Prince William & King Charles claim their ‘private’ duchies don’t ‘receive any public funds’

The Times of London released their months-long investigation – alongside the British broadcaster Channel 4 – into the finances of King Charles and Prince William over the weekend. Keep in mind, this was simply an investigation into the tip of the iceberg, the two privately-held duchies which supply the monarch and Prince of Wales with their income. For William, it’s the Duchy of Cornwall, and for Charles, it’s the Duchy of Lancaster. The Times revealed something which few people knew, which is that William and Charles are charging exorbitant rents on the military, public services and charities. They’re making millions off a prison on duchy land, firefighters, hospitals, toll bridges, churchs, pubs, schools, police and needy charities. Many had assumed that most of the rental income came from businesses, but that’s not the case. To make matters worse, the residential rentals on duchy property are basically moldy, environmentally efficient slums, which makes Charles and William royal slumlords. Oh, and all duchy income is tax-free. To push back on what should be a monarchy-shattering scandal, the duchies released mealy-mouthed statements.

In statements shared with PEOPLE, spokespersons for the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall emphasized each estate’s private status.

“The Duchy of Lancaster manages a broad range of land and property assets. It is self-financing and does not receive any public funds in connection with its activities,” said a spokesperson from the Duchy of Lancaster. “It publishes an Annual Report and Accounts that is independently audited and available to view on its website and complies with all relevant U.K. legislation and regulatory standards applicable to its range of business activities.”

Offering a similar comment, a Duchy of Cornwall spokesperson said, “The Duchy of Cornwall is a private estate with a commercial imperative which we achieve alongside our commitment to restoring the natural environment and generating positive social impact for our communities.”

“Prince William became Duke of Cornwall in September 2022 and since then has committed to an expansive transformation of the Duchy. This includes a significant investment to make the estate net zero by the end of 2032, as well as establishing targeted mental health support for our tenants and working with local partners to help tackle homelessness in Cornwall,” the spokesperson said.

[From People]

“It is self-financing and does not receive any public funds in connection with its activities.” The Duchy of Lancaster will receive £11 million over 15 years because they’re charging the NHS to house their ambulances in a duchy-owned parking garage. William is literally charging the taxpayers for Dartmoor prison. He’s also charging the British Navy for the British coastline and fuel. There has been notable backlash, and I hope to see even more in the coming days and weeks. Graham Smith of Republic spoke to Newsweek:

Graham Smith, chief executive of anti-monarchy campaign group Republic, told Newsweek: “This is about basic standards, it’s about corruption, it’s about abuse of public money and public office, it’s about hypocrisy. And it’s about having people in public office who no one’s elected and who we wouldn’t elect in a million years because they do this kind of thing.”

Smith said: “If a politician did this kind of thing, if [U. K. Prime Minister] Keir Starmer said ‘OK, this huge tranche [of] Norfolk is now my private property, I’m going to take a million pounds off it,’ he’d be out of a job. How can giving Prince William £23 million a year as private income be justified because he has a handful of meetings with homeless charities? That’s just nonsense.”

[From Newsweek]

I actually think Smith could and should go even harder. Seize the moment, blanket the Western media to give this story more attention. Because it’s horrible and once average people hear about it, they’re disgusted.

Photos courtesy of Cover Images, Avalon Red, Buckingham Palace.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

52 Responses to “Prince William & King Charles claim their ‘private’ duchies don’t ‘receive any public funds’”

  1. sevenblue says:

    It is “commercial” and “private”, then why the hell don’t they pay taxes on those income??? They are literally getting millions of tax-payer money as rent revenue and don’t pay any tax on it. The royal reporter tried to ruin Meghan for some imaginary things, here the King and the future King are literally siphoning the public money and they don’t give a sh*t.

    • Becks1 says:

      THIS is absolutely the next follow up. Oh so you’re commercial and private? Do you pay the same taxes as other commercial and private companies? and I’m not talking about what they “voluntarily” pay after their “official” duties are paid for.

      • Steph says:

        @becks1 are you British? If not any British CBers please help me out. What are the “official” duties they are talking about when it comes to the duchies? I thought all official duties were covered by the sovereign grant.

        Also: is the ch in duchy pronounced like Charles or like duckies? I always thought it was the latter.

