#Duchy of Lancaster

[so-where-do-we-go-from-here]

“The Duchy of Lancaster said: “His majesty the king voluntarily pays tax on all income received from the duchy.””

Well that’s good of him. We on the other hand are obliged to pay our tax bills.

A lack of transparency about their finances for institutions which receive public money and pay less tax than we are obliged to, eg inheritance and corporation tax, cannot go on.

[thepastisalreadywritten]

5 February 2024

The King is being treated for cancer, Buckingham Palace has announced.

It has not said what type of cancer the 75-year-old has but confirmed that it was not prostate cancer. The King was recently treated for prostate enlargement.

King Charles III was crowned at Westminster Abbey in May 2023 alongside his wife, Queen Camilla.

How will the King's duties change while he is treated for cancer?

Buckingham Palace said:

"Regrettably, a number of the King's forthcoming public engagements will have to be rearranged or postponed.

His Majesty would like to apologise to all those who may be disappointed or inconvenienced as a consequence."

It said that he was receiving expert care and "looks forward to returning to full public duty as soon as possible."

While the King is recovering, the Queen is expected to continue attending engagements.

"Her Majesty will continue with a full programme of public duties," Buckingham Palace said.

Despite stepping back from public events, the King will continue with paperwork and private meetings as head of state.

What does the King do?

The King is the UK head of state, but his powers are largely symbolic and ceremonial, and he remains politically neutral.

He receives daily dispatches from the government in a red leather box, including briefings ahead of important meetings, or documents needing his signature.

The prime minister normally meets the King on a Wednesday at Buckingham Palace.

These meetings are completely private, and no official records are kept of what is said.

The King also has a number of official parliamentary roles:

Appointing a government — the leader of the party that wins a general election is usually called to Buckingham Palace, where they are invited to form a government. The King also formally dissolves Parliament before a general election

State Opening and the King's Speech — the King begins the parliamentary year with the State Opening ceremony, where he sets out the government's plans in a speech delivered from the throne in the House of Lords

Royal Assent — when a piece of legislation is passed through Parliament, it must be formally approved by the King in order to become law. The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708

In addition, the monarch leads the annual Remembrance event in November at the Cenotaph in London.

The King also hosts visiting heads of state, and regularly meets foreign ambassadors and high commissioners.

For his first state visit, Charles visited Germany, where he became the first British monarch to address the country's parliament, speaking in English and German.

The King then travelled to France for a three-day state visit in September and to Kenya for a four-day state visit in October, where he acknowledged the "abhorrent and unjustifiable acts of violence committed against Kenyans during their independence struggle."

He also delivered the opening address at the COP28 climate conference in Dubai in December, where he said: "The Earth does not belong to us."

Charles is also head of the Commonwealth, an association of 56 independent countries spanning 2.5 billion people.

He is head of state for 14 of these, known as the Commonwealth realms, as well as the Crown dependencies - the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

The Queen supports the King in carrying out his work and undertakes her own public engagements on behalf of the 90 charities she supports.

Where does the Royal Family get its money?

The Royal Family receives an annual payment from the taxpayer, known as the Sovereign Grant, which is used to pay for official expenses, such as the upkeep of properties and staff costs.

The amount is based on a proportion of the profits of the Crown Estate, a property business owned by the monarch but run independently.

It had assets worth £16.5bn in 2022.

The Sovereign Grant was worth £86.3m in 2022-2023, the same as in 2021-2022.

But total spending for the year was £107.5m, a 5% increase on the £102.4m spent the previous year, with more than £20m drawn from financial reserves to cover the shortfall.

The King also receives money from a private estate called the Duchy of Lancaster, which is passed down from monarch to monarch.

It covers more than 18,000 hectares of land, including property in central London.

Worth £654m, it generates about £20m a year in profits.

The Duke of Cornwall (currently William, Prince of Wales) benefits from the Duchy of Cornwall, which mainly owns land in the south-west of England.

Worth £1bn, it generated a net surplus of £24m in 2022-23.

The King and Prince William receive the profits from the duchies personally, and can spend the money as they wish.

Both voluntarily pay income tax on the proceeds.

In addition, some other Royal Family members have private art, jewellery and stamp collections, which they can sell or use to generate income as they wish.

