Jump to content

Talk:Bona vacantia: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→Dubious: new section
m Removing conflicting class parameter from talk page of redirect (Task 21)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|class=start|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject United Kingdom|importance=low}} <!-- Formerly assessed as Start-class -->
{{WikiProject England|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject England|importance=low}} <!-- Formerly assessed as C-class -->
{{WikiProject Scotland|class=C|importance=low}}
{{WikiProject Scotland|importance=low}} <!-- Formerly assessed as C-class -->
{{WikiProject Law|class=C|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Law|importance=Mid}} <!-- Formerly assessed as C-class -->
}}
}}


Latest revision as of 14:53, 3 September 2023


Scotland

[edit]

Is Scotland not part of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland"? It certainly was last time I checked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.15.112 (talk) 00:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland and Northern Ireland are separate jurisdictions from England and Wales. The UK is not one legal jurisdiction but three, possibly to become four in the near future. The Bona Vacantia laws in each jurisdiction are different even if the underlying principles appear similar.--MBRZ48 (talk) 02:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hudson says Crown=Duchy of Cornwall - is he incorrect?

[edit]

Hudson says that all moneys in England and Wales go to the Duchy of Cornwall (and hence the Prince of Wales) - not just Lancaster and Cornwall, the government website only says that bona vacantia cases in Lancaster and Cornwall aren't dealt with by them FOARP (talk) 16:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


No, Hudson was either misunderstood or mistaken

The ultimate recipient of bona vacantia moneys is the British Exchequer (i.e. the general treasury of the British government). See the British Government's official website for the Treasury Solicitor. [2] Except for the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, bona vacantia assets belong to the institutional Crown (meaning the British government not the Queen personally). The key language from that website, in Guide to Discretionary Grants in Estate Cases Section 1, paragraph 5, is "If they are not given away under the principles explained in the following paragraphs then, together with other forms of bona vacantia and subject to deduction of the costs of collection and administration, they will be transferred to the Exchequer to be dealt with in the same way as money raised by general taxation."[1] Nothing ends up the the pockets of the Prince of Wales.Johnwilliammiller (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not have ready access to the Hudson text at the moment but, if he states that all bona vacantia money ends up with the Duchy of Cornwall or the Prince of Wales personally, he is clearly mistaken. On the website of the British Archives Office of Public Sector Information, you can read the Administration of Estates Act 1925 [3], the Companies Act 1985[4], and any other legislation relating to bona vacantia, escheat, or intestate estates. All the references are to some variation of "the Crown, or to the Duchy of Lancaster or to the Duke of Cornwall for the time being (as the case may be)." There is no suggestion that the Duke of Cornwall receives bona vacantia moneys from all of England and Wales. As I noted in my response above, the Treasury Solicitor's guidelines [5]clearly state that the ultimate disposition of money not otherwise claimed or granted is the Exchequer where it is treated "in the same way as money raised by general taxation." The website for the Duchy of Cornwall [6] also states that:

In the case of the Crown, since William IV’s reign these rights have been included among the hereditary revenues surrendered in return for the Civil List. Therefore such cases are dealt with by the Treasury solicitor. However, where they concern anyone dying within the counties of Lancashire and Cornwall, they have been retained by the respective Duchies.

Similarly, the website for the Duchy of Lancaster [7] states:

In most of England and Wales, the Treasury Solicitor handles such cases. In the County Palatine, title vests in The Queen in Right of Her Duchy of Lancaster. When a person dies within the County Palatine without leaving a will, the Duchy receives their estate as 'Bona Vacantia' in cases where other legal ownership cannot be established. Similarly, property in the County Palatine that has been disclaimed - escheated property - also vests in the Crown in Right of the Duchy of Lancaster.

I could continue quoting from various sites for some time, but I think it is clear that the idea of all bona vacantia from anywhere in England and Wales passing to the Prince of Wales or the Duchy of Cornwall is incorrect. It is also worth noting that the money from Cornwall that does legally go to the Duchy is given to charity not pocketed by the Prince of Wales. Similarly, the bona vacantia money that ends up with the Duchy of Lancaster is given to a charitable fund not placed in the Queen's personal account. The Treasury Solicitor's guidelines clearly state that the ultimate disposition of money not otherwise claimed or granted is the Exchequer where it is treated "in the same way as money raised by general taxation." Johnwilliammiller (talk) 04:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ THE TREASURY SOLICITOR BONA VACANTIA DIVISION, Guide to Discretionary Grants in Estates Cases, Section 1, paragraph 5, [1]

Escheat?

[edit]

The section referring to New York was a bit bothersome to me-- although New York does have a similar 'ownerless property' law, it is dealt with as escheated properties/assets.

I suppose that escheatment and bona vacantia are similar, but there are already two seperate articles, and this particular article was of little relevance to escheatment, so I removed the section and simply placed a link to Escheat in the See Also section.

Not entirely sure if a section explicitly mentioning that the two are similar and a link would be goodt, so just putting it on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FarnhamJ (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bona vacantia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bona vacantia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

[edit]

When the English king established in 1230 the Office of the Royal Escheator to centralize bona vacantia, Earl Edmund of Cornwall pressed his claim to bona vacantia by having his viscounts continue to handle them.

Edmund of Cornwall became earl in 1249, so could not have been pressing claims in 1230. Mauls (talk) 11:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bona_vacantia&oldid=1173614206"