Ground Rent to the Queen

paranoid pete

I was talking to a guy at work the other day. He considers himself a bit of a history buff. According to him, in some parts of Ireland we're still paying ground rent to the Queen. This isn't the first time I've heard this been mentioned but I don't know what he was referring to.

Anyone know where this rumour stems from?

Manach

Offhand that would be unlikely. AFAIR various governments have introduced various acts to make it very difficult to keep collecting ground rents, irrespective of who owned the land.

Tramps Like Us

AFAIK it's true, or it least it was for a long time and it included a number of govt buildings.

A lot of ground rent (often very small sums) still goes to old english landlord families. Most dont bother doing anything aside from a few solicitors letters (in my case) if you refuse to pay it

ballsymchugh

Leinster House is one of those places paying ground rent!

Tramps Like Us

http://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/6197

Tramps Like Us

ballsymchugh wrote: »

Leinster House is one of those places paying ground rent!

It used to be until the seventies afaik when the govt bought it out

touts

Isn't Mallow still owned by some English Landlord. I remember a friend of mine from there telling me how every so often he gets a letter demanding payment of rent. It's some tiny fee but he just ignores the letter.

gobnaitolunacy

I did hear something one time about the Bingham family (of Lord Lucan infamy) looking for rent, they didn't get any afaik.

On the other hand, the uk taxpayer subsidises Irish lighthouses...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/diplomatic-storm-brewing-with-uk-over-cash-for-lighthouses-26688557.html

pedroeibar1

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

I did hear something one time about the Bingham family (of Lord Lucan infamy) looking for rent, they didn't get any afaik.

On the other hand, the uk taxpayer subsidises Irish lighthouses...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/diplomatic-storm-brewing-with-uk-over-cash-for-lighthouses-26688557.html

Paying ground rent is a basic for any leasehold property owner. It is far more sensible to ‘buy it out’ rather than not pay it, as it will have to be paid on sale of the property. See here . AFAIK know one of the biggest landlords in Ireland is Trinity College, as large amounts of ‘ground’ went to them at the dissolution of the monasteries. Part of my house is freehold, a small extension built before 1900 extended onto a piece of land owned by TCD it it had a ground rent of I think £4. p.a. on a leasehold of 999 years.
Many holders of ground rents are Irish. Some people who do not know the history of ground rent spout quasi-patriotic nonsense about ‘foreign landlords’ rather that read up its history. If for example you buy a property that has a telephone mast on it you expect to continue to receive the rental income paid by the mast owner. Ground rent is the same. In Scotland the holder of the ground rent rights is called by the great title ‘Lord of Erection’.

The work of and changes to the lighthouse authority (Commissioners of Irish Lights) is probably worth a thread in its own right (Maritime board?) as it is a very complex issue, as ships pass by/through Irish waters to UK ports so Ireland cannot obtain harbour dues. I know that costs have been axed, large numbers of redundancies etc and AFAIK the govt here has said it must be self funding by I think the end of next year.

kooga

touts wrote: »

Isn't Mallow still owned by some English Landlord. I remember a friend of mine from there telling me how every so often he gets a letter demanding payment of rent. It's some tiny fee but he just ignores the letter.

in mallow the town park is owned by an english landlord and a few properties on bridge street.

If i am correct most of lismore village pays ground rent

Tabnabs

gobnaitolunacy wrote: »

On the other hand, the uk taxpayer subsidises Irish lighthouses...
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/diplomatic-storm-brewing-with-uk-over-cash-for-lighthouses-26688557.html

O/T but that agreement stops in 2015. Dublin is also the base for all 32 counties. Long before power sharing was in vogue, CIL were quietly tipping away at keeping the coast safe on this island.

Fratton Fred

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

AFAIK it's true, or it least it was for a long time and it included a number of govt buildings.

A lot of ground rent (often very small sums) still goes to old english landlord families. Most dont bother doing anything aside from a few solicitors letters (in my case) if you refuse to pay it

The op's question was does any ground rent in Ireland go to queen Elizabeth. Have you anything to back up your opinion that it's true? You only have evidence that you pay to an English family and the article you posted, apart from being nationalistic in the extreme, makes no mention of rent being paid to Liz.

Whilst buildings like Leinster house may have paid rent, I doubt if it is to the Queen. I would be very surprised if the building or land was ever owned by the crown in the first place.