NOTE: Edited

[houseofbrat]

“King Charles is not a housing association for distant relatives”

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/king-charles-plan-slimmed-down-monarchy-frogmore-cottage-harry-meghan-b1069700.html

And so it begins…the changes to course correct a bloated operation. Ready for the KC3 haters who were calling him weak the other day to start calling him cruel 🍿

The news came as the King’s visit to France was delayed after extensive rioting on Thursday night. Senior figures have told the Standard that after the period of transition following the coronation, the King, assisted by Queen Camilla, will move to tackle inefficiencies in what is being viewed as a largely overstaffed and outdated system.

Vice-Admiral Sir Tony Johnstone-Burt, Master of the Household, and the Keeper of the Privy Purse Sir Michael Stevens, responsible for finance, will execute the shake-up of what is described as a “top-heavy royal household”. Camilla has been overseeing the fine detail of the King’s plan to ensure that after the coronation the royal household will be run the “Clarence House way”.

One senior figure said: “It is not about cuts, it is about getting the best value for money from those on the payroll. Sometimes less is more.”

Another source added: “The King is not some sort of housing association for distant relatives.” Harry and Meghan were given use of Frogmore Cottage, a five-bedroom mansion on the Windsor estate in 2018, by the late Queen.

[...]

However, the couple’s loss of the cottage, their only British home, is said to be just the “tip of the iceberg”.

It is understood Charles is keen to reduce the number of royals with a financial dependence on the crown, especially if they do not have an active role to play. He wants funds from the Duchy of Lancaster, the portfolio of land, property and assets held in trust for the King, and the sovereign grant that covers the cost of royal travel on official engagements, to be spent more effectively. He also wants to pay his staff competitive salaries and pensions so that he gets the best people for the jobs.

“There will be staff cutbacks. That has already started. The buzz phrase is ‘value for money,’” said the source.

Several members of the extended royal family have enjoyed subsidised palace accommodation, with some having apartments that are being used by their children as “London pads”.

The source said: “Over time, that is going to change. Properties will be let at commercial rates going forward and to people outside the family. Where it is in a palace environment they will of course be security vetted.”

Privately, the King’s senior staff have made it clear to members of the extended family that if they cannot afford where they are living, they should “cut their cloth”. “A lot of practices that have evolved during the last reign will be changing. The King is not heartless or reckless, but if the family members are not part of the core family and not working for the crown, it is fair for them to house themselves and fund themselves,” a senior figure said.

[...]

One insider said: “The staffing has been on the top-heavy side. That has built up over time, with advisers to advisers and so on. That’s all going to stop. The boss wants effective people in effective positions doing effective jobs being paid appropriately.” The senior source added: “Much of what was in place doesn’t make economic sense and will be changed during the new reign.”

Yup. This is about what I expected.

People forget that Charles turned the Duchy of Cornwall into the behemoth it is now. It was struggling and in debt when he took it over from his mother.

[une-sanz-pluis]

The evidence seems to indicate that by 1456 Margaret was working towards the creation of a household faction focused especially on the household and council of the prince of Wales. The withdrawal of the court from Westminster to Kenilworth castle, the heart of Margaret’s west Midlands dower estates, in the summer of 1456, symbolised the shift in the focus of power. This was also reflected in the change of government personnel in October 1456, when the queen’s chancellor, Laurence Booth, was appointed keeper of the privy seal and John Talbot, earl of Shrewsbury, treasurer. Historians have interpreted these actions as a deliberate attempt to create a coherent Lancastrian affinity as an effective power base which might be drawn upon not just for political support but also as a military resource. The value of the duchy of Lancaster as a source of manpower for military retinues had been recognised by John of Gaunt in the 1380s and 1390s, and recent studies have emphasised the crucial role played by leading officials of the duchy in the organisation and financing of Gaunt’s military expeditions. Under both Henry IV and Henry V the Lancastrian affinity retained both its administrative and military functions, now harnessed to royal authority. But the long minority of Henry VI, the survival of Henry V’s widow until 1437 and the provision made under Henry V’s will to pay off massive debts by granting away duchy lands to feoffees diminished the potential value of the duchy to the crown.

