Why does the monarch own all the land in Britain?

OP

Original post by 999tigger

https://www.rct.uk/collection/themes/exhibitions/a-royal-wedding-the-duke-and-duchess-of-sussex/palace-of-holyroodhouse

I believe the exhibition goes all over the country. £15-£20 a ticket.

The question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?

Reply 24

999tigger

Original post by landscape2014

The question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?

Because we live in a constitutional monarchy and for these purposes she represents the state. Do you think its correct the state should be the ultimate owner of the land which makes up its territory?

Reply 25

OP

No. We, like all other people in the world live in a territorial State not a nation State. Those in positions of ultimate authority in the State control both the disposition of the territory they claim jurisdiction over and the population contained within it. Territory and population are the two fundamental constituents of a State, the inanimate territory occupied by sentient beings, surely those sentient individuals who constitute the nation have an equality of interest in the territory of their birth. Present States are all territorial States (glorified tribes) not nation States. The ‘Nation State’ as it is generally understood is a misnomer in today’s, and yesterday’s, world for nowhere on the planet is there, or has there ever been, a nation vested with a constitutional right of eminent domain, ultimate authority that is conditionally transferred in perpetuity to State authority figures as long as they observe statutory conditions (enumerated in a constitution). The bulk of the world’s populations entertain the misconception that they live in nation States when in fact their status is that of a disinherited human being subject to the direction of a territorial State’s authority figures (in the UK subjects of the Crown, presently Elizabethans subject to government diktat by virtue of Parliament’s appropriation of royal prerogatives) which allows others to exercise financial coercion over them. Nations do not have an eventual power of eminent domain (ultimate authority), those in charge of the State do and they claim it unilaterally not subjectively because of the willing acquiescence by the individuals that compose nations in a presumption that the sum of individuals who form a nation cannot be collectively possessed of eminent domain over the common domain that is the land of their birth. The past is irrecoverable we cannot recompense the dead but we can treat with equity the living and their descendants. The chief philosophic element in the evolution of the State to date is the continued separation of humans, by their authority figures, from jus soli (their birthright, inalienable property in the land of their birth) using organisations created by them to perpetuate their disarticulation. The denial of the individual their right in the land of their birth (jus soli) and the exploitation of their patrimony without yielding to them the means of subsistence and a monetary consideration (ground rent) is the major philosophic omission in the intellectual evolution of the State. Authority figures that countenance the denial of each individual of the population an incontrovertible birthright (authority figures in all present States) have only an affected interest in equitable individual property rights (they legislate to look after their own constituency). The bulk of the world’s population are denied their right to enjoy jus soli, they are the subjects of those who can afford to deny them it.

(edited 4 years ago)

Reply 26

yaseen1000

17

Original post by landscape2014

No. We, like all other people in the world live in a territorial State not a nation State. Those in positions of ultimate authority in the State control both the disposition of the territory they claim jurisdiction over and the population contained within it. Territory and population are the two fundamental constituents of a State, the inanimate territory occupied by sentient beings, surely those sentient individuals who constitute the nation have an equality of interest in the territory of their birth. Present States are all territorial States (glorified tribes) not nation States. The ‘Nation State’ as it is generally understood is a misnomer in today’s, and yesterday’s, world for nowhere on the planet is there, or has there ever been, a nation vested with a constitutional right of eminent domain, ultimate authority that is conditionally transferred in perpetuity to State authority figures as long as they observe statutory conditions (enumerated in a constitution). The bulk of the world’s populations entertain the misconception that they live in nation States when in fact their status is that of a disinherited human being subject to the direction of a territorial State’s authority figures (in the UK subjects of the Crown, presently Elizabethans subject to government diktat by virtue of Parliament’s appropriation of royal prerogatives) and those who can exercise financial coercion over them. Nations do not have an eventual power of eminent domain (ultimate authority), those in charge of the State do and they claim it unilaterally not subjectively because of the willing acquiescence by the individuals that compose nations in a presumption that the sum of individuals who form a nation cannot be collectively possessed of eminent domain over the common domain that is the land of their birth. The past is irrecoverable we cannot recompense the dead but we can treat with equity the living and their descendants. The chief philosophic element in the evolution of the State to date is the continued separation of humans, by their authority figures, from jus soli (their birthright, inalienable property in the land of their birth) using organisations created by them to perpetuate their disarticulation. The denial of the individual their right in the land of their birth (jus soli) and the exploitation of their patrimony without yielding to them the means of subsistence and a monetary consideration (ground rent) is the major philosophic omission in the intellectual evolution of the State. Authority figures that countenance the denial of each individual of the population an incontrovertible birthright (authority figures in all present States) have only an affected interest in equitable individual property rights (they legislate to look after their own constituency). The bulk of the world’s population are denied their right to enjoy jus soli, they are the subjects of those who can afford to deny them it.

Hear Hear

Reply 27

AmmarTa

18

Original post by yaseen1000

That doesn’t mean we need to have a monarchy and pay them a large share of the Royal estate. The government should take all the Royal estates and property owned by the crown and give them to the people instead spending millions each year on 1 family .

Dude, it's their property. They surrender the profits willingly to the government and in return get a smaller amount of money as an allowance. They're taking a loss for us.

Regardless, I don't see how you find it fit to just seize their land. It's THEIR land; how would you like it if I suddenly decided to take everything away from you because I don't agree with your existence? It doesn't make sense, and it's not fair.

Reply 28

OP

Original post by AmmarTa

Dude, it's their property. They surrender the profits willingly to the government and in return get a smaller amount of money as an allowance. They're taking a loss for us.

Regardless, I don't see how you find it fit to just seize their land. It's THEIR land; how would you like it if I suddenly decided to take everything away from you because I don't agree with your existence? It doesn't make sense, and it's not fair.

