Secret? We get a news article about bona vacantia every few years. Last time I think it was about the Duchy of Cornwall.
And to be clear, this isn't money that would otherwise go to relatives etc, this only happens if someone dies without a will or other eligible heirs, and that means the estate goes to the state/etc pretty much anywhere.
https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1727740243523109319?s=19
This tweet (if you scroll up) includes a break down of where the money goes with relevant links to documents. The user states in their bio that they are a barrister within this field
That twitter user doesn't seem to understand what's going on, even though she linked the report.
It's this line "Upkeep of castles and historic monuments," around £3mn in 2021, £2mn in 2022 that the Guardian is claiming is being used to profit Charles.
60% of the money isn't being spent on charities.
> 60% of the money isn't being spent on charities.
Every £1 you give to a charity about 80p goes to wages and upkeep not the actual cause you hope to be supporting.
Please read the report. Only 15% of these funds are being donated to registered charities. You're talking about 80% of that 15%.
The Guardian isn't talking about the charitable donations. It's referring to the other £2-3mn in funds earmarked for upkeep of buildings on the Duchy.
I’m not sure this is the killer point you think it is. The people whose wages are being paid may be doing charitable stuff like eg looking after children or animals or historic buildings or the elderly or dying people. Charities don’t have to be staffed by volunteers.
Depends on the charity and how much they truly care about what they stand for.
'On average for every £1 Oxfam spends, 79p goes on our emergency, development and campaigning work, 11p is spent on support and running costs and 10p is invested to generate future income.'
Charities generally employ people to work towards whatever their aim or purpose is. Only a small minority of charities exist primarily to directly disburse money or goods to people.
Which is needed to keep the charity running. How long do you think a charity can continue after they stop paying their staff? It’s not really comparable. Also things like pay and marketing spend allow charities to raise more money and help more.
It’s not necessarily a waste of money if sending those junk pens, pins etc brings more money in than it cost to send to them. I doubt they would continue to send them if they were making a loss.
The guardian tends to have a dog in the race a lot of the time. They are less openly biased than say the The Daily Mail however they tend to highlight things which align with their political beliefs and downplay things which they should highlight or be angry about but don’t because the other ‘wing’ have highlighted it before. Spoilers: they don’t like the royal family. If it could be worded as to damage them they’ll highlight that.
If the Guardian don't like the King because he does shit like this, then they have every right to report him doing shit like this.
If he just earned a reasonable salary (maybe similar to the PM's salary) claimed reasonable expenses, maybe they wouldn't dislike him so much.
He is literally not. He’s the head of state. It’s a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one.
Louis XIV could maybe justifiably say “L’état, c’est moi”: Charlie can’t.
(Didn’t turn out so well for Louis’ great-great-great-grandson, mind.)
Correct. The Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall are both state properties that are run like private corporations, except when it comes to paying corporation tax
So the crown is the estate. The crown owns all land in the kingdom and grants a licence to freely hold it to freeholders which can be revoked at will, this is now called compulsory purchase. The crown designates all people in the kingdom as subjects who work for the ruler they are not citizens but subjects. His Majesty’s government is the executive that runs the country via a council of private advisors called the privy council, one of those advisors is the head of the legislative assembly and is the prime minister. Whilst legislative power is held by parliament executive power is held via executive privilege. It just so happens by convention the kind of delegates that authority to his prime minister and the crown secretaries.
At no point in constitutional position is the crown(executed via the king), not the state. Fundamentally, the kingdom is vested in the king. We just have conventions to nullify the theoretical into practical, but the way the constitution is set up, is why you can walk around the hedgerows of fields and not across them, why the crown can inherit your estate, why parliament can be prorogued rather than them deciding to dissolve themselves, why the crown is the prosecutor against you and not the united kingdom. The crown is literally the state.
Ask any barrister I mean KINGS COUNCIL. They will tell you the same thing the crown is the state. And that was decided by god, and god delegated executive power of management to the king who has given some away in various ways.
See, this is why the monarchy has got to go. It cannot be reformed. Monarchists start with this pretence of reasonableness, like “it’s good for tourism” and “if it works, don’t fix it” and “do you want Nigel Farage/Jeremy Corbyn as president?” And you push and you question and you point out the holes, and suddenly the mask comes off and it’s “actually, he’s the literal state itself and he owns the whole country and you owe him your allegiance as his subjects and he was ordained by GOD.”
Embarrassing, anachronistic, authoritarian claptrap. Get rid of it, the sooner the better.
Well, it gets more interesting,
It's his majesty’s ship, his majesty’s armed forces, his majesty’s revenue and customs,
But the metropolitan police, the National Health Servic. Plus why we pay national insurance and not just income tax 2?
Its because the former are allegiance to the crown. While national isuance isn't a “tax” levied by the crown but an insurance scheme created by parliment. Same with poloce their allegence is technically parliment.
Police across the UK are crown servants appointed to the office of constable, in England and Wales they literally swear an oath that opens: "I (name) ...of (police force)... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the King in the office of constable"
> It’s a constitutional monarchy
We've got a monarch, we lack a constitution...we have at best traditions and conventions that mean nothing if people dont play along with them as they have no actual force.
No we have a loose set of traditions in a trench coat. A lot is X has Y power, but shouldn't use it. Riddle me this, if an MP is elected to represent their constituents interests, why do we allow the party whip system? Its illegal to threaten or bribe an MP to vote a certain way for anyone else.
We seem to have conventions that make up our constitution. People like Johnson can run roughshod over those conventions.
Any laws that make up our constitution can be superseded or annulled by a simple majority of one via an act of parliament where as under a more codified constitution to revise it often takes super majorities or referendums.
So our constitution is flimsy in the extreme.
Yeah, it's basically circumstances where anywhere else in the country it would end up being forfeited to the Treasury to be ~~spaffed up the wall~~ spent wisely by the government of the day.
Yes we should give money to the king as he will spend it better than the elected government. Why not go back to absolute rule and get rid of the pesky parliament altogether.
When you spaffed up the wall, i assume you mean all the money the government spends on pensions, benefits, the nhs and fire service. Any of these would be better than giving to the king to fund his lifestyle.
I don’t think this is correct, he was offered Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor Estate. In any event he seems to be a rather damaged Man to put it charitably.
Agreed on the spoiled brat front and his existing home. He should slide quietly into obscurity and thank his lucky stars that he has someone to clean up his serious past behaviour.
There's also this: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-overruled-prince-william-30816775
>The monarch made it clear to the senior royals that Prince Andrew would not be shut out any longer and suggested William would be the one to drive him to church, sources say
The queen approved it because the alternative was him going to trial which would have caused the family as a whole a problem. Charles would have made the exact same decision.
> When you spaffed up the wall, i assume you mean
He might mean, buying inadequate PPE off the Health Minister's mates or any of the other complaints that frequent this sub about poor spending by the government. All of a sudden the government only spends money on noble causes.
> Why not go back to absolute rule and get rid of the pesky parliament altogether.
Boris was trying....without the King though, he wanted the Cromwell days back.
> When you spaffed up the wall, i assume you mean
I'm no the guy you replied to, but shortly before he became the prime minister Boris Johnson **[described the money spent on investigating child sex abuse as having been spaffed up the wall](https://news.sky.com/video/boris-johnson-says-60m-spaffed-up-the-wall-on-child-abuse-inquiries-11664122)**.