      • Becks1 says:

        I’m not! The idea though for the Duchy (and i think its “ch”) of Cornwall is that it supports the heir to the throne – thats why the title was automatic when QEII died and William became heir (Prince of Wales was not automatic.) So right now how it works – I think – is that William gets a certain percentage of the profits from the duchy each year (he may get all the profits, I can’t remember that part.) It’s been a while since I’ve done a deep dive into this but here is what I remember:

        Out of that money (around 20-25 million pounds a year) he is supposed to fund his staff, clothes for official duties come out of this, etc. So Kate’s coatdresses are included as part of the “official duties” part of that. Then they supposedly voluntarily pay tax on what is LEFT after that – so if he spent 10 million pounds on staff, clothes, and who knows what else for his “official duties,” then he would have 15 million that he would voluntarily pay tax on, and that’s the money that is supposed to pay for things like vacations, the kids’ tuitions, etc. This is the money that Charles used to support William and Kate but said he didn’t have enough to support H&M.

        You’ll notice I’m saying things like “supposed” because the duchy finances are purposely vague for reasons we’re seeing in these exposes. And then William this year did not disclose whether he paid tax or how much he paid so there’s no indication of what was considered official and what wasn’t.

        And then yes, William does still get some sovereign grant funding. Like I think the helicopter flights are all part of the sovereign grant. So its not cut and dry and in my opinion its purposely murky so people can’t criticize them because they don’t know where the money is actually coming from.

      • Cairidh says:

        It’s duch as in duchess.
        Ducky is a word people use when they’re mimicking camp gay people so Ducky of Cornwall would cause tittering.
        Duchy money is used for clothes, official residences, household staff, transport which would all be considered necessary to look and act like a Royal prince.

  2. Are we supposed to believe the royal liars? Nope!!

  3. Mtl.ex. Pat says:

    The comment on TikTok there! Priceless! “Your morals are receding faster than your hairline William!”

  4. Lady Esther says:

    Again with this “private estate” lie. The Duchies are NOT private – they are owned by the Crown, which means taxpayers. The monarch and heir cannot sell the Duchies, or otherwise exchange it it as a private landowner could. The only “private” part of the Duchies is the INCOME that the Duchies generate, which Charles and William get to use. PERIOD.

    Furthermore, Charles and William choose to pay or not pay taxes, disclose or not disclose, be exempted from many UK laws….all because they have decided it will be so, not because they are “public” or “private” or “semi private” or whatever other useless definition they make up whenever they are scrutinized.

    • Dee(2) says:

      So the “people” own the duchies but all the profits go to them? That’s quite the deal. I hope this story has legs and gets picked up in other media in Europe. ( I’m not hopeful for the U.S. given what today is). Too often it feels like something that comes out should really drive reform and they skate out of it. I just hope that the outside activities of the family in the past month compared to these stories highlighted their tremendous hypocrisy.

    • Eurydice says:

      I think the duchies are “private” in that they are not part of the Crown Estate and they are directly inherited by the monarch and PoW. It’s the Crown Estate that’s not owned by the monarch.

      • somebody says:

        But how can they truly own anything without it being something ripped off from the public or bought with public funds or stolen somewhere along the line?

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Eurydice, Landcaster was forfeited centuries ago and the Monarch at the time made it a property for the Monarch and first born sons. It’s been looked at several times by parliament to be made part of the crown estate. I think both Duchy’s should be crown estate property and excess money after Duchy needs should go to the taxpayer.

        Between Landcaster and Cornwall, the brf has quite the scam going.

  5. aquarius64 says:

    You know it’s bad if clean up in aisle 4 is done in US media. William having the Duchy of Cornwall for two years is a lame excuse. If Harry had control of properties like this and this went down on his watch it would have been wall to wall coverage with the BM.

    • Becks1 says:

      I think they’re also scrambling in the US via People because this is something that we just don’t really understand here in the US. We have large private landowners, yes. We have corporations that own huge sections of cities and towns and the like, yes, of course we do. And some cities are still dealing with ground rents.

      But we don’t have this feudal system where an unelected head of state is seemingly allowed to just….earn money from the government he’s supposed to represent….by charging the NHS to store ambulances.

