Prince Charles accepted literal suitcases full of cash from shady billionaires

Last year, the Times of London ran a series of exposés on Prince Charles and his Prince’s Foundation, and how shady he’s been for years about accepting huge sums of money from “controversial” rich people. In exchange for gobs of money, Charles provided access, honors and legitimacy. While there is currently an ongoing investigation about all of the stories from last year, I’m still convinced that Charles will simply throw Michael Fawcett (his longtime aide) under the bus and Chaz will come out “clean.” I also believe that Charles was likely leaking some or all of those stories himself in an attempt to deal with the scandal on his own terms, on his own timeline. Many of those stories simply had to come from someone with intimate knowledge of Charles’s “fundraising activities.” It was likely a combination of Charles, Camilla and various high-ranking executives with Charles’s foundation. I bring all of this up because the Times has yet another story about Charles being a shady a–hole. At one point, Charles accepted a literal suitcase full of cash from a “controversial” Qatari politician.

The Prince of Wales accepted a suitcase containing €1 million in cash from a controversial Qatari politician, The Sunday Times can reveal. It was one of three lots of cash, totalling €3 million, which Prince Charles personally received from Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani, the former prime minister of Qatar who is nicknamed “HBJ”, between 2011 and 2015.

On one occasion, Al Thani, 62, presented the prince with €1 million, which was reportedly stuffed into carrier bags from Fortnum & Mason, the luxury department store that has a royal charter to provide the prince’s groceries and tea. On another, Charles, 73, accepted a holdall containing €1 million during a private one-on-one meeting at Clarence House in 2015. On Saturday night Clarence House said the money was “passed immediately to one of the prince’s charities who carried out the appropriate covenants and assured us that all the correct processes were followed”.

After the heir to the throne accepted the small suitcase, it was given to two advisers in the royal household who hand-counted the money. It was said to be in the form of €500 notes — a denomination dubbed the “bin Laden” because of its link to terrorist financing, and which has since been discontinued. Palace aides then asked Coutts to collect the cash. The private bank, which is headquartered in the Strand in central London, and has served the royal family for centuries, is understood to have retrieved the suitcase from Charles’s London residence.

Each payment was deposited into the accounts of the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund (PWCF), a low-profile grant-making entity which bankrolls the prince’s pet projects and his country estate in Scotland.

The royal gift policy states that members of the royal family must “never accept gifts of money . . . in connection with an official engagement or duty”. They are allowed to accept a “cheque” as a patron of, or on behalf of, a charity.

One of Charles’s former advisers who handled some of the cash said “everyone felt very uncomfortable about the situation”. The person added that the “only thing we could do was to count the money and make a mutual record of what we’d done. And then call the bank”.

[From The Sunday Times]

What would you do if a billionaire just handed up a nice suitcase full of cash? I would keep my f–king mouth shut. But I’m not royal nor do I have to adhere to royal gift policies or what have you. Charles’s charitable fundraising is pretty ridiculous and has been for years – you can’t just accept suitcases full of cash from random billionaires! In case you wondered if this was another cash-for-access scheme, you would be correct: Charles lobbied on behalf of Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani within the UK, specifically for the sheikh’s London-based business interests.

Photos courtesy of Instar.

return home

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

196 Responses to “Prince Charles accepted literal suitcases full of cash from shady billionaires”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. crazyoldlady says:

    Megan is a bully!! Megan makes people cry!! Please stay focused on what is important here!!

    OMFG

    • Mia1066 says:

      I know! Meghan, meghan, meghan is horrible and hateful and a bully! And whatever burger king called her! Stick with the program people!

    • Denise says:

      Yeah and Harry is the biggest problem the monarchy has. Bigger than his pedo uncle and corrupted father

      • molly says:

        Remember the time she didn’t wear pantyhose? Or a HAT? WITH THE QUEEN???

        The Sussexes are a slap in the face to the entire royal family! The scandals they have brought upon the House of Windsor! I mean, the centuries of squeaky clean reputations they sullied by working in the morning and wearing NAIL POLISH!!

    • Bunny says:

      Have we forgotten the shade of Meghan’s nail polish? The abusive father she’s supposed to make up with because women, especially black women don’t matter? Have we forgotten how she didn’t turn her babies over to the gawking tabloid press the day they were born?

      Have we talked about any of that? Because Charles most assuredly would like it if everyone did.

      Corrupt, pedo-loving trash people.

      • Isabella says:

        I cannot erase the image of Meghan closing her own car door. I’m an open-minded person but that is seared in my mind forever.

      • Christine says:

        It’s the avocadoes that really made her insufferable. Don’t try and make me accept a different kind of toast, you heathen American woman.

        /sarcasm

  2. Noki says:

    Now if some ridiculous story about Meghan springs up from no where to cover this story, I hope Harry goes nuclear on them.

  3. MeganC says:

    A suitcase full of money is never a good look. If this money was from a legit source it would have been wired.

    • ThatNotOkay says:

      I mean, if you don’t want to be perceived as shady, don’t do shady things in the shadiest way possible. This has stank written all over it.

    • Becks1 says:

      Like someone said below, this makes it seem like they’re mob bosses. You’re right, its NEVER a good look. But I guess someone on his team wants points bc they took it to the bank right away? (after counting it, obviously.)

      • TheFarmer'sWife says:

        Well, now that you mention it, there is that SNL skit…”Kate Middleton Meets the Real Royal Family.” Not so far off, is it?

    • Eurydice says:

      It’s a slightly better look than F&M shopping bags – like the sheik stopped off to buy some royal blend before his bribery meeting. I’m just imagining Charles’ staff as he plunked bags of cash on their desks and said “count it.”

      • BeanieBean says:

        I’d be good with a Fortnum & Mason bag of cash. Just the one. I’m not greedy! But yeah, sure, Meghan & Harry are the BRF’s biggest problems. My god, these people!

      • Christine says:

        I can’t stop laughing, Eurydice. Not even ‘The Americans’ could have dreamed of a scenario where some Russian asshole handed PRINCE CHARLES a suitcase of cash, but only in the big, “bin Laden” bills, naturally.

        But sure, it’s totally fine, since the ROYAL BANKERS counted it, eventually.

    • Anance says:

      ‘A suitcase full of money is never a good look.’

