Who are the worlds biggest landowners(madisontrust.com)
madisontrust.com
Who are the worlds biggest landowners
https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/worlds-largest-landowners/
141 comments
It’s all classed as “Crown Land” - “The Crown” being a nebulous occulted entity that ostensibly belongs to the British Royal family, but in reality is a dark and esoteric form of trust run as a private company from the City of London - not part of the UK proper, and a law unto itself within the original Roman square mile of London not conquered by William the Conqueror…ie The King/Queen has to ask for the permission of the Lord Mayor of The City (not Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London) to enter it. It’s like a bit of a cabal that uses smoke and mirrors to hide the nature of its ownership of whole swathes of the Earth, while pretending to act in the name and interests of the British/Soverign. King Charles in reality/personally only owns a few estates like Sandringham in Norfolk and Balmoral in Scotland, as well as the Dutchy of Cornwall now recently passed to Prince William. Hence it’s a little mistaken to label the huge top block listed as belonging to King Charles, it doesn’t at all in actuality, he’s just the front man. The Crown also likely hold ultimate title to all the land listed under the names of all the Australian “landowners” too, when Aboriginal sovereignty was never ceded and is still basically unresolved, because it was taken with extreme force and contract placed on it when it clearly and obviously belonged to the non-contracting people who had been on that land for some 50,000 years.
> The Crown also likely hold ultimate title ...
Some Americans think they don't have to pay income tax because the 16th Amendment (1913) was never properly ratified. Some people think they own a star because they have a certificate that says so. You'll see this kind of analysis in all sort of "secret knowledge" conspiracy-theory-eqsue posts like this. It turns out these hundred-year-old (or much more) technicalities pretty much always handily lose to the modern reality of whatever the people alive today want. Nobody gives a shit if Pope Pius V signed a proclamation in 1571 that gives half of Finland to the Knights Templar, and a group today still claims to be the same Knights Templar, or whatever weird shadow cabals always creep into these discussions. If these "Knights Templar" went to claim Helsinki with that justification, they'd be told to get fucked, and they could do nothing about it. If "The Crown" decided to exercise their rights to this "ultimate title" they hold over all of Australia or whatever, they'd be told to get fucked just the same.
Some Americans think they don't have to pay income tax because the 16th Amendment (1913) was never properly ratified. Some people think they own a star because they have a certificate that says so. You'll see this kind of analysis in all sort of "secret knowledge" conspiracy-theory-eqsue posts like this. It turns out these hundred-year-old (or much more) technicalities pretty much always handily lose to the modern reality of whatever the people alive today want. Nobody gives a shit if Pope Pius V signed a proclamation in 1571 that gives half of Finland to the Knights Templar, and a group today still claims to be the same Knights Templar, or whatever weird shadow cabals always creep into these discussions. If these "Knights Templar" went to claim Helsinki with that justification, they'd be told to get fucked, and they could do nothing about it. If "The Crown" decided to exercise their rights to this "ultimate title" they hold over all of Australia or whatever, they'd be told to get fucked just the same.
Great comment, I think this illustrates a deeper issue- about people misunderstanding what power is and how it works.
Power is a dynamic social thing that involves your ability to influence others behavior. Organizations, laws, governments, titles, positions, even money have no inherent power associated with them, and often reflect vestigial/historical power structures rather than the actual power structures at the present moment.
Power is a dynamic social thing that involves your ability to influence others behavior. Organizations, laws, governments, titles, positions, even money have no inherent power associated with them, and often reflect vestigial/historical power structures rather than the actual power structures at the present moment.
> If "The Crown" decided to exercise their rights to this "ultimate title" they hold over all of Australia or whatever, they'd be told to get fucked just the same.
Sounds to me The Crown holds an NFT to Australia.
Sounds to me The Crown holds an NFT to Australia.
I agree that in most cases things like this is a subject of conspiracy-theory-eqsue speculations. However, while rarely, things happen which make you think that under some circumstances even some fantastic scenarios realize. For instance, most people thought that Australian general-governor is purely decorative position until in 1975 it turned out that its latent power can be seized.
Get the Aussies to tell them to get fucked thinking they own it then. Funny how this doesn’t ever happen.
The Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster are not really land ownership. The Prince of Wales and the Monarch respectively receive the income, which is not nothing, but the land and commercial estates are held in trust, afair.
Yeah but kind of the same thing innit, although the Crown is probably several steps removed higher up the chain. Those Duchys the controller of the trust is certainly the beneficial owner ie The Prince of Wales. God only knows who runs and controls the trusts behind the crown, they’re as good as invisible.
In cases where they technically own this land in foreign countries- if they tried to exercise any property rights at all the "ownership" would immediately be revoked.
Nevertheless they don’t, because they simply don’t have to. You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological tentacles that it can’t be undone. But yeah if parts of it, such as islands in the Caribbean, want to become independent and republics they play along, but deals are still done and control still wielded.
> You’d be dealing with a power of such age and with such overwhelmingly strong and sticky ideological tentacles that it can’t be undone.
I always find silly the amount of ritual and ceremony around Kings, Popes, heads of state, and the like. It's so clearly this big theatrical production to try to convince everyone that these people aren't just frail, mediocre little humans whose backs hurt and whose farts stink. The vast majority of any "power" they have comes from people believing that they have that power, and the theatrics serve that purpose very well -- look at how deeply they've convinced you, for instance. They don't want to be hidden! If some small remnant of these formerly-powerful groups do take to the shadows, their power goes away, because nobody believes that they have it anymore. It'd be like talking about a secret group of celebrities -- it's an oxymoron.
Power does not grow as it ages. Old power is just diluted remnants of wistful theatrics that occasionally shits its pants.
I always find silly the amount of ritual and ceremony around Kings, Popes, heads of state, and the like. It's so clearly this big theatrical production to try to convince everyone that these people aren't just frail, mediocre little humans whose backs hurt and whose farts stink. The vast majority of any "power" they have comes from people believing that they have that power, and the theatrics serve that purpose very well -- look at how deeply they've convinced you, for instance. They don't want to be hidden! If some small remnant of these formerly-powerful groups do take to the shadows, their power goes away, because nobody believes that they have it anymore. It'd be like talking about a secret group of celebrities -- it's an oxymoron.
Power does not grow as it ages. Old power is just diluted remnants of wistful theatrics that occasionally shits its pants.
Yeah but that’s what I’m also getting at. It’s the kind of ritualised control that’s done in a very baroque way and in total plain sight, but nevertheless slips under the radar or virtually everybody, or the confusion around it leads to even articles like the one posted thinking that “King Charles” owns those lands, when in reality it’s a corporation he’s the frontman for, same as he’s the frontman for the British state. Being the frontman for one isn’t identical with being the frontman for the other, yet hardly anyone even notices, including the author of the article.
What I’m saying isn’t even controversial, it’s simple to look up. I’m not some “believer” in a conspiracy. It’s just that how an entity such as “The Crown” wields its power is done in a way that confuses almost everyone, because it’s not really an entity like any other, being some hybrid of government, corporation, trust, club, society, and one whose members all do other things and are embedded in other roles in the state, so it’s both clear and in plain sight while actually being totally weird and hidden. Just go to the Square Mile in London - you’re in London and not, both at the same time, and there’s no passport control, but it’s nevertheless some kind of alternate domain that’s privately, not state, controlled at its fundamental level. It’s not woo woo, it’s just how it operates, and has been doing for about 1000 years.
