[HN Gopher] You can't buy one square foot of land in Scotland an...
___________________________________________________________________
You can't buy one square foot of land in Scotland and become a
Scottish lord
Author : dbrereton
Score : 168 points
Date : 2022-08-17 16:14 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (talesoftimesforgotten.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (talesoftimesforgotten.com)
| kstrauser wrote:
| I bought my friend a lordship at Sealand one year for Christmas.
| I'd been thinking about the Scotland thing first, but decided I'd
| rather gift him a real title in an arguably fake country than a
| fake title in a real one.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Yacoby wrote:
| Yes. Scotland is a country that is part of the United Kingdom
| (which is also a country).
| wongarsu wrote:
| It's really a shame how the UK abuses the word country for
| internal divisions, and the US abuses the word state for
| the same purpose, so now we have to either accept weirdness
| or use unwieldy terms like sovereign state.
|
| I know there's good historical reasons, but it muddles
| language regardless.
| Spivak wrote:
| How about "top level state." Does make the EU a little
| weird though.
| nikanj wrote:
| It's actually reasonable with the EU too. People keep
| comparing the US with Denmark, instead of comparing
| either US/EU or Denmark/Idaho
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| Denmark is _yet another_ multiple-country sovereign
| state- Denmark (proper), Greenland, and the Faroe Islands
| are constituent countries of the Kingdom of Denmark.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| That's not such a great example, since Greenland and the
| Faroe Islands are both of zero significance. (Greenland
| is significant geographically, but not as a political
| entity.)
|
| Population of Denmark: 6 million.
|
| Population of Greenland: 0.05 million.
|
| Population of the Faroe Islands: 0.05 million.
| Xeoncross wrote:
| Keep in mind that a modern US state is not the same as US
| state 200 years ago. At this point, the US federal
| government dictates substantially more of every aspect of
| a states rule: from education to exports, licensure to
| healthcare.
|
| The US was an unique attempt at parallel state rule, but
| consolidation is always inevitable.
| MandieD wrote:
| However, the legal systems can still be wildly different.
| The ounce of marijuana that anyone over 21 can buy from a
| state-licensed shop and possess in Colorado could mean a
| $2000 fine and up to 6 months in jail in Texas.
| atleta wrote:
| FWIW, Germany which is also a federal state, also calls
| its constituents states. (Just to mention a non-English-
| speaking example.)
| playing_colours wrote:
| Germany is a "Bundesstaat" (or "Staat"). The name for its
| constituents is "Bundesland" (or "Land"). I do not think
| it is a correct example.
| brnt wrote:
| Adjacent Netherlands is also one of the four countries of
| the Kingdom of the Netherlands (Aruba, Curacao and Sint
| Maarten being the other three).
| fsckboy wrote:
| a close neighboring country to the USA is the United
| Mexican States, _Estados Unidos Mexicanos_.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico
| ValentineC wrote:
| The dichotomy to think about is Unitary states [1] versus
| Federations [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
|
| [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation
| rob_c wrote:
| frankly given the mass abuse of language over the last
| 5-10 years this is rhe least of my worries with the
| english language...
| Grustaf wrote:
| There's no abuse about it. The UK invented the English
| language, you can't really claim they are using it wrong.
| Country, state and nation are different things.
| jhkiehna wrote:
| "you can't really claim they are using it wrong" lol,
| watch me.
| kelnos wrote:
| You can claim all you want, but this is how the terms are
| used in the real world. In English, real-world use trumps
| wishful thinking.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| The UK certainly did not invent the English language, as
| it's only been around for a few hundred years as an
| entity.
| CPLX wrote:
| Indeed. It was invented by a group of displaced Frenchman
| in the mid 11th century.
| ubermonkey wrote:
| "How many countries are in this country?" -- Ted Lasso
| user3939382 wrote:
| I like how the moment something happened there that even
| slightly piqued the UK's interest they immediately sent a
| warship to it and suddenly they weren't so sovereign lol
| dougmwne wrote:
| I do believe that's a perfect illustration of how sovereignty
| works in the real world. See also: Taiwan.
| knorker wrote:
| Really? I must have forgotten that part of the story.
|
| I do remember them being taken to court and the UK court
| saying it had no jurisdiction over Sealand.
|
| What I found now:
|
| Shortly after this declaration, Sealand faced its first test
| of sovereignty when the Royal Navy approached the structure
| to evict the Sealanders. Convinced of his sovereignty, Bates
| fired a series of defensive warning shots at the ships to
| protect the structure and was subsequently summoned into
| British court on criminal charges for his actions.1 l Arguing
| that the British court lacked jurisdiction over Sealand,
| Bates was successful in having the charges against him
| dropped." This victory reinforced Sealand's claim of
| sovereignty.
| yetanotherloser wrote:
| Sealand is absolutely nuts and pretty dodgy but something
| about it is admirable anyway. I really ought to sail over
| there and salute them.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| As a heads-up, they're not there year-round as the water
| level rises within the structure.
| er4hn wrote:
| The description of the businesses feels like someone took the
| Laprophiag online membership gift of a "plot of land", which
| clearly a joke, and tried to commercialize it. I wonder which
| plot of land fake happened first?
|
| Also glad to know from the article I can just go around now
| calling myself a "Laird"
| cassepipe wrote:
| The article mentions that current law that applies to land in
| Scotland is an act from 1976 revised in 2012. Not sure which
| one of the original or revised prevents the selling of
| "souvenir plots" but it might indicate that it was not
| forbidden before 1976/2012 so practice may come from before
| when it was legal to do so.
| throwthere wrote:
| Clearly we need a new nation where lord and ladyship flows from
| NFTs. That way there's no confusion and no scams.
|
| dash s.
| knorker wrote:
| As always blockchain adds no value to the idea.
|
| You can just buy it here: https://sealandgov.org/shop/become-a-
| lord-lady-baron-or-baro...
| linkdd wrote:
| "NFT" and "no scam" in the same comment. Bold.
