Wikipedia

Talk:Crown Estate/Archive 1

< Talk:Crown Estate
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Llywrch in topic About a number
Archive 1

Comments

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is "alienation" the right word for the linked last word in the first sentence of the History section? BenB4 05:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. It is a term often used for the granting away of Crown lands. I can't immediately think of a clearer one, but am all attention if you can. Tim Riley 15:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The annotation for "native mussels and oysters" concerns "crustaceans." Is this a case of incredibly convoluted British terminology, in which rights pertaining to the harvesting of lobsters, crabs and shrimp are titled as oystering rights, or did the author mistakenly type "crustaceans" rather than "molluscs?"Ecohansen (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

revoke?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The latest change is this addition (footnote omitted):

it was not until 1830 that King William IV revoked the income from the crown estates in Scotland.

What does revoked mean here? Income isn't obviously something one can revoke; the nearest thing to a clear meaning that I can find is "William undid a predecessor's grant of the income", but is that what happened? —Tamfang (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Ownership

Latest comment: 8 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion

I couldn't understand anything from the article. Who owns the crown estate? If it's a corporation who owns the corporation?--95.10.149.81 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The Crown Estates do not belong to the monarch they belong to the UK state. I'll edit the article as appropriate Noel darlow (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
The Crown Estate is owned by the Sovereign (constitutionally, the sovereign is the human embodiment of the crown, thus the Sovereign "as such, is regarded as the personification of the state"; what is known as 'state lands' or 'the state' is known as 'crown lands' or 'the crown' in constitutional monarchies such as the UK and other Commonwealth Realms).
  1. "The Sovereign is the legal owner but does not have any powers of management or control" The Crown Estate
  2. "The Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch 'in right of The Crown', that is, it is owned by the monarch for the duration of their reign, by virtue of their accession to the throne" The Crown Estate
  3. "The Crown Estate is the property of the sovereign. But, on accession, every monarch since George III (in 1760) has agreed to surrender the surplus revenues of the Crown Estate to the Exchequer, in return for annual grant support" HM Treasury (Government of the United Kingdom)
  4. "The Crown Estate is the property of the Sovereign “in right of the Crown”."Government of the United Kingdom
  5. "the [Crown] Estate is part of the hereditary possessions of the sovereign; while its income forms part of Her hereditary revenues and is paid direct into the Consolidated Fund”;12 the CEC [Crown Estate Commissioners] explained that they exercise 'the powers of ownership, although we are not owners in our own right.'13 This quote does provide some greater clarity as many of the submissions we received thought the CEC were the owners of the Crown Estate rather than the managers of it." House of Commons Treasury Committee
  6. "in effect Crown Lands are a trust estate, of which the capital belongs to the Sovereign. The income after meeting costs of upkeep has been surrendered to Parliament at the beginning of each reign since that of King George III, in accordance with a Civil List Act.18 and that, in sum, 'the Crown Estate is the Sovereign’s public estate by right of the Crown and when Parliament assumed responsibility for providing funds for the upkeep of the Royal household as well as for the expenses of Government the surrender of the revenue for the lifetime of the Sovereign was regarded as a corollary.'19"House of Commons Treasury Committee
  7. "The Crown Estate is the property of the Sovereign “in right of the Crown”, though its revenue is surrendered to the Exchequer in return for government support. This exchange has been made on the accession of each sovereign since George III in 1760." The Sovereign Grant Act, 2011 (United Kingdom Legislative Law)
  8. "Her Majesty desires that the hereditary revenues of the Crown, for any period for which support is provided to any of Her successors, should be at the dispoal of the House of Commons".Gracious message from the Queen to the House of Commons on the subject of the Sovereign Grant as part of the 2011 Act
So, quite clearly the Crown Estate belongs to the Queen and is her "public estate" which belongs to her by virtue of her inherited position as sovereign of the UK. This differs from her "private/privy" estate which belongs to her by virtue of her personal family inheritance. Both these estates together generate the "hereditary revenues" of the Queen (private family estate and positional estate). Due to the nature of constitutional monarchy in the British sense, the sovereign voluntarily places some of her "hereditary revenues" "at the disposal of the house of commons[1], an arrangement which can be agreed to by future monarchs simply by an order in council UK Parliamentary backgrounder page 4. Thus, the "public estate" that she inherited by virtue of her position as the Crown and the human embodiment of the state is entrusted for management to Her Majesty's Government. Her "personal estate" belongs to Elizabeth II independent of her inherited position of Queen and is thus managed internally.
This is why the Queen's official "expenses [are] met by the government in return for the surrender by the Sovereign of the hereditary revenues of the Crown (mainly the profit from the Crown Estate)."gov.uk Which is to say, all expenditures she makes due to her obligation as Queen are met by her "public estate", and all other expenditures she makes in her personal capacity are made by her "personal estate". As we can see in ref [1] just above, which was prepared for MPs by Parliament, such a surrender of management and profits from her "public estate" still must be made by every incoming sovereign and as such, ownership of the estate continues to be vested in the sovereign, but management and profits have been delegated to Her Majesty's Government. The distinction is that the Crown Estate belongs to the office of the Sovereign (the Crown) but not personally to Elizabeth II as a private individual herself, in the same way as the Catholic Church belongs to the office of the Pope but not personally to the office's holder (corporation sole). This is to ensure that the powers and properties of an office remain with the office, and don't depart with the individual leaving (which prevents the President of the United States leaving office but maintaining ownership of the White House for example), which is to say that the Crown Estate and the Royal Palaces, etc are owned by the Queen of the United Kingdom and not by Elizabeth II herself, so in the hypothetical scenario of an abdication right at this instant, the Crown Estate would immediately and automatically pass to her successor, in this case ownership being immediately vested in her son as King of the UK. trackratte (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