Tabnabs

Lough Foyle & Carlingford Lough are claimed by the Crown Estate which raises interesting problems on their Irish side

http://www.craicon.com/do-the-britsih-crown-estates-own-lough-foyle-up-to-the-high-tide-line/

and

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?action=view&id=15347

Fratton Fred

Tabnabs wrote: »

Lough Foyle & Carlingford Lough are claimed by the Crown Estate which raises interesting problems on their Irish side

http://www.craicon.com/do-the-britsih-crown-estates-own-lough-foyle-up-to-the-high-tide-line/

and

http://www.friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/paperstoday/index.php?action=view&id=15347

The crown estate isn't the Queen though. Any profit it makes goes in to the UK treasury.

In theory, it is owned by the monarch, but it is managed on their behalf by the government, who in return provide an allowance (the civil list) to the monarchy.

Hownowcow

Certainly a number of Anglo Irish families would hold ground rents in Ireland, as do individuals and institutions. However as far as I am aware property belonging to the crown is held by the Crown Estate, it is not the private property of the reigning monarch. I think that I read somewhere that all of the Crown Estate's Irish property was transferred to the Irish Government in the early years of the Free State.

I have seen a number of deeds where the time limit for the duration of the terms of the deed is given as the date of death of the last descendant of a named monarch. I think this is done in order to avoid breeching the rule against perpetuities. Perhaps seeing the name of a monarch on a deed gave rise to the idea that the monarch had an interest in the property.

Tramps Like Us

To the crown estate or to the queen - either way its going to someone/group which should have no right to it

Fratton Fred

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

To the crown estate or to the queen - either way its going to someone/group which should have no right to it

As the previous poster pointed out, all crown estate land was transferred to the Irish government in the 1920s. Most of this was foreshore land.

Tramps Like Us

Fratton Fred wrote: »

As the previous poster pointed out, all crown estate land was transferred to the Irish government in the 1920s. Most of this was foreshore land.

Thats not the case - then again we dont all have partitionist mindsets. What about carlingford lough?

Crown estate refuses to tell us how much money they are nicking out of the local economy and from various windfarms and tidal energy projects.

Regardless the very notion of groundrents, often perpetual is ridiculous and are most often the product of outright theft. You can't set up groundrents anymore, they were banned.

pedroeibar1

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Thats not the case - then again we dont all have partitionist mindsets. What about carlingford lough?

Crown estate refuses to tell us how much money they are nicking out of the local economy and from various windfarms and tidal energy projects.

Regardless the very notion of groundrents, often perpetual is ridiculous and are most often the product of outright theft. You can't set up groundrents anymore, they were banned.

That is inaccurate and ill-informed, has little to do with history and is more suited to politics. Society has developed a set of laws that include 'property rights'. If you have title to a property (and that title is good) you have the right to hold it or transfer it if you want to (and in all but a very few special instances nobody can force you to sell.) With ground rent the various Land Acts compel the owner of a gound rent to sell to a leaseholder. If you want a history debate go read up on the topic, otherwise it is a 'politics' argument.

Tramps Like Us

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That is inaccurate and ill-informed, has little to do with history and is more suited to politics. Society has developed a set of laws that include 'property rights'. If you have title to a property (and that title is good) you have the right to hold it or transfer it if you want to (and in all but a very few special instances nobody can force you to sell.) With ground rent the various Land Acts compel the owner of a gound rent to sell to a leaseholder. If you want a history debate go read up on the topic, otherwise it is a 'politics' argument.

Not Irish society.

pedroeibar1

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Not Irish society.

:rolleyes::rolleyes: You might like to read Article 43 of the Constitution .....

Fratton Fred

Tramps Like Us wrote: »

Thats not the case - then again we dont all have partitionist mindsets. What about carlingford lough?

Crown estate refuses to tell us how much money they are nicking out of the local economy and from various windfarms and tidal energy projects.

Regardless the very notion of groundrents, often perpetual is ridiculous and are most often the product of outright theft. You can't set up groundrents anymore, they were banned.

Why.is it not the case?

A nation's territorial waters extend 12nm off the coast, or midway to a neighbouring country's coast. The crown estates.manage this on behalf of the government.

Tabnabs

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Why.is it not the case?

A nation's territorial waters extend 12nm off the coast, or midway to a neighbouring country's coast. The crown estates.manage this on behalf of the government.

Because in Carlingford and L. Foyle, the lack of an agreed border means the Crown Estate can dictate what happens in the "Irish half".

Fratton Fred

Tabnabs wrote: »

Because in Carlingford and L. Foyle, the lack of an agreed border means the Crown Estate can dictate what happens in the "Irish half".

A simple Google throws up www.loughs-agency.org so that minor issue looks to be at least managed, if not resolved.

I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic of the thread though.

Tabnabs

I refer you to my link above from April 2013. This is not covered under the loughs agency and Crown Estate ownership of the "Irish half" has blocked development.