Diana Dunn, "The Queen at War: The Role of Margaret of Anjou in the Wars of the Roses" in War and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Britain (ed. Diana Dunn, University of Liverpool Press, 2000)

[wonder-worker]

"The Parliamentary Rolls record that in 1482, Elizabeth Woodville was granted “the wardships and the marriages of the heirs of her tenants of so much of the Duchy of Lancaster as she [held] to her own use.”

-Michele Seah and Katia Wright, “The Medieval English Queen as a Landowner”, “Women and Economic Power in Premodern European Courts"

[shi0n]

played crusader kings 3 so much on my day off that i started seeing dreams where i was forming political marriages and alliances between my mutuals....

[dreamconsumer]

Anne of Burgundy, Duchess of Bedford (1404-1432).

She was a daughter of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy.

[blackboar]

Sorry to jump in but on Henry IV, the separation of the duchy from the crown was a good idea and was kept by his successors. It allowed a familial and private estate in which the king had more leeways than in public lands. Estate accounts until the reign of Henry V shows that income wasn't the objective of Henry IV, but securing loyalties was. Personal and dynastical loyalties. Through annuities/offices/leases, Henry IV wanted to keep and extend his big Lancastrian affinity, who would be loyal to him as the duke of Lancaster. A good idea considering the Percy/Glindwr rebellion that the affinity massively contributed to casting down. Meanwhile, Crown estates were unreliable, considering Cheshire was Ricardian and a lot of welsh flocked to Owen.

(It didn't help him with Parlement, though, because those folks kept saying that he had this massive landed estate he could take resources from, and Henry IV actively chose to not do that).

I am lowkey highkey obsessed with Thomas. He comes across as having a streak of earnestness in some things I read (it was either his knightly brotherhood agreement with Charles Duke of Orleans or his letter to Henry about how awful his situation in Ireland was) but I also like the hotheaded, reckless image of him. I think a lot of modern historians either overlook him because he wasn't around for Henry VI's minority or just tend to assume that the Battle of Bauge tells us everything about his personality and thus we end up at the hotheaded, reckless idiot image.

(also re: Henry; I think CGW says something like he could have been a good king but the way he became king meant he could never be a good king because usurpation left too great a stain on his character. That makes a lot of sense to me. Plus he got so sick just as he was starting to gain stability on the throne… you can almost sort of read this trend of Henry being like "time for kingly awesomeness! (a fun party ala Edward III; going on a military campaign)" and then ending up having another rebellion or health crisis. The dickhead was still doing it up to 1412 - he was going to lead Thomas's expedition! Until he couldn't…)

(I have written and re-written this so many times to try and clearly explain my view and I'm still not happy with it v.v)

I kind of like the mental image of Thomas as a hot head, but a hot head with a heart of gold iykwim. It really annoys me that we don't know more about him, because reading about his stint in Ireland and campaign in France knowing how much people wanted him to be heir instead of Hal really just... baffled me. The failure of those two things don't exclusively or even predominately fall on his head, it just doesn't explain why people were so ready to back him over Hal, who already had a quashed rebellion under his belt (it'd be easy to brush it off as just people really hating Hal, which they did seem to, but they also seemed to genuinely want Thomas). I think it mostly comes down to Thomas' strengths being in areas that weren't necessarily conducive to leading a country, the way Hal, John, and likely Philippa's were, but we only know of those strengths because we have been able to evaluate their and their successors achievements to examine what does make a good monarch.

CGW coming to that conclusion about Henry IV didn't make a lot of sense to me, because that book did a really good job at detailing all the ways Henry was ill-equipped to be king ^.^'''' A lot of it was definitely because of him being a usurper, like being unable to convince parliament to raise taxes because they would leverage his own promises against him, or his habit of basically never standing up for himself and then going too far in the other direction, realising how much he screwed up, and then swinging too far back again (see the Scrope debacle). And even without all the ways his being a usurper affected him, there are so many instances of him straining against the monetary confines he now has to live with (I understand why he wanted the Duchy of Lancaster to be kept separate from the crown. Terrible outcome, but understandable), or wanting to be on crusade and not being able to because he is king, or the trouble he went through for marrying Joanna because it wasn't a good marriage for a king... all of it very much suggests to me that again, the 'princely virtues' he was so often praised for over Richard did nothing to actually prepare him for running a government, and there is a lot that suggests to me he didn't enjoy it. I guess you give him more credit that I do

[so-where-do-we-go-from-here]

[adj4mp]

Pat McFadden and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

The role that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster seems to fill is one that's simultaneously very important and yet has almost no responsibilities. While Raynor is the deputy leader of the Labour Party and deputy Prime Minister the Duchy of Lancaster is the second highest rank within the Government. And while historically there were responsibilities to the Duchy of Lancaster those have largely been usurped or delegated making the one that's primary responsibility is advisory to the cabinet, PM and King.

