Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Celerity

(53,791 posts)
20. Because it is grounded in English common law, the British monarch at the time of writing is often
Wed Mar 29, 2023, 04:39 PM
Mar 2023

used by tradition in many nations. The US also commonly uses the current US President or other well-known families.

The Royal Lives clause

As a result of the rule against perpetuities it became important for trust deeds to expressly specify the "perpetuity period" applicable to the trust, this being the period of time after which the trust would terminate and its assets vest. One manner of doing so (which was commonplace in years gone by and continues to feature in many existing trust deeds) was by reference to the British royal family. Until 31 July 1995, the Cayman Islands perpetuity period could only be defined by reference to lifetimes of persons alive when the trust was established. The typical perpetuity period being:

"21 years from the death of the survivor of the descendants now living on the date of this Settlement of His late Majesty King George V".


Royal lives clause

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause

A Royal lives clause is a contract clause which provides that a certain right must be exercised within (usually) the lifetime plus 21 years of the last living descendant of a British Monarch who happens to be alive at the time when the contract is made.

Form

A sample clause would read:

The option must be exercised before the end of the period ending at the expiry of 21 years from the death of the last survivor of all the lineal descendants of [his late Majesty King George V or some other British monarch] who have been born on the date of this agreement.


Rationale

The clause became part of contractual drafting in response to common law rule developed by the courts known as the rule against perpetuities. That rule provided that any future disposition of property must vest within "a life in being plus 21 years". The rule generally affects two types of transactions: trusts and options to acquire property. Generally speaking, such transfers must vest before the end of the maximum period, or the grant will be void. Under the old common law, a transaction would be void even if the property might possibly vest after the end of the maximum period, but now most jurisdictions have, by statute, adopted "wait and see" laws.

In an attempt to mitigate the perceived harshness of the common law rule, and to maximise the possible length of time for which trusts in particular could subsist, lawyers began to draft so-called Royal lives clauses. Royal lives were chosen because (a) it was assumed that being affluent, at least one or two members of the family could be assumed to live a reasonably long period of time, and (b) being Royalty, it would be reasonably easy to calculate the lives of the descendants. In practice, a dead monarch was usually chosen so as to maximise the possibility of a grandchild or great-grandchild who would be outside of the immediate Royal family having recently been born.

snip

Outside the United Kingdom

In the United States, President's lives clauses are used for similar reasons; well-documented political and industrial families (such as the Kennedys and Rockefellers) are also used. In the Commonwealth, use of Royal lives tends to persist. In Ireland, the descendants of Éamon de Valera are sometimes used.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

This makes me smile LetMyPeopleVote Mar 2023 #1
Because a large corporation has agreed to allow itself to Igel Mar 2023 #35
I'm more of a fan of the old saying In It to Win It Mar 2023 #37
What corporate subsidies are you talking about? Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2023 #39
Does this mean Disney gets a billion dollars and no longer has to maintain their roads? TheBlackAdder Mar 2023 #2
It was all plot, in my opinion lostnfound Mar 2023 #3
We shall see Effete Snob Mar 2023 #5
I Diagree A Bit ProfessorGAC Mar 2023 #23
When DeSantis went after Disney the first time azureblue Mar 2023 #29
A Question Not Worth Answering ProfessorGAC Mar 2023 #34
I think it means DeSantis never looked at the board, its prior agreements, or what Johonny Mar 2023 #7
Why would any of this matter to desantis? He cares about money and power lostnfound Mar 2023 #42
Haha.. Woe is deSadist & his team Cha Mar 2023 #4
Mickey says suck it, Ron. The Unmitigated Gall Mar 2023 #6
Sounds like the Disney lawyers did their homework and..................... Lovie777 Mar 2023 #8
Let's not forget this will be their second trip to the drawing board to prop up Desantis Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2023 #40
This paragraph from the article is hilarious. BlueCheeseAgain Mar 2023 #9
This is HYSTERICAL obamanut2012 Mar 2023 #14
no, it is basic common law Celerity Mar 2023 #17
Rule against perpetuities Celerity Mar 2023 #16
Right... but they had to be having some fun by choosing that particular living person, right? BlueCheeseAgain Mar 2023 #19
Because it is grounded in English common law, the British monarch at the time of writing is often Celerity Mar 2023 #20
Law school teachers will often inject nonsensical stuff like that. Why? Merely to see.... machoneman Mar 2023 #31
I love it when business controls government. MichMan Mar 2023 #10
Interesting. I find it abhorrent when businesses attempt to manipulate government. OldBaldy1701E Mar 2023 #24
It's a trap! JHB Mar 2023 #11
Hahahahahahahahaha not fooled Mar 2023 #28
. Hassin Bin Sober Mar 2023 #41
AND They Offloaded All The Cost for Roads and Infrastructure onto FL! LOL! Beetwasher. Mar 2023 #12
It's not free genxlib Mar 2023 #18
We just might find out there's more to that agreement when they cross that bridge LOL In It to Win It Mar 2023 #21
the board does not have enough money azureblue Mar 2023 #32
That fairy dust packs a mean punch. C_U_L8R Mar 2023 #13
I knew Disney was up to something when they didn't go after FL in court obamanut2012 Mar 2023 #15
LOL smb Mar 2023 #22
Well played, WDW, well played mcar Mar 2023 #25
No wonder Mad_Machine76 Mar 2023 #26
I cannot rec this enough wryter2000 Mar 2023 #27
Long game bpj62 Mar 2023 #30
This makes me smile LetMyPeopleVote Mar 2023 #33
Wish it had sound Nevilledog Mar 2023 #36
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Takket Mar 2023 #38
Disney just completely stripped the power from Ron DeSantis' handpicked board LetMyPeopleVote Mar 2023 #43
lol BlueWaveNeverEnd Mar 2023 #44
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Power play: Disney handic...»Reply #20