The question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not? Its only the Monarch's land as the result of the feudal settlement of 1066. The foreign invaders won.

Reply 29

OP

The question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?

Reply 30

OP

The striving of the dispossessed for security and sufficiency is always undermined by the pessimism of insecurity and insufficiency compounded by the disadvantaged's inability to analyse their situation and act to change the existing political settlement; to claim their inheritance. Those who claim to represent their constituents interests have analysed their situation and decided to accept the feudal settlement as the basis of their actions on behalf of their constituents, re-claiming the population’s primeval material interest in land (jus soli) is not part of any political agenda because there is no appreciation of it which is not surprising since, like many of their ancestors,the present 'subordinate' classes are engaged in the annexation of the rest of humanity's birthright on behalf of their superiors (never being cognisant of their own patrimony they cannot recognise anybody else's).

Reply 31

Drewski

As you can clearly see from the lack of replies and the fact you keep banging on about it, nobody gives a ****.

From a technical, legal point of view, you're probably right. However, in reality? Doesn't work like that, so everybody gets on with their life.

Reply 32

limetang

Original post by yaseen1000

The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons. It’s time this institution which has been feeding of taxpayers money was abolished and replaced with an elected head of state or the PM takes the duties of the monarchy. We have 100’s of 1000’s of people In poverty with 1 in 200 people in the UK either in temporary accommodation or homeless yet we spend millions a year on a single family so they can live lavishly. Before anyone uses the tourism argument according to visit Britain the monarchy brings in a fraction in tourism compared to what it costs us . It’s time the UK entered the 21st century and follow the suit of many other developed countries and abolish the monarchy.

Why would you do that?

We've already seen how disruptive, divisive and damaging one constitutional change (Brexit) has been (whether or not you believe it ultimately to be a good thing, nobody can argue it hasn't been an incredibly tortuous process). Now your proposal is that we should have a much bigger, further reaching one by upturning the very basis of government in this country?

Constitutional monarchy works for us, it works for Sweden, it works for the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium Japan etc. You have NO evidence that the system we'd replace it with would as well or better. All empirical evidence seems to suggest that constitutional monarchies are richer, freer, more prosperous than are republics. If you had a choice, to be placed in a random constitutional monarchy or to live in a random republic you would pick the constitutional monarchy. Odds are you are going to have a much more pleasant time there.

Reply 33

the bear

20

She has to keep her swans somewhere doesn't she ?

:hmmmm2:

Reply 34

BlueIndigoViolet

4 words, the motto: Dieu et mon droit

On a serious note, doesn't make one bit of difference to 99.9% of the population's daily life :dontknow:

Reply 35

Fullofsurprises

20

Original post by landscape2014

The monarch is the absolute owner of land in the UK all others hold an estate in land. Estates took many forms in the past but were reduced to two by the Law of Property Act 1925; a) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, generally known as freehold and b) an estate for a number of years absolute, generally known as leasehold. The preamble to the Land Registration Act 2002 states, ' The concepts of leasehold and freehold derive from medieval forms of tenure and are not ownership' in relation to land in the UK we are all tenants on the basis of the feudal superiority of the Crown created in 1066 and supported by legal norms formulated to uphold that feudal superiority. In February 2009 Bridget Prentice, a parliamentary undersecretary at the Ministry of Justice replied to a question from an MP, 'The Crown [whoever wears it] is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly); all other 'owners' hold an estate in land.' My question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?

The term 'Crown' here undoubtedly means the State and not the monarch as an individual. As in many nations, the government has the power for example to compulsoraly purchase or seize land when required. The land owners rights have ultimate limits.

Reply 36

The RAR

21

Original post by yaseen1000

The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons. It’s time this institution which has been feeding of taxpayers money was abolished and replaced with an elected head of state or the PM takes the duties of the monarchy. We have 100’s of 1000’s of people In poverty with 1 in 200 people in the UK either in temporary accommodation or homeless yet we spend millions a year on a single family so they can live lavishly. Before anyone uses the tourism argument according to visit Britain the monarchy brings in a fraction in tourism compared to what it costs us . It’s time the UK entered the 21st century and follow the suit of many other developed countries and abolish the monarchy.

And? Some things from the past can still be used, just like language, roads, the wheel etc..the monarchy is what makes the UK so special because our country is one of the very few countries that has a proper working monarch with some real power. I am sure democracy has worked just fine throughout the ages...right? *Cough cough* Hitler *Cough cough*

Reply 37

999tigger

Original post by landscape2014

The monarch is the absolute owner of land in the UK all others hold an estate in land. Estates took many forms in the past but were reduced to two by the Law of Property Act 1925; a) an estate in fee simple absolute in possession, generally known as freehold and b) an estate for a number of years absolute, generally known as leasehold. The preamble to the Land Registration Act 2002 states, ' The concepts of leasehold and freehold derive from medieval forms of tenure and are not ownership' in relation to land in the UK we are all tenants on the basis of the feudal superiority of the Crown created in 1066 and supported by legal norms formulated to uphold that feudal superiority. In February 2009 Bridget Prentice, a parliamentary undersecretary at the Ministry of Justice replied to a question from an MP, 'The Crown [whoever wears it] is the ultimate owner of all land in England and Wales (including the Isles of Scilly); all other 'owners' hold an estate in land.' My question is why is it socially acceptable in a country that is supposed to believe in equality of opportunity that property law is founded on the supposition that one person owns all of it. Surely in a supposedly democratic State the nation should own it, why not?

The state does own it as the Queen is head of state. If the state didnt own it, then you would have all sorts setting up their own mini states within the UK. Would you like that? The land of all countries is ultimately owned by the state in which they are a part. In virtually all regards the freehold amounts to ownership and you can mostly do what you want with it.

Reply 38

OP