#Duchy of Lancaster

[noosphe-re]

Flag of the Duchy of Lancaster

[old-etonian]

I’ve been researching the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster since I was 14, these people reallly don’t want to fight with me today. 🙃🙃🙃

[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

[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.

[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.

[reality-detective]

So let me get this straight…

Virginia Giuffre, Jeffrey Epstein victim, survives a bus slam into her, despite being given just 4 days to live. Then, once she bravely claws her way back from the edge of death and on the road to recovery, she suddenly commits suicide? 👇

One of the first to speak out, Giuffre became a powerful force in the fight for justice against Epstein and his network.

Her courage inspired countless others to come forward, breaking the silence that had protected abusers for years. 👇

Virginia Giuffre claimed she was forced to have s*x with several powerful men—including former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

The allegation was revealed by Alan Dershowitz, who cited her claims while attempting to undermine her credibility.

Giuffre also named Prince Andrew, New Mexico’s former Governor Bill Richardson, MIT professor Marvin Minsky, Hyatt chairman Tom Pritzker, and others.

Dershowitz sued Giuffre into silence. 👇

Just a reminder that the late Queen paid Virginia £12 million in an out-of-court settlement so that Andrew didn't have to face a jury trial on claims that he sexually abused and raped her when she was 17. 👇

The Telegraph reported that the total amount was upwards of $16 million and included a contribution from the monarch from her private Duchy of Lancaster estate, which means it wouldn't be coming from taxpayers' money. (yeah right) 👇

If true... May she R. I. P. 🙏

I AM seriously NOT be-LIE-ving this story 🤔

[inky-duchess]

Fantasy Guide to Dukes and Duchesses

This new series will offer an indepth view of each noble title in the standard European hierarchy of noble titles. Here we will discuss what they are, their lands, their jobs and everything you need to know when writing them.

What is a Duke exactly?

A Dukedom is the highest rank in most noble hierarchies. The Duke rules a section of land within the Kingdom known as a Duchy, for example the Duke of Lancaster or can be a standalone title, Duke of Rothesay. A Dukedom is inherited through the family line, from father to so but the title is bestowed on the by the monarch. Monarchs can also give their children Dukedoms, and often do. For example the second son of the King of France would be the Duc d'Orleans.

Titles, Titles

The Duke is the highest ranking in the land. They are the first among the nobility, among the wealthiest, with the most prestige. A Duke is referred to as 'Your Grace'. If one is meeting a Duke in a social setting, nobles would call them Duke whilst underlyings would call them "Your Grace". A Duke would also hold subsidiary such as an Earldom or two, a Barony or three. But would go by Duke as it is the highest title. Fun fact, Carlos Fitz-James Stuart (pic above) has the most titles:

He is: Carlos Fitz-James Stuart, Duke of Alba, Grandee of Spain, Duke of Berwick, Grandee of Spain, Duke of Huéscar, Grandee of Spain, Duke of Liria and Jérica, Grandee of Spain, Count-Duke of Olivares, Grandee of Spain,Marquess of Carpio, Grandee of Spain, Marquess of La Algaba, Marquess of Barcarrota, Marquess of Castañeda, Marquess of Coria, Marquess of Eliche, Marquess of Mirallo, Marquess of la Mota, Marquess of Moya, Marquess of Osera, Marquess of San Leonardo, Marquess of Sarria, Marquess of Tarazona, Marquess of Valdunquillo, Marquess of Villanueva del Fresno, Marquess of Villanueva del Río, Count of Lemos, Grandee of Spain, Count of Lerín, Grandee of Spain, Constable of Navarre, Count of Miranda del Castañar, Grandee of Spain, Count of Monterrey, Grandee of Spain, Count of Osorno, Grandee of Spain, Count of Andrade, Count of Ayala, Count of Casarrubios del Monte, Count of Fuentes de Valdepero, Count of Fuentidueña, Count of Galve, Count of Elves, Count of Modica, Count of San Esteban de Gormaz, Count of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Count of Villalba, Viscount of la Calzada, Lord of Moguer.