      Can you imagine if Joe Biden was charging people every time they came near his beach house in delaware?

      • Kokiri says:

        Right?

        Or I’m going to start charging our mail person when they deliver since they are on my property, etc etc.
        I need 911? Pay me please.
        Property which I actually don’t “own” since Eminent Domain (expropriation in Canada).

      • BeanieBean says:

        I am reminded of trump holding meetings at his various golf courses & his secret service staffers being put up in his hotels, which is a ‘government travel expense’. So, kinda similar, and equally revolting.

    • Jais says:

      Yeah, I think it’s wild that they’ve given a statement to People. Did they give a statement to the Times or anyone in the BM about the reports? They may have and I just don’t recall. But the idea that they gave one to a us gossip mag is fascinating to me.

  6. Becks1 says:

    They restore the natural environment by leasing to mining companies? Okay then. No public funds but they’re charging schools, the MoD, the NHS, and local governments? Okay then. He’s tackling homelessness in Cornwall – how, by building more moldy residences??

    These are such weak responses but I feel like you can practically hear the disdain dripping from them, right? Like “how dare the peasants question how we earn our millions that we completely deserve.”

    • Eurydice says:

      It’s a weird statement – that the duchies are self-financing and don’t receive public money. It’s like they’re saying they don’t receive any public support, as in loans or grants, from the government in order to stay afloat. And I’m sure their financials will show this. It’s like they’re answering a question nobody asked. But is the rental income broken out by public and private lessees? I’m sure the NHS knows to whom they pay rent.

    • SarahCS says:

      I love how they’re bragging about not taking ‘public funds’ to run the businesses that make millions in profit from… public institutions. You’re scamming the state once and bragging about not doing it twice. The NHS is already paying to run your business.

  7. sunnyside up says:

    They choose to charge the NHS and charities commercial rents, they could charge them a peppercorn rent instead.

  8. Tessa says:

    The four of them grinning away before the queens funeral

    • Bamaborn says:

      Those 4 could hardly contain their glee when Betty exited. Know there’s photoshopping, but, the pic of them then and now are striking.

    • Unblinkered says:

      My immediate thought too, now and at the time.
      Absolutely disgusting.

    • nikki says:

      @tess … Not just grinning but the happiness and joy extends to their eyes. This isn’t just a muscle reflex by someone having public pics taken all the time. There’s true joy in at least 3 of them.

  9. LauraD says:

    Who are they trying to kid? It’s there for everyone to see. We’re paying them £500m a year to scam us. They’re receiving lucrative government contracts and are somehow exempt from paying any taxes. No income tax. No corporation tax. No capital gains tax. The tenants living in their mouldy homes, the soldiers who fight in their name to protect this country pay more in taxes than these lazy grifters. Let’s not forget this is just what they’re scamming in England. Goodness knows what they’re creaming off the top in Scotland especially when we know QEII vetted at least 67 bills relating to planning and property taxes.

    As a sidenote I LOVE that a lot of users on X are using pictures of the “fab four” when discussing this scandal. There’s not one picture that the MSM can use where they can somehow shoehorn H&M into this grift. 😆

  10. ML says:

    Has Kate (married to the Duchy of Cornwall’s NHS slumlord among others) thanked her caregivers by name yet?

    Remember the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster making money off of dead people without a will? https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/how-royal-estates-use-bona-vacantia-to-collect-money-from-dead-people-king-charles

    It seems like there’s a genuine question regarding KC’s and W’s status as nontaxpayers if not something else. Yesterday, Samuel Whiskers wondered why the media has shifted it’s reporting on the Windsors. I’m really curious as to the Times’s role (this is a Rupert Murdoch publication!) in breaking this story. Yes, the Times is considered a “real” paper, but it leans conservative and has a controversial owner. I would have expected this expose from The Guardian, not the Times. Not that I don’t welcome the truth getting out, but why is the Times involved and why now and what has changed to lead to this?

