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

Have you read all the articles linked and the full thread? The Duchy is a private estate. They set up 3 charities, only one is a charity that doesn't benefit her/him. The Duchy of Cornwall gives 100% to local charities.

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.

But that it what charities and estates do, they invest to build assets and generate income. They also invest in the stock market which is less visible and doesn’t provide homes or businesses for those who need them.

Being honest isn’t it what many people and charities who have additional income do? They save and invest in a wide variety of things including property.

Remember KC and PoW are custodians of the Duchies and whilst they draw income they have to manage the estates to maintain them. They do pay tax ( yes I know it’s voluntary) on their Duchy income which benefits the public purse

It feels like you're missing the actual argument.

The Duchy of Lancaster is a private estate. As doL the Monarch gets to keep the bon vacantia money- thats one thing some didn't know and are not happy about given his personal wealth. Back in the 80's the Queen, under pressure, said it would now be given to charity to benefit local people. In 2001 the Jubilee trust was created, and in 2009 the housing trust was created and those two 'charities' get most of the BV money. Those two 'charities' benefit their private estate. The DoL itself is not a charity. As outlined at length on this thread and in the article, that is the problem some people have with this.

The DoL has a website that lists all the people involved in its management here

Yes, I'd already seen it.

As you say they are management though, not trustees.

It doesn't have trustees because it's not a charity. the 'charities' it set up have trustees. The Duchy has a council to manage it.

It doesn't have trustees because it's not a charity. the 'charities' it set up have trustees. The Duchy has a council to manage it.

Which makes it strange that the Duchy's own website claims it's a 'trust'.

I'm just musing on one more mystery swirling round the king's cash register 😁

@Iwantcakeeveryday I am not missing the point I just view the argument from a different perspective. Fundamentally estates, how ever they are owned, have to be managed and this includes investment and maintenance. You cannot change the past but as you say now the two charities get most of the BV money. Surely any improvement to property owned by the charities benefits the charity not the estate.

I am well aware the Duchies along with the Crown Estates would be a real issue if republicans won the argument and the monarchy was abolished. Determining who owned what etc. would be a bun fight with no one happy with the outcome.

In the end the RF would come away with millions. All they then need to do is follow the example of the Duke of Westminster and how they structure their portfolio to minimise IHT etc.

Fundamentally estates, how ever they are owned, have to be managed and this includes investment and maintenance.

Of course, It's his private estate, so the estate/him, should fund that.

You cannot change the past but as you say now the two charities get most of the BV money. Surely any improvement to property owned by the charities benefits the charity not the estate.

The Jubilee Trust is a 'charity' that pays for maintenance to assets of the Duchy, using Bv monies. Do you consider that to be an actual charitable expense? Why do you think public money should be used on his private properties? Including to upgrade them and turn them into, among other things, luxury accommodation that can charge rent. That rent does not go back to the Jubilee Trust, as the properties are still owned by the Duchy, not the charity. He is using BV monies to maintain his private estate.

The housing trust was given BV money, and then used to buy properties from the Duchy, so the Duchy then gets to keep that BV money, invest it etc as part of a private estate, and the 'charity' is now responsible for maintaining the properties she formally was, and they do so using BV money. This is the argument, that they claimed it was all going to charity, but they are primarily now using it to benefit their private estate for which they receive enormous income from.

The housing trust was given BV money, and then used to buy properties from the Duchy, so the Duchy then gets to keep that BV money, invest it etc as part of a private estate, and the 'charity' is now responsible for maintaining the properties she formally was, and they do so using BV money.

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding this but are you saying a charity was set up (Housing trust) which was given BV money. The charity used the BV money to purchase property at market rate. The charity uses its money, including BV money, to maintain its properties?

The Duchy sold the properties at market rate and just like anyone who sells property gets money which it is free to use to invest.

. If I own a property and sell it to anyone, including a charity, I am entitled to then use the money I am paid to invest or spend. The purchaser is then responsible for maintaining the property. How is this any different?

Yes, we all know it's legal, we are talking about the morality of offloading your properties to a charity you created, and using BV monies, claiming it's 'for charity'. Indirectly benefitting of Bv monies, when they said they didn't, and then also no longer having to cover costs of those properties which are now using BV money for that. You honestly don't see anything wrong with that? It's just a way for him to use the Bv money on some of his estate, and still having control of those properties which can never be sold to anyone else. The only thing that has changed by creating this 'charity' is that he can now use BV money to maintain something, thus saving him money and increasing the value of his investments by adding £1 million of BV money to the pot. This is not what they said they would do with the money, public money.

The housing trust was given BV money, and then used to buy properties from the Duchy, so the Duchy then gets to keep that BV money, invest it etc as part of a privateestate, and the 'charity' is now responsible for maintaining the properties she formally was, and they do so using BV money. This is the argument, that they claimed it was all going to charity, but they are primarily now using it to benefit theirprivate estatefor which they receive enormous income from.

