Prince Charles makes flood donation....

Heliospherez · 26 Aug 2007 at 22:55

Just thought I would throw this in the works.....

Just found out last week that my best mates grandad had passed away

He lost most of his house / posessions etc in the flods around Swindon.........he was 85 (a good innings by most standards) He had previously survived the 2nd world war (shot twice) - had a lung removed (after smoking 80fags a day - and docs giving him 3 years to live - 20 years ago). Unfortunately he died from an infection brought on by his house getting flooded by sewage from this summers floods.

Now, according to the many media reports, HRH Charlie has submitted an undisclosed sum of money to help the needy people of the UK.....

Considering he is almost the 2nd in charge of this wonderful kingdom - and you could "almost" consider it a national problem - do you think he could offer a bit more of his millions to help out ?

Sorry if I am being a bit vague here, but from what i remember the royal travel bill alone was £37.4m last year, and HRH charlie earned well over 20 million. So why does he feel the need to give so little to the people in the affected areas, and keep the amount quiet ?

Stolly · 26 Aug 2007 at 22:57

If its undisclosed, how do you know its small amount ?

HangTime · 26 Aug 2007 at 22:58

divosuk said:
why does he feel the need to give so little to the people in the affected areas, and keep the amount quiet ?

If the donation is undisclosed, how do you know it is 'so little'?

jezsoup · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:02

Dito comments above. He had no need to give money, but he did. Thats good enough.

TrUz · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:03

I seriously doubt he would have donated a small amount to be honest. And as said, how do you know it is a small amount?

TrUz

[TW]Fox · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:03

a) You have no idea if it was a small sum
b) We live in a developed company where home contents and buildings insurance is easily available

Why should the taxpayer/other people have to fund the mistakes of those who did not take out insurance?

Defcon5 · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:05

[TW]Fox;9977108 said:
a) You have no idea if it was a small sum
b) We live in a developed company where home contents and buildings insurance is easily available

Why should the taxpayer/other people have to fund the mistakes of those who did not take out insurance?

Spot on

Moredhel · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:06

[TW]Fox;9977108 said:
a) You have no idea if it was a small sum
b) We live in a developed company where home contents and buildings insurance is easily available

Why should the taxpayer/other people have to fund the mistakes of those who did not take out insurance?

Dunn about you, but I live in a country not a company...

Defcon5 · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:07

Moredhel said:
Dunn about you, but I live in a country not a company...

Thats what they want you to think

HangTime · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:09

jezsoup said:
Dito comments above. He had no need to give money, but he did. Thats good enough.

I agree with this as a general philosophy towards philanthropists. People like to stick the boot in to the likes of Bill Gates, saying "yeah so he's given away £xBn, but he still has £xxBn in assets, tight get!".

Try telling that to the undouted thousands of people in the third world who have benefited from his generousity. The question should not be 'Could he have done more?', it should be 'Has what he has done helped anyone?'.

Bottom line: If Bill Gates donated 1% of his wealth to charity, it would be of more benefit than most people donating 100% of theirs. Which do you think the people who don't know where their next meal is coming from would prefer?

Redrum · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:09

For a start, he is not the second in charge. This country is run by a political government. The monarch has minimal involvement. Secondly, what have the floods got to do with him? There are many problems in this country that could be at least partially helped by lots of money being thrown at them. If he chooses to help financially towards any of these, then great, but I don’t think he has any more of an obligation to do that than any other person with lots of money.

Stolly · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:22

I wonder what percentage of this yearly income the OP has donated to charity this year ?

Dr House · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:35

1 - sorry for your loss.
2 - what a ******* supid comment, as others have said you dont know how much he gave, just because someone has money does not meen they have to give it away.

meghatronic · 26 Aug 2007 at 23:58

Also, one of the newspapers published an exposé revealing that the Royals actually generated more money than they spend - and they've made *massive* cuts in the last 20yrs. Plus they pay taxes... so go figure.

More to the point, why hasn't the UK asked for money from the EU Disaster fund - which we pay into every year and have never claimed... and have been eligible many times.

Phog · 27 Aug 2007 at 00:07

£20m? There are lots of people that earn a lot more than that. Where's their donation?