The Family of the Duke

The wife of a Duke is a Duchess. If a Duke is married to a man, while there is no real world examples, I would personally say they would take one of those other subsidiary titles I mentioned above. Same thing with a ruling Duchess and her wife. However, a ruling Duchess's husband usually sticks with whatever title he came with. The heir of the Duke usually inherits their parent's next highest title, usually an Earldom. The other children are styled as Lord/Lady Firstname.

The Role of the Duke

As the Duke is leader of the Duchy, which is a large section of the kingdom. They are in control of this section, the highest power in law and order, politics and all things in that section with only the monarch above. They handle administration at the highest level, raising troops from their duchy for the crown in times of war, see the collection of taxes and sometimes they might even advise the monarch if they are offered a place of the monarch's council. They would also attend the monarch at their coronation.

Cribs

Dukes like a lot of nobility would have multiple houses, manors, estates etc. Their homes would be the grandest in the land and the social hubs for the Duchy and even the country. A Duke would sometimes live at court when invited but would also have the homes in the capital. This vast portfolio can become a source of income as the Duke can rent them out or a handy way to shelf relatives who depended on them.

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

[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.

[eaglesnick]

“The country is governed for the richest, for the corporations, the bankers, the land speculators, and for the exploiters of labor.” - Helen Keller

On the BBC Today programme yesterday we heard the official Labour Government policy regarding taxation and the rich.

Pat McFadden, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the second highest government office in the land after that of Prime Minister, was asked this question,

"What do you say (to the accusation) the poorest are being pitted against the poorest whilst the wealthy go relatively untouched.” 

His reply said it all:

“We have a progressive tax system.  The top 1% pay about a third of tax. I don’t think, you can in the end, tax and borrow...we are reforming the State"

Lets look at the facts

The top 1% of UK earners pays 29% of all income tax not 33.3% as McFadden said.

According to The Money University, (December 2023) to be in the top 1% of UK earners you must earn more than £180,000 per annum. This 1% takes home just under 14% of the countries total income.

On the face of it, the top 1% or earners seem to be paying a greater proportion of the tax bill relative to their total earnings.  They earn 14% of the countries total income but pay 29% of the total income tax bill.

However, things are not what they seem and Pat McFadden knows this.

First, although the lowest 10% of UK earners contribute a relatively small proportion of the total tax bill, as their incomes are significantly lower, they face a higher burden from indirect taxes like VAT and Council Tax which take up a larger percentage of their income compared to higher earners.

Second, income for the wealthy comes not only from work but from unearned income in the form of dividends and shares, which are taxed at a LOWER rate than income from employment. The Office for National Statistics found that the lowest 10% of UK earners pay an average 42% of their income in the form of income tax, national insurance, VAT and council tax. By contrast, the richest 10% only pay 33% of their total income in tax.

Third, the wealthiest people in Britain are asset rich. They invest in land, property, art, jewellery and other assets that escape taxation even though these assets may gain in value. There is no wealth tax in the UK.

Fourth, we also have to remember it  is the amount of income you are left with after paying taxes that is really important. Using the above figures, if you have an income of  £180,000 you pay 33% in tax, leaving you £120,600. If you are within the lowest 10% of UK earners you have an income of £19,992 per year, of which 42% will go in taxes, leaving you with £11,595.

It is the lowest 10% of earners who are most likely to be on some kind of benefit, the benefits Starmer's Labour government are about to cut. In short, the poor are to be punished for being poor.

Although not a religious person I am reminded of the parable of the "Widow's Mite". It tells of a poor widow who donates two small coins—her entire livelihood—to the Temple treasury. Jesus praises her act, highlighting that she gave more than the wealthy donors, as she offered all she had, while others, who had paid more, still had wealth in abundance after donating to the Temple.

Among other ethical and moral teachings, this parable can be interpreted as a critique of societal systems that leave vulnerable individuals, like widows, in extreme poverty while the rich go on living in luxury.  It highlights the contrast between the rich donating comfortably and the poor sacrificing everything.

Keir Starmer and Pat McFadden please take note.

[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.

[the-empress-7]

Duchy of Lancaster, Established 1265

Duchy of Cornwall, Established 1337

Duchy of Sussex...does NOT exist

[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.