Royalist or Republican: Poll

[Yorkie]

Most of them were actually bought off Edward VIII due to him buggering off.

Errrm they passed to George VI because he abdicated, they weren't his to sell.

 

[London Calling]

do you prpose we go back through the history of ever peice of land to establish the worthiness of its ownership and how it was aquired? how far do you want to go back, who owned the land in the first place? we are where we are, lets move on from here rather then draggin up tired old objections from the past. owning land is not parasitic, no matter how it was aquired.

and in fairness all that repression and fighting over the centuries has probably been quite tiring to all those involved

I am talking about the 1% of land owners, owning 80% of the land, is not actually a fair distribution in a modern society.

I have no time for any hierachial power being handed down. Of any political or economic system, I think my posts reflect this and my examples reinforce this position.

I was thinking earlier today that we have table tennis our thoughts on this and similar subjects before. Especially medieval history.

I believe by fine tuning we can still make a difference, I can't quite see it happening in the UK for a while, the time of revolution has far gone, but the time for redistibution has not.

Personally I believe opening up access fully in the countryside is more achievable and deliverable. Some wealth tax is deliverable and ICONS such as the monarchy need to be removed.

Not all of the above as you have pointed out is b=necessary and even my own example of Sweden has achieved most of my goals and delivers a well supported functioning Monarchy. God bless 'em.

 

[Yorkie]

I am talking about the 1% of land owners, owning 80% of the land, is not actually a fair distribution in a modern society.

One of the biggest landowners in the country is the Church of England followed by the Duke of Norfolk and the Duke of Westminster. None of these is related to royalty (although way back in the past there were links)

 

[London Calling]

Not bollocks. Unless Hampshire Dave's a liar. And I'd put his version of events way above the shite that you post.

...and what the hell has the Franks report got to say 1 way or another on Prince Andrew? I'll tell you - none. If that's the best you can do, I'd leave this debate now to people who can make cogent and RELEVANT statements.

Read it my friend, you may also note the author shares a common surname with me. Evidence collected in the report, on the full range of military movements indicate otherwise. And even at the time Broadcasts at the time whilst censored, detailed his role. But as I say I got nothing againgst the guy he did his duty.

Actually I don't doubt P Andrews bravery nor his brother (s). Evidence and just common sense implies, that we would not have put him at serious risk.

 

[London Calling]

One of the biggest landowners in the country is the Church of England followed by the Duke of Norfolk and the Duke of Westminster. None of these is related to royalty (although way back in the past there were links)

True Yorks and every year there is a review of land ownership in the UK. These 3 alone are fairly wealthy estates. The Norfolks have definately been realted to the Monarchy and they have also been the main advisors. But I trust your judgement, if that is not the case now.

 

[Yorkie]

True Yorks and every year there is a review of land ownership in the UK. These 3 alone are fairly wealthy estates. The Norfolks have definately been realted to the Monarchy and they have also been the main advisors. But I trust your judgement, if that is not the case now.

The Norfolks links were Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard - two wives of Henry VIII, which is quite a way back.

 

[London Calling]

From the MOD on Prince Andrew

"820 Squadron (RNAS Culdrose)
Sea King HAS5, Anti-Submarine Warfare. Embarked in HMS Invincible, one of only two operational aircraft carriers available to the Royal Navy, 820 Squadron was to play a major role in the Royal Navy taskforce being assembled to sail south to retake the islands. Serving in the squadron as a Sub Lieutenant was HRH Prince Andrew, and at first the British government was apprehensive of allowing the Prince to remain in Invincible, and wished to move him to a desk job. The prospect of the son of the Queen being killed in action was a possibility, and the government wished to avoid such a circumstance. However, the Queen insisted that Prince Andrew be allowed to remain with his ship, and so he joined the Invincible as it sailed south, as a Sea King helicopter co-pilot. Throughout the conflict Prince Andrew flew on various missions, including Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) and Anti-Surface Warfare search (ASUW), as well as acting as an Exocet missile decoy. He also helped in casualty evacuation, transport and Search and Air Rescue (SAR). When the conflict ended, and HMS Invincible returned to Portsmouth, the Queen and Prince Philip joined other families of the other crew to welcome the vessel home.

Without fuller detail, coordinates etc. He did a job.

Though a recent Guardian report was pretty critical of his cost and worth to the nation.

 

[Yorkie]

The Exocet missile decoy was dropping fine bits of tin foil from the helicopter to deflect the missiles away from the ships. It also made the helicopter he was flying a target too.

The Guardian? That doesn't surprise me.

 

[clapham_gull]

One of the biggest landowners in the country is the Church of England followed by the Duke of Norfolk and the Duke of Westminster. None of these is related to royalty (although way back in the past there were links)

The church of England made 19 million in 2005 in London...






.. from Parking spaces.

 

[clapham_gull]

If republicans can come up with a decent argument instead of trotting out dubius generalisations

What like they are good for tourism ?, if that isn't a dubious generalisation I don't know what is.

 

[Yorkie]

OOhh I've just noticed my terrible spelling in that quote.

I'll give up the tourism if others give up the spongers/parasite generalisations.

 

[clapham_gull]

OOhh I've just noticed my terrible spelling in that quote.

I'll give up the tourism if others give up the spongers/parasite generalisations.

I trade you a parasite for a tourist attraction

 

[beorhthelm]

I am talking about the 1% of land owners, owning 80% of the land, is not actually a fair distribution in a modern society.

i wouldnt call it fair either, but does it really matter? it might have once with argricultral economy that the peasants owned the land they farmed so they didnt have to pay rent to a lord. but today the peasants are in office blocks in cities.

where we are today, how do you devise a fair way to redistribute land, from people who have owned and used it for generations, to people who dont need or cant use it?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

[yt]nTMQJi_wDi8[/yt]

...and this is the only sensible post on this entire thread.

 

[London Calling]

i wouldnt call it fair either, but does it really matter? it might have once with argricultral economy that the peasants owned the land they farmed so they didnt have to pay rent to a lord. but today the peasants are in office blocks in cities.

where we are today, how do you devise a fair way to redistribute land, from people who have owned and used it for generations, to people who dont need or cant use it?

That's why I have realistically been pushing more for access to land than redistribution of land, there are mechanism for facilitating the release of land, taxing land banking for instance and of course land taxes. The state could of course also acquire some land for redevelopment.

However, the high value land, is in the cities, and the cheap land, suitable for sheep etc in the countryside