14 ms·
The King doesn't own all the swans in Britain
- gus_massa 4y ago> Punishment: a fine of one pound, ten shillings, and four pence Why those weird numbers and not just round it to "four pounds"?
- thaumasiotes 4y agoWhy would you round a fine of 364 pence up to 960 pence? What kind of rounding is that?
- qbrass 4y agoThe article had three fines listed, the first one was closer to four pounds, and they presumably pasted the wrong fine.
- gus_massa 4y agoYep, bad cut and paste.
- prepend 4y agoWell we’re dealing with a country where the king owns all the swans no matter where they are or how they came to be. There’s no logic here. So round up to a billion and it would make as much sense.
- sportslife 4y agoYou're asking why they didn't round to the nearest £722.74, which apparently was more than a month's wages. See: https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/inflation-calculator https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/monetary-policy/inflation/in... https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/#currency-result https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/currency-converter/#curr...
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoWorse than that: > the swan mark would have to be purchased at the price of six shillings - swans not included. This was about the same amount as a year’s wages for a household servant. One pound would be over three years wages for a household servant.
- sportslife 4y agoYou caught me skimming the article! The National Archives gives one pound in 1480 as the 33 days' wages for a skilled tradesman's labour, so I can see why they'd want to join a guild.
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoTo be fair, a household servant got room and board too.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago> You're asking why they didn't round to the nearest £722.74 No, the question is dumber than that. The proposed "rounded" fine is well over double the original fine; rounding to the nearest four pounds would result in a fine of zero.
- gus_massa 4y agoI rounded the first fine and then pasted here the second fine.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago> a fine of three pounds, six shillings, and eight pence This is exactly 3 1/3 pounds. > one pound, ten shillings, and four pence Exactly 1 and 31/60 pounds, or 30 and 1/3 shillings. > thirteen shillings and four pence Exactly 13 and 1/3 shillings, or 160 pence, which is 2/3 of a pound. I suppose they liked the number repetitions. And when you're dealing with such small divisions of a very valuable currency, "rounding up" to the nearest pound could be considered extremely punitive. It'd be like going from a fine of $51000 to $60000 just to make the number round.
- retrac 4y agoThe pound was divided into 240 pence, or 20 shillings. So, 10 shillings is half a pound. 4 pence is 1/60th of a pound. So it's more "rounded" than it might seem. Much like how 3, 6, 9 and 12 feet are potential rounded values measured in feet; traditional units are another semi-duodecimal system. (This system remained into use until 1971.) These fines would have been paid in coins. 10 shillings is a specific coin: gold half-sovereign. At the time (I think) the fine could be paid, potentially, with just three coins: one half-sovereign, one sovereign, and one groat/fourpence. The inclusion of the relatively small amount fourpence amount, which is silver and not gold coinage, is perhaps symbolic of something but I don't know what.
- yrro 4y agoI can seldom resist the opportunity to quote a footnote from Good Omens, by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman: "NOTE FOR YOUNG PEOPLE AND AMERICANS: One shilling = Five Pee. It helps to understand the antique finances of the Witchfinder Army if you know the original British monetary system: Two farthings = One Ha'penny. Two ha'pennies = One Penny. Three pennies = A Thrupenny Bit. Two Thrupences = A Sixpence. Two Sixpences = One Shilling, or Bob. Two Bob = A Florin. One Florin and one Sixpence = Half a Crown. Four Half Crowns = Ten Bob Note. Two Ten Bob Notes = One Pound (or 240 pennies). One Pound and One Shilling = One Guinea. The British resisted decimalized currency for a long time because they thought it was too complicated." I have read that a ha'penny from the time of Queen Victoria is worth about 5p in today's currency, an argument for abolishing the annoyingly worthless 2p and 1p coins.
- heisenzombie 4y agoThis starts out with a strong stance, asserting that this is a "myth". But, it sounds to me like the king does actually own pretty much all the swans in Great Britain. He has every swan in England, Wales, and Scotland except: - those on the Orkney and Shetland islands - those "marked" with leg bands as being owned by the Worshipful Company of Vintners and the Worshipful Company of Dyers.
- qbrass 4y agoThey're playing up that it's a myth to make you assume he doesn't own the swans at all, then assert that in reality, he doesn't own all the swans, so they're technically correct. You could claim that he's really just licensing the swans to anyone with a swan mark, so it's really just the Shetland and Orkney swans he doesn't own.
