Ancient Law when it suits them

I have read many a thread on common law and peoples rights under common law.

The argument against is that they were not written taking modern society into consideration thats why we have acts.

I could agree with that TILL i read this.

Prince charles has notified villagers that he owns the minerals under their property.

Now imagine if someone said to you, the house you bought, I own the mineral mining rights from the 14th century and unless you seek legal action before Dec 1st then we assume you agree and will get you deeds changed to show this at your expense.

When you bought the property their was nothing in the deeds.

If ancient laws have to be obeyed then ancient rights have to be observed also.

The common law man has just won his case I believe.
www.thisiscornwall.co.uk...

reply to post by pavmas


Prince Charles has not personally written to anyone, nor personally claimed any possession. As with all such utter twaddle, his OFFICE may have done several things, very few of them having had any personal involvement from the man himself. This one particularly, is hardly likely to have even passed beneath his gaze, since he has been busy organizing the restoration and conservation of a stately home in the north for some time, not to mention getting involved with his duties as a grandfather.

In fact, the amount of involvement any of the Royal family have with such matters as those you mention, is entirely minimal.

I think this is probably a lot of hubabaloo over nothing. The crown has owned the rights since 1337 but didnt have to put that fact into property deeds. Now they have to register their ownings.

That doesnt mean there are minerals or oil under their property, and if the crown would want to look they would have to pay the land owner im sure.

When I bought my house the mineral rights belonged to somebody else, sold in the 1800's...it was in the deed though...is that enforceable now? 1337 is a ways back but what is the cutoff? 1400's 15, 16. 1700's?

Not but a few days ago was an excellent thread on how we view the past as almost imaginary yet not too many generations have really passed.

Not saying that would work here in America, we havent been around that long, and dont have crown rules, and all they have to do is reply by 12/03...maybe just send a messenger and hope they dont kill the messenger lol...

Laws change over the years. Things get sorted and re-sorted. Property changes hands. Usually through bloody conflict, but occasionally by peaceful written agreement. Go back far enough into history and I'm pretty sure that my ancestors were at one time bodily owned or under the dominion of a king. I don't think it would fly too well at this point for any heir to a throne to try and claim dominion over me.

pavmas
I have read many a thread on common law and peoples rights under common law.
(I am almost positive that it's the same way across the pond)

The argument against is that they were not written taking modern society into consideration thats why we have acts.

I could agree with that TILL i read this.

Prince charles has notified villagers that he owns the minerals under their property.

Now imagine if someone said to you, the house you bought, I own the mineral mining rights from the 14th century and unless you seek legal action before Dec 1st then we assume you agree and will get you deeds changed to show this at your expense.

When you bought the property their was nothing in the deeds.

If ancient laws have to be obeyed then ancient rights have to be observed also.

The common law man has just won his case I believe.
www.thisiscornwall.co.uk...

Ultimately, the problem rests in the fact that our courts are both courts of equity and courts of common law simultaneously.
(I think that it's the same way across the pond)

The rules of procedure that were formally adopted in 1938 in the US has made the court system a collection of codes that apply to 14th Amendment Citizens only and are now nearly impossible to understand, especially relative to jurisdiction.
That is why the freeman argument even exists.
There is an argument that can be used, but the freeman have it all wrong and I feel bad for anyone that falls for that crap and actually uses it and then goes to jail.

reply to post by tinner07


Thats the whole point' the deeds must state what is included and what is not, since the properties were built this will be in the deeds, some deeds go back to the doomsday book.

Imagine you bought a new car and you went to drive it from the showroom and it would not start, after checking there was no engine in the car.

The salesman says the engine belongs to someone else, you would be more than annoyed.

Now imagine you bought a new car and employed a solicitor to do checks that the engine actually came with car and this was agreed and you had it in writing.

As you drive from the garage you are stopped by someone that says thats my engine the rights were granted to me 600 years ago, agreed to it or you will have to go to court at your own expense.

Prince Charles has millions of £££s all came from the British taxpayer, working people are having to pay legal fees to stop him stealing their property,

Nothing relates to this in any of the property deeds, if its true it has to be in the deeds, if you cant afford to defend yourself then he can steal it.

reply to post by TrueBrit


That is the most pro royalist post I have ever heard.

Prince Charles takes a very active roll in running the Dutchy Of Cornwall, it was less than ten years ago that he was slated for keeping people in slums as he blocked expenditure on vital repairs to property he owns in Cornwall and some of the repairs had notices by the local authoritiy attached.

reply to post by pavmas


He, the Prince was slated, because people have no idea how the estates of the Royal Family are managed, or maintained, because if people did understand that, they would know that it is only on the rarest of occassions where the Prince will personally write a letter, or even send one. His office does a great many things on his behalf, including dealing with the majority of the paperwork, which means that saying categorically that the Prince had anything directly to do with this current issue, and other widely publicised gaffes, is not merely an assumption, but an unreasonable one.

reply to post by TrueBrit


Charles really needs to get a job.

Prince LARDY DA Charles is clearly a tosser.

reply to post by pavmas


He is simply renewing the rights he already had for a long time. The rights date back ages. It's not like he parked a bulldozer in front of the people's homes or anything.

They added: "Due to a change in the law, along with other owners of mineral rights across the country, the Duchy of Cornwall is having to register its mineral rights with HM Land Registry in order to preserve them for the future.
"The Duchy has owned the mineral rights in Stoke Climsland for many centuries. The rights were granted to the Duchy by statue – it is simply a case of the Duchy registering its existing rights."

Read more: www.thisiscornwall.co.uk...
Follow us: @thisiscornwall on Twitter | thisiscornwall on Facebook