its been owned by the crown for centuries.

If I owned a substantial portion of land that had been handed down through family generations, why would I give it up?

I think its good that they are putting the land to good use, what else would anyone do with the land? and lets not forget that the that is only part of the Duchy of Cornwall, a lot of it comes from financial investments too.

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

Sure, and my mum lives in a house that she inherited from her parents. What's your point?

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

But it's not untaxed, that's the point. £4.4 million a year is a pretty hefty tax bill by anybody's standards surely?

My father didn't buy the farm he inherited from his parents either (who in turn, inherited it from my great-grandparents), does that mean you think he should have given it up to share with everybody else as well then?

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

The point is that your suggestion of equivalence to a rock star who bought an estate is flawed.

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

why?

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

Isn't that called communism?

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

There is a problem there in that the only way people can become farmers is to inherit farms and the people who inherit farms are obliged to be farmers. That may not make the best use of the land or the talents of the people involved. However, it's not obvious to me that there's a better arrangement so the best we can hope is that the people who have farming thrust upon them make a good job of it. Like Princes.

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

My father never farmed (neither did my grandfather - the war scuppered that one), they had tenant farmers. They paid tax on the profits in their personal tax return but never registered the land as a company. So pretty much exactly the same as Prince Charles, albeit on a somewhat different (and less profitable) scale! :lol:

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

Chelsy Davy was 'the one' looking at pics, but can't blame her for not wanting the lifestyle. Shame as she seemed much better than the current choice.....

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

How so?

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

Never heard of her. I wonder why I noticed this one? :unsure:

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

I am very pleased for them they seem very well suited. I just hope that nothing from her past (when she was a struggling actress) comes back to haunt them, the gutter press will be relentless in there efforts to find something, remember Andrew and Koo Stark?

Re: Go for it Harry marry Meghan.
 

I do. It is about time the RF stopped meddling in relationships. Koo Stark has proved to be in a different league to Ferguson...she has never spilled the beans on her affair with Air Miles Andy. Unlike his unscrupulous, money grabbing ex wife. IMO they should have allowed Charles to marry Camilla when they were young. If they had done so perhaps Diana would be happily married and still alive now. Same applies to Princess Margaret and Townsend.