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 have a relative who lives on the Sandringham estate and their rent is comparatively low and remained the same for years. It's a small picturesque cottage, with an enormous garden. These cottages have a huge waiting list and you're lucky to get one because the king makes a good landlord!

If you feel it's unfair then that's your opinion. I have the opposite view and feel it's best spent on something tangible like the local environment or people's homes.

I think the OP and the Guardian are showing a complete lack of understanding. It appears to my reading of the financial statements that Duchy properties that were let to local tenants have been sold to one of the charities.

They will have been sold at a low value before the repairs were done. The repairs were then carried out by the charity and the property then let by the charity (the new landlord).

The King cannot benefit from any capital in the Duchy and therefore the sales of property will have little impact on the King's income. Maybe the sale proceeds are invested to create an income, but as most people are aware, the income return on investments is minimal compared to increases in value. I therefore can't imagine that the sales have benefited the King in any way.

There is no suggestion in the report and accounts that BV money has been spent other than in furthering charitable objectives. As I said before, you can disagree with the objectives (ie. the repair of heritage buildings owned by the Duchy) but this is an entirely different point. As far as I can see from my scutiny of all the accounts (and I am extremely well-qualified to do this), there has been no wrong-doing.

It's also worth mentioning that the Savoy Estate including several prime London heritage and listed properties and the Chapel of the Savoy (a grade II listed building with services open to the public) is owned by the Duchy of Lancaster and has been since 1268. The Duchy has 'historical obligations' to maintain this estate and the various castles it owns and this has traditionally come from the BV income in line with the objectives of the Jubilee trust.

@Roussette is now trying to deflect from the main point as there is absolutely no evidence of the King benefiting from any of the BV funds.

I think the OP and the Guardian are showing a complete lack of understanding

Ok... Thanks... You know better than investigative journalism

You say there has been no wrongdoing, maybe all the articles are wrong (not just Guardian) and you are the expert. I know who I'm inclined to listen to.

Your last but one para...no need to talk to me like I'm completely stupid. I know all that

Your post is rude and patronising and I am not deflecting

I don’t dismiss concerns over the manner of royal funding and, as I’ve said in this thread previously, I do think it’s poor practice not to include the Duchies’ bv estates on the main online list, or some linked online list.

But I have wondered about how far the Guardian’s allegations actually run. If the money does go to charitable ends those ends can just as legitimately be housing people or for the upkeep of historic buildings and the environment as for other charitable purposes.

The upkeep of a publicly accessible ancient chapel seems uncontroversial. I suppose it all turns on whether bv money goes to profit-making property tenancy or whether the tenancies are provided by a charity. Gettingcolder suggests the latter.

Oh that housing associations and local government housing were run as effectively!

@WhileMyDishwasherGentlyWeeps take your point but isn’t the overarching issue raised in this whole thread the fact that tax, inheritance and charity law is a bit unfair? I know I keep making this point about as subtly as a mallet but the Windsors aren’t breaking the law, the law is just… surprisingly beneficial to them.

There is no suggestion in the report and accounts that BV money has been spent other than in furthering charitable objectives

Except that there in fact is. The monarch, the former Queen, set up a charity and put some of the Bv money into it. That charity then used that money to purchase properties from her. That money went into the Duchy and they invested it, which the monarch then receives an income from, along with other investment monies. So thats a direct benefit.

The 'charity' is a housing trust. To provide the exact same housing in the exact same way as before, only now the monarch isn't responsible for its upkeep and maintenance. If they really wanted to do something charitable, the properties should have been given over to the charity without taking the BV money for it. To me it looks like offloading properties that didn't earn them much, and taking the BV estate money indirectly to avoid scrutiny and criticism. You can try and dress it up as charitable, but I don't see how receiving payment is a charitable thing to do.

The King cannot benefit from any capital in the Duchy

The king can invest that money, as explained, and take an income from those investments.

As I said before, you can disagree with the objectives (ie. the repair of heritage buildings owned by the Duchy) but this is an entirely different point.

No its not, it is very much the point. They're not public buildings, they're his private estate. If he can use the money to pay for them, then we should receive some of the income from the estate. He can't have it both ways. Either it's a private estate and private income, or it isn't.

It's complete and utter deception to pretend they have done anything charitable here with either the Jubilee or housing trusts they created. If they want to do something for local housing, give all the money to an existing organisation to provide housing to those most in need of it, something determined by someone else and not the monarch.

