Humanities desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 13[edit]

Does the Queen own Canada?[edit]

In a recent issue of Fortune magazine, there is an article on a man who owns the most amount of land in the United States. In that article there is this sentence: "The largest landowner in the world is Queen Elizabeth II, because technically she owns places like Australia and Canada". Is this true? Does the Queen own entire countries? (The article is in the October 8 issue, volume 166, No 6. It doesn't seem to be online yet) RudolfRed (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any real way. If she tried to sell it, for example, that wouldn't happen. StuRat (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Land tenure is a relevent article here for the OP to read. --Jayron32 01:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also Fee simple: "In English common law, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land." Not sure how this relates to states of the Crown other than England directly, or even how it relates even practically to England. --Jayron32 01:41, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tenure Abolition Act 1660 discontinued various forms of tenure and after the Law of Property Act 1925, almost all vestiges of this system had been removed. Although there are a few extant property rights relating to the Crown that have been imputed to the doctrine of tenure, e.g.the reversion of land to the state when no owner can be identified, the connection is vague and there are usually other sources to explain them. The main practical impact of tenure has been the development of the doctrine of estates (such as fee simple), a natural consequence of the tenure feudal system in which tenants owned an interest in the land as opposed to owning the land itself which all belonged to the Crown. Ankh.Morpork 19:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A much smaller sub-set of all the land in England is the Crown Estate. It "belongs to" the monarch but is not "the private property of the monarch and cannot be sold by him/her". If she doesn't even own the Crown Estate, there's no way she owns all land in England, let alone elsewhere.

The queen does indeed have personal property that she can sell or bequeath to whomsoever she likes, just like any other person. Such as Balmoral Castle. This has been personally owned by members of the Royal Family since being purchased by Queen Victoria and Prince Albert. I guess the general expectation is that she would keep it in the Family and will it to her heir, Prince Charles, but I don’t think she’s under any legal restriction.

She may also own personal property in Australia, Canada and other places, but as for owning the entire nations, forget it. In some abstruse arcane legal sense the Crown may own all the land, but the Queen is not the Crown. She is the embodiment of the Crown. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone.

Resolved

RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments despite the "resolved" tag: There's more at Crown land, which begins by baldly stating "Crown land is an area belonging to the monarch", but goes on to say it is entailed and cannot be alienated from the monarchy. This makes is sound like the Queen does "technically" own vast amounts of land, but not in the fee simple sense of "own". As for Canada there is Crown land#Canada. This section likewise says that "the Canadian monarch owns all Crown Land in the country", but not in the normal sense of "owns". Since 89% of Canada is Crown Land you could say that the Queen owns 8,886,356 km² of land in Canada alone, if you're willing to stretch the normal sense of the word "own". Still, the statements in the Crown land article are pretty clear in saying that the monarch—the Queen—"owns" all the Crown Land; that the Crown Land "belongs" to "the monarch". The OP's quote reads "The largest landowner in the world is Queen Elizabeth II, because technically she owns places like Australia and Canada". One may say "yes but not really", but then the quote does say "technically", which implies "not really but yes". No? Pfly (talk) 05:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, the opening sentence of Crown land is inaccurate in equating the Crown with the monarch. From The Crown:

"The Crown is a corporation sole that in the Commonwealth realms and any provincial or state sub-divisions thereof represents the legal embodiment of governance, whether executive, legislative, or judicial. It evolved first in the United Kingdom as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch, a concept which then spread via British colonisation and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms." (my highlighting).

This supports what I said above: Crown land is owned by the Crown, not by the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:24, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, maybe the Crown land page ought to be copyedited and improved.... Pfly (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be my strong suggestion. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The US equivalent of Canada's Crown land is Federal lands - which is not the personal property of Barack Obama, but the land is under the control of various departments and agencies which are ultimately the responsibility of the president. Roger (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen and other Royals also own several properties in the United States and have a few "ventures" here as well.Marketdiamond (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, [1] which reads:

'"Crown" means Her Majesty the Queen in right of the province; (« Couronne »)

"Crown lands" includes land, whether within or without the province, vested in the Crown, and includes "provincial lands" wherever that expression is used in an Act of the Legislature; (« terres domaniales »)'

