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

The monarch is part of the state - the very head of it. The person in whose name the whole of government runs.

I know a fair few posters think it shouldn't be. But right now it is.

All unclaimed estates go to the crown - just that they go to different bits of it; King, heir or His Majesty's government.

I understand that. Farrer’s site is explaining who ultimately administers bv estates, geographically. But that doesn’t mean that the estates are only publicised in The Times.

As I said, I’ve no reason to disbelieve the fact of limited publication. I’m just curious about where it came from.

I suppose there’s an argument that heir hunter firms follow up bv estates and will know where to look, but it’s certainly an oddity. And I doubt that the public scours any of the lists wherever they are, and even if they did they wouldn’t be likely to know that a person was an obscure relative.

But it’s an interesting part of the issue nonetheless.

Ask yourself why the ‘royals’ don’t publish online
-They could add to the government website
-They could publish on the own website

yet they don’t

But they are busy making Insta reels and YouTube channels to try to promote themselves

Sure. I’m just trying to find out where information about the publication policy came from.

I am aware. Thats what the discussion is about, where it goes in different parts of England.

Again...

its about the fact it shouldn't be going to the former Queen and now King for personal use, or any use

There is a moral objection to him receiving it, and there is the fact THEY LIED about what they did with it, creating 'charities' which benefit them and their personal assets. Taxes are collected on behalf of 'the crown' but it doesn't all go to the monarch does it!

It was in The Guardian, I also found heir hunters and lawyers discussing it online, you can probably search for it. They do not, on their lawyers site or on the Duchies sites, state where they publish it. I have asked their lawyers directly so I can let you know.

Doesn't it speak for itself if we cant find it?

Yes.

On the back of this thread I've taken a look at Duchy of Cornwall material to see what's been going on there.

Shockingly enough it's just the investment income on the BV estates that is distributed to charity although with the usual weasel words the implication on the website is that the lot is turned over. It appears Charles (and now Willy) are sitting on the capital 😡

Bona Vacantia and the Duke of Cornwall's Benevolent Fund | The Duchy of Cornwall

charity-search (charitycommission.gov.uk)

Thank you for this. I would be curious to know.

My parents who'd be a hundred and something now, used to read the Obituaries in the local paper every Friday!

That was the way it was back then.
Times... they have a'changed. The monarchy institution hasn't, it seems.

@CathyorClaire

Gosh... there is this on there.. You can find full guidance on discretionary payments from this website with a clicky link.

Up comes 404 Error This Page Cannot Be Found.

I suppose if you have a webpage that looks like parchment with a fancy shield at the top and talk about a private estate established in 1337, you get away with it!

Incidentally... if it's 'private' why are deceased people's estates going to it... just a thought

I clicked through a couple of other links
This amused me..
Does the Duke or Duchy of Cornwall pay capital gains tax?The Prince pays capital gains tax but not in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall because he does not receive the capital gains (as he is not entitled to the capital assets).

Call me stupid but didn't William receive £6M for the time he has been in charge of it, and it goes up to £21M per year (what Charles received)

Incidentally... if it's 'private' why are deceased people's estates going to it... just a thought”

yep .
Private when it suits them , public when it suits them

Up comes 404 Error This Page Cannot Be Found.

That seems to go to what was a government website 😕

I'm just wondering what the argument is for keeping the entire amount invested when we've always been led to believe that while a deduction is made in case of claims the rest was turned over to charity.

@Roussette

Oh it has changed - buying bots , insta reels etc -all needed to try to remain popular

But when it comes to giving the taxpayer any information -‘
what’s that you say ? internet ? We are still in the 13th century you know ! A venerable institution and we nothing of the modern world ‘

This absolutely. I'm just taken aback they call it a 'private estate' at the top but willingly take millions from it and no CGT.

The Duchy audits its own accounts and there is no right of access for
the National Audit Office
In 1936 a select committee was trying to investigate and a Duchy memo was uncovered
“What is essential is to keep out audit by the Auditor General ( National audit office)”
Another investigation in 2005 and the head of the National Audit Office asked to look at the Duchy books as part of his duty to parliament . Silence .

