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 understand your post, could you explain?

Of course Charles has to do a lot for charity, it's part of how the Royal Family function. He doesn't use his 'private income' for charities, no.

I 'scream' so much because I think it is very wrong for a Monarch and his heir to enrich themselves like this, when the money could be put to far better use for the people.

Not just intestate, but without blood relatives

I'm glad posters clarified this - as this was my understanding that there are rules to govern which family could claim.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/death-and-wills/who-can-inherit-if-there-is-no-will-the-rules-of-intestacy/

This is citizen advice they state if there are no relatives it goes to the crown - which is what I thought.

I'm not totally shocked there are bit of the UK where older laws apply just but surprise exceptions aren't more widely written about when I have read about topic - though usual advice is to make a will - maybe its become more of an issue as families get smaller and smaller and marriage is on the decline.

I don't see why either of them should get it. Just because he was his son why should he get it when he didn't bother with his father when he was alive? Give it to charity or to local council to help with homelessness or something. Better still if the deceased had decided who should get it, a cause close to his heart.

People don’t make wills for many reasons. They may not be able to handle dealing with such matters.At some point in their life, through illness or adverse circumstances, they might have come to feel thoroughly disempowered when it comes to any legal matters. They may have certain mental illnesses for example. They may not be at a point in their life where they want to think of death. They might have developed early onset alzheimers disease. They might think ‘oh it goes to charity anyway,’ and die believing it will go to a charity but it doesn’t matter to them which one.

What they don’t know is the full story. Because if it’s as the Guardian present it, it’s commonly thought that it goes to charity, people are led to believe it all goes to charity. But only a portion of it does. This is the sticking point for me. It just seems terribly wrong.

Isn't it the case that until quite recently (early twentieth century?) that all unclaimed estates in England and Wales went to the Crown via the Duchy of Lancaster (with exception of those of the deceased in Cornwall)

That might be completely wrong - I think I'm remembering from a book set then (with a passage where someone (on the south coast) was trying to persuade someone to make a Will so the Duchy didn't get it)

Thank you @Roussette for starting this thread .

I did know that the Windsors took the money from those who died without a will ( relatives are often hard to trace )

There are many reasons why people may not have a will . Putting the blame for this on those who don’t have a will is more minimising of Windsor greed.

Also many people hear ‘ the crown’ and think it means the government . No - it’s another deliberately woolly cover for Windsor greed .

I agree with @MrsLeonFarrell - clearly reform urgently is needed . The money should go directly to the NHS, hospices , children’s charities .

The Windsor’s standard line is they will use it to ‘preserve buildings for the nation’ yeah right .
There are other organisations which can do that and I speak as an architecture enthusiast .
Its worth noting that they never say ‘the money will go directly to the NHS’ It wouldn’t cross their mind . They think of themselves only .People praised the queen for her work ethic - she only scoured ( or rather her advisors did ) those red boxes in order to see how she could further her own interests . Every law she excluded herself from ( and there were thousands ) did nothing to help her ‘subjects’ - only her own wealth.

We shouldn’t be surprised that monarchy works like this . All they have they stole . They are just doing what ‘kings’ have always done .

But I’m so glad this is being publicised .
People need to inform themselves and think ‘ is this really what I want to support in 2023 ?

Another article:

The mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, is calling on the government to launch a public consultation over the way the king’s estate collects money from people who die with no will or next of kin, calling it “a bizarre remnant of feudal Britain”.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/24/king-charles-estate-collecting-assets-dead-bizarre-feudal-remnant-andy-burnham

Steve Rotheram, the mayor of the Liverpool city region, also expressed concern. “At a time when thousands of families in our region are trying to make ends meet amidst the cost of living crisis – and charities are taking most of the strain doing invaluable work helping those struggling to eat and keep the lights on – it appears millions of pounds that should have made its way to vulnerable people, is not,” he said.
“Worthy causes have been bypassed and instead it appears that funding has been spent renovating royal properties. I hope the situation will be clarified urgently and, if money has been misused, it is put back where it should be: with those charities it was promised to.”

Good point @ALittleTeawithmilk !

To say ‘it goes to charity ‘ is accurate but misleading - I see this all the time from the Windsor spin drs
Give a token to charity ( a charity could be a house on Charles estate ) , don’t say how much or which charities (‘ the society for the preservation of blood diamonds ‘) and hope people don’t look any closer
Most people didn’t look closer
They are starting to now

It's not theft. It's perfectly legal. If Parliament don't like it, they can change the law accordingly. Total storm in a teacup!

A simple search provided the amount of 1.4 Billion raised by the Late Queen. So she paid out more than she claimed...
Could you do that?

People will always complain about things, yes it is bad the money goes to the DOL, but and it is a very big but...The people who left the money were too lazy to spend 30 mins filling in a Will to state where they wished the money to go.

Moral of story .. write a will.

What about if the people don't like it?

Hardly a storm in a teacup...

This is worth noting

Over the last 10 years, the Duchy of Lancaster has collected more than £60m in these funds. However, only a small percentage is being given to charity. Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit

Either you make a will disposing of your assets upon death or the law dispose of them - usually going though a list of relatives.

It's why most advice is to make a will - so you have control - but the list of relative order and amounts it applies at that govern estates in case of no will are easily searchable.

