Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
The Atomic Bull

Queen Elizabeth Ii

Recommended Posts

Queen Elizabeth II is the legal owner of one sixth of the land on the Earth's surface, more than any other individual or nation. This amounts to a total of 6.6 billion acres (27 million km²) in 32 countries.

Who Owns the World: The Hidden Facts Behind Landownership, by Kevin Cahill

In all territories owned by the Crown, including Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, the governments of those countries do not own the land of the country, but may and frequently do administer it on behalf of its owner, HM Elizabeth II. More significantly all forms of land possession in those territories are based, formally and in law, on the Crown's superior ownership. This is why the Land Registry in places like the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia cannot register land ownership, only tenure. This is also why freehold and leasehold are defined in law as forms of tenure, not ownership.

so technically nobody in the UK really owns anything - it's just a big con

Allodial Titles

Allodial title is a concept in some systems of property law. It describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any encumbrances, including liens, mortgages and tax obligations. Allodial title is inalienable, in that it cannot be taken by any operation of law for any reason whatsoever.

In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says allodium is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgement to a superior. It is thus opposed to feud.

Allodial titles are known as udal tenure in Orkney and Shetland, the only parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland where they exist.

how good would it be to own a property without anyone being able to tax you or take it away from you

would the UK function if every legally owned their land with Allodial Title OR would this destroy social mobility?

i.e. no death duties for the rich

securing a loan for home improvements would be difficult.

perhaps we should become a republic and give every adult their fair share of land?

Edited by The Atomic Bull

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth do you waste your time with such rubbish? If you really want to believe that the Queen "owns" Australia and Canada in any meaningful way, you are entitled to, but is there any point in wasting others' time with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The land-owning aristocracy has already found ways of avoiding death duties . For example , my landlord is not the titled guy who lives in the local castle . Technically (and legally) my landlord is a trust based in Guernsey , while he and other family members are merely trustees . Similarly , the works of art in the castle are also free from duty as they are available for viewing to the public .

Edited by NSB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why on earth do you waste your time with such rubbish? If you really want to believe that the Queen "owns" Australia and Canada in any meaningful way, you are entitled to, but is there any point in wasting others' time with it?

I was hoping to stimulate debate on how land ownership might be reformed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
how good would it be to own a property without anyone being able to tax you or take it away from you

Allodial ownership is incompatible with non owners having rights and has no moral basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was hoping to stimulate debate on how land ownership might be reformed.

There are some interesting points you raise. I am happy to debtate with you on this and any of my time that is wasted, as others have put it, is my time to waste.

I will start my point by saying, can anyone actually own land ?

Can a flea own the dog's back or an Ant own a garden ? The answer is yes and no.

Yes.

In so much that a person, flea or ant can have use of the land and that it can be bought, sold and traded.

No

You cannot do whatever you like on or with that land. If you wish to build on it, you need planning permission. You must pay ground rent on it and you cannot start digging it up an start mining it for minerals without permission either. If you cannot do these things freely then you do not own the land. Those preventing you from doing this do.

Edited by Rt. Hon. Lord Mandelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You cannot do whatever you like on or with that land. If you wish to build on it, you need planning permission. You must pay ground rent on it and you cannot start digging it up an start mining it for minerals without permission either. If you cannot do these things freely then you do not own the land. Those preventing you from doing this do.

But their ownership is also contingent; for instance, they cannot simply evict you and move in themselves

The various privileges of possession are split between individuals. Land ownership is a political / state construct, it isn't truly a matter of property at all and can't be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But their ownership is also contingent; for instance, they cannot simply evict you and move in themselves

The various privileges of possession are split between individuals. Land ownership is a political / state construct, it isn't truly a matter of property at all and can't be.

A remember a case a few years ago, when a elderly gentleman refused to keep his lawn (kept). His neirbours complained to the borough council and they got a court order, marched onto his land and cut it for him and then proceeded to send him a bill for the services. When he refused to pay the bill he was evicted from his land and the costs were deducted from the sale proceeds before the rest were forwarded to him.

If I desperate to find a link to this story to back it up, if anyone finds it before me, please post the link. Thanks in advance.

Edited by Rt. Hon. Lord Mandelson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A remember a case a few years ago, when a elderly gentleman refused to keep his lawn (kept). His neirbours complained to the borough council and they got a court order, marched onto his land and cut it for him and then proceeded to send him a bill for the services. When he refused to pay the bill he was evicted from his land and the costs were deducted from the sale proceeds before the rest were forwarded to him.

If I desperate to find a link to this story to back it up, if anyone finds it before me, please post the link. Thanks in advance.

Yes but they have to go through a ritual; long grass, bill, non payment etc etc. It simply reinforces the point that land ownership is not about property, but rather state privileges of territorial control.

Land ownership is conflated with property deliberately for political reasons, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but they have to go through a ritual; long grass, bill, non payment etc etc. It simply reinforces the point that land ownership is not about property, but rather state privileges of territorial control.

Land ownership is conflated with property deliberately for political reasons, though.

I agree with you on this. Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great post Atomic Bull. You're not wasting anyones time.

I'm building a record of data I want to include in a little youtube video sometime in the future on housing in the UK. I also think royalty is incompatible with fair land ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the complete lack of action from the monarch on behalf of the people against this despicable government only highlights why we are destined to become a republic.

They are as effective as a catflap in an elephant house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Allodial ownership is incompatible with non owners having rights and has no moral basis.

Can you elaborate on this? What do you mean by a non-owner and how does Allodial title mean they have no rights?

