King’s estate to transfer £100m into ethical funds after bona vacantia revelations
King’s estate to transfer £100m into ethical funds after bona vacantia revelations
Exclusive: Duchy of Lancaster changes investment policy amid questions over how money collected from dead people is used
King Charles’s estate has announced it is transferring more than £100m, including funds collected from dead people under the archaic system of bona vacantia, into ethical investment funds after an investigation by the Guardian.
The surprise announcement comes amid growing pressure on the king over the Duchy of Lancaster’s use of funds collected from people who die in the north-west of England with no will or next of kin.
On Thursday, the Guardian revealed some of the funds were secretly being used to renovate properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit by his estate. The duchy conceded that some bona vacantia revenues are financing the restoration of what it calls “public and historic properties”.
However the king’s estate has also been battling separate questions over its management of another portion of bona vacantia funds that are given to its charities.
You're viewing a single thread.
Wasn't even aware this went to the crown. A very good reason why we need transparency with incomes.
As per article only in Lancashire and Cornwall. The rest of the UK goes to treasury/exchequer
And you find this ok because?
Not the original commenter, but it think they're not okay with it, just clarifying the situation...
What on earth makes you think I'm OK with it ?
As per article only in Lancashire and Cornwall.
The adjective infers that the area affected is significantly small.
There are 8 current dukedoms https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_dukedoms_in_the_United_Kingdom
And about 3 times that many historical dukedoms. So 2 of 8 is a small number 2 of 28 an even smaller number.
By eyeball the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancashire are less than 5% of the land mass of the United Kingdom and maybe 10% of the population tops, so "only" meaning a small portion would be fair.
Having said that, from context I think you're inferring the wrong meaning of "only" - I would read that as singling out the two impacted areas (regardless of comparative size). In other words "of all the UK specifically (only) these two areas are affected.
I'm not OP so could be wrong of course. Often am.
One is too many imo. They milk the country for enough money as it is.
No one is suggesting it's a good thing, but trying to make out a correction on the scope of the problem (UK vs a subset) is an attempt to justify it, is an emotional overreaction or an attempt to pick an argument where none exists. Cool your jets son.
Sorry? I don't think I made any claims over area.