Prince Charles' rising travel costs spark controversy in recession

Jun 23, 2009, 12:52 GMT

   London - The public funds made available to Britain's Prince Charles rose by 25 per cent to 3 million pounds (4.9 million pounds) last year, an increase that sparked immediate controversy Tuesday.

While the prince's office defended the increase, commentators criticized the rise during a time of recession.

   Accounts published Tuesday showed that the cost for travel undertaken by Prince Charles and his wife, the Duchess of Cornwall, rose by 48 per cent to 1.7 million pounds over the past tax year.

   They showed that the prince travelled more than 80,000 kilometres to attend 658 official engagements during 2008/2009.

   However, the bulk of the costs was linked to trips to the Far East and Latin America, undertaken at the request of the government and with environmental protection issues high on the agenda.

   Charles's private income, derived from his Duchy of Cornwall estate, increased by 1 per cent to 16.4 million pounds during the last financial year.

   His tax burden decreased by 10 per cent to 3.1 million pounds in the reporting period.

   His spokesman pointed out that the prince's private expenditure dropped by 23 per cent to 1.7 million pounds, linked to his decision to cut back on foreign holidays and reduce staff.

   Campaign group Republic - which is pressing for abolition of the monarchy - called on the government to stop funding the prince's work.

   'In the depths of a recession, Prince Charles is obviously quite capable of making a multi-million pound profit from the Duchy,' Republic spokesman Graham Smith said.

But Michael Peat, the prince's senior aide, said the rise in official travel costs was due to two long-haul trips to the Far East and South America, during which he visited the Galapagos Islands in March this year.

'It's easy to underestimate the importance and success of these tours,' he said, adding that Charles was by 'no means immune' to the recession. 'We are always reviewing all costs the whole time.'