Prince Charles used an arcane procedure to keep his tenants from buying their homes

Prince Charles visits Cotswold Farm Park

Yes, it is very interesting to see British media outlets running some very critical stories about the monarchy this year. What’s even more interesting is that when a legitimate news outlet like the Guardian runs a story exposing a royal figure, it’s getting picked up by the tabloids. Historically, that hasn’t always happened. Earlier this week, we discussed the Guardian story about Queen Elizabeth using an arcane procedure to hide the extent of her personal wealth by lobbying Parliament (secretly). As it turns out, Prince Charles has also used the same arcane procedures to protect the extensive property holdings of the Duchy of Cornwall. The Duchy is the largest landholder in the UK, and the income derived from the rental properties and farms makes upwards of $20-30 million a year for the Duchy. Prince Charles – who is the guardian of the Duchy – used his position to stop his renters from ever buying those properties.

The royal family has used a secretive procedure to vet three parliamentary acts that have prevented residents on Prince Charles’ estate from buying their own homes for decades, the Guardian can reveal. His £1bn Duchy of Cornwall estate was later given special exemptions in the acts that denied residents the legal right to buy their own homes outright.

Under the opaque procedure, the Queen and Prince of Wales were allowed to vet the contents of the bills by government ministers and approve them before they were passed by parliament. The exemptions have left residents living in homes that have diminishing or no financial value. The residents say they cannot borrow against their homes to pay, for example, for social care fees for themselves and loved ones.

Jane Giddins, who lives in one of the prince’s houses in a Somerset village, said a “feudal and anachronistic” system had unfairly favoured Charles, to her family’s detriment. “When we die, our kids will be left with a property that is very difficult to sell,” she said.

The exemptions enable the prince to preserve the financial value of his estate and brings in income as the tenants have to pay rent to him each year. The residents say they have been unable to find out why and how the heir to the throne was able to secure preferential treatment from the government. The prince declined to comment when asked whether he or his family had lobbied the government for the exemptions in the three acts.

However, the Guardian has established that Prince Charles and his mother were allowed to approve the contents of the three acts under an arcane parliamentary process known as Queen’s consent. Through this mechanism, the monarch has vetted more than 1,000 parliamentary bills during her reign to check whether any of them affect the crown or her private interests. Previously secret documents have disclosed that the Queen used the procedure to secretly lobby for some laws to be altered to benefit her private interests or reflect her opinions on government policy. The same procedure allows Charles to screen proposed laws in case they damage his property estate, the Duchy of Cornwall, which gives him a private income of around £22m a year.

In total, at least 275 draft laws have been vetted by the prince between 1970 and 2020 under this procedure. They include a wide range of laws from the ban on foxhunting to changes in inheritance laws. The prince declined to say how often he had asked for changes in proposed bills through the mechanism.

[From The Guardian]

This is insane and, yes, feudalistic. Property ownership is one of the most important pathways to a thriving middle class, but Charles has always operated as a feudal lord, ordering Duchy farmers what to grow and how, and now we know that he’s also used the Crown’s arcane powers to screw over his long-term renters and residents. This is a huge economic issue and it’s bonkers that people are only finding out the extent to which Charles has screwed over his tenants for decades.

Prince Charles And Camilla visit Berlin To Attend National Mourning Day Events

Photos courtesy of Backgrid, Avalon Red.

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

91 Responses to “Prince Charles used an arcane procedure to keep his tenants from buying their homes”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Faithmobile says:

    The chickens have come home to roost. I’m putting the kettle on…

    • BABSORIG says:

      Can Charles be sued though, based on these facts? This is so upsetting. Man, and to see how all these idiotic corrupt people and their goons waged a smear “lets destroy and bury them” campaign on Meghan and Harry!!! Horrible, horrible people.
      ##Abolish the monarchy.