| OJFord wrote:
| I think 'dash s' meant '/s', i.e. sarcastically bold.
| turtleman1338 wrote:
| This comment shows how unnecessary the /s is. Even if you
| write it people will take it seriously.
|
| Additionally, it destroys the irony for the readers who
| understand the /s.
| linkdd wrote:
| TBH, I understood it was sarcasm. I thought it was funny
| to note the combination of "NFT" and "no scam" anyway.
| tdeck wrote:
| If you're looking for a traditional title, why not buy membership
| in a London livery company? I believe some of them can be joined
| for a fee nowadays. This awards you Freedom of the City of
| London, which comes with some ancient privileges like the right
| to carry a sword in public and the right to herd sheep over
| London Bridge.
| happyopossum wrote:
| > This awards you Freedom of the City of London, which comes
| with some ancient privileges like the right to carry a sword in
| public and the right to herd sheep over London Bridge.
|
| That appears to be just as much bunk/urban legend as the topic
| of TFA...
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_City_of_London
| tdeck wrote:
| I don't see in the wiki article how this is "bunk" or an
| "urban legend" - care to elaborate?
| toolslive wrote:
| Scotland uses the metric system, no?
| alistairSH wrote:
| Yes and no. The UK is a mix of imperial and metric. Stone is
| still used for mass/weight (mostly weighing people), miles for
| driving, but metric for most other things. Which leads to fuel
| being sold in liters, but efficiency being measured using mpg.
| pmyteh wrote:
| Stone is now a 'folk' measure. People still think in them and
| use them, but all 'official' uses (health records, for
| example) are kilograms.
|
| There are still a handful of official uses of imperial. Miles
| for driving, as you say, pints for draught beer etc. in pubs,
| miles and chains for railway distances, maybe a few others.
| More cases where the labels but not the size have changed,
| like 568g jars of jam.
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| The only even quasi-official use of the stone is in horse
| racing (to measure the weight carried by the horse in a
| handicap race), which is also IIRC the last surviving use
| of the furlong.
| Victerius wrote:
| I find the following passage interesting in the context of modern
| capitalism:
|
| > In the United Kingdom, "lord" and "lady" are peerage titles,
| meaning a person can only hold the legal recognition, privileges,
| and protections associated with those titles if they rightfully
| inherit them, if they marry into a noble family, or if the queen
| grants them a peerage. Since the only hereditary peerages the
| queen has granted in decades have been to members of the royal
| family, realistically, the only ways a person can become a lord
| or lady are either by inheritance or by marrying into a noble
| family. It is not possible for someone to buy their way into
| lordship or ladyship.
|
| I think some people are angry at the fact that there remain
| positions of privilege in the Western world that one cannot buy
| their way into, or be elected to (e.g. President), or grind
| toward (e.g. CEO). I wonder whether that's a form of envy.
| pajko wrote:
| Laphroaig used to give land with every whisky purchase:
| https://www.scoopwhoop.com/Laphroaig-whisky-free-land-in-Sco...
| cnasc wrote:
| They still do, a bottle I opened over the weekend had the
| voucher inside
| cassepipe wrote:
| "give"
| dylan604 wrote:
| I like to think of it as a free bottle of Scotch with
| purchase of every 1 sqft parcel of land
| asvitkine wrote:
| Who pays the property taxes on that land?
|
| If not the the customer, then do they really own it?
| [deleted]
| mNovak wrote:
| This was a great and informative article, but one thing it misses
| is that there is in fact another way to purchase a 'legitimate'
| peerage title (though the cost is much much higher). I recall
| reading about it a while back here [1]. Basically, you pay a
| (broke) noble family to legally adopt you. Apparently there's
| brokers and everything to get you connected.
|
| [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-02/even-
| if-y...
| Grustaf wrote:
| I know a man who did that, he's now using one of the oldest
| German noble titles. It's also how the current house
| (Bernadotte) took over in Sweden, through (forced) adult
| adoption.
| Ichthypresbyter wrote:
| This doesn't really work in the UK. The rules of succession to
| a title vary depending on the specific title but they almost
| always include the phrase "heirs of the body" of the original
| grantee. In other words, they only pass to natural descendants
| not to adopted ones.
| throwaway290 wrote:
| To get peerage all you need is to be cozy with the current Tory
| leader. See Lebedev et al.
| xnx wrote:
| A predecessor to the NFT scam
| dreen wrote:
| Sure, but the rumor is believed by just enough people that you
| can get away with selecting 'Lord' in every single paper or
| electronic form that asks for a title.
| happyopossum wrote:
| As stated in the article, if you live in any number of
| countries (incl the US), you are completely within your legal
| rights to call yourself Lord anyway. You don't need a
| fraudulent urban legend to 'get away with it'.
| theknocker wrote:
| nailer wrote:
| > My most recent McDaniel ancestor who actually lived in Scotland
| is John McDaniel, who was born in Scotland in around 1760. By
| 1776, he was living in Frederick County, Maryland. I myself have
| lived my whole life in the United States and have never even
| visited Scotland. I do not consider myself Scottish and instead
| consider myself only an American.
|
| This is the most American paragraph ever written.
| Macha wrote:
| Wouldn't it be more American to claim that the above makes you
| Scottish?
|
| In this case that level of disclaimer feels like second order
| consequences of that: Someone claimed to be Scottish in a way
| that pissed off an actual Scottish person, who then took it out
| on the next American of Scottish descent (maybe just with
| snarky internet comments), and then this person either recieved
| or saw that and now feels the need for a disclaimer that she
| doesn't think like that.
| nailer wrote:
| You have an accurate handle on the situation. I was saying
| the _need_ to state that someone who clearly has little
| connection to scotland isn't Scottish, because so many random
| Americans pretend to be Scottish , is amazing.
| [deleted]
| escapecharacter wrote:
| Actually, this is good for Lordchain
| blastro wrote:
| Basically like buying "land" in the metaverse.
