The pagan modus operandi revolved around nature worship and idol worship, types of religious practice which fall somewhere between superstitious and malign. Malign because nature's only law is survival of the fittest, the law of the jungle. The weak must perish in a Dawkins world-view and this goes against our better nature, unless we are control freak types who want to die having left the world in a worse state than when they were born.
He is committed to elitism and rejection of Christ and ushering in of a man-made religion which will synthesize all religions into one. Who will then know what is right and what is wrong? This is Deism and that means that whoever's in charge decides right from wrong. We've already seen Charles disregard the law and have a civil not a church marriage to Camilla. It was notorious Lord Chancellor Charles Falconer, who delivered this verdict for Charles who got married despite eleven objections.
On a recent visit to Tetbury in Gloucestershire, where Charles and Diana lived at Highgrove, I was struck by the polite animosity of locals to the Prince, and their assertions that Diana 'got a raw deal'. She was committed to bringing William and Harry up to be like ordinary people rather than royalty, at least to have a good idea what ordinary people are really like, for example by cycling into Tetbury with the boys without security guards for shopping or attending church on Sunday.
She ingrained into the boys that they need never fear ordinary people and Charles, whether he turns out to be the Antichrist or not, will find the wonderful upbringing she gave them almost impossible to erase.
Thanks for posting this! It's funny that Charles Clarke and Lord Sainsbury are critics of Charles. When you've upset these two you know you've done something right. _________________ 911 Was An Outside Job. I used to be a 'truther' but I now believe all the conspiracy theories to be nonsense. Please watch 'Screw Loose Change' on youtube.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 15490 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Wed Jul 04, 2007 10:29 am Post subject:
Yup, And many others in Iraq. Remember those Bosnian Mosques too?
Reminds me of a crazed preacher cum bandit in the Spaghetti Western 'A Bullet for the General' (an appropriate title when you think of Kay Griggs testimony). He would lob hand grenades at each pause in the liturgy. In the name of the father, BOOM! The son, BOOM! And the holy spirit. BOOM! Amen. BOOM!
This scapegoating of God's people and desecration of holy sites is the ultimate NWO objective IMHO. Any faith other than the one they're preparing for us is out the window.
Mark Gobell wrote:
Like the destruction of the al-Askari Mosque ?
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 15490 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:57 am Post subject:
I was looking for this article and finally found it...
Charles and Camilla wedding 'could be illegal'
By Oliver Finegold, Evening Standard 14.02.05
Prince Charles could be barred from marrying Camilla in a civil ceremony, legal experts have warned.
Plans have been drawn up for the couple to marry in a low-key ceremony at Windsor Castle, followed by a chapel blessing.
But in a BBC Panorama television special last night, family law experts said there were "serious doubts" over the couple's wedding plans, arguing that the 1836 Marriage Act barred the royal family from civil marriages.
"I was very surprised when I heard this was proposed," said Stephen Cretney, Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.
"The legislation which governs civil marriage in England is expressed not to apply to members of the royal family.
"There is no statutory procedure whereby members of the royal family can marry in a register office."
Were the couple to wed under current legislation, Dr Cretney said the Prince of Wales would not be legally married and Camilla would not be his wife.
"This would be a very, very serious matter," he said.
Valentine Le Grice QC, a specialist in family law, said a "heavy question mark" hung over the proposed marriage.
"It would not be possible for them to get married in the way most people understand a register office marriage," he said. "It is not open to the two of them to follow the normal procedures of a registry marriage."
Clarence House said it had taken advice from four independent legal experts and said there was nothing in law which would prevent Charles and Camilla getting married.
The warnings came as it was revealed today that Camilla could still become Queen if public opinion swings in her favour.
Mrs Parker Bowles will be the first Princess Consort, reflecting the huge public opposition to her becoming Queen.
But senior courtiers admitted that they had deliberately left the possibility of her becoming Queen open if there is a change in the public mood.
"When the time comes, which we hope is a long way off, an option would be to reflect the mood in the country at that time," a senior aide to the Prince of Wales told The Times.
Yesterday Charles and Camilla attended a church service near the Prince's Highgrove home, joining a congregation of 34 people in St Lawrence's Church in Didmarton, Gloucestershire.
They appeared not to have decided how to spend St Valentine's Day today.
