• jonne@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    And that’s fine. In this case it’s going to the King personally, however.

    • SheeEttin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, the article says it’s going to the King’s estate, i.e. the crown, not to the privy purse, i.e. Charles’ pocket.

      Is some of it being used that will ultimately benefit him? Probably. But according to the article, the policy governing this says any benefit to the king himself should be merely incidental.

      This article does not appear to allege that they are violating that policy.

      • jonne@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Everywhere but in this Duchy, it goes to the crown (which, confusingly, means the treasury, not the King). In this case, it goes to a foundation run by the Palace, and they decide what to do with it (which already is a problem, Parliament should be deciding what to do with the money). And some of that money is used to renovate properties owned by the King (and from which he personally collects rent).

        The Royal family is already fabulously wealthy, they get a stipend from the state, and on top of that you want them to be able to use money that should be going to the treasury to maintain their rental properties?

      • rammer@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’d say renovating properties rented by Charles for his private gain. I’d that is more than incidental. Also aren’t those properties part of his private wealth and not the crown’s?