HeadingNorth Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 The concept of 'all land belonging to the Monarch' is little more than a concept. - If you hold the 'freehold' on a piece of land then it is - effectively - yours. The Monarch is hardly likely to take it back. It isn't even a concept - it's a lie. After the Norman Conquest, the previous Saxon owners of land were turfed off it and King William decided which of his cronies would be the new owners. At a stretch, you could argue that this means in 1067, the monarch owned all the land - but it has never been true since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 You seem to be very jealous of the landed 'gentry' as you call them is it because you want a slice of their land. The land and the wealth that it generates should belong to all. Pathetic I say. Look at Chatsworth for instance, what an amazing place and how well is it looked after. Just cannot imagine what it would be like looked after by you and would you let the public in to enjoy it. I think not it would be mine all mine and totally ruined by someone who had no idea how to look after such a place. Stop being jealous and be satisfied with what you have. I've not suggested Chatsworth house should be mine? Interesting to note that Chatsworth house is owned by the Cavendish family. Their ancestor John Cavendish dealt the fatal blow to Wat Tyler, and was subsequently beheaded by Jack Straw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 It isn't even a concept - it's a lie. After the Norman Conquest, the previous Saxon owners of land were turfed off it and King William decided which of his cronies would be the new owners. At a stretch, you could argue that this means in 1067, the monarch owned all the land - but it has never been true since. Allodial property rights? Isn't it the case that all land is said to belong to the Crown? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Allodial property rights? Isn't it the case that all land is said to belong to the Crown? It's frequently said, but it is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riannon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 You seem to be very jealous of the landed 'gentry' as you call them is it because you want a slice of their land. Pathetic I say. Look at Chatsworth for instance, what an amazing place and how well is it looked after. Just cannot imagine what it would be like looked after by you and would you let the public in to enjoy it. I think not it would be mine all mine and totally ruined by someone who had no idea how to look after such a place. Stop being jealous and be satisfied with what you have. When I first arrived in Sheffield I went to look at some houses at Greenhill. These houses had been built on the site of Greenhill Hall. I reasearched the place and found out that it was a spectacular mediaeval manor hose that was aquired by Sheffield Council through compulsary purchase in the 1950s despite it being occupied by a family who had lived there for generations. Barely 10 years later the place was in such a state that the council demolished it despite it being a listed building. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 It's frequently said, but it is not true. Private ownership of land can not, nor can it ever exist Aristocratic families/favoured groups can be subsidised and granted economic privilege backed by force however. And that is the problem. IMO at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chem1st Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 When I first arrived in Sheffield I went to look at some houses at Greenhill. These houses had been built on the site of Greenhill Hall. I reasearched the place and found out that it was a spectacular mediaeval manor hose that was aquired by Sheffield Council through compulsary purchase in the 1950s despite it being occupied by a family who had lived there for generations. Barely 10 years later the place was in such a state that the council demolished it despite it being a listed building. Do you think it better for a plot of land to be used to house one privileged aristocratic family, or multiple commoners? Surely it is better to house everyone, than to have one family live in luxury whilst the rest live in poverty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nouxnoux Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Do you think it better for a plot of land to be used to house one privileged aristocratic family, or multiple commoners? Surely it is better to house everyone, than to have one family live in luxury whilst the rest live in poverty? So you would be happy to see all the beautiful stately homes and the amazing parkland that surrounds these to be knocked down and vast estates of houses built on these. All the farmland and the beautiful countryside built on. What an awful country we would live in. No beauty, no heritage how sad you are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riannon Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 So you would be happy to see all the beautiful stately homes and the amazing parkland that surrounds these to be knocked down and vast estates of houses built on these. All the farmland and the beautiful countryside built on. What an awful country we would live in. No beauty, no heritage how sad you are. Bang goes our tourist industry. I'm not sure that many Americans who come to see Chatsworth House will be flocking over to see Park Hill Flats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Do you think it better for a plot of land to be used to house one privileged aristocratic family, or multiple commoners? Surely it is better to house everyone, than to have one family live in luxury whilst the rest live in poverty? I think they should be saved for lots of reasons. Historically valuable, they may be open to a vast number of visitors, and provide accommodation and employment. I love places like Chatsworth! There are other opportunities for more housing provision. The government should be targeting property owners that leave their houses empty and than let them fall into disrepair. That doesn't only deny someone a home, it can be a blight on a neighbourhood. A high tax on those might see them being either sold on, possibly to housing associations, or let directly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.