Why does the monarch own all the land in Britain?

If you know your constitutional law, you'll know that context is everything when it comes to legislation and convention. 'The crown' can mean a number of things depending on the context and in this context it means the State, not the monarch as an individual entity.

If you're doing an essay on this, please don't go down the route that the Queen herself owns all lands because you won't do well using that theory, no matter how well you try to argue it.

The Monarchy is unelected and an outdated institution which no longer represents the majority of Britons.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.

Actually, 'The Crown' can refer to different things depending on the context. It can just refer to The Monarch. But it can also refer to the State, i.e. Monarch, Parliament, Government and Judiciary. More often than not it refers to the government/executive.

The UK constitution has moved on from feudal times and the absolute power of the Monarch, we've had the Magna Carts and a Civil War since then (I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'Parliament is Sovereign'). The UK consititution is not written in one place and is made-up of Common Law, Legislation and Constitutional Convention. Some constitutional experts argue that every piece of legislation has an effect on the constitution.

To give you one very simple example to answer to your question: The European Convention on Human Rights and its adoption into UK law as The Human Rights Act 1998.

I also give you this: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03861

As Head of State, many things are done in the Monarch’s name, but the Monarch has no say in them. As Head of State, the Monarch is Head of Government and many State organisations, but the Monarch has no ability to influence those organisations.

As Head of State, lots of authority stems from the Monarch, but the Monarch has no ability to use that authority herself.

So if you could cite ANY proper academic evidence or parliamentary evidence to support your assertion that Bridget Prentice meant the Queen (not the State), when she said 'The Crown', then we would all would appreciate seeing it.

Until you can find some sensible evidence to support your assertion that the Queen herself owns all the land, then I will go with current constitutional wisdom that whilst The Crown may own the land, it means The State, not the Queen herself. As Walter Bagehot stated "the Queen reigns, but she does not rule".

Edit: I know this is pointless and you won't change your mind, so I won't be replying to any more of this nonsense.

Actually, 'The Crown' can refer to different things depending on the context. It can just refer to The Monarch. But it can also refer to the State, i.e. Monarch, Parliament, Government and Judiciary. More often than not it refers to the government/executive.

The UK constitution has moved on from feudal times and the absolute power of the Monarch, we've had the Magna Carts and a Civil War since then (I'm sure you've heard the phrase 'Parliament is Sovereign'). The UK consititution is not written in one place and is made-up of Common Law, Legislation and Constitutional Convention. Some constitutional experts argue that every piece of legislation has an effect on the constitution.

To give you one very simple example to answer to your question: The European Convention on Human Rights and its adoption into UK law as The Human Rights Act 1998.

I also give you this: https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN03861

As Head of State, many things are done in the Monarch’s name, but the Monarch has no say in them. As Head of State, the Monarch is Head of Government and many State organisations, but the Monarch has no ability to influence those organisations.

As Head of State, lots of authority stems from the Monarch, but the Monarch has no ability to use that authority herself.

So if you could cite ANY proper academic evidence or parliamentary evidence to support your assertion that Bridget Prentice meant the Queen (not the State), when she said 'The Crown', then we would all would appreciate seeing it.

Until you can find some sensible evidence to support your assertion that the Queen herself owns all the land, then I will go with current constitutional wisdom that whilst The Crown may own the land, it means The State, not the Queen herself. As Walter Bagehot stated "the Queen reigns, but she does not rule".

Edit: I know this is pointless and you won't change your mind, so I won't be replying to any more of this nonsense.

The Royal Preogrative information is not a straw man because it shows that primary legislation always supercedes your feudal version of the Monarch. There is no place, no statute, common law or current constitutional convention that supports your argument.

The Human Rights Act is relevant because it defines, for the purpose of the Act, what the Crown is. The Monarch is not in that definition.

None of the cases you cite are relevant to your argument, nobody is arguing that the The State does not have the ultimate ownership of land. In fact, the Acts you cite go against you because if the Queen did have inherent ownership, there would be no need for legislation like the Compulsory Purchase Act 1965. The Prime Minister would just get the Queen to take ownership for land for infrastructure projects (like HS2) without the need for legislation. The government can't do that because, guess what? The Queen doesn't own the land. If the Queen did own the land there would be no need for the High Speed Rail Bill etc.

This is your argument, you show one piece of evidence, one single current law, one convention, one relevant bit of current common law that gives the legal ownership of the land to the monarch as a sole entity. If such a position was correct it would be in primary legislation.

You rely on the words of one junior minister in 2009 and interpreted her use of the phrase 'the Crown' to support your argument. Please show one decent legal scholar that supports your interpretation. You can't because there isn't one. If your interpretation of the Minister's words was correct, then there would have been an outcry.

You're like one of those Freeman of the Land nuts who are convinced they are right, yet never once actually won a court case.

The evidence you cite actually argues against you. Yes, the monarch has a superior interest, but that is very different to owning all the land. To quote your own source in relation to The Crown Estate:

"But it is not the private property of the monarch - it cannot be sold by the monarch, nor do revenues from it belong to the monarch."

And in relation to the Monarch's interest in the land:

"it can become relevant if a freehold property becomes ownerless. If this happens, freehold land, may in some circumstances, fall to the monarch as the owner of the superior interest. This process is called 'escheat'.

This, of course is very different to your first question 'why does the Monarch own all the land in Britain?'. The answer, according to your own evidence, is that she doesn't, but may, in certain (limited) circumstances.

As I said, it's not for me to go through hundreds of years of legislation, (many different Acts which each move the constitution on slightly) the magna carta etc to prove you wrong. It's for you, the instigator of this nonsense, to prove your point. However, you have very kindly proved mine, so thank you.

My question was; 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? When there is little discontent it matters not what form a government takes those who propose to disturb the status quo are perceived as disturbing the tranquillity of the nation, which is understandable. What is equally understandable is the desire of most parents to live in a society that affords their children equal opportunity to engage in the national economy in order to obtain disposable income. An initial level playing field from which to profit or not in accordance with their disposition, purchasing power, skill, ability, industry or good fortune. No human rights can exist without property rights so basic property right in an equitable, delineated, monetary society have to be inalienably subsumed in the common domain so that no one can subvert them. The passing into law of the Human Rights Act into law has opened up the possibility of the British acquiring an inheritance (post 45); a beneficial interest in the land of their birth (jus soli) which would allow men and women to be free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions and interests dictate.

Nobody gives a **** because we're all millennials who are more likely to win the lottery than to buy a house / land.

Talk about things that matter, rather than your own little constructed problems.

Nobody gives a **** because we're all millennials who are more likely to win the lottery, get struck by lightning and bit by an asteroid at the same time than to buy a house / land.

Talk about things that matter, rather than your own little constructed problems.

Like what?

Amusing that you quote me and not the comment immediately below mine talking about how wrong you are...

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?

A little internet research by yourself and 999tigger will convince yourselves of your ignorance which I assume is why neither of you wish to google the question.