    • Ana Maria says:

      …I’m beginning to think that Prince Andrew might have tipped off the Times

    • Becks1 says:

      I’m not sure why this was actually published in the Times, but I’m not surprised that someone there investigated this and wrote this story (again the publication is kind of a mystery.) We’ve said on here time and again that if the RRs were “real” reporters they would be digging into the royals’ finances (notice this doesn’t even touch the other royals), their hiring practices, their use of the queen’s/king’s assent, their exemption from taxes that every other British person has to pay, their use of sovereign grant funds (since it seemed QEII didn’t spend the money to upgrade BP when she was supposed to), right down to their excessive helicopter use, extended stays at Indian spas, etc. And that’s without getting into any of the personal issues regarding marriages, affairs, cover ups, involvement in sex trafficking, etc.

      So I’m not surprised that an actual investigative journalist (or multiple ones) is actually starting to pull at the thread that is the royals’ finances a little bit.

      I am a little surprised that the Times and the Mirror actually published these stories.

  11. Kokiri says:

    The only people who own RF property are the people, & their ancestors, that resides there before the guy who styled himself “king” stole it all.
    It’s just been passed down since then. No one ever in the RF earned anything they have.

    So this is all just word play. The lands, all of them, need to be restored to the people & housing, infrastructure, etc, built on it all.

  12. Swaz says:

    I’ve always said that this royal balcony waving business is a scam 😂😂 they’re smiling while robbing the UK 🇬🇧 blindly 😂😂

  13. Lili says:

    the money in bags scandal died down becuase they said the money was for charity, we all went ah! how sweet with out collective hands under our chins with bigs eyes and a slight tremble of our lips holding back tears . not realising sure it goes in the front and goes out the back end back into their pockets. we’ve been told it costs the tax payer £1.25 per person for the royals and the working royals get paid from the sovereign grant. a few years ago there was a big furore about charities and how al lot of the money gets swallowed up in admin costs. the average joe bloggs is pay 45% on £125,000 ,meanwhile Charles and Willy are not paying tax on their personal or commercial income. and another note paying £10 a month to charity is inveritably going into the royal coffers . i’m reminded of B613 of scandal how they were syphoning small % of money from every department. this is so messy. they are double dipping , syphoning money from all avenues

  14. crazyoldlady says:

    the British people need to overthrow the monarchy once and for all – and take the public assets that are rightfully theirs.

  15. Dee says:

    Take away the grift and they’ll go away. #DefundtheMonarchy

  16. Hypocrisy says:

    When they are questioned or held to account the first thing they do is start the “the Duchies are Private” narrative which has been proven wrong in every publication that is not a tabloid. What I don’t understand is why all those profits from the Duchies aren’t put back into the properties that are rented. The BRF is extremely well funded by the subjects through taxes, there is zero need for them to have any financial gain off the backs of subjects who have the fewest resources. I don’t know how England can afford the BRF anymore truthfully. I would love to see them cut off all public funding except a base salary under £4M for both the king and heir, let them have 1/4 of the Duchy profits reinvesting 3/4 into the properties. Assign properties also so the King always lives at Buckingham and the Heir residence is always another set property and leave the other castles and crown properties to a historical tourist foundation to run. I think the NHS, schools and the military are far more important to the wellbeing of a nation than that family will ever be and the funding should reflect that. If the BRF was cut off 100% tomorrow Prince George’s great great great great grand children will still be wealthy beyond imagination time to let them fend for themselves.

    • HuffnPuff says:

      That’s what I thought modernizing the monarchy would be. I thought that it would mean slimming down their properties and looking at the money being spent (and taken). What they really meant was they want to keep all the stuff and the status, but cut back on any “work” that they do. The monarchy is only good for tourism if they are seen. If they spend all their time on vacation in their extra homes, then they aren’t being seen. All reasons why the monarchy shouldn’t be allowed to slim themselves down. I think the public needs to step in. I like your ideas, Hypocrisy. I would add that their income should hinge on their work just like if we don’t work, we don’t get paid either.

  17. Beth says:

    I think receiving public funds is something they weren’t actually accused of doing anyway. They must think people are stupid. Sadly, some are – but not all.

  18. Over it says:

    How can we expect William and charles to pay taxes when William has to buy coat dresses and wiglets and Charles has to buy hay, apples and oats .

  19. yipyip says:

    Isn’t this an out right lie?

  20. yipyip says:

    In that top photo, William towers next to C.
    C&C look elderly and tired.

    If William was not 6′ tall, he’d be out of a job.