I would say the distinction to be made is that she does not own it as personal property but she does own it in the sense of it being hers while under the constraints of the constitution and other legislation. In a similar fashion she is the head of state, i.e, she is the head of state as proscribed by the relevant legislation, i.e, de jure but not de facto. So she does not own the land at all in the sense that John Malone or Ted Turnerown their land. First of all, they are not even in the same jurisdictions, so they are not entitled according to the same legislation or policies, but they are not even entitled according to analogous legislation or rights. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There must be some standard for ownership that applies to entailed land, which is clearer. For example, if the Queen decides that she doesn't like cigarette smoking, what lands can she ban people from doing it on as a condition of their visit, rent, or conduct as a customer? Wnt(talk) 19:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Balmoral Castle, for one. Assuming the law permits private land owners to ban smoking on their land - and I'm not sure that it does - she could ban smoking there, because she owns it personally. WHAAOE, but I don't know whether we have a list of all land and other property personally owned by the Queen. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk]21:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She could, but I doubt she'd be so crass as to make it By Order of Her Majesty The Queen. Word would trickle down backstairs and it would be done administratively at some level. If I recall correctly, Balmoral was one of the things that had to be purchased from the former Edward VIII, Sandringham as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's right. The Duke of Windsor had never shown much interest in them as king, and was apparently happy to sell them to his brother George VI. But he could have held on to them and bequeathed them to the Duchess of Windsor, who could have bequeathed them on her death to her French nurse, housekeeper and gardener. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People on the image[edit]

As seen on the picture, there's several soldiers/men-at-arms etc wearing these curious coat-of-arms i havn't found anywhere(!)

1)Are the persons all (or atleast some) known by name, where they came from, like "duchy of Burgundy" etc or is it jus an image of a completely or partly fictional ppl/coat of arms?

2) If they are known, any idea where those black/white & black/yellow "rampart lion" coat of arms and the Red/white fleur-de-lis coat of arms are from?

Im guessing the White/Black coat of arm is from somewhere in Duchy of Brabant or Duchy of Jülich, but that's just a guessimate.

allsow, why isn't this feference-desk page archived more often? It's huge and laggs allot :(

--Byzantios (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the Battle of Worringen article? The infobox lists the belligerents and shows the coat of arms for each of them. (Regarding archiving, the system is broken at the moment, but people are working on it.) Looie496 (talk) 03:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(thru ec) See for a suggestion of where the red/silver and gold/black lions rampants might come from (John I, Duke of Brabant) - Nunh-huh 03:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what's with that border on the 2nd illustration ? It looks like it was colored by a kindergartner having trouble staying inside the lines. Is this another case of an incompetent art restorer ? StuRat (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

I wouldn't expect to recognize all the arms in such a scene; the armigers are likely to include dukes and obscure knights.—Tamfang (talk) 05:35, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The participants and their coats of arms are identified in Werner Schäfke (ed.): "Der Name der Freiheit 1288-1988", Cologne 1988. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 11:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in my new article de:Brabantsche Yeesten which calls the images realistic and links to the complete manuscript online and in the fact that in John I, Duke of Brabant the image shown is not that of Duke John but of the mythical king Gambrinus, inventor of beer brewing. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duchy of Cornwall and changes to the British succession law[edit]

What will happen to the Duchy of Cornwall if male-preferance primogeniture is replaced with absolute primogeniture? Per Edward III's royal charter of 1421, which created the duchy, it can only pass to the Sovereign's eldest son. What if the succession law is changed? What if William has a daughter first and then a son? The daughter cannot possibly be Duchess of Cornwall, as the title is not conferred to the heir apparent, but strictly to the eldest son. Would the royal family then consist of "HM The King, HM The Queen, HRH The Princess of Wales and HRH The Duke of Cornwall"? If so, what would happen when that Princess of Wales ascends the throne and has a son of her own while her brother is still alive? This is intriguing because the duchy is not merely a title, but also a significant source of the heir apparent's income. Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's only because the monarch's eldest son, if a son exists, and the heir apparent have always been one and the same person. The whole point of the proposed change is to no longer have that automatic linkage. There's no reason why the eldest son couldn't still become the Duke of Cornwall, regardless of whether he's also the heir apparent. Is there? Or, the Queen could issue new Letters Patent in respect of the Duchy of Cornwall. There'll need to be a very large amount of paperwork to put this conceptually very simple change into effect, because it's these sorts of ramifications that will be the really tricky bits. That's why they're taking their time to consider all these issues in great detail before rushing in.

I think you're assuming a lot when you refer to the eldest-born daughter as the Princess of Wales. True, the title Prince of Wales is only bestowed on the heir apparent, that is, someone who cannot be displaced in the line of succession by any later births; and after the proposed changes go through, an eldest-born daughter will be the heiress apparent, not merely heiress presumptive. But the title has only ever been given to males, and their wives are called Princess of Wales. There have been no announcements about how this aspect of the set-up will be organised in future.

