The British Monarchy

halfcenturyup said:
Clearly, the royal family needs to join the 21st century if it is to survive but I doubt very much that getting rid of the royal family will cure any of the ills plaguing the UK, or make any difference at all to 99% of the population.

Just imimho
Click to expand...
Getting rid of royalty and the whole aristocracy would make a huge difference if all their land was reclaimed for the good of the population.
 
Bill Walker said:
Getting rid of royalty and the whole aristocracy would make a huge difference if all their land was reclaimed for the good of the population.
Click to expand...
How much land do you think they actually own? Note Crown Land doesn't count that is already administered by the Government (so effectively already 'for the good of the people' though your views on that may be coloured by your views of the Government!).
 
Gremlin said:
How much land do you think they actually own? Note Crown Land doesn't count that is already administered by the Government (so effectively already 'for the good of the people' though your views on that may be coloured by your views of the Government!).
Click to expand...

250,000 acres at the last count is directly owned by the royal family. A Danish billionaire owns more land than the royals as do many many more entities and individuals.

In Australia Gina Rinehart owns : 9.7 million hectares

The Emerson family in America own 2,400,000 acres

The royal family don't even touch the sides on land ownership or wealth they are a POLITICAL target.

www.onemorehectare.com

These are the 5 biggest landowners in the world

<p><strong>Land is a sought-after property, and very important for farmers. However, there are also many actors outside the agricultural sector for whom land is...
www.onemorehectare.com www.onemorehectare.com
 
Last edited:
Bill Walker said:
Getting rid of royalty and the whole aristocracy would make a huge difference if all their land was reclaimed for the good of the population.
Click to expand...
So; reclaim all the land that they actually own privately, not crown land. Sell it all off, and divide the proceeds equally among the 67 million in the UK. How much will each individual get? Or how many new hospitals or schools would it build?
 
This country is almost unique in the civilised world in that it has never had land reform.

Land reform is now much harder due to - ironically - Human Rights legislation. Yes, even landowners have human rights. You cannot arbitrarily seize their property. But land reform is necessary and this includes (but also goes beyond) the royal family.

Of course, as matters stand, the King and the Prince of Wales would simply veto any proposed legislation that touched them, even in their private capacities.

Democracy? Yeah, sure it is.
 
BrianW said:
This country is almost unique in the civilised world in that it has never had land reform.

Land reform is now much harder due to - ironically - Human Rights legislation. Yes, even landowners have human rights. You cannot arbitrarily seize their property. But land reform is necessary and this includes (but also goes beyond) the royal family.

Of course, as matters stand, the King and the Prince of Wales would simply veto any proposed legislation that touched them, even in their private capacities.

Democracy? Yeah, sure it is.
Click to expand...
You're preaching to morons and the wilfully ignorant.

Just take solace that with this you are on the side of history that will one day be proven right.
 
Gremlin said:
How much land do you think they actually own? Note Crown Land doesn't count that is already administered by the Government (so effectively already 'for the good of the people' though your views on that may be coloured by your views of the Government!).
Click to expand...
Roughly a third of British land is owned by the nobility and landed gentry. About 20 million acres.
And they have owned it for centuries.

Aristocrats own third of land in England and Wales

Nearly a third of land in England and Wales is still owned by a small group of aristocrats, research indicated today.
www.independent.co.uk www.independent.co.uk
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Wonder if Charles 11 will have to go through an assessment to get signed off work?
Click to expand...
A complete irrelevance given that the King hasn’t stopped working; he’s simply had fewer face to face meetings during his cancer treatment, but he continues his daily.

So not only is your post a bit sad and frankly pathetic for digging out a 75 year old bloke who has cancer, it’s also wholly misguided.

It’s Charles III as well, by the way.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
Wonder if Charles 11 will have to go through an assessment to get signed off work?
Click to expand...
The assessment designed by the DWP. with a quota to knock people off benefits this should be in another thread I think

The King will do the daily chores the Queen used to do right up to her death, meet and greet and signed papers out of the red box, she used to get from the government Charles will worry himself sick and will do what everyone else with cancer does try to beat it
 
Brewster's millions said:
A complete irrelevance given that the King hasn’t stopped working; he’s simply had fewer face to face meetings during his cancer treatment, but he continues his daily.

So not only is your post a bit sad and frankly pathetic for digging out a 75 year old bloke who has cancer, it’s also wholly misguided.

It’s Charles III as well, by the way.
Click to expand...
Gawd Bless Em!

*Doffs cap*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top