The RugbyRebels Messageboard
http://rugbyrebels.co.uk/
Relentless brainwashing. But it's lessening over time - older people have definitely got it worse, just like they've got the disliking Europeans thing, and voting Tory.
I know the Tories hate scroungers. So I expect they'll clamp down hard on this when they find out.
As I said, context not a rebuttal.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Nov 24, 2023 8:01 am As the Guardian article explains, it has been long claimed by that after costs the amounts raised are given to charity.
However, a considerable part of these payments is being used to renovate and upgrade the Duchy's rental stock - the rental stock which provides the King (as it did the Queen) with income. The accounts suggest that only 15% of the amounts raised were actually given to charity over the last decade.
You have a good point but we’re a democracy so it should really go to a democratic body, imo. The law could state that they must then disperse the money to charities rather than their own pet projects.Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 7:57 am Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.
You'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 7:57 am Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.
https://www.kccf.org.uk/all-projects/?current_page=1Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:24 pmYou'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 7:57 am Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.
That's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 9:19 pmhttps://www.kccf.org.uk/all-projects/?current_page=1Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:24 pmYou'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 7:57 am Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.
Incorrect.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 10:17 pmThat's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 9:19 pmhttps://www.kccf.org.uk/all-projects/?current_page=1Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 4:24 pm
You'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?
I'd rather it go directly to a fund that was independent and completely enshrined as independent. And this fund would help create affordable housing and provide schooling for families and communities in the local areas.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 8:04 amYou have a good point but we’re a democracy so it should really go to a democratic body, imo. The law could state that they must then disperse the money to charities rather than their own pet projects.Donny osmond wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 7:57 am Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.
It's stated on the link you gave.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 10:29 pmIncorrect.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 10:17 pmThat's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.
Read it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:33 pmIt's stated on the link you gave.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 10:29 pmIncorrect.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Nov 25, 2023 10:17 pm
That's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.
https://www.kccf.org.uk/our-income/
That's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:43 pmRead it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:33 pmIt's stated on the link you gave.
https://www.kccf.org.uk/our-income/
I work in the heritage sector and I know for a fact that a decent chunk of the income from his estate is funnelled into his charity work.
As with a point we’re discussing on another thread, just because it’s not printed out in black and white somewhere you can find with 5 mins of research doesn’t mean it’s some grand conspiracy to shaft the poor.
So you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:12 amThat's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:43 pmRead it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:33 pm
It's stated on the link you gave.
https://www.kccf.org.uk/our-income/
I work in the heritage sector and I know for a fact that a decent chunk of the income from his estate is funnelled into his charity work.
As with a point we’re discussing on another thread, just because it’s not printed out in black and white somewhere you can find with 5 mins of research doesn’t mean it’s some grand conspiracy to shaft the poor.
Is there anything on that website that says funding for the Fund comes from the Duchy of Lancaster? Do you have any evidence for this?
I think you're misunderstanding this. No one is saying that the Duchy doesn't give some money to charity. What I'm saying (per the Guardian article) is that considerable sums from the estates of the dead, which the Duchy claims are being given to charity are actually being used to improve the Duchy's assets - and hence improve Charles's income from those assets.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:56 amSo you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:12 amThat's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Sun Nov 26, 2023 7:43 pm
Read it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.
I work in the heritage sector and I know for a fact that a decent chunk of the income from his estate is funnelled into his charity work.
As with a point we’re discussing on another thread, just because it’s not printed out in black and white somewhere you can find with 5 mins of research doesn’t mean it’s some grand conspiracy to shaft the poor.
Is there anything on that website that says funding for the Fund comes from the Duchy of Lancaster? Do you have any evidence for this?
Yes. My evidence is that I know from working in the industry that this is the case, unless a handful of people I’ve spoken to about this sort of stuff over the years are lying to me. Funding for heritage buildings is way below where it needs to be so how we afford to maintain the buildings in both public and private hands is a pretty hot topic.
Do you have any evidence it doesn’t happen?
We’re in agreement on the fundamental basis of this thread, ie the money shouldn’t go the king, not that I’d imagine has any input on what is done with it given the relative amounts and the fact he’s quite busy with the day job, so why would I lie?!?!?
I’ll leave it there.
No misunderstanding on my part.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 2:16 pmI think you're misunderstanding this. No one is saying that the Duchy doesn't give some money to charity. What I'm saying (per the Guardian article) is that considerable sums from the estates of the dead, which the Duchy claims are being given to charity are actually being used to improve the Duchy's assets - and hence improve Charles's income from those assets.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:56 amSo you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 8:12 am
That's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.
Is there anything on that website that says funding for the Fund comes from the Duchy of Lancaster? Do you have any evidence for this?
Yes. My evidence is that I know from working in the industry that this is the case, unless a handful of people I’ve spoken to about this sort of stuff over the years are lying to me. Funding for heritage buildings is way below where it needs to be so how we afford to maintain the buildings in both public and private hands is a pretty hot topic.
Do you have any evidence it doesn’t happen?
We’re in agreement on the fundamental basis of this thread, ie the money shouldn’t go the king, not that I’d imagine has any input on what is done with it given the relative amounts and the fact he’s quite busy with the day job, so why would I lie?!?!?
I’ll leave it there.
So showing that Charles does charitable work (via the King Charles III Charitable Fund) is not relevant. The Duchy of Lancaster and the King Charles III Charitable Fund are entirely different things.
Your personal knowledge that heritage buildings need renovation doesn't disprove what the Guardian is saying. It may well be true but that doesn't mean that the Duchy isn't using the assets of the dead commoners to increase the value of Charles's Duchy land.
Do I 'have any evidence that it doesn't happen'? I'm not even clear about what 'it' you're referring to at this point, but it's generally difficult to prove a negative. The Guardian article is evidence for my claim though (which is not a negative).
I'm glad that we agree on the principle of the thing though - that this money shouldn't go to Charles.
Great. All sorted then.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 2:53 pmNo misunderstanding on my part.Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Nov 28, 2023 2:16 pmI think you're misunderstanding this. No one is saying that the Duchy doesn't give some money to charity. What I'm saying (per the Guardian article) is that considerable sums from the estates of the dead, which the Duchy claims are being given to charity are actually being used to improve the Duchy's assets - and hence improve Charles's income from those assets.Mellsblue wrote: ↑Mon Nov 27, 2023 9:56 am
So you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.
Yes. My evidence is that I know from working in the industry that this is the case, unless a handful of people I’ve spoken to about this sort of stuff over the years are lying to me. Funding for heritage buildings is way below where it needs to be so how we afford to maintain the buildings in both public and private hands is a pretty hot topic.
Do you have any evidence it doesn’t happen?
We’re in agreement on the fundamental basis of this thread, ie the money shouldn’t go the king, not that I’d imagine has any input on what is done with it given the relative amounts and the fact he’s quite busy with the day job, so why would I lie?!?!?
I’ll leave it there.
So showing that Charles does charitable work (via the King Charles III Charitable Fund) is not relevant. The Duchy of Lancaster and the King Charles III Charitable Fund are entirely different things.
Your personal knowledge that heritage buildings need renovation doesn't disprove what the Guardian is saying. It may well be true but that doesn't mean that the Duchy isn't using the assets of the dead commoners to increase the value of Charles's Duchy land.
Do I 'have any evidence that it doesn't happen'? I'm not even clear about what 'it' you're referring to at this point, but it's generally difficult to prove a negative. The Guardian article is evidence for my claim though (which is not a negative).
I'm glad that we agree on the principle of the thing though - that this money shouldn't go to Charles.