    • sally says:

      There is more. Charles somehow ensured that some governmental social housing was pulled down. Governmental social housing means firstly that you pay rent to the government / your local council and secondly that you will have the right to buy (after a while). That is what Charles had destroyed. Then he built his own little cottages on that ground and he gets the rent. it is somewhere on youtube. Let’s see:

      – suspicion of crime by the British Royal Family:
      — unknown and non-transparent finances of the royal family and especially the Queen
      — suspected housing scam by Charles
      — attempted selling out his family (Prince William) to the media by Edward
      — probably negotiating and perhaps getting bribed for access to the Royal Family (Fergie, Andrew and Sophie, I think. Andrew had this “pitch@palace” thing which allegedly seemed legal.)
      — rumours of not paying back your loans (Fergie ever-in-debt)
      — Andrew sold his grand country pile manor for a price which was allegedly too high. Allegedly some east asian oligarch bought that dilapidated pile of bricks. (Sunnyhill or Sunninghill is the name).
      — probably raping enforced minor prostitutes at Epstein’s and using mummy’s queenie powers to get away with it (Andrew)

      – Beatrice is dyslexic and managed to get a coveted spot at a university and allegedly finished a degree. Nowadays there are huge numbers of “dyslexic” children in british schools because they get more time for tests when they are labelled “dyslexic”. Draw your own conclusions. Bea never really took to any kind of employment, right? Not the kind of real effort which us mortals have to put in to get a job, I mean. I do partly blame her father who wanted some kind of royal ambassador-ship positions for his daughters.

      – Eugenie had prime access to galeries because her granny is the Queen. You know that joke about Putin’s daughters going to university?
      Like this: “Putin’s daughters intend to go to university. 50 universities have applied.” ;-P Same for the younger royals.
      Do not admire these people. Somebody just forgot to get rid of them in the 21st century.

      • Petrichor says:

        Sally, I agree with most of what you say here, but I find your comments about dyslexia offensive.

        My husband and my son are both dyslexic yet both have achieved academic success. My husband earned advanced degrees without any special accommodations at all. My son’s severe dyslexia delayed his literacy but he has been taught strategies to mitigate his disability and now, at nearly 10 years old, he is a near-fluent reader.

        I am an educator and yes, dyslexia is a recognized learning disability and is therefore accommodated for in situations like testing. However, in order to be accommodated a student must have medical documentation of the disability. I’m not saying that some parents with means don’t game the system in their child’s favour, but please don’t paint all students with the same brush. If it seems like there are more students getting accommodations for learning disabilities or other conditions (I hear the same uninformed complaint about students with ADHD), that’s only because more children are being tested and diagnosed because learning and cognitive differences are slowly becoming less stigmatized, and also because educators now understand that everyone learns differently and accommodations are put in place to enable the majority of students to succeed rather than the old system that punished students who did not thrive in a strictly cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all learning environment.

        Perhaps Andrew did buy Beatrice’s spot at university, but it’s unfair and, frankly, ignorant to assume that it’s because she’s dyslexic. If you’re implying that she is, in fact, not dyslexic, I would just ask what she has to gain by continuing to label herself as such into adulthood when the social and financial position of her family could (and perhaps did) buy her educational and employment opportunities.

      • Petra says:

        I’m also dyslexic, I’ve a BA and MA degrees. I never got special treatment from the universities. The BA took me 5 years because I took 3 courses each semester rather than 4 courses. I completed the MA degree program in 2 years. A learning disability does not equate stupidity.

      • Kkat says:

        What is your point with the dyslexia?
        Are you saying she doesn’t really have it?

        If your implying people with it are less intelligent or lesser people, you can fuck right off

  2. Becks1 says:

    I’m glad the Guardian is coming out with these stories. It shows that its not just the Queen taking advantage of this procedure (the queen’s consent procedure) but Charles as well. I think the more that journalists dig into Charles’s dealings, the more things like this will pop up.

    • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

      Thieving bastards.

      It came out a few years ago that if somebody dies intestate in the Duchy of Cornwall, their estate doesn’t go to the State as it does everywhere else, but straight into Chuck’s pockets.

    • sally says:

      I made a list of suspected crimes of the Royal Family. Nevertheless I like to think in both directions. So … cui bono? To whom are these allegation useful? Who profits from these allegations? Although quite a few of them are probably true one should ask why this is being discussed in the press at this time!??? That stuff has been known for a longer time. Somebody trying to motivate or blackmail the Queen or the Royal Family?

  3. Mina_Esq says:

    If they put a stop to this, then the next Prince of Wales won’t be able to bring in that huge income. The next POW may have to borrow some of his brother’s Netflix money lol

  4. Izzy says:

    Abolish the monarchy.

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      I mean, yeah. What do people expect? Monarchies are based on the idea that a certain bloodline was chosen by God to rule, and they are automatically “better” than anyone else and can do whatever they want. It doesn’t matter if the royal family members are selfish, crooked, racist, stupid, rapists, or whatever — if they have the blood, they prevail. But this must be what British people want, right? Because they still have a monarchy.

    • Coleslav says:

      EXACTLY. Monarchies are insane and the fact that they still exist is ridiculous.

  5. Kate says:

    Maybe I’m not understanding this – but aren’t the tenants on the Duchys estate renters, so ordinarily when would a tenant be able to purchase from the landlord, unless they agreed to sell? If the Dutchy is an ‘asset’, it wouldn’t be for sale?

    If this is the situation- why the big scandal?

    • Becks1 says:

      so my understanding is yes, they are renters – but the issue here apparently is that there was legislation that would have allowed them to buy their houses, maybe at the end of the lease term or something, and Charles used the “queen’s consent” to carve out exceptions for renters on Duchy property. So I think that’s the bigger issue here in terms of Charles’s actions.

      • mynameispearl says:

        Some of them do own their property, the physical house. What they dont own is the freehold that the house stands on, so they essentially rent the ground their house stands on from the duchy.

        The problem (massive problem) is that the rental term on some of the freehold might only have like 20 or 30 years left on them, and could potentially be increased massively, as the home owner you have no control over that. Nobody is going to want to buy a house with a freehold lease that expires in like 20 years. You want to have a few hundred years on a freehold so you can sell it on! It’s a huge problem over in England (maybe Scotland and Wales too I’m not sure), but it’s very very fucked up that Prince Charles has lobbied to keep this system in place, these people are trapped in homes they can never sell, a nightmare to pass to family, that they can’t even borrow against.

        Very very corrupt.

      • STRIPE says:

        MYNAMEISPEARL thank you so much for that explainer.

      • anotherlily says:

        This might help to explain it.

        It seems the tenants buy leases for 20 – 50 years. They own the property but not the land it is built on. At the end of a lease the land reverts to the landlord. In normal circumstances leaseholders have legal rights to extend the lease or to buy the freehold.

        It seems Charles has used royal privilege to limit the rights of Duchy of Cornwall leaseholders.

        I’m not sure what happens if a lease is not extended. It may be that the house has to be sold back to landlord rather than on the open market.

        Some tenants will be renters, paying a monthly rent to the Duchy but they may not have the same rights as long term social housing tenants to eventually buy their homes.

      • Becks1 says:

        @Mynameispearl – ah okay, we have a similar problem here in my city, we call them “ground rents” and its a real problem. So that’s why the person said their kids would be left with a property that was very hard to sell.

    • earlgreyhot says:

      Yeah, I don’t get it. If I wanted to buy the flat I live in now, I wouldn’t be able to, since my landlord isn’t selling. That’s his right and it’s nobody’s business. That’s how private property works. Then again, the loss of 1 flat would mean loss of 1/3 of all his real estate because he isn’t a feudal-thinking multimillionaire who owns half of the country. So the scale is completely different. For Charles, selling off parts of his land would never lead him to being poor and in debt. This should be regulated.

    • GraceB says:

      In terms of private renters, no they would not have a right to buy unless they came to a private agreement with their landlord.