On your last point: The Queen was never Princess of Wales or Duchess of Cornwall, but she seems to be getting on ok finacially. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, we already have the answer. From our Duchy of Cornwall article, If the monarch has no son, the estates of the duchy are held by the crown, and there is no duke and Since the passing into law of the Sovereign Grant Act 2011, revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall will pass to the heir to the throne, regardless of whether that heir is the Duke of Cornwall. In the event that the heir is a minor, 10% of the revenues will pass to the heir, with the balance passing to the Crown. To me, this seems to cover the eventualities you're asking about. If Wills has a daughter whilst the Queen is still on the throne, on William's accession the daughter will NOT become Duchess (or, indeed, Duke) of Cornwall, but she WILL get the benefit of the estate. The duchy itself will be vested in the Crown. Once a further male heir apparent to the throne is available, he will get both the title and the money. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JackofoZ, the eldest son and the heir apparent have not always been the same person. King George III was Prince of Wales prior to his accession but never Duke of Cornwall because he was heir apparent to his grandfather, King George II, his father Frederick having predeceased George II. There is a reason why the eldest son couldn't still become Duke of Cornwall if his older sister is heiress apparent - if she were to succeed to the throne during his lifetime, as would be expected, her son would have to become Duke of Cornwall according to the charter, but two people cannot possibly hold the same title at the same time and enjoy the duchy's revenues. Furthermore, I am not sure letters patent could amend the charter; is it possible? I also believe that you underestimate the importance of the Duchy of Cornwall, ignoring both its financial ([2],[3]) and political significance. For example, the Duke of Cornwall has a right to veto government bills (as Charles himself has done 12 times). Surtsicna (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "it's these sorts of ramifications that will be the really tricky bits". :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:21, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently. It's just that I don't see how exactly they'll sort this out. Surtsicna (talk) 11:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"New Zealand will chair a working group to consider the best way of accomplishing this reform in all the countries concerned. In the United Kingdom, the government is examining what legislation needs to be amended."

That last sentence encompasses this issue and, I'm sure, many others. We could speculate all day about what they might do to resolve the issue; but what they actually decide to do is all that matters, and nobody knows that yet. We may be pleasantly surprised by their creativity. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cucumber Mike, that's an interesting observation. However, the charter does not say that the duchy is held by the "eldest son who is also heir apparent". It only says that it's held by the eldest son. Some evidence suggests that James Francis Edward Stuart remained Duke of Cornwall after ceasing to be heir apparent; his half-sister Anne was heiress apparent between 1694 (death of her sister Mary II) and 1702 (death of her brother-in-law William III), the same year James finally lost the duchy having been attainted. That's according to our article Duke of Cornwall and some sources I came cross after a quick search (e.g. [4]).Surtsicna (talk) 11:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you're saying that if the heir apparent was a girl with a younger brother, the brother would be Duke? Yes, I can see how that would work. Note, though, that it would be the heir apparent who would be getting the money, as per the Succession Act referred to above. I would strongly suspect that, were this actually to come about, some piece of legislation would be drawn up sharpish to remove the anomaly. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too can see how that would work until that girl ascends the throne. On her accession, her own eldest son (if any) would have to become Duke of Cornwall though her brother, already Duke of Cornwall, is still alive. Two persons cannot hold the same title and enjoy all its privileges. What occured to me is that the brother would cease being Duke of Cornwall, now being brother of the Sovereign rather than eldest son, but there's an unofficial rule that says that individuals cannot lose their title due to something that isn't their own fault (i.e. they can normally lose the title only if they get attainted). That's why heirs presumptive are not created Princes of Wales; that's why the eldest daughter of the Sovereign is not created Princess Royal if her aunt already holds the title (e.g. Princess Anne and Mary, Countess of Harewood), etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No-one's mentioned WP:WHAAOE: 2011 proposals to change the rules of royal succession in the Commonwealth realms. Ghmyrtle(talk) 12:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to mention this issue. Surtsicna (talk) 13:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite possibly because no-one but a Wikipedia editor would have thought of it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If only people would listen to us! Perhaps WP:OR should be amended... Surtsicna (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very simple question to answer. What will happen is whatever it says will happen in whatever new law changes the order of succession (and any associated letters patent which may be issued at the same time to tidy up the details). The reference desk's repeated requisitions for a new crystal ball have all been refused, however, so we have no way to know what that will be. --Tango (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete information[edit]

This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

Tells us nothing about currency. When did this actually occur?... between xx/xx/xx and xx/xx/xx or from xx/xx/xx or ???

You cannot combine this type of information and expect it to have meaning. What you have done is similar to telling me how many Bronze, Silver and Gold Olympic Medals have been won by a particular country without the years or span of years in which they were won.

How about completing the information ?

Regards,

Connolly — Preceding unsigned comment added by78.121.151.38 (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you have suggestions for improving an article, you can raise it on the article's talk page. Or you can be bold and start working on it. RudolfRed (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, as you may already know we are all, like you -- unpaid volunteers -- and although the article is much more interactive and descriptive than other unnamed online encyclopedias because of the uniqueness of allowing all to edit it also empowers us all, including you and me to encyclopedically improve wikiarticles! If you have information you feel is important but are not comfortable with how to format it into a Wikipedia article you can always seek assistance at the Village Pump for technical help, or WP:HELPDESK, happy editing! Marketdiamond (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]