| number6 wrote:
| If you start early you can make a fortune like the guys who now
| own the black sun
| reaperducer wrote:
| I remember people used to buy and sell virtual real estate in
| at least one of the various metaverses that have come and gone
| over the years. Second Life, maybe?
| alerter wrote:
| This practice led to a big defamation case involving a Scottish
| politician. Seems like the company involved was basically a tax
| avoidance scheme.
|
| https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-51832504
| EddySchauHai wrote:
| This has been a thing for _years_ , probably even decades. It's a
| gag gift but sometimes people take it far too seriously. I'm
| pretty sure someone on the British show Come Dine With Me had one
| of these and called themselves a Lady, and everyone thought she
| was legit. Madness.
| notahacker wrote:
| > If you've been on the internet much, you've probably
| encountered an advertisement at some point claiming that, if you
| own any amount of land in Scotland, even if it is only one square
| foot, then you legally qualify for the title of "lord" or "lady."
|
| I've been on the internet a lot, sometimes even without ads
| blocked, and never encountered this. Do they geotarget Americans?
| stjohnswarts wrote:
| they were on facebook for a couple of years in "sponsored ads"
| boxes that pop up in the feed. I think I blocked them after a
| while and never saw them again.
| jakub_g wrote:
| I see this a lot browsing FB from France (with en locale
| though).
| Far_Pig wrote:
| American, I see them on TV and on the internets regularly, and
| have been for at least 5-8 years.
| brightball wrote:
| I see them all the time.
| bowsamic wrote:
| As far as I'm aware, yes
| atty wrote:
| American here, have not seen this in my many corners of the
| web.
| elliekelly wrote:
| Scott Disick (of Kardashians fame) gave them quite a bit of
| American publicity a few years back.
| surfpel wrote:
| Not that I've seen, but at this point my targeted ads are all
| industrial products.
| junon wrote:
| The ones I've seen are from in-video ads (where the YouTuber
| themselves have a sponsorship deal and dedicate a part of the
| video to it).
| spelunker wrote:
| I haven't seen them very often but I'm sure I'll get targeted
| ads now!
| wnevets wrote:
| There was a MMA fighter on YouTube that I used to watch that
| would hock this crap. Would you like to guess why I stopped
| watching?
| [deleted]
| rmason wrote:
| Right when Detroit was at it's lowest and about to declare
| bankruptcy I had a friend buy an empty lot, put up a website and
| sell a square foot of the city to anyone. In Michigan at least it
| attracted a lot of publicity.
|
| The website is long gone and although you got a deed I'm not
| certain you really owned anything. If you did you'd owe taxes and
| Detroit is pretty aggressive about collections.
|
| https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/evicted-101-year-o...
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I kinda wondered about all those stupidly cheap lots. At the
| price they are going for, there is a huge number of people in
| America that could buy them just for speculative reasons. Turns
| out if you do that, the city will take them back if you don't
| fix up the house and get it occupied.
|
| Source: Friend of mine bought cheap property in Detroit.
| Threatened with a lawsuit, so he gave it up to the city.
| ben_w wrote:
| I was slightly tempted to do the same. Glad it was triggering
| my "too good to be true" radar.
| aulin wrote:
| great, now you're also going to tell me I don't own any plot of
| Islay land from all those bottles of Laphroaig
| gidorah wrote:
| Are these guys really telling me now I wasted PS14.99 in 2005 on
| a square foot of land from play.com?
| leeoniya wrote:
| don't be stupid; buy her a star: https://starregister.org/
|
| EDIT: lol
|
| > NFT Star
|
| > While we are 30 years old, we use the newest and most
| innovative technology. All Sparklingly Star Register Stars are
| backed and verified on the Ethereum Blockchain through an NFT
| (Non Fungible Token). NOTE: The NFTs will be minted in July 2022
| and customers will receive instructions on how to receive theirs
| then.
| CapitalistCartr wrote:
| My wife loves this stuff, knows it not serious, doesn't care.
| She's bought me both, a star name and a sq. ft. in Scotland.
| hbn wrote:
| Can you give me her email? I've got some quality bridges!
| HideousKojima wrote:
| Ask her to buy you an acre of land on the moon or Mars next
| happyopossum wrote:
| Does that make you a Star Lord?
| ben_w wrote:
| The UK already has Time Lords, so why not?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lords_Temporal
| leeoniya wrote:
| Touche, my Lord.
| dylan604 wrote:
| ahem, that's Sir Star Lord to you plebe
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Is this a joke?
| dinkledunk wrote:
| Yes, as in, anyone can start a star registry and charge
| people for an entry. It's all meaningless, so NFTs seem like
| a perfect fit.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| I have here a piece of paper which states that I own this
| piece of paper.
| dotBen wrote:
| Ironically the fact that you've written on that paper
| your ownership information actually makes said paper
| worth less than if you hadn't.
| sokoloff wrote:
| That depends on who they are. Famous enough and the
| ownership claim can increase the value...
| jessaustin wrote:
| _Is this a joke?_
|
| I thought so, until I read _Death 's End_.
| mikkergp wrote:
| Really makes you wonder what the word "official" means
| fredgrott wrote:
| Oh the Lord Barron puns that lurk about a famous orange golf
| cheater known to own Scottish Land of certain golf course
| overlooked by modern wind machines.
| jonriddell wrote:
| This is fraud, they are literally selling you nothing.
|
| They sued a Member of the Scottish Parliament for writing a blog
| which explains the tax haven structure they use.
| http://www.andywightman.com/archives/4152
|
| Don't believe any similar claims they make like "reintroducing
| lynx" they are doing no such thing.
|
| It's just a way to get people to give them money in return for
| nothing.
| jamal-kumar wrote:
| I had some dude try and rope me into one of these land banking
| scams. He wanted me to build some wordpress site to convince
| people they could do this on some property he owned. I pretty
| much told him this: Sketchy people ripping off other sketchy
| people is funny, but ripping off people with less money than you
| is a really lame thing to do and not something I'd support
| whatsoever. I can copy paste one of his messages in reply to that
| (sic): "Im pretty sure you havent done any ethical hacking in the
| best of present so talking about sketchy pyramid whatever makes
| no sence. I told you very clearly i dont do shady illegal
| bullshit what we do is 100% legit focused on protecting earth and
| helping people"
|
| I blocked and deleted that contact after sending them a famous
| obscene image from back in the day which starts with a g and ends
| in oatse. Land banking schemes are fraud.
| lostgame wrote:
| Shamefully, a few YouTubers I have subscribed to for a while
| started shilling this bullshit as video sponsorships.
|
| Needless to say, as soon as I looked up the company (it smelled
| more like bullshit than a cattle farm) - I saw on a rudimentary
| Google Search that; of _course_ you can't buy a square foot of
| land and be a 'Lord'.
|
| Needless to say, I got rid of those subscriptions right after.
|
| It's unfortunate how some YouTubers who get sponsored either
| don't even Google the companies they shill for, or in the case of
| someone like AVGN shilling 'Raid Shadow Legends' - they know what
| they're shilling is complete shit.
| pablok2 wrote:
| Bethesda: buy Skyrim instead
| nailer wrote:
| > JK Rowling, arguably the most influential proponent of
| transphobia in the English-speaking world today
|
| JK Rowling has simply stated she wants further consideration
| before allowing any biological man into women's prisons, lesbian
| bars and change rooms. These are fairly mainstream positions and
| consideration of women's sex-based rights does not infer any
| hatred, but rather concern for this kind of thing:
| https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-...
| OrvalWintermute wrote:
| I saw this editorialized section and paused.
|
| There is a large brouhaha in the US currently about alleged
| trans-exposure (which some claim rises to the level of
| grooming), and allegedly bringing very young children to
| sexualized locations such as strip bars for shows with a trans
| dancer, complete with dollar tipping. There is also an open
| debate happening around the healthiness of certain hormone
| treatments at a very young age which also, allegedly, causes
| sterility, and school pressure to change a gender identity.
| Likewise, the sports debate primarily around physically
| advantaged men transitioning into women, dominating female
| sports in the process.
|
| I believe we should have these discussions openly and freely
| without attempting to demonize proponents or opponents of
| either side of a hopefully civil discussion.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| She propagates a _lot_ of misinformation beyond such a concern
| that could plausibly come from somewhere other than deliberate
| bigotry. Despite spending far more than enough time on the
| subject for proper research.
| ad133 wrote:
| I was hoping there was going to be some minimum definition, and
| that I could call myself Lord, but alas, my ~300m^2 of land
| doesn't seem to qualify me either (I live there, I didn't get
| scammed ~3k times over for 1 sq foot).
|
| I mean honestly if you could be a lord with 1 square foot, there
| would be a lot of lords in Scotland due to the ownership nature
| of buying a house (very little of this "leasehold" thing that's
| prevalent in England). My parents would be a lord and lady, so
| would their parents...
|
| I've not encountered these ads though, I guess it would be pretty
| dumb to geo-target it to people _living_ in Scotland.
|
| Edit, on the other hand, if you buy a house and let it out, I
| guess you can be a land lord, even if you still can't call
| yourself lord.
| [deleted]
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Or the square foot grant when you buy a bottle of Laphroaig...
| I have a few, though I'd strongly doubt they're contiguous.
| iak8god wrote:
| The only way to know for sure is to go check it out :)
|
| And while you're there, take the Water to Whiskey tour:
| https://whiskystories.com/2017/02/18/laphroaig-water-to-
| whis...
| rob_c wrote:
| the distillers wares tour at laphroaig is much better imo:
| https://www.laphroaig.com/gb/book-islay-distillery-
| tour#id=d...
|
| went a few years ago
| Banana699 wrote:
| Why is becoming a Scottish Lord desirable in the first place ?
| explained for someone who doesn't live in Scotland or any of
| the neighbouring Isles ?
| dylan604 wrote:
| I mean, you know, would you rather have a chat with Ben
| Kingsley or Sir Ben Kingsley? I know I'd rather chat with
| Lord Banana699 than just plain-ol' Banana699
| salawat wrote:
| And this is why marketing is a thing, for the record.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| Titles are a form of addressing people. Sometimes it is just
| nice to be addressed by something that isn't
| Mr/Ms/Mx(/Mrs/Miss). Plenty of people have been motivated
| towards a PhD or MD for among other reasons the hopes of
| getting to be addressed as Doctor. For various reasons most
| of the available Titles to be found in our world are old and
| baroque (sometimes literally), which both has its appeals (a
| feeling of "tradition") and detriments (hard to get).
|
| I've many non-binary friends that especially pine that Mx
| isn't greatly accepted by many and most of the non-gendered
| titles (including Doctor) are hard to acquire. I keep joking
| that if I were Governor of Kentucky, I'd make a simple form
| for any non-binary person to acquire the Colonel title if
| they wished.
|
| (In Kentucky the Colonel title, the same one used by, for
| instance, the well known Colonel Sanders, is a title gifted
| to anyone for general service to the Commonwealth. It's
| origins are military, but it's been much more a philanthropic
| thing for much of the past couple centuries, including in the
| case of Colonel Sanders who was awarded it for his role as a
| businessman in the Commonwealth. It's a fascinating title.)
| dougmwne wrote:
| I doubt it confers any practical modern day benefits aside
| from the Right of the Braggart.
| Macha wrote:
| There are sufficient people who value items that give them
| (real or imagined) prestige with other people (especially
| those of a similar mindset) to sustain these industries.
| cjbgkagh wrote:
| I think it's a holdover from when airlines and other service
| industries would treat their customers with titles more
| favorably.
| CharlesW wrote:
| Scottish Lords and Ladies get a free pint from their local
| pub the third Tuesday of the month between 3-5pm.
| globalise83 wrote:
| Only if they loudly declaim their status to all present...