    King H and Queen Noor, remember them?
    That man had power, smarts and charm to burn. He was a leader and very well respected in the world leaders area.

  21. Heather says:

    And let us not forget the Paradise Papers, where we discovered that QE2 and Chucky have tens of millions stashed in offshore accounts 🤷🏽‍♀️

  22. Advisor2U says:

    Well, let me drop my three quetions regaring this indept bombshell docu on the British royals’ massive scamming businesses, for a debate;

    1) Why was Murdoch (owner of The Sunday Times) involved ? Why did he colaborate to expose these two Royals NOW and in this way? These two, as we know accordaning to “The invisible contract”, have been his partners in crime for the longest time.

    2) What contract with Murdoch did Willy and Charles broke, or failed to keep, or fail to fulfill sufficiently?

    3) What other, more damning revelations were traded with the Palace lawyers (Charles and Willy) before they agreed to air this version of the documentary (of which the broadcasting was held back twice)?

    Any insideful ideas?

    Note: Harry’s Phonehacking/illegal info gathering lawsuit against The Sun Group (Murdoch) is due in two months (if not settled). So far, Charles and Willy have failed to “punish” Harry enough to get him to drop the case.

    • This is another warning shot from Murdoch’s end to Chucky and Egg. It’s the old ” If we go down , we will take you with us and make sure you burn harder”.

      If you follow the money ( and yes always do ) it’s the only answer that makes sense. Chucky and egg have assured Murdoch they can control Harry and make the pesky lawsuits go away and they clearly haven’t been able to. In the meantime, the count down to lawsuit Armageddon is 2 months away and they are so nervous they are going for the royal throat.
      The only way to hurt Chuck and Egg is to hit them hard in the wallet and destroy their “good will”

      I wouldn’t be surprised at all if Charles and Egg are the ones willing to finance a settlement. Too bad Harry isn’t about a settlement – he wants justice for his family and his mom. All of this is going to crank way up and well get your drinks and popcorn – this is the stuff people get killed over.

  23. Lau says:

    I’m not a really optimistic person so I think that like for every other royal scandal the outrage will last a maximum of two weeks and then people will stop talking about it or Charles and William will have blanketed the media with enough nonsense about the Sussexes to smother the noise. I hope I’m wrong though.

  24. Blubellah says:

    That privately funded excuse does not justify the abject hypocrisy in that:
    ▪️They accept taxpayer funding to renovate their multiple royal residences while not paying for renovations for their “tenants” to be brought up to the basic minimum habitable standards.
    ▪️They’re pushing an end homelessness fluff campaign while sitting on a prolific real estate portfolio obtained through legacy fleecing of their constituents….the upkeep of many still funded by current taxpayers. Including several that are empty or not fully utilized.
    ▪️They have a brazen lack of accountability and transparency in not releasing financials and continuing to take advantage of archaic royal exemptions. If you’re a private commercial enterprise you should be paying the same tax as other business entities and complying with all regulatory standards.

    They live in gilded cages, ride around in gold carriages wearing jeweled crowns while the peasants live in dilapidated mold riddened quarters. I don’t understand how the public allows this Victorian era bubble to continue for the sake of tourism. The French tourism industry is doing better without their royals.

  25. Naur says:

    Chris Martin has never looked so bad hahahahahahaha

Commenting Guidelines

Read the article before commenting.

We aim to be a friendly, welcoming site where people can discuss entertainment stories and current events in a lighthearted, safe environment without fear of harassment, excessive negativity, or bullying. Different opinions, backgrounds, ages, and nationalities are welcome here - hatred and bigotry are not. If you make racist or bigoted remarks, comment under multiple names, or wish death on anyone you will be banned. There are no second chances if you violate one of these basic rules.

By commenting you agree to our comment policy and our privacy policy

Do not engage with trolls, contrarians or rude people. Comment "troll" and we will see it.

Please e-mail the moderators at cbcomments at gmail.com to delete a comment if it's offensive or spam. If your comment disappears, it may have been eaten by the spam filter. Please email us to get it retrieved.

You can sign up to get an image next to your name at Gravatar.com Thank you!

Leave a comment after you have read the article

Save my name and email in this browser for the next time I comment