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

But we do have a King.

This sort of thing is historically the due right of Kings.

I guess we don't think through the obligations and small print enough and meanings of titles: Duke of, and King of. Duchy of.

We are the Kings subjects, albeit sort of by default whilst having a democratic parliament.

So it's expected no?

What do Royalty do in other European countries with unclaimed death money? How do we compare? That's a good question.

Surplus receipts of £132,000 were paid over to The Duke of Cornwall’s Benevolent Fund

For the benefit of Delugeafterdeluge, you can also then see the independently audited annual accounts of the Duke of Cornwall’s benevolent fund online. It was set up by Prince Charles in 1975 to distribute the money that the Duchy collects from unclaimed estates. I’ve given the link below - the accounts are published on the Charity’s Commission website.

The accounts explain that the Fund receives the net proceeds from the Duchy, invests them to produce an income and, and then distributes that income to charities each year. You can see there that in the year ended 20 June 2022 they made 53 grants totalling just over £260,000. They also note that they liquidated some of the investment fund in 2021 to be able to pay more grants than usual to help alleviate the impacts of Covid.

https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search?p_p_id=uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_state=maximized&p_p_mode=view&p_p_resource_id=%2Faccounts-resource&p_p_cacheability=cacheLevelPage&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_objectiveId=A13196881&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_mvcRenderCommandName=%2Faccounts-and-annual-returns&_uk_gov_ccew_onereg_charitydetails_web_portlet_CharityDetailsPortlet_priv_r_p_organisationNumber=269183

Looking at the accounts I’ve referred to so far, I haven’t seen zero indication that any of this money goes to the Duke of Cornwall personally by the way - it gets spent on the expenses of dealing with the estates, sits in reserves for a while to make sure that any claimant who emerges can be paid out, and then after the time limit for that elapses, are paid to the Benevolent fund to be invested/distributed.

Thanks for this information. Very interesting indeed.

Do you happen to know who the accounts are independently audited by?

And do you think (genuine question) that they can be verified truly, without any undue influence, when you are inspecting the accounts presented by the most powerful institution in the land which lies at the centre of the establishment?

For example (also genuine question) what do you think would happen if anomalies were found? Would the general public get to know about them too?

I know my questions are speculative.

Funnily enough I am too busy living my life and helping with genuine charities to follow the RF’s finances. So I had no idea about this and am shocked.

For those who say ‘it’s always happened’ - that doesn’t make it right. Lots of the laws that came out if a feudal patriarchy have been changed as they become inappropriate. Although this country still punishes crimes against property far more harshly than crimes again person in a hang over from the law makers protecting themselves - but that’s another thread.

It’s the sleight of hand and cover up that gets me. The press all collude to protect the RF as they generate inches and that’s why the behaviour of the Queen Mother, Andrew, Charles and the rest went unchallenged. And the politicians and civil servants. We’re seeing more challenge recently and long may it continue.

Now the Queen has gone, let’s get rid of some of these archaic practices.

I’d be more than happy if the money went to help farmers or to renovate farm buildings btw. But is the decision-making as to how and where the money is spent, open and transparent?

Do you happen to know who the accounts are independently audited by?

The auditor signs off on the accounts, so if you have access to those, you can also see who audited them. If you look at page 9 of the link I posted above to the Benevolent Fund above, you will see the auditors were SRG (Audit) LLP.

And do you think (genuine question) that they can be verified truly, without any undue influence, when you are inspecting the accounts presented by the most powerful institution in the land which lies at the centre of the establishment?

100% I do, actually, and with very good reason. Funnily enough it would not be the Royal Family that is the most difficult audit client for an audit firm - not by a long way!

So the Windsors not only do not pay inheritance tax when the monarch dies , they happily pocket money from the estates of those intestate ( after ‘trying ‘to find any relatives)

Not a good look

I know all countries will have a system for distributing assets from the intestate but do other counties have a king who simply trousers it?

but do other counties have a king who simply trousers it?

As I’ve pointed out above, Novella, looking at the published, transparent accounts shows zero evidence that the King has “trousered” anything.

I support having a Monarchy. I'm less bothered by this and more bothered by our politicians using their influence to curate incredibly lucrative business contracts, giving themselves pay rises above inflation, practically awarding themselves peerages, wasting hundreds of millions and billions on things like Rwanda immigration schemes, poorly thought out Nightingale hospitals, track and trace whilst leaving the NHS to crash and burn.