See also the Dutch East India Company - a private company / entity that acted as if it was a state, because it had the backing of the Dutch state, and why not, it may as well be the state given it’s on the other side of the earth and there’s nobody to stop it acting like one.
What I’m saying isn’t even controversial, it’s simple to look up. I’m not some “believer” in a conspiracy. It’s just that how an entity such as “The Crown” wields its power is done in a way that confuses almost everyone, because it’s not really an entity like any other, being some hybrid of government, corporation, trust, club, society, and one whose members all do other things and are embedded in other roles in the state, so it’s both clear and in plain sight while actually being totally weird and hidden. Just go to the Square Mile in London - you’re in London and not, both at the same time, and there’s no passport control, but it’s nevertheless some kind of alternate domain that’s privately, not state, controlled at its fundamental level. It’s not woo woo, it’s just how it operates, and has been doing for about 1000 years.
See also the Dutch East India Company - a private company / entity that acted as if it was a state, because it had the backing of the Dutch state, and why not, it may as well be the state given it’s on the other side of the earth and there’s nobody to stop it acting like one.
Do they have any power, and if so how? Just because they are complicated and ancient, doesn't mean they wield any power in modern times. I don't really know much about the crown but in my impression the only "power" they've had for a long time was that of well loved celebrities, and even that seems to have evaporated in recent times.
It somewhat seems to me that at some point the power and wealth of the Crown was transferred to various private companies, some of which are still quite wealthy but no longer associated with the Crown.
It somewhat seems to me that at some point the power and wealth of the Crown was transferred to various private companies, some of which are still quite wealthy but no longer associated with the Crown.
Control of the judiciary and their training is a big one. How do you overturn the ideology of justice and power itself? It can’t really be done, because everyone in the system has sworn allegiance not to do so, and they apply cognitive dissonance to the very idea that the root of their authority can be undone. What I’m getting at is that it’s a power so old and embedded in the very fabric of the land it controls that it almost controls thought itself, controls the language and the meaning of language (legalese), prints the money and legitimises its use, allows concepts to become statutes or not. It’s like a web of embedded ideas concerning power and control in the areas where it operates - that’s what The Crown is, essentially, and it uses confusion and divide & rule tactics to hide in plain sight. What I’m saying sounds almost absurd but it’s kind of how it is. You’re dealing with the very idea that a whole territory can be “owned” by writing on dead paper, and everyone embedded in the system agreeing that’s how things are. In the case of Australia, these rules on dead paper were enforced over the living, non-contracting people already there. But the dead paper is backed with guns and extreme force, and makes for a neater world once it’s running.
Brit-ish means “men of the covenant/contract” in Hebrew - the covenant with God to go and conquer the world in His name and enforce it with the same kind of dead-paper laws as found in His book. This trumps living people just “on” the land. And as for the sea…
Brit-ish means “men of the covenant/contract” in Hebrew - the covenant with God to go and conquer the world in His name and enforce it with the same kind of dead-paper laws as found in His book. This trumps living people just “on” the land. And as for the sea…
For example, if you think the Crown still wields real power in Australia, could they today go to some remote Aboriginal community they supposedly "own," and tell those people to clear out so they can build a big resort, and pocket the profits?
If they tried that there would be massive outrage, and immediate action to leave the Commonwealth.
Yet relatively small construction firms pull this sort of thing successfully everyday, all around the world. It would seem to me, those ordinary construction firms each have more real power than the Crown.
Neom in Saudi Arabia is also an example where this was actually done in modern times, showing that The House of Saud wields massive power.
Your assertion seems to be that the Crown is so powerful that they don't need to actually do anything? That sounds like insisting I'm the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don't need to lift anything. Power is fleeting, and rapidly evaporates when it isn't wielded.
If they tried that there would be massive outrage, and immediate action to leave the Commonwealth.
Yet relatively small construction firms pull this sort of thing successfully everyday, all around the world. It would seem to me, those ordinary construction firms each have more real power than the Crown.
Neom in Saudi Arabia is also an example where this was actually done in modern times, showing that The House of Saud wields massive power.
Your assertion seems to be that the Crown is so powerful that they don't need to actually do anything? That sounds like insisting I'm the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don't need to lift anything. Power is fleeting, and rapidly evaporates when it isn't wielded.
It’s not really the style any more to go and bash up aboriginal communities, but it was what was done originally over the whole continent, ie what legitimises Gina owning that giant swathe of land, which was certainly aboriginal territory? The Crown. Call it The State if you like, but as I mentioned, it’s an entity that looks like The State, but in reality is much more nebulous and complex like that. See even the Wikipedia article:
“Legal scholars Maurice Sunkin and Sebastian Payne opined, "the nature of the crown has been taken for granted, in part because it is fundamental and, in part, because many academics have no idea what the term the crown amounts to".[4] Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson theorised that the crown is "an amorphous, abstract concept" and, thus, "impossible to define",[5] while William Wade stated the crown "means simply the Queen".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown
These scholars find it impossible to define because it’s the sort of entity that has set itself up to be impossible to define, even to the best scholars, and everyone invested in the legal system with the ability to try and define it still cannot define it, because to do so would be to talk “externally” to the very system of language and being in which they’re embedded and allowed to comment upon. But in reality, The Crown is much much more akin to a private corporation with private beneficial owners and controllers than it is to a government or state, it’s just now constructed where it looks like the state and can’t actually properly be defined to delineate it from the powers it has and wields through the state.
I’m really not trying to spread confusion or conspiracy, or talk shit, but you almost hit the nail on the head saying “I’m the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don’t even need to list anything” because that’s basically correct as to the level of power and strength you’re dealing with.
“Legal scholars Maurice Sunkin and Sebastian Payne opined, "the nature of the crown has been taken for granted, in part because it is fundamental and, in part, because many academics have no idea what the term the crown amounts to".[4] Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson theorised that the crown is "an amorphous, abstract concept" and, thus, "impossible to define",[5] while William Wade stated the crown "means simply the Queen".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crown
These scholars find it impossible to define because it’s the sort of entity that has set itself up to be impossible to define, even to the best scholars, and everyone invested in the legal system with the ability to try and define it still cannot define it, because to do so would be to talk “externally” to the very system of language and being in which they’re embedded and allowed to comment upon. But in reality, The Crown is much much more akin to a private corporation with private beneficial owners and controllers than it is to a government or state, it’s just now constructed where it looks like the state and can’t actually properly be defined to delineate it from the powers it has and wields through the state.
I’m really not trying to spread confusion or conspiracy, or talk shit, but you almost hit the nail on the head saying “I’m the strongest man in the world, and am so strong I don’t even need to list anything” because that’s basically correct as to the level of power and strength you’re dealing with.
I appreciate that you are discussing this in good faith, and you know a lot about the complexity of the Crown that I don't, but I just don't see it. It seems to me that those examples you are giving are historical examples of power that is now held by a bunch of separate people and organizations with no modern day connections to one another or to the current Crown.
