4 ms·
They only do on a technicality. Canada is huge and only a tiny fraction of it is inhabited. Most of Canada is government owned, which is referred to as "Crown L
by SonicScrub 3y ago
They only do on a technicality. Canada is huge and only a tiny fraction of it is inhabited. Most of Canada is government owned, which is referred to as "Crown Land" (owned by "The Crown", which is the legal entity controlled by the monarch). Note that this land is "owned" by the monarch in the same way the head of state is the monarch. Ceremonially and historically true, but in practice not at all. There are legal restrictions preventing the monarch from using the land in a way that someone who "owns" the land typically would. For instance, they can't sell it, transfer it, and revenue from renting the land (usually for natural resource extraction) goes to the entity administering that land. Which is either the provincial or federal government, who are also responsible for who deciding who gets to use the land in the first place.
So again, technicality true, but if a monarch attempted to actually use the land, they'd be thwarted by the Canadian legal system from actually doing so. In much the same way the Canadian legal system has acted to prevent our "head of state" from acting as one in practice.
- asdff 3y agoCould Canada be used as like a hunting ground or something like from days of yore?
- hammock 3y agoThe Crown land, yes of course. https://www.harvestyourown.ca/start-harvesting/finding-a-place-to-hunt/ https://www.harvestyourown.ca/start-harvesting/finding-a-pla...
- morkalork 3y agoNot just hunting. You can camp / live on it for free as long as you follow some restrictions like moving every X many days. Edit: "The Crown" really is just the state in Canada. When you commit a crime, it's The Crown that prosecutes you. Obviously that's not literally referring to living royalty..
- bombcar 3y agoAnd this is true of most US Government "BLM" land.
- vkou 3y agoYou can camp on crown land. You need a hunting permit to hunt, but that's due to local laws. Local laws, based on public need may also restrict access, or particular uses of parts of crown land. Local legislatures exercise full control over it. It belongs to the king only in name.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- hammock 3y agoIn that sense the situation is not that different from feudal Britain… the king technically owns all the land. He gives title/control of it to the nobility and they in turn, to others. If the king were to ever make alternate use of the land in such a way that would upset enough people, a war or other means of resolution would break out. #politics
- myshpa 3y ago#archaism
- hammock 3y ago#consistency with tens of thousands of years of sociological anthropology, under evolving terms and terminology
- myshpa 3y agotens of thousands of years? ;)
- hammock 3y agoYeah, has been happening since pre-history. Archaeology and other findings confirm this fact
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- myshpa 3y agoI thought that first "monarchies" started ... 3-5k BCE (Pharaohs, maybe Ur/Uruk?). Which ones were here tens of thousands of years ago?
- hammock 3y agoI was referring more generally to systems of managed land use, not monarchies, which I believe have existed as long as agriculture, and probably earlier in areas (territories) where game and forage were scarce