First, thanks for joining the article Talk. We should try to iron out whatever disagreements we have here before deciding what changes ought to be made to the article.
Many of the references which you cite create a misleading impression of the true state of affairs and I think we do mostly agree about that. The Crown Estates do not belong to the monarch in any meaningful sense. The monarch has no power to direct the management of these properties. The monarch does not receive any portion of the income generated by them nor is the monarch responsible for any of their debts. The monarch cannot dispose of Crown Estate properties. It does seem a little absurd to talk about each new monarch giving their consent to manage these properties for the benefit of the state because in practice they would have no ability to withhold permission.
The opening paragraph ought to serve as a quick reference which gives a reasonably clear and simple explanation of the Crown Estate. It may be worth exploring the legal technicalities, traditions and general flummery surrounding the monarch's present-day (non-)involvement but it's too much for the opening paragraph where we need to be reasonably concise. If we are making statements which immediately have to be deconstructed and explained in order to avoid creating a misleading impression for the readership, well, that ought to set off some alarm bells..? Noel darlow (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  1. Noel, your accusation of editwarring is unfounded, as I have undone your wholesale removal of verifiable information once only to continue to add facts and their corresponding sources, and such a procedure is inline with Wikipedia Policy regarding what to do when such a thing occurs. However, your wholesale reversions twice now of verifiable content and its substitution with non-verifiable information, including statements which are simply counterfactual (ie plain wrong) according to the sources you've just removed, is approaching it.
  2. To respond to your first point, the sources cited are from the Crown Estate itself, the House of Commons, the Treasury and the Government of the UK, House of Commons committees, and Buckingham Palace, amongst others. They are the definitive sources for explaining how the Crown Estate functions within the United Kingdom's governing framework. Your unsourced impression of the "true state of affairs" is currently unsourced conjecture based on your own personal opinion. As an aside, when I first encountered this article, it seemed at odds with constitutional law and theory, however I had no opinion oncesover in it. It is only a couple of years later that I've finally had time to do some rudimentary fact checking that I found this article to be lacking in verifiability and presenting information which is actually directly opposite of what the weight of official and verifiable sources state.
  3. To respond to your second point, the statement that "The Crown Estates do not belong to the monarch" is wrong, full stop, and has no basis in current practice or law. The powers to manage the Crown Estate are vested in the sovereign, and the profits from the estate are also vested in the sovereign. This is why Queen's consent was sought and attained placing these hereditary revenues under the management of the House of Commons from the Queen. This is also why the latest Act still requires consent by every incoming monarch to continue the current status of affairs. So yes, under the current arrangement between the sovereign and HM Gov, the monarchy does not manage the Estate, but this does not bind future monarchs (and yes, there would be a large political cost to pay in changing this arrangement, but there is no legal barrier from doing so). Also, your statement that "The monarch does not receive any portion of the income generated" by the estate is also simply false. The sovereign receives a percentage of profits of the Crown Estate under the Sovereign Grant.
  4. To address your third point, I agree the opening paragraph should serve as a quick, verifiable, reference, however at present it fails to do so as it presents a series of unverifiable facts and plain fallacies.
  5. I purposefully did not edit the article in one go, but incrementally over 14 edits so other edits can follow each edit and its reasoning, and collaboratively improve the article. Subsequently, wholesale reversion without any explanation beyond it not suiting an editor's POV is not productive, it is POV. And your accusations that the sources of the Crown Estate, the government of the UK, the treasury, and the House of Commons Finance Committee, etc are misleading is further evidence of your POV pushing in rejecting official, verifiable, and legal sources.
  6. Your wholesale removal of over ten (nearly all) verifiable sources from the article lead, and continued assertion that the Crown Estate is not the property of the sovereign (despite all of the sources clearly stating that "Crown Estate belongs to the reigning monarch") is disruptive. Further, beyond your not liking what the sources say, it is not clear to me what your objection is and what supports such an objection as you have not pointed to a single specific. Instead of knee-jerk removal of facts and their corresponding inline citations which harms Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a reference source, I suggest you work collaboratively for the article's improvement. For example, feel free to copy edit to improve the article's readability. If there is a specific point which you find lacking, or a specific source you find lacking, bring it up here. However, at present, the understanding that the Crown Estate belongs to the sovereign but under current arrangements the revenues from and management of the Estate is left to HM Government is what the sources state, and which you seem to be in overall agreement with. Please feel free to productively add to the article, however wholesale removal of facts and their supporting verifiable sources/inline citations in not acceptable and is not inline with Wikipedia Policy. Regards, trackratte (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please stop edit warring immediately. You know there is disagreement. Discussion now interrupted by NewYear but can resume shortly Noel darlow (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Let me repeat my previous request to stop making controversial edits without FIRST attempting to seek agreement from other editors. I can keep reverting just as often as you try to change it but where does that get us? You have clearly refused to engage with other editors. Your attempts at "discussion" appear to be merely to announce your own opinion prior to making changes without any agreement. That won't do. I insist that you engage in discussion here and that we attempt to reach some kind of agreement FIRST before changing the article. You must be well-aware by now that the formal, technical details which you are so keen to push are not in dispute. Neither is it in dispute that these should be included in the article. The point at issue - which you have refused to discuss in any meaningful way - is the divergence between tradition, ceremony, and technicalities and the practical reality. For example, if Black Rod only knocks twice and gives up, does that mean the Queen's speech will not be heard? Or if the monarch refused to sign consent for a bill, for how much longer would they be allowed to wield this power? I remain to be convinced that you understand the difference between ceremonial symbolism and nuts-and-bolts reality - THAT is what the issue is here. It can only be solved by discussion and not by single-handedly changing an existing version of the article according to your personal beliefs. Noel darlow (talk) 03:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
PS: please bear in mind the following comment, originally posted above, which is based on a much older version of the article and consider that the simplest, clearest way to answer the question might be to explain that the Crown Estate is basically public land owned by the state and not the monarch whose role is essentially symbolic: "I couldn't understand anything from the article. Who owns the crown estate? If it's a corporation who owns the corporation?"Noel darlow (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, according to the Crown Estate Act, 1(2) and (3) state that everything the Commissioners do are on behalf of and in the name of the Queen (they manage the Estate on the Queen's behalf).
1.(1) The Commissioners are charged to manage the estate on behalf of the Crown, not on behalf of themselves or the Government.
2.(1) They make an annual report directly to the Queen every FY.
4.(1) The Commissioners may not dispose of land without the Sovereign's permission.
5.(3) The Commissioners may not sell or exchange lands without the Sovereigns permission.
5.(5) The Commissioners may not sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of any of the Queen's houses without her permission.
Schedules, The Commissioners are appointed by the Sovereign under Royal Warrant.
Thus, the sovereign has given assent to legislation which limits their ability to divest their public lands for personal gain, but still maintain ownership control in that no one can sell, exchange, or lease the sovereign's lands or properties without their personal, written consent. trackratte (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the fundamental misunderstanding here is that the Sovereign of the United Kingdom is a corporation sole. Even though legally speaking, the office holder, the office, and the institution of the Crown are all one and the same (Elizabeth II, the Queen, and the Crown all mean the same thing within constitutional law), there is a conceptual difference. Thus, ownership over a given thing can be by the "Sovereign of the United Kingdom" (the Crown as an institution) or to "Elizabeth II" (a person), which is to say that the Sovereign's "privy estate" belongs to the House of Windsor as a family, and thus Elizabeth II owns this estate completely independently of her office as Queen (if the UK were to suddenly become a republic tomorrow and thus the institution of monarchy completely disappear, ownership of the privy estate would still rest with Elizabeth II). The "Public Estate" however, of which the Crown Estate is a part, belongs to the Sovereign of the United Kingdom as an office, and thus Elizabeth II owns the Estate only by virtue of her office of Queen (if the UK were to become a republic tomorrow and monarchy disappear, the ownership of the Crown Estate would theoretically transition to "the republic" in whatever form it would take).
So, Noel, I believe that when you say that the "Crown Estate is not the property of the monarch" or words to that effect, what you really mean is that the "Crown Estate is not the privy property of Elizabeth II", which conceptually is an entirely different statement.
I've added a blue link to the Corporation Sole article, as understanding this concept is fundamental to understanding the office of the Crown and anything linking to it. I think that once an editor or reader has a basic grasp of this concept, it makes it a great deal easier to understand the underlying legal and political fundamentals at work. So, if you are able to make the distinction between office and office-holder, I think you'll find that what you are saying and what the sources are saying is in fact the same thing, and it is only a question of using the appropriate terms and understanding some of the basic concepts underpinning their use. trackratte (talk) 19:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Just jumping in: it looks like Trackratte is doing a good job in sourcing the claims and they've obviously got the facts right so far. Whilst I do think it's important that we set out the logical progression from Sovereign -> government because that is fundamental to the existence and operation of the Crown Estate, I don't wonder if we might have gone a little too far with the wording in the lead, because even I struggled to understand it at first reading, and it's really a little long for what it should be. I think perhaps we might be focusing a little too much on the Commissioners, who though important are not fundamental to the concept of the CE. I've re-read WP:LEAD and had a go at summarising the current lead - it could be that we might want to move the more detailed parts into the aurticle, bearing in mind that the lead is supposed to summarise rather than go in particular detail?
"In the United Kingdom, the Crown Estate is the land and uother holdings owned by the Sovereign of the United Kingdom and managed for the public benefit by an independent body, the Crown Estate Commissioners.[1][2][3] The majority of the Estate by value is urban land, including a large number of properties in central London, but it also includes 144,000 hectares (356,000 acres) of agricultural land and forest,[4] more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other holdings and rights, for example Ascot Racecourse and Windsor Great Park.
Historically, the revenues generated by the Estate went to the Sovereign, but since 1760 each Sovereign has granted the revenues to the government.[5][6] The Estate is now managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who pay the profits they make to HM Treasury to be used by the government,[7] and although the Commissioners exercise the powers of ownership of the Estate, they are not owners in their own right.[6] The Crown Estate is the Sovereign’s "public" estate, and is not government property nor does it form part of the monarch's "private" estate.[6] However, the Sovereign and their family do own property and other holdings as part of their separate private estates."
What do you think? ninety:one 20:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Please go ahead and do what you think is best. However, just be mindful of not deleting facts or their supporting data, but try and copy edit for increased readability and of course adding references. trackratte (talk) 22:12, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Something like that. Need to distinguish between the pantomime and the reality. Technicalities are important but clarity what we want in opening paragraph.Noel darlow (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The information may be a little excessive for the lede, but here is nothing "controversial" about trackratte's edits. Indeed, a close variation of the opening words were proposed above and you, Noel, didn't object. Yet, there you are reverting back to a wording unlike the proposal, anyway. You also didn't made a single comment here for a full week. You just keep deleting sources. Does that have something to do with your remark above: "Many of the references which you cite create a misleading impression of the true state of affairs." If yes, where's your sources for the "true state of affairs"? Or is that merely your opinion? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 17:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

