Duchy of Cornwall

[sthreats]

I am still not understanding this set up. His sons are over 25 and out of school. If they have income from whatever the source then shouldn't they pay for their own personal expenses and staff.

It just seems that if his sons paid for their own staff it would reduce some of the POW overhead-staff salaries, office expenses etc.
Maybe they do pay for their own personal needs and these expenses listed for Harry and William have to do with their official duties and charity roles.
The article is confusing.

 

[Russophile]

Maybe the POW is paying to help his sons out. I do that all the time for my boys though they have plenty of money for their own things.

 

[Lumutqueen]

But the money that the boys use with undoubtedly come from the royals anyway.
They pay for everyday things like living arrangements, food etc.
But when it comes to things to do with the state. Like official engagements or the wages of there staff, that is paid by POW because they just can't afford everything.

 

[Mermaid1962]

I think that "estate" might have been used in the sense that it's used in Canada; it means whatever is left when a person dies. It a person is homeless and has only $5.00 in his pocket, that's his "estate."

They recieved an inheritance from Diana, she has no estate.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Diana's estate has been invested, but not in charites as such.
They can only access the interest at the moment but when they turn 30 they will be able to access the capital.
They are independently wealthy from Charles but he pays for their official needs, when not paid for by the government, because that is expected.
Everyone has an estate - it is the legal term to cover all of your net worth - your home, jewels, paintings, investments, personal goods - everything you own is your estate in a legal sense. It's origins as a word came from the great estates but as other people started to leave things and particularly leave wills they used that same term and so it came to have a broader meaning than simple land.

 

[wbenson]

Charles accused of cronyism for handing £900,000 of decorating work to Camilla's designer sister | Mail Online

Prince Charles faces accusations of 'cronyism' after paying his sister-in-law almost £900,000 to refurbish his holiday cottages.

Interior designer Annabel Elliot was employed to overhaul 19 properties owned by the heir to the throne through his Duchy of Cornwall estate, which are now rented out to holidaymakers.

 

[Lumutqueen]

I had to look up what "cronyism" is.
How about she was employed because she is an incredible good interior designer.

 

[AuroraB]

But that wouldn't sell papers.

 

[Iluvbertie]

I had to look up what "cronyism" is.
How about she was employed because she is an incredible good interior designer.

But she can't be good at anything - she is Camilla's sister and Charles employed her so that is proof positive that she is hopeless.

 

[agogo]

Charles accused of cronyism for handing £900,000 of decorating work to Camilla's designer sister | Mail Online

Prince Charles faces accusations of 'cronyism' after paying his sister-in-law almost £900,000 to refurbish his holiday cottages.

Interior designer Annabel Elliot was employed to overhaul 19 properties owned by the heir to the throne through his Duchy of Cornwall estate, which are now rented out to holidaymakers.

I don't see anything wrong with this, he must like Camilla's sister and her work.

 

[PrincessKaimi]

A question about a royal estate: Duchy of Cornwall

Does the Duchy have a residence? If so, what is it called? On its website and on google maps, it seems to have roads and buildings, like a little village.

The Duchy of Cornwall is both a place and a kind of...trust fund? The income upon which the Prince of Wales pays taxes that is attributed to the Duchy is quite large, while most of its land seems to be given over to the Prince's ecological reconstruction projects (and those villages/buildings - are those all renters?) I'm trying to figure out how a place (an estate also called a Duchy) generates such income.

I'm guessing it's both a place and a trust fund/set of investments, which are all inherited together?

I didn't know where else to post this question, but it's about the place described as Cornwall.

 

[Iluvbertie]

Cornwall is part of England. It is in the far south-west of the country however...

The Duchy of Cornwall has property all over the country. It isn't a single place e.g. The Oval Cricket Ground in London is part of the Duchy estate because the land on which it was built was owned by the estate.

