Figgy1
Well-Known Member
Charles III of England which is what he isOh yes, THAT's the embarrassing part of all of this...
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
danv3
Well-Known Member
It is an embarrassing thing to have drafted a document with reference to a title that's been unused for centuries, yes. It's not the only embarrassing thing here, but it's an embarrassing thing.Oh yes, THAT's the embarrassing part of all of this...
Figgy1
Well-Known Member
Just adding of England is smart in case GB breaks up
LittleBuford
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.)
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
I'm only coming back to say this: "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
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
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
"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?"
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
There hasn’t been a Kingdom of England for over 300 years. I don’t think they were being smart at all, just making the same mistake that others often make when they refer to the UK as England.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Whatever happens…
I
love this
I love this
I love this!
I
love thisI
love this I
love this! 
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.
"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.
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
But they used it as if it was his title.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
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.
GrumpyFan
Well-Known Member
Okay, but is there another "King Charles III" who has reigned over England or any of the realms?
Chi84
Premium Member
Royal Lives Clause: is your trust running out of time?
In older trusts, the “Royal Lives Clause” was a common way of ensuring that a trust could continue for as long as legally possible.
www.birketts.co.uk
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
As I said, it’s clear who is meant, but the reference to him is nonetheless factually incorrect. I’d like to think such technicalities matter much less than intent, but I’m trying to think as a nitpicking lawyer might.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Then they can never have a successor…and it never ends.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
Thanks—this is helpful!Royal Lives Clause: is your trust running out of time?
In older trusts, the “Royal Lives Clause” was a common way of ensuring that a trust could continue for as long as legally possible.