> No one says it was "stolen from common people", because they have always owned it.

Not true. Common land, in particular, was stolen during the agricultural revolution and enclosed. This also created the cheap labour needed for the industrial revolution. The modern world was built on theft from the rural common people.

> Good thing nowadays you can emigrate relatively easily.

As an immigrant (as a child) I have already done that. I even have dual nationality so one emigration option is easy. The problem is I do not know of anywhere much better.

Given that the "rural common people" were just as happy killing each other for access to land, good luck finding the "real" owner.

Seriously, there are lots of things wrong with the allocation of wealth and property around the world, but "it was stolen during the agricultural revolution" is an absolutely meaningless argument. Britain e.g. has 900k years of human history. (With the first humans only visiting between cold spells).

There is no "true first owner".

> There is no "true first owner".

I did not claim there was a "true first owner".

I said that there was ownership by the common people.

Which common people? Unless you'd like to treat "the common people" as an amorphous blob?

The commons: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commons

A successful system of land stewardship for many centuries. It was maintained and looked after by the people that lived near to it.

Funnily enough, the need to have a passport to leave your country is a relatively recent thing. Pre-World War I, people could just pack and go to another country, and passports were rarely enforced. They were more a helping document while traveling than a controling tool.

Only after WWI one of the explicit objetives of the passports was to limit the emigration of skilled people. Not to menction that most countries in America were happily receiving huge amounts of people from everywhere without too much hassle. I don't think that is happening today.

>>Good thing nowadays you can emigrate relatively easily.

Given than 1.2m people migrated to the UK in the year ending June 2023, it doesn't seem to be putting people off.

> No one says it was "stolen from common people", because they have always owned it.

... but enclosure acts were specific legislative acts which privatized land and removed common access. I.e. common people had access to the land, and it was taken away. Whether it is "stolen" is perhaps messier to decide. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure#Parliamentary_Inclos...

Being a monarchy is orthogonal; Norway has a king and right to roam, for example.

Scotland is part of the UK and has right to roam.

I've heard about Scottish bothies. As an American, culturally it seems hard to imagine not only a right to walk over private land, but land owners sometimes even donating shelter for use by strangers, for free.

Bothies are awesome:

https://www.mountainbothies.org.uk/

My favourite is probably Camasunary:

https://annestravelsandhikes.com/2018/02/16/a-walk-to-camasu...

> I.e. common people had access to the land

Only in a limited sense. The public did not have access to the land; specific "commoners" (local farmers) had specific usage rights e.g. for grazing.

As is often the case, Scotland is different. Fue duty was abolished decades ago, for example.

Blatant ignorance of history said with overconfidence. The land was literally called common land and was in common ownership until the enclosure acts.

As I see it, the Land was in common ownership only until 1066 AD. Then William I distributed the land amongst his 180 barons. However, he promised the English people would be able to exercise their previous rights (pasture, roam etc), hence "common land".

That's important -- all land was (is?) owned by 180 barons (not sure how many families survived till today), it's just the government restricted land owners to prevent people using it in some cases. Yes it was called "common land". But it doesn't mean its owner is common people.

I think OP was referring to enclosures

Yep, my point is that owner is owner. Owner can give some rights (e.g. to roam), but owner can take them away (to enclose).

But I don't argue whether it's good or bad. I personally don't even know if land ownership is a good thing to begin with. On the other end of range is Communism, that I've experienced personally, and choosing between the two evils I'd choose Monarchy. Probably some middle ground, like land can be leased from government for max 50-99 year at a market price. Or like with the right to roam -- land is owned forever, but government highly restricts the definition of "ownership".