Who owns our land? | Guy Shrubsole, Devon Talks

[@johnmurray5573]

Just bought your first book. Looking forward to reading enormously

[@geofftoase3855]

The land that comprises the United Kingdom is owned by King Charles III as his incorporeal hereditament as all monarchs have done since the C17th after King Charles I was executed by order of parliament, who then appropriated the royal prerogative of eminent domain which deprived the succeeding monarchs of the power to appropriate any land within their dominion at will. KC III’s ownership of territory is for the most part titular, technically he is the superior owner of a sixth of the Earth by virtue of the fact that the governments of some States recognise the UK monarch as their Head of State and formalise their land law on the basis that the Crown (the incumbent monarch of the UK) is the superior owner of their country, but the royal prerogative of eminent domain is reserved and exercised by parliament. The UK monarch reigns but does not rule - government’s rule over the monarch’s territory. The concept of a superior individual owner [a convenient legal fiction] is a relic of the feudal past [when the monarch was not only the superior owner of their domain, but (centuries ago) also possessed of eminent domain [their interests trumped anyone else’s - a power government has now appropriated] The monarch’s dominion over the UK is held on the sufferance of Parliament, relegating the monarch to a ceremonial Head of State whilst remaining technically the owner of their domains. Parliament reserved to itself a feudal superiority - that of dictating the terms upon which the monarch can exercise control over their dominions. The King is the superior owner of the UK, which he holds as his allodial incorporeal hereditament meaning it cannot be mortgaged or sold by him, it is inherited whole and is passed on whole to his successor. Individuals can purchase a landholding, freehold or leasehold - both are forms of tenure of the Crown (the monarch - see the Crown Estate’s website). The monarch (KC III) can act as a private person by purchasing a freehold, so that they have freehold title to land of which they are also the superior owner, land which they may subsequently alienate to another [whilst remaining the superior owner]. The King can therefore benefit from that land he acquires freehold title to by mortgaging it, selling it or disposing of it in a will, in addition the Duchy of Lancaster/Duchy of Cornwall cannot be mortgaged or sold but 100% of the revenues from them fall to the monarch/the monarch’s heir. The Crown Estate is that allodial land not held freehold by another that various entities (mainly government) lease from the monarch. The returns from leasing this land are split about 3 to 1 in favour of the government under arrangements negotiated with the monarch from the C18th through to the C21st. - because the royal income could no longer fund royal government. This arrangement has been reviewed in light of the huge revenues windfarms around the UK’s coast [part of the Crown Estate] are generating. About 0.6% of the population hold [freehold and/or leasehold] about 70% of the UK land area, freehold and leasehold are both form of tenure of the Crown. 'Owners' hold an estate in land, of the Crown. Ownership takes different forms, it is not a straightforward concept, a land title enumerates a particular bundle of rights in relation to its use and abuse that the law of the land will support. Although KC III may ‘own’ vast territories allodially - as a legal convenience - from which he does not receive income, his income accrues from land; bought and held in personum, the Duchy of Lancaster and a quarter of the revenue from his (the Crown) estate. Exclusive private property right in land is legislated for by legislatures; so if those who create a State’s legislation genuinely believe in the philosophic fiction that individuals are created equal, and are legally possessed of an unalienable right to life must hold the territory that forms their State as a corporate hereditament, a nation that requires a consideration [subsistence food and shelter - cash equivalent for those who provide there own] from the State that legislates for exclusive private property in land. Thomas Merrill (US, C20th) expressed the view that, ‘The right to exclude others is sine qua non of the concept of property. Someone with the right to exclude others from a resource gives them property’. That resource in the case of land is the source of the populations means of subsistence, subsistence that secures their unalienable right to life. In a financialised State only a proportion of the population can afford to hold land as exclusive private property and since their holdings could be extensive once those privileged with wealth acquire sufficient land they have the ability to subordinate the bulk of the population to their will, because all civilised individuals have, in times past, been disarticulated from the primordial liberty that EVERY life-form that has EVER existed on Earth enjoyed, that of securing their subsistence from nature’s largesse, WITHOUT RESTRAINT. Allodial landholding is inalienable, it is inherited whole, and is passed on whole, which makes it ideal as the foundation of a Nation-State. The nation would be the superior owner of the territory of the nation, and those who run the State by consent will hold it in trust through a land registry. Every individual owns their proportion of every subdivision of the nations territory and receives an annual sum [say 10,$,£ EU, Yuan, Rupee] ground rent from all those possessed of an alienable life-time lease [their ground rent being determined by the area - not value - of territory they purchase, or are in freehold possession when national allodial ownership is adopted]. The sentient nation owns the territory, not the insentient State [as determined by those who run it]. There would be no need for anyone to move and the alienable life-time lease could be sold, gifted or disposed of in a will and would afford exclusive private property in land. The State that legislates for exclusive private property would secure its nationals’ unalienable right to life by supplying subsistence [food and shelter, cash equivalent to those who provide their own] as a consideration for maintaining the elimination of the primordial liberty that their nationals’ ancestors enjoyed for about three-hundred millennia; which civilised life based on slavery and involuntary servitude curtailed in order that the ambitious/aggressives of their societies could be maintained in the manner to which they had become accustomed.