Duchy of Lancaster Theft

[Roussette]

Just when I thought I could not be more taken aback at some of the practices undertaken by our Monarchy, and the sheer greed.

I then read this article. Bottom line.... anyone who dies intestate in Lancashire, and parts of Merseyside, Grtr Manchester, Cheshire and Cumbria... their assets are scooped up by the Duchy of Lancaster who has collected more than £60M over the last 10 years. Not charity as is the norm.. but into the pocket of our King You need to read the article to see what he actually does with it and how it benefits his personal income.

The article explains it well and will answer any questions and queries about it.

Someone yesterday accused me of 'despising' the RF. I disagreed but I am beginning to wonder if that poster was right. Especially when I read something like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/revealed-king-charles-secretly-profiting-from-the-assets-of-dead-citizens?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

Charles jumped to try to defuse the situation so he clearly is rattled

Rattled, or resentful that once again the presumptious oiks have failed to "understand him" and his intentions?

I wouldn't worry anyway; all it's likely to spark is further drives to put any other possible scandals beyond public knowledge

My brother died intestate at a young age. In Scottish law I inherited half his estate (not a small amount either). My parents were furious since none of us were getting on very well at the time. It helped us as a family even though I thought of it as blood money. Life is complicated and difficult as is death. If all this thread does is encourage people to make a will then that's good.

But she has a next of kin.

I do have an issue with a feudal relic that the royals themselves could have put to bed decades ago by voluntarily returning the money to the public purse

It's often argued they did, with the 1760 ceding of crown estates in return for the Civil List

Trouble is the duchies weren't included in this, for hugely complicated reasons which involved them being called a separate entity, and as usual were worked out to favour the family

But she has a next of kin

Of course in her case, right now she does. You never know what can happen though and it would still be preferable to have a will.

Writing your own will is risky, both in keeping it somewhere easily found by the right people, and writing it in a way that makes it valid.

but again, the focus of the thread is about the law that allows this and the monarch, both former and present, lying about the charity aspect of the duchy of Lancaster.

Seems like you’d help her procure one if it’s important enough.

I did…

Totally agree.

And I hope the articles on this all over the media, will also do that too.

I don’t think anyone is defending it. It’s just ineffective to criticise it, clutch your pearls and go about your day. The current government profit from the arrangements that exist and will not change them in a month of Sundays.

Yes got and media turn the public against private LLs while hailing William for saying ending homelessness is his life's work. His father is the largest land owner in the UK. He could build low cost housing for rent only to the neediest and this will indirectly help with housing and the property market generally.

how do you know that I can? seriously, stop being so rude in defence of your precious royal family.

Again with the rude comments about other posters. is there any need for it? nobody is clutching pearls, we are concerned about a law that once again benefits the billionaire royal family and this is a forum, where things like this get discussed. It's how people become aware, and sometimes that awareness and wider discussion changes laws.

instead they created a 'trust' registered as a charity, gave this money they collected from unclaimed assets to this trust, then the trust bought their properties from them and rent them out to local people and agriculture workers and they get to praise themselves for 'providing the community with affordable housing through a charity'. Its amazing that they get away with ti and people are actually having a go at people who don't write a will instead!

It's an excellent example of sealioning to be honest!

Let's not discuss why Charles is using dead people's money for himself but "look over there" at blaming the ignorant plebs for not having a will.

Would be interesting to know how many people in the UK don't have a will (off to google)

I'm pretty on the fence about the RF although have never really "liked" Charles, but the more I read about them the more inclined to get rid of them.

n a study by IRN Legal Reports and reported today in Today's Wills and Probate, reports that only 35% of UK adults has made a will. The percentage is even lower in Yorkshire, where only 28% of adults have made a will.

Interesting ... so one could guess that most of mumsnet don't have a will!!

Anyway less of the will talk and back onto the initial post!

I apologise if I’ve caused offence, that was 100% not my intention. Perhaps I should have been clear that a lot of replies are coming across as being angry at King Charles personally when the system is the problem. So we’re in violent agreement. I’m also frustrated with the fact that those laws and that system are convoluted and opaque and almost nobody has the luxury of being taught how and why, which is a privilege you need to fight it.

