Talk:Fee simple

message: In England and Wales (which is, after all, where the expression came from) all land in fee simple has a lord and is therefore not allodial. The article is therefore inaccurate to this extent. Can a US lawyer (or other common lawyer) tell me if allodial is used as a synonym for fee simple over there? 
Also, an estate in fee simple might be subject to a rentcharge, which would contradict the article as well.
Francis Davey 15:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my understanding as well.  I have removed "allodial" to a see-also.  There generally is no allodial land in common-law jurisdictions of the USA, although some nuthatches make a great deal out of it.  --- Smerdis of Tlön 15:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Allodial in the US

message: I've been redirected here from Freehold and was wondering if anyone knew anything about the following, from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica []: 'As regards the condition of the working classes it may be noted that Birmingham was the birthplace of the freehold land and building societies, by which workmen are enabled on easy terms to acquire houses of their own.'
Ta in advance. Matthew 18:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably an early term for Building Society. At the time a lot of people would have been copyholders I guess and that might be the reason for the emphasis, but I don't know. Francis Davey 09:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Birmingham was the birthplace of the freehold land and building societies

message: Wikipedia pages are supposed to be understandable to the common person. This page is not and should be cleaned up.
* * *   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.33.240.153 (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Not understandable to the common person

message: "A fee simple (or fee simple absolute) is an estate in land, a form of freehold ownership." but Freehold is defined as "Freehold may refer to: * Fee simple: ..." Either the definition of freehold needs to be fixed or the first sentence of this article needs to be restructured so it does not use Freehold. -- PBS (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead has a circular argument

message: The concept of a pan-jurisdictional resource is flawed.  In attempting to discuss legal concepts that cover several jurisdictions, the result is unreliability and low confidence in the articles available.  This problem is made worse by authors often not bothering to specify which jurisdiction they are discussing.  At best, Wikipedia law articles cannot be used with confidence, but more commonly, they are innaccurate and too generalized.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.177.101 (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading Wikipedia is not a substitute for consulting a lawyer when you have real legal problems.  H Padleckas (talk) 03:52, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is suggesting it is or should be, but we should surely be striving for the level of accuracy one sees in an encyclopaedia or even a text book. Francis Davey (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikpedia legal articles are of very little use 

message: The qualifier "simple" in "fee simple" distinguishes a fee simple from a fee tail and means that there is no restriction on the inheritance. A fee simple estate passes to the heirs until there are no heirs so could have an infinite life. A fee tail can be restricted, eg to male heirs.
Some editors have added some additional qualifiers to the etymology section which are simply not correct. A fee simple estate might have had - when such things existed at all - considerable feudal obligations. That's what the "fee" means. Any land held in fee would have had some feudal obligation associated with it, in later time in England and Wales all fees came to be held under common socage (though some grand serjeanties remained) and ultimately the socage payment was abolished although technically the tenure is still there. Until 1925 all fee simple estates were held feudally, so it is simply wrong and confused to imply that the "simple" somehow implied a freedom from obligation. In England and Wales after 1926 some other non feudal estates, such as copyholds, became fee simples, but that has nothing to do with the etymology.
The "simple" doesn't really imply that there were no restrictions on transfer either and I propose removing that as well. Before Quia Emptores transfer was impossible for any estate in fee. Francis Davey (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "simple" in "fee simple" 

message: This is debated. Certainly the terminology changed from Anglo-Saxon/Danish law to Norman French and Latin. But MANY forms of feudal hierarchy and obligations, such as 'castles', 'knights', and land tenure had already existed in Anglo-Saxon England. cf. Campbell, James, ed. the Anglo-Saxons, pp.169,236-237.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.185.254.17 (talk) 04:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "introduction" of feudalism by Normans into England  

message: So I take it then, no man owns the land he works himself to the bone to posess in order to live a happy and fulfilling life.  That the man, through the legal fiction "person" (created by the state and controlling interest withheld by the state, the beneficiary interest in the form of the birth certificate [check out trust law, law merchant under the common law]) only holds a beneficiary interest in the land, and the crown (another legal fiction - a corporation) holds allodial title - real ownership of all land, and controlling interest in the land. ie: crown land.  
So who is the crown?  The queen?  Or is it the international banker cabal?  Is this not fascism?  Freedom begins with truth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.221.193 (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: There should be an addition on how the law works in the modern day and how it has changed over time in Australia, New Zealand and other common law countries. 68.46.42.9 (talk) 09:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article slightly too UK and US-centric