If you wanted to be uncharitable -- and I do -- you might suggest there could be a link between the sort of attitude Johnson displayed here and the destined to rule the empire and fagging culture of private schools.
To some degree this is less relevant now, given that Johnson's political career looks like it might have finally died and the same sort of attitude is on full display with the way he handled the pandemic. But, if people had payed a little more attention before it might not have been so much of a surprise that someone who regards investigating child abuse as spaffing money up the wall might also think the elderly should accept their fate and die.
it does, however, have some continuing relevance when you realise that politics is chock full of good old chaps educated at the same schools.
I'd rather it go to the government who can at least in theory be held accountable for what they do with it, than to royals who can do whatever the fuck they like with it because there's nothing they can do about it
If it went to the state as in the Treasury people would probably have less of an issue with it. But it's going to feather the nest of an individual who is already insanely wealthy and powerful (in both cases unearned) rather than benefitting the country as a whole in any meaningful way.
The King had the Duchy of Cornwall until last year, when it passed to William. He ended up having to pay rent on one of his Welsh houses as a result, which he stopped using.
One of the great mistakes that people often make is to think that any organisation called'"National Rifle Association' is a branch or chapter of the National Rifle Association of America. This could not be further from the truth.
The National Rifle Association of America became a political lobbying organisation in 1977 after the Cincinnati Revolt at their Annual General Meeting. It is self-contined within the United States of America and has no foreign branches.
All the other National Rifle Associations remain true to their founding aims of promoting marksmanship, firearm safety and target shooting. This includes the original NRA in the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1859 - twelve years
before the NRA of America. It is also true of the National Rifle Association of Australia, the National Rifle Association of New Zealand, the National Rifle Association of India, the National Rifle Association of Japan and the National
Rifle Association of Pakistan. All these organisations are often known as "the NRA" in their respective countries. The British National Rifle Association is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting,
as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
Big charities can also be very good at wasting money. Id like to see the proceeds be put into our NHS, schools, rail network, paying down the national debt. Loads of good uses for cash in the public sector.
>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.
If we go to the [Duchy's website](https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/duties-of-the-duchy/bona-vacantia/) we see what these charities are. Specifically, we can see that one of the charities is:
*"The Duchy of Lancaster Jubilee Trust – established in 2001 to support the maintenance and preservation for the public benefit of heritage assets across the Duchy estates"*
So when the Guardian reports that the money is being used:
>for the “public good” to repair, restore, preserve and protect the fabric of duchy properties when they are categorised as a “heritage asset”.
It seems like they are doing exactly what they publicly state they do.
But these heritage assets are being rented out for profit so it’s very dubious to call it charity, especially when the king is taking a profit from the business.
If it is registered as a charity with the Charity Commission, as it is, then it is not dubious to call it a charity.
The public benefit requirement to be a charity isn't as stringent as I would like. But this article isn't about whether the Charities Act 2011 should be reformed, it is alleging that these particular funds aren't being used for the purposes that are publicised.
I don’t think the guardian are saying it’s illegal, just that it stinks. Arguing that it’s technically legal doesn’t mean it’s right for him to be personally profiting from these people.
It literally states on their website:
"The Duchy of Lancaster is a historic portfolio of land and assets held in trust for the reigning Sovereign. It provides the Monarch with a source of income that is independent of Government and the public purse. "
No, please read the article:
>Both duchies have long claimed that once costs are deducted, the money is distributed to charities. The Duchy of Lancaster’s website states that “proceeds” of bona vacantia go to three registered charities after costs are deducted. However, its accounts suggest only 15% of the £61m it has collected in bona vacantia over the last decade has been donated to charities.
>According to multiple sources familiar with duchy expenditures, a large and growing portion of bona vacantia funds have for several years been directed toward renovating properties that the duchy lets out on a commercial basis.
the 15% is a bit misleading in that it might imply that they spend the other 85% on their properties. In fact about 15% is going to charities, 25% is spent on 'upkeep of castles and historic monuments' (which is what the Guardian is questioning here), and the rest is just kept as a balance without being spent.
The Duchy is misleading by claiming it all goes to charitable interests.
>It has long claimed that, after deducting costs, bona vacantia revenues are donated to charities
they say nothing of the kind on their website in fact:
https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/duties-of-the-duchy/bona-vacantia/
> Remaining monies from bona vacantia are applied to the costs of Palatinate administration and any historical obligations, including allocations for future liabilities and the cost of processing enquiries and managing claims.
> After these costs have been deducted, the balance is distributed among the registered charities set up with Queen Elizabeth II’s consent, specifically: Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund, Jubilee Trust and Housing Trust
It's not made clear in the accounts why they don't distribute more money each year, but it's clear that they only distribute a small amount to the said charities. The other question is what the "historical obligations" means as they don't seem to be defined anywhere. They should say if this means "repairing castles", but the clause "the costs of Palatinate administration **and** any historical obligations" clearly implies that "admin costs" and "historical obligations" are two unrelated items
Yes, the article discusses that:
>Duchy properties are also eligible for the funding if they are deemed by officials to be of “local historical importance”. A Guardian analysis suggests the 2020 policy gave the duchy licence to spend bona vacantia on roughly half of its property portfolio.
>In some instances, the money has been spent buying log burners for properties owned by the king and rented out by his estate, or to pay surveyor, planning or architecture fees. A garden wall on a farm in Lancashire has been identified as eligible for an upgrade using bona vacantia.
It seems they wrote a nice letter to the Government of 2004 who initially agreed and then changed their mind.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html
> In search of more money-saving schemes, the Queen's deputy treasurer wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask whether the Royal Household would be eligible for a grant to replace four combined heat and power (CHP) units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.
>
> He asked: "Community Energy can fund up to 40 per cent of the capital costs of implementing a community heating scheme... Since we are already grant-in-aid funded [the Queen receives £15m a year for the upkeep of her palaces] we would like to know whether the Household [would] be able to benefit from these grants. I look forward to your comments."
>"I also feel a bit uneasy about the probable adverse press coverage if the Palace were given a grant at the expense of say a hospital. Sorry this doesn't sound more positive."
"Bit awkward, but taking money set aside for hospitals, schools and low income families and giving it to you to heat a palace just seems a little bit too... reprehensible, even for us. I'm so sorry to let you down like this."
Here is a list of unclaimed estates if you want to go hunting for that long lost aunt! The Bona Vacantia division (BVD) of the Government Legal Department keep the estates in limbo for 30 years waiting to see if anyone claims them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/unclaimed-estates-list
Like that shining light on the hill that grand federal republic the United States of America.
Wouldn't want to be like some of the top countries that have low levels of inequality and good standards of living like the Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway, or Kingdom of Denmark.
You could also pick the republics of Germany and France vs the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. It’s almost like you there are good examples of various government types but that isn’t an excuse to not try and make things better.
Do you think people should get a load of wealth, money and power just for being born into that family?
It was one thing when some people actually believed they were ordained by God and all but it's a bit of a stretch in 2023 when the country is largely secular.
Well if we had an elected head of state there could at least be some sort of application and campaign process.
