Posted on 11/24/2023 7:50:20 AM PST by RandFan
The king is profiting from the deaths of thousands of people in the north-west of England whose assets are secretly being used to upgrade a commercial property empire managed by his hereditary estate, the Guardian can reveal.
The Duchy of Lancaster, a controversial land and property estate that generates huge profits for King Charles III, has collected tens of millions of pounds in recent years under an antiquated system that dates back to feudal times.
Financial assets known as bona vacantia, owned by people who died without a will or known next of kin, are collected by the duchy. Over the last 10 years, it has collected more than £60m ($75 million) in the funds. 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.
The duchy essentially inherits bona vacantia funds from people whose last known address was in a territory that in the middle ages was known as Lancashire county palatine and ruled by a duke. Today, the area comprises Lancashire and parts of Merseyside, Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Cumbria.
A leaked internal duchy policy from 2020 gave officials at the king’s estate licence to use bona vacantia funds on a broad array of its profit-generating portfolio. Codenamed “SA9”, the policy acknowledges spending the money in this way could result in an “incidental” benefit to the privy purse, the king’s personal income.
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
Exactly. What do people think occurs? That’s why documenting your wishes via a legal document like a will or trust is so important.
The Guardian is a communist news rag. Of course they oppose the monarchy.
All governments do this don’t they?
Just to lawyers.
That makes me feel better.
No, we don’t know. What we do know is that HM Queen Elizabeth II was strong in her Christian Faith, unlike Chuckles.
Personally, I was a strong Monarchist with Elizabeth II as Queen. With Chuck in charge, no thank you. I wish he could have been convinced to just abdicate and let his boy be King. William seems to have inherited much from both his mother and grandmother, little from his father, which is a good thing.
In California the state steals from deposit boxes that the bank says no one owns even though they are receiving payment. They do not try very hard to contact the owners so the state steals the money, the jewels, whatever is in the boxes. One day you go to get your stuff and it is gone.
What do you think happens in the rest of the world?
They should have beheaded that bunch of royals a few centuries back.
Yes, that’s a fair point, and I would assume so.
My impression of the UK missing their Queen has more to do with Chuck seeming a bit of a dork.
Then again, our own shipwrecked banana boat leaves us little room for hubris.
It mystifies me how an adult can accept and treasure a hereditary Monarch. It’s infantile.
Hereditary monarchy is an infantile way of life. Thomas Paine ended that nonsense with “Common Sense”.
The money goes to the state.
Yes I do but this goes to him personally and he profits from it
Government is run by thieves.
It’s good to be da King...
They beheaded Charles I and wound up with Cromwell and the Major Generals.
There is a reason Charles II was restored.
Safe deposit boxes are just a bank scam. Your own safe preferably hidden but known to only trusted persons,and safe from fire and flood,seems a better solution.
Was it ever a republic as Americans understand a republic?
Under King George George III (1776) the British people had some representation through the British Parliament but maintained nobility rule through a king and House of Lords (aka the nobility and church elites). The British government system today continues to incorporate a king but with much less power than what King George III. Also, In contrast to the House of Commons, membership in the House of Lords is not generally acquired by election. Most members are appointed for life, on either a political or non-political basis. Hereditary membership was abolished in 1999, save for 92 excepted hereditary peers: 90 elected through internal by-elections, plus the Earl Marshal and Lord Great Chamberlain as members ex officio. No members directly inherit their seats any longer. The House of Lords also includes up to 26 archbishops and bishops of the Church of England, known as Lords Spiritual. Since 2014, membership may be voluntarily relinquished or terminated upon expulsion.
Bottom line: the Brits system of government continues to retain/include nobility/elite representation that is not elected by the people - a contrast to our system.
Thank you! Your class, or lack thereof, continues to shine through.
They should have beheaded that bunch of royals a few centuries back.
Lots of reasons to criticize Charles (and the monarchy) but following a practice that goes back for centuries seems a bit much.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.