      LOL

      • clomo says:

        Terrible isn’t , I hate it when my boo brings home such filthy stuff, doesn’t he know where the hands that touched the money have been? Shockingly undignified behavior. Perhaps Charles got brand new money but then of course the old money look is a better look? Oh dear, such troublesome choices these royals must make, perhaps Chaz should have his staff wash the money, send it to the laundry they will know what to do with the it : )

    • Princessk says:

      Why did it have to be in cash? Indication of something underhand.

  4. Elizabeth says:

    Aw but Charles does so much good for people

    /sarcasm but I know some will try that

    • tolly says:

      This came up a few years ago when Charles wanted to hand off some responsibilities, and neither William nor Harry would touch his foundation with a barge pole. “But it does so much good! Just ask Idris Elba!” His sons obviously knew that it was a cover for some shady BS.

      • Jessica says:

        Idris is associated with The Prince’s Trust, not the Foundation (he credits it with giving him his start in acting). They are separate entities that do different work. The Prince’s Trust does indeed do laudable work and has accomplished far more than anything William has ever been associated with. He probably didn’t want something that required him to put in that kind of work. The Foundation is definitely shady but the Trust isn’t.

      • JaneBee says:

        @Tolly From what we know of Harry’s previous refusal to get involved in these dealings re: Prince’s Trust, yes. But William? I don’t know if he is smart enough to realise it’s an issue or to care. Aren’t there also significant allegations re: financial mismanagement hanging around TOB and Khate’s foundation, which was another reason that H&M made such a big effort to ring fence the cookbook funds?

    • Tessa says:

      I think William was and is too lazy to take on the Prince’s Trust.

  5. Izzy says:

    And he had the unmitigated gall to try and drag Harry into this with the whole “Harry met some shady Saudis too!” This guy has ZERO morals. Enjoy your next monarch, UK. He’s a peach.

    • Smart&Messy says:

      Aftar Harry threw it right back at him – and got dragged for causing grief to his poor old dad – Charles can’t pull Harry into this again, right?

    • Lady D says:

      Do you think Charles suffered even the slightest pang of regret or guilt before launching that story? Did he stop for even one second and think of what a ‘Harry did it too’ story might do to his ongoing fractured relationship with his youngest son?

    • LilacMaven says:

      The first thing I thought of when I saw this story over the weekend was Harry trying to warn everyone that his father’s Saudi contacts were shady, at best.

      Now this.

      I’m going to enjoy watching Charles and William battle it out via press leaks to their mouthpieces.

      Remember all those stories about how close Charles and William are now that Harry’s gone? Well the rota rats can drop that fairytale. William’s already testing the waters to see if people would like to ditch Dear Old Dad.

  6. equality says:

    And I’m sure every penny went into the charity account. Why would you receive the money as cash unless there was something shady about its origins or some of the money was going to find its way somewhere besides the charity?

    • UnstrungPearl says:

      Exactly. With cash there’s no way to track it, no way to prove where it came from or how much was originally given. The bank and charity only have the servants word that this was the full amount in those bags. Who knows how much went missing along the way?

      • ThatNotOkay says:

        I’m guessing another couple of mil went straight inside the liner of his soon-to-be kingly robes. You don’t pay taxes on cash and cannot accurately account for it. And every party involved knew exactly what they were doing. Charles probably asked for it in bin Laden bills.

      • Chaine says:

        Probably laundered it all by buying several thousand designer coat dresses for a certain daughter in law.

      • BeanieBean says:

        I remember a scene in Casino, where they’re in the cash counting room. At each exchange of money, a little goes into somebody’s pocket, each & every time. The sheikh may have give x million euro, but I’m sure a few hundred here, a few thousand there, ended up in some lackey’s pocket. Or even Charles’. Pretty much everybody along the chain.

    • Green girl says:

      I would love to see a deep dive into the BRF’s accounting. If you or I received $1 million in cash we couldn’t spend it as is without people asking a ton of questions.

    • harpervalleypta says:

      Of course it did. That’s how it’s laundered.

      It’s just a nice coincidence that his Scottish estate is one of the “charitable endeavors” his own charity supports.

      How the 3 mil was dovvied up between grants and his own property is the interesting question.

      • SophieJara says:

        That’s the part that blows my mind HarperValleyPTA. He keeps saying “but for charity!” and then his charity is one that pays for his *own house*???? That’s not a charity!

        (I mean yes I understand historic royal property and all that, still not a charity!)

      • Eurydice says:

        From the website, Dumfries House is open 365 for visitors, you can stay there like a hotel, you can book weddings and other events – so I don’t know much of a home it is for Charles. Maybe someone who knows better can tell us.

      • windyriver says:

        Have followed Dumfries House off and on for a few years. It’s not for Charles’ personal use, in the way something like Highgrove is. According to a documentary from some years back, there’s an unobtrusive section of the house where Charles has rooms, but the bulk is a combination museum (extraordinary Chippendale furniture collection), event space, and employment opportunity for locals (it’s in an economically depressed area). The larger property has multiple training programs (e.g., centers for culinary training, and training in traditional crafts), and resources for local residents (wellness center, gym, garden with community education programs). Plus, money was spent to upgrade a pool in the nearby town.

        Up until a few years ago, individual training centers at Dumfries bore specific names, presumably of their major donor. The town pool still has its donor name, but the others have disappeared (at least according to the website). This seems to have happened circa 2018, when Charles’ various charitable education and training programs not part of the Prince’s Trust (there were a number) were merged with Dumfries House into the Prince’s Foundation. Dumfries became the headquarters – and Michael Fawcett was placed in charge. And red flags come up anytime that name appears.

        The documentary Prince Charles at 70 devotes a big section to Dumfries. Everything I’ve seen indicates it’s a worthwhile and important operation. But it didn’t come cheap, and the 45 million pound purchase (a large part of that was the value of the furniture) was a big financial risk, which in part required donor funding. And that was just to purchase the property, never mind what’s been done at Dumfries since then. So, it’s not impossible that cash was generally directed towards valid charitable projects. The questions of course, include: 1) where the money ultimately originated; 2) what laws/rules/regulation may have been violated when it was received; and 3) what promises were made in return.

      • Eurydice says:

        @windyriver – thanks so much for the info.