Asked if they had any plans, Mrs Parker Bowles said: "Not as yet." The Rev Christopher Mulholland said there was a great sense of goodwill in the church as Charles and Camilla took their seats.
The Queen received a £2million bail-out from taxpayers, secret papers revealed yesterday.
The cash was paid from the sale of land at Kensington Palace Gardens.
The Queen also received a £1million rates rebate on palaces, papers obtained under freedom of information law showed. But she had to give up the right to manage the Royal Household's finances under a deal agreed with the last government in 2006.
A memo was drawn up detailing how the Queen could spend the £38.2million she gets annually from the public purse.
It was found that outstanding bills had gone from £938,000 to £2,773,000 in less than 12 months. Labour MP Paul Flynn, a member of the Commons public spending watchdog, said yesterday: "Someone appears to have gone to extraordinary lengths to protect the Royal Family from public scrutiny.
"The Royal Family is part of the dependency culture in the same way as Mr Cameron spoke about people living in a council house for life."
lol I believe that, NOT
Ahaha as if politicians have control of anything. _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Sorry... ...but we can't find the page: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/09/24/the-queen-received %20-a-2million-bail-out-from-taxpayers-115875-22583917/
The file could not be found for a number of reasons such as the file being moved or deleted. Please check your spelling and if you still can't get to the right page try either using the Search Box above or heading to the homepage for a look around.
Alternatively you could try one of the pages on your right.
The Queen's heating bill request refused due to public backlash fears
The Queen's heating bill request has been refused by government officials in Whitehall over fears of a public relations backlash.
A royal aide is reported to have asked the government if the Queen was eligible for a grant under the £60m energy-saving fund made available in 2004.
The aide was informed that the Queen would not be receiving a grant, as they were intended for 'low income families' and any donation could result in 'adverse publicity', according to the Independent.
Buckingham Palace has refused to comment on the allegations.
The request was revealed after an investigation by the Independent using the Freedom of Information Act. The deputy treasurer to the Queen stated that the £1m-a-year bill for gas and electricity had become 'untenable'.
Officials replied stating that the handouts were designed for schools, councils and housing associations, and a Royal handout may cause 'adverse press coverage'.
The August 2004 e-mail stated: 'I think this is where the Community Energy Funding is directed and ties in with most allocations going to community heating schemes run by local authorities, housing associations, universities etc.
'I also feel a bit uneasy about the probable adverse press coverage if the Palace were given a grant at the expense of say a hospital. Sorry this doesn't sound more positive.'
oh thanks for pointing that out DD (I guessed it could have been something like that though)... damn shame... I thought I was onto another conspiracy there _________________ "For truth has now come to light, and falsehood [by its nature] is bound to perish; for, falsehood cannot bring forth anything new, nor can it bring back [what has passed away]."
Why Prince Charles is too dangerous to be king: In a landmark essay MAX HASTINGS tells why this increasingly eccentric royal could imperil the monarchy http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339707/Prince-Charles-dangero us-king-This-eccentric-royal-imperil-monarchy.html
The engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton has given the British people a welcome fillip in a chilly season. Next April’s wedding will be a big success — even if we make a mess of some things, we’re jolly good at royal ceremonies.
The hard part comes afterwards: as the Queen gets older, growing attention and speculation is focusing on the monarchy’s future. Opinion polls show that most British people would like William to become heir to the throne, bypassing his father, the Prince of Wales.
But courtiers vigorously declare that’s not going to happen. When the Queen dies — as, like all of us, she eventually must — her son is determined to succeed her.
The Prince and his wife Camilla earned warm public sympathy last week when their car was assaulted by rioting student demonstrators in London. But many thoughtful people are alarmed by the prospect of a figure of such assertive eccentricity acceding to the British throne.
I heard one of the cleverest men in Britain, master of an Oxbridge college, quite calmly say the other night: ‘The best hope for the monarchy is that Prince Charles dies before the Queen.’
This seemed a brutal observation from a kindly and temperate man, but he went on to justify it: ‘We spend our lives here educating a new generation to understand that rational behaviour requires us to reach conclusions and make decisions by examining evidence.
‘Yet now we have the heir to the throne demanding — not in a throwaway remark, but in an entire book to which he has just put his name — that we should reject science and evidence in favour of following our instincts. This is surely disturbing.’