How does it generate income - the same way most British landed estates do - they rent land and houses to people to farm and they also farm land themselves. The Duchy also owns a lot of city based properties that are rented out for appropriate amounts all over the country.

There is no single residence associated with the Duchy at all. In fact Charles' two main residences aren't in Cornwall at all - Highgrove is in Goucestershire - a different part of the country and Clarence House is in London.

The Sandringham estate was bought with the accumulated income of the Duchy by the then Duke of Cornwall, the future Edward VII but it is no longer part of the estate but the private property of the monarch.

On some of the land Charles has practised his ecological ideas but the Duchy owns more land than what is being used for that.

Not all of the Duchy is in Cornwall and not all of Cornwall is in the Duchy. The Duchy has properties in 23 different counties and Cornwall is only one of those counties. Only 2% of Cornwall is in the Duchy and only 13% of the entirety of Duchy lands are in Cornwall meaning that 87% of the Duchy's properties are in other counties with Kennington in London being a large part of that other area.

 

[camelot23ca]

I have a question regarding this duchy. My understanding is that The Duchy of Cornwall is held by the monarch's eldest son and heir. What would happen if, for example The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge are blessed with two children, first a girl and then a boy, and at some point the rules are changed so that it's the young princess who will succeed her father as monarch? So the princess is the heir apparent and the prince is the eldest son. Who would be entitled to the income associated with the duchy? The daughter, the son or neither? My understanding is this income is used to finance not only the heir's personal expenses but also the professional expenses associated with the 'job' of being first in line to the throne.

 

[Iluvbertie]

If they don't change, by legislation, the LPs that created the title Duke of Cornwall then neither of the children would be entitled to the income as neither of them would met the dual requirement of being the eldest son AND the heir apparent.

In the event of them changing the laws to allow for gender blind succession I suspect that they will change the LPs for the Duke of Cornwall title to allow the income to go to the eldest child and heir apparent.

As for the funding side of things - if they don't fix the LPs then it would be the same or similar to the situation with George III who was heir apparent but not the eldest son of the monarch and thus didn't have that income.

 

[Renata4711]

Anyone going shopping in, say, a Waitrose supermarket, will be able to see one of the fruits of the Duchy of Cornwall, in the shape of its products which are retailed as "Duchy Originals"...

Duchy Originals - natural, organic, sustainable food from HRH The Prince of Wales

You can also have a holiday in the Duchy of Cornwall....
Duchy of Cornwall - Around the Duchy - The Official Website for the Duchy of Cornwall

... or buy some plants from the Duchy plant nursery....
Duchy of Cornwall - Around the Duchy - The Official Website for the Duchy of Cornwall

 

[Warren]

From the Duchy of Cornwall website (Accounts):

The principal activity of the Duchy is the sustainable,
commercial management of its land and properties.
The Duchy’s primary function is to provide an income
for the present and future Dukes of Cornwall, while
ensuring that the value of the Capital is maintained
for future beneficiaries.

From the Annual Report, year ending 31 March 2010:

Capital values across all of the property sectors within
which the Duchy operates have shown significant increases
although from a low base following dramatic falls in the
year to 31st March 2009. The Duchy’s commercial property
portfolio increased in value by 9% to £141million, with
the prime properties performing particularly well. It was
pleasing to note that there were no tenant defaults of any
substance during what was a particularly difficult year for
tenants. The demand for agricultural land and forestry
continued to be strong, with an overall increase in valuation
of 8%. One farm in Somerset was sold during the year as it
was considered to be isolated and not a core holding. The
residential estate increased in value by 5% overall although
there were wide variations across the different locations
where the Duchy has a property interest. Development land
values partially recovered during the year but they remain
well below their peak values recorded in 2008. The Duchy
continued to invest considerably within the property estate
with over £4.5million being spent on improvements.

The revenue surplus available to His Royal Highness rose
by 4% to £17.2 million.

(US $27.8m, €19.6m, Aus $26.4m)
.