    • Ravensdaughter says:

      Hey Chuck, take bribes much?
      This should be grounds for an investigation of his finances and the possibility of pulling him out of the line of succession. But…we all know the history of this family. When it comes to money, what they do is this great mystery involving very little accountability.
      I spent a good bit of time in Britain, Denmark, and Sweden back in the 90’s, early ’00’s. I could never shake the feeling, as an American, that there was something wrong with hereditary power (a monarchy, a dictatorship, whatever).
      The Scandinavian royals are pretty low key but they still live very nice lives funded by the state.
      Increase that by a power of ten or so, and you have the BRF. They claim not to have political power, but they have power that is just as effective. They are the top of the heap in terms of money and caste and power to hide they things they want hidden. Lest we forget, Britain is still a constitutional monarchy by definition.
      In the US, our democracy is definitely threatened. (!!!!!!) But at least we are citizens and not subjects.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        The difference between the Scandinavian monarchies and the British one is the fact that the circumscription of their power is written into the constitutions. Also they have been taught not to interfere in politics – Christian X was almost deposed in 1920 for interfering politically and the Swedish Parliament has entirely removed any constitutional duties from their Monarch and they have not been afraid to alter the Line of Succession against the King’s express wishes. It will be fairly easy to get rid of them – Norway has even held at least one referendum and people decided to keep the monarchy. Denmark’s current Queen is in fact elected since the nation held a referendum that decided to remove the King’s brother as his heir.

        A constitutional monarchy is a strange entity, especially for an outsider – but I’d like to point out that people are legally defined as citizens and not subjects in Denmark. You don’t swear allegiance to the monarch when you become a citizen, you swear allegiance to he country and its laws. People are not subjects of the monarch – that was a huge point of abolishing absolutism.

        The UK is a different beast from other constitutional monarchies because the democratic institutions that characterizes our world developed slowly over centuries. They didn’t have to start from scratch after an absolutist monarchy – and thus they don’t have a written constitution and they have all these archaic remnants of traditions that allows the monarch far more power than she should have. The UK never had to get rid of absolutism – and thus never had to politically decide (and write down) exactly how the power of the monarch should be curtailed – and that is catching up with them now and it will make the abolishment of the monarchy far more difficult than in the Scandinavian countries for the reasons above.

      • The ArtHistorian says:

        When it comes to democracies, checks and balances on the various branches of power is quintessential. As it stands, the monarch is not a threat to the democracy in the Scandinavian countries. And if we don’t want them anymore – we can get rid of them fairly easily.

        And though these things seem strange to an American, there are things about the US political system that are very strange to a Danish citizen like me – I don’t understand the Electoral College, the insane amount of executive power that one man can have (even if he is elected – because if the checks and balances fail…) nor do I understand why politically appointed judges are given lifetime appointments or why it seems like it isn’t always easy simply to get to cast your vote. But I know that there are historical reasons for for why the US system is like it is. Personally, I think that having only a two party system is not ideal and it can become incredibly damaging (but this comes from being a citizen in a multi-party system where several players in general have kept extremism from the door).

    • Isabella says:

      You guys, I’m so confused. I thought Charles was rolling in cash from being Prince of Wales and controlling the Duchy of Cornwall. And I thought William would become super-rich once he gets his hands on it. Can you explain?

      “The Duchy currently provides an annual income of £21m which The Prince uses to support himself, his children and their families as well as his philanthropic work, which raises over £100m annually for a variety of good causes. The Prince voluntarily pays income tax on all revenue from the estate.” https://www.princeofwales.gov.uk/features/duchy-cornwall

  7. Bettyrose says:

    It’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t take it because it conflicts with everything I believe about human rights. But it would never be offered to me. But if a shady Billionaire gives you cash, can you just take it and not fulfill your part of the deal? It’s done in secret so what’s their recourse? Assassination?

    • equality says:

      I’m sure they take precautions. Maybe lots of pictures and video of PC accepting the money. And who knows what else they have on him. The royals accept all kinds of things from shady sources.

      • Eurydice says:

        Well, it would have to be secret cameras and video – sources have described the one-on-one personal meetings as “off the record.”

      • equality says:

        Yeah. Maybe why they are so sensitive about people wearing wires?

    • SadieMae says:

      If one guy doesn’t think he got his money’s (bribe’s) worth, word will get out and then other shady people won’t give Charles *their* money. He has to come through to keep the money faucet flowing.

  8. Harla A Brazen Hussy says:

    But, but Netflix!!!

  9. A says:

    If a billionaire handed me, a schmuck, a suitcase full of cash? I would say thank you very much and walk right out the door. If I were the f-king Prince of Wales? I would go to very great lengths to ensure that no one ever saw me personally with a suitcase full of cash in my hands. Like at no point would I touch the money myself what kind of joke is that, Charles? You have servants. If you’re gonna be greedy be smart. Or at least don’t be a dingus. That’s Andrew’s purview.

    • ThatNotOkay says:

      These mobsters have learned nothing from the actual mob! The boss don’t collect the money. Plausible deniability and an attempt to avoid RICO and such in the US, anyway.

    • Zappy says:

      He need to watch movie about gangster. Lol

    • Hic says:

      Is this Quatari billionaire the same one whose wife died of a suspicious drug overdose in Spain a few weeks ago? I think she had accused him of assaulting one of the daughter, he kept one daughter and gave the other to the wife. I think he is related to current rulers but got kicked out and lives solely in Europe.

      I’m curious about who leaked the story, Boris Johnson because of Charles comments on Rwanda policy, Prince Andrew because he knows where the bodies are buried, or William ( no explanation needed)

  10. Eating Popcorn says:

    I thought the Royal Family never carried cash…

  11. UnstrungPearl says:

    Yeah I think Charles is trying to get all his scandals out before he becomes King. And as we know the general media doesn’t care that much, this will get swept under the rug with Andrew.
    I wonder if William will also clean house before he becomes POW…

    • SURE says:

      No way C leaked this story – it’s too damaging. Others have suggested that it was Bojo in retaliation for C’s Rwanda comments.

      • UnstrungPearl says:

        That is definitely possible! So many shady characters involved, it could have been anyone. I did wonder after the Rwanda comments whether BJ would retaliate…this could get interesting.

  12. Laura D says:

    The bigger story is who “leaked” this? Was it a warning shot from Andrew, reminding Charles that he knows EXACTLY where all the bodies are buried? Or, was it William making yet another effort to show that his father isn’t fit to be king and therefore the next person who should sit on the throne is him?

    No matter how the palaces want to spin it, one thing is for certain there is absolutely no chance of this leak coming from Monticito,

    *Grabs some popcorn to watch them all turn on each other*

    • Gabby says:

      My vote would have been William – slapping back from being admonished before the jubbly. But Andrew leaking this would be delicious AF. One thing is for certain – the Sussexes can never return to “assist” the monarchy under either future king’s watch. Associating with this family is below them, and would tarnish their brand. The RF is in a race to the bottom with the white Markles.

    • Cee says:

      If this is William’s doing, he is an absolute idiot. The Cambridges are funded by Charles – everything they have, buy and eat comes directly from Charles. Does all of the money come from the Duchy? Who is to say that money is clean? Do they not realise this opens up a door to question if Kate’s new bespoke coatdress was bought by corruption? And if so, why is the White Duchess, the Peacemaker, the CEO, wearing dirty money?

      • Hic says:

        But that tape of William and the photographer was leaked very quickly and does not show him in a good light.

      • Rapunzel says:

        HIC- What tape is this? I’m outta the loop or something.

      • BeanieBean says:

        Wouldn’t it be great if England had something equivalent to RICO & all of Katie Keen’s coat dresses were seized? Oh, that would be fun!

    • Hic says:

      @Rapunzel.. During Covid when Windsors were flouting the Covid rules, a photographer got into an altercation with him while out with Kate and kids. Will lost his shit.. no security was around . Might Seach Twitter

      • Rapunzel says:

        HIC- I googled while waiting for your response. Damn. That video was something else.

      • Laura D says:

        It’s on Youtube – Just type William, Terry Harris, photographer. Be careful though because William’s enablers have also posted the same video and the comments are very supportive of William. What was most noticeable to me was how William just wouldn’t let it go. I get that he was annoyed (and imho he had every right to question why the guy was there) but, once he had notified security that should have been the end of it. However, where William let himself down was that he had to have the last word.

        Oh and what else is telling is that Kate is saying she saw the photographer by their house and the photographer vehemently denies it.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Yeah, Kate kinda fanned the flames of William’s ire against the guy. Not the smartest move if it had been some kind of psycho when they were out with the children and without protection.

    • Amy T says:

      I’d say Andrew makes the most sense because he’s got nothing to lose at this point. But I wonder if he’s turned things over to Fergie, who can gently remind Charles and the rest that his brother has got the goods on them all….

      • Tessa says:

        I do not think Fergus is influential she always was unprotected and those incriminating photos of her with the financial advisor got published

      • Tessa says:

        Meant Sarah Ferguson

      • Amy T says:

        Totally agree that she has any influence. But if Andrew wants back in (which is delusional, but whatever) if he’s outsourcing a “toss my brother under the bus” campaign to his ex, he has plausible deniability.

    • Truthiness says:

      Andrew was photographed with a huge grin yesterday-ish while out on horseback with staff. Coincidence?

    • SuzieQ says:

      I think the story itself — the shady cash — is bigger than who leaked it. But yeah, who leaked it is very interesting, too.

  13. SURE says:

    ” Charles lobbied on behalf of Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber Al Thani within the UK, specifically for the sheikh’s London-based business interests.” The Times article doesn’t make this claim though logically a billionaire doesn’t hand over millions and expect peanuts in return.

    • Jaded says:

      Exactly. This Al Thani dude is one of the richest people in the world, and was Prime Minister of Qatar until 2013. Coincidentally he’s nicknamed “the man who bought London” by the tabloids — his holdings in London include the Shard, Harrods, and the InterContinental London Park Lane.

  14. Geegee says:

    I am laughing so hard at this because I have a feeling this story leaked from the york camp to get back at Charles over garter day. I love watching them destroy each other.

  15. The Hench says:

    The whole ‘bundles of money shoved in suitcases/carrier bags’ is, as everyone has pointed out, deeply dodgy. But this is a nice sleight of hand by Clarence House – they tell us about the cash, then they tell us how honestly and cleanly they handled it (counted and straight to the bank for the charity) but what they do NOT tell us is what Charles did and does in return for the money. Because that’s the real issue. The access provided, the doors opened etc. The money could have been wired – the issue would remain the same. Basically it would appear that our royal family can be bought and the fact that the money goes to good causes doesn’t change that fact.

  16. MsIam says:

    Interesting timing for these allegations. Right before this story came out I saw that one of BoJo’s henchman/supporters posted a warning that Charles was jeopardizing the monarchy by speaking out against the deportations to Rwanda. I wonder if this was a warning shot? Why is stuff from 7-8 years ago just now coming to light? Anyway, the whole bunch is greedy, racist and shady so they set themselves up for this ish to happen.

    • Lady Digby says:

      There may well be a connection between PC’s comments seen as criticism of current PM and this leak, Just remember there is a lot of movement between the Crown and Government in terms of staff e.g Simon Case. PM is up to his eyes in trouble hence the need for RF scandal to distract from the dirty deeds of Boris? Rather oddly the Fail seem to favour Billy Idle taking other the thrown instead of Charles, I am not sure why other than they KNOW STUFF about the Duke which might make him easer to control than his dad?

  17. Roseberry says:

    There’s a suspicious timeline in play here over this “revelation “ – Charles had to attend the commonwealth head’s conference in Rwanda , sources reveal that he’s been making statements that he’s unhappy with the government’s policy of rendition asylum seekers to long term holding camps in Rwanda. Government sources say BJ is furious with his meddling,BP officially state “no comment “. Within 24 hours Tory supporting Murdoch papers, the times and the sun have this exclusive story on their front pages. The invisible contract in full force!
    There’s 2 other interesting linked stories, one BJ trying to oust the commonwealth general secretary & labour supporter, Baroness Scotland with his own candidate, but was voted down and rumblings from the commonwealth heads of government that they’re unhappy that Charles will continue to be the head of the commonwealth. TQ forced a vote on that in 2018, but a lot has happened since then……

    • aquarius64 says:

      Is it possible that countries saw how Meghan was treated and they are saying nope to the dope? That may be why Chuck and Billy are saying OK on Commonwealth nations leaving. They know they are being rejected and Heir 1 and Heir 2 want to save face.

      • Duchcheese says:

        Ooooohhh how I wish some fans would just try the best and keep Harry and Meghan the heck outta this mess, why y’all keep bringing them up? Let the Montecito royals just enjoy their piece and quiet; these scandles are juicy enough on their own without Harry and Meg getting dragged into anything. Just mentioning their names in a thread like this is enough fodder for the haters to heap onto them, just leave them the heck out of this. Please.

      • BothSidesNow says:

        @ Duchcheese, 💯 X infinity!!!

      • Jaded says:

        Just keep the Sussexes out of this OK? And Chuck and Billy have no say on who decides to leave the Commonwealth, it’s up to the individual countries.