I honestly shocked people in UK think it will be left to charities with no will - especially given all the TV ads that tell people if they want to leave something it needs to go into the will which may will help you with. Everyone I know thinks will and if no will then relatives then state/crown. The list of relatives - especially around no marriage/marriage invalidating wills can trip people up and blended families do have additional issues and complexities but given programs like heir hunters exits I'm really surprise people think it's charities with no will.

Is that figure spread over her entire reign ?

So that’s ok then - keep pocketing the money Charlie and the NHS can go hang ?

The days when that sort of deferential nonsense was accepted without thought have gone

Because it is perfectly legal does not necessarily make it right. Think of all the things that have happened through the years that was ‘perfectly legal’ that was so dreadfully wrong and recognised as such today.

And it is not theft.itus the law of the land ans has been so for centuries

So was hanging for treason until 1998 - didn't make it right though.

It is also still illegal to allow your pet to mate with a pet of the royal family, to handle salmon suspiciously, to put a postage stamp with the monarchs head on it upside down on an envelope (this is technically treason, but luckily since 1998 you only get life),or to beat a rug after 8am in the morning....

Laws can be changed, and any monarch who actually cared could ask Parliament to change the laws - or they could not lie and say they are using money for charity when they are actually lining their own pockets.

Shades of Andrew ‘ he hasn’t been convicted ‘

The queen excluded herself from thousands of laws that apply to the rest of us !
Thats why it’s legal ! Becasue the Windsors make sure it is

*The origins of these rules are obscure but appear to date from the middle ages, when both duchies came into existence. In 1265, Henry III quelled a revolt of feudal lords who wanted to reduce his powers. The king seized lands belonging to the leading rebel and gave them to his second surviving son, Edmund. These lands, which were mainly in northern England, became known as the Duchy of Lancaster.

At one time, the monarch was able to claim all the assets of everyone who died without an heir, because in theory all the land in England was owned by the crown. However, this power was relinquished in 1830 – with a caveat. The duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall retained the custom of collecting the assets of those dying without a will in their historical domains.
This practice was only formalised into law in 1925, when parliament passed an act on the administration of wills. A short clause in this act from nearly a century ago gave the duchies the legal authority to collect the surviving assets of dead people. Why this was done is not known. Parliament did not debate the act when it was passed and there appear to be no surviving records relating to the decision in the National Archives, the government’s main depository for historical documents.*

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/23/how-royal-estates-use-bona-vacantia-to-collect-money-from-dead-people-king-charles

I don't think any charities have been promised funding and then it not materialise, so I think the last bit of what he said is potentially misleading.

If people who have no heirs want to ensure their estate goes to charity after their death, they should make a Will.

This is even more important if you don't live in the area covered by Lancaster or in Cornwall, as none of estates goes to charity. Just to the Chancellor. And who can predict that the government at the time of your death will be one whose spending you approve of?

The people who left the money were too lazy to spend 30 mins filling in a Will to state where they wished the money to go.

That's a pretty awful thing to say. Let me link two paragraphs, one by me and one by another poster as to why that might not happen...

There are people in this country who have never had a passport, never had a driving licence, haven't made a will... it could be because they are impoverished and don't understand, it could be because of MH, it could be because they are estranged from their family, it could be becausse they are in a home with no family and no idea how much their estate is worth, maybe they are frightened of death and have no one to help them ... all sorts of reasons.

People don’t make wills for many reasons. They may not be able to handle dealing with such matters.At some point in their life, through illness or adverse circumstances, they might have come to feel thoroughly disempowered when it comes to any legal matters. They may have certain mental illnesses for example. They may not be at a point in their life where they want to think of death. They might have developed early onset alzheimers disease. They might think ‘oh it goes to charity anyway,’ and die believing it will go to a charity but it doesn’t matter to them which one.

I honestly shocked people in UK think it will be left to charities with no will -

Thats apparently what they have said they would do with the money, there are 3 charities named in the articles on this today-

It was not until the 1980s that the duchy began to say the money from bona vacantia would not enrich the queen, but instead would be donated to charity. With minimal public oversight, it has not been possible – until now – to know whether that claim was true.

Thanks @Iwantcakeeveryday - the 1925 passage in to law would fit with the novel I was thinking of (by EF Benson)

If people who have no heirs want to ensure their estate goes to charity after their death, they should make a Will.

But some don't, can't afford to or are unable for other reasons. Some people obviously leave very little, and so they don't think it's worth it. I don't think many people realise that the royal family can take it or that they would. This set of articles will highlight what a lot of people purposefully don't talk about. I think its immoral for an extremely wealthy powerful family to hire a firm to look around for people who die without wills, even those with very little, they'll still take it. Theres something so distasteful about a billionaire putting his hand out for £5,000, £10,000... from ordinary people who weren't aware he was entitled to do that. Its grubby.

affect. not effect.

George VI even pocketed the money for soldiers based in the Duchy of Lancaster who died in ww2
Nice.

’Bon Vacantia ‘ also covers treasure trove and funds from companies that have been dissolved ( I’m quoting Norman Baker here ) .
They said those funds would go to charity ‘ voluntarily ‘ since the 70s- I hope that has been thoroughly checked