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

Even my mother, who is an ardent royalist, has said she find this absolutely disgusting.

Slightly off topic but this seems an opportune moment to just remind those who weren't aware of Bona Vacantia or those who have specific wishes for the distribution of their estate upon death, that November is Will Aid month where you can get a will drawn up in exchange for a charitable donation with a participating solicitor. Just a few days left.

https://www.willaid.org.uk/

@StormzyinaTCup
Really worth a link, thank you.

You're welcome!

Well only in the sense that we have chosen the government to be our representatives and deal with that money on our behalf. And we can vote them out / in if we think they are not doing a good job.

So my preference would be that the Duchies (is that right for the plural of duchy, looks wrong) are either treated exactly the same as the rest of the country, or the proceeds are distributed by local elected officials or a locally appointed board according to the needs of the areas which the deceased lived in.

Been thinking about this all day. I don't think that it is fair to call it theft or a grift. I do think that it is one of many things that have been done in the same way for decades and don't fit in with modern sensibilities or ideas about fairness. I don't think these things are limited to the royal family and I think many many obscenely wealthy people use the royals as cover whilst they do what they want, but this is not a thread about them.

I don't think any of this would be being discussed were the Queen still alive and I think it is healthy that these things are now being discussed. Unlike some on this thread I believe that Charles and William are genuine in their desire to help people and care about whether what they do is ethical and I am hopeful that in the next few years we will see many changes to the way the monarchy works that are more in line with today's society. I don't expect them to change overnight because the institution always changes slowly though.

I can assure you @wordler I didn't vote Borris in and he handed billions over to his friends without consequence. This money is a tiny drop in the ocean and has most likely done more good per pound.

@MrsLeonFarrell

So agree with some of your post. I agree that changes move at a snails pace for anything to do with the Monarchy... it's a bloated institution, and nothing can happen quickly.

I am just disappointed that Charles didn't make a couple of grand gestures to show he was open to change. But I also agree, it is early days.

I am just glad that there is more in the way of investigation by journalists who are challenging the FOI, and doing their very best to report back to us the people on how the Monarchy works, and how it funds itself, and it's wealth!

Trouble is... Charles is there to keep the royal boat afloat.. I do think a lot of people were expecting reform. That hasn't happened. I think they've got their work cut out. Especially with the younger population.

I am just glad that there is more in the way of investigation by journalists who are challenging the FOI, and doing their very best to report back to us the people on how the Monarchy works, and how it funds itself, and it's wealth!

Not the hill I imagined I’d die on, but here we are. 😀 Yet again:

All this information is already freely available online to anyone who wishes to look it up.

So... nothing hidden, all completely transparent Serenster?

Doubtful!

If that was the case, there wouldn't be anyone (including the Guardian and others) looking into it.

I’m the one who has been posting absolutely loads of links and screenshots of all the publicly available information about this topic on this thread, Roussette. Why don’t you have a go and identify something key in the story that is not in the public domain?

Yes, believe me, I know you're doing that. 👍

You can't see anything wrong.

Others do.

"It has long claimed that, after deducting costs, bona vacantia revenues are donated to charities"
"However, only a small percentage of these revenues is being given to charity. Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit"

Though bona vacantia is nothing new it's this bit which sickens me

I'm not saying I believed that much of it went to charity - I believe very little of Charles's PR unless proved - but as ever it's the attempt to deceive which rankles

It appears the Duchy have spoken. Link below

This bit stands out for me...
This has been a long-standing arrangement - and the duchy says that such unclaimed money is given to charities, or else is used for environmental projects or to maintain properties on the estate.

And this is why, this practice should be abolished in the Duchies...
The government has a different approach to money forgotten in bank accounts in England - so-called dormant assets - with almost £900m since 2011 being reused to support community projects in deprived areas

So who knows where the money goes 'to maintain properties on the estate'
The Duchy of Lancaster, dating back to the 13th Century, is a sprawling mix of rural estates and high-value urban property portfolio, including in central London around the Strand

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67519147

it was the inference that this had somehow been kept from us and the poster was doing some kind of service bringing this to our attention. And her anti royal threads that she maintains aren’t. Just own it.

Things you didn’t know but are openly available to find out aren’t secrets. They are just things you didn’t know.

Bu all means campaign for a law change. But I doubt any of that money would ever make it to the pockets of anyone except government cronies or stupid government projects.

The idea that getting rid of the monarchy would mean free money for all and thousands of new houses in old palaces is infantile. It would never happen. Has it happened anywhere else that the monarchy no longer exists? No.

The idea that getting rid of the monarchy would mean free money for all and thousands of new houses in old palaces is infantile

No one on here has suggested that. Nothing like that.

We are disccussing a practice we feel is wrong.

It’s undesirable and an unsavoury feudal relic but that is what the law is. It’s not “theft”, it’s not a secret practice, it’s something you learn in the first three or so weeks of your land law course. Yes, it should be changed. To be honest though I’d rather have it in the hands of a seemingly well-meaning but very entitled and antiquated monarch than the corrupt idiots running the country who will just give it to their friends.

I am not sure if you mean me when you refer to 'the poster' ?

For your information, I very rarely instigate threads about the royal family apart from threads about Prince Andrew ages ago. So you are totally incorrect about attributing 'anti royal threads' to me. Maybe you have mistaken me for someone else?

I am not doing some kind of service, I started a thread on something that is being reported all over the media... Guardian, Independent, BBC, even the DMail!

Personally, I think discussion on topics in the news is very normal.

Iwantcakeeveryday · Yesterday 10:34

I’ve been becoming more aware of this and read the article in the Guardian today. It’s all very well saying just make a will but we know that there are some people that for whatever reason won’t have done.

Has as been pointed out several times its not a case of dying intestate, but having no blood relatives either.
My mother died intestate but I still inherited her house.

Has as been pointed out several times its not a case of dying intestate, but having no blood relatives either

I think it's a case of having no traceable blood relatives.

Well the truth has been kept from us. This is about a new set of articles by a reputable news source, who have revealed that all of the money from the Duchy of Lancaster isn't going to charities, like we were told. Thats is new. It will also highlight to others who didn't know about this at all, that without a will this is what happens to your money if you live in those areas. Thats a positive.

You know its ok to be a republican, and as this is the royal board and not the royal fan board, there will be people here who are against the monarchy on principal. @Roussette is clear about her position and always has been, so no need for you to be aggressive to her or tell her to own something she already is very clear on.

In find this attitude of "let the royals have the money because they will spend better than any pleb ever could" depressing and fascinating in equal measure. There must must a term for it but I don't know it.

Stockholm Syndrome?!

yes, I was discussing it with my family last night. It is fascinating that people are so bothered by some people spending public money on themselves, or gold wall paper, but not the royal family who take more than any single person or family from us- including after death! I do wonder about it. Is it that people truly believe they are anointed by god? Is it a religious belief that they are better and deserve more? Although that does seem to be a flexible position because they'll hate on certain royals and not want them to have a thing, even a title.... but others can take millions from us and it's absolutely fine. There doesn't seem to be any consistency in the position.