      I can see both sides of the problem here with the Duchy. Many years ago, local councils in the UK gave their social housing tenants the right to buy their properties, usually at a discounted rate after so many years of living there. This is something which a huge number of renters took up. As a result, there was far less social housing available and the stock wasn’t replaced at the same rate at which it was being purchased. This happened for many reasons but one of those reasons is that it would have been very hard for local councils to build or purchase new properties for the price that they were selling them off for. It benefitted many people but after a while, it just created a new problem.

      I’m pretty sure if the Duchy operated in this way, sooner or later, they’d run into the same set of problems and perhaps eventually even cease to exist. I don’t like these ultra privileged landowners too much but they do provide a service which your average greedy landlord probably doesn’t. Their rents tend to be low, providing a better quality of life for people who otherwise couldn’t afford it.

      • Carol says:

        That makes sense – if they were selling for market value, the renters could not afford to buy, but selling at a discounted rate does not provide funding for new housing.
        It’s the dog chasing it’s tail.

    • EllenOlenska says:

      Actually in the US, Land trusts are designed similarly, not to make people serfs, but to maintain affordable homeownership stock, and in many cases to prevent overdevelopment of coastal or significant rural areas. You own the house, and have the use of the land, but you do not have the rights to sell the land. In some cases you may be restricted on your resale price or only able to sell to buyers below a certain income level or a combination of both. So was it a nefarious scheme to make people servants or was it designed to preserve a historic property? Also, are the renters who farm paid fair wages? Are the rents below market? Or would they have been able to have access to that land to farm for a similar price if they had to purchase it or rent it. There are always trade offs, and was any of this explained when they purchased their home. Or was it changed along the way?

      • Becks1 says:

        But as others point out above – the issue seems to be the length of the lease, not the idea of the lease itself, and the fact that Charles has acted to shield his interests in this regard and to prevent legislation that would impact the duchy and these leases (impact in a way that negatively affects his bottom line.)

      • mynameispearl says:

        At the end of a lease term the actual ground rent itself could be increased, to an amount that makes no sense. If you buy a house with a short lease term left you take that risk, and it does happen, you read it all the time in the press. It’s an awful situation to be in. The awful shame is that only the Guardian is reporting on this, the morning trashy shows arent picking it up, and the other papers havent either (I think the independent & the mirror might have) but not enough to get it more traction

        I dont think it trended on Twitter either which is annoying.

      • SomeChick says:

        the point is that the law says one thing, and an exception was made for Charles. so he doesn’t have to follow the law. this is the issue. it should be one law the same for everyone.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @SomeChick – You hit the nail on the head. The law says one thing thing for non-royals and Charles, because he is royal, gets an exception which increases the direct amount of money in his bank account plus also increases the net worth of The Duchy of Cornwall.

    • Wilma says:

      I think the biggest problem is that Charles used his royal powers to exclude his tenants from laws protecting tenants in the UK. So every other person in a tenant situation benefitted from those three laws discussed in the article, except the ones that are in Charles his duchy.

      • Ann says:

        Bingo. If the law were not on the books, it would be one thing. It’s true, as others have said, that renters as a rule don’t just have a right to buy the property if the owner doesn’t want to sell. But here there was a law/procedure that they should have been able to invoke if the chose to….except Charles used his power to take it away.

      • Mac says:

        The problem is the “queen’s consent” law. If Charles didn’t want changes to his leases he should have lobbied parliament like any other special interest would. Giving him special veto power is absurd and undemocratic.

  6. Sofia says:

    What I assume Charles has done is given his tenants a 99 year lease (pretty common IIRC in the UK) which means people of those leases give him “ground rent” (I believe that’s the term).

    It’s also another way for these aristos who’ve inherited 1000s of acres of land to supplement their income. They hand out 99 year old leases and charge ground rent.

