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 don't think this comment has anything to do with the thread?

Do the various heir hunter companies that search the Bona Vacantia list, also search the Times or wherever the Duchy of Lancaster ones are posted?

Of course they do! Any lead will be thoroughly pursued when you get to take a large commission if you find an heir..

The number of people dying intestate with no living relatives in the Duchy of Lancaster must be tiny. If their estate goes to improving the cottages and buildings on royal land and improving the environment for local people, then what's wrong with that? I have family who rent a Sandringham estate cottage and the rent is far lower than local properties plus the tenancy is assured for life.

It makes far more sense to improve the conditions of remaining or existing tenants than for it to go into government funds. If it improves the value of the kings property portfolio what difference does that make? He's not about to sell off these properties and cash in the profits. He won't earn more from them because they are in better condition.

This article is just another anti royalist slanted piece designed to mislead and give a biased account.

Exactly. My relative enjoys a very secure tenancy and if the upkeep is paid from people who died intestate then surely keeping other people in better conditions is relevant?

This article is just another anti royalist slanted piece designed to mislead and give a biased account.
Sounds like you didn't read it. Or the rest of the thread

I did read it.

If their estate goes to improving the cottages and buildings on royal land and improving the environment for local people, then what's wrong with that?

Our imposed 'king' is benefitting from the increased rents improved properties command.

What's right with that?

why on earth should that money go to the private estate of anyone, let alone the King? It makes a massive difference over time, we are talking millions. They also have said it goes to charity, when as said, to goes to their privy assets. Why do you think he should get that over anyone else? or acyl public property maintenance, as an example?

He's not about to sell off these properties and cash in the profits. He won't earn more from them because they are in better condition. Well of course he will, all the profits go to him. In addition, I don't think you've read this at all, he created a charity, gave it some of the BV money and then used that money to buy some of the duchy properties. the duchy invests a lot of their money, which earns him an income. He's benefitting to the tune of millions and I can see no logical reason he should financially benefit from this money, rather than all of us benefiting as we do elsewhere in England and Wales.

In what way benefitting. He doesn't increase rents if the property is upgraded. His tenants benefit and the local environment benefits. Charities also benefit if there are any remaining monies.

Unless the king sells up (virtually impossible) he will not personally benefit.

He takes rent! And keeps profits.

Is this accurate?

If it is correct that the rent is not increased when the property is upgraded (as it would surely be with a private landlord) then Duchy tenants are very lucky.

And all the castigation of the monarch "pocketing the profits" is just more anti-monarchy hype.

Did you mean... if a tenant gets a new boiler and his rent isn't increased, OK. But it is empty properties, properties bought up, commercial premises, properties turned into AirBnB holiday lets, agricultural buildings etc.

As for 'castigation of the monarch'.. maybe have a look at all the links about it. It's not an MN thing and us having a whinge! It is something that has been sold to the public as all these monies of deceased people going to Charity. That is not true. It goes to three different DoL bodies, two of which are direct benefit to the King.

(one provides new boilers double glazing, refurbshment of properties turning them into high rental lets. The other provided funds to allow the DoL to purchase eight properties!)

If you want to call this 'just more anti monarchy hype', that's your prerogative. Others don't feel the same as you and thank goodness we hold the Monarchy to account.

The whole point of the recent outrage was that the ‘royals’ had claimed the money from the dead had been going to charity -it wasn’t. It was going straight into Charles pocket ( and the Queens before that) . The Windsors used to pocket the lot until recent years when outrage built and they claimed charity would benefit. Not that has been shown to be false there are still people who will make excuses for them .