I think the RF getting the money... at least it's going to someone that is the principle figurehead of the country and its' heritage. It's interesting that people perceive historical buildings as heritage, but not the Monarch himself or Monarchy itself.

Why does this bother you more than the examples above?

@Serenster
did you read the article?

The most recent question put to the estate was re an unaccounted for 14 miilion
Answer came there none
That is aside from the fact the ‘charity’ listed appears to be housing on the estate - from which rent is paid back to the Duchy
sound familiar ?

Great questions. I wish I'd thought of them!

Everything is cloaked in secrecy so I doubt anomalies would come to light. Well done the Guardian for these articles holding the Monarchy to account

Read the article @Serenster

” Yet a Guardian investigation now reveals that matters are even worse than we have been led to believe. Put bluntly, we have been lied to. Monies we all thought were going to charity have instead been used to improve properties owned by the duchy, increasing the income stream that flows from them into Charles’s pockets.”
Trousering it .

The press all collude to protect the RF as they generate inches and that’s why the behaviour of the Queen Mother, Andrew, Charles and the rest went unchallenged. And the politicians and civil servants. We’re seeing more challenge recently and long may it continue.

This ⬆. And parliament. Parliament colludes too, purely because each Party are afraid of pissing off the royalist public and losing votes. However, Labour have talked about reform of the HoL so that's a start.

Now the Queen has gone, let’s get rid of some of these archaic practices.

Amen to that. I had high hopes for Charles. I honestly thought he would sweep through with changes but when he went for the massive Coronation, paid for by the public, I realised my hope was misplaced.

However, Labour have talked about reform of the HoL so that's a start. Well with SIR Keir Starmer in power for the foreseeable future I wouldn't hold my breath.

Surely it depends what the reform entails?

Bearing in mind a 900 strong HoL that sees donors, son of a KGB officer, a woman who has waltzed off with £70M of public money and is still a 'Lady', and a random young blonde girl who nobody can work out why she is there... any reform would be welcomed by me.
A democratically elected chamber for instance.

This. It’s not like this is a surprise. The law of bona vacantia is as old as the hills in this country.

If you make a Will it is NEVER going to be an issue. If you don’t make a will and have legal (even very distant) relatives it will not be an issue in terms of money going to the Crown, but it will be an almighty mess claiming your “share” on the intestate estate.

if people are stupid enough to believe that a common law partner, or step children they’ve never adopted, will automatically inherit without them writing a will, well more fool them. And those people who expected inheritence but never pointed out that they may need to get their Will sorted, have a bit of themselves to blame. Why do people think not getting legal marriage or partnership affords you any legal rights?

There Is no need for any money to EVER be left to the Crown. But there are always going to be idiots in the world who don’t inform themselves or have magical thinking. the crown doesn’t “steal” from idiots like this, it uses money to meet the stated objectives laid out in law to do with its estates. If you don’t like it, then make sure you personally give the crown its due.

And while you’re at it, in not putting off getting your Will written, do a LPOA as well. Intestate is a storm in a tea cup compared to what happens when people don’t make a LPOA and then it’s needed 😱🤷🏼‍♀️

Funny how someone has come a cropper in expecting an inheritance and now it’s all over papers. But, hey, perhaps a useful PR exercise in getting people to WRITE YOUR WILL before it’s too late.

It’s the sleight of hand and cover up that gets me. The press all collude to protect the RF as they generate inches and that’s why the behaviour of the Queen Mother, Andrew, Charles and the rest went unchallenged.

Huh? The press had a field day with Andrew. Andrew was never liked by the press even before the accusations of his involvement in sex trafficking.

They paid royal staff to listen in on their phone calls in the 80s and 90s and have been snipping at Charles (his letters to MPs, his personal phone calls to Camilla during his marriage to Diana) for years.

I've always wondered how they put up with so much intrusion, speculation, and tabloid gossipping, much of it nasty from the press.

That part of it is certainly not charmed.

I support having a Monarchy. I'm less bothered by this and more bothered by our politicians using their influence to curate incredibly lucrative business contracts, giving themselves pay rises above inflation, practically awarding themselves peerages, wasting hundreds of millions and billions on things like Rwanda immigration schemes, poorly thought out Nightingale hospitals, track and trace whilst leaving the NHS to crash and burn.

