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

@Rockybooboo I'm quoting @Roussette , so maybe ask her?

Regardless of who audits the accounts, an almost 20 year old statement is hardly likely to be relevant today?

No you are not quoting me. I have not mentioned Harry, Meghan or Omid on here. That was you. Stop making things up.

Go back to my post at 11.03 if you are confused.

@Roussette you certainly say scrutiny is getting uncomfortable for some people, and I said yes, for Harry, Meghan and Omid. Quite an appropriate response to your quote as I feel your whole thread based on a flawed article which you seem reluctant to admit has bias.

Therefore I think my response is an attempt to point out that truth isn't subjective as the trio seem to think, and the truth of the article is very suspect.

Scrutiny is getting uncomfortable for some. Yes.

And that is Posters who think the Monarchy can do no wrong with regard to the Duchies.

Nothing to do with Harry, Meghan, Omid which you seem determined to bring onto this thread. Completely out of context. And you know it. Derailing, plain and simple, there's plenty of curent threads on MN where you can talk about them if you so wish.

There's no need for you to respond to me or @ me again,. Thanks

I'm drawing an anology, I'm allowed to do that.

The Duchy is held in trust.

Who are the trustees?

That a very lame excuse to bring them up.

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 Reading widely, even those publications you wouldn’t naturally go to, is sensibleHigh).

I’ve used MedaBias/Fact Check myself. However, in discussions talking about not using a single source of media to get at the truth, it should also be mentioned that MediaBias/FactCheck also has its critics as well as supporters. A quick check on wiki shows that there is some concern over its methodology.

Imo, this is the not right topic for pointing out the dangers of only reading a source that supports/reinforces our bias. Between them, most regular posters on here seeking the truth of the DoL and the money from people who have died intestate (with no easily traceable relatives), have used quite a variety of sources to investigate the subject of the Guardian articles. We’ve even read of one poster making telephone enquiries to the Duchy.

The advice to read more than one source might be better offered up to the 5 (and counting) Omid Scobie threads that have a great number of posters getting their ‘news’ from the Daily Mail, or from other media sources that refer to articles published by the Daily Mail. And most of that is based on purposely selected snippets from the book Endgame, often taken out of context - by the Daily Mail.

The trustees are very likely lawyers as is often the case with rich people’s trusts, either that or people who are best placed to maximise the income of the trust.

rosyglowcondition · Yesterday 19:51
I'm drawing an anology, I'm allowed to do that.

You'd think so, wouldn't you?
But on Mumsnet any mention of Harry or Meghan that isn't positive makes you one of the haterz, and you are to be demonized and your opinion dismissed.

So then, of course your argument, however relevant, can be ignored.

But this topic is not Harry and Meghan as they're not connected to The Duchy of Lancaster so why try to shoehorn them into this one.

The are whole threads bitching about the Sussexes so it's not like you're not allowed to talk about them.

But it isn't the slightest bit relevant and the connection the poster tried to make just did not work.

You know there are four or is it five threads running at the moment that are full of bile about them, it's not as if there's nowhere to post saying how awful they are!

Believe me we know how hated they are, there's no escaping the vitriol about them, especially as any opinion that doesn't agree with that is swiftly rounded on and attacked, we just don't want a derail here, not a lot to ask I think

It's highly amusing you find that anti H&M posters are the ones demonised! Free rein on five current threads tells me it's quite the opposite.

@CathyorClaire @CeciledeVolangesdeNouveau

The DoL has a website that lists all the people involved in its management here:
https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/our-people/the-duchy-council/

But on Mumsnet any mention of Harry or Meghan that isn't positive makes you one of the haterz, and you are to be demonized and your opinion dismissed.

In the RF thread of the most popular topics this morning we are on number 5 of the OS threads, a RAVEC thread, a thread about Archewell and this one. This is the only thread that is not about them or related to them and yet people are trying to shoehorn them it. And clumsily too. All the threads mentioned except this one have people being not positive about H&M - there is no demonisation nor is there dismissal so this is objectively incorrect.