There is also the question of who received any money for any agreed developments on the Irish side? Does it still go to the Crown Estate?

Jawgap

the problem with the shared loughs is that the border wasn't defined. Common sense would say it goes down the middle but you could make argument for saying it runs along the high (or low) water mark either on the 'north' shore (making all the waters in the Republic) or south shore (putting all the water in the UK).

I seem to remember that the Naval Service would occasionally send a ship in to do a couple of laps in order to assert Irish sovereignty over the waters, then the RN would do likewise - and there was a gentleman's agreement in place not to do it on the same day!

On the subject of payment / non-payment of ground rent. It's an anachronism that should be done away with - it really only causes hassle when you are selling a property. Best advice is probably to buy it out and have done with it.

Tabnabs

Jawgap wrote: »

I seem to remember that the Naval Service would occasionally send a ship in to do a couple of laps in order to assert Irish sovereignty over the waters, then the RN would do likewise - and there was a gentleman's agreement in place not to do it on the same day!

I know of one ex Irish Navy rating who told me about sitting up in Carlingford Lough with a RN vessel on the other side and them watching each other pretty intently.

Fratton Fred

Tabnabs wrote: »

I refer you to my link above from April 2013. This is not covered under the loughs agency and Crown Estate ownership of the "Irish half" has blocked development.

There is also the question of who received any money for any agreed developments on the Irish side? Does it still go to the Crown Estate?

From your second article, it sounds like a good job they do claim it. It's an odd article, it starts with misleading outrage about the Queen's landlord, but then seems to praise the action it has taken.

I guess in theory Crown Estates could claim dues for any development below the high water line. It would be interesting to understand how much there is, if it's actually enforced and what it entails.

I saw a programme with Hectar the other day and this was raised. I got the impression from that, that aquaculture was being split.

Fratton Fred

Tabnabs wrote: »

I know of one ex Irish Navy rating who told me about sitting up in Carlingford Lough with a RN vessel on the other side and them watching each other pretty intently.

Then both head off to Dublin for a few pints together!

ezra_pound

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Paying ground rent is a basic for any leasehold property owner. It is far more sensible to ‘buy it out’ rather than not pay it, as it will have to be paid on sale of the property. See here . AFAIK know one of the biggest landlords in Ireland is Trinity College, as large amounts of ‘ground’ went to them at the dissolution of the monasteries. Part of my house is freehold, a small extension built before 1900 extended onto a piece of land owned by TCD it it had a ground rent of I think £4. p.a. on a leasehold of 999 years.
Many holders of ground rents are Irish. Some people who do not know the history of ground rent spout quasi-patriotic nonsense about ‘foreign landlords’ rather that read up its history. If for example you buy a property that has a telephone mast on it you expect to continue to receive the rental income paid by the mast owner. Ground rent is the same. In Scotland the holder of the ground rent rights is called by the great title ‘Lord of Erection’.

The work of and changes to the lighthouse authority (Commissioners of Irish Lights) is probably worth a thread in its own right (Maritime board?) as it is a very complex issue, as ships pass by/through Irish waters to UK ports so Ireland cannot obtain harbour dues. I know that costs have been axed, large numbers of redundancies etc and AFAIK the govt here has said it must be self funding by I think the end of next year.

Ground rent has nothing to do with leasehold. It is typically a farm fee grant tenancy which is a hybrid form of freehold. This form of tenancy has been statutorily banished by the coveyancing act 2009. Of course a leasehold can be carved up from that freehold title as well but...

pedroeibar1

ezra_pound wrote: »

Ground rent has nothing to do with leasehold. It is typically a farm fee grant tenancy which is a hybrid form of freehold. This form of tenancy has been statutorily banished by the coveyancing act 2009. Of course a leasehold can be carved up from that freehold title as well but...

Owners of leasehold property can purchase their Ground Rent and 'convert' their title to freehold. My earlier post in layman’s terms is sufficiently accurate for anyone with an understanding of property law to accept. Those with a wish to niggle on some arcane points of landlord and tenant law, subfeudation and quia emptores, should go off to the medieval board if they want an argument. Your citation of the’ coveyancing act 2009’ (sic) [correctly the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009 ] is a red herring as its purpose was to prevent the creation of any new fee farm grants. (Section 12 states ‘The creation of a fee farm grant at law or in equity is prohibited.’) However that Act did not abolish any existing ones which is the topic at hand. If you want to quote law at me the 1967 Act or better still the 1978 Act [more correctly the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents (no.2) Act 1978] would be far more relevant and pertinent.