"You also didn't made a single comment here for a full week." - I suggested to Trackratte that we each take a pause to reconsider our positions. New Year intervened and I'm sure we have all had various social engagements to fulfil. One of mine was a meeting with an individual who has advised Westminster, Holyrood, and Stormont parliaments with whom I was eager to discuss the issues.
"there is nothing controversial about trackratte's edits" - how would you know? First, we need to have a discussion. Until then, you should not attempt to prejudge other editors' concerns. We can decide how to change the article in a way which preserves the article quality AFTER this discussion. Give me an hour and I'll start a new section to focus on this, below. Noel darlow (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
How would I know? By looking at them, of course.
I just said above you had a discussion, someone else made a proposal, and you haven't yet articulated an objection to it; you just reverted the edit that put the essence of the proposal into the lede. If you can't or won't express why the proposal is no good and nobody else reverts the implementation of the proposal and explains their reasoning for doing so here, the discussion can be considered closed. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 22:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Sovereign Grant Bill – Further background information provided to Members of Parliament in advance of the Bill's Second Reading Debate on 14 July 2011" (PDF). Her Majesty's Treasury. July 2011. Retrieved 28 December 2015.
  2. ^ "Who owns The Crown Estate?". The Crown Estate. Retrieved 29 December 2015.
  3. ^ "Sovereign Grant Act,2011: Guidance". Her Majesty's Treasury (gov.uk). 2011. Retrieved 29 December 2015.
  4. ^ http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/about_us.htm
  5. ^ "Gracious Message from the Queen to the House of Commons re: Sovereign Grant" (PDF). Buckingham Palace. 2011. Retrieved 29 December 2015.
  6. ^ a b c The House of Commons Treasury Committee (2010). The management of the Crown Estate (PDF). London: House of Commons. pp. 5–8.
  7. ^ "FAQs". The Crown Estate. Retrieved 31 December 2015. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Ceremony, Tradition, Symbolism & Practical Realities

