I am surprised that the question arises at this late date. There is already a legal precedent:
Tinrib, Rumble, and others v Rex (1935) Hebert, Misl Cases 1:1 "A dead whale washed up on the shore of Pudding Magna in Dorset and a dispute ensued as to who was responsible for its disposal, which became increasingly urgent as the carcass started to decompose, making the town unpleasant to live in. It was contended according to ancient right that the whale is "fish royal" and therefore the monarch was responsible." Application was made to the Crown to have the carcass destroyed by naval gunfire, however the request was enjoined because HM Navy could not be asked to destroy HM property, and further that under the maxim "Rex non potest peccare" Pudding Magna had no standing. The village has since been abandoned.
To the Editor:
I am surprised that the question arises at this late date. There is already a legal precedent:
Tinrib, Rumble, and others v Rex (1935) Hebert, Misl Cases 1:1 "A dead whale washed up on the shore of Pudding Magna in Dorset and a dispute ensued as to who was responsible for its disposal, which became increasingly urgent as the carcass started to decompose, making the town unpleasant to live in. It was contended according to ancient right that the whale is "fish royal" and therefore the monarch was responsible." Application was made to the Crown to have the carcass destroyed by naval gunfire, however the request was enjoined because HM Navy could not be asked to destroy HM property, and further that under the maxim "Rex non potest peccare" Pudding Magna had no standing. The village has since been abandoned.