Due to a “royal lives clause”, Disney retains power over its districts

until twenty one (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.

This is interesting and tricky, as there is no such person as King Charles III, King of England, the title “King of England” having been defunct since 1707 (many years before the USA was even established as an independent country). Does this in any way affect the legal power of the clause?

  • Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Law Meta, or in Law Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed.
    – Dale M
    Commented Jun 19, 2023 at 8:37

2 Answers 2


The language is clear in context

Covenants and easements are interpreted using ordinary contractual interpretation: Connick v. Owners, Strata Plan VIS7092, 2022 BCCA 52.

This means that interpretation should give the words "their ordinary and grammatical meaning, consistent with the surrounding circumstances known to the parties at the time of formation of the contract... The meaning of words is often derived from a number of contextual factors": Sattva Capital Corp. v. Creston Moly Corp., 2014 SCC 53.

A court would have no difficulty determining who "King Charles III, King of England" refers to.


In , minor factual errors do not matter.

Code Civil, article 1188:

Le contrat s'interprète d'après la commune intention des parties plutôt qu'en s'arrêtant au sens littéral de ses termes.

Lorsque cette intention ne peut être décelée, le contrat s'interprète selon le sens que lui donnerait une personne raisonnable placée dans la même situation.

A contract is construed according to the common intention of both parties rather than by the literal meaning of its terms.

When that intention cannot be ascertained, the contract is construed under the meaning that a reasonable person placed in the same situation [as the contracting parties] would assume.

Any reasonable person would understand "King Charles III, King of England" to mean Charles Philip Arthur George, born on 14 November 1948, even if the title is incorrect. This would likely also be true with the imprecise wording "Charles III", even though there's a whole bunch of Charles IIIs (most of which are deceased).

  • KFK, that's completely true and equally, not the point. While you're taking time worrying about who King Charles might be, or how long 21 years after the death of any descendant might be, I suggest you should be thinking about which court could ever decide who 'the last survivor of the descendants' might be. That might now be Charlotte, George or Louis and what is to stop any of them having uncountably great-grand-chdildren? Commented Jun 18, 2023 at 19:04
  • "living as of the date of this declaration" -- so all Charles' current kids and grandkids, but none born after the document was created.
    – ATCOlogy
    Commented Jun 20, 2023 at 11:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .