Everything is a fair bit more complicated than any description; but that's the chief underlying principle of English land law in a nutshell.
And yet, you cite no actual law.
Certainly I cited actual law: the actual land law of England. I take it you mean I cited no actual
statute. English Common Law isn't statutes; it's precedents: accumulated case law, decisions of countless judges over nearly a thousand years of countless disputes. It's not on me to cite an Act of Parliament making the Queen own the land. That's not how it works. If you want to claim I'm wrong, burden of proof is on you to cite an Act of Parliament making the Queen no longer own the land. This is basic to how law works in England. I'm not making this up.
At the Norman conquest of England, all the land of England was claimed as the personal possession of William the Conqueror under allodial title. The monarch thus became the sole "owner" of all the land in the kingdom, a position which persists to the present day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escheat
And your caveat here seems to acknowledge, without fully acknowledging, that the government you are citing no longer exists, except a mythic institution of its own.
The heck caveat are you talking about? "Not applicable in Scotland"? England never conquered Scotland; the countries got merged because the same guy inherited Scotland from his mother and England from his father. "Everything is a fair bit more complicated"? English law distinguishes between what the Queen owns privately and what she owns in her role as monarch; it distinguishes between what she owns as Queen of England and what she owns as Duke of Lancashire and what she owns as Duke of Normandy; between yada yada and yada yada... Of course the government I'm citing still exists.
They are both equally endorsement of legal transfer of ownership by right of conquest. Further, the philosophical bases for the two impositions are identical: they are both equally appeals to counterfactual mythic history.
What law are you even citing here? You cite Chochenyo territory as an example, but I've never met a Chochenyo person who recognizes the so-called Right of Conquest, and I believe I know most of the surviving members of that particular people, their numbers are not many.
You misunderstand. I didn't offer an opinion on what Chochenyo people recognize. When I said people who allude to the idea of "recognizing" "indigenous" title are endorsing Right of Conquest, I wasn't referring* to Chochenyo people; I was referring to
you.
You effectively endorsed Right of Conquest, when you called (I presume) Alameda County "Chochenyo Territory", and when you implied they have a "title" to that land, a title the rest of us can "recognize" or not -- as opposed to having a title the rest of us
grant to them. I'm arguing with you, not with them.
The reason claiming Alameda County is Chochenyo Territory constitutes endorsing Right of Conquest is that Alameda County used to be occupied by the Esselen tribe. About 1500 years ago the Chochenyo's ancestors drove them out and seized the land. The Esselen now mostly live down in Monterey County.
(Source:
https://www.wikizero.com/en/Chochenyo )
(* Of course, if any of the Chochenyo also claim they have "indigenous" title, then those specific individuals are endorsing Right of Conquest too. But if as you say land ownership wasn't recognized in the first place then that doesn't sound like they're claiming "indigenous" title.)
But there was no customary law that would justify expelling the Spanish from the town; good neighbor, bad neighbor, the land wasn't anyone's to govern absolutely, and indeed there were no defined borders to apply governance within.
Sounds like somebody's culture wasn't static for 1200-odd years.
And why do you feel that a "counterfactual mythic history" is a good, sound basis for making any kind of claim, anyway? Like you sound really dismissive of these justifications, but you are also using them. So that's pretty odd. What are you arguing for here?
What the heck are you on about? No, counterfactual mythic history is not a good, sound basis for making any kind of claim. Where do you see me using that sort of justification? England? I already told you straight up "Not how I'd set up a system of government". I was reporting what English law is, not claiming it was justified.
You're the one who appealed to counterfactual mythic history as a basis for your "allusion to the idea of recognizing indigenous title", right up front in your OP, when you wrote the words "Asking for a First Nation". You were not asking for a First Nation. The Chochenyo are not the First Nation; neither are they "a" First Nation, as though that were even a meaningful concept. They are simply a nation, one among many nations in a series that began long before there were any Chochenyo.
The widespread Canadian custom of calling Beringian-Canadians "First Nations" is
a lie. It's a lie well-suited to promoting the counterfactual historical myth that Beringian-Canadians are somehow an iota more indigenous than English-Canadians and French-Canadians and Jamaican-Canadians -- a counterfactual historical myth that's being spread in order to insinuate falsely that some Canadians have more right to be there than other Canadians based on whose ancestors moved to Canada earlier. No Canadian has a duty to tug his forelock to any other Canadian merely because his immigrant forebears arrived more recently. Everyone born in Canada is exactly as indigenous as everyone else born there. So I do hope you don't persuade any Americans to adopt that racist Canadian custom here.