Why does the monarch own all the land in Britain?
Scroll to see replies
Theories of natural justice proposed that human beings had an inalienable right to own property, to do with it what they wanted, to retain effective (but not legal) despotic ownership or alienate it as they saw fit. In the UK these theories of natural law threatened the feudal settlement of 1066 which claimed the entire country was the monarch's fiefdom. The reigning monarch owned all the land others could only hold land of the monarch. Up to 1925 there were several forms of landholding of the monarch after that date there were only two, freehold and leasehold. During the C17th the obligations due the monarch by freeholders were curtailed by the HoC and the monarch compensated from the public purse for their removal but not by a charge on those who benefitted from the removal of the obligation so, not for the first time, private privilege was subsidised by public taxation. Freeholders dominated the legislature (HoC) they benefitted directly by offloading the cost of ridding themselves of an irksome expense for holding land of the monarch onto the taxpayers whilst retaining the right to charge ground rent from any person who leased from them, neat scam. The fact that the monarch actually owns all the land in law simplifies the nationalisation of the UK for its nationals since there are only two parties involved in the legislative process which could be initiated citing Article 1 of the ECHR protocols allowing the British to become individual citizens with property instead of a monarch's subjects with none, or some or, for a miniscule proportion, a lot. The distribution of property in land would not alter; those who exercise the privilege of excluding their fellow nationals from their holdings would pay ground rent for that privilege. The State would provide subsistence (food, water and shelter) in cash or provision to everyone. The Welfare State would be retired, save for the NHS.
.
.
(edited 4 years ago)
Original post by landscape2014
Why is it socially acceptable that one person, the monarch, is the sole owner of Britain, surely the British should own it?
Because William the Conqueror owned it.
So we are prisoners of our feudal history forevermore ?
Original post by landscape2014
So we are prisoners of our feudal history forevermore ?
only you care this much about this, she isnt going to take over your mum's basement dont worry
Since the C19th a substantial market in privately held leases has been operating for investors who wish to benefit from the steady income from tranches of leases, most on domestic properties. Builders would either buy the freehold or enter into a lease agreement with the freeholder and then build houses on the plot, the builders who bought the freehold then had two choices either sell the house with freehold tenure or retain the freehold and sell it on a lease which entitled them to annual ground rent.
The system was tailor made for the rentier class, abuse of the power afforded freeholders to charge leaseholders was widespread (though not universal) right from the start. In the C21st Corporate finance began to exploit this potential goldmine the major building concerns embarked on a cynical policy to ‘fleece’ their customers. They introduced ground rent escalation clauses into lease agreements which they expected their salespeople would con their customers into agreeing to. To obviate their customers directly connecting them with the payment of ground rent they set up obscure property investment companies in tax havens (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Luxemburg, et al) which ostensibly held the freeholds as an investment, the profit going to the building concern, or having created a potential goldmine they opted to sell the freeholds on for cash to another property investment company. Only when the householder realised that their ground rent was to double every 10yrs did the penny drop that they had been scammed, their builders directing them to correspond with solicitors ‘who were only doing their job’ or investment companies they had never heard of.
The bankers and the property companies between them have contrived to reduced house ownership in the UK by about 15% in the last ten years. That is a matter of concern for the political class because of the increasing number of discontented people who have been priced out of the housing market. The only way to address this decline in an attainable aspiration for your own roof over your head is by nationalising the land and having those who hold land of the nation pay ground rent commensurate with the area they exclusively occupy rather than hope the passive/submissive's toleration of the situation will prove elastic.
The system was tailor made for the rentier class, abuse of the power afforded freeholders to charge leaseholders was widespread (though not universal) right from the start. In the C21st Corporate finance began to exploit this potential goldmine the major building concerns embarked on a cynical policy to ‘fleece’ their customers. They introduced ground rent escalation clauses into lease agreements which they expected their salespeople would con their customers into agreeing to. To obviate their customers directly connecting them with the payment of ground rent they set up obscure property investment companies in tax havens (Isle of Man, Channel Islands, Luxemburg, et al) which ostensibly held the freeholds as an investment, the profit going to the building concern, or having created a potential goldmine they opted to sell the freeholds on for cash to another property investment company. Only when the householder realised that their ground rent was to double every 10yrs did the penny drop that they had been scammed, their builders directing them to correspond with solicitors ‘who were only doing their job’ or investment companies they had never heard of.