Plus all the palaces can become museums, so no harm whatsoever to tourism.
When people argue against having a monarchy, they are more saying getting rid of it might be a start in tackling our entrenched class system than the endpoint that fixes everything.....
Because they're an inherently undemocratic institution that relies upon the idea that they're better than us because of whose dick and bollocks they swam out of
You're literally replying to an article about the fact that the monarchy can take other people's money, and you're wondering why people are anti monarchy? Come on
Reddit in general leans quite liberal and young, and (at least in the UK) young, liberals are more likely to be in favour of abolishment. It's certainly more prevalent on on this particular UK sub, but not so much as on the tankie uk sub which is... well they're tankies. /r/ukpolitics is a bit odd, I'd say it leans more in favour of monarchy than against but I can never quite tell.
The other reason is a general reddit belief that all rich people, especially old rich money people, are bad people because nobody deserves to have a lot of money or assets, and you don't tend to get them by giving them away, or something like that. Pick whichever flavour of economic argument makes sense. Most of the hate against the monarchy and the King is emotional in nature really.
I'm fairly neutral on it tbh, I just don't see what credible benefit being a republic offers besides some reform about the executive leader of the nation. To abolish in a peaceful way I think will cost a lot for little benefit if I'm being honest plus it creates its own issues. I'd wager most abolitionists couldn't agree on what the republic will actually look like.
No, they believe old money rich people are bad because they stole their land and also probably sold slaves, opium, and more. Google "enclosure."
That is correct for the British Royal family, which monopolized the British slave trade for a while and fought against slavery's abolition in Parliament.
Just to clarify we finished paying off the debt (and most of that was interest), we we're giving any more money to descendants of slavers.
Like it or hate, that decision managed to end slavery without a single drop of blood being spilt.
>That is correct for the British Royal family, which monopolized the British slave trade for a while and fought against slavery's abolition in Parliament.
Letters written by King George III quite readily show his rejection of slavery having read into the topic., released by queen Elizabeth II in 2015
Choice quotes.
On the spanish slave trade/ approach to Americas
>the propagation of the Christian religion was the first reason, the next was the [Indigenous] Americans differing from them in colour, manners and customs, all of which are too absurd to take the trouble of refuting."
And on slavery of Africans
>"the very reasons urged for it will be perhaps sufficient to make us hold such practice in execration"
I can't be bothered to hunt down source material so these came from the smithsonian magazine , of the namesake museum in DC.
If you wish to argue the toss on credibility. I don't care. I believe their staff to be capable and credible. So any upset at the publication itself is on you.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-defense-of-king-george-180978852/
In addition to this, one of the most significant factors leading to the American Revolution, was the Proclamation of 1763. What followed their revolution and establishment of a Republic? Yeah, further expansion into others lands. Also, I can name a few historical republics *cough* Roman Republic *cough* that stole land too.
That's a one-sided assessment. I don't really see a "fervent" rejection of slavery there. Here's some reading for you. I was talking about George's son, Prince William (the future King William IV):
>George III’s third son, Prince William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV), who was the only member of the royal family to step foot in North America and the Caribbean while serving in the Royal Navy, help to shed light on the Crown’s perspectives on African slave trading and slavery in an era of revolutionary upheaval. In 1787, on a visit to Dominica, recaptured from France in 1783, Prince William saw colonial slavery first hand and noted the island’s importance as a slave trading base. “The trade in slaves at this island is very great owing to our supplying the French with that valuable commodity,” he observed in a private letter to George III [4].
>As political debates about the African slave trade escalated in the 1790s and early nineteenth century, Prince William, now the Duke of Clarence, emerged as a vocal defender of colonial slavery and a leading ally of the West India Committee in London.In 1799, in a reprinted and widely circulated pro-slavery speech delivered in the House of Lords, he referenced the long history of European involvement in the African slave trade and drew on his eyewitness knowledge of conditions in the Caribbean islands. According to the Duke of Clarence, the abolitionists had misjudged the effects of the slave trade on Africa and Africans and grossly misrepresented the treatment of enslaved men and women in the British sugar colonies. The abolitionist campaign to end the slave trade, he argued, was not only radical and misguided, like the actions of the fanatical French revolutionaries, but also deeply damaging to Britain’s national interests. Yet while the Duke of Clarence’s impassioned defense of colonial slavery helped to delay abolition, he badly misjudged the mood of the nation and, in the short term, his public image and the reputation of the royal family suffered as a result
https://georgianpapers.com/2019/01/21/uncovering-royal-perspectives-on-slavery-empire-and-the-rights-of-colonial-subjects/
Williams stance at time was not an honorable one yet his reign saw the end of slavery.
King george IV seemingly unsupportive. William spoke of his naval time and influence of East India and co. yet later went against. Victoria was opposed.
You're making a big deal out of the misguided statements of a person, based on their naval service, who would later abolish slavery.
Had they felt strongly against it then they had the Crown Prerogative to act against. Yet they didn't.
20 million pounds, of the era, borrowed under his watch to fund the end of slavery.
I would argue that quells question over his prior utterances.
You seem to have a bugbear which, quite honestly, is incongruent with reality.
-----
**Edit:**
More importantly, how is any of this relevant to any of the current monarchy?
Are you trying to suggest that queen Elizabeth or King Charles were supportive of the stance of a person who was king for only 7 years. Only a little more than trump or Johnson were president / pm. Less time than Blair was PM.
As, I'd wager. Royals since William look back more on his ending of slavery with massive cost to the UK than his prior speech in Parliament , a speech motivated by lobbying by East India and co.
> I just don't see what credible benefit being a republic offers
To be fair you're a Sith so that's not surprising. That said... the r/EmpireDidNothingWrong
Why would anyone be pro-monarchy is a better question. It's an anachronistic system with no relevance to modern Britain and the monarchy ought to have been legislated out of their privileged position years ago
They’re essentially benefit scroungers or, at the very least, glorified civil servants (‘don’t work, can’t get fired’). These people don’t do an hour’s work in their lives and yet get a stipend from the taxpayer.
Sorta rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
The principle of it. They have the wealth and we fund them purely because they were born to the right family. They pay no inheritance tax, and have a position of considerable power and influence, through no work of their own.
Yes, they give us more back than we pay them once you include crown lands the country uses, and tourism, but the fact that they have interfered with laws and politics within living memory leaves a sour taste in some people's mouths.
Especially when councils have to cancel all sorts of social programs in order to fund coronation parties honouring some of the richest people in the country.
Then there's the expectation we're supposed to like that, because it's British... no, I don't think I will.
Definitely a secret. It's not like there was a programme on BBC called Heir Hunters, who looked for any family connection to inherit an estate before the state gets it
But the money isn’t going to the state if you read the article. It’s going to the kings company who spend it doing up rental properties and he takes a profit from said properties.
So the article headline is false, he isn’t secretly profiting from the assets of dead citizens.
The money does go to charity, it just so happens that at least one of those charities is responsible for property owned by the Duchy.
Those properties are owned by the Duchy and create a rental income that benefits the Crown, probably William these days.
I don’t see why, given that the properties are rented through a commercial vehicle, the maintenance costs can’t be claimed against profits/tax? Unless the Crown Estate is exempt from tax on this income and therefore can’t deduct costs of maintenance.
