Can you imagine the now town of Hastings being any more than a few shacks for fishermen and their families then?
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
When do the reparations for the 'commonwealth' start. About time, I'd say.
Add a couple of charity shops, a bookies and make the fishermen unemployed and that's pretty much how it is today.
So who does Australia go back to?
Don't be unkind, I lived there for a few months plus it is linked with St Leonards, a fine suburb.. cough.
Indigenous Australians ideally and it has partially - about 50% in the Northern Territory for example. Never going to happen in places where there is modern property title of course as that would mean kicking people out of their homes.
Giving government land back to the people it was stolen from as is happening to some degree in Australia is actually well aligned with the idea of Nationalising the royals and giving their ill gotten gains to who it was (indirectly) stolen from - the British people and potentially overseas colonies.
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..?”
But you just said “everything and anything” passed down by Royal lineage. Does that not include their privately owned estates then?
Why wouldn’t that apply to any privately held property on land “fleeced” from someone else?
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.
Yes
It may (or should) depending on the circumstances. The Royals seem like a great place to start dismantling injustice and start a rebuild.
TBH at this stage I'd settle for Australia becoming a republic as after the shambles of the last few years the chances of me ever returning to the UK is virtually zero. Although I still care about the place.
And Waterloo was fought miles outside that town too… crazy how history names battles after places they were near.
Well, good luck with that. Try and not end up with a dictator this time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Apparently this is the 17th Century.
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’m referring to the seizing and redistribution of private property that you’re talking about. That’s pretty frequently led straight to dictatorship.
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?
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.
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.
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.
So did Waterloo…
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.
They literally possess privately owned homes. Sandringham and Balmoral, for example. Wibble has said those should be seized by the state.
Well then, another thing you should be well aware of. However we were discussing the Norman conquest...
which should be nationalized. along with the enormous amounts of land technically owned by the "crown", too.
Possibly, but I’m fairly certain you were just complaining about the name of the Battle of Hastings.
So private property should just be seized and nationalized. Got it.
No complaint, just passing some local knowledge on to an historian.
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.
Keith Richards crosses another off the list
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.
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.
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.
where did prince albert get the money for that purchase?
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)No complaint, just passing some local knowledge on to an historian.
Yes. Everything, lock stock and barrel. They purchased that with their ill-gotten gains. Similar to confiscating the proceeds of crime.