The Prince’s new book Harmony is indeed a startling piece of work. He begins it by writing: ‘This is a call to revolution. “Revolution” is a strong word, and I use it deliberately. For more than 30 years I have been working to identify the best solutions to the array of deeply entrenched problems we face.
‘Having considered these questions long and hard, my view is that our outlook in the Westernised world has become far too firmly framed by a mechanistic approach to science.’
He continues: ‘This approach is entirely based upon the gathering of the results that come from subjecting physical phenomena to scientific experiment.’
Though the Prince says he does not dismiss all science as bosh, his book is a call to arms against ‘the great juggernaut of industrialisation’ which he deplores.
Some of his phrases are messianic: ‘I would be failing in my duty to future generations and to the Earth itself if I did not attempt to point this out and indicate possible ways we can heal the world.’
Obsessively convinced of his own rightness, he views his critics with the weary resignation of an early Christian martyr: ‘It is probably inevitable that if you challenge the traditions of conventional thinking you will find yourself accused of naivety.’
Now, you may say it’s a fine thing we have an heir to the throne who cares passionately about the planet and is determined to do something about it. But what if his prescriptions are wrong?
At the heart of the Queen’s brilliant success for almost 60 years is that we have been denied the slightest clue as to what she thinks about anything but dogs and horses. Her passivity has been inspired, because her subjects can then attribute any sentiments they choose to her. She has never said a word to raise a hackle.
Prince Charles, by contrast, wears his heart on his sleeve. He outraged the medical profession by bullying the last government into providing NHS funding for his cherished homeopathic medicine. This, doctors pointed out, meant transferring taxpayers’ money from proven remedies to quackery — panaceas for which there is no scientific evidence at all.
A leading breast cancer specialist, Professor Michael Baum, wrote an open letter to the British Medical Journal after the Prince suggested drinking carrot juice and taking coffee bean enemas might help to combat cancer.
The Professor furiously wrote that his own 40 years of study and 25 years’ involvement in cancer research might be thought to offer at least as solid a basis for addressing this issue as the Prince’s ‘power and authority, which rest on an accident of birth’.
The Government is committed to trialling genetically modified crops, which many agriculturalists think offer the best hope of feeding the people of the world. But the Prince repeatedly condemns GM as the devil’s work — just as he opposes nuclear power [he's right on those two, yet takes 'eco-train' sponsorship money from new nuke builders EDF - ed.] and much modern architecture.
Constitutionally, it’s irrelevant whether his views are right or wrong: by wading into high-profile controversies and using his status to influence government decisions, he may please green enthusiasts, but he also makes many enemies — some of them much more clever people than himself, who reject his ideas about how to better humanity.
In this way, he compromises the Royal Family.
A courtier recently said to me: ‘You shouldn’t worry about this. Charles knows that from the day he becomes King, he must keep his mouth shut.’ But in the same week, one of the Prince’s intimate circle privately said: ‘The nation is ready for a visionary monarchy.’
I believe that if the Prince and those around him think any such thing, Charles would hit trouble as fast and hard as a truck crashing into a wall when he’s the occupant of the throne.
Nobody doubts that he is an honourable man who wants to do good. His Prince’s Trust has made a remarkable contribution to helping the young get started in trades and businesses.
But Charles insists upon addressing a range of issues wider and deeper than any mortal man — unless he has a mind of genius, as the Prince certainly does not — can sensibly encompass. Some of his book reads like the ravings of a Buddhist mystic.
I once incurred princely wrath by suggesting to him that he would be judged by what he is rather than by what he does — that being heir to the throne is not a government office.
Jeremy Paxman makes the same point in his book on royalty: ‘The Prince had consistently misunderstood or ignored a basic truth at the heart of the relationship between royalty and the people.
‘He seemed to believe his significance lay in what he believed and did. The truth was simply that his significance lay in who he was.’
An acquaintance of the Prince argued to me recently that we should not worry about his behaviour because anybody who spends time with him quickly sees that he is potty, and thus harmless.
I would agree — if his eccentricities were confined to collecting matchboxes or dressing up as Napoleon.
