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

Just FYI, but the widely relied on Media Bias/Fact check website rates the Guardian as amber/“Mixed” on its factual reporting criteria (the grades above are “Mostly Factual”, “High” and “Very High”. The Times for example is rated as High).

it also lists a number of Guardian articles in the last five years that have failed its fact checking exercises. The Times has no fails.

I’m not saying this to say The Times is 100% reliable, because obviously that’s not the case. All publications have bias. I think it’s sensible to recognise that however, and that a newspaper that you like because it’s writing what you want to read might also be intentionally spinning to fit that agenda, and perhaps even misleading by omission. Reading widely, even those publications you wouldn’t naturally go to, is sensible.

This. ⬆️

Sometimes scrutiny gets a little uncomfortable for some people

Basically take everything you read in the media (social or otherwise) with a big pinch of salt. The only genuine opinion on people you can form, is from what they say in person. As soon as anything goes through the prism of reporting it risks being altered to suit the reporters agenda.

We don't really need to be advised to read widely just because we are discussing a particular article or series. I think we know that and many of us have said as much.

The Times is a Murdoch owned outlet, so there is absolute bias there too.

Is there anything in this article you think is actually factually inaccurate?

Scrutiny of Harry, Meghan and Omid scobie is certainly getting very uncomfortable at the present time.

I'm just laughing because there has been threads dedicated to discussing tabloids articles and so-called 'royal reporters' books, Tom Bower's got mention for being a great read! but the Guardian is apparently who we should be careful with!

I have pointed out several things that the Guardian didn’t disclose on this thread already.

Not by me though… 😀

Nothing that shows there is inaccuracy with this reporting and you mostly concentrated on the DoC, this focuses on the DoL. You have a different moral judgement than they do, thats all IMO.

You've said before you're a media lawyer? Did you work for any of the publications we are discussing? The Times, Guardian, ANL?

Which is why it's all smoke and mirrors with the RF as they don't speak.

This thread has absolutely nothing to do with that subject. There is a series of threads, I think you're on number six at the moment, where you can talk all about that if you so wish

@Roussette I'm just replying to your comment...which I quoted.

I also don't think you're allowed to police what people say in their responses?

You've said before you're a media lawyer? Did you work for any of the publications we are discussing? The Times, Guardian, ANL?

Are you serious??! 🤣🤣🤣

I can see what you're saying. It's very clear

The answer to your question was already stated.

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.

They can’t just give things away or “sell” them for £1. And these buildings must be managed and maintained at great expense. To which charity do you propose they give this burdensome task?

There was nothing condescending in Serenster’s post. It was all facts.

Yes! I think it would be interesting to hear about... especially given the thread topic!

And these buildings must be managed and maintained at great expense. To which charity do you propose they give this burdensome task?

None. They should carry the burden of it themselves and not sell them to a charity.

So which charity did they?

@CathyorClaire. The Duchy is held in trust.

"The Duchy is a private estate of land, property and assets incorporated by Royal Charter and held in trust for the benefit of the Monarch as Duke of Lancaster."

@CathyorClaire The King is only entitled to receive the income earned from the Duchy assets, not any capital gains in value. There is comprehensive trust law that dictates the how the separation of income and capital is managed as otherwise assets held in trust can be manipulated to increase one or the other. This can be problematic where the income is payable to someone who is not entitled to the capital value. The law ensures the two are kept in balance, ie. that income is not created to the detriment of the increase in long term value of the trust.

The accounts of the Duchy are scrutinised every year by the treasury and both houses. I find it hard to believe that the Guardian has found irregularities that have not been picked up by the Treasury, the Commons or the Lords, not to mention it's own Trustees!

You have been misled @Gettingcolder
Im not disputing that accounts are presented . But they are not scrutinised by the Auditor general, as all other accounts are.
The chair of the public accounts committee said, in 2005 :
’ I cannot understand why these accounts are not subject to the same disclosure requirements as other accounts presented to Parliament…..And the best way to get that information and explanation is for the Comptroller and Auditor General to be given the power to audit the Duchies’ accounts’

But they are not scrutinised by the Auditor general, as all other accounts are.

What are “all other accounts” in this context? Because most audits are not carried out by the Auditor General.

@Novella4 The accounts of the Duchies are audited in the same way as most public companies by an independent firm of auditors.

If you look at the full report from which I assume you have taken your quote, you will see that all the questions asked by the House of Commons were answered fully including the reasons why there was no need for the involvement of the Auditor General:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjfwZUrIqDAxWLP-wKHUytAd4QFnoECBsQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublications.parliament.uk%2Fpa%2Fcm200405%2Fcmselect%2Fcmpubacc%2F313%2F313.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0eR9vqJLPBez41NujsyiCD&opi=89978449

What has that got to do with Duchy of Lancaster?