• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does the UK have royalty?

Yerda

Veteran Member
should we apply that to everyone who owns more than one property or land?. i mean should we confiscate all hereditary land and property from everyone and sell it and give the money to the government to be used for something useful?
Yep.

kai said:
Should everyone only be allowed one home ( which should be enough for anyone) and use the others for the homeless maybe?
Eh, aye.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
should we apply that to everyone who owns more than one property or land?. i mean should we confiscate all hereditary land and property from everyone and sell it and give the money to the government to be used for something useful?

Should everyone only be allowed one home ( which should be enough for anyone) and use the others for the homeless maybe?
Does the property belong to the monarchy or the government in the first place? I mean, the Prime Minister doesn't get to bequeath 10 Downing Street to his kids; it belongs to the country.

I think it's important to make a distinction between the monarch - i.e. the individual person who receives a salary and holds his or her own assets - from the monarchy -i.e. the office, in which the individual merely acts as steward for assets on behalf of the country.

And in cases of outright theft, yes, I think the Crown should be forced to return them to their rightful owners (or their heirs) when they can be identified.
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
And in cases of outright theft, yes, I think the Crown should be forced to return them to their rightful owners (or their heirs) when they can be identified.
How about returning the lands that they conquered (i.e. murdered the people living there) to the populations that live their and draw their identity from them?

That's if they haven't sold them on yet.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
How about returning the lands that they conquered (i.e. murdered the people living there) to the populations that live their and draw their identity from them?

That's if they haven't sold them on yet.
Most nations have war and conquest in their past, but I was thinking more of things like the sacking of the monasteries. That wasn't any act of war; that was just blatant theft.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I see. It all looks like blatant theft to me.
No more wrongful death than war in general, for the most part.

However, there are exceptions... especially when we're talking about actions that were flat-out illegal under the law of the time. The Glencoe Massacre, for instance.

I wonder if I'm due any money from the estate of William & Mary for the wrongful deaths of some of my ancestors in that.
 
Top