As a royal author, I have come across plentiful examples of royal greed. It is standard practice for the royals to seek to minimise their personal expenditure while maximising their income from other sources, normally the public purse.
But the revelation that King Charles III’s personal slush fund, the Duchy of Lancaster, is having its already bulging coffers augmented by the estates of people who die in parts of England with historical links to the royal estate plumbs new depths of disgusting avarice.
Like many so-called traditions, the feudal hangover that is bona vacantia should have been consigned to the dustbin of history centuries ago, but it has been all too tempting for successive royals to preserve this royal fruit machine that pays out again and again. Over the past 10 years, it has collected more than £60m in the funds.
Under this system, the Duchy of Cornwall, owned by Prince William, can claim the assets of people who die in Cornwall intestate – without a will – if no relatives can be found. Charles’s Duchy of Lancaster does the same when their last known residence is within what was historically known as Lancashire county palatine.
Edward VIII found cash from those who died intestate in the boundaries of the duchy was sitting in an account in case claims arose against it. He simply stole a million pounds from it, leaving almost nothing in that kitty.
George VI did very well out of the loyal servicemen who died serving their country in the second world war, who originated from within the confines of the duchy and had no will. “For king and country” took on a whole new meaning.
As disquiet about the practice of bona vacantia grew after the war, the royals announced that moneys collected would henceforth be given to charity – after processing costs had been deducted, of course. In the case of the Duchy of Lancaster, this came to about 4% compared to 15% for the Duchy of Cornwall.
Yet a Guardian investigation now reveals that matters are even worse than we have been led to believe. Put bluntly, we have been lied to. Monies we all thought were going to charity have instead been used to improve properties owned by the duchy, increasing the income stream that flows from them into Charles’s pockets.
We have the most expensive monarchy in Europe by far in terms of state support, and one that benefits from unique tax treatment available to nobody else. No inheritance tax is paid. The so-called private estates of the duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster are not private enough to pay corporation tax or capital gains tax. Even income tax is only paid voluntarily – if it all – no receipts have ever been made public.
The civil list, which in 2011 gave the royals £7.9m a year, was replaced, after palace lobbying, with the sovereign grant, which 12 years later is up to £86m a year.
Over the centuries, the royals have continually bleated poverty and demanded more money from the taxpayer, while at the same time refusing point blank to reveal the extent of their accumulated wealth.
They even refused to provide this information to the last government that seriously tried to dig into this – the Labour government of the mid-1970s, with the then home secretary Roy Jenkins pursuing the matter.
Back in Queen Victoria’s reign, the government was told she was desperately short of cash to undertake her duties so a big uplift was provided. She was not short of cash, and the money provided by the then government was instead used to buy Sandringham and Balmoral. I recognise that behaviour from my time in parliament. It’s called fiddling your expenses.
My calculations suggest that the king is worth as much as £2bn and probably more. The bulk of this has come from excessive generosity on behalf of the taxpayer, either through direct handouts or indirectly through unique tax exemptions. But antiquated and indefensible arrangements such as bona vacantia have played their part too.
Parliament, which over the decades has been far too deferential, far too trusting, far too easy going, needs to get a grip. The disgusting existence of royal windfalls from dead people should be ended forthwith. The duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster should be transferred immediately to the publicly owned crown estate; they only escaped from being transferred along with other royal lands in 1760 because they were then deemed worthless. Plainly, this is no longer the case. The public accounts committee should begin a thorough investigation into the funding and wealth of the royals.
Monarchists should worry. Opening the doors on royal finances and practices will reveal a terrible stench.
Norman Baker was the Liberal Democrat MP for Lewes from 1997 to 2015
I thought I knew royal greed – but King Charles profiting from the assets of the dead is a disgusting new low
5
207
24.11.2023
As a royal author, I have come across plentiful examples of royal greed. It is standard practice for the royals to seek to minimise their personal expenditure while maximising their income from other sources, normally the public purse.
But the revelation that King Charles III’s personal slush fund, the Duchy of Lancaster, is having its already bulging coffers augmented by the estates of people who die in parts of England with historical links to the royal estate plumbs new depths of disgusting avarice.
Like many so-called traditions, the feudal hangover that is bona vacantia should have been consigned to the dustbin of history centuries ago, but it has been all too tempting for successive royals to preserve this royal fruit machine that pays out again and again. Over the past 10 years, it has collected more than £60m in the funds.
Under this system, the Duchy of Cornwall, owned by Prince William, can claim the assets of people who die in Cornwall intestate – without a will – if no relatives can be found. Charles’s Duchy of Lancaster does the same when their last known residence is within what was historically known as Lancashire county........
© The Guardian
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