Edit: e.g. for example, what does Gina Rinehart have to do with the Square Mile in London today?
Edit: e.g. for example, what does Gina Rinehart have to do with the Square Mile in London today?
It’s extremely complicated to type out, and it’s late here in the UK. But I’m not saying all this just to blow hot air, it just runs deep.
Quickly though, Gina owns the land because the financial system she uses to get title from the legal system are one and the same. The legal system was implemented in Australia based on that run from London - barristers today still get their authority from the Inns of Court based in the city. So the legal system passes acts on paper saying “this is how you own things” and the state / the crown claimed dominion over the whole continent of Australia, ignoring and negating that there were already people there - the aboriginals were simply outside the system, and also didn’t have guns. So The Crown acts as the legitimising power of the legal system, the financial system, the military, basically the root of everything, that says “if it says on paper that you own it, you own it, and we’ll enforce it and ensure you own it (provided you pay us and we get a cut)” but the very idea that paper title means ownership was a system imposed, and one in this case formed in The City, so the whole system of The Crown is like a web that covers almost everything and one bit of it can’t actually be separated from any other any more. The Crown not only has land claims, it’s the force that legitimises land claims, and although now Australia is a federation that passes its own laws and has its own government, that new state is just so entangled with the old system of doing business that tracking back “all roads lead to Rome” in this case being London. The City of London is part of the corporation that is The Crown, because it itself is a corporation that goes back to time immemorial - before records - and the main mechanism for it doing business and maintaining order is both military power and legislation on paper. So when we talk about The Crown we’re pointing at a system that is a step above even ownership, it’s the system that legitimises and frames the very concept of ownership and then grants the force of law for that ownership to be enforced.
Like I say, it’s too complicated to really type out with my thumbs on my smartphone. It’s deep though, as deep and as baroque as it gets.
Quickly though, Gina owns the land because the financial system she uses to get title from the legal system are one and the same. The legal system was implemented in Australia based on that run from London - barristers today still get their authority from the Inns of Court based in the city. So the legal system passes acts on paper saying “this is how you own things” and the state / the crown claimed dominion over the whole continent of Australia, ignoring and negating that there were already people there - the aboriginals were simply outside the system, and also didn’t have guns. So The Crown acts as the legitimising power of the legal system, the financial system, the military, basically the root of everything, that says “if it says on paper that you own it, you own it, and we’ll enforce it and ensure you own it (provided you pay us and we get a cut)” but the very idea that paper title means ownership was a system imposed, and one in this case formed in The City, so the whole system of The Crown is like a web that covers almost everything and one bit of it can’t actually be separated from any other any more. The Crown not only has land claims, it’s the force that legitimises land claims, and although now Australia is a federation that passes its own laws and has its own government, that new state is just so entangled with the old system of doing business that tracking back “all roads lead to Rome” in this case being London. The City of London is part of the corporation that is The Crown, because it itself is a corporation that goes back to time immemorial - before records - and the main mechanism for it doing business and maintaining order is both military power and legislation on paper. So when we talk about The Crown we’re pointing at a system that is a step above even ownership, it’s the system that legitimises and frames the very concept of ownership and then grants the force of law for that ownership to be enforced.
Like I say, it’s too complicated to really type out with my thumbs on my smartphone. It’s deep though, as deep and as baroque as it gets.
That makes sense, but you and the rest of the people here are talking past each other. You are talking about a social phenomenon with historical roots that affects how power is still distributed today, e.g. like institutional racism or colonialism. Everyone else here thinks you were talking about a small group of specific individuals, e.g. a royal family that definitely doesn't include people like Gina.
It's somewhat baffling to me that this comment is still here and hasn't been flagged to death. Does someone have a citation for the claims made here, or are they as tinfoil hat as they sound?
I can't find anything like this except for on Conspiracy Wiki, which is... not a great source. Every legitimate source I can find describes "crown land" in the non-UK Commonwealth as effectively just being the Commonwealth version of federal land in the US.
(Edit: to clarify, they've mixed in some legitimate truths about some quirky historical artifacts to do with the City of London. I'm objecting to the whole shadowy conspiracy allegations—unless there are some solid citations it doesn't feel appropriate for HN.)
I can't find anything like this except for on Conspiracy Wiki, which is... not a great source. Every legitimate source I can find describes "crown land" in the non-UK Commonwealth as effectively just being the Commonwealth version of federal land in the US.
(Edit: to clarify, they've mixed in some legitimate truths about some quirky historical artifacts to do with the City of London. I'm objecting to the whole shadowy conspiracy allegations—unless there are some solid citations it doesn't feel appropriate for HN.)
Because it’s not a conspiracy, it’s done in plain sight you’ve just never looked it up. Not everything that is deeply hidden ideologically involves tinfoil-hattery.
I've been looking for the last 20 minutes and have found no evidence outside of Conspiracy Wiki.
You have some legitimate truths about the City of London mixed in with a bunch of things that I can find no sources for. I'm not going to engage further with you without sources, I just wanted to flag this (both literally and figuratively) to try to restore some sanity to this discussion.
You have some legitimate truths about the City of London mixed in with a bunch of things that I can find no sources for. I'm not going to engage further with you without sources, I just wanted to flag this (both literally and figuratively) to try to restore some sanity to this discussion.
https://youtube.com/shorts/ngmw4HHdWm0?feature=share Here’s a meme-level bit of it.
You might not be looking in the right places.
You might not be looking in the right places.
That falls in the category of "legitimate truths about the City of London" which you've mingled with blatant conspiracy theories. I want a source for the conspiracy, not for the quirky, vestigial rituals.
Ok I take it all back. It’s just fancy hats and old rituals that are done for fun and don’t mean anything. The Crown just means The Head of State, it’s all just a conspiracy same as the rest.
> It’s like a bit of a cabal that uses smoke and mirrors to hide the nature of its ownership of whole swathes of the Earth, while pretending to act in the name and interests of the British/Soverign.
I want to read a Dan Brown-style thriller about them
I want to read a Dan Brown-style thriller about them
“The Business” by Iain Banks kind of runs with a similar line even though it’s not The Crown per se, more like an old European money power/family, but it would be the thriller you’re looking for.
The Guardian (UK) has published excellent articles about the square mile.
At least with the native tribes in Alaska, many of their land holdings are managed under corporations[1], so I think it's fair to consider it land ownership rather than just "nations", although there are much more restrictions to the shares of these corporations than what is typical. [2]
1 - https://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory/alaska-native-corporat... 2 - https://www.propublica.org/article/what-are-alaska-native-co...
1 - https://www.ncai.org/tribal-directory/alaska-native-corporat... 2 - https://www.propublica.org/article/what-are-alaska-native-co...
American Indians were right... nobody should own the land.
The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people.
Given that most of that list is meat farms, that would be a lot of forests, a lot of carbon storage, and a lot of biodiversity.
The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people.
Given that most of that list is meat farms, that would be a lot of forests, a lot of carbon storage, and a lot of biodiversity.
There's a BBC series where they look at living conditions at different times, but the Tudor England one was most memorable. They didn't come right out and say it but the implication was clear, that by the time of Henry VIII's reign, the Church and the Royal Family each owned about 1/3 of England and the Church controlled more and more land every time someone had a deathbed conversion.
