Certainly there are cases that describe the King's proprietary rights as pertaining to land underneath navigable water.

It has long been settled that "generally speaking, you cannot raise out of a proviso or an exception in a statute any affirmative enactment

Before the Crown Suits Act, 1855, 18 & 19 Vict. c. 90, the House of Lords refused to award costs against the Crown, on the ground of the inlexible rule which existed to that effect.

Whatever its origin, the rule that the soil of tidal navigable rivers belongs to the Crown has been consistently followed for several centuries as the common law of England.

Under the Coast Protection Act 1949, the foreshore is managed by the Crown Estate Commissioners except in the case of the rivers Thames and Tees. 12.

It is not encouraging to litigate with the Crown in proceedings at law upon a question of principle or a matter of small financial value, when the Crown is not bound to pay costs if the subject wins

—his Lordship, as Lord Chancellor, advised the House of Lords that, "With respect to the question which has been mooted as to the right of the Crown to the alveus or bed of a river, it really admits of no dispute. Beyond all doubt the soil and bed of a river (we are speaking now of navigable rivers only) belongs to the Crown."

[BOOK] An Analytical Digest of the Cases Published in the New Series of the Law …

[BOOK] Scotland's Foreshore: Public Rights, Private Rights and the Crown 1840-2017

[CITATION] Wisdom's law of watercourses

[CITATION] KC Saksena's Encyclopaedia of UP Local Acts: Containing All UP Acts, Rules …

[CITATION] Halsbury's Statutes of England

[BOOK] United States Reports: Cases Adjudged in the Supreme Court at... and Rules …

[CITATION] The law of rivers and watercourses

[CITATION] The law of boundaries and fences