Not until early 2025, according to that cite.
Yep, weird.
Mind you, improving & repairing the homes tenants live in is generally considered a Good Thing.
I would think so. A change to the prerogatives of the Crown requires legislation. It would likely be pretty straightforward, simply to provide that bona vacantia in the Duchy are governed by the same rules as elsewhere in England.
Hmmm… 
It’s rare for a Parliament to run its full five years. They could hold on until until January 2025, but doubtful they will. Speculation I’ve read is spring 2024, but of course I defer to our UK Dopers for more accurate predictions.
The polls are showing them losing massively, so they will hang on until the polls change or they have to leave.
Mmm, isn’t it though?
Lucky you. I haven’t been following this thread and no one has flagged anything, so I’m happy to let it carry on as it is, so long as it’s not bothering anyone. Putting the topic back on track would be very nice, though. 
The key point is that the money that goes to the State is public money. It can only be spend on the authority of Parliament. It must be accounted for to Parliament. Those who spend it are accountable to Parliament and must enjoy the confidence of Parliament.
But none of this applies to the money that goes to the Duchy of Lancaster.
It’s not a question of whether you like the king or the prime minister. It’s a question of whether you think the expenditure of public money should be subject to democratic accountability.
This is news to me. It must have reverted to the original title at some point, because that’s the only one I remember ever seeing or hearing about.
Bleak House enough?
Well, as was said here-
And the way Borsi ran things, and combined with that list I gave in the cite of crazy wasteful and even personal things the Tories wasted the taxpayers money on, I dont think 'accountability" is there at all.
There;s a distinction between Parliament failing to hold officials or expenditure to account, and Parliament having no right to hold officials or expenditure to account.
As for the involvement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a political appointees, his connection to the affairs of the Duchy is nominal. In theory MPs could question him about the expenditure of the Duchy’s money, but he can properly decline to answer. The Duchy’s money is not under the control of Parliament; it’s not included in the estimates presented to Parliament; and, unlike othe public money, no parliamentary authority is required to spend it.
If I’m understanding correctly, the American analogy is not “Gavin Newsom gets to take your stuff if you die intestate.” The analogy is “Your landlord gets to take your stuff if you die intestate, but only if you rent from that particular company.” The Duchy of Lancaster has power that other landlords don’t.
But it’s not tenants of the duchy, it’s anyone who lives in the historical boundaries of Lancashire.
As if your town had only one landlord.
Maybe that’s where Whittier, Alaska got the idea.
It’s not die intestate. It’s die intestate without heirs, making your property bona vacantia.
Is this thing about him acquiring assets of people who die without a will and without heirs unique to Charles, or did his predecessors as Duke of Lancaster do the same thing?
Googling tells me that the first Duke was given the title in 1351 and it died with him in 1361. The second Duke got it in 1362 who died in 1399 so it went to his son who overthrew Richard II and became Henry IV so it was part of the Crown. He gave it to his son later that year and it again merged with the Crown when he became Henry V and it stayed with the Crown ever since. Liz was the Duchess of Lancaster.
Ok, so what did Elizabeth do as Duchess of Lancaster, or Victoria before her? Didn’t they all do the same thing?