Scott Cullen wrote:
>I was unaware of the literal meaning of "fee simple" as "zero rent."


"Fee simple" is a term deriving from feudalism, 
and meant simply that one got the fees from the 
land. Note that these were "fees" and not 
"rents." Fee simple did not actually connote 
"ownership" in the allodial sense. Our terms for 
ownership derive from feudalism, but our law 
derives from the Statute of Frauds (1660) and the 
Glorious Revolution, which are real revolutions 
in the concepts of ownership. Ownership "of the 
king" actually worked out pretty well for those 
at the bottom. In the period between the Plague 
and the seizure of the monasteries, the working 
classes actually did very well; it was one of the 
few times in history when it was the upper 
classes that were being squeezed. Noble and 
peasant alike were mere tenants (or sub-tenants) 
of the king, and in that respect everybody was on 
the same footing. The lower classes had managed 
to win high wages for themselves.  This lent 
weight and impetus to the move to enclose the 
commons and seize the corporate lands of the 
Church and the guilds. After the seizure, fees 
were replaced by rents, and the law of rents 
became the dominant feature of the economy. The 
relationship between the classes was completely 
changed, and not to the better, in my opinion.

John C. M?daille