In some ways the role is one that mirrors the Speaker for the House, they're the one who chairs meetings and discussions and ensure all the business is brought to the table. Though as chairman they're permitted to have their own say and opinion in meetings a way that the Speaker is not as a representative of the whole house.

McFadden himself was a minister under Gordon Brown, and a Secretary of Tony Blair so his expertise as an advisor comes from his presence during the last Labour Government. He has also worked within the shadow cabinet in several positions giving him a fairly rounded outlook of the role of the cabinet.

This is one of those jobs that I don't really have any opinion about the appointment mainly because I can't really judge the role, it's not especially prominent to the public and the requirements are somewhat unintuitive.

[sassyfrassboss]

Okay so for years there have been rumors that Harry truly believed he would co-reign when William became King.

There was also the rumor that when William was to inherit the Duchy of Cornwall, Harry truly intended that William would give him half of the profits.

I think there was even a rumor that when William became King, the Duchy of Cornwall was going to Harry since William would have the Duchy of Lancaster.

Now I always thought these were out of the scope because no one can be that idiotic and clueless about their own family’s history and traditions.

But then Harry did an interview for his book and he was talking about how William and Catherine got precedence and how apparently there was this royal hierarchy and it was made clear that Meghan and himself would never be at the top of said hierarchy.

At the time I thought “yeah no way he never clued in to the fact he wasn’t the most important person in the room.”

Now I’m convinced that Harry was never clued in. In fact, Harry was so clueless that he is now under the assumption that “Sussex” is a duchy and also a surname.

I’m waiting for the news that he is upset his family refuses to give him his coffers from his lowly serfs who till his fields.

[brf-rumortrackinganon]

Feel the need to push back on a couple of things.

New Orleans (even post-Katrina) is not a "third world country." Also, the preferred nomenclature is "developing country" or "global south." But NOLA doesn't qualify, no matter what term one uses.

"Succession by popular vote instead of by hereditary primogeniture." -- even Harry's not that stupid. What Harry means by "modernizing" is to split the Duchy of Cornwall and then Lancaster, and for him to get all the perks - security, grace and favour home, staff, etc - without having to read the red boxes or meet the PM weekly or be sent somewhere he doesn't want to go. What Meghan means by it is what she's still trying to do: let me use my title to get fame, freebies, and financial remuneration, without having to live in the UK or do any work.

Lastly, I don't want to denigrate Earthshot or Homewards but as I understand the projects (and maybe I'm misunderstanding) their impacts won't be measurable for a while either. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I have no objections to the Homewards project (as I understand it) and my sole - but fierce - objection to Earthshot is the galas. (I don't care if that's how most non-profits make money, it's the wrong move for an environmental org.)

Thanks for this. A few things.

You misunderstood what I meant by post-Katrina New Orleans. I wasn't talking about post-Katrina today or post-Katrina 2010s. I meant immediately post-Katrina, as in September 1, 2005 post-Katrina. New Orleans, and especially the Lower 9th Ward, was left in really horrific conditions that absolutely were reminiscent of developing nations. Celebrities with no connections to New Orleans (like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie) flocked there for years to do charity work and many of them used their New Orleans-based humanitarian aid efforts for self-promotion. I should have been clearer about that.

And by the way, while today most of New Orleans has largely recovered from the effects of Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, there are still parts of it - especially in the Lower 9th Ward - still dealing with the impact, long after the rest of the city and the rest of the world moved on. For example, it took 10 years for residents to get a single grocery store after the storms. Many residents are still tied up in financial problems from storm damage, insurance, and rebuilding. And there are buildings condemned from the storms still standing, still with FEMA search and rescue symbols on them, still with mold and personal belongings and flood damage in them, and there's reasonable belief that some missing/unaccounted-for people from the storm may still be in those abandoned structures. (And also let's not forget the ethical and moral issues being debated still today.)

