From: "Alan Siegrist" <AlanFSiegri..@..mcast.net>
Date: 2010-02-09 09:32:16
Message ID: <1A08008A51494D6E9550180DA920A69B@ALANSHP>
Parent: <E22407CB-2C82-4448-8569-7B7D2EC4094D@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Land ownership in the UK
Date: 2010-02-09 09:32:16
Message ID: <1A08008A51494D6E9550180DA920A69B@ALANSHP>
Parent: <E22407CB-2C82-4448-8569-7B7D2EC4094D@verizon.net>
Subject: RE: Land ownership in the UK
Laurie Berman writes:
> 英国民は土地の保有権 (hold)は持つものの最終処分権は持たない。
>
> Isn't this the same as saying there is no private land ownership in
> the UK?
In a sense, this seems to be true. See:
http://www.wwlia.org/LegalResources/UK/LawArticle-258/History-of-Real-Estate
-Law-The-Old-English-Landholding-System.aspx
(The formatting is weird, so I will quote the interesting bits.)
| Land ownership in ancient England, as with most objects, depended
| primarily on possession. You had it, you owned it. You wanted it, you
| fought for it. You found it, you kept it. There were no courts or police
| force ready to recognize or enforce "legal rights" as we know them today.
|
| All this changed with the conquest of England in 1066 by the Norman
| conquest. William decreed that he owned all of the land in England by
| right of conquest. Not one acre of England was to be exempted from this
| massive expropriation. This sudden vacuum of privately-held land was
| promptly filed by a variety of huge land grants given by the new King to
| either his Norman officers or to those of the English who were ready to
| recognize him as king.
|
| The underlying principle of the system was that nobody owned land but the
| king.
...
| This represents a significant difference between real estate and chattels.
| Chattels can be owned outright. It can also be contrasted with those
| countries that have an allodial system (absolute ownership of land). Even
| today, in those countries that have inherited the tenurial system, all
| land belongs to the Crown; persons only own an estate in the land.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA
> 英国民は土地の保有権 (hold)は持つものの最終処分権は持たない。
>
> Isn't this the same as saying there is no private land ownership in
> the UK?
In a sense, this seems to be true. See:
http://www.wwlia.org/LegalResources/UK/LawArticle-258/History-of-Real-Estate
-Law-The-Old-English-Landholding-System.aspx
(The formatting is weird, so I will quote the interesting bits.)
| Land ownership in ancient England, as with most objects, depended
| primarily on possession. You had it, you owned it. You wanted it, you
| fought for it. You found it, you kept it. There were no courts or police
| force ready to recognize or enforce "legal rights" as we know them today.
|
| All this changed with the conquest of England in 1066 by the Norman
| conquest. William decreed that he owned all of the land in England by
| right of conquest. Not one acre of England was to be exempted from this
| massive expropriation. This sudden vacuum of privately-held land was
| promptly filed by a variety of huge land grants given by the new King to
| either his Norman officers or to those of the English who were ready to
| recognize him as king.
|
| The underlying principle of the system was that nobody owned land but the
| king.
...
| This represents a significant difference between real estate and chattels.
| Chattels can be owned outright. It can also be contrasted with those
| countries that have an allodial system (absolute ownership of land). Even
| today, in those countries that have inherited the tenurial system, all
| land belongs to the Crown; persons only own an estate in the land.
Regards,
Alan Siegrist
Carmel, CA, USA