During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

Really? Until now,
WHO did u think denied that it was ?



The law in England was that the land belonged to the King
but that he conferred concurrent estates in the land whose owners'
estates were subject to his sovereign and supreme ownership.
Note that qua current American law, the (atavistic???) nomenclature of OWNERSHIP of title
to realty remains intact; e.g. tenants by the entirety, joint tenants, tenants in common.
I believe that when English settlers bawt land from the Indians (e.g., the purchase of Manhattan)
thay sought a quittance of the Indians' claims to the realty in question.
The practice of purchasing quit claim deeds endures; i.e., a quittance
of any proprietary interest of the grantor, not representing that he has any in the property.



Yes. I have also heard that concerning the Indians' notions of property.
( I dunno if that applies to every tribe. )
Please note that I have commented only on title to realty, not to chattel.



More precisely, I mentioned my own ignorance
of anyone having denied that it was the King's property.
(It is theoretically possible that some drunk in a tavern in Belgium
or some Chinese carpenter might have denied it, but this remains beyond my cognizance.)

Please note that in support of the comfort of your posting experience, u have my warm blessing
in your excision of my text (that to which u chose not to reply) from the nested quote.
I believe that is a handy, convenient and helpful way to proceed.
It aids in understanding the subject matter of the conversation
to which u make reference. Bravo, Walter!

Feel free to bold it also, if the spirit moves u!





David

So how were the colonies the King's property?
I don't get that.

The answer to your question is Stephen Hopkins of Providence in 1764.

It seems that David wants to justify the invasion of England by William the Conqueror? All of the King's real estate could be tracked back to the Invader.

The English feudal tenement ("tenant-in-chief" introduced by William, changed in the reign of Edward I of in 1290 to Quia Emptores) ended with the Tenures Abolition Act 1660.

Yes. He was the rightful heir.





David

If not HIS, then whose??????
He owned the whole England + Scotland.
If I remember, Jimmy Stuart was the King of Scotland,
and he inherited England in 1603. That applies also
to English colonies. Of course, his heirs inherited his property.

The individual landowners, same as now.

The King was the Sovereign.
He was not only the King of England.
He used to be the King of America;
i.e., sovereignty reposed in him, until
our forefathers wrenched it away from him.

As a matter of law, thay were tenants of the King b4 1776.





David

What law?

I've searched, but could not find anything that said the King owned all the
land in the colonies. Can you point me in the right direction?

Would this mean the descendants of Harold II could demand the land back
that William stole?

The property law of Scotland and of England.
Title to real estate was as e.g. "joint tenancy" or "tenants in common" etc.
Sovereignty was in the King, not in the citizenry.
Thay were held in subjection.




The King Jimmy Stuart owned the whole Scotland. Then he inherited England
upon the death of the last Tudor in 1603. By what reasoning woud he own
England, but not its colonies ?


I never had occasion to actually use that statute.
It was founded upon a military dictatorship established in 1066,
when he took his rightful real estate. That is not to imply
that the same principle of law did not ante-date 1066.


Anyone can demand anything,
but re-iterating: William was the rightful heir to that real estate.
He was screwn out of his inheritance, b4 he took it by force.

I'll have to take your word for it re the property law of England and
Scotland, although I would like to have a reference.

If this is the property law of England and Scotland, how would it still apply
to the United States as an independent nation?

There's a big difference between reality and tradition. Strictly speaking all land in the UK belongs to the Crown. So if you own a house in theory it is 'held from the Crown,' as opposed to being owned outright.

In practice if the Queen tried to exercise those rights she would be plain old Liz Windsor in a matter of seconds. The only time such powers are used is when the government decides to compulsory purchase something to make room for a new motorway or rail link. Even when that happens they still have to pay a fair price which is usually more than the market value.

It's still illegal for men not to practice archery for an hour on Sunday but nobody pays any attention to that either.

If you look at it that way, Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, "owns" about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.

Is that why she buys 30 million daffodil bulbs every autumn!

This land ain't your land
This land ain't my land
The owner lives
On a distant island

And tulips (the snowdrops are from Harold's period).

No she doesn't. She lives just down the road in Buck House.

There goes the neighborhood.

Actually, she's just now having a mug of tea and a piece of shortbread more up the road, in her Ballater's cottage.