Royal owned London

[gingerjon]

Yes, Diocese of Ely seems to own most of the land around where I live that isn't owned by one of the Cambridge colleges. Quite keen on getting houses built on most of it, too. At least they do put the money back into the local economy - thousands of old buildings requiring expensive upkeep must take a fair amount of cash.

 

For a time, don't know if it's still true, the Church owned the land on which the Gateshead Metro Centre stood.  Nice little earner.

[Saintslass]

Nothing wrong with being rich, i'm full of admiration for people like Richard Branson, Alan Sugar & Peter Jones and the more people like this we have in the country the better. This argument isn't all about wealth, its about privilege and class. Wealth (and land) is there to be owned, and good on anyone who goes out and earns it. 

 

What I find fundamentally wrong is the way these dukes were just given land simply for being royal cronies hundreds of years ago, and they now see it as their automatic right to have ownership of this land because of some ponsey title.

Your second paragraph undermines your first.  The reason why the dukes were given the land was because the owners of the land were rich and so could give the land to whom they chose.  The land was often given in reward for some loyal service, often in battle but not always.  We are talking about a very long time ago and they are as entitled to the ownership of the land they now have as you would be if you were given land.

[Saintslass]

For a time, don't know if it's still true, the Church owned the land on which the Gateshead Metro Centre stood.  Nice little earner.

At one time the Church of England was the second biggest landowner to the Queen I believe.  The CofE has been selling off a lot of its assets though in recent decades due to the spiralling cost of maintaining its massive number of crumbling buildings and the falling numbers of people contributing to the same.  That the CofE still exists at all is probably mostly because of the money it receives from the assets it owns.

[Griff9of13]

Your second paragraph undermines your first.  The reason why the dukes were given the land was because the owners of the land were rich and so could give the land to whom they chose.  The land was often given in reward for some loyal service, often in battle but not always.  We are talking about a very long time ago and they are as entitled to the ownership of the land they now have as you would be if you were given land.

 

Land that they originally had no entitlement to but claimed by force or legally stole from common ownership.

[Saintslass]

Land that they originally had no entitlement to but claimed by force or legally stole from common ownership.

All well and good only that wasn't the point made in the post I was responding to. 

 

Try again.

[Phil]

Land that they originally had no entitlement to but claimed by force or legally stole from common ownership.

 

 

All well and good only that wasn't the point made in the post I was responding to. 

 

Try again.

 

 

???????????????? What?

[Saint Toppy]

Your second paragraph undermines your first.  The reason why the dukes were given the land was because the owners of the land were rich and so could give the land to whom they chose.  The land was often given in reward for some loyal service, often in battle but not always.  We are talking about a very long time ago and they are as entitled to the ownership of the land they now have as you would be if you were given land.

It wasn't their land to give in the first place

 

and as for the 'loyalty in battle', these land owners more often than not forced the peasents living on 'their land' to go and fight on their behalf. If they didn't fight they were either killed or forced off the land.