    • Charlie says:

      This is exactly how those aristos who still have any demonstrable income create it – not just Charles. Our plumber, who has three girls under the age of two – premature twins – wants so badly to make a home for his family that he was looking at doing something similar here in the States. I’m helping him clean up his credit and properly purchase a home. If you don’t own the land can you really “own” the house?? And, as your renting the land you don’t even create a positive credit history if the land owner holds your “mortgage” – while also collecting your rent – F*ed up, predatory shite.

      I do wonder- what exactly did people think were in those red, leather boxes all this time? Of course they’ve been redlining legislation and having the PM pop in to courier those changes back to the house…

  7. Snuffles says:

    Someone is out for blood and I am LOVING it!

  8. SarahCS says:

    Ok I was upset that waitrose no longer stock the Duchy Organic natural yogurt I love (Yeo Valley is the only other one you can readily buy but I stopped when they got shirty for being called out about their advertising in the Daily Heil) but this makes that much easier to live with!

    On a more serious note I am in no way shocked by this story but very much here for this kind of reporting. Let’s do this thing. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and all that.

  9. Chill says:

    It seems to me that many large land owners (dukes, earls, squires, etc.) rent out the farms on their land to farmers for many generations. That is how they have an income. They own land. It has been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years in England.

    • Libellule says:

      Also the land was not divided between all children after the death of the owner to keep it consolidated (the practice was not common in other parts of the Europe, so large estates were either split between children or they fought between themselves). That’s how they got to keep it all for centuries

  10. Watson says:

    Damn. This should have been illegal.

  11. Mrs. Peel says:

    First mummy, now Charles – what’s next, Andrew?!

  12. Cafecito says:

    Arcane institution uses arcane procedures.

  13. Jane Doe says:

    Abolish the monarchy

  14. Elizabeth says:

    This is what the free press looks like!

    Also wow, there has been a lot of heat on Royal finances lately. I like it but also wonder why….

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Yeah, the timing is interesting. I get that with the Guardian it’s because of National Archive documents being unearthed, but another outlet got the scoop on Mike Tindall’s shady moves and clearly saw fit to release that info this week. On a slightly different note, there’s also the Wessexes in Scotland story that kicked off this week. That one got a LOT of derision. It kind of feels like that moment last fall (or summer? Time in 2020 was a little blurry for me) when there was a stream of critical stories about the royals for at least a week.

  15. Merricat says:

    I knew The Guardian had more stories on the monarchy! Bravo! I look forward to seeing what comes next.

  16. Tiffany says:

    I could have sworn there was an episode of Downton Abbey about this very thing.

    And yes, it is B.S.

    It is gonna be very interesting what is going to happen once Boris gets a Brexit agreement in place. Farmers are already losing money.

    • AlpineWitch says:

      Johnson already got a Brexit agreement in December.

      If you check the Guardian, a couple of days ago there was an article saying that exports to the EU have already decreased of 68%.

      It’s going swimmingly… if you are a fish or in the RF 🤦‍♀️

      • SarahCS says:

        Oh yes all the chickens are coming home to roost on Brexit, 48 hours to export a lorry of seafood for the company that used to get it from boat to plate in 24 hours and now need to hire an extra person just to manage the paperwork? Sounds like we’re truly showing those pesky foreigners who’s boss.

  17. Chrissy (The Original) says:

    Hope The Guardian keeps digging and gets around to showing how much the Queen is financially supporting Pedo Andrew while letting him keep his title and honours.

  18. Nina Simone says:

    I am sickened. This is so oppressive and has negated these families from building a nest egg and intergenerational assets via their homes. More example of laws that protect the privilege at the expense of the everyday person.

    The royal family was built on a feudal and dynastic system that morphed into colonialism when homegrown resources were depleted. My family is one of millions impacted by this. They hide behind their so called glamour and tradition. It’s bullshit. I hope the tide is turning. The haves have gotten away with too much for centuries, how are the rest of us supposed to thrive? I’m glad the Guardian is exposing these stories. From the pandemic to brexits economic fallout, I hope the people of Britain will finally abolish this disgusting institution that has long over stayed its welcome.

    Rant over.