- teruakohatu 4y agoThe King does not personally own the swans, but rather the institution that is The Crown. The King, cannot for example, build and sell a private mansion on Crown land. Presumably he cannot sell swans either. Or at least that is my interpretation.
- judge2020 4y agoThe land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate
- skissane 4y ago> The land in particular is considered the Crown Estate, and the agreements that relinquish control of the land to the government are voluntarily enacted by each monarch. Any monarch could at any time not renew this provision, since King George III did not sell or actually give up the land; it still belongs to The Crown You are ignoring one of the important unwritten rules of the British system – there's a lot of things which the Monarch "voluntarily" agrees to which aren't really voluntary. If a Monarch started refusing, it would trigger a constitutional crisis, the likely outcome of which would be that the law would be changed to make it no longer "voluntary". King Charles III has immense powers on paper, but if he ever tried to actually wield them – with the possible exception of highly unusual circumstances, such as a constitutional crisis not of his own making – he would soon find himself deprived of them. It reminds me of a conversation a friend of mine once had with an emergency room doctor whilst in the midst of a mental health episode – Patient: "Am I free to leave?" Doctor: "Well, I haven't sectioned you, so right now you are legally free to leave – but if you try to leave, I will section you, and then you won't be legally free to leave". That may seem like a bizarre comparison, but I think in many ways it is an accurate one.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ineedasername 4y agoAfter the first two paragraphs, and especially at the point of Swan Moots, I thought “Someone got creative with ChatGPT prompts”. I was, of course, wrong. But now I want to train a GPT3 model on ridiculous ancient laws so that I can have it generate an endless variety for my entertainment. The responses I get from vanilla ChatGPT aren’t bad, but not of the quality of British Swan Law
- usui 4y agoThis exactly. On paragraph four, the first sentence is this: > In order to fully understand the complexities of the scope of British Monarchy Swan Privileges, we need to go back to the Middle Ages, when swans were a luxury good. Valued as both . . . I stopped reading there. I'm thinking: No, we absolutely don't need to go that far back to answer this question of who owns swans. For goodness sake, will it kill authors and video makers to tell us the answer in short-form and then help the reader decide to continue going down a long-winded explanation if they desire? This gives the same vibe as the overly-long YouTube videos that squeeze 10 minutes out of questions that can be answered in 30 seconds. Concise and informational writing is dead, and LLMs are the final nail in the coffin.
- zamnos 4y agoFor this kind of historical minutia, of course we need to go back to the Middle Ages. That's when such things got established. Maybe if you're from a much younger country that's only been around the blink of an eye that makes sense, but that would put you in the minority. I don't know what LLMs have to do with this.
- niederman 4y agoI really don't think this article was intended to be informational: how many people actually need to know whether the King technically owns all the swans. The purpose of the article is entertainment, and just saying "he owns most swans in England and Wales with a few small exceptions" is not nearly as entertaining.
- DrBazza 4y agoHere's one for you: "Plans by the City of London to move its markets to a new location in Dagenham have run into a problem" "The issue is Romford Market, which was created by the Royal Charter of the Liberty of Havering granted by King Henry III in 1247 — and that Charter includes a clause banning any other market from being set up within a day’s sheep drive." https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/the-city-of-londons-market-plans-run-up-against-775-year-old-law-60624/ https://www.ianvisits.co.uk/articles/the-city-of-londons-mar...
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoThe whole continuing existence of the British monarchy (as well as other Commonwealth countries where he is sovereign) highlights the extreme bizarreness of humans to me. On one hand, the King is the supreme leader of the country, to the point that his subjects need to pledge allegiance to him on official documents, but on the other hand, he has no power. One might argue he has even less power than a commoner as he is forbidden from offering a political opinion. He is the titular owner of "Crown Lands", but he can't actually do anything with that ownership. The whole thing is just so bonkers that if I were an alien and I landed on Earth and someone explained the situation to me I'd just say "Y'all are too f'n weird for me, I'm gonna peace out."
- bbg2401 4y agoIs it only the British monarchy you have an issue with? How do you feel about the monarchies of Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and the many others? I presume you are from the US? It seems a substantial number of US citizens believe the British monarchy to be an outlier and the only one worthy of comment.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoDid you miss the part where TFA is about the British sovereign specifically? That's why I commented on it, but yes, I think they're all bonkers, though I do think the British Royal family (and British media) play up the pomp around their royals more than in most other countries.
