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

all these things may be true, but ultimately as a landlord they're also obligations. That is his responsibility to uphold his obligations for his private estate. It's just spinning of the facts to make it look better, despite these being legally required maintenance and repairs. The discussion is about where the money has come from.

I don't understand why people are disputing that this is not going to charity. The rules state that any surplus after admin costs is divided between three registered charities. This extract is from the Duchy of Lancaster:

The accounts for each of these three charities are available online. The BBC states that the Duchy has debunked the Guardian's claims, confirming that all net income is transferred to the three charities. I imagine some Guardian reporter has just got confused about the structure and finances, which I believe are much more transparent that is being claimed.

All three charities are in my view entirely justified and are very good causes.

The extract doesn't appear to have worked so here is the link:

https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/duties-of-the-duchy/bona-vacantia/

The rules state that any surplus after admin costs is divided between three registered charities

Have you read the articles at all? The Benevolent Fund is exactly what it should be doing with funds.... local, scholarships, local good causes, youth work, all that sort of thing.

The other two charities not so.
The Jubilee Trust has used 99% of the money for the upkeep of the Savoy Chapel in Central London

The third Charity, the Housing Trust used the money to purchase another 8 properties to rent out. (rent being passed to Charles, see my previous post... £26M)

Could you tell me please why you think the latter two charities are beneficial ?

Given Guardian investigative reporters spend years looking into this sort of thing... I doubt they just had a funny five minutes and got confused

The Jubilee Trust is for the upkeep of historical buildings and the the Church. If you are trying to claim that Churches should not be charities then that is a whole other debate.

That is not what I'm saying. A person that dies within the DoL area... is it right that all these estates are used for upkeep of a private Church next to the Savoy Hotel in the West End of London?

Personally I don't think so. Why not something local that benefits communities?

The housing trust has purchased new properties but the 2022 accounts state that these are for renting to locals. This is a charity, so none of the income from these properties will reach the King, it is locked in the charity to be used for charitable purposes so any income will be for the use of the charity.

If anyone has an issue with the management/finances of a charity, they should report it to the Charity Commission or take it up with the trustees. Misappropration of charity funds is a criminal offence!

Did you read all the articles?

The Jubilee Trust is for the upkeep of properties that are part of the Duchy estate. That is his private property. No, it should not use money from bon vacantia for that purpose.

The Housing Trust was given £1mil in BV money and that was used to buy properties from the Duchy, that money is invested and the dividends are payable to the monarch. Why couldn't he transfer those properties into a charity as a gift? Theres nothing charitable about using Bv money from the public to purchase them from himself and then used in exactly the same way as before when he privately owned it, only now the bon vacantia money is used to purchase and maintain the properties. The 'charity' will only manage those properties it purchases, all from the King. So honestly it seems like he's offloaded properties he couldn't otherwise sell, so he doesn't have to pay to manage them himself, and he gets a million from BV money he couldn't touch before because it was promised to charity.

No, replacing a working boiler with an energy efficient one is not a requirement. Nor is double glazing windows unless it’s in a case like your own.

Both are helpful to the environment and to the tenant.

I have yet to see the connection between the topic of this thread and what you and the other poster are arguing about though. Where is the evidence that the Bv money was used to upgrade working boilers to more energy efficient ones and why is it relevant? It's still being used on his private estate, which is the actual topic of the thread. It doesn't have any bearing on the fact they claimed it was being given to charity and it was instead indirectly or directly being used to upgrade his properties- including properties that are not rentals, not that it really matters. I think this is deflection from the actual issue.

Catching up here and I entirely agree with this:

It doesn't have any bearing on the fact they claimed it was being given to charity and it was instead indirectly or directly being used to upgrade his properties- including properties that are not rentals, not that it really matters. I think this is deflection from the actual issue.

Roussette and Iwantcakeeveryday - you have been very patient and are of course correct🙂

Exactly @Iwantcakeeveryday It's a landlord's duty to update and repair a property! Posters saying but look! He put in an energy efficient boiler! How wonderful!

NO. He gets the rent! Electrical wiring, boilers, gas safety, heating, hot water, ventilation, leaks... all the responsibility of the landlord! And using money intended for charitable purposes for the good of a community should not be used for what is a landlord's duty.

Thank you @CathyorClaire have you read the recent press release from Republic about the royals hours worked for 2023?? William did just 172 engagements, which apparently average at 1 hour each, some less some slightly more. Kate did 123 engagements.

Why don’t we agree that he can be a better landlord than most in this country (five years ago I lived somewhere where I had to flush the loo with a bucket, the window wouldn’t close and the internet was slower than dial-up) but also profiting from what is essentially a legalised scheme to funnel money to him without any effort from him? In fact, both sides of that are probably arranged by his lawyers, accountants, agents etc anyway, I’m assuming he’s made a few benevolent statements but actually has no involvement day-to-day. That’s sort of the point. He’s been brought up to accept this as normal, for a spot of noblesse oblige here and there but otherwise he gets on with… whatever his hobbies are, probably sleeping with Camilla and talking to plants interspersed by his duties.

Yes exactly @Roussette

Oh yes @Iwantcakeeveryday And that's the equivalent of 0.8 of a month's work for William and less than 2 weeks for Kate. In a year. (Based on 37 hour week Mon-Fri)

@CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau Your post made me laugh!

@Roussette it is always interesting to do that sort of maths isn’t it? I feel really guilty for being off long-term sick but my bosses could earn the entirety of my year’s normal pay, let alone the half-pay sick-pay I’m entitled to, in maybe a day and a half’s billing. So I’m not going to feel TOO guilty. These numbers are still tiny in comparison to government spending, billionaires’ untaxed earnings and so on. And while I can find it in my heart to respect the way the Royals turn up and very, very seldom if at all crack their public personas, they’re basically being paid vast amounts to do the sort of thing most of us would consider a privilege (leaving aside the lifestyle, which I’ve no doubt is a bit weird and isolated and pressured but is just no question incredibly privileged).

Thanks for this. I haven't yet, no but I will seek it out.

Can't see the Dolittles topping the hardest working royals lists yet again but why break with tradition? 😁

Just for you @CathyorClaire

People are totally missing the point. If this money doesn't go to improving the tenancies on the royal estates, improving and maintains our heritage, and the local environment...it goes into the government coffers and ends up god knows where.

King Charles gets the rent regardless of a new boiler. He doesn't increase prices because the property is updated. He gets the rent anyway. He is claiming it now and has done throughout. I don't know why that concept seems so hard to understand. He collects rent. He's a landlord. The tenants do really well as they have a very secure tenancy and well kept housing stock. Again...would it make more sense to give this money to the government?

Let's face it the guardian is hardly unbiased. Frankly I don't believe half of what's in the papers and as we were castigated on here earlier for believing the 'tabloid lies about Harry and M' (because only tabloids lie) and are unable to think for ourselves, I don't think it's true. The Duchies must be transparent and show where these monies go though.

Why derail with tables of engagements? Is it because the argument for spending money where it will do most good is too taxing so we go into whataboutery (again)?

I don't know why that concept seems so hard to understand. He collects rent. He's a landlord

Yes, and a landlord has responsibilities which is why they collect rent. And Charles got £26M from DoL. My Brother is a landlord. He is involved in a Charity too. He would not use charitable funds to update his two properties!

The Benevolent Fund does exactly what should be done with this money. Local youth clubs, scholarships, community centres etc. Not paying for a new boiler for a landlord. The other two DoL charities not so.

Why do you find that hard to understand?

Not at all. Quite happy to carry on discussing this.

I just put that there as the thread meandered.

Don't think I am finding this too taxing to discuss. Nothing could be further from the truth.

People are totally missing the point. If this money doesn't go to improving the tenancies on the royal estates, improving and maintains our heritage, and the local environment...it goes into the government coffers and ends up god knows where.

It goes to the treasury, with all our taxes, for the benefit of the public. The King already takes a sovereign grant. This money goes to his private estate. Why on earth should he get it over anyone else? Do you want him to get our taxes too, why not? god knows what the government will do with it. The king can have it all.... seriously, think about what you are saying. Why aren't you bothered they lied about it?

He doesn't increase prices because the property is updated.

How do you know? why is it relevant? Most of the money going to heritage properties is spent on just one, the chapel. No, I don't think we shoudl pay for things that are part of the duchies, private estates, not unless we get a share of the profit too. Which we don't.