  19. Zut alors says:

    Does this dude have any casual clothes? Imagine tooling around on the farm in a suit and tie. So stuffy.

  20. Golly Gee says:

    Cue story and photos comparing Anne’s rickety bathroom to the Sussexes 1000sq. Ft bathroom with his and hers self flushing toilets, flat screen TV, gold plated bidet , an entire wall made up of an aquarium and so on.

  21. Lauren says:

    I wonder if the Windsors got a heads up about these articles and that’s why they tried to make the birth certificate thing try to happen, only to have Meghan shut that sht down faster than it came out. There is nothing distracting people from this mess.

    • Amy Bee says:

      It’s very possible that Meghan was used to distract from these stories. The Guardian would have contacted the Palace and told them that they were working on these stories and would have asked for a comment.

    • Beach Dreams says:

      Personally I think that was more for Kate’s tone-deaf “exhausted” comments and the backlash to William’s football tweets. If anything, the media’s been trotting out more “Will she or won’t she show up for the Trooping? The family misses Archie!!!” stories this week to try to distract from this stream of bad press.

      • Lauren says:

        I respectfully disagree. They were hoping for Tiaragate 2.0. Tiaragate was to cover Normal Bill trimming rose bushes. When we got the Catherine the Great saga they tried to distract with Sussexes stories, but all reheard stuff. The birth certificate story is new, just like the tiara story was and it came out just before major scandals covering the most senior members. They were probably hoping on weeks of detailed coverage so that the Guardian story wouldn’t gain traction. Only they weren’t expecting Meghan to actually fire back, hard. They let it die a silent death, because they knew that if push came to shove receipts would be released and then they would have even more of a mess at hand.

  22. Amy Bee says:

    Charles is an awful person and I’m glad more people are realising that. The Prince’s Trust for all the good work it has done, is a cover for the terrible things he does in the Duchy of Cornwall.

    • Snuffles says:

      Has anyone here watched Spike Lee’s “Inside Man” starring Denzel Washington, Clive Owen and Christopher Plummer?

      On the surface it’s a bank heist movie but Clive Owen is really after evidence that the bank’s billionaire owner played by Christopher Plummer got rich doing business with the Nazi’s in WWII and has spent the rest of his life trying to cover up and wash away his sins.

      I don’t know when this Royals and “service” charade began. Maybe 100 years ago? But that’s what all of their charities, acts of service, etc. A sham. A cover up for thousands of years of brutal colonization and pillaging of priceless art, jewelry and other treasures.

      It was the greatest marketing campaign ever but it’s all starting to unravel. I would argue it began with Diana with her doing real, tangible work that made a difference as opposed to the usual dog and pony show. And now Harry and Meghan have picked up the torch. That’s why they were pushed out, their actions were inadvertently exposing the sham of the royals.

      It’s all coming out now though!!

      • Amy Bee says:

        I agree that Diana did real tangible work. The Palace didn’t like that she did work with AIDS and that she was so involved in her charity work. She was just to cut ribbons and look pretty.

      • SarahCS says:

        That sounds worth a watch, thanks.

        I completely agree with your broader point about the BRF.

      • Nic919 says:

        Queen Mary started the service image when they had to change their family name to Windsor because one of George’s first cousins was killing British boys in WWI and the Russians had a revolution and killed his other first cousin and his family.

      • SenseOfTheAbsurd says:

        According to some sources it’s an absolute lie that they were observing rationing during WW2. Had books for propaganda purposes, but were sneaking in produce from all their farms through the back door. King was secretly scoffing a week’s bacon, egg and butter ration every morning.

        It’s all propaganda and bullshit, and entirely self-serving.

      • Donna B. says:

        Excellent points! You are 1000% correct.

  23. Phoenix says:

    Ok, The Guardian, I am crossing my fingers that the Keens will be next!

  24. Maliksmama says:

    Well there goes the argument that the BRF is apolitical. And the argument they aren’t self serving and corrupt.