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Time was, you could be a Senator in the American South
| without the land... or the actual job. They'd call you
| that in the bar or restaurant, just in case your were.
| tailspin2019 wrote:
| And I believe there is a requirement to do a funny little
| dance...
| munificent wrote:
| I'm guessing that many of these are targeting Americans.
|
| One of the weird side effects of being from a melting pot
| country only a few hundred years old is a yearning for
| connection to things that feel permanent and historical.
| "Owning" some land in Scotland and "having" a title may be
| appealing to an American who otherwise feels cut off from
| their Scottish ancestry or other longer-term cultural
| practices.
| Semaphor wrote:
| Eh, I'm German and almost bought a royal baker title some
| years ago. It's mainly fun ;)
| troutwine wrote:
| It would have an appeal to me, because it's absurd. I'm an
| American and was raised up with the notion that royalty and
| monarchies are patently absurd, a feeling that has only
| grown as I've aged. Having a Lordship would be like owning
| a three-wheeled car or living in a house that looks like a
| giant seashell, to my mind. It'd be a funny thing to tell
| folks about at parties. I might even go about creating
| knights or whatever if the party was good enough.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| I don't think it's related to melting pot thing - new world
| history is just not that rich compared to european/asian
| ones due to its recency and (for the most part) lack of
| conflict
| ido wrote:
| There was a tremendous amount of conflict in the new
| world, just mostly not between countries (the conquest of
| the Americas had a death toll of 70-100m people).
| bee_rider wrote:
| Isn't that sort of related? People in the mixing pot want
| to find some rich historical legacy to connect to so they
| can feel distinct from the rest of the pot.
|
| Personally, I've always found it a bit silly -- the folks
| I most admire in my ancestry are the ones who looked
| around and said "Yeah current events are shaping up to be
| part of some nation's rich history, time to get the hell
| out of dodge." Rich history is largely made of poor
| people being shoved into the meat grinder of 'glorious'
| national struggles.
| noSyncCloud wrote:
| Counterpoint: New World history is/was just as rich and
| valuable; it was just systematically erased by one of the
| largest genocides in history spanning from pole to pole.
| dilyevsky wrote:
| They had 10% of world population at the time conquest
| began so just by that metric nah
| munificent wrote:
| What level of population is required for one's culture to
| be considered interesting or worth preserving?
| dilyevsky wrote:
| Yikes, you always twist someone's words like that in a
| discourse? All I said the history is not as rich which
| makes sense given there was like 10x fewer people here on
| a huge territory. But also North American tribes didnt
| even have much written down unlike the South American
| civilizations
| PaulHoule wrote:
| If you make a reservation at the Marriott they have a long
| list of titles you can claim. You can say you are a "Lord"
| there. Also an example that "Established Titles" makes is
| that you can have your credit card say "Lord so-an-so"
| JamesBarney wrote:
| It's bought as a fun gag gift.
| ogogmad wrote:
| I imagine it isn't. It's simply something you can mention
| during drinks.
|
| And the correct term is laird btw.
| thaumasiotes wrote:
| > And the correct term is laird btw.
|
| The OP quite clearly notes that this is false:
|
| > In the United Kingdom, "lord" and "lady" are peerage
| titles, meaning a person can only hold the legal
| recognition, privileges, and protections associated with
| those titles if they rightfully inherit them, if they marry
| into a noble family, or if the queen grants them a peerage.
|
| > Companies that sell souvenir plots with the claim of
| granting titles often rely on a conflation of the titles
| "lord" and "lady" with "laird," which is not a peerage
| title, but rather solely a courtesy title akin to the
| English phrase "lord of the manor." In Scotland, this title
| is traditionally applied to a member of the landed gentry
| who owns a large estate that has a long history and who
| generally has servants and tenants. Because "laird" is
| merely a courtesy title, it has no legal significance
|
| The title of nobility is "lord". "Laird" is not a title at
| all, but a conventional designation for a somewhat related
| concept.
| yupper32 wrote:
| Could be targeting tourists.
| [deleted]
| synu wrote:
| Or you could just call yourself lord regardless, and the
| monarch won't appear and throw you in the oubliette.
| DocTomoe wrote:
| It's Britain, the country that wants to get out of the
| European Human Rights Convention because ... it protects
| human rights. I wouldn't be so sure about oubliettes...
| Veen wrote:
| That's a misrepresentation. The UK government merely wants
| to make the UK supreme court the final authority on some
| human rights cases in the UK, which seems perfectly
| reasonable to me. The UK is not abandoning the convention,
| and there are plans to create a UK Bill of Rights.
|
| (Putting people in oubliettes is illegal under UK law
| anyway.)
| ben_w wrote:
| What the UK politicians say they want and what the actual
| bills say are not necessarily aligned. FWIW, the rhetoric
| that gets hate-quoted at me is mostly in the camp of
| "rights are bad".
|
| (Would it be illegal to make a law whose punishment was
| an oubliette? Can the queen be detained at her own
| pleasure, at least for anything other than the detonation
| of a nuclear device in her personal capacity?)
| matthewheath wrote:
| > Would it be illegal to make a law whose punishment was
| an oubliette?
|
| No, it would not be illegal to make a law whose
| punishment was an oubliette. The British Parliament is
| sovereign and supreme, and can make any law it wishes.
|
| The devolved legislatures are limited by the Act(s)
| establishing them. Such a law passed by the Scottish
| Parliament would probably be challenged under S29(2)(d)
| of the Scotland Act 1998 which prohibits breaches of the
| European Convention on Human Rights.
|
| In this case, such a law in Scotland could potentially
| breach Article 3 of the Convention which prohibits
| inhuman or degrading punishment. The British Parliament
| can simply choose to ignore it, but the Scottish
| Parliament can't (unless the British Parliament chose to
| give it such powers).
|
| > Can the queen be detained at her own pleasure, at least
| for anything other than the detonation of a nuclear
| device in her personal capacity?