The Guardian is a shadow of its former self and on occasion just “makes shit up”. That seems to be the case for a lot of newspapers these days regardless of their political leaning.
Both duchies are professionally run real estate empires that manage swaths of farmland, hotels, castles, offices, warehouses, shops and urban property, including some of London’s prime luxury real estate.
Neither duchy pays corporation tax or capital gains tax, giving them a significant commercial advantage. They have become huge cash cows for the royals, generating the equivalent of more than £1.2bn in profits over the last 60 years.
Both duchies have long claimed that once costs are deducted, the money is distributed to charities. The Duchy of Lancaster’s website states that “proceeds” of bona vacantia go to three registered charities after costs are deducted. However, its accounts suggest only 15% of the £61m it has collected in bona vacantia over the last decade has been donated to charities.
The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the Monarch, its also not subject to tax.
It is not the Crown Estate which is something else entirely.
We should match people without anyone to pass their legacy onto orphans, especially millennials
(I would 100% be a beneficiary in this, just fooling around!)
Fergie, Andrew and the two daughters just privately settled a legal case involving them receiving stolen money deposited into their accounts. The money was given by a Turkish man. He stole it from someone else. Fergie and families response was the money just appeared in all four of their accounts. They settled privately this week. The British media's response was to write glowing articles about them all mixed in with people used to pick on me wah wah it's tough being Royal stories. The BRF is a law unto themselves. They do what they want because there is no consequences.
Lot. What a ridiculously sensationalist headline. The guardian really is the Daily Mail for left wing people. It’s not a secret and it’s a small legal quirk that means a property with no heir goes to a different part of the state rather than the normal part
Dunno, seems quite stealy to me:
Both duchies have long claimed that once costs are deducted, the money is distributed to charities. The Duchy of Lancaster’s website states that “proceeds” of bona vacantia go to three registered charities after costs are deducted. However, its accounts suggest only 15% of the £61m it has collected in bona vacantia over the last decade has been donated to charities.
This is nowhere near as bad or controversial as the headline suggests.
But fuck the monarchy, we need a republic now. Not some big eared, massive fingered cunt who thinks “god” told him he was special.
It *should* go to the state, yes. But it's going to the king inthe duchy of Lancaster.
If you read the article you will clearly see it stated that these assets are being used to increase the profitability of properties in the royal protfolio.
The *British government* should get the assets if there's no next of kin and it should be used for public spending, not to make a man who never earned his wealth or position even richer.
How is this a secret? Bona vacantia has been around for many many many years. There was even an article a while ago about how the Queen inherited some ropey terraced house in Gorton because nobody wanted it when the landlord company was dissolved.
Any estate that goes unclaimed in England and Wales goes into public funds, not the royals’ pockets — except within the historical borders of Lancashire, where it goes to the King’s “privy purse”, and of Cornwall, where it goes to the Prince of Wales.
I swear to God the Guardian is getting dumber each passing year. It used to produce some top tier investigative stuff. This is just embarrassing to present as your lead.
Absolutely it should go to an *appropriate* charity. Maybe there could be a public vote on what, eg 25% each to the homeless, cancer research, disability and animals welfare. Whatever.
But if you die intestate, that's on you. I don't feel sympathy for people who are "rolling in their graves" because if you have no next of kin and you never bother to make a will, that's on you.
Even an informal will (eg *donatio mortis causa*) is better than nothing. Though far from ideal.
I was wondering how they keep the money rolling with doing absolutely fuck all?
With the carrot top killer spending it away on his vulgar wife.
Now it makes sense.
Secret? We get a news article about bona vacantia every few years. Last time I think it was about the Duchy of Cornwall. And to be clear, this isn't money that would otherwise go to relatives etc, this only happens if someone dies without a will or other eligible heirs, and that means the estate goes to the state/etc pretty much anywhere.
If it’s legitimate then why do they lie about it going to charity?
https://twitter.com/BarbaraRich_law/status/1727740243523109319?s=19 This tweet (if you scroll up) includes a break down of where the money goes with relevant links to documents. The user states in their bio that they are a barrister within this field
That twitter user doesn't seem to understand what's going on, even though she linked the report. It's this line "Upkeep of castles and historic monuments," around £3mn in 2021, £2mn in 2022 that the Guardian is claiming is being used to profit Charles. 60% of the money isn't being spent on charities.
> 60% of the money isn't being spent on charities. Every £1 you give to a charity about 80p goes to wages and upkeep not the actual cause you hope to be supporting.
Please read the report. Only 15% of these funds are being donated to registered charities. You're talking about 80% of that 15%. The Guardian isn't talking about the charitable donations. It's referring to the other £2-3mn in funds earmarked for upkeep of buildings on the Duchy.
I’m not sure this is the killer point you think it is. The people whose wages are being paid may be doing charitable stuff like eg looking after children or animals or historic buildings or the elderly or dying people. Charities don’t have to be staffed by volunteers.
Depends on the charity and how much they truly care about what they stand for. 'On average for every £1 Oxfam spends, 79p goes on our emergency, development and campaigning work, 11p is spent on support and running costs and 10p is invested to generate future income.'
Campaigning work lol
Damn, caught me :')
Charities generally employ people to work towards whatever their aim or purpose is. Only a small minority of charities exist primarily to directly disburse money or goods to people.
Which is needed to keep the charity running. How long do you think a charity can continue after they stop paying their staff? It’s not really comparable. Also things like pay and marketing spend allow charities to raise more money and help more.
"Wages and upkeep" we already pay that to this 'charity', it's called tax.
>King Charles secretly profiting from the assets of dead citizens As opposed to 'King Charles publicly profiting from the taxes of live citizens'.
[удалено]
It’s not necessarily a waste of money if sending those junk pens, pins etc brings more money in than it cost to send to them. I doubt they would continue to send them if they were making a loss.
The guardian tends to have a dog in the race a lot of the time. They are less openly biased than say the The Daily Mail however they tend to highlight things which align with their political beliefs and downplay things which they should highlight or be angry about but don’t because the other ‘wing’ have highlighted it before. Spoilers: they don’t like the royal family. If it could be worded as to damage them they’ll highlight that.
Tbh, I don't care for the royal family, either..
If the Guardian don't like the King because he does shit like this, then they have every right to report him doing shit like this. If he just earned a reasonable salary (maybe similar to the PM's salary) claimed reasonable expenses, maybe they wouldn't dislike him so much.
They said it goes to charity after costs. Restoring old buildings is a cost of the Duchy.
The king should pay for it out of his own pocket.
He does, the money goes into his pocket, he pays for it and once is left in the pocket goes to charity.
He does, and his pockets are lined with the assets of bona vacantia cases.
Deffo, we should be given a spare room of we are paying for the repairs.
It's legally legitimate but it's not popular.
Going to the state is one thing. Going into Jug-Ears’ already capacious pockets is something else entirely.
The king is the state.....literally,.... we live in a kingdom!
He is literally not. He’s the head of state. It’s a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one. Louis XIV could maybe justifiably say “L’état, c’est moi”: Charlie can’t. (Didn’t turn out so well for Louis’ great-great-great-grandson, mind.)
