King Charles profiting from the assets of the dead

[Son of Mathonwy]

King Charles and Prince William take income from the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall respectively. Anyone who dies without a will or contactable relatives in these parts of the country will have their estate collected by the Duchy of the royal in question. Riches to the rich:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... d-citizens

[morepork]

Jus get rid of them. It's an old sad stale joke. I mean, FFS, the public supports the dinosaur family why?

[cashead]

Yeah, f.r. If you’ve got a parasite, you don’t build castles and monuments to them and celebrate you’ve got a parasite, you fucking get rid of it. The French had the right idea when it comes to royalty.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Jus get rid of them. It's an old sad stale joke. I mean, FFS, the public supports the dinosaur family why?

Relentless brainwashing. But it's lessening over time - older people have definitely got it worse, just like they've got the disliking Europeans thing, and voting Tory.

I reckon we could get rid of them in, oh, a couple of hundred years.

[Mellsblue]

So as to avoid ‘relentless brainwashing’ here is a Twatter thread with some context:

https://x.com/barbararich_law/status/17 ... MV3j-SK8yQ

[Son of Mathonwy]

As the Guardian article explains, it has been long claimed by that after costs the amounts raised are given to charity.

However, a considerable part of these payments is being used to renovate and upgrade the Duchy's rental stock - the rental stock which provides the King (as it did the Queen) with income. The accounts suggest that only 15% of the amounts raised were actually given to charity over the last decade.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Yeah, f.r. If you’ve got a parasite, you don’t build castles and monuments to them and celebrate you’ve got a parasite, you fucking get rid of it. The French had the right idea when it comes to royalty.

I know the Tories hate scroungers. So I expect they'll clamp down hard on this when they find out.

[Puja]

The key takeaway here is to make a will. Even if you're relatively certain that you're not going to die, even if you think it's obvious where your money will need to go afterwards, make a damned will! It was my first priority once I did the inheritance part of my financial advice qualification and learned just what a clusterfuck the laws are.

Oh, and make sure that someone knows where the will is, as well! I used www.farewill.com for mine, which had the advantage of being decent value for money and providing electronic storage of the will, but it means fuck all if I don't tell someone where it can be found before I cark it.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

As the Guardian article explains, it has been long claimed by that after costs the amounts raised are given to charity.

However, a considerable part of these payments is being used to renovate and upgrade the Duchy's rental stock - the rental stock which provides the King (as it did the Queen) with income. The accounts suggest that only 15% of the amounts raised were actually given to charity over the last decade.

As I said, context not a rebuttal.

Quite a bit of that maintenance is on important heritage buildings of national importance. The upkeep of which is normal a cause celebre of the left… A decent % of income from the King’s estate is also funnelled into his charities so it’s wrong to say that the money for upkeep is all going in his pocket. Further, a growing % is sat in reserves which is pretty standard for charitable/benevolent organisations and further skews the % to charity figure.
I happen to agree that it’s wrong but, again, context.

[Donny osmond]

Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.

[Mellsblue]

Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.

You have a good point but we’re a democracy so it should really go to a democratic body, imo. The law could state that they must then disperse the money to charities rather than their own pet projects.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.

You'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?

[Mellsblue]

Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.

You'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?

https://www.kccf.org.uk/all-projects/?current_page=1

[Son of Mathonwy]

Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.

You'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?

https://www.kccf.org.uk/all-projects/?current_page=1

That's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.

[Mellsblue]

You'd rather the money goes to make a billionaire even richer? Rather than on treating the sick? Educating children?

https://www.kccf.org.uk/all-projects/?current_page=1

That's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.

Incorrect.

[Stom]

Not sure I agree it's wrong. Where else would that money go? To the national govt so they can piss it up the wall? To local govt so they can spend it on, er, upkeep of national monuments? Nether nat govt nor local govt would be remotely as transparent with that money as is currently happening.

You have a good point but we’re a democracy so it should really go to a democratic body, imo. The law could state that they must then disperse the money to charities rather than their own pet projects.

I'd rather it go directly to a fund that was independent and completely enshrined as independent. And this fund would help create affordable housing and provide schooling for families and communities in the local areas.