Latest comment: 8 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

First, can I say that I do not object to the inclusion of any details regarding the legal technicalities or traditions regarding Crown Estate ownership. Recent disagreements may well have the useful result of bolstering this information leading to a better quality article.

However, we must acknowledge that there is a massive amount of confusion regarding the ownership and control of the Crown Estate and that it is our duty as editors to provide the simplest and clearest explanation of the true state of affairs for our readers. This confusion extends into government and even into the palace itself. In June 2015 a palace official made some misleading statements regarding the Queen's income if control of Crown lands in Scotland were devolved to Holyrood, and this was picked up by several newspapers (eg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-politics/11695654/Nicola-Sturgeon-vs-the-Queen-Scottish-SNP-leader-should-end-this-row.html).

The source of this confusion is, to put it bluntly, the difference between reality and pantomime. Despite the impression which may be gleaned by an unthinking consideration of the legal technicalities or ceremonial formalities regarding the Crown Estate, the role of the monarch is entirely symbolic. In a modern country such as the UK the Crown and the state are one and the same. The reigning monarch may be the living embodiment of the Crown but this does not imply any real power or authority. For example, royal assent may be required for an act of parliament but this amounts to no more than exercise in rubber-stamping. A monarch in practice has no power to withhold their assent - if they did the need for royal assent would quickly be removed.

Note that there is a significant political impact if Crown lands are understood as belonging to the state - and therefore are ultimately under the control of the democratically expressed wishes of the British people - as opposed to being understood as some kind of aristocratic entitlement over which the people have no say.

I believe the best way to deal with these issues is to lead with a simple, practical definition similar to the one which currently exists. Later in the article, the technicalities can be explained in detail. In this way we can include all relevant legal & ceremonial detail whilst maintaining a proper sense of perspective as to what these actually mean in practice and thus avoid creating any further confusion. Noel darlow (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

