Correspondence relating to tenure of Buckingham Palace

The request was successful.

Dear Law Commission,

On page 246 of LC 271 "Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century" at footnote 22 it is noted:

"We have been told of instances where such merger has been assumed, and we have had some interesting correspondence as to whether Buckingham Palace is held by the Crown in demesne or (as we think) in fee simple"

Please could you supply me (in electronically readable form by preference) with that correspondence, or at least so much of it as relates to the question of the tenure (if any) by which Buckingham Palace is held.

Are you aware of any other material you possess which bears on the question?

Yours faithfully,

Francis Davey

Communications Law Com, Law Commission

Thank you for your email. We monitor this inbox regularly and will reply to your enquiry as soon as possible.

You may prefer to contact us in one of the following ways:

General enquiries
Phone: 020 3334 0200
Email: [email address]

Press enquiries
Between 9.00am to 6.00pm, Monday to Friday, please contact:
Phil Hodgson – 020 3334 0230, [email address]
Jackie Samuel – 020 3334 0216, [email address]

For urgent press enquiries outside working hours, please call Phil Hodgson on 07500 087723

Law Commission | Steel House | 11 Tothill Street | London SW1H 9LJ

Visit the Law Commission website: www.lawcom.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

LAWCOM (FOI), Law Commission

Dear Mr Davey

Thank you for your request for information dated 30 July 2013 and received by us on 31 July. We acknowledge receipt. We are handling your request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. We will respond to you as promptly as possible and, in any event, will provide the information you seek within 20 working days from receipt of your request, unless it transpires that we do not hold the information or that the information is exempt from disclosure. In the latter event we will advise you why the information sought cannot be disclosed. Your request for information will be handled within the Commission by the Property, Family and Trust Law team. If you have any query in the meantime relating to your request, please contact me in my capacity as the Commission's FoI co-ordinator.

Yours sincerely

Dan Leighton | Law Commission Editor and Communications Manager | FoI Co-ordinator

show quoted sections

LAWCOM (FOI), Law Commission

Dear Mr Davey

I refer to my email of 1 August in response to your request for information regarding the tenure of Buckingham Palace. A lawyer from the Property, Family and Trust Law team has asked me to pass on the following update:

"Our external storage facility contains many files relating to the 'Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century' report. We have requested a sizeable number of the files - concentrating on those that appear most relevant - and their delivery is expected tomorrow or early next week. Upon receipt, we will look for information relevant to your request."

Yours sincerely

Dan Leighton | Law Commission Editor and Communications Manager | FoI Co-ordinator

show quoted sections

LAWCOM (FOI), Law Commission

Dear Mr Davey
 
I refer to your email of 30 July (received by us on 31 July) setting out
your request for information regarding the tenure of Buckingham Palace. 
 A lawyer from the property, family and trust law team has asked me to
pass on the response set out below.
 
Yours sincerely
 
Dan Leighton | Law Commission Editor and Communications Manager | FoI
Co-ordinator.
__________________ 
 
We received from you the following request for information on 31 July:
 
"Dear Law Commission,

On page 246 of LC 271 "Land Registration for the Twenty-First Century" at
footnote 22 it is noted:

"We have been told of instances where such merger has been assumed, and we
have had some interesting correspondence as to whether Buckingham Palace
is held by the Crown in demesne or (as we think) in fee simple"

Please could you supply me (in electronically readable form by preference)
with that correspondence, or at least so much of it as relates to the
question of the tenure (if any) by which Buckingham Palace is held.

Are you aware of any other material you possess which bears on the
question?

Yours faithfully,

Francis Davey"

As mentioned in our email of 8 August there are a number of files that
relate to the relevant project.   We have retrieved many of these files
from our off-site archives and concentrated our efforts on those that
appear most relevant to your request for the correspondence referred to in
the footnote mentioned in your email.   We have located three items of
correspondence that we think form the basis of the footnote.   The
correspondence touches upon numerous matters and we have reproduced below
only the text that is relevant to your question.

-----------------------------
 
Letter dated 8 August 2000 from Mr Christopher Jessel of Farrer & Co
solicitors to Mr Charles Harpum of the Law Commission:
 
23. The land in question includes the Royal Palaces (to the extent that
these are not under the management delegated by the Department of Culture
Media and Sport to Historic Royal Palaces) the Royal Parks (again to the
extent that they are not managed under statute) and certain other areas
which come to light from time to time. In practice the most important
areas are the Occupied Royal Palaces. It possible [sic] that a fee simple
may exist in land such as Buckingham Palace (although I have some doubt of
this) but I doubt if it can exist in the occupied parts of Windsor Castle.
There are also some peculiar provisions relating to Somerset House which
although it can be leased by the Secretary of State would appear by virtue
of statue [sic] passed in the early 19th century to be allodial and not
held in fee simple.
 
Letter dated 23 August 2000 from Mr Charles Harpum of Law Commission to Mr
Christopher Jessel of Farrer & Co Solicitors (in response to the letter
dated 8 August):
 
3. Paragraph 23 of Instructions to the Crown:
 
I was not quite sure where these comments really fitted in, in relation to
the Instructions. I was, incidentally, intrigued by the comment that
Buckingham Palace might be held in demesne. I am not as familiar as I
perhaps should be with the history of the Crown's title to Buckingham
Palace, but I confess that I had assumed first, that it had been acquired
by the Crown, and secondly, that it was acquired otherwise than by
escheat. On that basis, I could not understand how it could be held in
demesne. As I understand the matter, where the Crown acquires freehold
land, there is no merger in the demesne. I suppose that there is always
the possibility, however theoretical, of a mesne lord.
 
Letter dated 31 August from Mr Christopher Jessel of Farrer & Co
Solicitors to Mr Charles Harpum of the Law Commission (in response to the
letter dated 23 August 2000):
 
3. I have to say that I have never had to investigate the title to
Buckingham Palace and like you I understand it was acquired by purchase.
The other example of Somerset House however makes it quite clear that in
that case by statute the land did cease to be freehold because the
relevant Act distinguished clearly between land in Pimlico which was to be
vested in His Majesty in fee simple and Somerset House which was to be
vested in His Majesty.
 

show quoted sections

Dear LAWCOM (FOI),

Thank you very much for your response. It was very helpful.

Yours sincerely,

Francis Davey

LAWCOM (FOI), Law Commission

This is an automatic acknowledgement of your email, which is being dealt
with. If we require further details from you, we will contact you again
before we send you a substantive reply.
 
Law Commission

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy
all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.