It's worth reiterating that the money spent on the renovations derives from the interest from the investment of the BV funds meaning the capital is retained by the Duchy. We were led to believe the whole lot was turned over once a deduction for possible claims had been made.

Of course as more capital accrues, the more interest accrues to be spent on Charles' personal projects.

KC as POW managed the Duchy of Cornwall which as per a pp gives 100% of the BV money to local charities which is moral and legal.

KC has only been responsible for the Duchy of Lancaster since September 2022. Whilst what the DoL has historically done is legal but by some it’s not considered moral.

To be fair KC has had a very short time to get to grips with a new job and the intricacies of all the royal estate including the DoL. It takes time to make changes and to make sure they are the right changes. How do we know KC isn’t intending in the long term to alter the way the DoL deals with BV money so it meets both the legal and moral test?

As @Roussette said even ordinary wills and estates can be extremely complex and take time to sort.

No, we don't know what he intends to do in the future. Highlighting this by The Guardian, about what was mostly his mothers decisions, may influence him now. It's also information the public should know in general and about the former Queen, and its shame it wasn't known sooner. To me, it was shameful of her to do this. So far KC has said he intends to continue taking the BV money, it was in the article. I actually hope they decline it for both duchies and everyone is treated the same in England, regardless of where they live.

@rosyglowcondition thanks.
To be fair this thread is interesting to see a different point of view from other threads.

No, it hasn't roundly been debunked. Quite honestly I would rather read and try and understand what is being said by a team of investigative people who have worked on this for years... than a cleverer person on a forum

I don't consider I am wasting my time at all. Sorry you have to come on here and waste yours

Thank you. I enjoy discussion even if I can get it wrong sometimes. These RF threads don't allow it sometimes.

whilst I do post I don’t like the personal nature of some of the threads/posts e.g the misogynistic ones about appearance which is very different to the long running thread on clothes and jewels.

Who really owns the Duchies, the monarch or the people? An interesting timeline here

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/05/who-owns-and-profits-from-the-duchies-of-lancaster-and-cornwall-timeline

Thank you for posting this @Iwantcakeeveryday . Oh my goodness.

I think.. to understand why questions are being asked, like on this thread, that article needs to be read as it looks into the history of the Duchies from the 13th century.

Doesn't it make you just hate this tory government even more? Cameron and Osborne screwed us!

@Iwantcakeeveryday Your statement is incorrect. The Duchy of Lancaster is held in trust and the BV money is used for the upkeep of heritage property and then the balance is given to charity. Absolutely none of the capital goes to the monarch. He does receive any surplus income from investments but pays tax accordingly.

I should have added that the 'Council' takes the place usually occupied by trustees and is overseen by the Treasury
"The Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall (Accounts) Act 1838 gave the Treasury a role to ensure that actions taken by any Duke when managing the Duchy cannot compromise the long-term value of the estate. For this reason the Treasury must, for example, approve all property transactions with a value of £500,000 or more. The Duchy’s annual accounts are laid before the House of Commons and the House of Lords so that Parliament can be satisfied that the Treasury is fulfilling its statutory responsibilities."

Not it is not incorrect.

This is from the Dol's own website:

The Duchy of Lancaster is a private estate owned by His Majesty The King, as Duke of Lancaster.

The former Queen said the money would go to charity. The benevolent fund set up in 1993 does give money to actual charities.

In 2001 the Jubilee Trust was set up, 2009 the housing Trust, both of those trusts use BV to benefit the monarch. That it demonstrably true. The 'heritage properties' are not public properties, they're part of the duchy estate, which they themselves say is private.

The housing trust was set up with BV money, that money was then given back to the duchy to 'buy' properties, which the charity now maintains. The BV money used to pay for those properties, is invested by the estate, like all their reserve funds. The monarch receives the investment income.

That is the opening statement on the website but although it is generally considered an asset of the monarch, it is a private estate for the benefit of the monarch but it is definitely not owned outright by the King himself!

This page of the website gives more detail of the background, but it is not a simple structure. https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/duties-of-the-duchy/records-charters/
These documents include evidence of the trust being created by Henry IV:

"One of Henry’s first acts as King was to stipulate the conditions in which the Lancaster inheritance should be held, specifying that it should be held separately from all other Crown possessions, and should descend through the Monarchy as a private estate.
Some 300 years later, under the Crown Lands Act 1702, it was decreed that the Sovereign should only receive income and not capital from the Duchy.
And so it remains to this day."

It is subject to Trust law although its formation predates the introduction of formal trust law hence a Council rather than trustees being tasked with management.

"2.8 The Duchy of Lancaster Act 1920 broadened the powers of investment authorised by the Duchy of Lancaster Act 1808 which have subsequently been extended by two later Acts, the Trustee Act 1961 and the Trustee Act 2000.
2.9 The position today is still that capital funds arising from sales of Duchy land must either be invested in accordance with the Trustee Act 2000 or spent on the physical improvements to land permitted by the 1817 Act or in the purchase of land permitted by The Duchy of Lancaster Lands Act 1855."