If you are going to look at the finances of the Duchy - good luck because yet again you won’t see the truth. You are wrong to try to compare the Duchy to a private landlord - btw some of the money was spent on upgrading petrol stations and other commercial buildings - not homes. Charles should be paying corporation tax but he doesn’t because he says it’s not a corporation and that answer is expected to be enough for the likes of us

I agree this issue is probably among the least of the crimes of the Windsors but it has been resonating with people and I’m glad that the issue is more people are aware

Roussette · Today 08:29
(one provides new boilers double glazing, refurbshment of properties turning them into high rental lets. The other provided funds to allow the DoL to purchase eight properties!)Good morning, Rousette. I was expecting to hear from you!If the statement you quote correct, I think I would still rather the Duchy managed their finances than that any monies were passed over to the government to disappear into the giant mess that is our public finances.

And good morning to you too Badger. I am glad you like my predictability 😂

Personally, I am not for enriching a double billionaire but there you go.

Yes the country is going down the drain- even more reason for the so called first family) to pay their taxes - not as it is at ge moment with NO inheritance tax and W and Charles picking and choosing how little they will ‘volunteer’ in income tax from profit from land that is rightfully the people’s

I know of someone who was contacted by the local council (presumably Social Services). A distant relative had been found dead in his residence. The SS had gone through the residence and found a letter with a name and address on it, and contacted him. He then did the usual Heir Hunters job, by contacting all other known relatives who would be likely to be inheritors. He also sorted and cleared out the residence and basically acted as an executor of the estate.
My point here is that the SS did not just empty the residence, etc, Papers/letters etc had been gone through in an effort to track down relatives.
So to die intestate and without making a will, you would also have to have had little contact with your relatives for them not to be easily identified.
Problems arise because people often assume someone will inherit when by law they won't.
The answer is always make a will, and not only that identify where your bank accounts are etc. (Once saw a TV prog, where some money was left in a fund unclaimed, and it was traced to 3 children whose mother had died suddenly. No one knew the fund existed)

The king doesn't have an increased profit when the money is used to improve the properties he is renting out. He's renting them out regardless. The improvements are to benefit his tenants and the local environment. Anything left over does go to charity. I do think there should be more transparency (here and in general) but I'd rather this money goes to improving the living conditions of current renters. As I said a family member lives on the Sandringham estate in a tide cottage and the rent is far lower than local rents.

The improvements are to benefit his tenants and the local environment

How does refurbishing commercial properties and petrol stations fit into that? Or renovating a building to make money (for Charles) as a holiday let?

I'd rather this money goes to improving the living conditions of current renters.

So would I. What a shame all the money is not used for that. What about the Savoy Chapel... money from the DoL has been diverted to this Chapel for its upkeep. Central London.

The Duchy of Lancaster Jubilee Trust has received £5.4m in bona vacantia revenues since 2013. More than 99% of its payouts over that period have gone to maintaining the Savoy chapel.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/kings-estate-facing-questions-over-14m-in-bona-vacantia-not-donated-to-charity

can you site a source for this? He is obliged to keep rental properties in a certain state of repair, if he is using Bona Vacantia monies to maintain his properties, or upgrade them, which he is, it is benefitting him. Absolutely. He has millions of his own money he could use to pay for these repairs and maintenance, there is no need for him to take any more from the public.

As for 'anything left over goes to charity', thats not accurate either. There are 3 'charities' it goes to, only one is a legitimate charity that doesn't benefit him or his properties. It gets very little of the money. The largest amounts go to upgrading and maintaining the Kings chapel of savoy and the housing trust created. That trust bought properties from the duchy, they received that £1 million and like most of the profits, it is invested. He receives dividends from his investments as income. He had an income of £26 million last year.

Even if what you say is true regrading the properties being lower rent, that is neither here nor there. It still benefits the Duchy estate, and is not what they claimed was happening. They lied. It is also treated differently to very other area in England and Wales, except for the Duchy of Cornwall, and clearly some of us think that it shouldn't go to the Duchies at all and can see no good reason for it to. I am amazed at how much people defend the monarch taking even more money when they clearly don't need to. We all complain about upgrades to No 10 but the King can take 60 million and people will defend it. It's absurd.

I'd rather this money goes to improving the living conditions of current renters.

In council housing, preferably. The King can afford to maintain his own private estate.