HeadingNorth Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 If you go back that far then you're looking at local kings, not a king of England, let alone Britain and the commonwealth. Athelstan was the first king of England and no prizes for guessing how he got that. Precisely so; precisely so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I like it so I'll play along. Arguing from evolution, I'm a raging success. My family have been clever and hard working enough to put me where I am today, so I don't feel any envy to old Liz. Now, her being Queen is different. She got that from accident of birth, and has not earnt it one tiny little bit. She's earnt it as much as I have earnt two arms and two legs. They were there when my Mum pushed me out. Chris, Chris, Chris, you do give up easily. Lex Luther wouldn't moan about it earning it, he'd just come up with a dastardly plan and a freeze-ray-satellite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 i'm against the civil list for so many reasons Is one of those reasons the fact that our income from their land vastly outweighs the amount we pay them on the Civil List, and that if we abolished it the country would be a few hundred million pounds a year worse off because we'd have to give them their land back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 If you go back that far then you're looking at local kings, not a king of England, let alone Britain and the commonwealth. Athelstan was the first king of England and no prizes for guessing how he got that. You are half right King offa of Mercia 759-796 was the first king of this country but he was not the King of the full country apart from Northumbria ,King Athelstan 924-937 came a long time after Offa but he was said to be the first King of all of the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 You are half right King offa of Mercia 759-796 was the first king of this country but he was not the King of the full country apart from Northumbria ,King Athelstan 924-937 came a long time after Offa but he was said to be the first King of all of the country. And he obtained that position by conquest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 You are half right King offa of Mercia 759-796 was the first king of this country but he was not the King of the full countryHow does that make me half right? That's what I said, that before Athelstan you were looking at local kings, not a king of England. King of Mercia is not king of England. King Athelstan 924-937 came a long time after Offa but he was said to be the first King of all of the country.As I said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheff50 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 They nicked it fro the rest of us ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 They nicked it fro the rest of us ! Nowt new there then:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shogun Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 How does that make me half right? That's what I said, that before Athelstan you were looking at local kings, not a king of England. King of Mercia is not king of England. As I said. Its piking spots really Offa was not a very nice man apparently, he conquered most of the country but never managed to subdue Northumbria the two of them were related through Alfred the great don't think any of them were very nice people at all from what I have read chopping heads off and rape seemed to be there favorite pass times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epiphany Posted November 29, 2011 Author Share Posted November 29, 2011 Even if their wealth is justified, are protections such as the Bank of England Nominees Ltd? It's one thing to argue they have a right to their wealth, but the rest of us are subject to audits and general transparency under the legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.