Land Ownership

[storeynicholas]

Do members believe that, aside from the ownership of vast estates, entailed and entrusted to the care of trustees and stewards, for the benfit of succeeding generations, minor land ownership is a let and a hindrance to the pursuit of a peripatetic, cosmopolitan, elegant life?
NJS

[Concordia]

We bought our summer house when we got tired of worrying which one would be available for rent the following year. I can't say that it has made us even less elegant or cosmopolitan than before.

[pvpatty]

I think that there is a certain comfort to be derived from owning your property and a sense of pride that goes with its proper upkeep, etc. That being said, I may be biased, as my family have been property men for at least the last 150 years.

[storeynicholas]

My wife and I love our home here on the South Atlantic seaboard - high tide is within 40 yards of our front gates - and we have lived all over the place - but, largely, in and around London - and enjoyed the fresh air of Blackheath and even, for a while, a high rise view of the landmarks from St James's Square - but we do feel, sometimes, that, if we were free of property ownership, we would get around a great deal more. The problems are represented, not so much by pride in possession of the house but in what to do with our books and clothes. Is there anything to be said for having a pair of suitcases each (containing all necesssary items for the immediate destinations - and just travelling - and never actually, finally, arriving? An echo, maybe, of the great Dorothy Parker's famous: "And when you get there, you find that there's no there, there."
NJS

[pvpatty]

To my mind at least, that sounds like a good idea but somehow I think that eventually constantly uprooting oneself would become frustrating and tiresome.

[dopey]

Do members believe that, aside from the ownership of vast estates, entailed and entrusted to the care of trustees and stewards, for the benfit of succeeding generations, minor land ownership is a let and a hindrance to the pursuit of a peripatetic, cosmopolitan, elegant life?
NJS

The answer is, of course, yes. But the question assumes that the cosmopolitan life is the only one worth living. I believe a measure of country life is both rewarding, and in fact required to be a complete person. And without taking the discussion afar, I view completeness and competence in all aspects of civilized life as part of the aim of elegance - the goal is to enjoy an ease in all the areas of experience that human achievement has created and to transmit that feeling to those around you. Gracious country living, even in a small cottage, is part and parcel of that. As Concordia pointed out, ownership makes country living, and especially entertaining, a bit easier as it helps to be able to stay put. My own experience is one of moving from place to place for the summer and of being a repeat guest year to year in someone else's home, neither of which is entirely satisfying.

[sartorius]

Personally, I like to have a base and I believe that a permanent home, with all its familiarity and convenience, is a must.

That said, I also enjoy travelling, but there are two major downsides to owning a second (or third) home. First, you have to be prepared to travel to the same place time after time. And secondly, it is damned expensive. In Europe, it is frankly cheaper to rent somewhere every year (even if for a month or more at a stretch) than to buy it outright - and that's even before the cost of furnishing and maintenance.

[Costi]

I think the elegant life has a lot to do with being in a position to determine and design one's own environment, rather than choose from a selection of ready-made options. I don't regard a home as a privately owned hotel appartment.
Having no home at all is nomadic rather than peripatetic, so I would discard the possibility outright.
There are people who like to travel more and more often than others, but they usually have no dilemma whether to buy a second home because the answer is simply "no": they like to change the scenery often and are ready to live off a suitcase (or a couple of them) in exchange for this variety. For those who feel more comfortable commuting between carefully chosen and lovingly furnished familiar places, a second or third home is the best solution and they won't miss an itinerant lifestyle. To me this second option seems the more elegant (or offering more possibilities to continue living an elegant life away from home).

[RWS]

I´m in complete agreement with dopey and Costi.

[NCW]

'An Englishman's home is his castle.'

A traditional model was to have some manor to retreat to out of season, gaining all the advantages (including possession of income) from the fixed, hereditary, land, while taking an hotel in town each season, avoiding the danger of owning an expensive town house, which might not be advantageously located for very long.

[HappyStroller]

Having watch recent shows where dumb folks clap for demagogues who make promises on behalf of taxpayers, my opinion is that only landed folks should have a vote, the size of which should perhaps be commensurate with the value of their landed properties.

[storeynicholas]

Having watch recent shows where dumb folks clap for demagogues who make promises on behalf of taxpayers, my opinion is that only landed folks should have a vote, the size of which should perhaps be commensurate with the value of their landed properties.

You mean stir up a Counter-Revolution against Great Western Democracy? Now There's An Idea!
NJS

[pvpatty]

Having watch recent shows where dumb folks clap for demagogues who make promises on behalf of taxpayers, my opinion is that only landed folks should have a vote, the size of which should perhaps be commensurate with the value of their landed properties.

You mean stir up a Counter-Revolution against Great Western Democracy? Now There's An Idea!
NJS

Good grief! The LL is turning radical!

[Costi]

Having watch recent shows where dumb folks clap for demagogues who make promises on behalf of taxpayers, my opinion is that only landed folks should have a vote, the size of which should perhaps be commensurate with the value of their landed properties.

HS, if we are to turn back in time and reinvent hot water, I say: "No votes for women, either". What do you think?
I hope it's not the freshly born Retrocentrics' club that is giving you these retro-political ideas... Retrocentrics don't want to live in caves; they are like car drivers: driving forward, but with an eye on the rear view mirror. Quite a different thing from shifting into reverse and applying full throttle in the middle of a crowded highway at peak hour!

[storeynicholas]

Having watch recent shows where dumb folks clap for demagogues who make promises on behalf of taxpayers, my opinion is that only landed folks should have a vote, the size of which should perhaps be commensurate with the value of their landed properties.

HS, if we are to turn back in time and reinvent hot water, I say: "No votes for women, either". What do you think?
I hope it's not the freshly born Retrocentrics' club that is giving you these retro-political ideas... Retrocentrics don't want to live in caves; they are like car drivers: driving forward, but with an eye on the rear view mirror. Quite a different thing from shifting into reverse and applying full throttle in the middle of a crowded highway at peak hour!

Quite right, Costi. Retrocentrics:

..heed not those who pine for force
A ghost of time to raise,
As if they thus could check the course
Of these appointed days.

It is certainly true that certain electoral systems and, for example, the House of Lords in the UK, probably need reform but here is probably not the place to debate it! However,t took nearly 1,000 years of well-recorded civilization in the British Isles for women to receive the franchise - which they ultimately could no longer be refused after they took over the jobs, formerly reserved for men, as a result of WWI. Still, it would be hypocritical of me to complain about digressions in the course of threads!!
NJS