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.

  • Syldon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    And you find this ok because?

    • ChouxFleur@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not the original commenter, but it think they’re not okay with it, just clarifying the situation…

      • Syldon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        As per article only in Lancashire and Cornwall.

        The adjective infers that the area affected is significantly small.

        • abrasiveteapot@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Syldon
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            One is too many imo. They milk the country for enough money as it is.

            • abrasiveteapot@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • Syldon
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sorry? I don’t think I made any claims over area.