The bankers and the property companies between them have contrived to reduced house ownership in the UK by about 15% in the last ten years. That is a matter of concern for the political class because of the increasing number of discontented people who have been priced out of the housing market. The only way to address this decline in an attainable aspiration for your own roof over your head is by nationalising the land and having those who hold land of the nation pay ground rent commensurate with the area they exclusively occupy rather than hope the passive/submissive's toleration of the situation will prove elastic.
(edited 4 years ago)
In primitive societies the sparse distribution of humanity allowed for unrestrained individual and collective access to nature’s largesse, in societies delineated by a partisan moneyed economy the individual’s inalienable right to life is compromised by the operation of inequitable Lex Mercantoria which could be construed equitably by embracing humanity’s inalienable right to life from the Earth (that our ancestors enjoyed) by insisting that any individual (real or invented) who claims exclusive rights over part of the Earth paid ground rent to humanity (or fellow nationals for a start) for exclusivity. The subsistence humanity’s ancestors enjoyed from the Earth would have to be provided from the surpluses generated by those who enjoyed exclusive occupation (which would be protected by the State, as would the citizens right to subsistence from it). The legal position that the UK’s monarch owns all the country predicates that as a matter of equity she pays for her subjects subsistence since her ownership means they cannot engage in providing for their own, as their distant ancestors could. Annexation of nation’s means of subsistence without consideration is an act of robbery which in most jurisdictions negates any claim to legitimate property right, except in the case of the global well-heeled elites, they who pay the piper call the tune that the assembled company must dance to.
Legally the ultimate owner of land in a territorial monarchy is a King or Queen, in a territorial republic the State is the ultimate owner and the disposition of land is determined by whatever functionary, in a despotic republic or functionaries, in a collegiate republic, is/are possessed of eminent domain, however that position is achieved. The interest groups within any society determine the actual form of land ownership permitted and those forms are many and varied and reflect the mores of the dominant political establishment who command the legislative processes and can effectively lobby for the passage or repeal of laws, effectively making the rule of law conform to their ideology.
Sovereignty suggests ultimate authority over the land but this is invariably not the case, even dictator’s and absolute monarch’s writ was always circumscribed by internal or external political considerations that required diplomatic engagement which circumscribed the rulers exercise of eminent domain.
Legitimate ‘ownership’ allows the person holding (the legal owner is the monarch or the State) the land to exercise certain property rights in connection with the land; use or abuse, gift or sell, rent or lease, exclude or include, change or maintain and retain all recognised rights of property not specifically granted to others and retain all of these rights without time limit or review. These are not absolute sovereign rights, a Monarch or State in extremis can demand that ‘ownership’ be forfeited (usually with compensation), that they abide by the ‘law of the land’, that they pay tax to support the monarch’s or State’s government. As a result of these considerations and others regarding easements in favour of other individuals and groups land ‘ownership’ is not in any way sovereignty, the landholder may be master of all they survey but the ultimate owner is either the monarch or the State. The landholder is the owner of property rights to land not the land itself.
The debate about land ownership has been framed in the context of the individual (usually an exceptional individual or commercial entity) verses the overbearing State and not as the rightful inheritance of those whose ancestors occupied the present territorial boundaries of a monarchical or republican State - the debate should be conducted as one between the concept of State ownership and national ownership adopting the equitable notion that the ultimate owners of the land are people with an inalienable right to life that can only be secured by a life-long legal interest in the land of their birth. They, after all, form the nation, without which the State would and could not exist.
Sovereignty suggests ultimate authority over the land but this is invariably not the case, even dictator’s and absolute monarch’s writ was always circumscribed by internal or external political considerations that required diplomatic engagement which circumscribed the rulers exercise of eminent domain.
Legitimate ‘ownership’ allows the person holding (the legal owner is the monarch or the State) the land to exercise certain property rights in connection with the land; use or abuse, gift or sell, rent or lease, exclude or include, change or maintain and retain all recognised rights of property not specifically granted to others and retain all of these rights without time limit or review. These are not absolute sovereign rights, a Monarch or State in extremis can demand that ‘ownership’ be forfeited (usually with compensation), that they abide by the ‘law of the land’, that they pay tax to support the monarch’s or State’s government. As a result of these considerations and others regarding easements in favour of other individuals and groups land ‘ownership’ is not in any way sovereignty, the landholder may be master of all they survey but the ultimate owner is either the monarch or the State. The landholder is the owner of property rights to land not the land itself.
