The Royals

[Pure River Slut]

No, I'm not in the least confused.
But I do like history, and the who owned what is a historical fact.

The lands ownwed by The Crown were not taken from 'The People', unless you mean the previous Landowners.
For the sake of simplicity, I'll start with 1066.
When William beat Harold all the land in England became his, in theory. Many of the Saxon leaders lost their holdings.
Only a negligable amount of anything was owned by what, today, we think of as 'the working class''
William gave great tracts of this to his supporters, who we now think of as 'The Nobility' and some Saxons kept what they had held previously.
The nobility parceled tracts off to their supporters too.
Over the centuries The nobility saw their lands diminish mostly to The Church and by flogging bits off.
A merchant class developed and bought up relatively small estates and villages.
Then Henry the Eighth confiscated and flogged off, mostly to the newly rich Merchant Class, most of The Church Lands.
So Land ownership became more widspread and along the way the Yeoman Farmer appeared.

The deal made between Parliament and The Crown was something similar to a Perpetual Annuity.
So far it has worked well for all parties for most of the time.

Your philosophy seems rather akin to my understanding of the Native Australians who believe that land can not be owned, simply used for a while by the occupant.

So to return to your point, just who were these people that The Royal Family took the Lands from?
And if it was the Saxon Lords, who did THEY get it from.
And if it was the Celtic Lords, who did they take it from.

And if you think this is complicated, enquire into the properties included when Jasmes the Sixth became James the First.

And YES, I confess to having oversimplified this.
I aint no teacher.

Of course they took from other landowners other kings and eventually took it to be their own. Then made people work for them and pay them a pittance for living on their land out of their wages as they worked for them. Doesn’t mean we should let it be that way a feudal way of doing things only updated by currency. Do you think it’s right a person on the duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall should be disallowed from buying a home because it’s owned by the future king ? When a person in a house owned by a charitable landlord organisation can get a cheap deal? Do you think people living in cities should pay ground rent to the duke of Westminster ?
it needs a rocket up it. It’s wrong

 

[The Norton Cat]

Of course they took from other landowners other kings and eventually took it to be their own. Then made people work for them and pay them a pittance for living on their land out of their wages as they worked for them. Doesn’t mean we should let it be that way a feudal way of doing things only updated by currency. Do you think it’s right a person on the duchy of Lancaster or Cornwall should be disallowed from buying a home because it’s owned by the future king ? When a person in a house owned by a charitable landlord organisation can get a cheap deal? Do you think people living in cities should pay ground rent to the duke of Westminster ?
it needs a rocket up it. It’s wrong

No tenant with a private landlord has the right to buy their property. Plenty of people make their living from owning property. Its no more wrong than anyone else doing it. But then, I know you're opposed to capitalism so we're not going to agree.

 

[Pure River Slut]

No tenant with a private landlord has the right to buy their property. Plenty of people make their living from owning property. Its no more wrong than anyone else doing it. But then, I know you're opposed to capitalism so we're not going to agree.

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

 

[The Norton Cat]

https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news...laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

Ah right, I see. So the problem is that they are owned leasehold. I'm afraid I think that is a fuss about nothing. My last house was owned leasehold. Every house in the town, apart from the ex council houses, are leasehold. It causes no problems in either buying or selling and the only problem is the minor inconvenience of making sure the lease doesn't run down.

 

[Ozzymac]

So we’d get the other 25%of those profits if it belonged to the state and could offset child poverty instead of paying for the royal boys to head off to Eton with their fellow elite, ready to exploit another generation

If it belonged to the state then Bozo would be in control of 100% of those profits.

How much would make it to where it was needed?

 

[Ozzymac]

Ah right, I see. So the problem is that they are owned leasehold. I'm afraid I think that is a fuss about nothing. My last house was owned leasehold. Every house in the town, apart from the ex council houses, are leasehold. It causes no problems in either buying or selling and the only problem is the minor inconvenience of making sure the lease doesn't run down.

Happens elsewhere in the world. Canberra in australia you can buy the house but the land is a 99 year recurring lease. In other words the government can reappropriate it at any time.

 

[Pure River Slut]

If it belonged to the state then Bozo would be in control of 100% of those profits.

How much would make it to where it was needed?

You know my thoughts on Bozo and even on our type of voting system but at least he’s elected. Hereditary power stinks in the modern world.

 

[The Norton Cat]

Happens elsewhere in the world. Canberra in australia you can buy the house but the land is a 99 year recurring lease. In other words the government can reappropriate it at any time.

