A lot is owned by the Crown (which is shown on the map), which isn't exactly the Queen but more accurately the state. The royals do own a lot of land themselves too. I'm surprised the map doesn't show holdings from, for example, The Duchy of Cornwall, which is Prince Charles's estate, and includes massive holdings around the country (not just in Cornwall), such as most of Dartmoor.
Basically the answer is that the Duchy pretends that it is simply a private person (Charles Windsor) and so it shouldn't be subject to any more prying into its affairs than would be the case for you or me. This is sufficiently arguable that it doesn't fear ridicule.
A lot of that is public knowledge, but not on any data sets (I'd assume because most land registry records are still on paper). For example, near where I grew up a whole village is owned by aristocracy:
All of the Land Registry is computerised. If you can point at a precise piece of property you can go online, right now, to their site and pay them a few quid for a PDF of the data. If you need to show it to a court of law (e.g. to prove who owns something in court) you can pay a bit more and get a physical piece of paper issued which the court will accept as a substitute for a person from the Register showing up in person and telling them who legally owns it.
However, firstly (least importantly) not all land in England is registered. About 10-15% isn't registered. Registration is compulsory for new transfers today, but there are a large tracts of land whose owner hasn't changed for decades or even centuries, registration offers some benefits, but they're not obliged to register unless they want to transfer the property.
Secondly, the paperwork may just say a place is owned by a corporation in a tax haven. Knowing the land my building is on is owned by "Property Holding Corp Sierra Sixty Eighteen" in the British Virgin Islands is almost exactly the same as not knowing who owns it.
Royalty in the UK would presumably mean just the members of the royal family, which has a fuzzy boundary. The aristocracy is a much larger group, obviously.
Yeah, that's why I brought it up. For some 'royalty' might mean any sort of nobility while I took the original poster's meaning as the House of Windsor. I would expect that much of the land in England is held by various members of the wider aristocracy.
I make the distinction because as an American, many of my fellows conflate the two.
To me, a lot of success is knowing when to give up and make a tangential change. Many failures I've come across were stubborn people who refused to let it go and try something different. But then again, you might let go and someone else will pick up the ball and make a million. You are back to gambling.
20 years ago when I did some consulting for the Gap, I saw inside their data systems and realized they were a large real estate organization. It was the first time I witnessed the dynamic nature of corporate America.
Side note: I have the direct opposite wish: I want a single mouse that can move off the boundary of one PC's monitor(s) and into the monitor of my laptop or across two or more desktop computers without having to change hardware. Same thing with a single keyboard.
I can second this recommendation. I don't use it much nowadays, but it's done good work for me in the past, and I've gladly paid them the 20$ for a Pro license.
I have to say that they haven't grasped the whole "open source on GitHub" thing yet though. It took me over a year to get a PR accepted that fixed a simple Qt5 #include problem...
Does it have working encryption yet? It's been a while since I've used it, I stopped because at the time you were basically sending all keystrokes in plaintext over the network.
I've tried full stack programming on one monitor and it took forever and was really frustrating. Multiple text editors/IDE's, test browsers, remote SERVER connections, SQL server admin consoles. Heck, a few command prompts. Constantly minimizing and maximizing. My browser had so many tabs open it was ridiculous. I'm totally not against one massive wide screen but they don't make them wide enough yet.
You haven't heard of Law 2.0. The slow rise to financial dominance is coming to an end for the big Amlaw firms. A disruption event is on the horizon where lawyers will need to be replaced with technology/law expert hybrids who will program the legal systems which will act autonomously with as little intervention as possible. Hands on law will eventually become a thing of the past. I've been working in legal for 25 years on the IT side. I've seen it go from ALL paper to 'paper on demand'. Nearly everything is digital with ETL warehousing acting as the data conductor. The clients are fed up with $1000 an hour corporate lawyers and want another cheaper and faster solution.
I believe every lawyer has seen the gutting of the newly called associate class - we all know what automation is doing.
While databaseing case facts, contracts, documents, laws, jurisprudence, etc. has escalated in recent years, fundamentally a law firm is not providing those as key services - they are ancillary profit centers. One hires a contract manager to manage contracts, not a top-flight firm.
The value proposition of a law practice is dependable competence in a wide spectrum of related sub-fields. As those profit centers are commoditized and margins fall, firms will merely shift pricing, technology and talent sourcing strategy, not fall apart, because in many cases, the amount of people with competence in those fields is countably limited. Most top flight firms will be fairly straightforward with you if you ask: they don't compete on price. They compete for clients on quality of service and prestige.
The fantasy that law will act autonomously with little intervention is charming and sensible to non-practitioners. The rules are the rules, after all, what could go possibly go wrong? In practice, the answer is often 'everything'.
Also, saying that I haven't heard of Law 2.0 is like asserting a particular developer hasn't heard of Web 2.0. It's... a strange accusation, to say the least. And one that distinguishes you as an outsider.
As an individual if I want a lawyer for anything right now, I am most likely going to wind up with a complete technophobe who is barely computer literate enough to copy and paste the boilerplate legal document they make for me.
For 99% of the things I want a lawyer to do right now I'll fill out a form on LegalZoom and never see a human. Someone wrote a chatbot that helps people in NYC walk through the process of fighting their traffic citations. Automation is coming for sure.
Unless something goes wrong then you'll probably regret your canned contract for not dealing with the specifics of your needs.
Canned contracts are great and a wonderful money saver until they are needed. It's just lucky that most contracts individuals are involved in are never needed.
I should make a startup called Trampoline. Other startups pay me insurance premiums and I hop in with a team and salaries for ejected employees to keep doors open for however long they paid for after a crash. As part of the customer SLA they cite Trampoline and the duration of post mortem life being paid for.
47 here. The network of people that I've built up over 25 years is still there. If I need a job, I just contact one and they just offer it to me. Why? Because I can do every phase of dev. I can build and maintain the project and budget. I can interact with the heads of all departments and leave them feeling warm and fuzzy. I get the job done. Usually ahead of schedule. I'm a fire and forget developer. If I applied for the run of the mill full stack position, I'd never make the cut. And I don't care because I never setup my future to fall into that hole.
