The British Royal Family

[EnglishLady]

Actually Sue, this is not to dispute you but this was part of a big discussion in Parliament a few years back on the question of autonomy within the borders of England, like what Wales and especially Cornwall have to follow. It was further discussed recently in one of the law review journals which posed a great question - what is Absolute Ownership?

I know that land reforms that started in the late 19th century had a great positive affect on the individual but I heard that there were no repeals of the agreements made starting in 1066 and in 1666 which confirmed the sovereign's right of ownership of the land. Maybe I'm wrong and heard/read something else but it seems that Absolute Ownership is still practiced in some situations.

Ah this has to do with Prince Charles and the Duchy of Cornwall (which Prince Charles owns funny enough lol).
I believe is still an ongoing "secret quarrel"

It is a very heady subject Greg, thats for sure.
Some places I am reading "gave the land back to the landowners" and other places say "back to the Crown".

In England we have Freehold and Leasehold and as far as I am aware if the buyer buys freehold that is his and his alone.
Leasehold speaks for itself

If a person, who owns freehold, dies they can will their land anyway they wish, it does not go to the "Crown" automatically.

 

[EnglishLady]

ALMOST right on one thing their Sue. The "Crown" still (or at least 30 years ago did, retain ALL rights to ALL fish AND game in the UK. They can "grant" rights to some to hunt or fish for those species. Often those "grants" for service to the "Crown". Those granted those "rights" are taxed on the commercial value of those rights. IE: The value of the "quality" of the fishing + the estimated value of the number of salmon that pass through their holdings.

Example: "The Altries Water" on the River Dee in Scotland.

The River Dee was known as the "Queen Mother's River" She retained all fishing and shooting rights on all lands that adjoin that river while she was alive. At her death those rights would pass to her hiers.

I like to salmon fish. ALL salmon fishing in England, Scotland and Wales is on a pay as you go basis. The cost is based on the quality of the fishing. Costs are set by the "owner" to cover the costs of the taxes they pay on those "rights", to cover the costs of estate staff and make a profit.

I fished the "Altries Water". The "rights" to that estate were granted to a Col. Campbell, for "service to the Crown"during WWII. "Altries Water" is located near Peterulter, Scotland.

"Good Waters" on ALL salmon rivers in all three countries were beyond the reach of most "common men" due the the extreme cost of fishing them. At that time, "Junction Pool", the confluence of River Twee and Teviot located at Kelso, cost around 1500 pounds PER ROD PER WEEK during the prime fall season. That price did NOT include the use of a "guillie" which was required.

Please forgive all bad spelling, I have enough problems spelling "'Merican" let alone English and "Scottish"

LOL

Yep you got me there, forgot about all the water didn't I

The only thing I know about fishing the rivers and lakes is that there are very few places where you can "just go & fish" you usually have to have a licence - which has nothing to do with the Crown .... just government getting more money out of you &/or helps to re-stock and take care of water quality.
It can be a very expensive hobby.

 

[EnglishLady]

Recently read that President Obama is noticeably absent from the list of invitees to the royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton. Sarkozy's invited. Obama is not. What could account for this deliberate avoidance? I can think of several possibilities.

Really? I did not know that

Do you think maybe the invite got lost in the Christmas Post

 

[layoutshooter]

LOL

Yep you got me there, forgot about all the water didn't I

The only thing I know about fishing the rivers and lakes is that there are very few places where you can "just go & fish" you usually have to have a licence - which has nothing to do with the Crown .... just government getting more money out of you &/or helps to re-stock and take care of water quality.
It can be a very expensive hobby.

The same thing applies to shooting (hunting). The Crown controls it all and grants similar rights and taxes on land owners, even "freeholders" All game, like deer, pheasants, grouse etc and even "vermin" like rabbits and hares are owned by the "Crown"

Land owners are taxed on the value of those "commodities" and they charge to hunt/trap them accordingly.

It is a VERY complicated system over there. EVERYTHING is regulated to the max.

 

[EnglishLady]

The same thing applies to shooting (hunting). The Crown controls it all and grants similar rights and taxes on land owners, even "freeholders" All game, like deer, pheasants, grouse etc and even "vermin" like rabbits and hares are owned by the "Crown"

Land owners are taxed on the value of those "commodities" and they charge to hunt/trap them accordingly.