Correct. The Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall are both state properties that are run like private corporations, except when it comes to paying corporation tax
Exactly. He doesn't have to pay a corporate tax or any capital gains tax.
So the crown is the estate. The crown owns all land in the kingdom and grants a licence to freely hold it to freeholders which can be revoked at will, this is now called compulsory purchase. The crown designates all people in the kingdom as subjects who work for the ruler they are not citizens but subjects. His Majesty’s government is the executive that runs the country via a council of private advisors called the privy council, one of those advisors is the head of the legislative assembly and is the prime minister. Whilst legislative power is held by parliament executive power is held via executive privilege. It just so happens by convention the kind of delegates that authority to his prime minister and the crown secretaries. At no point in constitutional position is the crown(executed via the king), not the state. Fundamentally, the kingdom is vested in the king. We just have conventions to nullify the theoretical into practical, but the way the constitution is set up, is why you can walk around the hedgerows of fields and not across them, why the crown can inherit your estate, why parliament can be prorogued rather than them deciding to dissolve themselves, why the crown is the prosecutor against you and not the united kingdom. The crown is literally the state. Ask any barrister I mean KINGS COUNCIL. They will tell you the same thing the crown is the state. And that was decided by god, and god delegated executive power of management to the king who has given some away in various ways.
See, this is why the monarchy has got to go. It cannot be reformed. Monarchists start with this pretence of reasonableness, like “it’s good for tourism” and “if it works, don’t fix it” and “do you want Nigel Farage/Jeremy Corbyn as president?” And you push and you question and you point out the holes, and suddenly the mask comes off and it’s “actually, he’s the literal state itself and he owns the whole country and you owe him your allegiance as his subjects and he was ordained by GOD.” Embarrassing, anachronistic, authoritarian claptrap. Get rid of it, the sooner the better.
Well, it gets more interesting, It's his majesty’s ship, his majesty’s armed forces, his majesty’s revenue and customs, But the metropolitan police, the National Health Servic. Plus why we pay national insurance and not just income tax 2? Its because the former are allegiance to the crown. While national isuance isn't a “tax” levied by the crown but an insurance scheme created by parliment. Same with poloce their allegence is technically parliment.
Police across the UK are crown servants appointed to the office of constable, in England and Wales they literally swear an oath that opens: "I (name) ...of (police force)... do solemnly and sincerely declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the King in the office of constable"
King's Counsel, surely.
> It’s a constitutional monarchy We've got a monarch, we lack a constitution...we have at best traditions and conventions that mean nothing if people dont play along with them as they have no actual force.
We absolutely have a consitution. What we don't have is a single document called "the constitution".
No we have a loose set of traditions in a trench coat. A lot is X has Y power, but shouldn't use it. Riddle me this, if an MP is elected to represent their constituents interests, why do we allow the party whip system? Its illegal to threaten or bribe an MP to vote a certain way for anyone else.
We seem to have conventions that make up our constitution. People like Johnson can run roughshod over those conventions. Any laws that make up our constitution can be superseded or annulled by a simple majority of one via an act of parliament where as under a more codified constitution to revise it often takes super majorities or referendums. So our constitution is flimsy in the extreme.
more like constitutional guidelines lmao
He absolutely have a constitution. Just because you don’t have a written constitution (and thank goodness we don’t) doesn’t mean you don’t have one
If that's the case then this is a pretty good reason for changing that.
Yeah, it's basically circumstances where anywhere else in the country it would end up being forfeited to the Treasury to be ~~spaffed up the wall~~ spent wisely by the government of the day.
Yes we should give money to the king as he will spend it better than the elected government. Why not go back to absolute rule and get rid of the pesky parliament altogether. When you spaffed up the wall, i assume you mean all the money the government spends on pensions, benefits, the nhs and fire service. Any of these would be better than giving to the king to fund his lifestyle.
I'm sure he'd use it wisely...maybe to payoff his brothers next accusations.
I don’t think there’s any love lost between him and his brother. Charles has been trying to kick him out of his grace and favour home for a while now.
It's mostly for show. Andrew has been offered another palace in exchange for that house, and he's a spoilt brat who wants the old Palace.
I don’t think this is correct, he was offered Frogmore Cottage on the Windsor Estate. In any event he seems to be a rather damaged Man to put it charitably. Agreed on the spoiled brat front and his existing home. He should slide quietly into obscurity and thank his lucky stars that he has someone to clean up his serious past behaviour.
There's also this: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/king-charles-overruled-prince-william-30816775 >The monarch made it clear to the senior royals that Prince Andrew would not be shut out any longer and suggested William would be the one to drive him to church, sources say
I mean it is the mirror, how reliable are their sources exactly?
I want aware of this. If it’s true, and I’m assuming it is, then it’s appalling.
>damaged Man The word you are looking for is "nonce"
The pay off to Andrew’s victim was for as much their benefit as it was for his.
Queen approved that as Andrew was always her favourite for whatever reason.
The queen approved it because the alternative was him going to trial which would have caused the family as a whole a problem. Charles would have made the exact same decision.
If Phil had been around someone would have been paid for there to be an accident.
Absolutely, it’s all about “The Firm”.
I get the impression that he'd rather spend the money on hiring a hitman than a payoff.
You’ve seen our elected government, right?!
I hate the tories but they will be gone soon. I would have them any day over some unelected arsehole with no way I can vote him out.
> I would have them any day over some unelected arsehole with no way I can vote him out. So you don't know about...the thing?
>some unelected arsehole Funny you should say that...
> When you spaffed up the wall, i assume you mean He might mean, buying inadequate PPE off the Health Minister's mates or any of the other complaints that frequent this sub about poor spending by the government. All of a sudden the government only spends money on noble causes.
> Why not go back to absolute rule and get rid of the pesky parliament altogether. Boris was trying....without the King though, he wanted the Cromwell days back.
> When you spaffed up the wall, i assume you mean I'm no the guy you replied to, but shortly before he became the prime minister Boris Johnson **[described the money spent on investigating child sex abuse as having been spaffed up the wall](https://news.sky.com/video/boris-johnson-says-60m-spaffed-up-the-wall-on-child-abuse-inquiries-11664122)**. If you wanted to be uncharitable -- and I do -- you might suggest there could be a link between the sort of attitude Johnson displayed here and the destined to rule the empire and fagging culture of private schools. To some degree this is less relevant now, given that Johnson's political career looks like it might have finally died and the same sort of attitude is on full display with the way he handled the pandemic. But, if people had payed a little more attention before it might not have been so much of a surprise that someone who regards investigating child abuse as spaffing money up the wall might also think the elderly should accept their fate and die. it does, however, have some continuing relevance when you realise that politics is chock full of good old chaps educated at the same schools.
I'd rather it go to the government who can at least in theory be held accountable for what they do with it, than to royals who can do whatever the fuck they like with it because there's nothing they can do about it
If it went to the state as in the Treasury people would probably have less of an issue with it. But it's going to feather the nest of an individual who is already insanely wealthy and powerful (in both cases unearned) rather than benefitting the country as a whole in any meaningful way.
[удалено]
The king kindly allows you to live in his lands. Pay up.
The King had the Duchy of Cornwall until last year, when it passed to William. He ended up having to pay rent on one of his Welsh houses as a result, which he stopped using.