If each county had its own completely independent charitable organization set up to do this, separated from government influence, it could do a lot of good.

[Son of Mathonwy]

https://www.kccf.org.uk/all-projects/?current_page=1

That's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.

Incorrect.

It's stated on the link you gave.

https://www.kccf.org.uk/our-income/

[Mellsblue]

That's nice but the King Charles III Charitable Fund doesn't seem to have anything to do with the Duchy of Lancaster (other than Charles, obviously). The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose.

Incorrect.

It's stated on the link you gave.

https://www.kccf.org.uk/our-income/

Read it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.
I work in the heritage sector and I know for a fact that a decent chunk of the income from his estate is funnelled into his charity work.
As with a point we’re discussing on another thread, just because it’s not printed out in black and white somewhere you can find with 5 mins of research doesn’t mean it’s some grand conspiracy to shaft the poor.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Incorrect.

It's stated on the link you gave.

https://www.kccf.org.uk/our-income/

Read it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.
I work in the heritage sector and I know for a fact that a decent chunk of the income from his estate is funnelled into his charity work.
As with a point we’re discussing on another thread, just because it’s not printed out in black and white somewhere you can find with 5 mins of research doesn’t mean it’s some grand conspiracy to shaft the poor.

That's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.

Is there anything on that website that says funding for the Fund comes from the Duchy of Lancaster? Do you have any evidence for this?

[Mellsblue]

It's stated on the link you gave.

https://www.kccf.org.uk/our-income/

Read it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.
I work in the heritage sector and I know for a fact that a decent chunk of the income from his estate is funnelled into his charity work.
As with a point we’re discussing on another thread, just because it’s not printed out in black and white somewhere you can find with 5 mins of research doesn’t mean it’s some grand conspiracy to shaft the poor.

That's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.

Is there anything on that website that says funding for the Fund comes from the Duchy of Lancaster? Do you have any evidence for this?

So you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.
Yes. My evidence is that I know from working in the industry that this is the case, unless a handful of people I’ve spoken to about this sort of stuff over the years are lying to me. Funding for heritage buildings is way below where it needs to be so how we afford to maintain the buildings in both public and private hands is a pretty hot topic.
Do you have any evidence it doesn’t happen?
We’re in agreement on the fundamental basis of this thread, ie the money shouldn’t go the king, not that I’d imagine has any input on what is done with it given the relative amounts and the fact he’s quite busy with the day job, so why would I lie?!?!?
I’ll leave it there.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Read it again. It states that it’s ‘mainly funded’ by that and even then that funding goes to sustainable farming. If you look at the exact link I posted the fund does a lot more than just support sustainable farming.
I work in the heritage sector and I know for a fact that a decent chunk of the income from his estate is funnelled into his charity work.
As with a point we’re discussing on another thread, just because it’s not printed out in black and white somewhere you can find with 5 mins of research doesn’t mean it’s some grand conspiracy to shaft the poor.

That's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.

Is there anything on that website that says funding for the Fund comes from the Duchy of Lancaster? Do you have any evidence for this?

So you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.
Yes. My evidence is that I know from working in the industry that this is the case, unless a handful of people I’ve spoken to about this sort of stuff over the years are lying to me. Funding for heritage buildings is way below where it needs to be so how we afford to maintain the buildings in both public and private hands is a pretty hot topic.
Do you have any evidence it doesn’t happen?
We’re in agreement on the fundamental basis of this thread, ie the money shouldn’t go the king, not that I’d imagine has any input on what is done with it given the relative amounts and the fact he’s quite busy with the day job, so why would I lie?!?!?
I’ll leave it there.

I think you're misunderstanding this. No one is saying that the Duchy doesn't give some money to charity. What I'm saying (per the Guardian article) is that considerable sums from the estates of the dead, which the Duchy claims are being given to charity are actually being used to improve the Duchy's assets - and hence improve Charles's income from those assets.

So showing that Charles does charitable work (via the King Charles III Charitable Fund) is not relevant. The Duchy of Lancaster and the King Charles III Charitable Fund are entirely different things.