|
| No, she cannot be prosecuted for anything while she is
| the monarch. She would need to abdicate or otherwise be
| legally removed (e.g. an Act of Parliament abolishing the
| Crown) from her position.
|
| Even if she were able to be prosecuted, the Nuclear
| Explosions (Prohibition and Inspections) Act 1998 is not
| currently in force, and even if the Act were in force,
| Her Majesty would be exempt under S14(4):
|
| "Nothing in this section affects Her Majesty in her
| private capacity; and this subsection shall be construed
| as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947
| (meaning of Her Majesty in her private capacity) were
| contained in this Act."
| growse wrote:
| > That's a misrepresentation. The UK government merely
| wants to make the UK supreme court the final authority on
| some human rights cases in the UK, which seems perfectly
| reasonable to me.
|
| Perfectly reasonable, until the executive decides to pack
| the court, and then renege on / "creatively reinterpret"
| their shiny new "bill of rights" (or even just simply
| amend it).
|
| You say "merely", but that's the whole dog and pony show.
| This isn't some abstract, ideological exercise, the
| current government wants to pass laws that would
| currently not fly in the ECHR court. If they didn't,
| there would be zero practical need to change the current
| state. Ask yourself which bits of the ECHR you think are
| worth doing without?
|
| Remember, the whole point of the ECHR is to prevent the
| oppression of a people by their government. Having the
| court be drawn from a range of different nations and not
| having any single government exclusively in control is a
| feature, not a bug.
| homonculus1 wrote:
| And what happens when the ECHR starts oppressing people?
| It's turtles all the way down!
| Xylakant wrote:
| Those two things are mutually exclusive. The convention
| establishes the ECHR as the highest court ruling over
| matters of the convention and states that are part of the
| convention are bound to those rulings. Establishing the
| UK high court as the highest court would be violating the
| obligations under the convention. So yes, if you want to
| have the high court be the last court of appeal, you'd
| have to abandon the convention.
| Mo3 wrote:
| See, that's why I invested my money into a honorary PhD of
| Psychic Sciences instead.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| These people give titles for free:
|
| https://www.ulc.org/
|
| I am an ordained minister and a "Brother". I own almost 70 acres
| of rural land so I'm not interested in buying another square
| foot.
| fnord123 wrote:
| > One example of a person who has become a laird is the British
| novelist J. K. Rowling, who is best known as both the author of
| the bestselling series of children's novels Harry Potter and also
| arguably the most influential proponent of transphobia in the
| English-speaking world today.
|
| It should be noted that JK Rowling does not identify as a
| transphobe.
| kelnos wrote:
| If it quacks like a duck, as they say...
| lostgame wrote:
| >> It should be noted that JK Rowling does not identify as a
| transphobe.
|
| Why should that be noted? Most racists don't claim to be
| racists, either.
|
| This is literally the trans equivalent of 'I'm not racist,
| but...' - which is a sentence that is always followed by a
| racist statement.
|
| Rowling's _intense_ transphobia is not up for debate [1]. She
| doubled down on demeaning us and our rights [2] when called
| upon it.
|
| It's our actions that speak, not shallow words that contradict
| half the other garbage we've spoken.
|
| [1] https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-
| arts/music/story/2022-... [2]
| https://www.indiewire.com/2022/03/jk-rowling-transphobia-int...
| anoonmoose wrote:
| Oh? Why is that?
| Nition wrote:
| Are you asking why it should be noted? I'd say because often
| the Internet makes its mind up about things on limited
| evidence, or things getting exaggerated as they're repeated,
| and it's nice to hear the subject's side as well. Otherwise
| we might be left thinking Justine Sacco is racist etc.
| anoonmoose wrote:
| I've heard her side. She's a transphobe.
| ben_w wrote:
| "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist" is the etymology of
| "TERF", which is IIRC what she's objecting to being called (but
| I don't know because the search results are polluted by the
| drama of the arguments rather than the actual causes).
|
| IIRC (same caveat) she's being called that as a result of
| excluding trans women from her definition of women.
|
| If this was about logic (rather than the way certain labels are
| applied and can become terms of abuse divorced from their
| original context[0]), then that would imply she was objecting
| to being called a "radical feminist".
|
| [0] e.g. "artificial", "hysteria", and arguably "Lucifer"
| xdennis wrote:
| TERF and transfobic are both terms used to smear people who
| don't agree with some changes. They're rarely targeted at bad
| people. Instead, the terms are used to bully people into
| agreeing with unwanted changes.
|
| Take the word "woman". Until recently, it had a definition
| clearly understood by everyone (see Kindergarten Cop). But
| now, if you don't agree with the redefinition you're labeled
| a TERF/transphobe.
| Spivak wrote:
| jhkiehna wrote:
| links or it didn't happen.
| Spivak wrote:
| Like okay, it's all public.
|
| The essay: https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-
| writes-about-...
|
| The law: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/politics-
| news/j-k-row...
|
| More the law: https://www.indiewire.com/2020/06/jk-rowling-
| transphobic-tra...
|
| Her support of the LBG alliance:
| https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1518542559089512448
|
| The LGB alliance supporting her:
| https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/10/21/lgb-alliance-jk-
| rowlin...
|
| The book: https://www.amazon.com/Troubled-Blood-Cormoran-
| Strike-Novel/...
|
| So you don't have to read the book:
| https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-transphobic-is-jk-
| rowlings...
|
| Her support of public TERFs:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/world/europe/jk-
| rowling-m...
| [deleted]
| rob_c wrote:
| kurupt213 wrote:
| illuminerdy wrote:
| 0898 wrote:
| I researched these a while ago and the way these "titles" work is
| simple: you change your name by deed poll to "Lord Appleseed" or
| whatever you fancy.
|
| Although amusingly while they say deed poll, there's no such
| concept in law. In actuality you just start using your new name
| and that's basically it.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| But you can trade your Brooklyn Bridge for one.
| vorpalhex wrote:
| Oh, no, my Brooklyn Bridge is caught up in a DAO that was taken
| over by scammers using a sybil attack! My only hope is to buy
| more BRIDGECOIN and get back a majority stake! What if they
| steal my NFTs!?
| HeckFeck wrote:
| I will help you reclaim what is rightly yours with the aid of
| my army of dubiously-sourced primate JPEGs!
