Democracy and Monarchy

[cat]

The British are essentially feudal in outlook. It depresses me deeply but I cannot see how this could ever be changed. Too many people are seduced by the vanities of class affluence for an effective alternative ever to take hold.

Seems to me the only people "feudal in outlook" are those who oppose the monarchy simply on the basis that they're connected to feudal history.

[cat]

Certainly this one - by dint of its size and the character of its status in so many people's minds. I can't see King Charles out on a push bike; were that to happen I think we could speak of a different attitudinal pose being adopted.

He cycled all the time when living in Cambridge, maybe he thinks he's too old to do that now, but the Queen rode horses because that's what she liked doing, she could just as easily have been an avid cyclist. However, given that Boris Johnson liked cycling, I'm not sure you're on to something here. In any case you're implying it's a matter of degree rather than something fundamental - that if they just behaved in manner more to your liking, the "problem" would be ameliorated.

[oddoneout]

Certainly this one - by dint of its size and the character of its status in so many people's minds. I can't see King Charles out on a push bike; were that to happen I think we could speak of a different attitudinal pose being adopted.

Holland is a cycling nation (which makes the chance of being killed very unlikely - whatever one's views of monarchy, putting KC3 on a bike in this country is probably a step too far in effecting change...) and has a much more down to earth approach to life, including its monarchy, so the attitudinal approach is inbuilt I would suggest.

[RichardB]

The monarchy is inconsequential to societal inequality. Other monarchies in Europe include Norway, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, so go figure.

In fact the monarchy is very clearly linked to societal inequality. None of the other countries you mention come anywhere near England with regard to the size, visibility, expense and political presence of the English royal family. The principles by which the English monarchy works (tax avoidance, rent extraction, corporate investments etc.) coincide with the priorities of the corporations that sustain inequality in the UK and elsewhere. They are all part of the problem, not of the solution.

[teamsaint]

Seems to me the only people "feudal in outlook" are those who oppose the monarchy simply on the basis that they're connected to feudal history.

That seems more than adequate reason to abolish the monarchy.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author

[oddoneout]

That seems more than adequate reason to abolish the monarchy.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/20...downers-author

I believe UK land is seen as a good investment by overseas buyers so removing it from the royals wouldn't necessarily be of any benefit to this country - continuing current undesirable practices ( for instance "sporting" estates) but with arguably even less control and scrutiny. I don't see Trump's ownership of a large chunk of Aberdeen as being the kind of future this country needs.

[RichardB]

I believe UK land is seen as a good investment by overseas buyers so removing it from the royals wouldn't necessarily be of any benefit to this country - continuing current undesirable practices ( for instance "sporting" estates) but with arguably even less control and scrutiny. I don't see Trump's ownership of a large chunk of Aberdeen as being the kind of future this country needs.

The problematic concept here is the "ownership" of land so that it can be rented back to those who live and/or work on it. The kind of future the country needs should be based on common ownership, not the royal family or Trump or any other such entities.

[Sir Velo]

Holland is a cycling nation (which makes the chance of being killed very unlikely - whatever one's views of monarchy, putting KC3 on a bike in this country is probably a step too far in effecting change...) and has a much more down to earth approach to life, including its monarchy, so the attitudinal approach is inbuilt I would suggest.

By Holland, I presume we mean the Netherlands?

This idea that the Netherlands has cycling inbuilt in its DNA is pretty much a myth perpetuated by those who like to enforce the idea it could never catch on here. In fact, until the 70s, the Netherlands experienced much the same problems with an overweening car culture that we have in the UK. However, at that time, faced with mounting death toll on the roads, a sufficient number of far sighted planners started to design and build infrastructure which allowed pedestrians and cyclists an alternative to the car. Absolutely, no reason at all, other than political inertia or vested interest that the UK shouldn't follow suit. In fact, there are signs that the culture is changing, albeit slowly in the face of overwhelming evidence as to the negative impact on health, the environment, climate etc you name it that the ICE has.

[teamsaint]

I believe UK land is seen as a good investment by overseas buyers so removing it from the royals wouldn't necessarily be of any benefit to this country - continuing current undesirable practices ( for instance "sporting" estates) but with arguably even less control and scrutiny. I don't see Trump's ownership of a large chunk of Aberdeen as being the kind of future this country needs.

