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