Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace

[neverdie]

I am fully aware of how feudalism worked, thank you.

As to saying feudal claims can’t hold water today, what is your cutoff point in history then for saying “no, that’s too long ago, you can’t own that land anymore..?”

the 18th century might be a good cutoff point, that point in time when the american colonists and the french finally had enough of monarchy. or the second half of the 19th if you want something less controversial. it obviously depends on the case, but feudal claims are null and void. perhaps even the very late 19th and early 20th when women and poor people were allowed to vote for the government that ruled and to which they paid taxation.

if you're aware of how it worked, then how can you defend its legitimacy today? it's insane.

 

[Wibble]

To a degree this is most certainly the case. I draw the line at 'fiction', though, as it's also entirely likely that she was kept alive until close family members arrived by her medical team.

I just meant it would be a fictional narrative if she, say, died of a heart attack in the morning and they pretended she died mid afternoon after family arrived. As I said earlier I don't care - just a thought given the palace's record of finessing the truth shall we say.

 

[oates]

And Waterloo was fought miles outside that town too… crazy how history names battles after places they were near.

Well I guess that would be a point except the battle took place at a named site that was neither Hastings or Battle, but was in point of fact Senlac Hill. Funny that.

 

[Wibble]

Well, good luck with that. Try and not end up with a dictator this time.

I'm thinking replacing a non-elected head of state and a non-elected upper house with democratic alternatives isn't likely to make things more dictatorial. And I wouldn't want any sort of presidential system that resembled the US model either.

 

[Donaldo]

 

[Donaldo]

I'm thinking replacing a non-elected head of state and a non-elected upper house with democratic alternatives isn't likely to make things more dictatorial.

Apparently this is the 17th Century.

 

[Carolina Red]

the 18th century might be a good cutoff point, that point in time when the american colonists and the french finally had enough of monarchy. or the second half of the 19th if you want something less controversial. it obviously depends on the case, but feudal claims are null and void. perhaps even the very late 19th and early 20th when women and poor people were allowed to vote for the government that ruled and to which they paid taxation.

if you're aware of how it worked, then how can you defend its legitimacy today? it's insane.

Because inheritance and property ownership aren't new things…

It’s absurd to think you can just tell someone “hey, your family has owned this land and house for too long, so you have to go now…”

 

[Carolina Red]

I'm thinking replacing a non-elected head of state and a non-elected upper house with democratic alternatives isn't likely to make things more dictatorial. And I wouldn't want any sort of presidential system that resembled the US model either.

I’m referring to the seizing and redistribution of private property that you’re talking about. That’s pretty frequently led straight to dictatorship.

 

[Member 125398]

Do the BBC's balance rules mean they have to spend an equal amount of time discussing anti-monarchist issues or do they only apply when criticising the Conservative party?

 

[Wibble]

I’m referring to the seizing and redistribution of private property that you’re talking about. That’s pretty frequently led straight to dictatorship.

It isn't private property, not in the usual meaning of the term. The royals are a British institution who can't (or shouldn't be able to) hide behind privately hiding their loot.

 

[oates]

Because inheritance and property ownership aren't new things…

It’s absurd to think you can just tell someone “hey, your family has owned this land and house for too long, so you have to go now…”

I think you obviously see things from a different perspective but I'd have thought that being in your history would be something you would be well aware of taking place.

 

[neverdie]

It’s absurd to think you can just tell someone “hey, your family has owned this land and house for too long, so you have to go now…”

not when that family is "royal" and the public pays for it via taxation and by a deficit in representation in both the upper chamber and the crown itself. it's entirely sane to think you can say, all of this land belongs to all of the people who live here, not to you and a few others by virtue of some archaic feudal legacy.

 

[Carolina Red]

Well I guess that would be a point except the battle took place at a named site that was neither Hastings or Battle, but was in point of fact Senlac Hill. Funny that.

So did Waterloo…

 

[Wibble]

Apparently when the first announcement about her health was made at 12.40pm people were being briefed that she was still alive but to expect the worst.

 

[Carolina Red]

not when that family is "royal" and the public pays for it via taxation and by a deficit in representation in both the upper chamber and the crown itself. it's entirely sane to think you can say, all of this land belongs to all of the people who live here, not to you and a few others by virtue of some archaic feudal legacy.

They literally possess privately owned homes. Sandringham and Balmoral, for example. Wibble has said those should be seized by the state.

 

[oates]

So did Waterloo…

Well then, another thing you should be well aware of. However we were discussing the Norman conquest...

 

[neverdie]

They literally possess privately owned homes. Sandringhan and Balmoral, for example.

which should be nationalized. along with the enormous amounts of land technically owned by the "crown", too.

 

[Carolina Red]

Well then, another thing you should be well aware of. However we were discussing the Norman conquest...

Possibly, but I’m fairly certain you were just complaining about the name of the Battle of Hastings.

 

[Carolina Red]

which should be nationalized. along with the enormous amounts of land technically owned by the "crown", too.

So private property should just be seized and nationalized. Got it.

 

[oates]

Possibly, but I’m fairly certain you were just complaining about the name of the Battle of Hastings.

No complaint, just passing some local knowledge on to an historian.

 

[Kopral Jono]

This kind of sentiment/tone I wholeheartedly agree and approve. Edgelord tripe such as 'I hope she died a painful death' won't change anyone's mind about the British monarchy.

 

[Stack]

Keith Richards crosses another off the list

 

[neverdie]

So private property should just be seized and nationalized. Got it.

property held by "royalty" and paid for, historically, by the public, should be nationalized, yes. you're aware that nationalization often implies a payment?

or should the americans have just said, "hey, these colonies are technically the property of the crown... perhaps throwing that tea into the river isn't smart, guys?". your argument is ridiculous coming from an american student and teacher of history.