If they really wanted to do something charitable, the properties should have been given over to the charity without taking the BV money for it.

Excrpt there are strict laws about disposing of assets held on trust (as the duchy assets are) at an under value, which the duchy would have been well aware of.

Legally, you can’t just give away assets that are held on trust. So criticising the Duchy for not doing something that’s illegal isn’t really productive.

I didn't know it was illegal to give Duchy property to charities. You know you can share your expert knowledge without being condescending, right?

Does he need to sell it for £1 million? Or would £1 be legal? Is he allowed to offer properties free to those who are on low income?

It seems then he would have been better off giving the Bv money to an existing local housing charity, rather than doing it in a way that makes him £1 million. It's still not given to charity this way.

It seems then he would have been better off giving the Bv money to an existing local housing charity

I just don't know why he wouldn't do this. As usual with the RF, it's all smoke and mirrors

Greed? Because its the way rich people, especially royals, have always done things... this happened under the former Queen.

As I've said before, I had high hopes for Charles. Nothing has changed 😢

You know you can share your expert knowledge without being condescending, right?

You know you can respond to me without saying I’m patronising, right?

Trust and Charity laws, which are intersecting in this particular example are complex. I don’t expect posters to know them - why would they? But equally if posters aren’t willing to extend any benefit of doubt despite not knowing any of the relevant context, why should they expect not to have it pointed out?

I think most people are aware for example that their are HMRC rules around gifts that impact them personally, so why assume there are no rules at all about gifts in other contexts?

You know you can respond to me without saying I’m patronising, right?

Don't be patronising and I won't ask you to stop it. Its tiresome and unpleasant. One of these days I am hoping you have the grace to apologise.

But equally if posters aren’t willing to extend any benefit of doubt despite not knowing any of the relevant context, why should they expect not to have it pointed out?

Benefit of what doubt in this respect? It was a mere suggestion of what to do instead, that would be actually charitable, rather than something that benefits the monarch even more.

I asked before, does he need to sell it for £1 million? Or would £1 be legal? Is he allowed to offer properties free to those who are on low income?

Dear Pot…

I do understand the law on this and can confirm that the trustees (The Duchy of Lancaster) would not legally be allowed to give away any assets - they would have to be sold for market value.

Excrpt there are strict laws about disposing of assets held on trust (as the duchy assets are) at an under value, which the duchy would have been well aware of.

But (as I said way back when) there are no indications that the BV generated funds are held in trust.

The King already takes a sovereign grant

And let's not forget the SG is not only guaranteed never to fall but is also not subject to even the historically lax parliamentary debates the fixed Civil List incurred.

By far and away the most comprehensive putting to bed of this whole matter, inflated and distorted by an anti royalist newspaper and scrappy journalism.

The King cannot benefit from any capital in the Duchy

Can you explain what you mean by this?

there is absolutely no evidence of the King benefiting from any of the BV funds. there is indeed evidence of this, as is outlined, two of the charities have actually benefited him by paying for things the DoL owns privately, and by purchasing assets from him, and that money being invested. So no @rosyglowcondition its not scrappy journalism at all, and neither of you have pointed to any inaccuracy in any of the articles by The Guardian.

I think you only have to scrape away the bias to see it's very poor journalism. Are we not told many times in these threads that anti Meghan and Harry opinions are formed by biased tabloids? Isn't this the other side of the coin? I have my opinion, and others theirs. End of the matter as far as I'm concerned.

This isn't a tabloid. It's The Guardian. You can't dismiss this well researched series without reading them all and pointing out what is actually inaccurate. You haven't done that, so your opinion is the one that seems incredibly biased.

The Guardian may have done a lot of research, Novella, but they are still writing with a very clear agenda. And the Guardian absolutely has form for selective reporting and misleading by omission when it wants to further that agenda.

I think The Guardian's agenda is to discuss the cost of the Crown, the lack of transparency and the moral questions raised with regards to Bona Vacantia money being kept by the monarch. I think perhaps the reason people might object to it is because they seem to be one of very few publications willing to investigate and expose the true cost to us. I think they're a lot more reliable and professional than the tabloids, or royal reporters, who have threads dedicated to their 'work' and serious and lengthy discussions about them.

oh and I'll add, I expect our media to scrutinise both Government and the Royal family. It's their job. I don't think its an agenda, just proper journalism.