If you still don't believe how horrific post-Katrina was or that a city in the US could feel so abandoned that it paralleled developing countries, I encourage you to read memoirs or listen to stories from Katrina survivors and New Orleans residents about what it was like after the storms. (This book is hard to read, but it's worth it. There's an Apple series made if you'd rather watch it instead.)

To your third point about Earthshot projects not having results yet, nope. The Earthshot projects may not have global results yet or large-scale results, but they do already have results, even if small. Because Earthshot isn't funding brand new initiatives - Earthshot is funding small, proven, existing projects and awarding the winners grants to scale up their operations. It's right there on the website:

"Proven prototypes" and "signs of success" means that the projects must have outcomes and results to report in their applications. They can be small datasets, but they're still datasets, outcomes, and results that Earthshot winners are able to compare their grant-funded work against to measure the effectiveness of those grants.

Further, Earthshot's Roadmap, which describes how they evaluate nominations to determine finalists and winners, has specific requirements for nominees to demonstrate actual impact of their work:

So, yes, Earthshot projects are able to deliverable measurable results quickly. And we know they're delivering measurable results immediately because Earthshot and William are promoting it. That's the whole point of those "come see what Earthshot winners are doing" videos on social media and engagements - it's to show how the companies are using their prize grants to deliver on the metrics they were required to support in their nominations.

[the-empress-7]

Duchy of Lancaster, Established 1265

Duchy of Cornwall, Established 1337

Duchy of Sussex...does NOT exist

[wonder-worker]

was edward IV considering waging war with France when he died?

Hi! From what I understand*: no, he probably wasn't considering it.

The Treaty of Arras, resulting in the deprivation of his annual pension from France, appears to have provoked a visceral reaction in him: contemporaries report both anger and melancholy. In February, Parliament granted him a subsidy 'for the hasty and necessary defence' of the realm', money was demanded from the clergy, and he took measures to strengthen the fortresses in the Calais Pale. He also tried to stir Brittany against France by promising to send them 4,000 archers for three months - though it must be said that there was no mention from Edward regarding a proposed English invasion of France during that time. He was clearly angered, but it's difficult to know if he was genuinely considering waging full-scale war, or if it was an impulsive overreaction or sudden need for defense (perhaps both), or merely a tried-and-tested ploy to get money, which he had a track record of doing in the 1460s and which would have been needed now that his French pension was cut off.

(Fun fact: this entire drama resulted in the creation of 'The Promise of Matrimony' in 1483, the first known piece of printed political propaganda in English history.)

In any case, whatever his original intentions, Edward IV evidently seems to have decided to prioritize his continued peace with France by the end of his life. As Charles Ross says:

"If an immediate attack upon France was seriously contemplated for a time, the mood did not last long. By March (1483)**, when relations at sea between France and England had deteriorated badly, there are clear signs that Edward had changed course and was making every effort to preserve the truce with France."

There was a mission from the Garter King of Arms to France in February, likely connected to this. More strikingly, by the time Edward fell sick, he was actively making efforts to put an end to seizures and reprisals against French shipping - which, if we judge how French actions intensified after his death, seem to have been fairly successful.

Long story short, if Edward IV actually considered waging war against France in the beginning of 1483, he seems to have soon changed his mind and decided to prioritize his truce with them.*** Unfortunately, we'll never know how it would have gone down had he lived for a few years longer.