It is a VERY complicated system over there. EVERYTHING is regulated to the max.

I would have to do some more investigating before I could agree on the crown for hunting bit - I'm more inclined to believe it is a Government thing.
They are usually behind anything to do with money

Did you know that the Royal Household now pay tax just like the rest of us?
Hmmm they didn't like that very much.


Now as for the part on complicated system - I wholeheartedly agree - we have Red Tape for anything and everything, you name it - we got it.

Want some?

 

[layoutshooter]

I would have to do some more investigating before I could agree on the crown for hunting bit - I'm more inclined to believe it is a Government thing.
They are usually behind anything to do with money

Did you know that the Royal Household now pay tax just like the rest of us?
Hmmm they didn't like that very much.


Now as for the part on complicated system - I wholeheartedly agree - we have Red Tape for anything and everything, you name it - we got it.

Want some?

NO, we have enough of our own "red tape" around here.

The hunting stuff was right, at least it was 30 years ago. The government charged a small fee for a "hunting license" but it was just another tax. The "estates" controlled everything.

A "driven" pheasant shoot would cost a "gun", one person. around 500 pounds back then. A group of 12 "guns" would shoot several thousand birds on a single days shoot. Their "fee" covered breakfast, the cost of the "beaters" ALL of the birds and lunch was often brought out on the "shooting field. OH YEAH, each "gun" was normally allowed to keep a "brace" (2) of birds. The remaining birds were sold at market and the estate kept the cash for those birds.

 

[EnglishLady]

NO, we have enough of our own "red tape" around here.

The hunting stuff was right, at least it was 30 years ago. The government charged a small fee for a "hunting license" but it was just another tax. The "estates" controlled everything.

A "driven" pheasant shoot would cost a "gun", one person. around 500 pounds back then. A group of 12 "guns" would shoot several thousand birds on a single days shoot. Their "fee" covered breakfast, the cost of the "beaters" ALL of the birds and lunch was often brought out on the "shooting field. OH YEAH, each "gun" was normally allowed to keep a "brace" (2) of birds. The remaining birds were sold at market and the estate kept the cash for those birds.

I believe the American terminolgy to answer something like this is ....

Go Figure

 

[layoutshooter]

I believe the American terminolgy to answer something like this is ....

Go Figure

Yeah, go figure. It was above my price range to say the least. I could barely afford to shoot vermin (rabbits, hairs) while over there. An English friend and I had a "shooting lease" up in the moores. There was mainly rabbits and an occasional pheasant that made it's way onto our lease from the adjoining shooting estate.

I wanted to go deer stalking (hunting) while over there. I looked into the cost. It was WAY less expensive to fly back to the States, buy a non-resident hunting license in Pennsylvania, hunt there for a week with friends and family than it was to stalk deer in Scotland for 2 days. Had I taken a deer in Scotland I would have ONLY been allowed to keep the antlers. The remainder would have belonged to the estate.

 

[EnglishLady]

Yeah, go figure. It was above my price range to say the least. I could barely afford to shoot vermin (rabbits, hairs) while over there. An English friend and I had a "shooting lease" up in the moores. There was mainly rabbits and an occasional pheasant that made it's way onto our lease from the adjoining shooting estate.

I wanted to go deer stalking (hunting) while over there. I looked into the cost. It was WAY less expensive to fly back to the States, buy a non-resident hunting license in Pennsylvania, hunt there for a week with friends and family than it was to stalk deer in Scotland for 2 days. Had I taken a deer in Scotland I would have ONLY been allowed to keep the antlers. The remainder would have belonged to the estate.

Where's Robin Hood when you need him eh

 

[layoutshooter]

Where's Robin Hood when you need him eh

Quite dead by now I would think!! (said in my best Yorkshire accent)

 

[EnglishLady]

Quite dead by now I would think!! (said in my best Yorkshire accent)

Spoilsport, you had to come right and say it didn't you

Did you ever get to Nottingham? There's a fantastic pub there leaning right up against Nottingham Castle.
Inside is awesome.

Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem - Nottinghams Oldest Inn

Oh and to keep to thread - bet the Royal Family don't use this watering hole

 

[layoutshooter]

Spoilsport, you had to come right and say it didn't you

Did you ever get to Nottingham? There's a fantastic pub there leaning right up against Nottingham Castle.
Inside is awesome.