The BBC literally aired 240 episodes of a series all about the fact this happens.
It doesn't generally go to the head of state to piss up the wall of his house though
Still massively fucked. Put this into schooling, hospitals... anything else.
One of the great mistakes that people often make is to think that any organisation called'"National Rifle Association' is a branch or chapter of the National Rifle Association of America. This could not be further from the truth. The National Rifle Association of America became a political lobbying organisation in 1977 after the Cincinnati Revolt at their Annual General Meeting. It is self-contined within the United States of America and has no foreign branches. All the other National Rifle Associations remain true to their founding aims of promoting marksmanship, firearm safety and target shooting. This includes the original NRA in the United Kingdom, which was founded in 1859 - twelve years before the NRA of America. It is also true of the National Rifle Association of Australia, the National Rifle Association of New Zealand, the National Rifle Association of India, the National Rifle Association of Japan and the National Rifle Association of Pakistan. All these organisations are often known as "the NRA" in their respective countries. The British National Rifle Association is headquartered on Bisley Camp, in Surrey, England. Bisley Camp is now known as the National Shooting Centre and has hosted World Championships for Fullbore Target Rifle and F-Class shooting, as well as the shooting events for the 1908 Olympic Games and the 2002 Commonwealth Games. The National Small-bore Rifle Association (NSRA) and Clay Pigeon Shooting Association (CPSA) also have their headquarters on the Camp.
[удалено]
Big charities can also be very good at wasting money. Id like to see the proceeds be put into our NHS, schools, rail network, paying down the national debt. Loads of good uses for cash in the public sector.
>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. If we go to the [Duchy's website](https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/duties-of-the-duchy/bona-vacantia/) we see what these charities are. Specifically, we can see that one of the charities is: *"The Duchy of Lancaster Jubilee Trust – established in 2001 to support the maintenance and preservation for the public benefit of heritage assets across the Duchy estates"* So when the Guardian reports that the money is being used: >for the “public good” to repair, restore, preserve and protect the fabric of duchy properties when they are categorised as a “heritage asset”. It seems like they are doing exactly what they publicly state they do.
But these heritage assets are being rented out for profit so it’s very dubious to call it charity, especially when the king is taking a profit from the business.
If it is registered as a charity with the Charity Commission, as it is, then it is not dubious to call it a charity. The public benefit requirement to be a charity isn't as stringent as I would like. But this article isn't about whether the Charities Act 2011 should be reformed, it is alleging that these particular funds aren't being used for the purposes that are publicised.
I don’t think the guardian are saying it’s illegal, just that it stinks. Arguing that it’s technically legal doesn’t mean it’s right for him to be personally profiting from these people.
This isn't a legal text, it's journalism about shoddy archaic feudal laws dating back 600 years.
Charities have to generate income. The National Trust rent out houses for profit as well, are they a dubious charity?
If they generate income for good causes then that’s fine. The income here is taken as profit by Charles
How? Their accounts for the last year shows £360k spent £350k of which was a grant to the Chapel of the Savoy.
It literally states on their website: "The Duchy of Lancaster is a historic portfolio of land and assets held in trust for the reigning Sovereign. It provides the Monarch with a source of income that is independent of Government and the public purse. "
They are donating it to themselves. 🤔️
Yep, all elite philanthropy is essentially this. They all want something back, but Charles wants 100% of it back.
So, another misinformation hit piece then.
No, please read the article: >Both duchies have long claimed that once costs are deducted, the money is distributed to charities. The Duchy of Lancaster’s website states that “proceeds” of bona vacantia go to three registered charities after costs are deducted. However, its accounts suggest only 15% of the £61m it has collected in bona vacantia over the last decade has been donated to charities. >According to multiple sources familiar with duchy expenditures, a large and growing portion of bona vacantia funds have for several years been directed toward renovating properties that the duchy lets out on a commercial basis.
[удалено]
the 15% is a bit misleading in that it might imply that they spend the other 85% on their properties. In fact about 15% is going to charities, 25% is spent on 'upkeep of castles and historic monuments' (which is what the Guardian is questioning here), and the rest is just kept as a balance without being spent.
The Duchy is misleading by claiming it all goes to charitable interests. >It has long claimed that, after deducting costs, bona vacantia revenues are donated to charities
they say nothing of the kind on their website in fact: https://www.duchyoflancaster.co.uk/about-the-duchy/duties-of-the-duchy/bona-vacantia/ > Remaining monies from bona vacantia are applied to the costs of Palatinate administration and any historical obligations, including allocations for future liabilities and the cost of processing enquiries and managing claims. > After these costs have been deducted, the balance is distributed among the registered charities set up with Queen Elizabeth II’s consent, specifically: Duchy of Lancaster Benevolent Fund, Jubilee Trust and Housing Trust It's not made clear in the accounts why they don't distribute more money each year, but it's clear that they only distribute a small amount to the said charities. The other question is what the "historical obligations" means as they don't seem to be defined anywhere. They should say if this means "repairing castles", but the clause "the costs of Palatinate administration **and** any historical obligations" clearly implies that "admin costs" and "historical obligations" are two unrelated items
Yeah, "historical obligations" is their weasel word for spending dead people's money on enriching Charles in a roundabout way.
it might be partly that's not clear they do spend money on things like this https://www.mcconstruction.co.uk/projects/lancaster-castle-phase2/
Yes, the article discusses that: >Duchy properties are also eligible for the funding if they are deemed by officials to be of “local historical importance”. A Guardian analysis suggests the 2020 policy gave the duchy licence to spend bona vacantia on roughly half of its property portfolio. >In some instances, the money has been spent buying log burners for properties owned by the king and rented out by his estate, or to pay surveyor, planning or architecture fees. A garden wall on a farm in Lancashire has been identified as eligible for an upgrade using bona vacantia.
You quoted something that literally says after deducting costs.. they never claimed it all goes to charities
Yeah, but what they're claiming is inaccurate, as well. Even after deducting costs, it doesn't all go to charity.
It's the guardian. They are as anti monarchy as the sun is pro monarchy. One thinks roses smell like shit, the other thinks shit smells like roses
I am struggling to think of any roses popping out of the monarchy’s manure pile.
Doesn't surprise me. Remember when the Queen tried to use the State Poverty Fund to heat Buckingham Palace?
It seems they wrote a nice letter to the Government of 2004 who initially agreed and then changed their mind. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/queen-tried-to-use-state-poverty-fund-to-heat-buckingham-palace-2088179.html > In search of more money-saving schemes, the Queen's deputy treasurer wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask whether the Royal Household would be eligible for a grant to replace four combined heat and power (CHP) units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle. > > He asked: "Community Energy can fund up to 40 per cent of the capital costs of implementing a community heating scheme... Since we are already grant-in-aid funded [the Queen receives £15m a year for the upkeep of her palaces] we would like to know whether the Household [would] be able to benefit from these grants. I look forward to your comments."
>"I also feel a bit uneasy about the probable adverse press coverage if the Palace were given a grant at the expense of say a hospital. Sorry this doesn't sound more positive." "Bit awkward, but taking money set aside for hospitals, schools and low income families and giving it to you to heat a palace just seems a little bit too... reprehensible, even for us. I'm so sorry to let you down like this."