(sorry Rousette for continuing a bit of derail and hopefully everyone can get back on track with this thread)

There is no analogy between two people who, as much as they woukd like it, are not part of the Ruling family in this country, are not in that position of power purely by dint of birth and birth order, and who's child and grandchild etc will not get those rights as a given. Their ' work' depends on other private individuals tax avoiding by giving money to their ' foundation'. If they lose money or misspend funds, it is scrutinised and subject to the laws of wherever they are. They are taking advantage of lax laws. The Royal Family can exempt themselves from the law without us knowing. The Duchies have dodgy tax arrangements that the Royals can use the full force of our entire Constitutional system ( including Parliament, the courts, and the press) to keep under wraps. The Royal Family pays minimal tax and uses offshore tax havens to store their wealth, then ' gives money to charitable foundations' to do things that need huge government investment like homelessness and childhood development but that the government doesn't have. Partly because of mismanagement and partly because they allow the super rich like members of the RF and their buddies get away with tax avoidance on a huge scale.

No probs. There are actually another two threads apart from the ones you mentioned, current as of last night. . All free rein with little pushback, so no idea why anyone can think these posters are being 'demonised' comes from!

yes indeed, as soon as there appeared two threads heavily criticising and analysing Charles and William up pops a lot of threads about Poor Kate and Meghan, their looks, and of course an increased volume of negativity about Harry and Meghan.

Its painfully obvious what's happening and I suggest those of us who are here more to discuss these types of issues, things that actually matter, should just ignore any and all attempts to bring other issues into this. Usually if ignored, persisting with derails will be dealt with. Challenge them and they will allow it to continue.

Please don’t derail this thread, which so far has been pretty focused and cordial.

I have to say I always thought this was common knowledge and the simple solution was to leave a will - whilst not recommended, as long as it is witnessed you can write your own will.

I would also point out that everyone can avoid inheritance tax by leaving any assets over the tax threshold to charity.

A couple with children who own a home worth £350k and leave part of their estate to their children have a joint IHT of £1m. A single person with no children has £325k. If they both have estates totalling £1.5 m the couple leave £0.5m to charity and the single person £1.175m. I have known charities question how much bereaved families spent on their loved ones funeral and wake.

How many charities use legacies to pay high salaries to their senior managers and rely on free volunteers to do the grunt work?

What about churches who have charitable arms who often benefit from legacies? Some are sitting on huge amounts.

Some universities also have charitable arms.

When you look at charities as a whole how many use legacies to repair and maintain properties, pay salaries etc. Are the Duchy’s charitable arms in line with them or doing something different?

That's an interesting post @Sisterpita

Having been Executor on two horrendous Wills, I get what you are saying. And given how much houses are worth nowadays,I don't think Joe Bloggs down the road leaves anything over the IHT threshold to Charity.

However, you can reduce your IHT bill from 40% to 36% if 10% of your Estate is left to Charity.

How many charities use legacies to pay high salaries to their senior managers and rely on free volunteers to do the grunt work?

Yes. This. My experience as Executor was not a pleasant experience, that's all I'll say. But it was due to the nature of how the Will was put together.

I can say honestly I did not know about it, I thought all areas of England and Wales went to the treasury. We are not the first to complain at all, so I guess it come sup every now and then.

I found this from 1975 ...

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to take into public ownership without compensation the two estates known as the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall. I hope that I shall be allowed to introduce this relatively non-controversial Bill without a vote.- Willie Hamilton, MP, 1975

... the Duchy of Lancaster is a very desirable estate. It has been in existence since 1265, the land having been stolen or taken from Simon de Montfort and the Earl of Ferrers. Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained why the revenues from both estates were not surrendered by the Crown within the terms of the so-called bargain struck in 1760.....

More here, its a fun read! https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=1975-05-13a.327.0

How many charities use legacies to pay high salaries to their senior managers and rely on free volunteers to do the grunt work?

Fair question. I prefer to support small local grassroots charities, the larger they are the higher the salaries.

Bringing it back to the Duchy’s. If, like many other charities, their charitable arms own property then, like any other charity, they quite correctly use their funds to pay for repairs and maintenance.

It is therefore consistent that legacies to a charity, including a Duchy charity, is used to fund repairs, maintenance and even expansion of the property portfolio.

So why is it an issue that unclaimed estates on Duchy land go to the Duchy charities which own properties which need to be maintained?

So why is it an issue that unclaimed estates on Duchy land go to the Duchy charities which own properties which need to be maintained?

I think it's because it's just not maintaining properties. It's buying up barns, agricultural buildings, turning them into high end rentals (which untimately will benefit KC), petrol stations, commercial properties etc.

To me, that rankles.

The Benevolent Charity (one of the three) does exactly what I would expect the funds to be channelled to. Scholarships, youth clubs, community projects. All local, all community based.