 

[Daria_S]

This is a rather interesting development. Equal primogeniture would be a wonderful reform. Hopefully DM has its' facts straight.

When Kate Middleton is pregnant: William's first baby will inherit Duchy of Cornwall even if a girl | Mail Online

 

[Lumutqueen]

The title of the article say's William's first baby will inherit Duchy of Cornwall even if a girl. Which is wrong. The 'baby' would inherit if the law changes, which is hasn't....yet.

 

[Daria_S]

The title of the article say's William's first baby will inherit Duchy of Cornwall even if a girl. Which is wrong. The 'baby' would inherit if the law changes, which is hasn't....yet.

As always, thank you for the clarification .

 

[Lumutqueen]

As always, thank you for the clarification .

You're welcome, I think, unless you're being sarcastic.

It's just a potentially 'catchy' headline for the DM on a slow news day, one of the comments underneath was something along the lines of

"MAYBE IF THE LAW HAD BEEN CHANGED YEARS AGO HENRY THE EIGHT WOULDN'T HAVE HAD SIX WIVES" - now I found that a little odd. This kind of law certainly wouldn't have been changed back in Henry's day, from the fact that it hasn't been changed even now, shows how the royals like this law in a sense.

 

[Daria_S]

No, there was no sarcasm. I'm still learning about all the finer points of British Royal history. I think in you make an interesting point. They may like this law, or just feel that such a drastic change is not necessary at this time.

BTW, your title makes for a good Ph.D thesis topic. Something to think about for those out there who are thinking of what to write about when getting their doctorate in British History.

 

[Lumutqueen]

They only inherited because there was no one else, just like Elizabeth II inherited because there was no one else.
If Catherine gives birth to a girl, then the succession issue will arise once more and possibly change. But if she doesn't, then there's no reason to change the law. It doesn't affect anything else, perhaps that Duchy Law may change but I don't understand the what nows and where fores of that, may do some research.

 

[Baroness of Books]

I'm speculating that the Prince of Wales title, if it's still in existence by the time Will and Kate's children are born, would continue to be inherited by a first-born son since the Princess of Wales is the title given to the wife of the POW rather than to the heiress to the throne. I think that was the situation when the Queen's father, George VI, came to the throne, but Elizabeth wasn't named the Princess of Wales for that very reason. Unless, of course, that undergoes a whole revamping as well.

 

[Lumutqueen]

The title Prince of Wales is given only to the heir apparent—that is, somebody who cannot be displaced in the succession to the throne by any future birth. In countries that practice male primogeniture, this is usually the eldest son of the reigning monarch, or, if he is deceased, his eldest son, and so on, or if the monarch's eldest son has died without issue, the monarch's second eldest son, etc.

So by that understanding, no second child but first son would receive the title unless the laws would not have been altered and that son is first in line. It would take a lot I believe to revamp that law.

However, it is not impossible for the heir apparent to be female—for example, if a reigning monarch's eldest son (the heir apparent) had daughters but no sons, then, if the heir apparent was to die before the monarch, his (the heir apparent's) daughter would become the heir apparent. There does not appear to be any impediment to a female heir apparent being made Princess of Wales in her own right, but such a situation has never occurred in practice. The title has usually been held by the Prince's wife, in her capacity as spouse of the heir apparent and therefore future queen consort.

So by that understand if William only has girls, and dies before his father, the girl becomes heir apparent (providing she has no brothers) and can take the title.

Another however, if the law is changed and the first in line is a girl, they cannot be displaced and can be Princess of Wales. I think. My brain now hurts.

 

[wbenson]

It's odd that the article focuses so heavily on the Duchy of Cornwall aspect when the third paragraph says that the proposal would also alter the line of succession. I'd think the changes to the Duchy of Cornwall would be a natural part of that change, not a headline. ETA: Actually, there is nothing in the Sovereign Grant Bill changing the line of succession, so I have no idea why the DM put that there.