But he is so set in his ways, so accustomed to not being contradicted — because those who argue with him are swiftly expelled from his counsels — that I am convinced that if he becomes King he will persist in trying to save the world, and thus precipitate a crisis.
He craves the return of what he thinks was a happier, simpler, more ‘natural’ world — for instance, he deplores interference with primitive tribes.
A person who knows him well says: ‘I used to think Camilla could sort him out, but it’s too late. He’s a spoilt baby.’
He writes: ‘If we continue to engineer the extinction of the last remaining indigenous, traditional societies, we eliminate one of the last remaining sources of wisdom.’
He does not stop to ask what happens if the peoples of those indigenous societies want TVs and mobile phones, or even medicines to save them from some of the horrible diseases to which primitive man fell victim.
Rural grandees such as himself may have enjoyed times past, but peasants certainly did not.
The industrial growth which he hates has brought huge benefits to mankind. He seems oblivious to the tension between his grand vision about how others should live and his personal financial profligacy; his enthusiasm for using helicopters and keeping every light blazing in Clarence House at all hours.
Now, he is not a bad man, but I think he is a very dangerous one for the monarchy, if allowed to ascend the throne.
I remain apprehensive that his eagerness to become King derives from hopes of using the position to promote his dotty causes. A person who knows him well says: ‘I used to think Camilla could sort him out, but it’s too late. He’s a spoilt baby.’
The Queen’s triumph — and that of Prince Philip, whose achievement is often underrated — has been rooted in a discipline that Charles utterly lacks.
For they recognise that being royal, far from allowing crowned heads to do as they choose, makes it essential to exercise iron control over one’s every word and deed.
Prince Philip has occasionally committed indiscretions, but these are trifling in a lifetime as consort. Some unkind things are said about the royal couple’s failure as parents. Yet their contribution to our nation far outweighs any domestic shortcomings.
The argument in royal circles now concerns whether the Queen’s passive style of monarchy will suffice for a new age.
When she ascended to the throne in 1952, Britain was a homogeneous white country with a culture symbolised by beer, country churches, cricket, the Radio Times and Miss Marple. Today, however, the ethnic and cultural make-up of the nation is changing fast.
According to one projection, by 2051 the ‘white British’ proportion of the population will fall to 67 per cent, then decline to only 50 per cent by the end of the century. A significant proportion of the children of minorities will, meanwhile, become assimilated and adopt our traditional values, perhaps including respect for the monarchy.
But it seems rash to expect too much, when the ‘white British’ are diminishingly confident about what our values are.
They are scarcely churchgoing Christians. Even the Church of England is racked with doubts about its own beliefs. That other great British institution, the BBC, often seems more concerned with providing a platform for minorities than with articulating the views of the majority.
If I was advising Prince William and Kate Middleton, I would urge they confine their public remarks to politeness and platitudes.
Even fish and chips are history. Tea is not the national opiate it once was — if you asked for a ‘cuppa char’ in many fast-food places, the Polish girl staring blankly across the counter might think you were making an indecent suggestion.
Some younger courtiers argue that a ‘more relevant’ monarchy will be necessary, to engage with the new Britain. I suggest that they are wrong.
The best hope for the future is to maintain the Queen’s great tradition, of being all things to all her subjects by remaining a smiling, but silent, monarch.
In the days when royal advisers occasionally sought my opinions as a newspaper editor, my counsel was always the same: ‘Say nothing, say nothing, say nothing.’ I thought the various confessional interviews by the Prince and Princess of Wales were suicidal. Charles’ book Harmony can promote only disharmony around the throne.
If I was advising Prince William and Kate Middleton, I would urge they confine their public remarks to politeness and platitudes. At all costs, I would forswear interviews and documentaries designed to reveal ‘the real William’ and ‘the real Kate’. For our sakes, as well as theirs, we should not go there.
Modern kings and queens must remain distant symbols of glamour, beauty and decency — or they become nothing. In the mid-21st century, as ever, once the public knows too much, the magic will be gone.
Happily for us all, there is every reason to suppose that the Queen will reign on for at least another decade. By then, it should be obvious that it would be madness to allow a quirky, stubbornly opinionated and contentious old man to assume the throne — that the best hope for Britain’s monarchy lies with William and Kate.
The most important task, meanwhile, is to prevent the media’s obsession with the young royals from tarnishing or destroying the couple.