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| If only haggis were a primate... unstoppable!
| ipaddr wrote:
| This hit piece offers much fact but misses the mark on the
| intent.p and usage. I looked into to this last year and they
| clearly state you do not own the land and you get a laird title
| by being part of this estate and the land is held in their name.
| I don't think anyone thought you are getting an official lordship
| from the queen. If you did you would be forced to give up your
| citizenship in Canada unless the prime minister blesses you. You
| can buy official titles for thousands of dollars but no one
| expects the same.
|
| The amount of people who are scottish or have historical roots to
| Scotland is very high. People buy clan colors, people buy fun
| titles because they want to feel connected to a history that has
| shaped who they have become.
| anothernewdude wrote:
| Sure you can. The reality is that titles are no longer protected,
| and you will no longer get your land taken away and your head cut
| off for declaring yourself a lord.
|
| The idea that titles matter is the one that is dead on its arse.
| DubiousPusher wrote:
| > it occurred to me that the target market for these fake title
| companies overlaps considerably with the online history
| community.
|
| Reading any amount of European history and coming away with a
| desire to have a title of nobility is bizarre to me.
| kurupt213 wrote:
| but what about my certificates from Laphroig? do i still own a
| few square feet of Islay?
| PaulHoule wrote:
| It's kinda embarassing that many of my favorite Youtubers are
| promoting this.
| FalconSensei wrote:
| To me, I instantly doubt anything they try to sell on Youtube.
| Even if not scam, it's probably just a low quality
| product/service
| Ekaros wrote:
| I actually wonder what is left if you block all even somewhat
| questionable sponsors.
| duxup wrote:
| The YouTube ecosystem feels so dirty.
|
| It feels like inevitable disappointment with every channel
| eventually devolving into garbage. Granted they don't all do
| that, but it is so frequent I feel like I'm just dreading my
| favorite channels going bad ... often.
|
| One Youtuber I used to follow was sponsored by some scam. Dude
| actually responded to the issues raised in the comments. But
| the response was "yeah these folks are kinda dirty but you
| could get free money out of it". 1. No you won't thus the
| scam... 2 ... -unsubscribe-
|
| YouTube feels like a perpetual race to the bottom.
| ravenstine wrote:
| To an extent, this is just how life is.
|
| I'm certainly not excusing low level scams, charlatanism, or
| snake oil, but even before YouTube there were TV commercials
| and radio hosts peddling things like "Name a Star."
|
| There comes a point where I can't really feel sorry for
| anyone who buys this stuff thinking it's actually real and
| not just a cute gag.
| deathanatos wrote:
| ... I mean, charlatans are a fact of life, yes, but it
| doesn't need to _be_ that way.
|
| We have laws against it. Prosecute people. The biggest
| problem AFAICT is other countries don't give a damn about
| fraud (as long as it isn't against their own), and, e.g.,
| American phone companies continue to permit falsifying
| caller ID.
|
| The idea of capitalism is that a better product (i.e., one
| offering more utility/$) should win out. There are some ...
| _requirements_ for that, though, like a good flow of
| information, and that 's hard in a marketplace where actors
| lie, fraudsters, but increasingly "legitimate" companies as
| well. We all see the stories from the FTC et al. where the
| enforcement penalty is _paltry_. I.e., the cost of doing
| business.
|
| Better consumer protections. But nobody cares about things
| like that, presently, as we're too busy having conniptions
| over far stupider things.
| bena wrote:
| Everything becomes a race to the bottom, until every last
| ounce of perceived value has been extracted and the platform
| exists only has a shattered husk of what it once was.
|
| You start with early adopters. They get big on novelty or
| being genuinely entertaining. Eventually, they learn how to
| make money off of it. Once people realize money can be made
| off of it, more people will try to do so. Then actual
| production units get involved. It's no long suitable to have
| a camera and a mic. You need condensers, filters, lighting,
| schedules, etc. And now, it's not just you, it's you, your
| neighbor, your friends, Sony, the platform itself, your
| goddamn fucking cat has a channel somehow. And then there's
| just not enough money to just grab. You have to hustle for
| it. And then you find yourself shilling crypto or timeshares
| or some bullshit.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| They need to pay the bills and it seems the only people
| willing to pay them are companies that spend more on
| marketing than product development, or otherwise literally
| white labeling cheap goods with lots of branding.
|
| I don't think there are many companies looking to sponsor
| youtubers that AREN'T at least sketchy.
| teddyh wrote:
| You shouldn't listen to people who promulgate such obvious
| scams.
| cj wrote:
| Is there a yelp for YouTubers?
|
| How am I to know who's generating quality content with
| quality sponsorships vs. those that aren't? Particularly if
| I'm trying to learn about a topic I don't have experience in.
| joe_guy wrote:
| Like everything else -- what evidence do they present and
| what credentials do they posses that makes them a valuable
| interpreter of such evidence.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Credentials? They're on YouTube! Look at that follower
| count! Surely that's more important than actual
| _credentials_!
|
| "If it's on the internet, it's true" is a real thing.
| joe_guy wrote:
| We're discussing what we as individuals can do, but a
| yelp for youtubers isnt needed and wouldnt solve a larger
| misinformation problem anyways (yelp didnt make bad food
| disappear).
|
| The following isnt just for youtubers, its for all
| information.
|
| As individuals, we can ensure they present evidence. If
| we're going to attempt something drastic off this
| evidence, ie, claim Scottish Lordship, we should validate
| the evidence ourselves or ask a credentialed validator.
| Ie, a Scottish lawyer.
