O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Geoff Parkstone]

Perhaps not everyone perceives rA as getting the balance right.....

[ramAnag]

Perhaps not everyone perceives rA as getting the balance right.....

Lol...I’m positive you’re right...I’m also comforted by the knowledge that the two people on here I appear to have least in common with, as regards politics, are you and TTR. It’s really very reassuring.

[Geoff Parkstone]

How to solve the Windrush issue, Swale style 😊. None of the are British, get rid.....

[Geoff Parkstone]

Lol...I’m positive you’re right...I’m also comforted by the knowledge that the two people on here I appear to have least in common with, as regards politics, are you and TTR. It’s really very reassuring.

Glad to have reassured you. One day I will work out where my politics lie, but I suspect not until I became an even more cantankerous 80 year old, if I get there.

[Geoff Parkstone]

He did say "blessed are the cheesemakers" though, and so he clearly has a preference for certain trades and professions

[Geoff Parkstone]

"....the thieving aristocracy which as history shows obtained their land and wealth by royal patronage, that land having very often been removed from the control and ownership of poor people."

let me think back in history. When did the poor people control and own land?

Lets start by looking back to the Inclosure Acts, the first of which was in 1773. Prior to these acts the land was "owned" / controlled by the the lord of the local manor - some of it was set aside as waste, some as common land for communal grazing and the balance strip farmed by either the lord of the manor, or allocated by said lord of the manor to tenants, peasants, serfs or copyholders. The allocation of this land was "managed" by a manorial court; this was a very inefficient process and so full legal control was passed to the landowner and more efficient parcelling of the land was facilitated.

None of this would appear to reflect royal patronage, but rather a legally sanctioned aggregation of the land, whereunder the tenant/peasants were paid compensation to waive their rights to use of the land. I make no comment on the fairness of the system, but this was 250 years ago.

Crown ownership of land began on the death of William the Conqueror, who had owned the land by virtue of conquest - when the system of royal manors first started. There followed a development of feudal / vassal system. The idea of land ownership by anyone but the crown / under crown allocation only began to emerge in the mid 1600's

So we are back to 1066 as the most recent date when possibly "the poor people owned the land", at which time of course ownership of anything apart from some geese and a hut was inconceivable. As I understand it, under the Anglo Saxons there was a degree of feudalism and the church had done a massive land grab (there's a surprise) but essentially noone owned the land.

So exactly when did these poor people control and own the land that was thieved away?

[swaledale]

"....the thieving aristocracy which as history shows obtained their land and wealth by royal patronage, that land having very often been removed from the control and ownership of poor people."

let me think back in history. When did the poor people control and own land?

Lets start by looking back to the Inclosure Acts, the first of which was in 1773. Prior to these acts the land was "owned" / controlled by the the lord of the local manor - some of it was set aside as waste, some as common land for communal grazing and the balance strip farmed by either the lord of the manor, or allocated by said lord of the manor to tenants, peasants, serfs or copyholders. The allocation of this land was "managed" by a manorial court; this was a very inefficient process and so full legal control was passed to the landowner and more efficient parcelling of the land was facilitated.

None of this would appear to reflect royal patronage, but rather a legally sanctioned aggregation of the land, whereunder the tenant/peasants were paid compensation to waive their rights to use of the land. I make no comment on the fairness of the system, but this was 250 years ago.

Crown ownership of land began on the death of William the Conqueror, who had owned the land by virtue of conquest - when the system of royal manors first started. There followed a development of feudal / vassal system. The idea of land ownership by anyone but the crown / under crown allocation only began to emerge in the mid 1600's

So we are back to 1066 as the most recent date when possibly "the poor people owned the land", at which time of course ownership of anything apart from some geese and a hut was inconceivable. As I understand it, under the Anglo Saxons there was a degree of feudalism and the church had done a massive land grab (there's a surprise) but essentially noone owned the land.

So exactly when did these poor people control and own the land that was thieved away?

It was available for use and in some cases owned by people and ownership taken over by others with no inherent right (other than the power to do so).

Many of todays aristocrats were given ownership of land by Royal patronage.

So we celebrate history but not permitted to think mm that wasn't fair?

[Geoff Parkstone]

It may have been given under royal patronage to the manorial classes, albeit in return for service in battle etc, so not actually free, but it was never taken from the poor as it was never owned by the poor. At some points in time tenants and copyholders may have had limited entitlement to use of land, but never ownership.

Trust me this issue was my "dissertation" (except it wasnt called that) at A level..........

And as to whether it was fair - I suggest you take that one up with the conquering Normans

[swaledale]

It may have been given under royal patronage to the manorial classes, albeit in return for service in battle etc, so not actually free, but it was never taken from the poor as it was never owned by the poor. At some points in time tenants and copyholders may have had limited entitlement to use of land, but never ownership.

Trust me this issue was my "dissertation" (except it wasnt called that) at A level..........

And as to whether it was fair - I suggest you take that one up with the conquering Normans

Ah I trust you, though I'm not really sure you A level history was quite in depth enough to actually cover the whole subject.

[ramAnag]

Trust me this issue was my "dissertation" (except it wasnt called that) at A level..........

You did a ‘dissertation’ at A level. Really? Or do you mean you wrote an essay?
I did History A level, probably a year before you, and albeit JMB not the ‘soft southern’ version ...but course work counted for nothing, everything depended on exams and there were certainly no dissertations.