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 Duchy of Lancaster sold properties to a housing trust it created using the bona vacantia monies, £1 million worth.

This is to some extent a repetition of what I said upthread, but whether or not we like it, it’s the law. Very morally grey, but totally legal. Unfortunately the laws tend to be written by rich people for rich people so they can exploit tax, pension and inheritance loopholes and get even richer. If you have the “proper British” sense of deference to the royal family that seems to persist - this country is built on mostly outdated customs - it’s likely that you’ll be in no hurry to change laws that will make the Royal family not like you. And in the context of overall spending in this country, bona vacantia is small change. Clearly not small enough that they’ll pass it up but small change. It’s all very well to say what the money could be used for which would improve the lives of citizens, but I’m not sure how you envisage actually getting to that idealistic point. It’s about as much use as me chatting to a colleague that all the money my firm spends on expenses to send the partners to Japan for a meeting would be better donated to charities for nearby deprived neighbourhoods.

The king didn't invent this ruling, and didn't invent the rule that money left in this way also goes to the treasury. If people are unhappy about it they should write a will.

Just because something is the law doesn't mean its right or that we shouldn't change it. Not that long ago it was perfectly legal for men to rape their wives. I think the 'its legal' thing has been done.

The point of the articles is that a lot of people are unaware about this, and they lied about where it was going. Its such a big deal when people think Harry has lied, but this lie is barely even discussed here and its a much bigger lie than anything else and involves millions. They're a greedy family and it seems the public just accept it because they think they're better. They're not. Their history of family dramas and fuck ups proves they're just like everybody else. Probably worse.

it doesn't matter if he invented it or not, he benefits from it and continues to accept it. They also lied about it. That should concern people.

Once again, not everyone has the £150 minimum you need to write a will.

So agree with your first sentence @Iwantcakeeveryday

It's just such apathy sometimes when it comes to anything to do with the RF

@Iwantcakeeveryday and @Roussette I’m not apathetic, I am quite cynical and hopeless though having studied this country’s constitution for about the past decade. Even if the King did want to change the law, which I doubt he does because as I’ve said, the rich always want to get richer, he has no power to initiate laws, and even if he had a word with his friends in the House of Lords, those Bills almost always fail. There is so much positive spirit, research and polite debate on this thread but how many of you are off to write a petition? Would that petition even be debated (requires thousands of signatures). Would that debate have any legal effect? I can see a lot of perfectly justified anger and idealism here but very few practical suggestions about how to correct the problem.

there is a petition and Ive signed it, have you? I have also contacted their lawyers regarding publicising the list, and am writing to my MP with my views. I am a life long campaigner of issues that are important to me, not just someone who sits on social media moaning about it. Although discussing it can raise awareness, in this case to remind people who can afford it to write a will.

Once again, not everyone has the £150 minimum you need to write a will.

Interestingly, a piece of paper saying “All to Mother”, signed by the deceased and with their signature witnessed by two people, has been held by the courts to be a perfectly valid will.

It’s the lack of information that’s the problem here, no the cost of lawyers.

Hats off to you @Iwantcakeeveryday that is super impressive :) I’ll go and find the petition. But that is actually really honestly impressive - I hope this isn’t patronising but most people don’t care enough even to sign a petition, let alone contact the lawyers. I’m afraid as a lawyer myself I’m still a little pessimistic about the effect it will have in the near term but every campaign starts with one of us tackling the “great and good” directly.

On 24th Nov. at 12.49hrs I linked to a petition.

Here it is again

https://act.38degrees.org.uk/act/king-charles-assets-petition

Thanks and sorry for missing it!

42,407 signatures. Last one 4 minutes ago

@Iwantcakeeveryday has provided some really useful info from contacting Farrar & Co, the Duchy Lawyers.

No worries!

Age concern have a free will writing service during certain months. The post office has forms you can fill out and guidance on how to make them valid. Frankly if someone owns a house worth anything, they can afford a simple will.

the charity has to pay for them though. the average estate value for the DoL Bv estates they collect is £12,000. So not usually a house.

The person doesn't pay, and that's what charities do! Offer free services. I agree the whole process needs to be more transparent but the theory of it that monies are used to improve the life of tenants at no extra cost to them, and improve the environment, are totally valid.

No its not valid at all and you haven't provided a source for your claims. Did you read the articles on this? The monies are NOT used to 'improve the life of tenants', I don't know where you are plucking that from as a claim. At all. Anything done to the properties which were already rentals , would be required by the DoL as a landlord and it should pay that as it collects the rental money. You're completely ignoring the fact much of it is used on properties that were not residential rentals and in fact were just DoL properties. Either not rentals or not rentals prior to using the money to upgrade them. I am not sure where this 'improve the environment' claim comes from either. Again, he can pay to do that out of his own private money, as this is his private estate. He also took £1 million into his estate by selling properties to a trust he created- actually I think that was done when his mother was alive.

Did you read the articles on this? The monies are NOT used to 'improve the life of tenants',

Sometimes it's very frustrating on these threads. @Iwantcakeeveryday Posts on here aren't read or if they are, they're ignored.

How is the Savoy Chapel in central London improving the life of tenants?

It says so in the article. It also says to renovate holiday lets and imo improving the environment definitely includes historic buildings such as the savoy chapel. How is Charles making a profit from restoring historic buildings? This is for the nation. Sorry you are finding it so hard to understand that double glazing and new boilers are actually improvements to tenanted buildings.

No, thats not what improving the environment means at all!

How is Charles making a profit from restoring historic buildings?
they are his properties, part of the duchy estate. They're not part of a charity, so its not being used as was claimed. Its not for the nation at all, it belongs to the DoL.

Sorry you are finding it so hard to understand that double glazing and new boilers are actually improvements to tenanted buildings.
I have rented a long time, I am very aware of what the responsibilities of a landlord are, you're clearly not. A boiler is included in the landlord and tenants act, it needs to work to a certain standard, and be maintained. Double glazing improves the value of the building, the building that belongs to the King, not to us. Its all his private property which earns him millions in income. A cold house below certain temperatures can be reported to the council as an environmental hazard. This is more likely with single glazed windows. I know this because I reported a landlord to my council over the indoor temperature and went through a long process with the environmental dept, learning a great deal about the legal requirements. Our LL had to replace the boiler, pipework and some of the windows plus they faced a fine, in all it cost them £20,000.

My goodness me. You are not understanding the articles linked and the posts from lots of posters.

It is not just restoring historic buildings. This has been said time and time again. Barns and agricultural buildings bought and renovated and let as a luxury holiday home. All that money into Charles pocket. He takes on average £26million a year... he has had the first £26M since Queen died. And that will continue.

And don't you think that a double billionaire could afford to maintain the properties of DoL ... new boilers, windows etc. Instead of using deceased estates of very many postcodes in the area right through to Manchester.... Lancashire, Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Lincolnshire, Cheshire...

Does double-glazing not improve the efficiency of a home? Does a new boiler not reduce the cost of heating? Do you not realize that reducing energy consumption is good for the environment?

It seems these improvements are more immediately effecting and improving the tenants lives, too. By reducing energy costs.

I don't think the point of this thread is whether double glazing is efficient or not.

Lol.