  18. Southern Fried says:

    Even if commoners somehow believe there no problem with it disappearing into the void that is the grifting royals ‘charities’, they’re okay with it going to pay for yet another gigantic royal property in Scotland? I will never ever ever understand the ordained by god thieves while the commoners struggle.

    • BothSidesNow says:

      @ Southern Fried, I don’t understand either. How are Brits not actively involved with protests??? With the current climate in Britain with the inflation rates, the lack of incomes to feed, cloth and heat their homes NOT outraged by these illegally gotten gains????

      How do the British people feel about this? I don’t understand how they can just sit idly by as PC walks away with millions of pounds of money in this ONE instance when you know for certain that this is STILL done for the biggest family of grifters on the planet??

      I am stunned as to their silence with this matter. They are certainly willing to allow millions of British citizens to suffer the cruelest of circumstances just so that they can KEEP stealing and committing crimes.

      • The Hench says:

        “How do the British people feel about this? I don’t understand how they can just sit idly by as PC walks away with millions of pounds of money in this ONE instance when you know for certain that this is STILL done for the biggest family of grifters on the planet??”

        Well, for a number of reasons. Mostly because they are not particularly paying attention to the Royal Family and, if they are, then the British Media constantly props the Royal Family up. 99.9% of the stories are nauseatingly obsequious and the full picture rarely revealed. This story, for example, will go nowhere. Sure, there will be a few rumblings but what there will not be is a proper investigation – unless you count a sham one like the bullying debacle.

        So most people will either have no idea that this has even happened or, conditioned by a lifetime of general media support, will believe that lovely Prince Charles and his team did exactly what is being reported here and gave AALLL the money to the Bank and thence to charity and not one £500 bin Laden note found its way into Charlie’s private pockets.

    • Angelica Schuyler says:

      Maybe the public is becoming de-sensitized to the “scandal” because it’s par for the course with the royal family now. I’m more shocked that this was executed so poorly. Any good mob boss could’ve given Chucky some advice on how to be more discreet with his ill-gotten gains. Heck, they could’ve just watched a few mob shows/movies (Godfather, Sopranos…) to get an idea of how to pull this off.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        There have been a lot of scandals recently – not just with the royals but more importantly with the Tory government, which appears to be completely corrupt. There might be some sense of fatigue among the public.

  19. Snuffles says:

    I would never accept a suitcase full of cash. I’m smart enough to know it comes with strings attached and ugly circumstances.

    As for Charles vs Harry: To quote Harry “I’ve seen the business model, I want no part of it.”

    If these royal foundations were ever investigated, they would not only be revealed as unethical, but also reveal that they.broke numerous laws.

    • Eurydice says:

      I think from the RF point of view, it’s really business as usual. The RF have always dispensed favors in return for some kind of service and it’s only in modern times that people think “service” should be something squeaky clean.

      • Snuffles says:

        @eurydice

        Oh, I’m sure it’s standard business practice by the royals that most never thought twice about. That doesn’t make it any less unethical and illegal. And I don’t think the public’s attitude has changed, I think the public is only recently finding out about how shady they are. The gold dust surrounding the royal mystique is fading and people are finally seeing how the sausage is made.

      • Eurydice says:

        @Snuffles – well, I’m talking about all of the RF history. “Service to the Crown” could mean pretty much anything – raising an army, winning some kind of battle, lending the king money, being the king’s mistress. And when I say “modern times” I mean the 20th century – that seems to be when service to the crown became more service to the community.

        But yeah, people are seeing how the sausage is made. The world is changing too fast for the RF to keep up. Modernizing the monarchy means they have to change everything about the way they do business and pretty much all their ways of thinking – and then there’s still the problem of what is the monarchy’s purpose beyond its own survival. I don’t think this is problem that can be solved. As Harry implied – it’s a bad business model.

  20. Sofia says:

    God the whole thing sounds like they’re mob bosses – suitcases with cash and all.

  21. HeatherC says:

    I can’t wait to see what ridiculous story they release about Harry and Meghan (but most likely Meghan) they release to distract from this.

    • MrsCope says:

      Right now they’re just recycling old stories and pushing them up to the top as “trending.” Like “Meghan wanted to bag THE prince and THE power.”

  22. pollyv says:

    I’m sorry, this sounds fishy as hell. Every country has anti-money laundering laws and there is no way that much cash could have been put into the charity account without the bank notifying the appropriate authorities. Similarly, what is Charles going to do with bagsful of cash, hide it under his bed and pull it out in dribs and drabs? I’m no fan of Charles but this sounds off.

    • equality says:

      If a charity has fund raisers collecting amounts in cash might not be side-eyed. The bank wouldn’t know that it wasn’t from multiple sources collected during something like a tour of a property, a carnival, etc.

      • Annalise says:

        Equality- fund raisers collecting cash from a carnival or a tour in £500 notes???

      • Jaded says:

        “The money was said to be in the form of €500 notes — a denomination dubbed the *bin Laden* because of its link to terrorist financing, and which has since been discontinued.”

        It’s money laundering, plain and simple.

      • equality says:

        @Annalise Private tour with a royal? That was just a for-example. There are fund-raising dinners in private places that cost hundreds a plate. The point is questions wouldn’t be raised to the royals like they would be to private citizens. Look how long it took for thousands PA had deposited to Eugenie’s account to be reported.

      • Agreatreckoning says:

        @equality, he could try to say it’s his tips from his Paradise & Panama Papers routes. Oh, wait….

    • Duchcheese says:

      @Pollyv, I appreciate your support for Chuckie, but if there was no merit to this story, Clarence House itself wouldn’t have confirmed the receipt of money bags. Your scent sense that smelled fish on this story is so off.

  23. aquarius64 says:

    This is blowing up on Twitter. Some suspect BoJo is behind the leak because Chuck criticize the government’s handling on Rwanda deportations. It should br a warning shot to Billy who the real power is in the UK – the government – which can weaponize the press just as easily against him.

    • Lady Digby says:

      EXACTLY ultimate distraction could be revelation that Billy Idle was dating a comely Russian spy and made Catherine cry loads!

    • Comic says:

      I wouldn’t say it’s blowing up on Twitter. Def not the way it would had this been Harry. For the most part it seems like people are excusing this as a Boris/government hit job instead of looking at how potentially corrupt Charles and the royals are. Sigh.

  24. Cel2495i says:

    These people are disgusting and a fraud. Then they have the audacity to be talking sh*t about Meghan and Harry who never done stuff like this. Charles has no morals and is a crooked clown

  25. Amy Bee says:

    Charles is a criminal. If this were Meghan and Harry the press would be outraged and all over this but it’s been mostly crickets from royal rota. Which is worse having a deal with Netflix or taking bags of money from a shady billionaire?

    • Brassy Rebel says:

      Everyone knows having deals with Netflix is far worse than taking bags of money from shady billionaires, and the tabloids will soon be making this very clear. 😉

  26. Eurydice says:

    So interesting to contemplate who it was that ratted out Charles and why. I mean, it must have been common knowledge – you don’t just hand your staff shopping bags full of cash without some gossip below stairs, and not just once, but 3 times. Is this a way to jump over Charles as king and go straight to William?

    • Jay says:

      Maybe this is Andrew getting his revenge on big brother, his own version of an insurance scheme. But it feels more like an insider, to know the details about the Fortnam and Mason’s bag and how the staff reacted.

      My money’s on the same person and motivation that exposed the earlier cash for access/ honours scheme within his foundation and got Fawcett ousted. Without him, I imagine there’s a bit of a power vacuum behind the scenes. As Charles gets closer and closer to the throne, I can imagine there’s a lot of people trying to elbow each other in the eye to get to the top.

      • Eurydice says:

        Yes, it seems like it would come from CH insiders – I don’t know how much the staff from the various palaces talk to one another to have this deal be general gossip. But I’m not sure how making Charles look bad in the press helps anyone who wants to keep a position at CH. We have to look at who might benefit from this story.

  27. Daphne says:

    Wow. Looks like they’re all at it. Andrew, Prince Michael of Kent and now Charles. It’s all so murky. I wonder if it will eventually turn out that this is what most British royals do on the quiet?

    • Snuffles says:

      No need to wonder, they all do shady, illegal shift to enrich themselves. And the further from The Crown, the shadier they are. These idiots will break the law and probably compromise their country’s security to get cash for themselves because they’ve been told that they can’t earn money for themselves the old fashioned way (having a career and working), and have their purse strings, homes and security controlled by the Queen.

      I hope one day someone does a thorough investigation and writes a book on it.

    • CooCooCatchoo says:

      It reminds me of the millions of pounds worth of jewelry that the Saudis have gifted the BRF with over the years. I always found that so weird. Nobody gives anyone a gift like that without expecting something in return, IMHO.

  28. Chaine says:

    Dang he getting so old, saw the photo of him on the bench in the shades and thought it was Joe Biden for a sec.

    • Jaded says:

      That’s what happens. People get old. You’ll be there one day. The important thing isn’t how old he looks, it’s how crooked he is.

  29. Zut Alors says:

    So the Royal family are into money laundering. Are they going to be placed on worldwide watch lists?

  30. Dorcas says:

    I heard the so called qatari billionaire was issued an mbe

    • Jaded says:

      He doesn’t have an MBE, but he was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of Merit of the Italian Republic.

  31. Deanne says:

    I wonder how they’ll spin this into “ Harry and Meghan owe the Royal Family a grovelling apology”?

  32. Dee says:

    No concern at all. Now if that suitcase had been filled with avocadoes and cookbooks, that would’ve been an entirely different matter altogether and worthy of of many headlines.

  33. Julia K says:

    ” one of Charles former advisors felt uncomfortable “. There’s the leaker. Michael Fawcett getting revenge for being exiled from the royal presence?

    • Eurydice says:

      A possibility, but why now?

      • Julia K says:

        Many complaints from staff about Fawcett being a first class bully. If Meghans lawyers succeed in getting the investigation against her made public, his name will surely rise to the top. Pre emptive strike?

      • Jaded says:

        Fawcett is more than a bully, he’s a sleazebag. In 2021 he was forced to resign as chief executive of The Prince’s Foundation over allegations he offered help securing knighthoods and citizenships in return for charity donations. It’s clear Fawcett tried to throw Harry under the bus by leaking that he was involved with Charles’s CBE scandal to take the heat off of himself and Charles. Harry actually only met once with a billionaire named Mahfouz Marei Mubarak bin Mahfouz at a pub, posed for photographs and discussed the possibility of holding a charity auction or thank you dinner to raise money for Sentebale which ultimately never took place, and shortly thereafter he severed ties with Mahfouz over concerns about the shady motives for his support.

        Harry released a statement last year shortly after The Sunday Times alluded to a donation of £50,000 to Harry’s Sentebale charity in 2013. In it he said “It is disappointing that The Sunday Times, knowing all the facts, has chosen to encourage speculation by being deliberately vague to try to create a falsified link between the Duke of Sussex and the CBE scandal, of which he had no knowledge or involvement.”

        So as @Julia K says, this looks clearly like a preemptive strike. Fawcett is an utter snake in the grass.

      • ArtHistorian says:

        Fawcett is allegedly also a rapist. A former member of Charles’ staff accused Fawcett of rape. He’s an all-around nasty piece of work. He was also the one who called a black woman who worked for Charles the N-word to her face (and allegedly in Charles’ presence). So a racist, rapist bully – and Charles is said to adore him. (and more juicily: Charles is also said to fuck him)

  34. Qatar2 says:

    Qatari weighing in here – this story isn’t actually about Charles but is the latest in a series of smear articles against Qatar in the lead-up to us hosting World Cup 2022. In 2017 Saudi and a few other GCC countries staged a blockade against qatar for alleged links to funding terrorism but it was political at its core and driven by Trump and kushner. The blockade has since been lifted but whoever put this story out there knew they just had to say “qatar” and “terrorism funding” to get this story picked up.

    • Duchcheese says:

      Uhm no, sorry. Charles has been linked to a loooooot of scandals involving Arabia based tycoons (or even Russian Oligarchs) and the cash for honors/quidproquo scandals have dogged the royals, Charles and Andrew in particular, for a very long time. I’m sorry but this has nothing to do with smearing Qatar but everything to do with greedy Charles exchanging cash for honors. These scandal revelation stories have been ongoing for more than a year now and this is the first Qatari I have read that was involved. There were many from Saudi Arabia sooooo, no the “they’re smearing Qatar for the soccer 2022” angle is something I’m not buying at all.

    • Jaded says:

      This cash for access scheme at Clarence House has been going on for a lonnngggg time and has involved not only Middle Eastern billionaires but Russian and Chinese oligarchs, so this has nothing to do with a blockade against Qatar and everything to do with grift at the highest levels in the BRF.

    • BeanieBean says:

      Interesting, interesting.

  35. Margaret says:

    I told Charlie to watch his back, I smell willie.

    • Well Wisher says:

      This story is 7 years old. Every £ was accounted and the laws changed to prevent the appearance and/or money laundering.
      Trying to withdraw £5,000 will prompt all sorts of questions from the bank.
      Why regurgitate the story now? There are two possibilities for maybe one combination explanation.
      First it was the Sunday Times, duly noted Murdoch’s property.
      Murdoch needed to remind Prince Charles who is in charge, since the Prince’s appearance in Rwanda was a success.
      Prince Charles did not embrace the Rwanda solution for refugees and undocumented immigrants. He did so publicly.
      That would’ve been embarrassing for Murdoch’s latest PM selection, after Madame Theresa May was rejected by Putin.
      BOJO takes good instructions despite the state of England and its realms; and conversely the UK and its realms notably the discomfort and discontent in the Caribbean.
      So Prince Charles had to be publicly chastised, enter William with his new press secretary, the Royal Source’s new mouthpiece.
      The mixed results of Bill’s jubilee and birthday PR may or may not require a scapegoat, Harry is permanently indisposed so Prince Charles will do.
      Prince Charles success at the CHOGM notwithstanding, hence the collaboration with the Times and Bill?
      “However sordid the “suitcase with cash” may seem, it is simply a reflection of the system that William is eager to inherit and unwilling to challenge” a quote from a social media user’s perspective.

      • Julia K says:

        Two separate occurrences. This New allegation was last year, because Any someone who was hired to take over from Fawcett, said she was among those charged with counting the money and then notifying the bank.

      • Well Wisher says:

        @Well Wisher
        Murdoch is reminding the House of Windsor who is in charge.
        Prince Charles stepped out of line when he commented on the Rwanda Refugee Flight.
        It was not appreciated by Johnson, Fabrage and the right wing populist.
        Hence tada!!! 7 years late.
        At the time new laws preventing money laundering were put in place. It couldn’t be current, even a year ago.
        Red flags would’ve tripped alarms.

      • Qatar2 says:

        It is the timing of this old story coming back up, which is linked to the current smear campaign against qatar and the former blockade. The attempt to link the funds to terrorism (calling the bills he uses bin ladens) are the red flag that charles isnt the intended target on this occasion (he is just collateral damage in one of many angles being used right now to get qatar’s name in the media associated with negativity). It’s happening in both the mainstream and on social media. There are a lot of people who want qatar’s world cup hosting event to be seen as a dismal failure and they think smear campaigns will overshadow the good news or cause sponsors to withdraw or attendees to boycott.

    • PrincessK says:

      Watch out William and Kate the media will eventually turn on you again sooner or later.

  36. MerlinsMom1018 says:

    All I’m sayin’ is if a billionaire handed me a suitcase full of millions, they’d have to rename the game from “Where’s Waldo?” to “Where’s MerlinsMom?” because I would be nothing but smoke.

  37. Nyro says:

    I dont think this leak came from Egghead. Someone said on twitter mentioned that the reason the BRF are entertaining the idea of bringing Andrew back into the fold is because he was the “fixer”, the one who networked with the shadiest people, negotiated all the dirty and shady deals, and knew how to keep them hidden. So I think this is Andrew leaking and reminding Charles that he’s got 35 years worth of shady money deals he’s helped the family with. They need him to continue doing this dirty work and they also need to keep him a round so that he won’t spill the beans. It’s a win for Andrew across the board. I’m convinced that they will bring him back in. It’ll be the queen’s dying wish and the public won’t dare challenge it. She’ll do it when she’s really sick. Just like how when everybody thought she was dying, she announed Camilla would be Queen Consort.

    • Lady D says:

      “the public won’t dare challenge it.” The flipping hubris of these people is gag inducing. I so badly want the British public to prove them wrong, but I fear I wait in vain.

    • Siobhan says:

      I think I would have to disagree that the public wouldn’t dare challenge it. I don’t think he’s coming back in and I don’t think Charles or William want him back in in any capacity. But you’re right that he knows where some bodies are buried and I’m sure they are going to have to make sure that he’s well taken care of to keep him from leaking.

  38. Brassy Rebel says:

    The response from the Charles accolytes is almost as bad as the “donations”. Someone is going to have to explain to me how exactly you go about auditing €3 million in cash, delivered in suitcases and shopping bags, of unknown origin. That sounds more like a job for a psychic than an auditor.

    As for “no rules were broken”, I doubt anyone ever imagined the need for rules concerning huge cash transfers in luggage from shady Middle Easterners. So this is gaslighting 101.

    And it’s probably just a coincidence that the chosen bank was heavily fined last year for failure to comply with money laundering rules and regulations during the very period these cash transfers were taking place. And the bank helpfully came to pick it all up!

    I have questions. Too bad it will all be swept under the rug because “no rules were broken” and the money was “audited”.

  39. L4Frimaire says:

    The devil will find work for idle hands, and as we’ve seen, these royal heirs are far too idle. This is so shady no matter how you slice it. Why do they always seem so desperate for money? I suspect they really spend way more than their sovereign grant says and they want access to off the books cash so it doesn’t look like they’re fleecing the taxpayers.

  40. Kim says:

    Bags full of cash mean only one thing: someone is laundering money for someone else. Follow the money…and–spoiler–it does NOT lead to Harry & Megan!!

  41. Jay says:

    Can you imagine meeting with someone that handed you grocery bags full of cash? Somehow it’s the detail about the Fortnam and Mason’s bag that shocks me the most – I’ve only heard of that brand as a detail in posh murder mysteries, lol.

    I can’t even fathom what that much cash would look like, and it makes me a little ill, honestly, imagining the responsibility and danger involved in handling it.

  42. Honey says:

    If I weren’t afraid of henchmen coming after me, I think I’d accept suitcases filled with millions my damn self. But, I’m just a poor peasant. Our ships will never meet. 😂😂😂

    Charles, Charles, Charles. SMH. Yet they are ashamed of Andrew’s and Sara’s shady gritting. You know, I wonder who leaked that. Was it a power move?

    Hell, that bag full of money could have easily paid for Harry & Meghan’s security needs.

  43. girl_ninja says:

    Every time I see his hands I am so struck by how puffy they are. Is he healthy?

    • TeamMeg says:

      I was wondering the same thing. In that photo where he’s sitting on the bench, Charles’ fingers look like sausages. Medical condition?

      • SuzieQ says:

        Holy, you’re not exaggerating. His hands look like they belong to the Pillsbury Dough Boy (emphasis on the “dough,” given this latest story).

  44. Margaret says:

    @NYRO
    Oh I don’t know, why is this coming out now?. Getting close to a coronation, question; will it be Charles, or william?. Think about it, who stands to gain if Charles goes down?. Remember this is the game of thornes.

    • L4Frimaire says:

      Some said this was the right wing presses way of getting back at Charles for criticizing the governments Rwanda relocation plans, which now seem scuttled. Maybe that’s true but it’s still coming across as irregular to just give bales of cash instead of a large wire transfer or whatever people with large sums do to move money around.

    • Eurydice says:

      Yes, Dan Wootton has a piece about how Charles isn’t fit to be king. Not just about this money, but also that he’s too political and too much of a downer. Of course, Wootton had to take the obligatory swipe at Meghan, but it was just a glancing blow. This definitely smells like GOT.

  45. Sue E Generis says:

    Not sure why everyone’s nose is out of joint about this? It’s literally what the Royals do. Why do you think they’re always traveling to the middle east? They don’t have jobs. This is their work. They receive bags of untraceable cash from unsavory characters to influence government policy etc back home, then launder that money through charities. Sometimes it’s just laundering the dirty money of criminals. This is their work.

    • Amy Bee says:

      The royals also act as emissaries for the British Government securing arms deals from Middle Eastern countries.

    • equality says:

      Wonder what W&K brought back from Jordan. No wonder they all have to fly private.

    • Solidgold says:

      Louder for the people blinded by tiara and fashion. But I don not think they would care.

      This is why the media was soft in Andrew. His shady life is encouraged by the British establishment. This is why Harry not playing dirty with media and knowing his future role is seen as traitorous.

      It would take a very determined and aggressive voice in the media to expose the corruption in the British establishment. Murdoch and his family will never expose the BRF once Betty dies.

  46. ACB says:

    I work for state government, and we are allowed to accept nothing – regardless of how insignificant – because we have to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Clearly, that’s not an issue for the Royal Family.

  47. Kathryn says:

    Hmm are we going to talk about the video from Jan 2021 making the rounds on social of William incandescent at a paparazzi? The photographer released it a day or two ago

  48. usavgjoe says:

    Well, Charles is Shady. By getting the whole story out in the public he is hoping for QE2’S official “Hail Mary”(why not for good measure) stamp of approval and dismissal of all allegations — like she did for Pedo-Andrew, before she “kicks the bucket”… so he can be “Clean” and acceptable for his Coronation day. to the people of the UK.
    William is seeking the same pass from QE2, to allow him to divorce Kate so the
    her blessing will make the breakup look legit. I’m telling you QE2 is a Gansta. don’t let her little old stooped over body fool you. When she passes we gonna hear some tripped out things about her…watch this space.

  49. Slippers4life says:

    The fail’s headline tomorrow: “You GUYS! Actually MEGHAN made KATE cry you guys!”

  50. Mrs.Krabapple says:

    This is exactly how dirty money gets laundered. Maybe Charles deserves jail as much as Andrew, but of course that will never happen.

    • ArtHistorian says:

      Charles seems to be just as corrupt and criminal as his brother. I doubt William have reached the same depths of corruption – but I’m sure he’ll get there.

      • LynnInTx says:

        I honestly can’t decide if William is too lazy to manage that level of corruption because it actually requires *some* effort, or if he’s too lazy not to. It’s like Schrodinger’s laziness…

  51. Tessa says:

    The dm buried this story it required some searching to find it

  52. Robin Samuels says:

    The well must be extremely dry since all the stories involve something not current. The original article concerning Charles and the cash exchange happened in 2015. Kate visited a military operation last year now the photos emerge. Who stooped so low as to report the rejection of Bea’s credit card, and what was the underlying purpose? Are Bea and her husband getting too much media attention? Andrew is the loose cannon. They spend so much time attacking one another with derogatory stories, lies, and things that really shouldn’t interest other people. The Queen living through the pain is giving them time to get their act together because once she dies, so makes most of that invisible contract.

    • Julia K says:

      There was a new occurrence reported last year, as the aide hired to replace Fawcett was in on the money counting. Her first name is Amy and can’t recall her last name but she is a recent hire

    • Siobhan says:

      I doubt anyone in the royal family reported anything about Bea’s credit card, they probably didn’t know about that until it was in the news. That was probably an onlooker or employee that reported that. It was a pretty stupid piece of gossip, cards get declined all the time for no reason at all (unusual activity, a problem with the store’s scanning machine, etc.).

      • K says:

        That story may not have originated with the Royal Family but given the invisible contract I am sure they got a heads up about it before it was published – and said nothing, even though it is an obviously silly story the RF could easily have quashed. So yes, the timing between the negative story about Bea, the silly army photos and this coming to light is interesting.

  53. Solidgold says:

    It’s wild to me how badly people want OBE and MBE. What exactly do you receive when you get one?

    • BeanieBean says:

      The thing itself–it’s a medal on a ribbon & comes in a presentation box. There’s the ceremony, with the Queen, or now, Charles or William. And you get your photo taken. And you get to put those letters behind your name, now & forever. And I believe that’s it.

    • India says:

      Nothing but a certificate and you if you are so inclined when you sign your name on something you can put the OBE by your name. It really is a bunch of nothing.

  54. Puppetgirl says:

    Charles is in hot water

    No kidding

  55. Mymothersucks says:

    Why does no one talk about the fact that this man was in Epstein’s black book?!

    • TeeMajor says:

      EXACTLY!!! no one mentions THAT!

      am I surprised by ANY of this w/Chuck?? NOPE. Will he face repercussions?? doubt it.
      He will mumble it away. “well, its the abfbisfgigosehgog, and it has nothing to do with the Monarchy and the state we are in, blahblahblahblah.

    • Wiglet Watcher says:

      Whoa…
      Charles?! I believe it.

  56. India says:

    The British RF is as crooked as hell. All of them. If you scratch below the surface no telling what you will find.

  57. Bisynaptic says:

    “Each payment was deposited into the accounts of the Prince of Wales’s Charitable Fund (PWCF), a low-profile grant-making entity which bankrolls the prince’s pet projects and his country estate in Scotland.”
    —Holy Royal Graft, Batman!

  58. blunt talker says:

    I just rememberd a charity of Prince Charles that he wanted to pass on to one of his sons-they both declined-I wonder why.

  59. Doni says:

    very interesting article thanks so much 🙂