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

And “go through this”?

What heck does that even mean? Go through “losing” something that was never yours and you didn’t know about? It just sounds so greedy!

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?

If you care to, please explain why Aunt Mavis's meagre savings and chipped tea set should go to an Organisation ostensibly for repairs and maintenance of properties that provides an income stream for a double billionaire?

Aunt Mavis's family might be estranged for a reason, who knows, but there is common good in my book that it ends up with family as opposed to Charles.

It takes a lot of Aunt Mavis's to make up the £60million already received, doesn't it...

I’ve already said that in my book there may be a bad guy, but I don’t believe there is a victim.

You seem to feel that simply by the nature of blood someone deserves to be handed something another person earned, regardless of the wishes of the deceased. I don’t. You seem to assume the people losing out are good and deserving people, who just “lost touch” with Mavis for no reason. And surely she’d want them to have it. I don’t.

I’m not seeing a big difference between your attitude toward this and what is actually happening. It’s going to the Duchy which apparently benefits KC because it has been in his family for centuries.

My attitude? What does that mean. I am just responding to one of your posts.

If you read all the links put on here, you will see that a some of these deceased people's estates end up with Charles. There are no 'wishes of the deceased'. That's the whole problem. As has been covered endlessly on here, there may well be reasons why there isn't a Will.

I'm afraid I cannot understand your reasoning in the slightest so maybe it's best if we leave it there? I think my post before this covered it for me.

Yes, the attitude that estranged family members who were not bequeathed anything and were not aware that a blood relative passed away should benefit financially from the death and are somehow “going through” something because they weren’t handed whatever remained.

You don’t have to reply any further to my posts, of course. If that’s what you mean by “end it”.

I will gently suggest you go and do some more research. You're completely wrong.

im surprised that some people thinks this is ok.
I thought there would be an out cry when this went public as its so wrong. one of the richest families in the world should not be doing this.

'going through' means... searching or undergoing an experience. I have no idea what point you are trying to make. I am going through my knicker drawer at the moment! And chucking. Doesn't mean anything!

Maybe change the word 'attitude'... it sounds like a Mother talking to a child!

You can pick one that suits.

Similar words
From Oxford Languages
noun

point of view
view
viewpoint
vantage
point
frame of mind
way of thinking
way of looking at things
school of thought
outlook
angle
slant
perspective
reaction
stance
standpoint
position
inclination
orientation
approach
opinion
ideas
belief
convictions
feelings
sentiments
persuasion
thoughts
thinking
interpretation

and again

SYNONYMS FOR
go through

• experience
• suffer
• survive
• undergo
• withstand
• bear
• brave
• support
• swallow
• tolerate

If you didn't mean it in as some type of suffering then I misunderstood you. That is most commonly how the phrase "going through" is used by those around me.

What is the point on this thread of you picking two words out of my very many posts to criticise me about? When I have explained what I meant by those two words.

Let me rephrase it in a way that might placate you as my knicker sorting obviously didn't suit!

I am not sure whether you are being serious or not. So.. just keep in touch with relatives and bingo you won't ENCOUNTER this, and if you did lose touch, your fault, it should go to Charles.

I hope you're happy with that and we can drop it now, and just get on with the thread.

Many thanks.

This doesn’t have to turn into an argument. As I understand it the thread was originally meant to object to who the intestate’s belongings were given to in default of a living relative who actually wants them. As such, there aren’t “victims” in the tradition sense of someone being actively harmed, but arguably there are people who are unfairly missing out on something they would normally have received. If Aunt Mavis was a nasty old woman who had been cruel to me for years or had estranged herself from the family, I for one would be quite glad for a meagre share of her belongings when she couldn’t use them any more.

I agree @CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau

No argument here! I think we can all have slightly different opinions but bring something to the discussion. I am glad this thread has remained deletion free.

And I agree there are people unfairly missing out on something if they aren't able to access somewhere to look it up. Hence my posts about the back of The Times!

You picked out the word "attitude" and made a deal over it when it was simply used to mean view point. That was you criticising me, actually, and me simply showing you that I used the word in a normal manner according to the definition.