Your personal knowledge that heritage buildings need renovation doesn't disprove what the Guardian is saying. It may well be true but that doesn't mean that the Duchy isn't using the assets of the dead commoners to increase the value of Charles's Duchy land.

Do I 'have any evidence that it doesn't happen'? I'm not even clear about what 'it' you're referring to at this point, but it's generally difficult to prove a negative. The Guardian article is evidence for my claim though (which is not a negative).

I'm glad that we agree on the principle of the thing though - that this money shouldn't go to Charles.

[Mellsblue]

That's why I said 'The Fund's income seems to come primarily from a range of products operated by Waitrose'.

Is there anything on that website that says funding for the Fund comes from the Duchy of Lancaster? Do you have any evidence for this?

So you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.
Yes. My evidence is that I know from working in the industry that this is the case, unless a handful of people I’ve spoken to about this sort of stuff over the years are lying to me. Funding for heritage buildings is way below where it needs to be so how we afford to maintain the buildings in both public and private hands is a pretty hot topic.
Do you have any evidence it doesn’t happen?
We’re in agreement on the fundamental basis of this thread, ie the money shouldn’t go the king, not that I’d imagine has any input on what is done with it given the relative amounts and the fact he’s quite busy with the day job, so why would I lie?!?!?
I’ll leave it there.

I think you're misunderstanding this. No one is saying that the Duchy doesn't give some money to charity. What I'm saying (per the Guardian article) is that considerable sums from the estates of the dead, which the Duchy claims are being given to charity are actually being used to improve the Duchy's assets - and hence improve Charles's income from those assets.

So showing that Charles does charitable work (via the King Charles III Charitable Fund) is not relevant. The Duchy of Lancaster and the King Charles III Charitable Fund are entirely different things.

Your personal knowledge that heritage buildings need renovation doesn't disprove what the Guardian is saying. It may well be true but that doesn't mean that the Duchy isn't using the assets of the dead commoners to increase the value of Charles's Duchy land.

Do I 'have any evidence that it doesn't happen'? I'm not even clear about what 'it' you're referring to at this point, but it's generally difficult to prove a negative. The Guardian article is evidence for my claim though (which is not a negative).

I'm glad that we agree on the principle of the thing though - that this money shouldn't go to Charles.

No misunderstanding on my part.

[Son of Mathonwy]

So you’re not disagreeing that income from his estate goes to charity and you therefore are agreeing with me. Good to hear.
Yes. My evidence is that I know from working in the industry that this is the case, unless a handful of people I’ve spoken to about this sort of stuff over the years are lying to me. Funding for heritage buildings is way below where it needs to be so how we afford to maintain the buildings in both public and private hands is a pretty hot topic.
Do you have any evidence it doesn’t happen?
We’re in agreement on the fundamental basis of this thread, ie the money shouldn’t go the king, not that I’d imagine has any input on what is done with it given the relative amounts and the fact he’s quite busy with the day job, so why would I lie?!?!?
I’ll leave it there.

I think you're misunderstanding this. No one is saying that the Duchy doesn't give some money to charity. What I'm saying (per the Guardian article) is that considerable sums from the estates of the dead, which the Duchy claims are being given to charity are actually being used to improve the Duchy's assets - and hence improve Charles's income from those assets.

So showing that Charles does charitable work (via the King Charles III Charitable Fund) is not relevant. The Duchy of Lancaster and the King Charles III Charitable Fund are entirely different things.

Your personal knowledge that heritage buildings need renovation doesn't disprove what the Guardian is saying. It may well be true but that doesn't mean that the Duchy isn't using the assets of the dead commoners to increase the value of Charles's Duchy land.

Do I 'have any evidence that it doesn't happen'? I'm not even clear about what 'it' you're referring to at this point, but it's generally difficult to prove a negative. The Guardian article is evidence for my claim though (which is not a negative).

I'm glad that we agree on the principle of the thing though - that this money shouldn't go to Charles.

No misunderstanding on my part.

Great. All sorted then.

[Sandydragon]

Bottom line, as Puja states below, make a bloody will. Otherwise the state will claim it. There';s enough angst occasionally when there is a will but its well worth a few quid to sort everything out.