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

I can easily list powers @CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau and I’m very surprised youd need them pointed out.
What a pity arent maintaining your jaded ‘ a pox on all your houses ‘ stance . It was almost convincing .

So we have there old lie ‘ the ‘royals’ have no power’ and you point to the theatre of the doors to parliament being shut .

Hmm except there’s dusty old ‘kings consent’ - they keep that very quiet . No theatre at all . Just the Windsors quietly excluding themselves from 100s and 100s of laws that apply to everyone else.
We know Charles can’t be arrested no matter what he does ( he could stab you live on tv and there’s not a damn thing you could do - it wouldn’t even be a crime)
we know the police can’t enter their private estates ( bought with public money) even to investigate a crime.
We know no one can be arrested even near the monarch ( Andrew clinging
to Elizabeth’s skirts anyone?)

But of course Chatles wouldn’t stab you!
They are mainly interested in filthy lucre and excluding yourself from laws that the rest of us are subject to really helps there .
No that’s ( disgraceful use of) power!

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jul/14/queen-immunity-british-laws-private-property

It seems to me that some posters think.... this is the way it's always been, nothing is going to change or
If you were as rich as him, you'd be doing what he does (no, I don't agree at all, not everyone. Why does he have to be representative of the worst examples of people like this? We are supposed to admire him!) or
He knows no different because of his upbringing. (again, I don't agree. Cycles can be broken)

Here is one example... Charles urged to address tax havens (see link below).

The UK, the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories are collectively responsible for facilitating nearly 40 per cent of the tax revenue losses that countries around the world suffer annually to profit shifting by multinational corporations and to offshore tax evasion by primarily wealthy and powerful individuals. This makes the UK and its network of satellite tax havens the world’s biggest enabler of global tax abuse
And Charles is sovereign over these tax havens

Has he done anything. No. I honestly thought Charles would be different. What a disappointment.

https://taxjustice.net/press/king-charles-urged-to-address-british-tax-havens-in-public-letter/

Sovereign immunity applies in most countries. Heads of state usually have a privileged legal status. There’s nothing special about the UK’s monarch in that respect.

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

Novella4 has summed it up nicely.

I'd add exemption from FOI requests that don't suit the narrative.

So handy when those vexatious plebs start prying.

Sssh - common sense is interfering with other posters' high horses!

You see there’s that accurate but misleading again !
Or should I say just misleading
Yes a head of state may have immunity - but they are still subject to the law ! And that law can and is applied retrospectively
Also heads of state are not given all bills or even a whisper of a bill to have a look at in order to make sure they can remove their family from any bits they don’t like !

It's not about being on a high horse. Surely you can see that?! It's about questioning practices that you think are wrong, like bona vacantia that Charles uses to enrich himself . Which is the subject of the thread.
Don't you ever question anything?

I certainly do! Even if it comes down to a delivery window and no delivery, or a quote being changed after the event! (keep fingers x'd for me, have a delivery window at a house 45 mile round trip away from me later on, arghhhh)

Also, just to note, no other European monarch undertakes this particular practice, Charles is on his own with this.

Yes of course I question things. But I'm fine about this

And I chose the "high horse" language because it seems to me that some posts do not appear to grasp that people have different views on this, and that the difference does not arise from ignorance

I agree that people who live in the affected Duchies need to be well informed, as do those who live elsewhere, about what happens if they have not made a will and no one who would be heir under intestacy rules can be found.

And of course there are people who simply treasure the historic quirks of the country. (And won't get worked up about something that represents less than a rounding margin on public accounts)

thank you for this thread, its been very interesting.
I think most people will find it shocking.
I like KC but this is wrong.

And I chose the "high horse" language because it seems to me that some posts do not appear to grasp that people have different views on this, and that the difference does not arise from ignorance

Oh this made me laugh! its actually the posters who are not happy about this that have had it more than implied they are ignorant on this thread... everybody knows this, just get a will, doh, this isn't a big deal... common knowledge.... stop the pearl clutching.. easy solutions blah blah blah.

For those that don't have an issue with this, you can go back to the Omid thread and bash Harry and Meghan some more for saying bad things about poor old Willy and Kate.... those of us who read this articles and are bothered by this despicable greed will continue to talk about it and would love to do so without the personal remarks. cheers.

Just come across this. Seems notice has been taken -

"However a spokesperson announced a change, stating: “In line with the king’s longstanding support of ethical investing, the Duchy of Lancaster has begun the process of transferring its investment portfolio into ESG funds. This process is expected to be completed by the end of the financial year.”

Not goading or derailing, right?