You redefined the phrase "going through" to mean something completely different than how it's typically used. Finding out a relative died and you don't get anything is similar to you "going through" your knicker drawer, really?
I attempted to clarify what you mean again with actual definitions from a trusted source, and now I am somehow giving you a hard time?

Now you again indicate you want me to stop posting in reply, though you continue to do so and continue to accuse me of being disingenuous when I am 100% sincere.

You've indicated you find my posts provocative. If you feel provoked by my view point there is a simple solution. Especially as you've said above that you do not understand me at all.

I agree - it's just a difference in perspective and opinion.

I personally just don't think this part is true: "unfairly missing out on something they would normally have received."

First, because it's not unfair to not get inheritance but also because there is no indication they would have "normally" received anything.

The way dying intestate normally works is that identifiable relatives get the estate parcelled out in a prescribed way, @twined. I’m not saying it’s perfect or it works well every time, but that’s the way it is. Relatives can also try challenging this distribution on certain grounds. So whether or not you agree that estranged relatives, or those who have withdrawn from family or society, or any of the million reasons they might not be known to the court, deserve or should get any of the deceased’s assets, it very much is what normally happens.

So whether or not you agree that estranged relatives, or those who have withdrawn from family or society, or any of the million reasons they might not be known to the court, deserve or should get any of the deceased’s assets, it very much is what normally happens

Yes, I totally agree with this. It may not be fair, it may not be OK that relatives that have lost touch receive something from someone's estate, but it is the norm. (and who knows why families are estranged, there could be any number of reasons)

And I find it far more normal than the money going to repair boilers or do up properties for rental and an income stream for the Monarch.

Yes, understood. But I wouldn't confuse it with "fair".

The people we are talking about who are not receiving the assets are extremely unlikely to be parents, siblings, spouses or children of the deceased. Those with close relationships would be rather quick and easy to identify, even if they were estranged. We are more likely talking about distant cousins, nieces and nephews, and beyond. Often complete strangers.

So I still maintain there is no victim or unfairness here. This money was going to the government, to the crown or to a duchy. I doubt it's going to be well-used no matter where it goes and in most cases is no doubt an administrative nightmare avoided for someone. It's a big "who cares" for me.

Am I wrong about what ‘passing to the Crown’ means?

Please enlighten me because every official website states that these estates will ‘pass to the Crown’ (England & Wales) including the government’s own website.

So even if ‘the Crown’ does not actually mean the King, I can’t be completely wrong otherwise it wouldn’t say that everywhere.

Read the article in the OP. The Duchy of Lancashire and The Duchy of Cornwall receive it in their areas, the Treasury Solicitor everywhere else in England and Wales. What point were you trying to make in reply to @Roussette? You seemed to be saying it has nothing to do with the Duchy of Lancashire. I won't explain further because its all in the article and throughout the thread.

Yes. 'The Crown' means the Treasury unless the deceased resided in certain postcodes in the Duchies. Then it goes to those Duchies.

@twined and I did not confuse it with fair. I may have put points across badly over the several days this thread has been going on. That doesn’t change the fact that I’ve been reiterating that this is how it works, this is the world we live in and unfortunately we commoners don’t have the power to change the law on our own (I would still argue that despite their pomp and privilege the royal family don’t have a huge number of actually effective practical powers, but let’s not start that again). Don’t confuse the law with morality or ethics. It is what it is. Not enough people are educated about it and it strips them of power.

Well said Cecile. Which is why we should all try and educate ourselves on this sort of thing as much as we can... and help elderly relatives understand the convoluted laws we live under.

But that all depends if said rellies listen to you!

I think you’re at cross purposes. The Crown’s ultimate ownership of all land is digestibly covered in this:

https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8567/CBP-8567.pdf#page12

So far as I know - and this is a bit of a guess - when bv real property is in issue (not money in the bank, a car, flamenco dancer figurines etc) the division downwards from the Crown to the Treasury and the Duchies is by ancient agreement or by later statute.