RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family?

RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

beeble -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 7:59:02 AM)
quote: SugarMyChurro wrote: Can any anti-monarchists help me out with some information here? Why only anti-monarchists? Is the provenance of the information more important to you than its accuracy?

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 10:12:35 AM)
I think these ideas are interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freehold http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title It's interesting how in the U.S. you can buy a house, pay it off, retire, and STILL have to generate enough income to pay an annual property tax. And failure to pay the tax means very likely losing said house to the government. It does make you think about what is real and what is fantasy. Most people live and act as if one thing were true, when in reality something quite contrary to all appearances is true instead.

SugarMyChurro -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 10:16:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beeble Why only anti-monarchists? Is the provenance of the information more important to you than its accuracy? No. You are quite right - any source of accurate information would have sufficed. I was just trying to target the most likely source of accurate information. The subject of this thread would seem to have an anti-monarchist subtext, to me at least.

meatcleaver -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 11:21:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Where does it say the Queen owns you? It doesn't; it's my belief based on the fact that she and her ilk control the system to ensure that people who post on this message board can never achieve the same position in society. It's fairly clear in my mind that they make the rules and the rest of us obey in one form or another. Until the day comes when every person can rise to all positions in English society, i.e. rather than being boxed in by heridtary wealth and appointed representatives, we're owned. The crown stopped controling anything of significance with the English Civil war in the 17th century and all the talk of the monarchy holding anything is a red herring put about by those really in control. Crown property is owned by the government and monies earned from crown lands goes into the government coffers. As for owning Canada and Australia, the British Parliament in theory has a lot of say in how these countries are governed in the name of the Queen but in reality if they ever tried they would quickly be told to fuck off. Canada has not taken back those rights for domestic political reasons and one assumes that is the same for Australia. No doubt both will eventually legalise their full independence but it is their respective domestic politics that keeps the status quo, not the monarchy. This is the problem for all republicans, to give a working alternative to the present situation. Until then republicans will rant and blame everyone else for their inability to put forward and alternative. I'm no lover of the monarchy but wait with baited breath for alternatives to be put forward that haven't shown to be just as bad as the status quo in other countries.

dcnovice -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 11:31:32 AM)
quote: a German woman Now really, NG, her family's been in Britain for generations. Surely she's at least as entitled to be considered British as more recent immigrants whom it would be un-PC to denounce as foreigners. quote: who's never worked a day in her life Maybe it's because I'm an introvert, but chatting graciously with endless lines of tedious people strikes me a seriously hard work.

LadyEllen -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 11:57:37 AM)
The rightwing blames the immigrants The leftwing blames the Queen When all along the ones to blame Are standing inbetween Ourselves, in case you need a clue The ones who choose to vote The same old bullshit parties in But never pause to note The vested interests each one serves Are not at all our own But ends which justify all means And ends which are unknown E

meatcleaver -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 11:59:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: a German woman Now really, NG, her family's been in Britain for generations. Surely she's at least as entitled to be considered British as more recent immigrants whom it would be un-PC to denounce as foreigners. The last truely English king was Harold Godwin in 1066 so the talk of a the monarch being foreign israther nonsense. There were the Stuarts that were Scots who were a politically attrocious dynasty apart from the James I who couldn't get out of Scotland and down to London quick enough. Then there was the Tudors who had ties to Wales. If you said an immigrant wasn't British after 300 years I'm sure NG would have a political fit.[:D] quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: who's never worked a day in her life Maybe it's because I'm an introvert, but chatting graciously with endless lines of tedious people strikes me a seriously hard work. Its hard work I'm sure and I's prefer Elizabeth II to be doing it that President Tony Blair.

RealityLicks -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 12:01:45 PM)
Republican or not, hats off for the Prince Albert.

meatcleaver -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 12:03:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Republican or not, hats off for the Prince Albert. Are you referring to Albert's ring by any chance?[;)]

RealityLicks -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 12:23:40 PM)
They say you can't keep a good man down. They were wrong.

beeble -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 4:56:28 PM)
quote: meatcleaver wrote: The last truely English king was Harold Godwin in 1066 Bzzzzzzzzzzt! If Queen Elizabeth II isn't English because her family only came over from Germany a few hundred years ago, then King Harold II wasn't English for exactly the same reason. If we're using this definition of `Englishness', there's never been an English King of England, as the first King of England was the Saxon, Alfred the Great.