Oh my goodness.
The pearl clutching comment was mine and was made in a moment of exasperation that my points are being misrepresented. It’s a completely different thing to question something (which I do, I question and criticise to the extent that I have published academic papers, written blogs and asked the Solicitor General in person at a conference about problems I see with the constitution.) I am just both very pedantic and quite pessimistic about the average person’s ability to change law/tradition on their own. I don’t pity Charles but I have sympathy for him bearing in mind his upbringing, and as I’m witnessing a huge tax/inheritance debate play out in my own family and have worked with some REALLY shitty rich clients before I quit the job burnt out and in disgust, I can see a lot of people taking advantage of all the loopholes available to them. That is what rich people do. Work in tax law for six months and then confidently say you wouldn’t take the advantages available to you. I wasn’t saying that existing laws aren’t up to scratch, I wasn’t saying I like or approve of the Royal family and I wish we lived in a true republic, even though the current people in charge are doing a shit job. I’ve merely tried to point out over and over again that the power balance isn’t what most people think it is and that it’s a very human failing, probably one assisted by lawyers, accountants, advisors in this case, to take advantage of your advantages.

That is what rich people do

Correction: it is what some rich people do. Not all. This law though, benefits only one person.

Thats not an excuse for our head of state to lie about what they do with the money and create charities which benefit their private estates.
@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau you're not the only one who made that kind of comment here.

That’s all true @CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau but your clients arent ‘anointed by God ‘ and placed above the law , with every obvious and hidden advantage that entails

Your comparison isn’t valid .

Once again for those that haven't read all the articles: this thread is about the law which allows this, that many people won't know about, and the fact they use the money for their private estates and benefit, not all going to charity as they said.
The thread was never about where he invested the money and that announcement to shift to ethical investments is not what the thread is about nor does it change the collection of these estates and what they do with the money.

I really recommend reading the article @Roussette attached before commenting. There are others also, but the original gives an overview.

@Novella4 they were anointed by being rich. They thought it entitled them to assault women, make vile jokes, basically do anything they wanted at the expense of others. And yes it’s not all rich people, but it’s quite a lot of them. Just like absolute power, absolute money corrupts. I do feel like you’re playing the man not the ball here when all I’m saying is “yes the law allows this, it’s shit, there’s not much we can do about it alone”. And if you think a mumsnet thread will change anything, you’ve got another think coming.
By the way thank you @Roussette for being charitable upthread and appearing to see where I’m coming from. I’ve been interested in the discussion and please keep talking about it. By the way, I expect my papers will have roughly the same impact as your thread so I hope you understand that I’m being more cynical/negative than royalist or snobbish. I definitely don’t think the laws are OK.

And if you think a mumsnet thread will change anything, you’ve got another think coming.

well who on earth thinks that? or even alluded to it?? Bizarre. What it may change is some peoples knowledge of a law not often talked about. Usually people and media in particular, are gossiping about family relationships and clothes, frivolous nonsense, where this actually affects us. The Guardian articles though may change things, certainly it will reach more people than this thread. Highlighting they lied about where the money was going was particularly important.

All you say about certain millionaires may well be true but they are NOT anointed in a ceremony costing millions @CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau .
Charles and Camilla were . And although the ceremony IS pointless to those with eyes to see, the real purpose hasn’t changed since the Middle Ages .
Invoke god to tell the masses that this ordinary individual is somehow above all law .

You are concerned about corruption that is clear . You’d do well to remember that a fish rots from the head .

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 .

Contemporary historians in France estimated that the French Revolution and the 25 years of war and instability that followed it, cost more than 3 million French lives. A small price to pay, Novella seems to be saying? The majority of European monarchs fell after WWI. Shall we consider the actual human costs of that too?

I have always thought the stability in the UK after 1700, in stark contrast to many of its neighbours, has been a very good thing overall.

Way to miss the point @Serenster

If Cromwell had been contemporaneous with Robespierre , we wouldn’t be having this discussion

I’d do well to remember? How patronising can you get? My point is that the power doesn’t lie in the head you think it does but I’m on the cusp of actually giving up on making a nuanced point.

Interesting that the subject of the thread has reached the US media and the two articles I've read are very much not favourable

I think you'll find it is only those who die intestate without any blood relatives.
If you die intestate there is an order of inheritence (the spouse does not get it all, etc), and if you watch 'heir hunters', you'll know that those without any obvious heirs are posted on the Gov website (Bono Vacantia) list. (tho to be fair I do not know whether this applies to the Duchy of Lancaster). Companies like 'heir hunters' actually attempt to trace family members (for a percentage).
Only after a number of years, and no heirs found, then the money goes to the state (or Duchy of Lancaster).
Answer- always make a will, even if it is fairly obvious who would inherit.
And even more so, if you have no family members, and wish it to go to charity.

Very much so milvey and we've posted here lots of times as to why there might not be a Will

you'll know that those without any obvious heirs are posted on the Gov website (Bono Vacantia) list. (tho to be fair I do not know whether this applies to the Duchy of Lancaster)

It doesn't. That's the whole point. It's not published on the dot gov site if you are within either Duchies
Just on the back of The Times 😮.