Prince Charles gets an extra £232,000 from public
The Duke of Cornwall's funding from the taxpayer increased by 11% during the last financial year, official accounts showed.
Prince Charles's income from grants-in-aid and Government rose from £1,962,000 to £2,194,000, an increase of £232,000 during 2011/12.
-
He also saw his private funding from the Duchy of Cornwall go up by 3% to £18.3 million.
The Prince's tax bill rose marginally from £4,398,000 to £4,496,000.
like our facebook page to win a free bottle of Harrods champagne...
View detailshttps://www.facebook.com/SimonTurnerShowrooms?ref=hl
Contact: 01395 200611
Valid until: Saturday, November 30 2013
Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall travelled almost 48,000 miles to and from official engagements at home and abroad. Spending on official travel by air and rail came to £1,318,000 – up £238,000, or 22%, from the previous financial year.
The accounts cover the Duchess of Cambridge's first full year as a member of the Royal Family, but the increased cost was described as "fairly marginal" by a royal source.
Charles, through his private Duchy income, funds much of the official work of his sons, William and Harry, and wife Camilla. It is thought very little extra outlay has been needed for Kate since her wedding at Westminster Abbey in April last year. Any additional costs to the taxpayer for the new member of Royal Family would have been incurred under grants-in-aid, which pay for official travel by rail and air, communication support and the upkeep of Clarence House. There has also been no need to find additional property for the Duchess.
Kate has ignited huge interest in the monarchy and her choice of outfits has made her a fashion-leader. There has been speculation that she spends tens of thousands on dresses for official functions, but a breakdown of her clothing costs was not included in the accounts released yesterday, only coming under expenditure for official duties and charitable activities – £9,831,000 up from £9,444,000.
Charles, as the groom's father, contributed towards the costs of the royal wedding, along with the Queen and Kate's parents, Michael and Carole Middleton. It is believed the money provided by the families ran into the low hundreds of thousands of pounds.
This figure has also not been released, but is included in the accounts under the unofficial expenditure costs, which totalled £2,609,000, up from £2,539,000 the previous year.
Spending on official travel paid for through grant-in-aid from the Government rose during the financial year from £1.1 million to £1.3 million.
Clarence House said there were a number of reasons for the rise, including more overseas visits by the Prince and the Duchess, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and Prince Harry, longer distances travelled during those visits, and the inclusion of part of the costs of a spring tour in 2011 to Portugal, Spain and Morocco.
Graham Smith, chief executive of the campaigning group Republic, said the Government should bring royal spending under proper control. He said: "At a time when the country is facing sweeping cuts to public spending, Charles Windsor wilfully helps himself to whatever travel funds he wants or feels he needs. This 'something-for-nothing' culture in the Royal Household must end."
Comments
by Karen362
Tuesday, July 03 2012, 1:07PM
“I'm glad the Duchy is turning a profit these days. But couldn't the future Princess Dowager make do with the clothes she has? Particularly since she has the kind of pleasing figure that would look good in just about anything. A £100K annual dress budget is clearly far too much and sends out completely the wrong message in these austere times. Aren't her and Wills supposed to be more 'normal' and representative of the rest of us plebs, after all?”
by CornishPirate
Tuesday, July 03 2012, 8:35AM
“@m_dalston "I am afraid it is the least of two evils".
Oh ok, that makes it alright then. We'll just settle for the lesser of two evils!”
by m_dalston
Monday, July 02 2012, 7:40PM
“You can bash the royals and bemoan the fact that on the face of it they cost us 69p a year - but it has been calculated time and again that a republic is far more expensive to run. Tax money would simply end up with a select set of business people instead of a set of royals and believe me, they are far better in costing the taxpayer money then the royals ever could be. It has also been proven that the Monarchy plc actually generates more income through tourism & the fact that monarchies are seen to be more stable economies for investment then they cost us. I am afraid it is the least of two evils.”
by CornishPirate
Monday, July 02 2012, 3:37PM
“HYPOCRITICAL B@STARDS the lot of them! Talking about austerity measures while they live a life of luxury paid for by us the people. Public spending on health care, education, police is being cut all the time, no jobs, businesses shutting down, people being made redundant... All the while this ugly old leech is earning over £million a year off of us! And this is only ONE MEMBER of the royal family
@2ladybugs... It doesn't matter how much it is per person. I don't begrudge 69p even if that IS the amount, the problem is that they WASTE that cumulative amount every year. If I setup an online robbery that stole 50p from every persons bank account in the UK, and lived a life of luxury - would that be OK because it was ONLY 50p? Of course not!
It may only be 69p but wouldn't you rather that went on improving our health care services, or education? Maybe we could all pay 69p a year to put a roof over the head of our homeless countrymen? Or should we carry on paying for these guys to have private jets, thousand pound dresses, million pound parties?
We are FORCED to have to pay for these peoples elaborate lifestyles, with no choice. I agree with what others have said - paying towards the royal family should be like a voluntary charity donation. If you support it, you can pay whatever you can afford/want. But if you don't support it - you don't have to pay anything. Lets see how well the Royal Family do then!?”
by arthur_p
Monday, July 02 2012, 2:58PM
“A lot of the anti-Charles ticks are around the same number. All of them! That doesn't usually happen on this site.
I sense someone has been calling their friends and asking them to come on here.Naughty.”
by pogle300
Monday, July 02 2012, 11:21AM
“The reason why he has had an increase is because they have had far more public engagements this year than usual being diamond jubilee year. As for becoming a republic you only have to look at past and present examples of those regimes to see how dull and pointless they are.
God Save the Queen!”
by nicold
Monday, July 02 2012, 11:04AM
“"I think we should be a republic then we'd get elected heads of state like:
George W Bush
Robert Mugabe
Silvio Berlusconi
Hitler (loosely elected)"
We're not doing too badly ourselves with David Mr U-Turn Cameron! lol”
by Vinnie_Gar
Sunday, July 01 2012, 8:53PM
“I think we should be a republic then we'd get elected heads of state like:
George W Bush
Robert Mugabe
Silvio Berlusconi
Hitler (loosely elected)
We haven't got the best system but it's better than most. Even the aussies voted against being a full republic.”
by Carolynpig
Sunday, July 01 2012, 8:52PM
“people who like the monarchy should opt into a tax scheme to pay for all their vast expenses, so that the rest of us can be spared from supporting these useless parasites”
by notimejeff
Sunday, July 01 2012, 12:00PM
“For a democratic alternative to monarchy visit republic.org.uk. We are calling for the Duchy of Cornwall to be abolished, given that it is not Charles' personal private property, and the income from it to be paid directly to the Treasury for use on public services.”