If the Duchy is public is should absorbed into the Crown Estates and all income goes to the Treasury
If it’s private than all the tax exemptions and immunity generally should cease

All above is taken ( edited) from ‘And what do you do ?’ p183 and 184

I hope I’m not derailing here but it goes some way to explaining how the ‘royals’ get away with misleading the public re the money they pocket .

No derailing Novella. We're talking about the Duchies. And it's interesting and gobsmacking all at the same time...

Yes. From the Duchy website
Why isn’t the Duchy of Cornwall audited by the National Audit Office?The Duchy of Cornwall is not audited by the National Audit Office because it is a private estate rather than a publicly owned entity. It is, however, audited by independent external auditors

Hang on a minute... it's private for this purpose then. Why isn't it taxed like a private estate if so?

They're like the worst kind of benefit scroungers. We pay for the royal households through the sovereign grant, some people pay via unclaimed estates for their own private properties which are deemed 'heritage' enough for them to claim that, and the rest are properties they can sell to their own charities which use funds yet again from unclaimed estates to maintain them. they don't pay for fucking anything! Why the hell is anyone concerned with the nonsense soap opera around their personal relationships when this shit, this ripping off of the public to the tune of millions and millions is going on!?!!?? They're distracting you on purpose!!

@Roussette that is unfortunately a normal and common tax dodge among ultra-rich people, with I imagine several extra layers due to him being king, but it’s based on tax law. If you’re the beneficiary, you receive The benefits and don’t technically own the asset. I imagine that’s what’s at play. The older the trust document, the more deferential and serving the monarchy it’ll be.

I can imagine Cecile! Why people look up to them and revere them, god alone knows. IwantCake has nailed it!

If this was just well heeled rich people tax dodging, we can write to our MP, we can vote accordingly, we can march in the streets if we were so inclined (well... we used to be able to!) but
this is all above what an ordinary joe can protest against. They've got it all sewn up.

Yes @Roussette and every now and then- or quite often in recent times- they'll throw one of their own to the public to persecute, pick at and torment over nonsense... a lot of the public quite enjoy it and it keeps them busy and attention diverted.

A quick google says where there’s no will and no surviving relatives the estate passes to the CROWN. It does not mention Lancashire or any particular region.

On top of that, it says the treasury solicitor will deal with the estate (which I am assuming we pay for). This just gets better.

Things like this make me think that Harry and Meghan are being paid millions upon millions to secretly work for the Royal Family, pulling attention away from them. Something coming out about how we gain our wealth? Quick Harry, get on the phone to Scobie! The most annoying thing is that they can get away with anything and they know it. The institutions that are supposed to protect us from the excesses of one or other part of our governing system just do not provide any scrutiny at all. Can you imagine any of our press asking the Late Queen at COP22 why, if she was so concerned about people 'saying not doing' when it came to climate change why her family 'says' such a lot but 'does' so little to curb their own rampant consumption? What is the point of them shaking hands with hospital staff when the Royals could do far more good by not tax avoiding at every opportunity? No one directly questions them or scrutinises them at all. That's what the press is for, butvthey all fawn and forelock tug away when faced with anything to do with the RF.

No, I’m not being provocative (but I find your saying so to be quite…)

I suspect I know more about broken family relationships than the average person would ever even read about in a lifetime. And yet, I don’t think anyone owes me anything. Nice to have and all, but I’d feel pretty weird if some distant family member died alone and I benefited from it.

If you care to, please explain why you feel great Aunt Mavis’ chipped tea set and the £574.38 left in her account when she died alone belongs to her estranged family at all? Especially distant family who didn’t keep in touch and maybe didn’t even know her. Complete strangers in so many cases.

I just don’t think like that. It’s not some moral imperative that you or I should be given what once belonged to someone related to us by blood who we never saw. Is there some common good in that?

Again, there is no victim here.