Duchy of Cornwall


If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Suonymona said:
You buy the house and land but its in a gated area controlled by a group you pay dues to (usually annually).
With leasehold, you do not have the opportunity to buy the land your house is built on. Although you own the house, you have to pay ground rent or a management fee. As you say, if you sell the house, the new owners have to sign a contract with the landowner, agreeing terms and conditions.
 
Skydragon said:
With leasehold, you do not have the opportunity to buy the land your house is built on. Although you own the house, you have to pay ground rent or a management fee. As you say, if you sell the house, the new owners have to sign a contract with the landowner, agreeing terms and conditions.

It's the same arrangement for Royal Lodge and Bagshot Park. Prince Andrew and Prince Edward signed 99-year leaseholds from the Crown Estate and can make improvements and renovations, but do not own the property itself.
 
branchg said:
It's the same arrangement for Royal Lodge and Bagshot Park. Prince Andrew and Prince Edward signed 99-year leaseholds from the Crown Estate and can make improvements and renovations, but do not own the property itself.
Indeed, unlike some grace and favour houses where even the interior decor has to be by agreement! :flowers:
 
Skydragon said:
Indeed, unlike some grace and favour houses where even the interior decor has to be by agreement! :flowers:

So did both of the Princes have to a draft of the renovations over to the Queen for her approval before work began?:)
 
I would expect so.

Not just for a Mummy review but for the Crown to consider future implications.

And as for USA associations, people purchase condos all the time. They own the space but the land belongs to the building owner. They can tear the place down and the 'owners' can't say boo. Of course, no notification would bring the lawyers jackpots!
 
HRH Kimetha said:
So did both of the Princes have to a draft of the renovations over to the Queen for her approval before work began?:)
It would not have been the Queen, but probably a clerk of works who deals with the royal buildings. Even the royal houses have to adhere to the strict conservation rules. :wacko:
 
I'll try not to giggle too hard at your last line!
 
I have just visited the websites of Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy Orginals. I find them so beautiful and delighted to vist. And a lot of information on it. I am going to read the annual report of Duchy of Cornwall. I am glad they have it on the website. I just hope that one day if Duchy Orginals becomes a listed company, then we will have a chance to read their annual report.

Duchy of Cornwall
Duchy of Cornwall - Home Page - The Official Website for the Duchy of Cornwall

they have information about Camilla The Duchess of Cornwall as well.It is interesting.:)

Duchy Originals
Duchy Originals

there are some nice recipes on the website
 
Charles to keep right hand man | the Daily Mail

Sir Michael Peat just signed a new 7 year contract with Charles. This article proves what I saying about Peat a while ago. I knew even though he is technically Charles' private secretary he was the reason Charles' income from the Duchy had increased.
 
Charles to keep right hand man | the Daily Mail

Sir Michael Peat just signed a new 7 year contract with Charles. This article proves what I saying about Peat a while ago. I knew even though he is technically Charles' private secretary he was the reason Charles' income from the Duchy had increased.
We do however have to bear in mind that this is an article by Kay and therefore may not be factually correct. :flowers:
 
We do however have to bear in mind that this is an article by Kay and therefore may not be factually correct. :flowers:

Precisely. Especially as the article claims that Peat was at Buckingham Palace for 8 years. He actually joined the Queen's household in 1992 and moved onto Prince Charles's in August 2002. By my accounting that's 10 years.
 
Can someone elaborate on the "right to enfranchisement"?
 
Thanks, Skydragon. Why would there be a law to force landowners to sell their property? Wouldn't this law discourage availability of rental property?
 
Thanks, Skydragon. Why would there be a law to force landowners to sell their property? Wouldn't this law discourage availability of rental property?
It was all part of the 1967 'right to buy', it seemed to be aimed at those who had rented the same property for 20 odd years, who, if they got a new landlord could at short notice, be removed and the property let to higher payers. They have had to tighten the law somewhat to try to avoid the speculators. (Now you can only apply after 5+ years and if you resell before a certain time, you must repay the discount received and/or offer your previous landlord 1st refusal).:flowers:

It has meant a decrease in the properties available for long term lease, which means that even good tenants only get offered short term leases and to protect the landlord, they are replaced after a few years.

However, with the discounts that can be claimed by tenants seeking to buy, there are few reliable ways to deal with the problem. Some people complain about landowners using the properties as 'holiday homes', but it is one way of ensuring the properties are kept in good order, whilst returning a slight profit.

I found this article on the right to buy and Prince Charles.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...ince-of-Wales-housing-row-The-legal-case.html
 
Last edited:
If I could wish for one sincere answer to a question I'm allowed to pose to a Royal, it would be a question to Charles and it would be this one: How do you feel on knowing that you probably will live to see your son become the one responsible for the Duchy of Cornwall?

Background is this: Charles build up today's enormous success of the Duchy of Cornwall and he is the only peer in the UK who according to the law has to pass it to his son while still alive. No other peer has to live through seeing what his heir is going to do to his inheritance. There is the case of the Duke of Marlborough, who according to what I've read, took care that his heir, who has been a drug addict, cannot destroy the Marlborough estate. But still it's the nature of the game that the duke won't have to see what's going to happen. As long as he is alive, his inheritance is save from his heir. But what about Charles? will William follow his father's course when it comes both to business and charities?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats a very valid question, and applies not just to the Duchy of Cornwall, but to a lot of the charitable interests, including the Princes Trust that William could potentially take over whilst his father is still alive. If I was in Charles' shoes, the answer would be a mixture of confidence and trepidation -but no more than any individual leaving an "empire" to his children. Why would it be any different (other than Charles will still be around?)?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because he will still be around and is forced to give up the Duchy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Thats a very valid question, and applies not just to the Duchy of Cornwall, but to a lot of the charitable interests, including the Princes Trust that William could potentially take over whilst his father is still alive.'

Prince Charles has already answered this query in his interview broadcast by the BBC in the 'Passionate Prince' documentary, where he said on being asked what would happen to his charities when he stopped being Prince: "It would be nice if some things are taken on by my sons, but it depends on their interests" In otherwards he accepts that it is up to them what to make of the PT charities.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not sure how he has answered the query - all he said was that it would be nice if the boys took on some his charities, including the PT.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the week that saw the release of Charles Clover's documentary The End of the Line with its dire warning that our oceans will be exhausted of all seafood by 2048, a legal battle to establish who is responsible for the special area of conservation owned by the Prince of Wales's Duchy of Cornwall estate has taken a new and potentially embarrassing turn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-battle-over-Prince-Charless-oyster-farm.html
 
:previous:
How embarrasing for the duchy. A little unfortunate timeing with the release of that documentary. :flowers:
 
Back
Top Bottom