May I ask a silly question about this “descendant of the king” stuff?
Why not just state a specific year?
If you want to make sure that a long-term event does not become permanent, why not just specify in the contract that , say, “this trust fund will end in the year 2125”.
What reason is there for reaching the same mathematical date, but stating in convoluted language? “21 years after the death of this royal baby who might live for another 80 years” .
Usually, you set up a trust to take care of your children and grandchildren. So you tell your lawyer, “the life of my youngest child, plus 21 years” to cover grandchildren that have not yet been born. Tying it to a celebrity family, instead of your own, makes the record-keeping easier.
One of the principles of common law, now formally encoded into law in many states including Florida, is that a trust must vest no more than 21 years after the death of a person living at the time of its establishment.
I feel it’s also important to note that the contract does in fact claim to hold in perpetuity, and that +21 years clause only goes into effect if a judge rules that it can’t go on in perpetuity. It’s more a lawyerly way of defending against an easy avenue to get the contract tossed than anything else. There’s a chance that since that clause exists when the state does attack the contract in court they won’t even bother attacking it with the rule against perpetuity since functionally there’s not much difference between “forever” and “probably at least 100 years.” Maybe one of the fancy lawyers they hired will go for it just to score an easy win, but it’s not going to loosen Disney’s grip in a meaningful way.
So should little Lilibet Diana (Harry and Megan’s second child born June of 2021) live to the same age as her great-grandmother, the Mouse is fine through 2138.
I assume that by then global warming will have made the Reedy Creek area into the Reedy Corals.
I assume you’re joking, but the area in question is about 100 feet in elevation.
The Reedy Archipelago?
Are we considering unborn children as living? After all, this is Florida we’re talking about. Red state that wants to ban abortion after 6 weeks (currently 15 weeks is the cutoff), and Kate Middleton is currently pregnant with baby #4.
So, Florida, if a fetus is a human being, does this potentially tack on a couple more years of Disney outthinking Ron DeSantis?
Disney gets the rights to control the its district (i.e. the surrounding area of Disney World) for a very long time. DeSantis instituted a new board to control that district. And that board can’t take back control.
Disney will be able to continue approving its own new construction, maintain the roads and infrastructure, and otherwise upkeep its district. DeSantis’s lackeys can’t hold them back.
At least, assuming this all works.
So who is now responsible for Reedy Creek’s 1 billion in debt?
so this is pretty much like the old prison sentence "life in and 2 weeks (or months years) they gave someone who they never wanted to get out alive
It depends on when these people die, not when they are born. There are a lot of royal kids running around, and the odds that that fetus outlines them all aren’t very high. I suppose if it does, someone will have to make a ruling on that point, though. They’ll have 21 years to litigate it.
Even outside Florida, this is the case, although a gestation period of “a couple of years” would be . . . unusual. A life in being at the date of the instrument can include a child en ventre sa mère — Thelluson v Woodford (1805) 11 Ves. 112; Cadell v Palmer (1833) 1 Cl. & F. 372. Bet you’re glad you asked.
Yeah, I didn’t word that very well. I was thinking that, to the best of my knowledge, no current royal child is in its infancy. So a newborn would, in essence, reset the countdown. But I wasn’t sure if one in utero would be included in that count.
Still, I thank you for the information.
OK, this thread cleared up one point for me. I had thought that the “currently living” in the clause referred to Charles himself, implying that there was something special about the designated ancestor being alive, and they were just pointing out that he qualifies. It modifying his descendants makes a lot more sense.
Princess Lilibet of Sussex will be two in June. So, not a newborn but definitely an infant. In fact, of the seven known members of the class, five are under the age of 10.
Either of William or Harry’s wives could be pregnant at the moment, though my sources at court have not suggested that they are. If they are, any child to which they subsequently give birth will of course be (presumed to be) a descendant of Charles III.
It would be a matter of interpretation whether the wording of the clause in this particular instrument does or does not not include any descendant of King Charles in utero at the date of the instrument. It won’t matter unless (a) there is such a descendant, and (b) that descendant outlives all the descendants who had already been born at the date of the instrument. So don’t expect early litigation on the point.
Well, as I linked upthread, Kate Middleton is expecting baby #4 sometime this year.
But I appreciate your information.
Oh. Clearly my sources at court are not up to much.
It’s entirely possible that my source is mistaken. You could very well be right.