- eichin 4y agoAlso, isn't the British Monarchy the only one Americans have had cause to take up arms against, multiple times? (To the point where we still do annual re-enactments of some of the events?)
- hn_throwaway_99 4y agoNo, the US has fought against plenty of monarchies plenty of times, e.g. the Spanish American War, WWI, etc.
- mixedmath 4y agoThis is perhaps only tangentially related, but I used to live next to castle ruins in the UK. Although they were ruins, the grounds still belonged to the crown. There was a thriving rabbit population there, and it was forbidden to hunt on royal land without permission. So my town had a royally approved rabbit hunter --- who was also a butcher. He was the best butcher in the town. Unrelated, but we also had a separate fruiterer, who procured fruits. I have never seen someone called a fruiterer anywhere else.
- imron 4y agoYou just need to watch more Australian comedy from the late 80s: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_the_Fruiterer https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Con_the_Fruiterer
- zeristor 4y agoFruity -> Fruiterer -> Fruiterist
- DrBazza 4y agoFruiterers Passage is part of the Thames path and runs under Southwark Bridge.
- _2uwr 4y ago[flagged]
- judge2020 4y ago> Plus God doesnt exist so yet again unelected people, namely religions have an undue influence and control over the laws of the land and science can prove this! Their cover is that their power is vested from God. Reality is that the power structure is the result of centuries of "biggest army diplomacy", ie. you get to conquer anything you want if you have the largest, most capable army. Even if you fail to see it, every country in the world grew and is operated based on their military prowess, and less that, their economic value to those with a large military (The US doesn't spend $2T a year on their military for nothing, even if a lot of it is funneled into US businesses).
- ElFitz 4y agoIt’s always amusing to realise how few understand that laws and rules only apply to those they can be enforced upon. It may not be the spirit of these rules and laws, but it is what happens in practice. International law is the best example of that.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago> International law is the best example of that. The best example is what's happening in your own back yard. And there are plenty of examples there.
- ElFitz 4y agoMy back yard?
- anonymouskimmer 4y agoIn case you aren't English-native, this is a figure of speech: https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+one%27s+own+back+yard https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+one%27s+own+back+yar... Meaning that legal corruption or unfair application of the law probably exists within one's city or region. You don't have to look to international events. Seeing the corruption close by is more shocking than hearing about it far away.
- nimbius 4y agoKing Charles: frantically chasing swans across the pitch "these are all free you know, they just Saunder around parks and whatnot..." Police: "your majesty please...the king doesn't-" King Charles: "such majestic creatures."
- handojin 4y agoLet's say for a second the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) owns your swans, but you'd rather he not own them. What'd be your recourse? Presumably the King (or Crown, it makes no odds) once owned all the swans in Ireland too. Then one day didn't. Now those swans are free swans living in an actual, honest to God, Republic. Technically the ones in the North are still his but their ownership status is disputed. The swans that fly back and forth I'm not sure what to do about, post Brexit arrangements being shoddy at best. All this talk of ownership seems to confuse power with right, right with tradition, tradition with law, law with power. And power grows from the barrel of a gun.
- petesergeant 4y ago> What'd be your recourse? Vote in a Parliament who'd pass a law to stop him owning them
- dontlaugh 4y agoWhich he could simply not give royal assent to. I think the parent suggested the correct solution: revolution.
- ithkuil 4y agoI think the correct solution is to first try a bloodless course if possible and resort to more violent means only if absolutely necessary. The monarch could decide to give royal assent (not necessarily because from the goodness of his heart but because the mere threat of repercussions would sway his judgement in favour of your cause)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- quickthrower2 4y agoNot a gun really. The person holding a gun is a soldier, who is serving the power. Power comes from fear/game theory/people desire to fit in and survive etc.
- amelius 4y agoThis is plain stupid and reminds me of people selling pieces of the Moon.
- mkl95 4y ago> Swan upping is an annual ceremony in England in which mute swans on the River Thames are rounded up, caught, ringed, and then released. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_upping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swan_upping
- bryanrasmussen 4y agoBut does he own the Wild Swans at Coole?
- andyjohnson0 4y agoIts worse than just the swans - the monarch owns almost all the land in the UK too. The legal concept of "Allodial title" [1] means that, even if you own the freehold of some land, it's actually a freehold in the estate of the crown [2] - and the monarch is actually the ultimate owner. The exceptions to this are a few areas of Scotland. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title [2] from memory - the actual phrase might be slightly different
- dijit 4y agoThats a misrepresentation. The titles are held in the monarchs name, so if the monarch should fall then the title becomes null and void. Basically in law: the crown is Britain, and the deed given is stated “so long as Britain shall exist”.