It's the same behaviour, isn't it? Make as much money as you can for as long as you can by any means possible. Spend some on your pet projects while you blow your own trumpet. Make sure you have good PR. If caught red-handed, lie, spin, deny or be unavailable for comment. Make sure the lower classes know their place. Etc.

The ethical standards in public life in the UK are dire.

For example (also genuine question) what do you think would happen if anomalies were found? Would the general public get to know about them too?

One point to note that I think may not be appreciated - auditors don’t “work” for the company they are auditing. Their appointment is required by statute, and though their bills are paid by the company they are auditing, they have to be independent. To the extent that you can’t work on the audit of a bank if you have a credit card or mortgage with them. You can’t accept hospitality from the company. You can’t work on the audit of a company that your partner works for. Auditors work in the interests of the public, not the interests of the firm they are auditing. That’s a fundamental cornerstone of the role.

If anomalies are found, the auditor generally will not sign off the accounts (as it’s their professional reputation on the line, and they get personally pursued by the Financial Reporting Council* if they let shady accounts slide). This would be public knowledge.

Or, if they are not wholly happy, but not to the stage that they feel unable to sign the accounts, they will qualify them - “i.e. we found these discrepancies which have meant we can’t provide the standard certification.” (which is publicised). Or they resign (this is also publicised, and always leads to questions as it is an unusual step for an auditor to take).

*The recent FRC fines on KPMG for its not good enough audit of failed construction company Carillion is a good example - bear in mind KPMG were not involved in running the company, they just did not do a good enough job in investigating financial irregularities in its accounts. KPMG was fined a total of £35 million for problems with its audit, and the audit partner was fined £250,000 and banned from practising for 10 years. Three other employees who worked on the audit were fined £45,000, £30,000, and £40,000 respectively.

Everything is cloaked in secrecy so I doubt anomalies would come to light. Well done the Guardian for these articles holding the Monarchy to account

See my two answers to these questions above. Actually the whole point of audited accounts is transparency…the standards being applied by the auditors are all published, the auditors have to be independent, the accounts are published.

Yes I would mind a lot, which is why I have a will.

Huh? The press had a field day with Andrew. Andrew was never liked by the press even before the accusations of his involvement in sex trafficking.

Exactly. The press were the ones who broke the Andrew and Epstein story.

It was February 2011 that the News of the World published a picture of Andrew and Epstein walking in Central Park together with the headline “Prince Andy & The Paedo” and the UK media have covered it deeply for the intervening 12 years. The press coverage was so negative that it forced the Prince to step down from his “Trade Envoy” role just 5 months after the initial NOTW, and then it was the Daily Mail that discovered and published the infamous photo of Prince Andrew and Virginia Giuffre a couple of years later. The Giuffre lawsuit, Andrew’s interview - all had massive negative coverage.

The only reason we know any of this is because of the tabloid press’ investigative journalism.

so true. but we have the "screaming" and "pearl clutchers" insults "
shame as its an interesting thread.

It's not the same.

Charles is the King. This is the price of Kings and his office is an integral part of our constitution, culture and heritage going back centuries.

MPs are meant to serve the public, advance the greater good and be 'Right Honourable'.

They are supposed to be a better alternative to total Royal Rule. Frankly I often doubt this is true these days.

But the increasing majority of them are self-regarding and self-serving career politicians completely removed from the everyday Joe.

The members of the Monarchy, go out, do some charity work, bring some cheer to people. Stand for something.

I both went personally and watched the Queen lying in state coverage. I saw so many people from around the world, representatives from so many countries and from almost every religion united for a brief moment in time. Unlike the fragmentation we are experiencing daily now. That is what Royalty is capable of. Which of our politicians can do the same? Boris? Sunak? Starmer? Don't make me laugh.

Politicians come out with sleezy, money grabbing, public-services-slashing, depressing crap on a monthly.

The RF are worth it. Do not think this country will be better or there'll be more social equity without them. That is a false promise.

Well... given the latest Andrew shenanigans, I don't think it has stopped. I always think that what we know is probably about 10%, if that, of what actually has gone on. And given that all his travel records and information of what he actually did as Trade Envoy is now sealed for over 100 years, we will never know.
How convenient.

Yes, he might have stepped down as Trade Envoy because the Press were onto him re JE, but he shouldn't have been given the job in the first place knowing how he has been taking backhanders, involved with dodgy ME oligarchs and such like... so AFAIC he hasn't had a much negative coverage as he deserves.

But I don't want to derail from the Duchies