News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

danv3

Well-Known Member
King Charles III is not the King of England. He is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

Tha last King of England Was WILLIAM III who died in 1702. There hasn't been a King or Queen of England longer than there has been a United States of America.
I was just going to say that. There's no such person as "King Charles III, King of England."

Very embarrassing for the lawyers who drafted this. Yikes.
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
This is probably a stupid question, but could the board just retaliate by closing the roads, since that is still apparently their responsibility?
I’m not a lawyer, but based simply on these two parts of the contract, I’d wager no.
38B628F1-6226-4A3C-8D39-92B923E216AD.jpeg
00070EFB-023B-489F-B8F0-DF8DF8D06E30.jpeg
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
The reference to Charles III (!) seems totally random, and therefore mocking, to me. Do other agreements of this sort refer to figures who have nothing whatsoever to do with the matter at hand?
I didn’t say it wasn’t mocking. I said that it doesn’t make it any less valid. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say if there are other agreements similar.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I didn’t say it wasn’t mocking. I said that it doesn’t make it any less valid. I’m not a lawyer so I can’t say if there are other agreements similar.
Fair enough. But they may have shot themselves in the foot with their cleverness by referring to a nonexistent office. It’s clear who they mean, of course, but I imagine a good lawyer can make something of the fact that there is no King Charles III of England. (I hope I’m wrong; perhaps someone with knowledge of the law can weigh in here.)
 

MagicHappens1971

Well-Known Member
Fair enough. But they may have shot themselves in the foot with their cleverness by referring to a nonexistent office. It’s clear who they mean, of course, but I imagine a good lawyer can make something of the fact that there is no King Charles III of England. (I hope I’m wrong; perhaps someone with knowledge of the law can weigh in here.)
I’m sure if the lawyers were clever enough to come up with this idea, they were clever enough to make sure it would hold up.

Edit: Also, they’re referring to King Charles III, and his descendants, no judge in the world would argue that this is not King Charles III of England/UK and it’s related entities.
 

Robbiem

Well-Known Member
I was just going to say that. There's no such person as "King Charles III, King of England."

Very embarrassing for the lawyers who drafted this. Yikes.
Hubris in action- there is always someone cleverer than you!

Seriously though it would be interesting to see how this works legally.

The royal proclamation (which I witnessed being read out) said:

‘Prince Charles Philip Arthur George, is now, by the death of our late Sovereign of happy memory, become our only lawful and rightful liege lord, 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’

England is a part of Great Britain (along with Scotland and Wales) so the King is King of England in the same way that Biden is President of Florida - its a legal fact but not a title

They should have gone full south park though and used his title King of Canada 😀✌️
 
Last edited:

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
King Charles III is not the King of England. He is King of the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland.

Tha last King of England Was WILLIAM III who died in 1702. There hasn't been a King or Queen of England longer than there has been a United States of America.
"Boom! Here's the contract! Disney's toast!"

(reads over it). "It references a term that's to end upon the death of a successor to a person that...doesn't exist?"
 

wdwmagic

Administrator
Moderator
Premium Member
All of this makes Jeff Vahle's statement las month more understandable. He clearly knew what had been done.

"For more than 50 years, the Reedy Creek Improvement District has operated at the highest standards, and we appreciate all that the District has done to help our destination grow and become one of the largest economic contributors and employers in the state. We are focused on the future and are ready to work within this new framework, and we will continue to innovate, inspire and bring joy to the millions of guests who come to Florida to visit Walt Disney World each year."

-Jeff Vahle, President, Walt Disney World.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
This is probably a stupid question, but could the board just retaliate by closing the roads, since that is still apparently their responsibility?
Yes, they could still do almost all of things that would negatively impact Disney’s day-to-day operations.

This really shouldn’t be viewed as some great own by Disney that was designed to completely undercut the new board. It’s a contingency that also needs to be understood in the context of dissolution. It protected Disney ability to develop in the face of unknowns.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom