|
|
Posted February 4, 2010
by
|
Long Beach, California
![]() |
This iReport is part of an assignment:
Sound-off |
RE: Yahoo News:UK man's castle won't be his home
I used to think of Britain as the Originator of the Bill of Rights and Property Rights, but that image is somewhat fading as Yahoo News posted an article about the English farmer, Robert Fidler, and his legal battle with The Royal Court to keep his well designed and beautifully executed home.
Fidler apparently built the home in secrecy without construction permits from the Royal Court and the result is a literal storming of the castle by Court Magistrates- The Court is ordering Fidler to destroy the home.
Maybe it's not true and maybe it is an American perspective but building a home on a piece of property in England, at least, grants entitlement to the House of Commons.
The home may or may not be going to a court of appeals where a member of the House of Lords or the Royal Court might grant Fidler title to his structure... But, for now, there seems to be a whole lot of Old English snobbery happening in both the House of Lords and the Inns of Court as to what Fidlers social title might be if he is granted ownership...something that seems trifling in respect to the craftsmanship of the home in question.
If he is granted an appeal, there is a chance the 'Question of the Farmers Castle' may reach the Royal Family itself.
Well done.
What do you think of this story?
iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.



Comments