"David" wrote in message
...
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"David" wrote Bertiness in message
. ..
In article ews.net,
Doctor Drivel writes

"David" wrote in message
. ..
In article .com,
Aidan writes

Doctor Drivel wrote:

The Crown lands are owned by the state. AIUI, the Queen can take
the
proceeds of that "land". If so, then Orwell is correct. We, the
state,
own
the land below the high tide mark, but it is given to one family.

I think the Crown lands belong to the Queen, not the state. It dates
from the time when the Monarch was the state. I'm really not sure &
I'm
not getting into a row about it.

No, you're wrong the Crown estate is in name only, the Royals receive
no
income from the crown estates, the only bit of land that belongs to
the
Crown is the foreshore and that is just an administrative thing and
does
give it some protection.

Bertie, you are wrong. The Crown Estate does own land, not just the
beach.
It rents land out. Then why is the Queen involved? Maybe there is some
part of the original contract that says if the civil list is dropped the
estate returns to them. The state should sell it all off to owner
occupation only, with clauses that forbid absentee land landlords owning
the
land.

John, try reading and understanding what I wrote, I didn't say that the
Crown Estate doesn't own land,

Bertie, you said "the only bit of land that belongs to the Crown is the
foreshore"


Which isn't the Crown Estates, jeez have we got to go through all of
this word by word, don't be such a dick John, you know better then that

Bertie, you're confused.