- quickthrower2 4y agoBeing out that cryptography xkcd but instead of crypto have complex ownership laws and instead of $5 wrench have an army.
- bb123 4y agoYou’re phrasing this like it actually has some bearing on how land is owned in the U.K. This is just a quirk of tradition - for all intents and purposes the freeholder is the ultimate owner of the land.
- revertmean 4y agoActually, this doesn't apply to the whole of Scotland since "The Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act 2000", and it doesn't apply to NI either. The crown ownership only applies to England & Wales.
- andyjohnson0 4y agoThanks. I didn't know that.
- 4y ago
- azubinski 4y agoSwans were lucky, for several centuries they were protected by the Crown from indiscriminate and barbaric extermination. But progressive communist China, for example, declared sparrows to be enemies of the people, and with the full support of the people, the sparrows were exterminated in an orderly and barbaric manner. This world is far from linearity.
- LightBug1 4y agoWhether he does or doesn't own all the swans, I'm sure he's very concerned about this issue against the backdrop of his largely unearned "$600 Million" net worth and "$28b of inherted assets". Must be an awful situation for him. The people of the UK are equally distressed about the ownership of the swans during a cost of living crisis for many of them.
- dreen 4y agoThe royals do eat swan though I believe, a practice forbidden to the rest of the nation. It might be a ceremonial once a year thing but it is a thing
- ogogmad 4y agoA true Brit should not eat swans as much as Jews and Muslims don't eat pigs.
- dreen 4y agoNot quite, not eating pork was codified into those religions because breeding pigs in hot dry climate is a very bad idea. Same in India, a cow is far more valuable as a farming tool, so it was codified into religion. The Swan thing is pure aristocratic elitism. The guests invited to certain functions reported being served swan, and said it tasted like turkey. And besides, British royals are Germans not Brits.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago> And besides, British royals are Germans not Brits. One's father's ancestry doesn't determine one's nationality. The majority of King Charles III's ancestry does appear to be German (about a quarter British, and a good helping of Polish), but Prince William is majority British.
- dreen 4y agoYou are right of course, I was pointing out their lineage in a half-joke reply. Personally I don't even think where you were born has to matter, just where and how you spend your life.
- denton-scratch 4y ago> Today, the Crown retains the ownership of all unmarked swans in England and Wales Don't understand. All unmarked swans belong to the crown, and all cygnets are unmarked until they are marked. But you can't mark a swan you don't own; so after just one generation, all swans are unmarked, and therefore belong to the crown. (As a republican, I dislike capitalizing royal terminology and aristocratic titles)
- jobigoud 4y agoThe concept of "owning" an animal always seemed a bit weird to me. Especially for wild animals. The animal in question doesn't know about this relationship. It's a bit like saying the Sentinelese uncontacted tribe are Indians… When they don't know what India is. Or selling land rights to a distant planet. They are conventions between people, about a third party that isn't part of the same system.
- tivert 4y ago> The concept of "owning" an animal always seemed a bit weird to me. Especially for wild animals. The animal in question doesn't know about this relationship. > ...They are conventions between people, about a third party that isn't part of the same system. What's so weird about it? In 100% of ownership relationships that do not involve human slaves, the thing being owned doesn't know about the relationship. My car dosn't know I own it. The bag of flour doesn't know the grocer owns it. The field doesn't know the farmer owns it. The farmer's cow doesn't know the farmer owns it. The trees in private forest don't know the forest's owner owns them. etc.
- credit_guy 4y agoSo, what happens if someone eats some of his majesty's swans [1],[2],[3],[4]? If that someone were to be an immigrant from Eastern Europe, could that lead to something like, I don't know ..., Brexit? [1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/dec/10/sun.pressandpublishing https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/dec/10/sun.pressandpu... [2] https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/immigrant-was-cooking-swan-amid-bird-bodies-6627412.html https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/immigrant-was-cooking-sw... [3]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261044/Slaughter-swans-As-carcasses-pile-crude-camps-built-river-banks-residents-frightened-visit-park-Peterborough.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1261044/Slaughter-s... [4]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/world/europe/england-queens-swan-is-barbecued-and-eaten.html https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/22/world/europe/england-quee...