This would have been interesting if done carefully, but to me it seems like virtually everyone listed is basically some sort of weird exception that doesn't really count as land ownership.
For example- native tribes should more be thought of as nations than individuals or corporations. Land collectively owned by Inuit people is not a land owner anymore than just listing the size of a large country and calling it a "large land owner." The fact that they are not totally sovereign in the way most nations are is a technicality in this context.
Also, this huge amount of land owned by the British Royal Family seems to be just the combined size of all commonwealth countries? They have no real power or property rights to any of that land. I wonder if they are even counting only public land in those places, or also even considering privately deeded land in commonwealth countries?
For example- native tribes should more be thought of as nations than individuals or corporations. Land collectively owned by Inuit people is not a land owner anymore than just listing the size of a large country and calling it a "large land owner." The fact that they are not totally sovereign in the way most nations are is a technicality in this context.
Also, this huge amount of land owned by the British Royal Family seems to be just the combined size of all commonwealth countries? They have no real power or property rights to any of that land. I wonder if they are even counting only public land in those places, or also even considering privately deeded land in commonwealth countries?