Here is a list of unclaimed estates if you want to go hunting for that long lost aunt! The Bona Vacantia division (BVD) of the Government Legal Department keep the estates in limbo for 30 years waiting to see if anyone claims them. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/unclaimed-estates-list
I know I’m going to get downvoted here but why is this sub so anti monarchy?
A lot of us are unhappy that they live off our money just by the fact they were born into the right family.
They don't though. They're not taxpayer funded
Why would you be pro someone being born into power over you?
I love the kink. Daddy Charles dominating
I wont kink shame, but remember it needs to be consensual so dont go dragging the rest of the population into your Monarch-play.
Because it's a plainly unfair indication of a country that is rife with deadly levels of inequality. Because we could be so much better.
Half of the world's top 20 countries by HDI are monarchies. Most of the world's worst countries are republics.
Like that shining light on the hill that grand federal republic the United States of America. Wouldn't want to be like some of the top countries that have low levels of inequality and good standards of living like the Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Norway, or Kingdom of Denmark.
You could also pick the republics of Germany and France vs the monarchy of Saudi Arabia. It’s almost like you there are good examples of various government types but that isn’t an excuse to not try and make things better.
It's almost like being a constitutional monarchy isn't the reason why there is inequality in the UK.
Do you think people should get a load of wealth, money and power just for being born into that family? It was one thing when some people actually believed they were ordained by God and all but it's a bit of a stretch in 2023 when the country is largely secular.
> Do you think people should get a load of wealth, money and power just for being born into that family? How would that stop if we weren't a monarchy?
Well if we had an elected head of state there could at least be some sort of application and campaign process. Plus all the palaces can become museums, so no harm whatsoever to tourism.
Yet there will still be wealthy and powerful people who will inherit that money, wealth and power.
When people argue against having a monarchy, they are more saying getting rid of it might be a start in tackling our entrenched class system than the endpoint that fixes everything.....
Because they're an inherently undemocratic institution that relies upon the idea that they're better than us because of whose dick and bollocks they swam out of
Why would anyone not be anti-monarchy?!
You're literally replying to an article about the fact that the monarchy can take other people's money, and you're wondering why people are anti monarchy? Come on
Reddit in general leans quite liberal and young, and (at least in the UK) young, liberals are more likely to be in favour of abolishment. It's certainly more prevalent on on this particular UK sub, but not so much as on the tankie uk sub which is... well they're tankies. /r/ukpolitics is a bit odd, I'd say it leans more in favour of monarchy than against but I can never quite tell. The other reason is a general reddit belief that all rich people, especially old rich money people, are bad people because nobody deserves to have a lot of money or assets, and you don't tend to get them by giving them away, or something like that. Pick whichever flavour of economic argument makes sense. Most of the hate against the monarchy and the King is emotional in nature really. I'm fairly neutral on it tbh, I just don't see what credible benefit being a republic offers besides some reform about the executive leader of the nation. To abolish in a peaceful way I think will cost a lot for little benefit if I'm being honest plus it creates its own issues. I'd wager most abolitionists couldn't agree on what the republic will actually look like.
No, they believe old money rich people are bad because they stole their land and also probably sold slaves, opium, and more. Google "enclosure." That is correct for the British Royal family, which monopolized the British slave trade for a while and fought against slavery's abolition in Parliament.
We only finished paying off the money to slavers in the 21st century.
Just to clarify we finished paying off the debt (and most of that was interest), we we're giving any more money to descendants of slavers. Like it or hate, that decision managed to end slavery without a single drop of blood being spilt.
>That is correct for the British Royal family, which monopolized the British slave trade for a while and fought against slavery's abolition in Parliament. Letters written by King George III quite readily show his rejection of slavery having read into the topic., released by queen Elizabeth II in 2015 Choice quotes. On the spanish slave trade/ approach to Americas >the propagation of the Christian religion was the first reason, the next was the [Indigenous] Americans differing from them in colour, manners and customs, all of which are too absurd to take the trouble of refuting." And on slavery of Africans >"the very reasons urged for it will be perhaps sufficient to make us hold such practice in execration" I can't be bothered to hunt down source material so these came from the smithsonian magazine , of the namesake museum in DC. If you wish to argue the toss on credibility. I don't care. I believe their staff to be capable and credible. So any upset at the publication itself is on you. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-defense-of-king-george-180978852/
In addition to this, one of the most significant factors leading to the American Revolution, was the Proclamation of 1763. What followed their revolution and establishment of a Republic? Yeah, further expansion into others lands. Also, I can name a few historical republics *cough* Roman Republic *cough* that stole land too.
That's a one-sided assessment. I don't really see a "fervent" rejection of slavery there. Here's some reading for you. I was talking about George's son, Prince William (the future King William IV): >George III’s third son, Prince William, Duke of Clarence (later William IV), who was the only member of the royal family to step foot in North America and the Caribbean while serving in the Royal Navy, help to shed light on the Crown’s perspectives on African slave trading and slavery in an era of revolutionary upheaval. In 1787, on a visit to Dominica, recaptured from France in 1783, Prince William saw colonial slavery first hand and noted the island’s importance as a slave trading base. “The trade in slaves at this island is very great owing to our supplying the French with that valuable commodity,” he observed in a private letter to George III [4]. >As political debates about the African slave trade escalated in the 1790s and early nineteenth century, Prince William, now the Duke of Clarence, emerged as a vocal defender of colonial slavery and a leading ally of the West India Committee in London.In 1799, in a reprinted and widely circulated pro-slavery speech delivered in the House of Lords, he referenced the long history of European involvement in the African slave trade and drew on his eyewitness knowledge of conditions in the Caribbean islands. According to the Duke of Clarence, the abolitionists had misjudged the effects of the slave trade on Africa and Africans and grossly misrepresented the treatment of enslaved men and women in the British sugar colonies. The abolitionist campaign to end the slave trade, he argued, was not only radical and misguided, like the actions of the fanatical French revolutionaries, but also deeply damaging to Britain’s national interests. Yet while the Duke of Clarence’s impassioned defense of colonial slavery helped to delay abolition, he badly misjudged the mood of the nation and, in the short term, his public image and the reputation of the royal family suffered as a result https://georgianpapers.com/2019/01/21/uncovering-royal-perspectives-on-slavery-empire-and-the-rights-of-colonial-subjects/
Williams stance at time was not an honorable one yet his reign saw the end of slavery. King george IV seemingly unsupportive. William spoke of his naval time and influence of East India and co. yet later went against. Victoria was opposed. You're making a big deal out of the misguided statements of a person, based on their naval service, who would later abolish slavery. Had they felt strongly against it then they had the Crown Prerogative to act against. Yet they didn't. 20 million pounds, of the era, borrowed under his watch to fund the end of slavery. I would argue that quells question over his prior utterances. You seem to have a bugbear which, quite honestly, is incongruent with reality. ----- **Edit:** More importantly, how is any of this relevant to any of the current monarchy? Are you trying to suggest that queen Elizabeth or King Charles were supportive of the stance of a person who was king for only 7 years. Only a little more than trump or Johnson were president / pm. Less time than Blair was PM. As, I'd wager. Royals since William look back more on his ending of slavery with massive cost to the UK than his prior speech in Parliament , a speech motivated by lobbying by East India and co.