The American version of British History is that Henry broke with the church so he could marry more people and have an heir. I think he knew damn well that the Church was consuming England whole and he may be one of the last monarchs that still had the power to stop it.
The American version of British History is that Henry broke with the church so he could marry more people and have an heir. I think he knew damn well that the Church was consuming England whole and he may be one of the last monarchs that still had the power to stop it.
Both stories can be true at once—it's a matter of record that Henry used his position as head of the church to go through a lot of wives, and that the initial tensions were centered on his rather hasty annulment of his marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he could be legally married to his then-4-months-pregnant mistress. It's also well established that he took back a lot of land from the Church.
History is complicated and events rarely have a singular explanation.
History is complicated and events rarely have a singular explanation.
Few decisions are good for only one reason.
Most of the land described in this chart as belonging to the royal family is actually just Canadian public land, not the actual private estate of the monarch. Which means de facto it already has been returned to the people.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land
>The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people.
It would be impossible to determine the original owners. Every nation and tribe took land from others who took land from others who took land from others, etc. We shouldn't just give land back to the previous owners when they stole it from others.
It would be impossible to determine the original owners. Every nation and tribe took land from others who took land from others who took land from others, etc. We shouldn't just give land back to the previous owners when they stole it from others.
> Every nation and tribe took land from others who took land from others who took land from others, etc.
False.
There are, in fact, actual OG land owners who are first people:
Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416
Note that this is sound genetic evidence that post dates Quadrant literary opinions that waffle on about circulating patterns and waves of takeover.
When the Sahul paleocontinent was first settled by humans they arrived, spread out, and more or less stayed where they stopped moving.
False.
There are, in fact, actual OG land owners who are first people:
Aboriginal mitogenomes reveal 50,000 years of regionalism in Australia
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature21416
Note that this is sound genetic evidence that post dates Quadrant literary opinions that waffle on about circulating patterns and waves of takeover.
When the Sahul paleocontinent was first settled by humans they arrived, spread out, and more or less stayed where they stopped moving.
I don't have access to the paper so I can't read it.
There are a few problems though.
One, we don't know for sure that the aboriginals were the first in Australia. It is possible a tribe made it to Australia and were attacked by the present day aboriginals who came later. Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that?
Second, it seems like you are suggesting that no aboriginal tribe ever attacked another tribe and took their land. That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, because that has never happened anywhere else in the world.
Even if you posted is accurate, which there is no proof of, it would be an exception that proves the rule.
There are a few problems though.
One, we don't know for sure that the aboriginals were the first in Australia. It is possible a tribe made it to Australia and were attacked by the present day aboriginals who came later. Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that?
Second, it seems like you are suggesting that no aboriginal tribe ever attacked another tribe and took their land. That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, because that has never happened anywhere else in the world.
Even if you posted is accurate, which there is no proof of, it would be an exception that proves the rule.
> I don't have access to the paper so I can't read it.
Weird - anyone that routinely reads actual science papers knows how to access them:
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/nature21416
> Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that?
There's an entire body of work on human diaspora from first origins, it's been making great strides in recent decades with DNA comparisons dating movements by degree of change over time - that'd be a good place to start your study.
> because that has never happened anywhere else in the world.
That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, can you back that up?
Good luck in furthering your education and best wishes to you MrShoelaces.
Weird - anyone that routinely reads actual science papers knows how to access them:
https://sci-hub.ru/10.1038/nature21416
> Your paper presumably doesn't disprove that?
There's an entire body of work on human diaspora from first origins, it's been making great strides in recent decades with DNA comparisons dating movements by degree of change over time - that'd be a good place to start your study.
> because that has never happened anywhere else in the world.
That seems like a ridiculous assertion and I need definitive proof, can you back that up?
Good luck in furthering your education and best wishes to you MrShoelaces.
We might be talking past each other. I'm not talking about first origins. I don't care where a tribe originally came from.
I skimmed your paper and don't think it disproved anything I said.
Let's take this simple scenario. There is some uninhabited land. Nobody has ever lived on the land before. A tribe ends up moving to the area. Something happens and the tribe decides to split into two. The land is also split. A short time later (prior to any DNA changes) one tribe attacks the other and takes the other tribe's land.
The idea that DNA can prove that never happened of that is utterly ridiculous. I skimmed through the paper and it didn't suggest that it could. Please point to the page where it says DNA can prove a tribe never attacked another tribe.
I skimmed your paper and don't think it disproved anything I said.
Let's take this simple scenario. There is some uninhabited land. Nobody has ever lived on the land before. A tribe ends up moving to the area. Something happens and the tribe decides to split into two. The land is also split. A short time later (prior to any DNA changes) one tribe attacks the other and takes the other tribe's land.
The idea that DNA can prove that never happened of that is utterly ridiculous. I skimmed through the paper and it didn't suggest that it could. Please point to the page where it says DNA can prove a tribe never attacked another tribe.
> Given that most of that list is meat farms, that would be a lot of forests, a lot of carbon storage, and a lot of biodiversity.
No, most of those farms are in Australia, and they're so big because it's so arid. They're not taking the place of forests.
No, most of those farms are in Australia, and they're so big because it's so arid. They're not taking the place of forests.
>> American Indians were right... nobody should own the land
"There’s a myth that Europeans arrived in the Americas and divided the land up, mystifying Native Americans who had no concept of property rights. In reality, historian Allen Greer writes, various American societies had highly-developed systems of property ownership and use. Meanwhile, European colonists sometimes viewed land as a common resource, not just as individual property."
-- https://daily.jstor.org/yes-americans-owned-land-before-colu...
"There’s a myth that Europeans arrived in the Americas and divided the land up, mystifying Native Americans who had no concept of property rights. In reality, historian Allen Greer writes, various American societies had highly-developed systems of property ownership and use. Meanwhile, European colonists sometimes viewed land as a common resource, not just as individual property."
-- https://daily.jstor.org/yes-americans-owned-land-before-colu...
I should have used "no one", not "nobody".
"Many Indigenous societies practiced communal ownership of land and natural resources. Land was often viewed as a shared and sacred entity that belonged to the entire community or tribe. It was not seen as something that could be privately owned or bought and sold as in Western concepts of land ownership.
While the concept of private ownership was rare, Indigenous groups often had rights to use certain areas for specific purposes, such as hunting, fishing, farming, or gathering. These rights were often based on traditional customs and were respected within the community.
Indigenous peoples generally held deep reverence for the land and nature. They saw themselves as stewards of the environment, with a responsibility to care for the earth and its resources for future generations."
"Many Indigenous societies practiced communal ownership of land and natural resources. Land was often viewed as a shared and sacred entity that belonged to the entire community or tribe. It was not seen as something that could be privately owned or bought and sold as in Western concepts of land ownership.
While the concept of private ownership was rare, Indigenous groups often had rights to use certain areas for specific purposes, such as hunting, fishing, farming, or gathering. These rights were often based on traditional customs and were respected within the community.
Indigenous peoples generally held deep reverence for the land and nature. They saw themselves as stewards of the environment, with a responsibility to care for the earth and its resources for future generations."
[deleted]
With birth everyone should receive a piece of land the size of global land area divided by global population and upon death you return it. And this is of course extremely simplified, we probably still want some public land, and the population changes, and not all land is created equal, ... but you get the idea.
In ancient Israel it was a law that land had to be re-pooled back into its original tribal allocation every 49 years, it was called 'the year of jubilee'. Not sure there's evidence this law was really kept, though it's an interesting idea. Sometimes I wonder how property value (and housing markets) would behave if everyone in the US eventually went back to some 'tribal' allotment every 50 years.
Seems impractical. As an alternative, I'd suggest that land can not ever be "owned". Instead one gets a lease of 99 years - enough for multiple generations of a family, but with a distinct endpoint.
In which way would this be different? Seems to me more like a technicality, whether it should be called ownership even if it does not come with all the rights we usually associate with ownership. When I said returned upon death, you could of course also just pass it to one of your children. What I wrote was purely conceptual, an actual implementation could look very different.
The idea is just that everyone gets to own or lease or whatever you want to call it some land and does not have to buy it from others who have accumulated it over the generations and keept it for themselves. If you want more land than your share, you can get it from someone who doesn't want their entire share, but only until their death when they lose control over that land and therefore can also no longer lease it to you. At which point you have to return it or find someone else who will lease the same amount of land to you.
I guess you could say that my idea is that you get control over a certain area of land during your lifetime but it does not have to be a specific piece of land and you can freely exchange and transfer this control as you like, but not past your lifetime.
The idea is just that everyone gets to own or lease or whatever you want to call it some land and does not have to buy it from others who have accumulated it over the generations and keept it for themselves. If you want more land than your share, you can get it from someone who doesn't want their entire share, but only until their death when they lose control over that land and therefore can also no longer lease it to you. At which point you have to return it or find someone else who will lease the same amount of land to you.
I guess you could say that my idea is that you get control over a certain area of land during your lifetime but it does not have to be a specific piece of land and you can freely exchange and transfer this control as you like, but not past your lifetime.
> Given that most of that list is meat farms
I hope lab-grown meat will lead to our next Renaissance
I hope lab-grown meat will lead to our next Renaissance
Name a piece of land where “the people” who it should be returned to is a single clearly defined entity capable of acting in unison.
Most people live in a society with a functioning government. All land in a country should be owned by that country's government and rented back to people at close to its full unimproved rental value.
Land value tax now. The land belongs to the people and it is utterly immoral to speculate on it.
> American Indians were right... nobody should own the land.
> The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people.
If something is owned by nobody, how can it be "stolen?" If lands were "returned," how can someone who disclaims ownership receive it?
> The British Royal family and the Catholic Church... those lands were stolen and should be returned to the people.
If something is owned by nobody, how can it be "stolen?" If lands were "returned," how can someone who disclaims ownership receive it?
I’m think your first statement should be clarified otherwise it’s an argument for genocide, i.e. nazi gold stolen during holocaust and put into Swiss banks - they killed the owners so is it stolen?
No, it just follows the parent comment's seemingly conflicting assertions "American Indians were right... nobody should own the land" and "lands were stolen and should be returned to the people."
In your hypothetical "nazi gold," the stolen goods were owned by specific people who did not voluntarily repudiate ownership.
Imagine that someone disclaimed ownership of a dollar bill. Another person picked it up and bought a tasty dollar menu item. Would the first person have any claim to the resulting soft-serve ice cream cone? (Postulating a working soft serve machine.)
https://www.eater.com/2020/10/23/21530265/mcdonalds-soft-ser...
In your hypothetical "nazi gold," the stolen goods were owned by specific people who did not voluntarily repudiate ownership.
Imagine that someone disclaimed ownership of a dollar bill. Another person picked it up and bought a tasty dollar menu item. Would the first person have any claim to the resulting soft-serve ice cream cone? (Postulating a working soft serve machine.)
https://www.eater.com/2020/10/23/21530265/mcdonalds-soft-ser...
> American Indians were right... nobody should own the land.
How is this even possible? Even in communism the state owns all the land. Native American tribes also went to war with each other to control different areas. Legally recognized by many or not, some person who group is going to control the land.
How is this even possible? Even in communism the state owns all the land. Native American tribes also went to war with each other to control different areas. Legally recognized by many or not, some person who group is going to control the land.
You are mixing ownership with control. Ownership is a legal construct and therefore only exists within a given political-economic system. Control is a result of natural laws related to the application of force. Governments control their sovereign land and bestow ownership through the rules they have set. They can bestow ownership upon themselves, people, legal entities, or even no one at all.
"Land ownership" or "territory" is a fundamental concept of life - Plants, bacteria, fungi, insects, and animals all establish territories which they defend against competitors which often include conspecifics. Obviously not every single type of critter does this, but many do.
“Land ownership” is a contractual and statutory invention of the human race, and only a recent invention amongst certain parts of our species. No other animal “owns” land or tries to enforce their ownership via the courts or with statutes if that fails. Animals are just ‘on’ the land, and either they’re thriving, being predated, or not. Same as dolphins don’t own the sea they swim around in.
Of course "legal ownership" is by definition statutory, but non-humans territorial behavior is essentially the same as human ownership behavior in the absence of courts: As a few examples of many, a mountain lion resident in an area will fight and attempt to remove other mountain lions that aren't established residents and will also kill coyotes etc.; black walnut trees poison the soil around them to prevent other plants from moving in, etc.
> non-humans territorial behavior is essentially the same as human ownership behavior
Every individual in nature has to find it's own space and protect it, agreed.
But their young don't inherit their claims, as humans do.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-35714
The Wealthy in Florence Today Are the Same Families as 600 Years Ago
Researchers compared data on Florentine taxpayers in 1427 against tax data in 2011 and found about 900 surnames still present in Florence
Every individual in nature has to find it's own space and protect it, agreed.
But their young don't inherit their claims, as humans do.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-REB-35714
The Wealthy in Florence Today Are the Same Families as 600 Years Ago
Researchers compared data on Florentine taxpayers in 1427 against tax data in 2011 and found about 900 surnames still present in Florence
Those organisms don't draw lines on maps and issue passports.
As a US citizen, I found this page (from the same site) more interesting:
https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/who-owns-mos...
(It's the same presentation, scoped to the US)
https://www.madisontrust.com/information-center/who-owns-mos...
(It's the same presentation, scoped to the US)
That page ignores the federal government, which dwarfs any of these landowners by far
It's not in the diagram, but they mention it at the end:
> Who owns the most land in the U.S.? While not private landowners, the U.S. federal government owns about 640 million acres of land, which is 28% of the land in the country.
> Who owns the most land in the U.S.? While not private landowners, the U.S. federal government owns about 640 million acres of land, which is 28% of the land in the country.
Approximately 10% as much as the british royals, apparently.
Considering America started as a much smaller subset of the British commonwealth, I’d say the government is doing pretty well
The number in that chart is misleading, because it counts all public land (both federal and provincial) in Canada. So, yes, there's more public land in the Commonwealth than the United States federal government has, but it's not actually the royal family's.
