Come on Julian, lets debate this in an adult fashion

You clearly don't seem to (or are deliberately pretending not to) understand the position I and Ron are coming from.  Snappy one liners which grotesquely distort and extrapolate what we've been saying without any concrete counter arguments aren't very helpful.

I don't have any personal problem whatsoever with the royal family, or with people being rich.  Richard Branson probably owns a hell of a lot of land - I don't have any issue with his richness or the amount of land he owns as he almost certainly bought it all fair and square.

No one here is suggesting that property (specifically, land) be confiscated "on a whim" and neither is anyone suggesting "gestapo" tactics to redistribute it either.  No one here is suggesting "rejecting the past wholesale" either allthough you seem keen to reject out of hand anything new that goes against the past   Some of us call that progress.

There are many instances and examples of land re-distribution throughout history:

- Indian/Aborigine reservations in the US and Australia

- Redistribution of white owned farming land in South Africa

- Redistribution of vast tracts of plantation land in Brazil

- The creation of Israel

They all have at their root (except perhaps Israel) the acknowledgement that the status quo came about through grossly unfair accquisitions and that some form of recompense is in order. 

One could well argue that a lot of royal land in the UK comes into the same category. 

Michael.