Perhaps I should have been clear that a lot of replies are coming across as being angry at King Charles personally when the system is the problem.

It's twofold, it's both the system, which he could veto a change on if parliament tried btw, and the fact they have lied about how it's been used. So the anger is absolutely justified. Did you read everything thats been said about the jubilee trust? and the housing trust? Because both benefit them and their assets.

a lot of replies are coming across as being angry at King Charles personally when the system is the problem

But the whole point is... he can change things. I mean.. he can lobby to change laws that don't suit him and his family (as the Queen did ... Since 1967, exemptions have been written into more than 160 British laws to grant sweeping immunity to the late Queen in her capacity as monarch. Now, these exemptions have been transferred to King Charles.)

If he wanted to do something he could. He doesn't want to.

(here is just a selection of what laws don't apply to him)
Currently, more than 30 different laws bar the police from entering private royal estates without the sovereign’s permission to investigate suspected crimes. So... if a crime is committed on one of the 27 properties of the Crown, the Police cannot come onto the estate without Charles's permission. Charles is also exempt from punishment over wildlife offenses, environmental pollution, and other green crimes—a kind of legal immunity given to no other private landowner in the U.K.

He and other members of the RF (not sure which ones) can drive without a driving licence as fast as they like.
And don't get me started on taxes, and racial, ethnic and sexual equality laws.

Sorry to divert. Rant over.

Shoving the millions into more ethical investments doesn't cut it for me...

You are quite right @Iwantcakeeveryday and @Roussette
I mean the ‘royals’ can and have walked away completely
Nevermind all the making sure that laws they don’t like don’t apply to
them .
The Windsors are under scrutiny now mainly due to social media . They exclude themselves from the Freedom of Information Act when it regards anything of real substance but people talk . And leak .
@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau , if you look up the ‘last imperial
monarchy ‘ document it is authored by Norman Baker and the Constitution Society
Norman Baker is a privy counsellor and knows the system backwards

So, based on those statistics (that don't surprise me in the slightest) and at the risk of continuing to be repetitive and boring .... 'get a will' 😊

Anyway, I've tried to do my public service bit so I'll leave you all to it and bid you all a good day👋

Of course, and I truly do apologise if I’ve put my point across badly - it does seem as if I have. My main argument is that the entire system and particularly the people who have actual powers - that’s the Tory government - need to change to stop the Royals and others (Russian oligarchs anyone?) being able to take advantage of the system in the first place. Of course the privileges for Royalty are objectionable and shouldn’t exist in the modern world, but they do. Can you honestly say that in Charles’ place, with his upbringing and his opportunities to wring money out of everything, you’d not take advantage of it? Hats off to you if so, but you’d be a vanishingly rare specimen. We live in a country where millionaires can arrange trust funds in the Bahamas or the Cayman Islands to ensure they don’t have to pay taxes, and London is one of the world’s biggest tax havens. None of those people - and even the top one percent of several billion is a LOT of people - have any compunction. The world’s laws around wealth and the UK’s laws around monarchy are screwed up. Most humans would take advantage of it.

Re being a privy counsellor - you don’t know the origins and basis of that role? And he’s just nobly doing his public duty?

Shoving the millions into more ethical investments doesn't cut it for me...

That was a weird announcement wasn't it? It doesn't resolve the issues at all!

I am amused by those who are so concerned with a frivolous book of gossip, one of many written about the royal family, but don't give a toss about this. Its immoral to talk about your own family ( which they all do ) but its not immoral for the King to take this kind of money to pay for his private properties apparently.... honestly this country is just mental when it comes to the royals.

Interestingly in the ‘last imperial monarchy ‘ Baker posits that the feudal monarchy system we labour under in the UK has only survived because being an island we haven’t suffered a major invasion since the Normans

European countries got rid of their monarchies and those that kept them ensure they swear allegiance to the people and the state
Here we swear allegiance to the Windsors

Our reforms are well overdue

I agree with this. And parties in power are cowards, the Monarchy and how it operates is a political hot potato and no one will touch it.

@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau of I know the origin and I’m surprised too that he is still a privy counsellor .
Id have to check - maybe he isnt

I kn ow he was a monarchist, became an Mp , became a privy counsellor and as a result of what he learnt became a campaigning Republican !