I could very well be reading this wrong, but it looks like for "only" 15 million you can almost make it into the top 10 with a single purchase of 860,000 acres: https://www.landwatch.com/white-pine-county-nevada-farms-and...
If I only I had an extra $15 million I could spare right now.
Anybody want to get together and purchase 1350 sq. miles of Nevada? (for comparison, about twice the size of Houston). Timeshare? Tech commune? Minerals? (According to this site [1] previous region mining and known minerals are: Au, Ag, Cu, Sb, Be, Coal, Fluorite, Flourspar, Pb, W, Zn; although not much of claims near the actual property.) Low-water surface farming or ranching? Bragging rights?
[1] https://data-ndom.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/criticalminerals
Anybody want to get together and purchase 1350 sq. miles of Nevada? (for comparison, about twice the size of Houston). Timeshare? Tech commune? Minerals? (According to this site [1] previous region mining and known minerals are: Au, Ag, Cu, Sb, Be, Coal, Fluorite, Flourspar, Pb, W, Zn; although not much of claims near the actual property.) Low-water surface farming or ranching? Bragging rights?
[1] https://data-ndom.opendata.arcgis.com/pages/criticalminerals
I recall watching a documentary about the Enron collapse and one of the head finance guys (not the CFO but close) left Enron before the collapse and used their winnings to buy up land in Colorado, to the point that they were the largest private landowner in that state.
A lot of these are for timber. Are they equating logging rights to actual ownership or do these companies actually own the land? Normally I wouldn't ask but judging by the other comments in the thread the data on this site seems to suffer from a sloppy definition of ownership.
The islamic waqf board[0] and the catholic church[1] are the largest non-government landowners in India!
0. https://theprint.in/opinion/waqf-boards-are-indias-big-urban...
1. https://myvoice.opindia.com/2022/06/who-owns-most-of-india/
0. https://theprint.in/opinion/waqf-boards-are-indias-big-urban...
1. https://myvoice.opindia.com/2022/06/who-owns-most-of-india/
They at seems rather useless. It is based on a small number of countries' data, apparently missing for instance Russia and Mongolia.
The list is very much Australian. As someone who has done land leasing for natural resources, you can rack up a pretty huge leasing position pretty quick (I know these people on the infographic own it, but back in the day it was pretty easy to just pay next to nothing for a lot of these parcels - Gina Rinehart has expanded her kingdom, but she inherited an awful lot from Langley). One time, I was looking at something for oil and gas exploration and they came back with a number of $20,000,000 - I was thinking, "Oh, that is going to be something, like, 20,000 acres, probably." They gave me the numbers and I converted it acreage, looked at it on a map and recalc'd a few times because I thought I was way off. Nope. It was just an equivalent acreage as Tennessee, that's all.
One can consider all the land listed in Australia well and truly stolen without recompense from their aboriginal owners.
It sounds like you want to perpetuate the same failed system, someone owns the land exclusively and everyone else is out of luck?
No matter the status or origin of your parents, don't you deserve a share of fertile land (or it's proceeds)?
This has a major impact going forward, some native peoples land are going to not exist due to sea level rises ...
Just for avoidance of doubt, imperialist colonisation is absolutely wrong, IMO. Morally indefensible. But that's not because it infringes property rights; we've got one planet and, intrinsically, none of us have any greater birthright in that planet than any other.
No matter the status or origin of your parents, don't you deserve a share of fertile land (or it's proceeds)?
This has a major impact going forward, some native peoples land are going to not exist due to sea level rises ...
Just for avoidance of doubt, imperialist colonisation is absolutely wrong, IMO. Morally indefensible. But that's not because it infringes property rights; we've got one planet and, intrinsically, none of us have any greater birthright in that planet than any other.
I always forget just how big Australia is but from one British Colony to another, we are 28% ahead of you in the US, and North America is at least 2.6 times worse. And that's not counting the Spanish colony to the south.
Do you mean me? I’m British, so the coloniser not the colony. Have spent a decent amount of time in Australia though, and even have an Australian ex-wife to prove it.
This is interesting to me. You're British "by accident of birth". You, yourself, are no more a coloniser than any native person, surely. I know it's considered a British thing, in jest at least, to assume the guilt of past generations ... but do you really perceive yourself in this way, even a bit?
Personally, I don't think guilt helps us move forward, we need to do what is right now.
Interested in anyone's thoughts here.
Personally, I don't think guilt helps us move forward, we need to do what is right now.
Interested in anyone's thoughts here.
In the Australian Ag. Co. entry, the Joe Lewis they're talking about is the one who owns Tottenham Hotspur FC and has just been indicted for insider trading in the US
Not unexpected for a Spurs fan
[deleted]
If this isn't the "real" list, what's the real list of the world's biggest landowners?
Would it also be more interesting to list by asset value instead of area basis?
I think it's also possible to hold interests and control over assets (land) through companies and trusts without your family's name needing to show up on Top 100 lists. Certainly something I would be interested in doing if I was a billionaire.
If a government is really effectively just a large corporation, are they effectively the real land owners? When you get down to it, what is land ownership besides the right to determine what's done on and with property? And are governments with military and enforcement bodies not the ultimate arbiters of who controls land, where disputes are ultimately resolved in some sort of conflict?
Is land ownership a little bit more of a complicated subject?
Would it also be more interesting to list by asset value instead of area basis?
I think it's also possible to hold interests and control over assets (land) through companies and trusts without your family's name needing to show up on Top 100 lists. Certainly something I would be interested in doing if I was a billionaire.
If a government is really effectively just a large corporation, are they effectively the real land owners? When you get down to it, what is land ownership besides the right to determine what's done on and with property? And are governments with military and enforcement bodies not the ultimate arbiters of who controls land, where disputes are ultimately resolved in some sort of conflict?
Is land ownership a little bit more of a complicated subject?
Reading this, I'd think we get all of our Beef from Australia.
Do Australians really have that many cows?
Or do they just have a fewer large farms, and large farms show up on this list, as opposed to in US that has lot of smaller farms.??
So does US eat more beef, but have smaller farms?
Do Australians really have that many cows?
Or do they just have a fewer large farms, and large farms show up on this list, as opposed to in US that has lot of smaller farms.??
So does US eat more beef, but have smaller farms?
I imagine that a lot of the Australian farms are going to be in the outback, where the quality of the land and feed for the cattle is marginal, and you have to farm extensively (ie. range cows on large tracts of land). They are not going to be irrigating and fertilizing millions of acres, so the feed is going to be relatively poor as compared to lush, green farmland you might be familiar with.
Exactly. There is huge variability in how many cows can be supported by the land. For a deep dive, check out: https://www.farmbrite.com/post/how-many-cows-can-i-keep-per-...
> where the quality of the land and feed for the cattle is marginal
Might be because they deforested those lands and have been grazing those cows there for god knows how long now.
EDIT:
It seems I somehow managed to overlook we're talking about the outback, not the eastern Australia.
https://wwf.org.au/news/2021/australia-remains-the-only-deve...
AUSTRALIA REMAINS THE ONLY DEVELOPED NATION ON THE LIST OF GLOBAL DEFORESTATION FRONTS
In the 13 years from 2004 to 2017, an area of forest six times the size of Tasmania, more than 43 million hectares, was lost in the 24 deforestation fronts.