The debate about land ownership has been framed in the context of the individual (usually an exceptional individual or commercial entity) verses the overbearing State and not as the rightful inheritance of those whose ancestors occupied the present territorial boundaries of a monarchical or republican State - the debate should be conducted as one between the concept of State ownership and national ownership adopting the equitable notion that the ultimate owners of the land are people with an inalienable right to life that can only be secured by a life-long legal interest in the land of their birth. They, after all, form the nation, without which the State would and could not exist.
Regis is the Latin word for ''King'' or ''Of the King'', if all things that are registered have legal ownership by the King, including Land, property, vehicles, birth name (security/bond) etc, then that makes the King the ''Legal owner/Trustee'' and everyone else ''Beneficial owners/Beneficiary's''
if this is the case, then what that would mean is that we are already witnessing a ''Universal Trust'' in action right under our noses.
Life is the settlor....., the monarch/state are acting as self appointed trustees, and everyone else is the beneficiary's, all that is to do is to realise your are the beneficiary. this is just in a relative sense according to Lila.
if this is the case, then what that would mean is that we are already witnessing a ''Universal Trust'' in action right under our noses.
Life is the settlor....., the monarch/state are acting as self appointed trustees, and everyone else is the beneficiary's, all that is to do is to realise your are the beneficiary. this is just in a relative sense according to Lila.
Original post by robinnasco1
Regis is the Latin word for ''King'' or ''Of the King'', if all things that are registered have legal ownership by the King, including Land, property, vehicles, birth name (security/bond) etc, then that makes the King the ''Legal owner/Trustee'' and everyone else ''Beneficial owners/Beneficiary's''
if this is the case, then what that would mean is that we are already witnessing a ''Universal Trust'' in action right under our noses.
Life is the settlor....., the monarch/state are acting as self appointed trustees, and everyone else is the beneficiary's, all that is to do is to realise your are the beneficiary. this is just in a relative sense according to Lila.
if this is the case, then what that would mean is that we are already witnessing a ''Universal Trust'' in action right under our noses.
Life is the settlor....., the monarch/state are acting as self appointed trustees, and everyone else is the beneficiary's, all that is to do is to realise your are the beneficiary. this is just in a relative sense according to Lila.
Before we go too far down the Freeman on the Land garden path...
"Register" doesn't derive from the latin for King. A quick google shows it comes originally from the latin "Regesta" meaning "to record"
Registering something does not transfer ownership to the monarch, and it doesn't create trusts, whether universal or otherwise.
Original post by landscape2014
Why is it socially acceptable that one person, the monarch, is the sole owner of Britain, surely the British should own it?
i wish it was this easy to say but the person is not the monarchy but a royal yes the queen is the monarch but she is not the monarchy. the monarchy is the brand hence the name Monarchy PLC and this incorporates the crown estate all the land owned by the sperate duchies and the dutiches are what own the land not the king, nor the queen when she was alive. they are held in the name of the crown but not by the reigning monarch.
here is a brake down of the royal family finances
Th monarchy is seen to cost the average relay it is only £1.29 per person (In the Uk contextually this is a pint of milk) of this 77p comes from the core grant. The remining 52p coms form the reservicing of Buckingham palace (contextually this is 4 bananas and one packet of Tesco own brand custard creams) respectively so not a lot considering that the crown estate is a collection of properties worth £14.4 billion that is held the name of the crown, the intangible title held by the government, meaning it is actually held in the name of the people who benefit most from this, more on this later though. The crown estate is comprised of everything from the land on which a McDonalds is built to offshore wind farms and the historical Ascot racetrack. As specified earlier the profits from the crown estate are what fund the sovereign grant with currently 25% of the profits going to the royal family and the rest of the surplus a 75% will go back into the treasury and thus, the economy so by pure definition whilst the royal family cost £1.29 per person the actual benefit from the monarchy is £3.85.
further more the crown estate only owns 615,000/60,000,000 acres of the uk land so it is not all owned by the monarchy but much of this is inhabitable sea land so it furthers the narrative that the monarchy dose not have complete control over the uk land. to put this into perspective the forestry commission owns 2.2 million acres of land and the ministery of defence owns 1.1 million acers. so we have to rephrase your earlier quiestion to; Why is it social acceptable that one institution owns 12% of the land in the uk. we must negate the comment that you have made that the monarch is the sole owner of britain and that the british should own it as we do own it, we own 78% of the uk, and even the crown estate which owns 12% is owned by the government and as we live in a berkian representative democracy meaning it is the government of the people we techinacly own 100% of the land in britian
Hope this answers you question, and if you have any more relating to the royal family finances i have done my EPQ on it and i would gladely share it with you
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 4 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