  25. Murphy says:

    Who owns the houses? They refer to rent but also that the inhabitants can’t resell…how can you resell if you rent?

  26. Roo says:

    The Guardian is coming out with some hot tea against the RF – all overdue – by my question is why now? Who okayed this? Is the BoJo government throwing the RF under the bus to distract from the economic horrors of Brexit?

    • BnLurkN4eva says:

      Trump was not reelected, Brexit is a disaster like everyone with sense knew it would be, ordinary people everywhere are getting fed up, and so the giant is weakened. You strike the giant beast when there’s a weakness and now is the time. Hopefully, there will be a drip, drip, drip ending in an explosion of public dissatisfaction with these people. Before Meghan was abused and her reputation destroyed in Britain, I didn’t care about the royals, but I want them to get a taste of what they put others through with the outcome being they can’t get up again.

      • BayTampaBay says:

        @BnLurkN4eva – Is it true that many people who voted “Leave” now believe that they were sold a false bill of” bait-and-switch” goods and are completely fed-up with BREXIT and blame Boris Johnson?

  27. ABritGuest says:

    Bravo to the Guardian for investigating this. The problem (as mentioned by a poster the other day) is that they don’t have the weight of a New York Times etc for these revelations of royal political interference to really go anywhere- similar to their Panama papers reporting on the Queen& Charles.

    The rest of the U.K. mainstream press is largely ignoring this- I haven’t seen any debates on the breakfast or political shows about this investigation. I mean even the BBC hasn’t delved into this. Compare to the furore over Sussexes’ pre election comments. So just shows how the right wing dominated media collude to keep Liz& co unaccountable. Remember that when the royal reporters claim that they report without fear or favour.

    Also it’s messed up that the Guardian asked BP how many times the Queen’s consent has been used during her reign and they refused to say for something they claim is just a ‘formality’. I hope they keep pressing this because this lack of transparency in a so called democracy is a disgrace

  28. Miss Jupitero says:

    Being it on! I’m popping popcorn if anyone wants to share. We just might see the end of the monarchy.

  29. Midge says:


  30. Michelle Connolly says:

    It would be helpful to add a short summation of Leasehold vs Freehold – as usual, you take out a mortgage and purchase a home, and with freehold that’s exactly what you get.
    However with Leasehold you’re paying a mortgage but you don’t own your home in any real way. You’ve ‘rented’ the land for a certain amount of time, and once that time counts near to 0 it becomes worthless because as soon as its gets to 0 everything goes back to the landlord. These ‘landlords’ can own millions of homes, they make an absolute fortune.
    Everything you’ve paid against your mortgage is completely worthless. Your house devalues every year it gets closer to 0.
    You get NOTHING.

    In addition –
    – You have to pay a Ground Rent EVERY YEAR, which can in many case double EVERY ten years.
    – You have to pay ‘management fees’ – which vary wildly. In nearly every case the ‘management company’ is also owned by the freeholder.
    – You have to pay your freeholder if you want to do ANYTHING to your home, inside or out, even changing windows or repairing a roof
    – You have to pay insurance of their choice. In no case can you actually claim on this insurance. You must pay out of pocket for all repairs.

    This is all personal experience. I may never be able to sell my home.

    At the moment there is leasehold reform going through the government to review this archaic method, but it’s landlords like Chucky that have been grinding the gears to a halt any previous time. They have the money and the resources.

  31. Liz version 700 says:

    I love Karma. Watching this family beat up on Harry and Meghan has slowly started to turn public opinion against them. Harry is beloved and Meghan is a class act. Mind you, I don’t doubt Meghan should send a Latte Basket to the producers of “The Crown” for reminding everyone of how horrible this family was to Diana and Margaret as well. It seems to have opened up a door that the Windsors thought was nailed shut to explore all of the ways they have been terrible. The problem now is, one you pry the nails out of the door and let the light burn on your secrets, it is impossible to shut it again. The Queen tried to interfere with laws to protect her untold billions, the adjacents took loans meant to protect middle class jobs, Charles is an a$$ in every aspect of his life. William is pruning rose bushes and Incandescent to his family. Kate is a mean girl with 800 coats and the Daily Mail on speed dial. The Guardian smells blood in the water and they aren’t going to stop now. The Scott’s might not be the only ones getting their independence. The Brits might be asking why they are paying for this awful family’s lifestyle. Meanwhile…Diana is quietly getting her revenge from beyond the grave as one of her sons breaks free from this family’s abusive grip and actually carries on her legacy of charity work with no apparent need of any support from his twisted awful royal relatives.

  32. Snuffles says:

    Inside Man is an EXCELLENT movie! All around, every actor down to the bit players knocked it out of the park. Incredibly well written and directed as well.

    • Det20! says:

      Yep. I love that film and rewatch it at least once a year. Even if you know the outcome, the acting, writing and directing are so good and can make you enjoy repeated viewing. For some strange reason it is one of my go to feel good movies. So many great scenes and the casting is perfection, all the way from main to bit roles. I also adore the credits at the start and end, so stylish and such a great song!

  33. MA says:

    How is this not the scandal of the year in the UK? It’s bizarre, it should be blanketing the news. I used to think it was a modern society but they’re downright feudal.

    • Snuffles says:

      Well, there’s a lot going on. Like Brexit and the pandemic. And the information is trickling out.

      Someone needs to put together a documentary on the true nature of the royal family and their financial schemes and the ways they fool the public into thinking they are all about service to the public and bring in good value. When in reality they take FAR more than they give.

      • BnLurkN4eva says:

        It’s the old lady, loyalty to her is incredible. Even the brown/black people she was/is a part of oppressing can’t bring themselves to upset her and so are patiently waiting for her to pass before they make any changes that removes the BRF influence over their lives. Just living long enough and being seen going about for years has netted her so much loyalty it’s incredible. I’ve only been looking since Meghan arrived so I don’t understand it, but I hear it constantly from former royalist, they no longer support the monarchy, but they don’t want to see any changes until she’s gone.

  34. Chaine says:

    This is really horrible. Why do the people of Great Britain put up with this in the 21st century?! Parliament should disband the monarchy and distribute the land to regular people, starting first with those that live on it and have been paying all this rent.

  35. Mia says:

    Wow! Families and renters are having a hard enough time of it as it is!! I really hope this blows up and causes some actual change.

    I’d be interested if anyone here has info on Cornish separatists and how they feel about all this. I know Cornwall is a duchy and not a county incorporated as part of the Act of Union – but would they want to become an official county to do away with this kind of legislation? Would they be rather be recognised in the way that e.g. Wales is?

    A lot of art history discoveries have been made in Cornwall and I’d love to see the place one day. Sounds beautiful.

  36. The Recluse says:

    And bit by bit perhaps we shall see the end of the English monarchy arrive.

  37. anotherlily says:

    The monarchy will not be abolished but there seems to be a growing consensus for radical change. It won’t happen with a 95 year old monarch who just wants to get back to the way things were. For all his faults Charles does have some understanding and has made no secret of his intention to bring the UK monarchy into line with other European monarchies. This means a drastic reduction in the number of royals with public duties. He signalled this at the Diamond Jubilee when he was in charge of the arrangements and instead of the usual horde of extended family on the BP balcony there were just six – the Queen, Charles, Camilla, Harry, William and Kate (Prince Philip was ill). Andrew was said to have been enraged.

    The pandemic has highlighted many weaknesses in the current system. There have been no foreign tours, no state visits, no banquets, no ceremonial, no opportunities for crowds to gather and wave flags. It has given time for people to reflect on what they want from a constitutional monarchy.

  38. Dendenden says:

    We had a flat in London we wanted to sell and the lease was 79 years. The problem is that most banks won’t lend a mortgage on 80 years or less – so it was basically unsellable.

    So we had to negotiate with the freeholder and they can basically name their price.

    I think it was some if like £15,000 to renew the lease – and then we could sell it.