I think that was the situation when the Queen's father, George VI, came to the throne, but Elizabeth wasn't named the Princess of Wales for that very reason. Unless, of course, that undergoes a whole revamping as well.

It was actually considered in the 1940s before being rejected IIRC by the King himself.

 

[yvr girl]

I don't read it as a change is succession in itself. I think it would allow a female heir to receive the funds from the Duchy. When the Queen was the heir, she did not receive money from the Duchy, as in theory, she could be displaced. (She did receive money from the Civil List, but not the Duchy funds)

Clause nine states that an any revenue from the Duchy of Cornwall would go to any heir to the throne who is not the Duke of Cornwall.

Read more: When Kate Middleton is pregnant: William's first baby will inherit Duchy of Cornwall even if a girl | Mail Online

 

[wbenson]

Prince Charles and the ancient charter that calls for his consent to certain bills | UK news | The Guardian

Since the creation of the Duchy of Cornwall in 1337 the Prince of Wales's consent has been sought on laws that affect the estate.

Bills in parliament that would affect the sovereign's private interests (or the royal prerogative) require the Queen's consent; by extension, therefore, bills that would affect the duchy also require consent, and since the Prince of Wales administers the duchy he also performs the function of considering and granting relevant requests for consent.

Prince Charles has been offered a veto over 12 government bills since 2005 | UK news | The Guardian

Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles to pass at least a dozen government bills, according to a Guardian investigation into a secretive constitutional loophole that gives him the right to veto legislation that might impact his private interests.

Prince of Wales: a private individual's effective veto over public legislation | UK news | The Guardian

From the London Olympics and gambling to children's rights and shipwrecks, the list of draft bills scrutinised by the Prince of Wales and his officials reads like the busiest Whitehall portfolio imaginable.

Ministers seek Prince of Wales's permission before approving Bills - Telegraph

Ministers have sought permission to pass Government bills from the Prince of Wales on at least a dozen occasions, it has been disclosed.

How Charles has the right to veto new laws: Ministers have sought Prince's permission 12 times in five years | Mail Online

Ministers have been forced to seek permission from Prince Charles before passing laws in at least a dozen separate areas during the past five years, it emerged last night.

The requirement stems from a little-known constitutional right for the prince to effectively veto legislation in areas which might affect his private interests.

 

[Iluvbertie]

When was the last time a Duke of Cornwall did use this constitutional power I wonder?

It is like the Queen who has to sign all legislation - even if she doesn't like it - she has no choice.

Charles being given a 'right' that hasn't been excerised for centuries simply means that a tradition is being followed. What is wrong with that?

One of the things that makes Britain a country of interest is its weird and unusual traditions. So long as the government isn't actually being stopped from passing legislation there where is the problem in going through some extra tradition step.

 

[Warren]

Duchy Revenue Surplus available to the POW for 2011

From the Duchy of Cornwall website (Accounts)

Financial summary for the year ending 31 March 2011:

"The results for the year to 31st March 2011 show increases in both the revenue surplus
available to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and growth within the capital assets.

Revenue surplus grew by 3.7% to £17.8 million, largely as
a result of increased income from the financial investment
portfolio following investment in that sector and higher
distribution levels.

Capital values within the Duchy rose by £33 million
to £696 million, predominantly due to strengthening
agricultural property values. Recent increases in crop prices,
lack of supply and continued tax advantages have all
resulted in farm land values performing better than most
other asset classes over the last few years."

To the Prince of Wales:
£17.8 million

(US $28.5m, Can $28.8m, €20.7m, Aus $27.4m, NZ $35.9m, AED د.إ104.7m)
.

 

[wbenson]

Landmark ruling lifts 'veil of secrecy' from Prince of Wales's Duchy of Cornwall estate - Telegraph

The 700-year-old “veil of secrecy” covering the workings of the Prince of Wales’s Duchy of Cornwall estate will be partially lifted after a landmark legal ruling that could open up the Royal family to far greater public scrutiny.