I remain optimistic that the monarchy will survive. While many British people are indifferent to it today, few are actively hostile — a state of affairs which reflects the Queen’s achievement.
But anyone who reads the Prince of Wales’ new book will have little doubt that the chief peril to our royal institution in the decades ahead lies within his well-meaning, muddled, woolly head.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339707/Prince-Charles-dangero us-king-This-eccentric-royal-imperil-monarchy.html _________________ www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.l911t.com www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
The Fall of the House of Windsor?
December 10th, 2010 • 6:54 PM
Empire, News Update
Even Prince Charles and Camilla are feeling the backlash from the murderous austerity cuts which the empire is imposing on the people of England. There is a fundamental conflict between the interests of the people of England as a nation-state and the interests of the British financial empire. Under a global Glass-Steagall, even the English will be freed from the shackles of the British Empire.
According to excerpts, 62-year-old Prince Charles has never dressed himself. Photo: Reuters
Prince Charles demands to have his shoelaces ironed and Prince Philip is breaking protocol to support staff at Buckingham Palace, according to a soon-to-be released tell all book.
As the Queen opened the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and enjoys a sausage sizzle in Perth, Not In Front of the Corgis! is causing a stir in London.
The Prince of Wales has never picked up his own clothes or undressed himself.
Written by successful royal biographer Brian Hoey, the book chronicles the daily lives of the royal family's staff.
According to excerpts, 62-year-old Prince Charles has never dressed himself and has three full time staff dedicated solely to his wardrobe requirements.
"The Prince of Wales has never picked up his own clothes or undressed himself," the Daily Mail reported.
"A valet's other duties include ironing the Prince's shoelaces whenever his shoes are taken off."
Meanwhile, his father Prince Philip abandoned royal protocol this year to attend the funeral of his chauffeur.
The heir to the throne's younger brother Prince Edward was rated as the least popular member of the royal family by staff members.
"The Earl of Wessex is considered the most pompous royal, insisting on absolute formality at all times. His chauffeur is instructed always to face the front, even if the car is stationary," the book outlined.
The Downtown Abbey style insiders peek into the lives of the world's most famous family also offers handy tips for those thinking of a career inside the palace gates.
To be a footman, men are required to stand tall at about six foot and have a "slim build", while to land a job as a lady-in-waiting for the Queen do not expect to be paid as the position is voluntary.
However, the perks of the job include receiving Her Majesty's hand-me-downs which are made available to be worn or sold.
"With the proviso that all labels are removed so it cannot be identified, one such dress made its way to a jumble sale near Sandringham, where, despite its obvious quality, it failed to sell," Hoey's expose continued.
While many members of the staff may have different thoughts, dignitaries who visit the UK prefer to stay with the Queen rather than at any other hotel in London.
Over the years the Palace has gained a reputation for its hospitality, highlighted in May when US President Barack Obama travelled across the Atlantic.
"Palace officials had even found out what sort of loo paper he and his wife Michelle preferred (thickness, consistency and colour), their favourite flowers and whether or not they liked duvets or sheets and blankets."
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2016 7:31 am Post subject: Reply
Me too agree that "Good King Lucius" was the man. I heard about his history from my professor when they told about dissertation writing services. The expert writers in this services are ready to prepare an article about Good King Lucius if i am ready to present dissertation.
Media captionMargaret Hodge: "We want to ensure the Duchy of Cornwall operates on a level playing field"
The Prince of Wales's estate should be subject to more rigorous government scrutiny, an influential committee of MPs has said in a report.
The Public Accounts Committee said the Treasury should make independent checks on the Duchy of Cornwall's finances.
The Treasury should also ask whether the duchy should continue to be exempt from corporation tax, the MPs said.
The duchy said accounts were examined externally by a professional auditor and put before Parliament.
The Duchy of Cornwall, a major landowner in the south-west of England, is a private estate that funds both the charitable and private activities of Prince Charles, who holds the title of Duke of Cornwall.
Currently the Treasury must approve all of the duchy's land deals with a value of more than £500,000.
But the cross-party committee said details of each transaction were not published, and more transparency was required.
The Prince of Wales pays tax on his own income voluntarily but the duchy does not contribute corporation tax on its commercial activities.