Because Edward IV died so soon after, and the situation remained unresolved, the Treaty of Arras is often magnified by historians as a sort of definite endgame of his foreign policy. Imo, this is a rather dramatic and retrospective reading of the situation. His foreign policy had worked reasonably well (or at least, to his satisfaction) up till that point. Arras certainly was a major setback and deeply aggrieved him - but the fact remains that had he lived longer, this is unlikely to be anything other than a temporary setback for both him and England**** (a trend that was fairly common across the reigns of many other medieval rulers). In this case, we already know for a fact that the conflict between France and Burgundy had by no means died down after Arras: it was, in fact, just as bad. Maximilian continued to desperately appeal to Edward IV for aid mere weeks after signing the Treaty (which Edward would have probably given had he not died soon after) and would later appeal to Richard III as well. So it's not like Edward or England lost their leverage. More importantly, Louis XI himself would die just a few months after Edward, leading to a major change in the structure of European politics, and we don't know how this situation would have unfolded had Edward still been alive at the time. Nor do we know how it would have unfolded had England's domestic situation remained stable for his successor after his death (aka: had his brother not decided to usurp the throne from his preteen nephew and kickstart yet another civil war within his own dynasty). He died at an impasse, and I think that more than anything should be emphasized - but by no accounts should it be taken to mean that he left his heir in a singularly complicated foreign situation. He didn't - at least, not compared to the vast majority of his predecessors - and at any event, like I mentioned, the situation in wider Europe was also rapidly changing at the time. Nor was England "isolated": among others, they did have a treaty with Brittany, and more importantly, there were strides towards a greater alliance with unified Spain: negotiations for a betrothal of his daughter Katherine to Isabella and Ferdinand's heir had been ratified in 1482***** and were ongoing (or already completed, I'm not sure) when he died, leaving the door wide open for a closer alliance that would be pursued by future English rulers, particularly since we know Spain was on the lookout for allies against France during that time as well and did view England as a potential ally.

*Correct me if I'm wrong **Ross says "1482" in his biography, but that's probably a typo considering he was talking about events after the Treaty of Arras. ***It's often said that Richard III inherited a "naval war" with France from his brother, but as we can see, he didn't. He inherited naval tensions (the word choice is important) which Edward IV was already working on putting an end to. The escalation of these tensions was very much Richard's own decision. ****England also seems to have been included in the Treaty of Arras (at Louis XI's "pleasure" lol), though I don't know in what capacity, it was likely window-dressing, so don't quote me on this. It may have been in a similar capacity Charles the Bold was technically "included" in the Treaty of Picquigny. *****I think it was Spain who proposed the betrothal, though I'm not sure so don't quote me on that.

[celticcrossanon]

If not, then why does Charles want Andrew out of Royal Lodge but not Edward out of Bagshot Park?

Some background info…

Royal Lodge has more of a family history than Bagshot Park does. The Royal Lodge was where Her Late Majesty grew up and was The Queen Mother’s Windsor residence, before she passed away (at which point Andrew leased the home). Charles probably has fond memories of the home and wants to ��keep it in the family”, so to speak — his own family (aka Harry or William and their families). Bagshot Park, meanwhile, was a residence used by the Duke of Connaught and Strathearn (Victoria’s son) and then leased to the Army until 1996 when Edward and Sophie took over tenancy; it doesn’t have the same prestige, if you will, of the Royal Lodge to the family.

It’s been said that the reports of how big Bagshot Park is and its 120 rooms is greatly overestimated from the Army days. To me that suggests that most of the 120 rooms are very small and perhaps not quite practical for a family. At any rate, Edward and Sophie did significant renovations to Bagshot Park that made the rooms bigger, which also reduced the number of rooms on the property.

Also, Royal Lodge is said to be falling apart and there’s an enormous repair bill coming to fix everything. Charles could be focusing on Royal Lodge because of the enormous repair costs, which Andrew was supposed to be on top of as part of his lease and seems to not be addressing.

And finally, let’s not forget that Andrew is no longer a working member of the royal family, nor even a senior royal. Edward and Sophie are. It doesn’t make sense for Andrew to keep such a large property under peppercorn rent, and he likely can’t afford the market rate of rent (and upkeep expenses to maintain the lease) for a place like Royal Lodge. Forcing Andrew to downsize from the Royal Lodge is also a practical and economical reason in terms of lessening the burden on the Duchy of Lancaster.

Hi Nonny,

Thank you for all this extra information. 🩷 It does make things clearer and sets the 'evict Prince Andrew' narrative in context.

[royal-confessions]

“I really hope that we see The King visit the Duchy of Lancaster and wear the late Queen’s Duchy of Lancaster brooch. Its design could still suit a man and The King’s is the best wearer of male jewelry in the BRF. He’d pull it off in style!” - Submitted by Anonymous