I notice that the Public Accounts Committee have a report out about the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall
A spokesman for Prince Charles said
It seems that the Public Accounts Committee may have misunderstood what the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall are."They are not public bodies. They are well-run private estates, specifically created to provide private income for the sovereign and the heir to the throne."
Asked whether the NAO would be allowed to audit the books, Prince Charles' spokesman said: "This is a private estate. It's not a public estate...private estates are not looked at by the NAO."
He would say that, wouldn't he. He would not be doing his job as spokes-for-Charlie if he said anything else.
I find it anomalous that these Duchies are permitted to behave like private estates. Note the use of passive voice - (they were) "specifically created".
These are historic arrangements that go back centuries. But I cannot understand how these anomalies are permitted to perpetuate today. I am not prepared to accept that the assets were accumulated by fair means. As the monarch, and therefore the heir, are only in position because of the indulgence, or the inertia, of the public, I would argue that these estates are in fact publicly owned. I suppose they carry on because the alternative would be confiscating them and then paying the monarch a salary.
But would that be so awful? Republics pay their Presidents salaries. When they leave office they - like Prime Ministers in Britain in other countries, monarchies and republics - put themselves at the disposal of market forces and generally make a significant fortune.
Is it really acceptable that such National Assets do not generate income for the Nation? Not being a tax-expert, I will accept the taxation arguments, although I think it's a liberty that we are constantly told that Prince Charles 'voluntarily' pays Income Tax.
I cannot understand how something created to provide an income for public office-holders can be deemed to be privately owned.
Comments