I never envisioned saying "What a creative use of King Charles III of England

[james_davis_nicoll]

And yet, here we are.

Comments

[ckd]

Classic Royal lives clause; definitely unexpected in that context. (Also, I'm surprised that they used Charles III rather than George V or Elizabeth II; perhaps someone got confused about the meaning of "lives in being" under the rule against perpetuities?)

[graydon]

I have to wonder if it's some sort of poison pill with respect to some other charter or charters somewhere which depend on a legally-equivalent Royal lives clause.

[glaurung]

Either that, or they are expecting Charles to die quite soon now.

[bolindbergh]

Maybe tracking two children and five grandchildren was considered sufficiently complicated? (The youngest one arrived in 2021.)

[agoodwinsmith]

I need a haha smirkie for this. :)

[ffutures]

Has the page changed? I'm seeing something about Disney and Florida.

[redbird]

It's about Disney and Florida, the part about King Charles is a few paragraphs down.

[davidgoldfarb]

Nope, that's the right article.

[elusis]

Read on.

[violsva]

“I’m going to read to the term of this restrictive covenant. ‘This declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration,’” Peri said. “So, I mean, I don’t know what else to say. I think these documents are void ab initio, I think they were an extremely aggressive overreach, and I’m very disappointed that they’re here.”

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not sure I understand it all, something about a deal between Disney and a local government? If you keep reading you'll see a bit that quotes the timeframe of the covenant as 'This declaration shall continue in effect until 21 years after the death of the last survivor of the descendants of King Charles III, King of England, living as of the date of this declaration.'

Which could be a while.

-Awesome Aud

[princessofgeeks]

A poke in the eye to De Santis.

If in a few years Disney closes up shop and moves, it will serve De Santis right.

Such a stupid fight for the fundamentalists to pick. So incredibly stupid and against their best interests.

[redbird]

The way the Republicans work, de Santis losing a fight to Disney over sex education and LGBT+ rights would probably get him votes.

[maruad]

It is hard to make Disney look like the better guys* but the Republicans managed it. Next they will do something that will make Nestles look hard done by.


* I would never confuse them with good guys.

[solarbird]

I KNOW, RIGHT? It's like, "Well, I absolutely do know who to root for but how did we get here?!"

[patrick_morris_miller]

If Hitler were to invade Hell, etc.

[(Anonymous)]

So does this clause just involve Charles' currently living descendants, or will it follow his family line into the future?

-Awesome Aud

[major_clanger]

Just those in being, which, for this purpose, includes any presently unborn children (the legal concept of en ventre sa mere.)

[solarbird]

Nobody, and I mean nobody, out-weasels Disney lawyers.

[neotoma]

Right! I mean, DeSantis thought he was going to out-weasels Disney lawyers with lawyers being paid a government paycheck? Seriously?

[jsburbidge]

The standard choice used to be Queen Victoria, because she had *lots* of descendants, but the further away you get it's harder to determine the full set.

The Rule Against Perpetuities, applied to non-charitable* trusts, in requiring "a life in being plus 21 years" requires it to be a determinate life in being (though not necessarily determinate until the date in question). A set with vague borders won't work. So resetting to Charles makes sense (although, as a commentator above pointed out, Elizabeth II would actually work better, as the set us larger).

*Charitable trusts can go on forever. Real estate held by charities is subject to mortmain legislation, though, which is another restriction entirely.

[danieldwilliam]

There is an interesting possibility that the person named "King Charles III, King of England" may not exist.

There is a decent argument that the title "King of England" ceased to exist in 1604 when James VI of Scotland unified the Crowns of Scotland and England (but not Ireland) and declared that he was "King of Great Britain".

If I were De Santis I might be tempted to fight that one out in the courts.

[(Anonymous)]

England and Scotland were separate countries (in a personal union) until 1707. According to Wikipedia the official style of Jamie Sixt was "King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc". It then says " In 1604 James VI made a proclamation permitting the use of "King of Great Britain" instead of "King of England and Scotland". This new style, though commonly used to refer to the King, was never statutory; therefore, it did not appear on legal instruments. It did, however, appear on the inscriptions on coins."

However Charles III official style is "Charles III, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith", so the issue remains.

I see two counterarguments from Disney

1) King of England is a description, not a title.
2) There's no ambiguity as to the person intended, and, to quote a legal maxim, the law does not concern itself with trifles.

It does look as if it might be an opportunity to enrich lawyers.

[thewayne]

Oh, that is so hilarious! Considering some of the laws that Florida has put in place in the last decade, and the way weasels have abused them, I'm betting The Mouse has much better ones and this is a lot more iron-clad than anything their legislature puts out.

All it's going to do is enrich more attorneys, but it will be amusing to see it play out.

[movingfinger]

I rarely cheer for the Mouse in a legal dispute, but this is hilarious. The Mouse has the best lawyers, the most creative minds, and management with a finely honed talent for screwing people over. De Santis has... a bigoted grudge and bigoted PAC money.

I do not doubt for an instant that a team inside Disney is working on or has already developed a plan to disassemble and remove Disneyworld from Florida to another, more amenable, location. For one thing, cumulative climate change issues are a threat.

The starting wage for employees at the park is going up to $18 soon. Florida's minimum wage is $11. Although the dispute involves installed infrastructure, buildings, and employees, Florida is the weaker party in the fight Florida picked. The state needs Disney more than Disney needs them.

[timill]

Of course, Sleeping Beauty's Castle contains equipment to keep a Princess alive in suspended animation for as long as anyone wants...

[agharta75]

The first time I encountered this was in "The Forsyte Saga", where the misanthropic Timothy Forsyte, who hated all his family contemporaries (and managed to outlive most of them) left a will saying no one could touch his estate until every descendant of his parents living at the time of Timothy's death was also dead.