Ye Olde Trip to Jerusalem - Nottinghams Oldest Inn

Oh and to keep to thread - bet the Royal Family don't use this watering hole

No, never made it to Nottingham. Spent the bulk of my time off in Scotland. We took one trip to Dover and one to Wales. We went to London twice. I also went down to Abbington, near Winchester, a couple of times.

Did a LOT of cool pubs over there. Went to one place in London, I for the life of me cannot remember the name. We had to go down a back ally and up a very narrow stair case. All the tables and benches were made of stone. VERY old stone. The benches had "butt indentations" from people sitting in them. The place had been owned by the same family since the 1500's. GOOD cheese soup and black bread.

 

[EnglishLady]

Are we not the only country in the world to cast off our mother country to become more powerful than they were ever?

We didn't do bad back in the day, when Elizabeth I and Victoria were on the throne - for a little ol'Island that is

 

[RLENT]

As an American watching the British from afar, I have grown to admire the maturity and responsibility shown by Prince William and sibling, Prince Harry. Born to extravagant wealth, they have, for the most part, led exemplary lives. ...... In the decades ahead, one or both as advisor to Parliament, will exert considerable influence over the direction of Western Civilization.

Yes indeedy .... particularly as regards male nipple licking apparently .... well, at least as far as Harry's concerned ....

Unlike young Hollywood celebrities, William and Harry have shown a serious devotion to duty and country.

Yes ..... but which country ?

(Sorry Sue ..... I just couldn't resist .....)

 

[EnglishLady]

RLENT (Sorry Sue ..... I just couldn't resist .....)


LOL thats ok, but I do believe the OP did say .....




"Born to extravagant wealth, they have, for the most part, led exemplary lives."

 

[aristotle]

RLENT (Sorry Sue ..... I just couldn't resist .....)


LOL thats ok, but I do believe the OP did say .....




"Born to extravagant wealth, they have, for the most part, led exemplary lives."

Sue, I appreciate you actually reading what I wrote in proper context, with qualifiers. For the most part, Diana's sons have led exemplary lives. My critics would find fault with the Baby Jesus and the crucified Jesus. These are EO's Thought Police who usually label opposing viewpoints as "retarded." It is impossible to have serious conversations with such characters.

 

[greg334]

We didn't do bad back in the day, when Elizabeth I and Victoria were on the throne - for a little ol'Island that is

Sue,
I think England did well under them but that's not the point.

The point is we cast off our motherland to become something bigger than the motherland. I don't think any country in the world has ever done that.

ALSO did anyone get the date thing. It has to do with one of the pictures posted and the comment about Edward ... anyone?

 

[EnglishLady]

Sue,
I think England did well under them but that's not the point.

The point is we cast off our motherland to become something bigger than the motherland. I don't think any country in the world has ever done that.

ALSO did anyone get the date thing. It has to do with one of the pictures posted and the comment about Edward ... anyone?

LOL I know what you meant Greg

Back in those days y'see .....

was when the boats were made of wood , and the men were made of steel

Personally I think we left our backbone somewhere since those days

 

[greg334]

The English have great resolve and fortitude, not like others.

Has anyone got the date thing yet?

It is rather an ironic thing.

 

[EnglishLady]

Actually Sue, this is not to dispute you but this was part of a big discussion in Parliament a few years back on the question of autonomy within the borders of England, like what Wales and especially Cornwall have to follow. It was further discussed recently in one of the law review journals which posed a great question - what is Absolute Ownership?

I know that land reforms that started in the late 19th century had a great positive affect on the individual but I heard that there were no repeals of the agreements made starting in 1066 and in 1666 which confirmed the sovereign's right of ownership of the land. Maybe I'm wrong and heard/read something else but it seems that Absolute Ownership is still practiced in some situations.

Greg I think I have found a better report on who owns the English land

Finding out who really owns Britain isn't easy - Times Online

This is one parargraph from the article....

"The crown is now reckoned to own just 1% of Britain too. Only the aristocracy has maintained its slice of national land. In the 19th century one of Britain’s great landowners, the Earl of Derby, famously described land as bringing “political and economic power, social status and pleasure to its owners”. Today the aristocracy no longer enjoys political power but it still owns 30% of the land and still enjoys some of the perks Derby referred to."

Hope this helps