The report says “cattle ranching” (the destruction of trees to create pasture for cattle) was “by far the most significant driver” of forest loss or degradation in eastern Australia.
Might be because they deforested those lands and have been grazing those cows there for god knows how long now.
EDIT:
It seems I somehow managed to overlook we're talking about the outback, not the eastern Australia.
https://wwf.org.au/news/2021/australia-remains-the-only-deve...
AUSTRALIA REMAINS THE ONLY DEVELOPED NATION ON THE LIST OF GLOBAL DEFORESTATION FRONTS
In the 13 years from 2004 to 2017, an area of forest six times the size of Tasmania, more than 43 million hectares, was lost in the 24 deforestation fronts.
The report says “cattle ranching” (the destruction of trees to create pasture for cattle) was “by far the most significant driver” of forest loss or degradation in eastern Australia.
Contemporary Australia certainly may not have improved things, but most of those lands are and have been arid desert for millennia (in many of them, the only evidence of forestation has been pre Ice Age. It's generally just scrub).
You're right; thank you for reminding me.
However, I believe that Australia could be one of the best places in the world for reforesting those deserts.
The Outback reportedly receives up to 100cm of rain every year already. Reforestation could start at the coasts and then slowly move inland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/20/our-bigg...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB-8-sk1V6s
However, I believe that Australia could be one of the best places in the world for reforesting those deserts.
The Outback reportedly receives up to 100cm of rain every year already. Reforestation could start at the coasts and then slowly move inland.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biotic_pump
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/20/our-bigg...
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-009-9626-y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB-8-sk1V6s
> Do Australians really have that many cows?
Astonishingly, there are more cows than sheep in Australia these days even though the sheep is the iconic fam animal of Australia.
Astonishingly, there are more cows than sheep in Australia these days even though the sheep is the iconic fam animal of Australia.
How does the royal family own more than 90% of Canada? This is insane!
They only do on a technicality. Canada is huge and only a tiny fraction of it is inhabited. Most of Canada is government owned, which is referred to as "Crown Land" (owned by "The Crown", which is the legal entity controlled by the monarch). Note that this land is "owned" by the monarch in the same way the head of state is the monarch. Ceremonially and historically true, but in practice not at all. There are legal restrictions preventing the monarch from using the land in a way that someone who "owns" the land typically would. For instance, they can't sell it, transfer it, and revenue from renting the land (usually for natural resource extraction) goes to the entity administering that land. Which is either the provincial or federal government, who are also responsible for who deciding who gets to use the land in the first place.
So again, technicality true, but if a monarch attempted to actually use the land, they'd be thwarted by the Canadian legal system from actually doing so. In much the same way the Canadian legal system has acted to prevent our "head of state" from acting as one in practice.
So again, technicality true, but if a monarch attempted to actually use the land, they'd be thwarted by the Canadian legal system from actually doing so. In much the same way the Canadian legal system has acted to prevent our "head of state" from acting as one in practice.
In that sense the situation is not that different from feudal Britain… the king technically owns all the land. He gives title/control of it to the nobility and they in turn, to others.
If the king were to ever make alternate use of the land in such a way that would upset enough people, a war or other means of resolution would break out.
#politics
If the king were to ever make alternate use of the land in such a way that would upset enough people, a war or other means of resolution would break out.
#politics
I can't speak for Britain, but in Canada, it's not just that the people would get upset if the monarch decided to use the land differently. They are legally unable to. The courts are not subservient to the monarch, and the monarch is not above the law. Note that there is already legal precedent in Canada for the courts telling the monarch (through their representative, the Governor General) that their power is merely symbolic in nature. Not just a mere cultural norm, but enshrined through legal precedent. Charles can't do whatever he likes with the land without breaking the law.
#archaism
#consistency with tens of thousands of years of sociological anthropology, under evolving terms and terminology
tens of thousands of years? ;)
Yeah, has been happening since pre-history. Archaeology and other findings confirm this fact
I thought that first "monarchies" started ... 3-5k BCE (Pharaohs, maybe Ur/Uruk?).
Which ones were here tens of thousands of years ago?
Which ones were here tens of thousands of years ago?
I was referring more generally to systems of managed land use, not monarchies, which I believe have existed as long as agriculture, and probably earlier in areas (territories) where game and forage were scarce
Oh, that's a much more complicated topic. There were many models of such systems, many of which were communal, without clear leaders or rulers. Agriculture was developing for thousands of years, so it's understandable.
The beginnings of agriculture and civilizations are very interesting, sometimes even surprising, in light of new findings. I'd recommend "The Dawn of Everything"; it delves into these topics in great length.
The beginnings of agriculture and civilizations are very interesting, sometimes even surprising, in light of new findings. I'd recommend "The Dawn of Everything"; it delves into these topics in great length.
[deleted]
Survivorship bias. Most monarchies were abolished, some in rather drastic ways, throughout the early modern and modern era. The UK/Commonwealth is just a lucky exception and now there's no strong impetus to abolish the monarchy that no longer plays a significant role in the day-to-day politics of these nations.
I wouldn’t really say it was lucky - the British fought a civil war to abolish it and once they tried the alternative at the time, a monarchy with reduced power seemed to be a better option than a more presidential system (a Lord Protector) and so it was re-established. The “luck” you talk about is a form of extremely long-term stability in governance that has persevered in Britain despite alternative options, due to the system being somewhat well balanced and evolved over time.
The fact that Britain's foray into republicanism was short-lived was precisely because of luck and pure chance - they ended up with an controversial dictator on the first attempt instead of someone like George Washington. Britain also had the luck of moving away from absolute monarchy much earlier due to the accession of George I who was originally very distant in the line of succession. During his reign the monarch's power was gradually vested onto ministers, of which Robert Walpole is largely agreed to be the first "prime minister" of Britain, a position that is still legally undefined to this day precisely because of how it came to be in the first place.
How was the system George Washington designed any better, and how do the results of it in the present day turn out better than the same "luck"?
Loads of things in the British system are basically undefined but this is as much of a feature as a bug now. It seems to be about as useful as a nailed-down system of constitution that can't ever be changed, because that's just how things were written. The results are about the same so I'm not fully cognisant of what your critique is.
Loads of things in the British system are basically undefined but this is as much of a feature as a bug now. It seems to be about as useful as a nailed-down system of constitution that can't ever be changed, because that's just how things were written. The results are about the same so I'm not fully cognisant of what your critique is.
Because the UK's constitutional monarchy is very much unique in the sense that most aspects of it are undefined by written law. That alone is evidence of survivorship bias. Most other countries with stable political systems today either transitioned to a more organized constitutional monarchy or republic. Without ambiguous Swords of Damocles like the royal prerogative.
Yeah but in comparison the political systems of most other countries are all pretty novel, even experimental, and all somehow unique, even if they're analogous. They're all pretty ad hoc, and most have only existed for a fairly short period compared to the British system. Every country is an evolving landscape politically and legislatively. I also wouldn't say "most" aspects of monarchy aren't covered by written law, perhaps only codified rather than strictly planned but they're not undefined. Plus it's a common law system, and so not really comparable to systems of public law.
Minor, but not insignificant.
This is pure fantasy.
The English monarch was weak the past, and has been weakened further such that today they only remain as a figurehead, and everything they do is dictated to them by the democracies that they are supposedly “ruling”. Those democracies keep the monarch at their whim. (I believe Barbados just removed them, and Australia has been getting closer to doing so.)
“The crown” in those countries that do retain the monarch refers to all of the powers once exercised by a single person, but now exercised by the democratic governments of those places. That there also is physical object called “the crown” that rarely sits on the head of the vestigial monarch is not significant.
The English monarch was weak the past, and has been weakened further such that today they only remain as a figurehead, and everything they do is dictated to them by the democracies that they are supposedly “ruling”. Those democracies keep the monarch at their whim. (I believe Barbados just removed them, and Australia has been getting closer to doing so.)
“The crown” in those countries that do retain the monarch refers to all of the powers once exercised by a single person, but now exercised by the democratic governments of those places. That there also is physical object called “the crown” that rarely sits on the head of the vestigial monarch is not significant.
You’re mistaken. “The Crown” is the legal name of what is a private entity that looks and acts as if it’s a public one. It’s one of the deepest rabbit holes on Earth, and not even a conspiratorial one, just the sort of organisation that takes great pains to hide and occlude what it is. See my post elsewhere on this page.
"The Crown" in Canada refers to the government, which is for all practical purposes is controlled by the various federal and provincial elected bodies. "Crown Land" is land that is technically owned by the sitting monarch, but in all practicalities is owned by the Canadian government, as monarch is legally unable to do anything with the land. All adminstration, sale, land transfers, renting out, and revenue from the land is controlled by the government, not The Crown. The monarch does not meaningfully own Crown Land in any sense, and this is enshrined within Canada's own legal definition of Crown Land.
Could Canada be used as like a hunting ground or something like from days of yore?
Not just hunting. You can camp / live on it for free as long as you follow some restrictions like moving every X many days.
Edit: "The Crown" really is just the state in Canada. When you commit a crime, it's The Crown that prosecutes you. Obviously that's not literally referring to living royalty..
Edit: "The Crown" really is just the state in Canada. When you commit a crime, it's The Crown that prosecutes you. Obviously that's not literally referring to living royalty..
And this is true of most US Government "BLM" land.
You can camp on crown land. You need a hunting permit to hunt, but that's due to local laws. Local laws, based on public need may also restrict access, or particular uses of parts of crown land.
Local legislatures exercise full control over it. It belongs to the king only in name.
Local legislatures exercise full control over it. It belongs to the king only in name.
The Crown land, yes of course. https://www.harvestyourown.ca/start-harvesting/finding-a-pla...
[deleted]
I think this is an artifact of attribution. Something like 90% of Canada's land is owned by the Crown of Canada, which as far as I can tell is public land owned in a technical sense by the British royal family.
In practice it seems to be mostly owned and controlled by provinces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land#Canada
In practice it seems to be mostly owned and controlled by provinces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_land#Canada
The crown is merely a legal concept that due to precedence (since common law countries place so much emphasis on precedence), had to be attached to a natural person who despite holding the title cannot really use its powers as they wish thanks to more precedence that evolved over the history of the UK.
They are probably counting all land owned by the Crowns of various nations of which Charles is King as personal property, which I guess is true in one rather abstract sense but substantively not, as it is the national government that exercises all the powers associated with ownership, not the King in his own person. There is the Crown Estate, in the UK that is essentially (at least, beneficially; not sure how much of it can be alienated even in theory) the personal property of the King, and the Duchy of Lancaster (and, for the Prince of Wales, Cornwall) where the income goes to the Sovereign, but I don’t think there is much, if anything, similar in Canada or other countries of which Charles reigns.
It's silly, just like the "Inuit own nunavut" may be true on a technicality but it's pointless.
The King is our head of state and through the legal concept of the Crown may technically be the "owner" but in fact they're controlled by the elected government. Likewise the nunavut land (which is effectively uninhabitable arctic) would be governed by whatever self government they have, but you might as well say the citizens of the US own all federal land. I thought adding these made the list look silly, they should have stuck with ownership as it's commonly understood. In which case I suppose it would have been just Australian ranchers.
The King is our head of state and through the legal concept of the Crown may technically be the "owner" but in fact they're controlled by the elected government. Likewise the nunavut land (which is effectively uninhabitable arctic) would be governed by whatever self government they have, but you might as well say the citizens of the US own all federal land. I thought adding these made the list look silly, they should have stuck with ownership as it's commonly understood. In which case I suppose it would have been just Australian ranchers.
Crown land in Canada is roughly the same equivalent to federal/public land in the United States. The "crown" is more of a legal concept than a person. Charles just happens to be the one who currently holds based on legal precedence. This does not mean the monarch of Canada (a legally separate entity from the monarch of the UK) can privately dispose the land at their wish, since in a constitutional monarchy they almost always act on advice from (prime) ministers who act as the real heads of governments holding executive power. Most of the land nominally owned by the British royal family around the world are like this, they don't really count towards their net worth since they don't have full control over these lands.
The royal family's real income come from other sources than these nominally held lands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...
The royal family's real income come from other sources than these nominally held lands: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...
Last time I said that to someone they didn’t believe it, but it’s true, yet people are spending 70years mortgage to buy few square feet of property to spend the rest 10y of their lives in.
Disturbing and I feel we can do better. The primacy of the 30-year mortgage as the anchor of professional life & status needs to recede into history.
100% land value tax, distributed evenly to each citizen as a citizen dividend.
Therefore everyone can have an equal amount of land (by value -- land in the middle of a major city is clearly more valuable than land in the middle of nowhere), and the only thing they then need to do is build appropriate shelter.
Therefore everyone can have an equal amount of land (by value -- land in the middle of a major city is clearly more valuable than land in the middle of nowhere), and the only thing they then need to do is build appropriate shelter.
Beyond the cost, what's even more nonsensical about land "ownership" in Canada is the significant lack of freedom and control that comes with it.
This should be clear to anyone who has been involved with, or even just witnessed, expropriation proceedings, for example.
The bureaucracy involved with building or extending common structures on property that one "owns" can be extremely costly, time-consuming, and painful.
Even trimming or removing a tree on said property can involve significant restrictions and bureaucracy in some places.
This should be clear to anyone who has been involved with, or even just witnessed, expropriation proceedings, for example.
The bureaucracy involved with building or extending common structures on property that one "owns" can be extremely costly, time-consuming, and painful.
Even trimming or removing a tree on said property can involve significant restrictions and bureaucracy in some places.
I definitely didn't know that.
Is 90% of Canada more or less valuable than the other 10% of Canada?
My money is on Shaq and The Mountain, they must own some land.
rfwhyte(1)
For example- native tribes should more be thought of as nations than individuals or corporations. Land collectively owned by Inuit people is not a land owner anymore than just listing the size of a large country and calling it a "large land owner." The fact that they are not totally sovereign in the way most nations are is a technicality in this context.
Also, this huge amount of land owned by the British Royal Family seems to be just the combined size of all commonwealth countries? They have no real power or property rights to any of that land. I wonder if they are even counting only public land in those places, or also even considering privately deeded land in commonwealth countries?