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

We did get rid of the monarchy. Then brought it back.

What’s invasion got to do with it? Seems a bit unpleasant to me: get invaded and get ahead. Yes, I’m sure Ukrainians would agree.

TBH I would rather my money went to the Crown or a Duchy than the wasters and chiselers in politics. Of all parties.

(It won’t because I made a will, and anyway the intestacy rules would have distributed my money because I have family. The number of true bona vacantia estates is tiny.)

No Cromwell was 100 year too early!

I wasn’t clear re invasion . Of course no one wanted it !
Invasion and war upend the society , force change and in Europe led to codification of the constitution
That’s what I meant .

Here we are with royalists justifying Charlie picking the pockets of the dead based on a decree from 1265 !

Thanks.

The problem with these issues is when I look at the corrupt, venal, xenophobic bastards with the actual power and contrast them with the entitled, antiquated but ultimately mostly harmless royals I both don’t really mind if one more twat gets a bit richer while those with lawmaking privileges starve another person on benefits to death or advocate shooting at a desperate refugee in a boat. There’s a lot of the former and the latter going around and only one of them is directly harming people. What’s more, only the powerful people can actually change the law to deprive the monarch of their privilege. There’s a reason they get symbolically shut out of parliament every year.

I believe Prince Charles is in the driving seat now is he not? There have been lots of muttering about slimming things down but not much action as far as I know?

All I have heard is that he has sold the late Queen’s racehorses and moved part of the breeding programme for highland ponies down south. What else has he done? We’ve all had to tighten our belts what about him?

It’s not as if he hadn’t had time to prepare … his reign imho should be like a new government coming to power … they know what they want to achieve and start putting it in to practice from day one! What is he waiting for?

No. The monarch hasn’t had any real power since at most the early 1800s. They are there to be a figurehead, to nod to decisions made my ministers, and to do symbolic things. Their day job is to project soft power, open hospitals and shake hands with people. Yes, they can advise and possibly subtly influence but politicians are going to do what they want. I’m sorry, but it’s like an abusive relationship. Once someone got their head cut off the power balance wasn’t going to be the same, was it.

Totally agree @Delugeafterdeluge He's been a Monarch in waiting for a very long time. And there is no doubt he has been running the show for a great number of years before the Queen died, there is no way a 96 yo woman could be undertaking all the Monarch functions, she was just the face of it. Although of course, she would have the final say, I get that.

So why on earth Charles didn't put some plans of change in place ready for the eventful day, god alone knows. Something tells me he wants everything to carry on as it did. He wants this moment of King fame.

There is no tightening of belts, in fact he applied for a 45% rise in the SG. What does that tell us...

Charles believes he should have ALL of the proceeds from the Duchys
He was the one behind the scenes pushing for the change from the civil list to Sovereign grant ( as we have now )
The greatest advantage the ‘royals’ gain fro the SG is not the vast increase in money they can rake in but rather that they don’t have to have any increases debated .
Its all done behind closed doors
Hence easier to get your daily propaganda accepted

@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau

In my opinion you are wrong to describe the ‘royals’ as ‘ antiquated but mostly harmless’
I don’t view that family as mostly harmless at all
I don’t mean their racism or their greed, hateful though both of those are
I mean the pedophiles they consort with and protect
Whataboutery re politicians does nothing to diminish what the Windsors do .

The queen protected Andrew and put him beside her to be photographed. The ‘title’ removal was a sop .
Many many decent people saw them for what they are then

I disagree that, in KC's situation (ie if we were a privileged billionaire), we would act like him - using these assets and inheritance cash to generate a private income.

Charles could receive any bona vacantia and then pass it on, untouched, to either charity or the government. There's nothing stopping him - he is one of the most powerful people on the planet. He might not be able to change British law but he can choose how to act in some situations. In this case he is making money from other people's assets. That is entirely his choice. This is not just happening by default; a very tangled, opaque, clever web has been weaved to ensure financial gain.

I would argue that the people living in both Duchys are having their human rights abused when Charles pockets their bona vacantia estates .

