@DrDeth , if you were to die without heirs, would you be content if your estate went to Gavin Newsom ?
As I said. In some areas it goes to the crown, which spends it in improving historical properties, etc- and there are maybe issues with some of the “etc”. In the rest, it goes to the government, which spend it however it wants- including Scandalous Spending-
Wine for Government wine cellar, Painting the Prime Minister’s planes ,Art for Downing street,Golden goodbye for Truss cabinet, Sunak’s Covid-spreading Eat Out to Help Out
scheme goes £350m over budget and many more items.
So yeah, the Crown gets the money from escheat in some areas, and not all is spent in ways some of us think is wise. Or The treasury gets the $ from escheat in some areas, and not all is spent in ways some of us think is wise.
It would go to the State of California. The Crown is not a single person.
Internal duchy documents seen by the Guardian reveal how funds are secretly being used to finance the renovation of properties that are owned by the king and rented out for profit.
Bolding mine.
The money that is gained via this process is not used for the benefit of citizens of the UK. It is used to improve properties that are income generating for the King. It’s not that we think this use of the money is “not wise”. It is used for the benefit of a single person. This is the point.
Nope.
No it doesn’t.
This may help for those who are not familiar with terminology, and do not understand what “The Crown” means:
The point of the article is that this money does not go to “the crown”
Sounds like a job for Parliament to fix?
Some of it is.
Most is spent on upkeep of historical properties.
The question is- who do you trust more? The Right Wing Populist Conservative party that has Boris Johnson as it’s leader for many years, and is now deeply unpopular?
or King Charles, in his role as-
The other is the Duchy of Lancaster, inherited by Charles from his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, when she died last year. Both duchies are professionally run real estate empires that manage swaths of farmland, hotels, castles, offices, warehouses, shops and urban property, including some of London’s prime luxury real estate.
Both duchies have long claimed that once costs are deducted, the money is distributed to charities. The Duchy of Lancaster’s website states that “proceeds” of bona vacantia go to three registered charities after costs are deducted. However, its accounts suggest only 15% of the £61m it has collected in bona vacantia over the last decade has been donated to charities.
Okay, only 15% donated. But how much of the UK budget is spent thusly?
I wouldn’t trust the Right Wing Populist Conservative party to fix a leaking faucet.
If I cared enough, I’d make a will donating my assets to a charity of my choice. There is no excuse to die intestate other than laziness.
Your shoes are wet, and the guy standing smirking right in front of you is assuring you that it is raining.
Or denial. My mother died intestate, which caused some minor issues with her pretty small estate (thankfully resolved amicably, perhaps in part because it was such a small estate). Why? She didn’t think she was going to die and was deeply opposed to any contemplation of her own mortality. People can be stubborn.
As to royal bona vacantia - it’s an obscenity, as is everything supporting that sad medieval holdover that is the British monarchy. Defund the royals and confiscate the crown estates says I. Sadly no one ever listens to me 
.
Well, there’s the fact that making a will takes time, costs money, and forces one to contemplate one’s own mortality in a culture which encourages people not to do so. People also may incorrectly assume that their assets will automatically go to their next of kin.
I didn’t ask you if you would be content that your estate goes to the State of California.
I’m asking you if you would be content to have your estate go to Gavin Newsom.
The Duchy of Lancaster is not part of the Crown, in the sense of the British government. It is property owned by the King in his personal capacity and personal profit.
Dying intestate certainly makes things more complicated, but if there are any next of kin, the court appointed executor (in my area at least) is bound by law to divide the money up in very specific ways. Even if there is no spouse, no children, it goes to parents. If no parents, it goes to brothers and sisters. Only if NO relatives are found does the estate go to the government. The laws are very specific.
True but not always how you would want it to be divvyed up. AIUI, some states would have X% going to one next of kin, Y% to another if dying intestate.
Yes, there are specific ways to apportion any estate money. But I guess they figure if you had no will, then you don’t care how it’s divided. I believe its a fairly rare that no family at all is ever found. They’ll even try to track down distant cousins I understand.
You can take a couple of minutes and write it out on a piece of paper.
Like most things in life it depends.
It’s important to note that state probate law ultimately decides the treatment of all wills within its borders. Some states will accept holographic wills to varying degrees. These states include; Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
Just to clarify terminology, intestacy is dying without a will. If you die intestate, but with heirs as set out in the law, as Euphonious Polemic states, the estate will get divvied up according to the intestacy law.
Bona vacantia and escheat to the Crown is only if there is intestacy, and no heirs within the scope of the statute.
And I agree, it’s my understanding that if someone dies without a will and without apparent heirs, then the Public Trustee will do a search to see if they can track down any heirs.
There is a documentary based on that very thing happening. The relationship with the deceased wasn’t fully explained.
My grandfather did exactly that, and the resulting clusterfuck was immense. His children would actually have been better off had he died intestate, and everyone would have been MUCH better off had he drafted a will with a lawyer or a notary overseeing the process.
It’s pretty much impossible to have no relatives. You’d have to be a childless only child descended from parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents (etc.) who were all also only children. That simply never happens. Are you saying that the government never takes the estate, or that they limit what counts as a relative, or how hard they look for a relative?