|
| * Did they present evidence? * If yes, do they posses
| credentials that make them a meaningful evaluator? * If
| yes, do other meaningful evaluators agree?
|
| It's not dissimilar to the scientific method.
| [deleted]
| anshumankmr wrote:
| Not really but some YouTubers call out other YouTubers from
| time to time. There is a mini cottage industry that was
| made out of just calling out the Paul brothers.
| _jal wrote:
| The usual technique is to build one's own opinion.
|
| If someone you're trusting to instruct you on something
| suddenly starts pushing Doc's Miracle Remedy & Floor Wax,
| you might reasonably conclude they'll say anything for
| money and adjust your priors.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Except it's usually: I trust creator X to be a domain
| expert on alcoholic beverages and cocktails. Now they run
| an ad for Company Y that is about information security.
|
| I know they don't know what they are talking about. How
| many youtubers actually understand WHY all those VPN
| companies are hawking horseshit with their ads about
| "protecting you from hackers" etc. They see other
| youtubers, often much more "knowledgeable" in the area of
| information in question hawking such things, so they feel
| comfortable taking money for those ads. If we want this
| to stop then 1) we need to find another way for these
| youtubers WHO ARE GENUINELY MAKING HIGH QUALITY AND
| IMPORTANT CONTENT to pay their bills and 2) help them
| understand that we don't want to be sold garbage, and how
| to understand the ad copy they've been told to spout is
| garbage.
| Loughla wrote:
| Alternate option, because my study of humans says your
| theory is wrong, but mine is right.
|
| >If someone you're trusting to instruct you on something
| suddenly starts pushing Doc's Miracle Remedy & Floor Wax,
| you might reasonably conclude they'll say anything for
| money and adjust your priors.
|
| Should read:
|
| >If someone you're trusting to instruct you on something
| suddenly starts pushing Doc's Miracle Remedy & Floor Wax,
| you might reasonably conclude they have expanded their
| expertise to other areas, and you should trust the remedy
| and floor wax, and that anyone who disagrees with the
| someone you trust just does it because they are a) dumb,
| b) evil, c) part of a grand conspiracy to make you look
| stupid.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| This includes people who I think are absolutely reputable in
| their specialty, such as
|
| https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleshipNewJersey
| barneygale wrote:
| You can block sponsored content with a browser extension:
| https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/sponsorblock/
| pwdisswordfish9 wrote:
| I am thankful none of my _favourite_ ones do, but one of my
| guilty-pleasure channels does. Not that any of their other
| sponsors is much better...
| omnibrain wrote:
| With every bottle of Laphroaig (Scotch Whisky from Islay) comes a
| code you can use to register 1 square foot of land at the
| Laphroaig Distillery on Islay. Of course, it's also only vanity,
| but you can actually visit the plot and they pay you "rent" (1
| dram of Whisky at the bar) when you visit the distillery.
| willio58 wrote:
| This is amazing. Thanks for the share!
| schoen wrote:
| Is there a limit to how many drams you can get per visit this
| way?
|
| (Not that this would be a very cost-effective way to obtain
| extra whisky!)
| kurupt213 wrote:
| sorry barkeep. i had to double rent. and i've registered a
| lot of bottles.
| elwell wrote:
| Yes, I'm a proud owner of such.
| amelius wrote:
| Did they give you the GPS coordinates?
| chrsig wrote:
| My wife and I bought one for our cat as a gag. We hope they plant
| a tree. Even if they don't, it's brought me enough amusement to
| be worth it.
| imwillofficial wrote:
| You'd better be treating Lord Whiskers with the proper respect!
|
| Only fancy feast for the young highness.
| cptcobalt wrote:
| Exactly this. It was cheap enough for my husband and I do be
| lords as a great gag gift, and the framed certificate is on a
| bookshelf. The night of fun of referring to each other as Lord
| Alexander & etc. more than paid for the purchase.
|
| And this is kinda the point, people don't _really_ care if it
| 's real or not. Nobody is about to go to put "Lord Alexander"
| on their drivers license or airline boarding passes--and if
| they do, good for them.
|
| Anecdotally, I have a friend who is a hereditary heir to a
| baronet title, and that itself sounds _way_ cooler.
| adriand wrote:
| Can you do anything with "your" land? Like plant something or
| erect something on it (I know you're not going to, but if you
| wanted to, could you)? What about access, is it possible to
| go see "your" plot? And do they give you GPS coordinates so
| you can check it out on Google Maps?
| chrsig wrote:
| of course not -- silly expectation to be able to. I'd have
| to dig up the packet they sent for any exact details, it
| had a bunch of fine print about stuff like access and what
| not.
| cptcobalt wrote:
| nah, there's a bunch of terms, and the idea is that this
| will protect forests. but you can visit it!
|
| https://establishedtitles.com/pages/faqs-ii
| komadori wrote:
| > It is not possible for someone to buy their way into lordship
| or ladyship.
|
| Life peerages are still routinely created (excessively so, in
| fact) and, arguably, giving generously to your favourite
| political party might improve your chances of getting one.
| BoxOfRain wrote:
| The House of Lords appointment process has been notorious for
| cronyism since at least the days of Tony Blair and continuing
| to the present. In 2020 Boris Johnson even made a Russian
| newspaper owner and son of a KGB agent a lord!
|
| While I'm still convinced of the benefits of a strictly
| limited, appointed rather than elected upper house to act as a
| brake on unfettered populism, the selection process is in
| desperate need of overhaul and should be taken out of actively
| partisan hands at least. I'd also make all lords crossbenchers,
| a non-partisan upper house would perform its role more
| effectively in my opinion.
| pmyteh wrote:
| Long before Blair, even. Lloyd George had a semi-official
| price list for honours, and I'm sure he was not the first.
| The current price is supposed to be PS3m to the Conservative
| party.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| Lloyd George was planning to pack the House of Lords, in
| order to control and discredit it. So selling the seats
| kind of made sense.
| stakkur wrote:
| But can you become a laird?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-08-17 23:01 UTC)