People living in the rest of the country ( not living in either Duchy ) and in Scotland Wales and Northen Ireland are not at risk of being subject to this medieval nonsense .
Something as basic as what happens to your estate should be standardised across the uk

I would argue that the people living in both Duchys are having their human rights abused 😆

I would argue that the people living in both Duchys are having their human rights abused when Charles pockets their bona vacantia estates .

Slight problem with that though. Up until the point that these people die, they can completely avoid the issue. And once they die, they can no longer bring a claim that their human rights have been abused.

They are not being protected by the state .

Charles cant do this in Scotland .
He can’t do this in most of England
But becasue if decree in 1265 Chalres can pick their pockets ?
He could easily pass on this and agree to the state taking control
He doesn’t

And it is not the case that all rights cease at death

The point is this ridiculous greedy practice could easily be stopped .

And it is not the case that all rights cease at death

You are quite correct - your Executor can bring claims on your behalf. If you have a will and have appointed one.

Your executor can bring claims on behalf of your estate. You can’t have your human rights abused if you’re dead because you are in fact dead.

I said not all rights cease to exist when someone dies
Medical confidentiality, treatment of remains etc all all covered by laws . It’s not the case that the deceased have no rights .

My point about human rights is not referring to post mortal clearly .
I was musing on the fact that due to an accident of location some estates are subject to a decree from the 13th century with no legal documentation , as opposed to the rest of the uk who follow modern UK law
That is the human rights difference I was referring to
And it is not without precedent.
Homeowners in the Duchy have taken action due to the fact that they are banned from buying their freehold because Charles won’t let them .
They lost but haven’t given up and these issues won’t go away

The ‘royals’ ensure that the law of the land doesn’t apply to the Duchy
This is the general issue I was referring to . The law of the land doesn’t apply in the Duchys because Charles doesn’t want it to .
That’s a rights issue

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

Medical confidentiality, treatment of remains etc all all covered by laws

Those aren’t enforced by the deceased though. They are enforced by regulatory and law enforcement agencies.

You’re also a bit hazy on the difference between legal rights and human rights. The most fundamental human right is to life. As far as I’m aware there are no human rights which continue after death.

Property rights pass to an estate. Personal rights don’t.

The medical confidentiality is not law. It’s GMC rules. The personal remains provisions are a form of property law, but are really irrelevant anyway: you can dig up a Viking if you want, with the proper authorisation. Graves are moved all the time.

As to freeholds, I can hold the strongest freehold I like but it’s still subject to, for example, compulsory purchase. The state will always hold the trump card.

As I said above, I’d rather the trump was held by the Crown, not by some grubby little chancer who’s leading the Labour or Tory parties at any particular time and has no interest in anything beyond their term of office.

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.

Charles isn't a helpless victim of 'the system'

He has the capacity to change any element he doesn't like.

In this instance he has consciously chosen not to.

Disgraceful.

I repeat - I wasn’t suggesting that human rights continue after death but I suspect you realise that .
I was comparing the situations of supposedly equal citizens based on who is subject to Charles whim and who isn’t

And I’ve just checked and surprise surprise this bona vacantia claim
is not so ancient .
The ‘royals ‘ have been taking the properties since the 17th but on what basis ? They had the law created in 1925! ( didnt one of the kings raid the bona vacantia coffers of million around that time ?)

From republic’s website:

Despite what has been claimed, this is not an “ancient right” but has only existed in this form since 1925 (see the s.57(2) Administration of Estates Act 1925 for details). The Duchy previously claimed the right since the 17th century, although the fact it was written into law in the 20th century suggests the claim was ambiguous. The Duchy acquired powers in relation to the administration of dissolved companies as part of Bona Vacantia as recently as 2006 by s.1012(1) Companies Act 2006 (presumably by use of veto powers

Because legislation often codifies existing law, for convenience, rather than create it…

OK, oh my goodness, this is getting ridiculous.
I never said Charles was a victim. If you’d like to give me one power he can actually exercise in practice without losing the status he’s grown up with - not the powers he has on paper, the ones he can exercise IN PRACTICE beyond the ones every rich person has to exploit every loophole there is to benefit themselves, knock yourself out.