Committee chairwoman, Labour MP Margaret Hodge, said this exemption may give the duchy an unfair advantage over its competitors, and added that the Treasury should examine whether it created "an unlevel playing field".
Ms Hodge said the duchy performed well in 2012-13, increasing its total income and producing an overall surplus of £19.1m.
But she was concerned that the Treasury relied on the duchy to provide it with accurate information without carrying out its own checks.
She said: "There are a number of steps that could help to bring the duchy, an historic institution, more in line with the expectations of the present day.
Ms Hodge added: "The duchy enjoys an exemption from paying tax even though it engages in a range of commercial activities.
Poundbury in Dorset
The duchy said it was pleased the MPs had praised its work at Poundbury.
"This tax exemption may give it an unfair advantage over its competitors who do pay corporation and capital gains tax. The Treasury should examine whether the Duchy's tax exemption creates an unlevel playing field."
The Duchy of Cornwall said it did not believe it had an unfair tax advantage over its competitors.
A spokeswoman said: "The Duke of Cornwall's income is taxed at income tax rates. The Duchy is not subject to corporation tax and the duchy is not a corporation.
"The duchy is exempt from tax on capital gains; any capital gains have to be reinvested in the business and cannot be distributed.
She added: "We are pleased to see that the committee has highlighted the duchy's success in achieving an increased revenue surplus and that it has praised the high quality of our work at Poundbury [the development of a village on the duchy's land outside Dorchester]."
The duchy said it would consider the committee's report carefully and contribute to the Treasury's response as necessary.
A Treasury spokesman said: "The Duchy of Cornwall is exempt from paying tax, like the Crown, and has been since the founding of the duchy in the 14th Century.
"Since 1993, the Prince of Wales has voluntarily paid tax on his private income, including income from the estate.
"HM Treasury's role is to ensure that the Duchy of Cornwall is managed in a sustainable way and that the strategic choices made by the estate's managers are in its long-term interests and those of current and future dukes.
"The Treasury has a constructive working relationship with the duchy and challenges decisions where appropriate." _________________ www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.l911t.com www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
Prince Charles. As well as the duchy income, last year the prince received £2.2m in grants from the taxpayer to pay for his travel by private jet, helicopter and train, and the upkeep of Clarence House. Photograph: Geoff Caddick/PA
Friday 14 December 2012 20.13 GMT Last modified on Monday 11 January 2016 03.25 GMT
HM Revenue & Customs has been asked to investigate alleged tax avoidance by Prince Charles's £700m hereditary estate.
The duchy of Cornwall last year provided Charles with an income of £18m and HMRC's anti-avoidance group is now being asked to examine its non-payment of corporation tax following a potentially significant court ruling on its legal status.
The issue has been raised by an accountant investigating the tax affairs of the duchy – an agricultural, commercial and residential landowner.
He has analysed the impact of a judicial ruling handed down last year. Anti-monarchy campaigners claim it shows the duchy is running "a well-entrenched tax avoidance scheme".
The duchy insists it "is not subject to corporation tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes". But John Angel, principal judge at the information rights tribunal, ruled last December it was a separate legal body to the prince.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Accountants now believe the ruling could leave the duchy exposed to the 24% levy on profits other organisations must pay. Any change to its tax status could result in a cut to the prince's income.
Republic, the campaign for an elected head of state, has asked HMRC's anti-avoidance team to investigate whether the ruling means the duchy is now "using a highly questionable interpretation of its legal status as a means of avoiding corporation tax obligations".
A spokesman for HMRC said it would evaluate the information and "take appropriate action". There is no suggestion any law has been breached. Clarence House strongly denies claims of avoidance.
The move comes as the House of Commons public accounts committee, which earlier this month criticised Starbucks, Google and Amazon for their "immoral" decisions to avoid paying more corporation tax, prepares to hold a hearing next year into the royal finances. As well as duchy income, last year Charles received £2.2m in grants from the taxpayer to pay for his travel by private jet, helicopter and train and the upkeep of Clarence House.
The duchy owns 53,000 hectares of land in 23 counties, including Prince Charles's Gloucestershire home of Highgrove. It has provided incomes to successive Princes of Wales since the 14th century. The assertion that the estate is inseparable from Charles has allowed him to use its gross profits to fund private and official spending including 26 valets, gardeners and farm staff. In the past five years he has received more than £86m from the arrangement.