Politesub53 -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 5:12:07 PM)
bzzzzzt .... The first king of a united England was Athelstan the grandson of Alfred the great. [:D]

missturbation -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 5:28:08 PM)
quote: missturbation wrote: Bit of useless info for you but apperently queen lizzie owns all the swans in the UK and if you harm one or kill one it is treason. Not quite. The monarch owns the swans on the Thames and its tributaries. Harming or killing one certainly wouldn't count as treason; I doubt it would be taken more seriously than harming or killing any other swan. It is still an ancient law apparently that has never been changed. Of course you are probably right when you say nothing would really happen but it still exists, check it out. quote: Oh and if you deface the queens head on anything such as money, that is treason too. Off with ya head [;)] Again, I'm fairly sure that defacing an image of the monarch isn't treason. Also, even high treason isn't punishable by death any more, since EU human rights legislation (as, in this case, codified into UK law by the Crime and Disorder Act, 1998) forbids capital punishment under all circumstances. It may not be now but it was. Also i'm not as green as i'm cabbage looking. I'm perfectly aware that noone is put to death in the UK anymore rolls eyes

Absolutemaster -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 5:29:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SugarMyChurro quote: ORIGINAL: beeble Why only anti-monarchists? Is the provenance of the information more important to you than its accuracy? No. You are quite right - any source of accurate information would have sufficed. I was just trying to target the most likely source of accurate information. The subject of this thread would seem to have an anti-monarchist subtext, to me at least. Why should either an anti-monarchist or a pro-monarchist be a source of more accurate information? Each has an agenda to pursue, and will use or recite or spin such information as suits their purposes.

beeble -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 6:22:08 PM)
quote: [Politesub53 wrote: bzzzzzt .... The first king of a united England was Athelstan the grandson of Alfred the great. Bzzzzzzzzzt! Good point. But he was a Saxon, too. sheepishmumble

luckydog1 -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/3/2007 8:23:53 PM)
Aren't all "English" people descended from invaders and immigrants? Several waves of white invaders came in over the millenia and eliminated the earliest inhabitants who get called the "Picts", a variety of Innupiat like the Sami. White people are not from Europe, and others were living there when they came from Central Asia. Right?

Politesub53 -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/4/2007 3:26:21 AM)
Lucky, as you know Great Britain is made up of 4 seperate Countries. Scotland, the farthest north was home to the Picts prior to Roman times. Celtic tribes made up the rest of the populations, the largest being the Brythonic, this is where the word Britain comes from. England actually comes from the Angles, who along with the Saxons invaded in the 5th and 6th centuary. There are signs that mankind was here over 500,000 years ago and until 6,000 BC Britain was part of mainland Europe, until being cut off in the ice age of that period. The English Channel was infact a major river up to that point. Re the Picts..... They are descended from the Caledonii tribe, the Romans called them Picts as they were tattoed with paint.

meatcleaver -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/4/2007 5:55:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Aren't all "English" people descended from invaders and immigrants? Several waves of white invaders came in over the millenia and eliminated the earliest inhabitants who get called the "Picts", a variety of Innupiat like the Sami. White people are not from Europe, and others were living there when they came from Central Asia. Right? There has been some new thinking on this. The traditional theory is that the Anglo-Saxons were invited over from the norrth European coast, what is now Friesland (north Holland) round to Schlieswig-Holstein as mercenaries to repell the Picts who were pushing down into what is now England and attacking and looting the towns after the Romans left. Once in Britain, the Anglo-Saxons decided to take the land for themselves and pushed the Britons back to Scotland, into Wales, Cornwall and over to northern France (Brittany). The problem with this theory is the lack of archealogical evidence to back it up and their is a distinct lack of Celtic place names in England. Usually when foreigners take over a country some of the place names, particulary names of rivers are assimulated into the language of the incoming occupiers, however this never happened in this case. Now some scholars have argued that there are Germanic place names in England before the Roman occupation. If that is the case then England would have been Germanic before the Roman occupation and would explain why the Roman-Britons were happy to invite Germanic tribes as mercenaries, they would be seen as brethren and it would also explain the lack of evidence that the Anglo-Saxons drove the Celts out of what is now England because the Celts wouldn't have been there in the first place. The jury is still out but its an interesting theory that is going to need more research before it overthrows the current version of history which the Celts hold dear to because it is something else to bash the English for.

RealityLicks -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/4/2007 6:03:35 AM)
Isn't "Celt" a very loose term, too?

meatcleaver -> RE: Real Estate Holdings of the British Royal Family? (11/4/2007 6:12:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RealityLicks Isn't "Celt" a very loose term, too? Yes. The Celts originated in Germany too, though this is a time plateau idea because there was always something or someone before the beginning of a culture. As for what we think of the Celtic culture in the British Isles, that was a 18-19th century invention that was invented for political nationalistic reasons.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.2666016