United Kingdom

4100 readers

136 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

King’s estate to transfer £100m into ethical funds after bona vacantia revelations (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And you find this ok because?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What on earth makes you think I'm OK with it ?

[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As per article only in Lancashire and Cornwall.

The adjective infers that the area affected is significantly small.

[–] abrasiveteapot 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] abrasiveteapot 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 11 months ago

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