I didn't think it was particularly unusual. I bought and sold two houses and privately rented another one in the time I lived in that town. It didn't cause any problems whatsoever. When I sold the last house to move to another town, I think the solicitor had to fill in an extra piece of paperwork. You could buy the lease, but I don't know anyone that did because it would cost you more to do that than it would to pay the tenner a year ground rent.

 

[polyphemus]

You know my thoughts on Bozo and even on our type of voting system but at least he’s elected. Hereditary power stinks in the modern world.

You continue to confuse me.

What POWER.

The Crown has the right to kill swans on some rivers I believe, and I suppose that is a power, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything else.
The Crown can disolve Parliament, but only on the advice of the sitting Prime Minister. (this last bit has never been tested in The Courts, so far. It's never had to be).

As you are aware our Constitution is to some degree an unwritten one.
The actual Powers of the Crown were severly diluted following The Glorious Reviolution, when King James the Second was deposed and William and Mary enthroned.
Since then, Polititians of all Parties, Polititianns being what they are, have been eroding what was left till it's virtualy all gone.
The Constitution says that the Government have a duty to CONSULT the crown.
Having received advice, the Government can, and has, ignored it.

But it is worth considering that HM Queen Elizabeth the Second, having been in place for so long will have more experience of World Politics than any living Politition.
It seems tha The Prince of Wales has been well schooled too and won't be too far behingd her, compared to the average PM, (and most of the recent ones have been very average).

I conceed that the Crown has influence.
But advice can be ignored.
It is only accepted when the listener thinks it makes sense.

As for Hereditary Power in general, this stems from the earliest Societies.
Once humans settled into villages, leaders emerged.
Then one village took over another by fighting, Warrior Leaders emergerd.
Carry this forward through the generation till you get to Kings.

But Might hasn't always been Right.
Somtimes the peasants made it to the Merchant Class.
Some even to the aristocracy.
And a man who was good on a horse became a Soldier, possibly a Knight.
Eventualy his prodginy were ruling the County.

As for your points about serfdom and the Social Structures that existed over the last few thousand years, they are totaly valid.
The snag though is that the only way to change History is to lie about it.
It is what it is.
Personaly I look at Social History and welcome the fact that it underlines how far SOME parts of the human race have improved.
But I caution you when looking too closely.
Blood group O, Celtic origin.
Some jock raiding over the border and having a bit of slaughter and ravish may well have been your, or MY ancestor.
OR
Blood group A. Some saxons turning your ancesters into serfs, and making free with the ladies.

So, it's not JUST the Aristocracy who have unsavory histories!!!!

 

[Makemstine Roger]

You continue to confuse me.

What POWER.

The Crown has the right to kill swans on some rivers I believe, and I suppose that is a power, but I'm hard pressed to think of anything else.
The Crown can disolve Parliament, but only on the advice of the sitting Prime Minister. (this last bit has never been tested in The Courts, so far. It's never had to be).

As you are aware our Constitution is to some degree an unwritten one.
The actual Powers of the Crown were severly diluted following The Glorious Reviolution, when King James the Second was deposed and William and Mary enthroned.
Since then, Polititians of all Parties, Polititianns being what they are, have been eroding what was left till it's virtualy all gone.
The Constitution says that the Government have a duty to CONSULT the crown.
Having received advice, the Government can, and has, ignored it.

But it is worth considering that HM Queen Elizabeth the Second, having been in place for so long will have more experience of World Politics than any living Politition.
It seems tha The Prince of Wales has been well schooled too and won't be too far behingd her, compared to the average PM, (and most of the recent ones have been very average).

I conceed that the Crown has influence.
But advice can be ignored.
It is only accepted when the listener thinks it makes sense.

As for Hereditary Power in general, this stems from the earliest Societies.
Once humans settled into villages, leaders emerged.
Then one village took over another by fighting, Warrior Leaders emergerd.
Carry this forward through the generation till you get to Kings.

But Might hasn't always been Right.
Somtimes the peasants made it to the Merchant Class.
Some even to the aristocracy.
And a man who was good on a horse became a Soldier, possibly a Knight.
Eventualy his prodginy were ruling the County.

As for your points about serfdom and the Social Structures that existed over the last few thousand years, they are totaly valid.
The snag though is that the only way to change History is to lie about it.
It is what it is.
Personaly I look at Social History and welcome the fact that it underlines how far SOME parts of the human race have improved.
But I caution you when looking too closely.
Blood group O, Celtic origin.
Some jock raiding over the border and having a bit of slaughter and ravish may well have been your, or MY ancestor.
OR
Blood group A. Some saxons turning your ancesters into serfs, and making free with the ladies.

So, it's not JUST the Aristocracy who have unsavory histories!!!!