Originally Posted by
lindylou
My dad was always of that opinion. re stately homes, he says why should we pay to go in and 'view' the affluence and luxury that was built from exploitation of the less well off. It was bad enough that the affluent were greedy with their the vast amounts of land and wealth, and had the poor labouring for them for a pittance .. now they want us to pay again !!
My dad won't pay to go in a stately home
He was an astute man Lindy. The preservation of stately homes, which are out of sight of the vast majority of people hidden in the country, was a way of the well connected ruling class to maintain their lifestyles. WE pay for a lot of it. They put about propaganda that these piles of bricks were essential, as a key part of our heritage - although few had ever seen them, never mind been in one. They also put about propaganda that the lifestyle and social structure, of which they were at the top, was essential to our way of life - lots of romatic scenes of happy people working in the fields and walking to to the pub in a chocolate box type of village. Few villages were like this being mainly full of mud and animal mature on the streets with cows and sheep being driven through them. Then the wealthy, privileged ruling class, who made their wealth by taking rent, went for state aid to maintain their lifestyles. It was 100% successful. The governments and people sucked it in.
div>
The finest buildings are, and were, in cities. Ground around buildings make them stand out and more appealing. If the David Lewis' Building was in the country with some Lord living in it, would it have been demolished? Would the Custom House been demolished? I think not.
Stately homes are a reminder in brick of gross exploitation of people. Not one penny of public funds should go towards these stacks of bricks.
Bookmarks