Take a look at your newest soon-to-be King and Queen of England! Today, Queen Elizabeth officially announced that she will be passing down her crown to her grandson Prince William and his wife Kate Middleton. This, of course, means that the Queen has skipped over her own son, Prince Charles, in the British monarchy’s line of succession. Bummer.
While the drama surrounding the royal family has taken most of the attention away from their policies and image of regal stature, the Queen believes implementing a younger generation than her son is vital for the House of Windsor to thrive in the future.
“Her Majesty realized that William and Kate are the future,” said a palace insider. “She has spent 65 years making sure that the House of Windsor survives, and she sees William and Kate as having the energy and star quality to do the job in a modern world. Queen Elizabeth will always do what is best for the long-term health of the monarchy.”
Her Majesty has also said that she truly does not believe the monarchy has the “respect and power it once had.” The source continued, “In her eyes, William and Kate are the two people who can turn that around.”
So how does the King-to-be and forever-Prince feel about the decision? Unfortunately, the decision has caused a rift between William and his father Charles. According to the same insider, their relationship has been strained, but they will get used to it eventually. Just like classic Brits, they’ll push their feelings as deep down as possible!
More: Prince George & Princess Charlotte steal the show on royal trip to Poland
And, of course, what does this mean for the world’s most popular couple and their young family? Since Prince George and Princess Charlotte are only 4 and 2 years old, respectively, Kate is mostly concerned about her role as a mother. “She’s desperate to remain a hands-on mom and worries about being in the spotlight more,” says the palace insider.
So while the rest of the world is excited for the change and step forward, it’s important to remember that they are, in fact, still trying to be a normal family.
Controversial claims suggest the Prince worked to increase his responsibilities by the time he turns 70 next year, a move said to be known as Project 70
But sources told The Mail on Sunday that the so-called project is ‘fantasy’
Claims that Charles had joined his younger brother Andrew in working to oust the Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, have also been dismissed
Reports that the Prince of Wales is trying to usurp the Queen or demand a more prominent role for himself in Royal affairs were categorically denied last night by senior Palace sources.
The claims, aired last week, controversially suggested that the heir to the throne had been working to increase his responsibilities by the time he reaches his landmark 70th birthday next year, a move said to be known as Project 70.
But well-placed sources have told The Mail on Sunday that the so-called project is ‘fantasy’.
One said: ‘This is not the case. There is no such project. The Prince believes everything he does is representing Her Majesty anyway. He exists to serve. He is there to support her in everything she does.’
Claims that Charles had joined his younger brother Andrew in working to oust the Queen’s Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, have also been vigorously dismissed.
The news of Sir Christopher’s departure – revealed by The Mail on Sunday in July – came as a shock to Royal watchers and led to a dramatic shake-up of courtiers.
Other departures have been announced or are expected, with one insider even saying last month: ‘You could describe it as a right Royal shambles.’
Few observers doubt there are tensions between the three main Royal households: Kensington Palace, home to the young Royals, Clarence House, home to Prince Charles, and Buckingham Palace.
Claims that Charles had joined his younger brother Andrew in working to oust the Queen¿s Private Secretary, Sir Christopher Geidt, have also been vigorously dismissed
But an unprecedented statement, issued in an apparent attempt to quell speculation about any strain, seems to have succeeded only in pouring fuel on the fire – because it was issued on behalf of all three, and not the Queen’s alone, as is normally the case.
‘Recent years have seen an ever closer working relationship between all the different Royal households,’ it said. ‘The Prince of Wales and the entire Royal Family are committed to supporting the Queen.’
With the Duke of Edinburgh having taken a back seat at the age of 96, the Queen is these days said to see Charles as her most trusted adviser.
One observer said: ‘This is a monarchy in transition – poised and ready for a change of management. But when, how and indeed if that happens will depend wholly on the Queen _________________ --
'Suppression of truth, human spirit and the holy chord of justice never works long-term. Something the suppressors never get.' David Southwell
Martin Van Creveld: Let me quote General Moshe Dayan: "Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother."
Martin Van Creveld: I'll quote Henry Kissinger: "In campaigns like this the antiterror forces lose, because they don't win, and the rebels win by not losing."
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum