>

He owns the wind farms, it’s his prerogative.
For those who don't understand how the UK crown gets its money:
They own lots of land and make money from rent, farms, and now windfarms. All that money goes to the government, and the government gives the royal an annual sum.
This is a good deal for the government who get a profitable deal for eternity in exchange for paying all the royal's debts one time a few hundred years back.
The crown is going to make more money now by having wind farms on their land. That goes to the government as usual, normally they'd get some back, the king has requested he does not. >

It's a huge property portfolio in addition to farmland. In fact they're suing Twitter for being behind on the rent for their London HQ.
It's also worth noting that the proportion of the fund's profits going to the royals recently increased in order to pay for the renovation of Buckingham Palace. >

It makes sense for funds to be used for Buckingham Palace. It's a in 
 a very bad state of repair right now.
As an example for the Queens Platinum Jubilee theres a pre-recorded scene where she's having tea with Paddington Bear in the east wing, overlooking the balcony.
That was in fact shot at Windsor with a bit of cgi used as that area of Buckingham Palace is a building site and has been for about 4 years now.
To get to the balcony they had to litterally walk through a building site and make it look as presentable as possible around the doorway. >

Yeah right. Next thing you’re gonna tell me Paddington was CGI too >

Would you believe a highly trained Corgi? >

Yes. Yes, I would. >

In fact, I do, sir. >

It is I, King of UK. >

Ruler over these glands >

Well, he's very progressive compared to his predecessors. >

Headline should read: "King Charles donates his only fans income" >

This is the kind of comedy writing I can get behind. >


UK’s king

He’s one of the most well known people on Earth.  What an odd choice to not just call him King Charles. >

Most of the world (including the UK) is still getting used to there not being a queen anymore. The media can't seem to decide whether to call him King Charles, the King of Britain, the King of the UK or just The King. >

He's also the King of Canada (for now) along with a number of other notable (New Zealand) and unnotable (Australia) countries.
​
​
That's right Australia. Come get me. >

Emus are Australian. You’re on notice. >

Emus sided against Australia. I think I'll be fine. >

Emus sided against the newly federated states in 1932. They were Australian long before the colonials arrived…. >

They were of the continent. "Australia" did not exist, any more than separate bordering countries on the continent exist now. At least as the human UN is concerned. International Bird Law has a different view of the matter. >

"Hello there my friend, am King of UK actually.
If you could please transfer $1,200,000,000 into this account, it will be a very good investment for you.
Bitcoin is okay." >

Or iTunes gift cards >

With that much of his money going to the people, it's like he pays way more in "taxes" (I know he doesn't pay taxes but you get the idea) than many companies who routinely evade paying them. 
If all you can think of is casting him down for this just because he's royalty, you have tunnel vision or you wilfully ignore the problem. He's not the one withholding the UK's money and pressing down on the working-class people's neck. >

God Save the King! >

It's the profits from the deal, not $1.2B in total. Smh >

Would you rather it be $0 instead? >

That’s not what they said, they simply clarified a bad title. >

But the title says profits... >

Yeah I know 
But what's wrong with the title...? >

It implies 1.2 billion is the amount the King is requesting the treasury diverts. It’s actually a fraction of that. >

Ah ok, thanks >

It should be directed towards the NHS and trying to restructure the NHS for the better. >

Can’t do that unless we get rid of the Conservatives that want to embezzle and privatise it into irrelevancy. >

If you disagree with this viewpoint, could you explain why? Or are you of the idea that the NHS is a non-political entity somehow. >

Probably a tory, has no reason to vote tory, but does because “it make me posh” >

God Save The King! >

A true king looks over his people over himself w >

Is it mental that I actually trust the crown estate with Charles more than I do the conservatives? 
Like at least I know he won't be selling it off immediately to the highest bidder, longer term planning than an election cycle, cares more about his legacy with the general public than the Tories.
'Abolish the monarchy, but maybe wait until we get some proper adults in office' >

Exactly. Crown requires public consent to stay in place. If you took all that land and gave it "to the people" it would get carved up so fuckin fast by the Tories who would sell it cheap to some friend in UAE or Russia, the profits would then be privatised though we'd still have to pay maintenance via council taxes.
The people who would take over that portfolio already don't pay taxes, it's laughable to think that would change if you "give it to the people". >

All excellent points.
I'm still opposed to the monarchy, but understand dismantling it isn't simple and we might not end up automatically better off. >

Finally a king who does some good >

I wonder which politician will be lying on the floor under the tap of that cash with their mouth open waiting to buy their jet.  I mean its never going to go anywhere else but to them, right? Oh, maybe US health care interests or more police state laws? >

The money will be funnelled to their friends or family by lucrative government contracts (see the bullshit medical supply contracts from the COVID era). 
Then when they leave office they’re hired as a consultant by the same businesses on mega bucks to pay them back. 
Same happens with high ranking military types who can influence which planes/ships/bombs to buy. >

Exactly.  The public won't see a penny. >

Dont all crown profits go to the government already? >

Yeah but a chunk of those profits will go back to the crown, King Charles is essentially saying that those profits should go back to the public, not the crown.
Whether you trust the government to use that money properly is another question. >

If he wants to cement his reign and legacy, the power move would be for the King to set up a public service that the government isn't providing. 
Say, use the profits for the wind farms to set up places in major cities that cook free meals.
The public treasury is just a black hole at this point, having an independent cashflow doing something visibly good would be much better. >


If he wants to cement his reign and legacy, the power move would be for the King to set up a public service that the government isn't providing.

This would undo hundreds of years of convention of the monarch not being political. The monarch rightly does not do such things. It's a ceremonial position, and he should not be meddling in politics in any manner. 
The correct thing to do, is to give the money to the government and get them to spend it. 
I don't even disagree that they'll fucking waste it, and the King could almost certainly spend it more wisely and put it to better use for the people. His work as Prince showed his nature, and it's good. 
But we can't have the convention being broken that monarchs are apolitical. It's very important. It'd be a bad precedent to set.
It'd likely be the end of the monarchy, and that would be his legacy. Pretty shite legacy for a Royal. >

Thats not political though?
Atleast, It isn't in the Netherlands, Charity is never considered political, its one of the reasons why so many hospitals are named after members of the royal family. >

Everything is political. 
You set up a charity to provide free meals to the poor, you are acknowledging that the poor underserved by the government..
Political! >

He does have charities though. The Prince of Wales Trust is quite a big one that he set up a bit ago. >

Set that up as a prince, though. Not the monarch. He's given it all up now. >

He's still the president of the Trust though. He also still founded 18 charities.
It's not that the monarch is to remain apolitical, its the monarchy in general. >

The gas being used now was bought on futures contracts ~3 months ago when it was still incredibly high, so there's a delay in the reduction being passed on.
Forecasts for the energy cap in July are now around £2200 a year, so roughly in line with what you're saying it should be. >

Sunak will give it to his constituents, the wealthy 1% of the UK. >

Richmond, Yorkshire? Are frozen sausages really that profitable? >

Why not ask oil companies to divert their profits to the public? >

Because Charles has 0 authority to ask for that and the Crown tries to (at least publicly) stay out of politics.
He can only ask for these profits because the deal is made through the Crown estates. >

Ahhhhh... >

Make this a regular thing. >

Keep it up Chuck. Maybe one day we will approve you your existence. >

And under a Tory government what that means is 1.2b being funneled into private firms running public services, going straight into donors pockets. or something! to that effect. >

Smart move. Snap a lil off for the peasants every now and then so they don't revolt. 
Austerity protests hit different when it's a dude and not a sweet little old lady. If they're smart they'll make Charles their last king and make that official before he dies. >

Pretty derogatory to just call him UK's king. He's King of several countries, not just the UK. >

It’s the United Kingdom, which is the combination of the those countries. If they said England you could be right. >

And Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc, none of which are in the United Kingdom. But in this context the money referred to is for the UK. >

How about….oil profits are directed to public and wind farm profits are reinvested to stockholders as reward for investing in the future you fucking dingbat >

It’s his wind farm. It’s his money. 
If you want the money given to the shareholders then you want the profit to be given to the king of England. >

capitalism means you not only own people, you can own wind  
exciting times for the species >

It means you can own the massive and expensive structures needed to harness that wind. >

for now >

I wonder how much the public would be helped if the monarchy was abolished? >

The monarchy only received £83 million from the sovereign grant last year (I think) which in the grand scheme of things is nothing considering how many people pay to come to the UK to see them, the tourist money alone is more than that. On top of that they generate wealth for the country helping trade deals by putting on a show for heads of state etc. 
They make more money than they take they're actually really good value for money. They deliberately do this because if they were bad value we wouldn't want them.
It's better for the British people and more people are helped by having a monarchy than would be helped if we didn't. >

Didn't John Oliver do a whole show on the monarchy disagreeing with the argument that money brought in from tourism shtick? Pretty sure he outlined a number of properties and investments they hold that also contribute to their wealth. >

Except he gave absolutely no evidence to refute the claims that the royals make more money than they cost. He just said ‘people will still come to the UK’ and then gave a massively biased show that was created to make you think what he’s thinking, rather than present the facts and allow people to come to their own conclusions >

Fair enough. I was just pointing out your sweet bargain of only £83 million pounds is missing a big part of the picture, innit?
And I really doubt any major deals between nations hinge on the "excitement" of meeting some royal assholes.
"What!? I don't get to have tea with the queen? Screw it, the trade deal is off!" - No-one ever >

Socialist King? Now there's an idea I could get behind. 
If they ever open American 'amnesty to the Crown', I may have to give this some real thought. >

This is public trust money and has fuck all to do with Charles. >

It is not. >

It is called "sovereigns public estate" and does not belong to the monarch. Feel free to look it up. >

No. This is the money that should be paid to Charles that is being diverted back into the treasury >

no. those monies are used to pay the royals, but it is not just given to them in whole. It goes back into the kitty and the royals get paid after like a wage for being the figureheads they are.
Commonwealth crown lands work in the same way, but without the King involved at all. Canada and Aus for example have vast crown lands which belong to the state and not the monarch. >

No. The profits of the Crown estate goes to the treasury, then 25% of that is given to monarchy.
What Charles here is asking is that the profits based on this windfarm be not included in the money given to the monarchy. >

What a joke, kinda obvs what the intention is behind this move… Hey I know I’ll let them eat cake… >

He should've just kept the money for himself then >

It should never have been his place to decide what to do with that money. He's an inbred German Sponger that costs the UK roughly £75 million pounds a year when his "subjects" are choosing between food or heat. Fuck the King and all his cousin fucking relatives for the leaches they are. I hate them all. >

Tourism made 130 billion for the UK in 2021. Can you name a single reason other than the royals and Harry potter that anyone would even want to come to a miserable shithole like the UK? 75 mil sounds pretty cheap for that much profit >

Who the fuck goes to the UK for the royals? This must be the stupidest argument in favour of the monarchy I have ever heard. I have been to the UK numerous times and the royals never played a role in me visiting. Why should they? They are useless. Even if the royal family were the reason for me visiting what exactly am I supposed to do in the UK that involves the royal family? I sure as hell wont meet them. Visit Buckingham? I would visit Buckingham regardless of wether some celebrities are living in it as I would visit any other building with historical architecture in any other destination. >

Much greater decision making >

I want a new iPad! >

Sweet. I guess that'll be new parks for Oxford, maybe a museum for Cambridge? Ooh, more roads for london maybe, now that'd be something different wouldn't it >

1.2 Billion? Man, you know how much Tampax that could purchase? >

“Let them eat cake” >

good job king. >

Windfarms are money machines far bigger than the King would know what to do with all that money >

Just pay inheritance tax like the rest of us. >

"UK's King"  
Still can't get used to it. >

Look at charles trying to avoid ending up like some of his older cousins in france. >

If only this parasite and his entire parasite family had enough wealth to solve every single person's financial problems in the entire United K*ngdom... >

News recently reported $28bn net worth for the Royal family. That's less than £400 each in sterling, not nothing, but certainly not life changing. Just for perspective. >

Does he ask this too of oil companies?