No

You cannot do whatever you like on or with that land. If you wish to build on it, you need planning permission. You must pay ground rent on it and you cannot start digging it up an start mining it for minerals without permission either. If you cannot do these things freely then you do not own the land. Those preventing you from doing this do.

If land is Allodial and you are the outright owner why would you need planning permission? If you got the permission of the neighbors then would that not be enough? I am asking as I know a person who owns Allodial title on some land and is planning on building without planning permission. He seems to kow about the topic and I hope to chat with him to find out more about it myself.

My Uncle was a housing solicitor all his life (he is 83 years old now) and I asked him about Allodial title. He went away and looked it up and said that all land in Scotland is Allodial title now except land owned by the Crown and the Church. The other exception is land that was previously Feuhold, he himself pays Feuduty at a rate of about £30 a month. I am unsure how Feuhold land can be turned into Allodial title but it seems to me that if you want Allodial title to your land then Scotland is the place to get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the complete lack of action from the monarch on behalf of the people against this despicable government only highlights why we are destined to become a republic.

They are as effective as a catflap in an elephant house.

Do you think that a President or a second house of politicians would have done anything? If we were a republic, the President would probably be Tony Blair right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that a President or a second house of politicians would have done anything? If we were a republic, the President would probably be Tony Blair right now.

reminds me of this song

World turned upside down (trad )

extract below

The sin of property

We do disdain

No man has any right to buy and sell

The earth for private gain

By theft and murder

They took the land

Now everywhere the walls

Spring up at their command

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why on earth do you waste your time with such rubbish? If you really want to believe that the Queen "owns" Australia and Canada in any meaningful way, you are entitled to, but is there any point in wasting others' time with it?

The queen figure-head is used to perpetrate acts of state tyranny against free individuals, often laws use the title of the monarch as a prosecuting party which saves 'rupert ******* from snergecorp' or the local authority cronies the bad publicity of prosecuting an individual.

The queen herself and the royal families are not the problem, its the institution of monarchy that allows the monarch to be used as a figurehead with legal status for prosecuting people, whilst giving anonymity to the corporate power structures that are the real driving force behind laws that transfer money from the economically weak to the economically powerful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you question "Her majesty"

You are entitled to your beliefs but you must realize that your beliefs are worthless.

The Queen is a lovely person

Stop asking questions about what "Her majesty" owns, or controls or influences... it is not your place.

This is what the word "Majesty" means

a. The greatness and dignity of a sovereign.

b. The sovereignty and power of God.

c. Supreme authority or power: the majesty of the law.

d. Stately splendor; magnificence, as of style or character: the Parthenon in all its majesty.

That means she is better then you

How Dare You question her you Peasants!!!

you are entitled to your beliefs but kindly keep them to yourselves so that the rest of us "Subjects" do not have to hear them.

By the way way this is the definition of "Subject" as far as it concerns you... learn it and SHUT UP!!!!

1. One who is under the rule of another or others, especially one who owes allegiance to a government or ruler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the complete lack of action from the monarch on behalf of the people against this despicable government only highlights why we are destined to become a republic.

They are as effective as a catflap in an elephant house.

It may be a lack of imagination on my part, but I can't think of any circumstances in which the UK people would have the drive and political will to take responsibility for their own destiny by having a fully elected upper house, and president, and become a republic.

It would be like the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall squared (although I'm aware us becoming a republic is trivial compared to the fall of the Soviet Union in political terms).

Will we ever have our Berlin Wall moment? Ever??

None of the 3 mainstream parties have any real commitment to changing the status quo in any meaningful way, and I sure as hell don't want there to be another catastrophic civil war like Charles I and Olly Cromwell had to effect the change. Like I say, I lack the imagination to see how the UK becoming a republic could ever come about.

I would like my passport to say that I'm a citizen of the UK though, rather than a subject of The Queen. Why would anyone want to be a subject??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think that a President or a second house of politicians would have done anything? If we were a republic, the President would probably be Tony Blair right now.

But at least we would have the option of voting him out after 4 years, unlike being potentially stuck with the same unelected line of aristocrats for 400 years. Not that I think Blair would ever get elected to President in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The queen figure-head is used to perpetrate acts of state tyranny against free individuals, often laws use the title of the monarch as a prosecuting party which saves 'rupert ******* from snergecorp' or the local authority cronies the bad publicity of prosecuting an individual.

The queen herself and the royal families are not the problem, its the institution of monarchy that allows the monarch to be used as a figurehead with legal status for prosecuting people, whilst giving anonymity to the corporate power structures that are the real driving force behind laws that transfer money from the economically weak to the economically powerful.

I agree. There are many sh1ts - politicians, courtiers, banks, moneylenders etc etc. who lurk and HIDE behind the figurehead of the monarch -- and pull the strings in THEIR OWN favour.

Edited by eric pebble

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need to look for rotters too far from Her Maj'. Her husband wants to be reincarnated as a deadly virus and Charlie yearns to return as Camilla's tampon. What a ghastly collection of pantomime characters that family is.

I'd bet a considerable amount that that outfit toast the "little people" at Buck House every Crimbo before falling about in an uproarious guffaw-fest.

But what's really (and I mean really, really) absurd is that the vast majority of subjects would happily risk headbutting the floor to display their obsequious humility if ever introduced to one of them, and those who would bow the deepest are those morons who always point an accusing finger downward at society's poorest for their financial ills rather than above where more and more of the country's wealth is concentrated in the top few percent's hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   288 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.