First, it is very difficult to have a discussion on copy editing when you keep engaging in edit warring and removing all of the factual information and supporting inline citations that seven different editors have been adding. All you have done over the past year and a half apparently is simply and automatically revert any addition of verifiable information to the article which was done by these seven editors.
Second, I am still not at all certain what your issue is. You say you agree with all of the facts currently present, and that you would like something "similar to the one which currently exists". However, you also say that there is a great deal of confusion, which as far as I can see the great many reliable sources do a fine job in explaining, quite succinctly, what the current state of affairs are and how they came about. If your only issue is the reliability of the sources themselves, then say so. At present, you seem to be agreeing with the edits being made while at the same time continuing to revert and input unsourced information in its place. Perhaps it would be easiest to start if you leave the current, verifiable version alone, cease removing or reverting verifiable information, cease inserting unsourced information, and instead articulate what exact sentences you dislike, and why. trackratte (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I've actually lost count of the number of times I've asked you to try to resolve our differences in Talk before editing the article. Discussion does not mean that you simply announce your opinion and then edit the article in defiance of other points of view. Please engage with the points raised in a meaningful way or find something more productive to do in your spare time. Noel darlow (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is about the fourth time I've told you that it's not at all clear what our "differences" are, besides your not liking verifiable information and inline citations. You have removed verifiable information and inline citations added by around 7 different editors now, and I'm frankly baffled as to why, as you keep on stating you agree with the facts added and want "something similar", yet continue to edit war and replace sourced information with unverifiable material. trackratte (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Three step process: discussion -> agreement -> edit the article. Presumably you do understand that? Noel darlow (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you're fine with the verified information but not the wording, the solution to any wording problem isn't to replace the verified information with unverified information. Yet, that's exactly what you're doing. What you say here contradicts what you're doing in the article. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 00:56, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
The issue is how to present information about legal technicalities, historical traditions and the role of a largely symbolic monarchy v. the reality of state-owned land which is not in fact owned or controlled by the monarch in any practical sense. It is possible to be technically correct and yet wholly wrong - a result of the distance between the "pantomime" and the reality. Of course the UK is perfectly entitled to maintain whatever traditions it chooses. We're not here to criticise that: but we do need to explain what they actually mean in practice. Information is a vital element of a high-functioning democracy and therefore it's very important to present a clear picture of Crown Estate land ownership & control - both the traditional, technical details AND the practical reality. Noel darlow (talk) 01:49, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
You are still evading the main issue right now; perhaps because you're too engaged in it, ironically. As I just explained above, the presentation of information is a separate matter from the information itself. You are deleting information while saying here you are okay with the information and not discussing how to present the information aside from vague and seemingly personal opinions on pantomime. You certainly haven't produced one reliable source.
If you want to focus on presentation of information, perhaps you'd like to compose a possible lede? Or an opening paragraph, at least? One that doesn't eliminate reliably sourced material. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:20, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Three step process: discussion -> agreement -> edit the article. Do you agree with that? It might be more productive than edit warring. Noel darlow (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you have something else to offer other than red herring? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 03:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Darlow, once again, you miss the point. Also, the only person violating the 3RR rule is you, so perhaps listen to your own advice. trackratte (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
My name isn't "Darlow". You can call me Noel if you like, or Noel Darlow, or Mr Darlow if you prefer. It is with great interest that I note that neither of you are prepared to agree to a discussion process before making controversial changes to the article. As soon as you are willing to meaningfully engage with different opinions, perhaps we will be able to make some progress. Noel darlow (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I just asked you for a proposal for the opening paragraph or the whole lede. Where is it? --₪ MIESIANIACAL 04:27, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. It's getting late but will have that later. Will look forward to hearing your opinion. Noel darlow (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crown Estate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Crown Estate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ireland 1876

In 1876, the Local Government Board for Ireland published a return of landowners of more than one acre in Irish counties, according to which the Commissioners of Woods and Forests owned 2 acres 2 roods in Kildare[a 1] and 25 acres 2 roods 30 perches in Cork,[a 2] while "the Crown" owned 436 acres in Clare[a 3] and 1 acre 3 roods 30 perches in Fermanagh.[a 4]

Refs
  1. ^ LGBI 1876 p.28
  2. ^ LGBI 1876 p.120
  3. ^ LGBI 1876 p.108
  4. ^ LGBI 1876 p.250

About a number

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to my admittedly quick-&-dirty calculations, The Crown Estate owns 3.26% of the land area of the UK. Is this a relevant detail. In any case, would that make the Crown Estates the largest landowner in the UK? (I'd be a little worried if a private individual owned more properties, just MHO.) -- llywrch (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crown_Estate/Archive_1&oldid=1109964744"