The royals are only part of a widespread system of hereditary power and wealth.

I don's see that kind of system as the kind of future that the country needs, any more or less than ownership by people like Trump or corporations

Control and scrutiny can be done via legislation. We don't have to have a system where powerful elite groups of whatever sort, keep wealth and power for themselves in perpetuity, at the expense of others.

[teamsaint]

The problematic concept here is the "ownership" of land so that it can be rented back to those who live and/or work on it. The kind of future the country needs should be based on common ownership, not the royal family or Trump or any other such entities.

Much of the land was stolen from the population anyway, via enclosures, war, invasion.

This is not a bad read, despite being published by Bloomsbury .....

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Trespass-Crossing-Lines-Divide/dp/1526604728/ref=sr_1_1?adgrpid=53342007556&gclid=Cj0KCQjw7KqZBhCBARIsAI-fTKLttOgPuZknJPtWdyjSJ9s51jxIuj6q-JzE9W3yk6238B1uUNMostQaAiC1EALw_wcB&hvadid=259033534248&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=1007044&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=2185715264881519772&hvtargid=kwd-314746092900&hydadcr=24399_1748859&keywords=trespass+book&qid=1663751885&sr=8-1

[RichardB]

Much of the land was stolen from the population anyway, via enclosures, war, invasion.

Indeed. That's the foundation on which the English monarchy is based.

[Dave2002]

The royals are only part of a widespread system of hereditary power and wealth.

I don's see that kind of system as the kind of future that the country needs, any more or less than ownership by people like Trump or corporations

Control and scrutiny can be done via legislation. We don't have to have a system where powerful elite groups of whatever sort, keep wealth and power for themselves in perpetuity, at the expense of others.

So who should be allowed to own land? In some other countries what started off as perhaps a reasonable system went sour due to inheritance etc. Small farms which were barely viable became fragmented as the sons who inherited a share of the land from their ancestors were reluctant to give them up.

For some activities - farming and forestry it probably does make sense that land is owned and managed by organisations - but then there is the issue of "who takes the profit, etc.?".

One big concern I have is that some land is owned by bodies external to the UK, something which I understand might not happen in other countries, such as Switzerland, where in order to own land and property one has to be a Swiss citizen.

[teamsaint]

So who should be allowed to own land? In some other countries what started off as perhaps a reasonable system went sour due to inheritance etc. Small farms which were barely viable became fragmented as the sons who inherited a share of the land from their ancestors were reluctant to give them up.

For some activities - farming and forestry it probably does make sense that land is owned and managed by organisations - but then there is the issue of "who takes the profit, etc.?".

One big concern I have is that some land is owned by bodies external to the UK, something which I understand might not happen in other countries, such as Switzerland, where in order to own land and property one has to be a Swiss citizen.

Well we could start by having a limit to the area owned by any individual or company.

1000 acres maybe ? that's plenty for a family to make a good living. Just for the sake of argument of course....

[RichardB]

For some activities - farming and forestry it probably does make sense that land is owned and managed by organisations

It makes sense that land is managed by organisations, yes, but why would it be necessary for them to "own" it? Why is it necessary for land to be "owned" by any individuals or corporations?

[Ein Heldenleben]

Well we could start by having a limit to the area owned by any individual or company.

1000 acres maybe ? that's plenty for a family to make a good living. Just for the sake of argument of course....

1,000 acres is about £10 million worth of farmland. That would put you in the top 1 per cent of farmland owners in the Uk. You can make a living out of 100- 250 acres depending on what you farm though you’ll need the £80 to £100 an acre in subsidies .
An arable farmer with 1,000 acres would pull in £80k of those no trouble and if growing barley might make about £1500 per acre tops so maybe another £1,5 mill - but not every year as you’d need to rotate .
You can make a tidy living just growing veg if you know what you’re doing.
I guess the bottom line is that quite a few farmers are raking it in.
. On the other hand an upland lamb farmer would be lucky to clear £20 k - maybe less.
If it’s Romanée Conti Red Burgundy wine you can make a very, very good living out of an acre or so…