On 2009-07-29 15:26:05 +0100, ®óñ© © ²°¹°-°¹ said:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 14:11:39 +0100, Sacha wrote:

In Prince Charles case it could be because he pays an enormous staff to do his
gardening and has the bill paid by the state.

Martin, come now, that's nonsense. Like all Princes of Wales, his
income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall and he isn't on the Civil List,
so gets nothing from the State, other than the expenses he incurs at
the behest of the government of the day.

I think you'll find that your statement is not entirely correct.

Almost £2million of grant aid went on a Clarence House refit, paid by
the taxpayer in 2002.

He is estimated to have received £3 million from the taxpayer in 2002
and I don't suppose he's milking the system for much less these days.

Please see :-

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...0m-542293.html

I

think your choice of words indicates your preferences. I can't take
seriously a newspaper article like that seriously especially one which
was written in 2003 when Clarence House was being worked on and which
has such a biased agenda. Clarence House doesn't belong to the
prince and it hadn't been 'renovated' since the Queen Mother moved
there in the 1950s. I suppose you could say that our heir to the
throne should do his official entertaining in a house that hasn't been
updated for over 50 years but for myself, I don't think it's very good
for Britain's image!
The point was and remains that he spends his own income on Highgrove
which IS his house and that the maintenace of royal official buildings
is not his personal responsibility any more than Buckingham Palace is
the Queen's. Nobody would expect a managing director or CEO to pay out
of their own pocket for either travel expenses or official habitation
expenses.

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.com
Shrubs & perennials. Tender & exotics.
South Devon