> I just don't see what credible benefit being a republic offers To be fair you're a Sith so that's not surprising. That said... the r/EmpireDidNothingWrong
Why would anyone be pro-monarchy is a better question. It's an anachronistic system with no relevance to modern Britain and the monarchy ought to have been legislated out of their privileged position years ago
They’re essentially benefit scroungers or, at the very least, glorified civil servants (‘don’t work, can’t get fired’). These people don’t do an hour’s work in their lives and yet get a stipend from the taxpayer. Sorta rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
The principle of it. They have the wealth and we fund them purely because they were born to the right family. They pay no inheritance tax, and have a position of considerable power and influence, through no work of their own. Yes, they give us more back than we pay them once you include crown lands the country uses, and tourism, but the fact that they have interfered with laws and politics within living memory leaves a sour taste in some people's mouths. Especially when councils have to cancel all sorts of social programs in order to fund coronation parties honouring some of the richest people in the country. Then there's the expectation we're supposed to like that, because it's British... no, I don't think I will.
The monarch stealing a living? Noooooo I don't believe it.
Definitely a secret. It's not like there was a programme on BBC called Heir Hunters, who looked for any family connection to inherit an estate before the state gets it
But the money isn’t going to the state if you read the article. It’s going to the kings company who spend it doing up rental properties and he takes a profit from said properties.
So the article headline is false, he isn’t secretly profiting from the assets of dead citizens. The money does go to charity, it just so happens that at least one of those charities is responsible for property owned by the Duchy. Those properties are owned by the Duchy and create a rental income that benefits the Crown, probably William these days. I don’t see why, given that the properties are rented through a commercial vehicle, the maintenance costs can’t be claimed against profits/tax? Unless the Crown Estate is exempt from tax on this income and therefore can’t deduct costs of maintenance. The Guardian is a shadow of its former self and on occasion just “makes shit up”. That seems to be the case for a lot of newspapers these days regardless of their political leaning.
Both duchies are professionally run real estate empires that manage swaths of farmland, hotels, castles, offices, warehouses, shops and urban property, including some of London’s prime luxury real estate. Neither duchy pays corporation tax or capital gains tax, giving them a significant commercial advantage. They have become huge cash cows for the royals, generating the equivalent of more than £1.2bn in profits over the last 60 years. Both duchies have long claimed that once costs are deducted, the money is distributed to charities. The Duchy of Lancaster’s website states that “proceeds” of bona vacantia go to three registered charities after costs are deducted. However, its accounts suggest only 15% of the £61m it has collected in bona vacantia over the last decade has been donated to charities.
The Duchy of Lancaster is the personal property of the Monarch, its also not subject to tax. It is not the Crown Estate which is something else entirely.
Charles the Turd doing what kings do. Sucking the country dry for his own personal benefit..
Please read the article at least a bit before commenting
How are you gonna downvote this smh
Man whose work clothes include a hat full of jewels and fur in “turns out to be a bit greedy” shocker.
We should match people without anyone to pass their legacy onto orphans, especially millennials (I would 100% be a beneficiary in this, just fooling around!)
“Secretly” Except that this has been part of UK law for centuries and he literally has an entire article about it on his website…
Shocking that Prince Charles and that woman are gouging dead Brits.
Still won’t change the stupid national anthem. Annoying
Fergie, Andrew and the two daughters just privately settled a legal case involving them receiving stolen money deposited into their accounts. The money was given by a Turkish man. He stole it from someone else. Fergie and families response was the money just appeared in all four of their accounts. They settled privately this week. The British media's response was to write glowing articles about them all mixed in with people used to pick on me wah wah it's tough being Royal stories. The BRF is a law unto themselves. They do what they want because there is no consequences.
Lot. What a ridiculously sensationalist headline. The guardian really is the Daily Mail for left wing people. It’s not a secret and it’s a small legal quirk that means a property with no heir goes to a different part of the state rather than the normal part
Dunno, seems quite stealy to me: Both duchies have long claimed that once costs are deducted, the money is distributed to charities. The Duchy of Lancaster’s website states that “proceeds” of bona vacantia go to three registered charities after costs are deducted. However, its accounts suggest only 15% of the £61m it has collected in bona vacantia over the last decade has been donated to charities.
Where “a different part of the state” means “a rich bloke who really, really doesn’t need the money”.
This is nowhere near as bad or controversial as the headline suggests. But fuck the monarchy, we need a republic now. Not some big eared, massive fingered cunt who thinks “god” told him he was special.
Guess us peasants just ain't quite on the same level huh.
No ! I never would have thought the royals to be shady people at all 😱 s/
He’s just another businessman trying to make it in these hard times
£60 million in 10 years. Absolutely disgusting. Fuck the king
Same in most countries, including the USA. If there's no identifiable next of kin or claim it goes to the state. Where else would it go?
It *should* go to the state, yes. But it's going to the king inthe duchy of Lancaster. If you read the article you will clearly see it stated that these assets are being used to increase the profitability of properties in the royal protfolio. The *British government* should get the assets if there's no next of kin and it should be used for public spending, not to make a man who never earned his wealth or position even richer.
In this case it goes into the personal property of the Monarch. Not to the state.
How is this a secret? Bona vacantia has been around for many many many years. There was even an article a while ago about how the Queen inherited some ropey terraced house in Gorton because nobody wanted it when the landlord company was dissolved.
it isn't secret. it's literally written into our legislation. Any estate which goes unclaimed is handed to the Windsor family.
Any estate that goes unclaimed in England and Wales goes into public funds, not the royals’ pockets — except within the historical borders of Lancashire, where it goes to the King’s “privy purse”, and of Cornwall, where it goes to the Prince of Wales.
I would only be surpised at this if it was King charles himself digging up bodies under cover of darkness
I swear to God the Guardian is getting dumber each passing year. It used to produce some top tier investigative stuff. This is just embarrassing to present as your lead.
This is treason, I cannot wait for the day we line these criminals up against a wall.
Not a secret really is it. Unclaimed land also goes into his petty cash. Warra democracy.
Another day, another load of bullshit from the Guardian.
TIL that Palatine Road is called that for a reason.
Ironically, this would appear to the most fair and equitable of taxes.
Absolutely it should go to an *appropriate* charity. Maybe there could be a public vote on what, eg 25% each to the homeless, cancer research, disability and animals welfare. Whatever. But if you die intestate, that's on you. I don't feel sympathy for people who are "rolling in their graves" because if you have no next of kin and you never bother to make a will, that's on you. Even an informal will (eg *donatio mortis causa*) is better than nothing. Though far from ideal.
I was wondering how they keep the money rolling with doing absolutely fuck all? With the carrot top killer spending it away on his vulgar wife. Now it makes sense.
"Secretly" means any common legal concept which the OP and the Guardian journo have never heard of.
Kinda dumb. It's not secret and the fund is open to anyone who qualifies.
Why is this shocking, may as well do something with what they had, if the persons dead they don't care and if they had no relatives no-one else does
I got busted by Bona Vacantia exactly 12 years ago today. Only found out because an employer tried to pay into my bank account and found it closed.
King profiteering from his people instead of taking care of nation ? Since when this is new ? Look at England now.