O/T. The Government's handling of Covid

[Andy_Faber]

Twisted anti Royal sentiment, mm I've nothing against the royals per se

I should really sit back and let TTR take you apart on this but he's not around, maybe the Mail On sunday was a bit late being delivered today.

In post 1578 you made two factually incorrect statements, in post 1583 I called you out on them, whilst making no statement pro- or anti- the institution in question. Now you can't stop bleating on about it, including making assumptions about my leanings on the subject, which I haven't shared.

As I've said, take a break. You've gone from trowel to spade to shovel, don't make that hole so big you need a mini-digger

[ramAnag]

Surely a mature democracy should have abandoned the Monarchy by now, or is it just that in reality many British are a paradoxical mix of thinking they are the "greatest people on earth" whilst at the same time have a need to be subservient to their so called "betters". We should respect people irrespective of their origin or so called status in life, but as a society we seem hung up on class and 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.

Agreed...this ‘paradoxical’, or even schizophrenic, mix was also apparent in what I was talking about in the case of my 40 year old friend being vaccinated two or three days ago.
He only became eligible because many of the 60-65 locals, who were in terms of age appropriateness far more eligible, had been frightened off by scare stories about the AZ vaccine from Europe.
This was in an area that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit and yet, when they had to make a choice, chose to believe European scaremongering over UK science. Go figure...nowt so queer as folk.

[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]

I should really sit back and let TTR take you apart on this but he's not around, maybe the Mail On sunday was a bit late being delivered today.

In post 1578 you made two factually incorrect statements, in post 1583 I called you out on them, whilst making no statement pro- or anti- the institution in question. Now you can't stop bleating on about it, including making assumptions about my leanings on the subject, which I haven't shared.

As I've said, take a break. You've gone from trowel to spade to shovel, don't make that hole so big you need a mini-digger

Oh my when the level of arrogant cobblers increases in your posts I can tell your on the back foot.

As is usual with you, you nit pick around an argument rather than address the core of it, most likely because your incapable of addressing the core.

Your as is often the case wrong in your assertion that you called me out on two factually incorrect statements - not a surprise seeing as you called me out on racism that was clearly not (and this from someone who uses the phrase "broadly non racist) and then attributed a statement of mine to be xenophobic - tip do look up definitions before making a prat of yourself in a post!

Yes I was wrong to infer the Queen was German, she is of German heritage, however, you didnt say this, but said she was born is the UK as if that made a person British, so no cigar there!

Secondly the Duke of Edinburgh is Greek, undeniably so, but according to you this all changed when he took British citizenship! Nope he is still in fact Greek! Yes he is a British citizen, but it doesn't change the fact my statement was correct. So no cigar there either.

You completely ignore the premise of my argument, but I can see that is either because you don't understand it, though its not complicated, but I really shouldn't assume a level of comprehension you don't seem to have> Or that you choose not to, it could even be because you disagree with it, but then as per usual you don't really convey that.

Thicky take me apart? Please! If you think he could do that or even string together a coherent argument based on facts than I really have over estimated you!

Your right I don't know whether your anti Royal or pro Royal, I don't know whether your a racist and xenophobe or just pretending not to be. i don't knwo whether your a bigot or just blinkered or simply thick.

All I have to go on are your contradictory posts generally filled with falsehoods and inaccuracies and a worrying ability to say one thing yet seem to be someone who believes quite the opposite.

I do know quite of lot of what you claim is bull****, I have a good bull**** detector and your posts absolutely reek of it! Maybe you should take your own advice as you do a good job of posting stuff that makes you seem thick.

Anyway it is very amusing reading what you post.

[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.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Drifting back on topic, I see QANTAS are planning to make a vaccination mandatory on international flights. If they do, then I'm sure other airlines will follow suit ( if only to avoid being sued).

Given the evident reluctance on the part of certain religious groups to vaccinate, this should make air travel much safer as regards 9-11 risk! 😊

[Geoff Parkstone]

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.

It was an S Level and, if I remember well, 5000 words (Cambridge Board) - - -