I assume it pre-dates him, from this passage in The Guardian article posted upthread:
The Duchy of Lancaster, a controversial land and property estate that generates huge profits for King Charles III, has collected tens of millions of pounds in recent years under an antiquated system that dates back to feudal times.
That’s the origin of bona vacantia in other parts of England going to the Crown: it
was based on the feudal principle that all land was held from the Crown, and if the feudal gran failed, with no heirs, the property reverted to the Crown.
That same feudal principle seems to be the basis for bona vacantia reverting to the Duchy of Lancaster, as the feudal lord for the ancient territories of the Duchy. The difference is that the Duchy is held by the King personally, and he profits from it, unlike bona vacantia in other parts of England, which revert to the Crown, ie the government of England.
I don’t think that’s correct. When the last Duke of Lancaster died (John of Gaunt), Richard II held that the title (and property) reverted to the Crown, because Gaunt’s son, Henry Bolingbroke, was in exile in France.
That was one of the breaking points that brought Henry back to England and overthrow Richard. Henry became King Henry IV, and the title of Duke of Lancaster definitely merged with the Crown at that point. It’s never been re-granted since.
The property of the Duchy was kept as a separate estate, and has been held by the monarch personally ever since.
Missed one - Henry IV granted it to the future Henry V the month after his accession in 1399 and the prince held the title separately until he became king in 1413. He was the last to hold the title separately.
His predecessors did the same thing (the main document that’s being reported was created during the prior reign), but the fact that the duchy receives these assets was already public information. The main thing is how the acquired funds are being used, which doesn’t quite match the claims made by the duchy, which were presumably made with the understanding that it would look bad for the monarch to be personally profiting from the estates of ordinary people.
Interestingly, I was in the main post office of our little city today (well, the only post office, if you don’t count the drugstores and convenience stores, where the post office is shunted off into a corner), and it still had a portrait of Elizabeth II on the wall. No Charles.
All in good time, I guess. But there’s been plenty of time by now.
There used to be a programme in the UK called the Heir Hunters - these are private firms who specialise in tracking down distant relatives of people who’ve died intestate. They get some kind of published list from the local government or court system and do it for a fee, which the ultimate beneficiary pays.
Most monarchs, and their immediate relations, contracted marriage for dynastic, political, economic and military reasons. The parties were not required to fall in love, though if they did it was a bonus. After a decent interval, they could take lovers. Edward VII reacted against his oppressive upbringing, and the absence of a proper role for him to play. Excessive indulgence in the pleasures of the table, and smoking, and an unwillingness to delegate, killed him at 68.
Assuming you mean George IV rather than George VI, their many, many mistresses weaken rather than strengthen any correlation. Very few of those mistresses were divorced at the time of their relationships. Possibly the only exception was Grace Elliott. (Maria Fitzherbert had been married twice before, but she was widowed rather than divorced.) Royal mistresses over the past two centuries have mostly been married society ladies, professional courtesans or actual prostitutes.
Rather than there being any obvious preference for divorcées, the more salient observation would be that two of the three most recent Kings have married their mistresses. But men marrying their mistress isn’t exactly unknown in other social circles.
And there is a very good reason that you take a married mistress - she and her husband will pass off any resulting children as their own. Prior to good reproductive health care, pregnancy was a real concern. For a woman who is “respectable” that cover is important.
Maria Fitzherbert and Prince George considered themselves married - she wasn’t a “mistress” - although their marriage wasn’t legal under British law.
As for the current British royal family and their interest in divorced women, Camilla wasn’t divorced - or even married - when she and Charles fell in love - and likely would have married if Dicky Mountbatten and the Queen Mother had approved of the match (neither did). He seems to have loved her for a very long time, regardless of her marital status. The tragedy is that it seems like everyone except Diana was aware of the fact that his marriage to Diana was dynastic - she was meant to cut ribbons and bear heirs - including her own family. She thought it was a love match.