Yeah, people who die with no heir typically get their stuff claimed by the state. This is pretty common around the world.
It usually goes into the state slush fund like tax revenue, AKA the crown.
In this case, it’s claimed that it was ‘donated to charity’.
In this case, it was being spent on upkeep/repairs/renovations on properties that are rented out, with the rent going to the ‘privy purse’ - the king’s personal funds, not the state’s funds. Spending the money to improve the properties directly increases the rent that can be charged, and offsets upkeep costs that would otherwise come out of the rent.
Money laundering.
Is it really money laundering when his (mom’s) face is on the money?
And that’s fine. In this case it’s going to the King personally, however.
No, the article says it’s going to the King’s estate, i.e. the crown, not to the privy purse, i.e. Charles’ pocket.
Is some of it being used that will ultimately benefit him? Probably. But according to the article, the policy governing this says any benefit to the king himself should be merely incidental.
This article does not appear to allege that they are violating that policy.
Everywhere but in this Duchy, it goes to the crown (which, confusingly, means the treasury, not the King). In this case, it goes to a foundation run by the Palace, and they decide what to do with it (which already is a problem, Parliament should be deciding what to do with the money). And some of that money is used to renovate properties owned by the King (and from which he personally collects rent).
The Royal family is already fabulously wealthy, they get a stipend from the state, and on top of that you want them to be able to use money that should be going to the treasury to maintain their rental properties?
I’d say renovating properties rented by Charles for his private gain. I’d that is more than incidental. Also aren’t those properties part of his private wealth and not the crown’s?
Isnt that like, the entire conceit of a king?
The Westminster system is supposed to separate government/crown/state funds from royal/privy purse funds.
The royalty should not have the power to point at something and say ‘I declare that mine’.
If you want to ignore almost a millennium of constitutional push and pull over the limits placed on a monarch, sure.
It’s good to be the king.
I guess the takeaway is to make sure you have a will.
The Duchy of Lancaster, a controversial land and property estate that generates huge profits forKing Charles III,has collected tens of millions of pounds in recent years underan antiquated system that dates back to feudal times.OMG! Are you telling me the british monarchy is related to feudalism!!!
I just think it’s funny how the article is pointing out antiquated customs used by the King when he himself is an antiquated custom.
yeah its sorta surreal how the 21st century feels sometimes like the 19th.
Monarchy is such an outdated system
Sounds like textbook money laundering/diversion of charity funds to me.
Don’t give the money to the privy purse directly - spend it on upkeep/repairs/renovation of private property that the king can ‘legitimately’ collect rent on.