 

[Carolina Red]

It isn't private property, not in the usual meaning of the term. The royals are a British institution who can't (or shouldn't be able to) hide behind privately hiding their loot.

They hold lands via 3 means…

Crown holdings
Duchy holdings
Private holdings

They’re not the same forms of ownership, and the last one is exactly the same as you or me owning a house.

Example) Sandringham House was purchased as a private residence via real estate contract by Prince Albert in the 1860s, and you’re saying it should be seized by the state.

 

[Kopral Jono]

I just meant it would be a fictional narrative if she, say, died of a heart attack in the morning and they pretended she died mid afternoon after family arrived. As I said earlier I don't care - just a thought given the palace's record of finessing the truth shall we say.

It would have been a monumental effort to keep the news of her death on the down-low for so long in this day and age, though.

 

[neverdie]

Example) Sandringham House was purchased as a private residence via real estate contract by Prince Albert in the 1860s, and you’re saying it should be seized by the state.

where did prince albert get the money for that purchase?

 

[Carolina Red]

No complaint, just passing some local knowledge on to an historian.

Well then, if you want to get into confusingly named battles, you should look at the American Civil War. Forget naming them after towns 8 miles away, most of them have 2 names, and many are named after the nearest stream or river (Union habit) or the nearest town (Confederate habit)

 

[Wibble]

They hold lands via 3 means…

Crown holdings
Duchy holdings
Private holdings

They’re not the same forms of ownership, and the last one is exactly the same as you or me owning a house.

Example) Sandringham House was purchased as a private residence via real estate contract by Prince Albert in the 1860s, and you’re saying it should be seized by the state.

Yes. Everything, lock stock and barrel. They purchased that with their ill-gotten gains. Similar to confiscating the proceeds of crime.

 

[Carolina Red]

where did prince albert get the money for that purchase?

Are you seriously about to make the argument that something bought in a real estate deal using money gained from the agricultural product of hereditary estates is illegitimately owned?

 

[Carolina Red]

Yes. Everything, lock stock and barrel. They purchased that with their ill-gotten gains. Similar to confiscating the proceeds of crime.

okay bud

 

[neverdie]

Are you seriously about to make the argument that something bought in a real estate deal using money gained from the agricultural product of hereditary estates is illegitimately owned?

yes, i've already made it. the royal family derived their wealth from the land and its people. simple and plain. there's no nuance to it. an entirely illegitimate institution which they knew damn well in the 17th century but for fear of working class revolution they've held onto the vestiges of feudal britain long beyond the time of other states reaching maturity.

 

[Wibble]

Are you seriously about to make the argument that something bought in a real estate deal using money gained from the agricultural product of hereditary estates is illegitimately owned?

Of course. Change the law and we can also make it illegal as well as illegitimate.

okay bud

It won't happen of course but it should.

 

[oates]

Well then, if you want to get into confusingly named battles, you should look at the American Civil War. Forget naming them after towns 8 miles away, most of them have 2 names, and many are named after the nearest stream or river (Union habit) or the nearest town (Confederate habit)

Maybe the next time I live in the area and drive past it at least 10 times a week.

 

[oates]

Are you seriously about to make the argument that something bought in a real estate deal using money gained from the agricultural product of hereditary estates is illegitimately owned?

What about land purchased using coloured beads and firewater?

 

[Carolina Red]

yes, i've already made it. the royal family derived their wealth from the land and its people. simple and plain. there's no nuance to it. an entirely illegitimate institution which they knew damn well in the 17th century but for fear of working class revolution they've held onto the vestiges of feudal britain long beyond the time of other states reaching maturity.

The funds weren’t illegitimate Parliament has even repeatedly upheld financial the purpose of the Duchy of Cornwall.You’re advocating stripping property from someone purchased by an ancestor with completely legally obtained funds.

Change the law and we can also make it illegal as well as illegitimate.

Even if you did, what are you going to do about lands already privately owned? Apply the law ex post facto going back to the Norman Conquest? Give England back to the Danes?

 

[Wibble]

The funds weren’t illegitimate Parliament has even repeatedly upheld financial the purpose of the Duchy of Cornwall.You’re advocating stripping property from someone purchased by an ancestor with completely legally obtained funds.

The Parliament would tug it's forlock and do more of less what the Monarchy wanted. They just about always have.

Even if you did, what are you going to do about lands already privately owned? Apply the law ex post facto going back to the Norman Conquest? Give England back to the Danes?

Nationalise them then work out if reparations are needed to former colonies etc.

 

[Carolina Red]

What about land purchased using coloured beads and firewater?

That’s my point. You can’t just go back and retroactively kick everyone off everything at this point. It’s happened. It’s done. The idea of stripping private property and returning it “to the state” is silly.

 

[neverdie]

The funds weren’t illegitimate Parliament has even repeatedly upheld financial the purpose of the Duchy of Cornwall.You’re advocating stripping property from someone purchased by an ancestor with completely legally obtained funds.

40 acres and a mule, please. that's what i'm advocating. same principle.

 

[Carolina Red]

40 acres and a mule, please. that's what i'm advocating. same principle.

If you’re looking for a historical example of success for your plan, that one ain’t it.

 

[Abizzz]

That’s my point. You can’t just go back and retroactively kick everyone off everything at this point. It’s happened. It’s done. The idea of stripping private property and returning it “to the state” is silly.

Just out of curiosity: What's your opinion on taxation?