Renton 17628 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I don't feel remotely inferior to aristocrats or moneyed people in general. Actually it's really intelligent people I tend to feel in awe of (I've met a few in my time in my field). But am I not allowed to resent then nonetheless? It would be easier for me if it were not for Charles. He is in no way apolitical and is, believe me, utterly contemptuous of plebs like us. He's an idiot and I happen to despise the his ignorant views, including regarding my own profession. If we had a monarchy like they have in Sweden, Holland etc, it wouldn't be so bad, but this week it's been so in your face I'm amazed more people don't react. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Don't knock Charles, Renton - he's the best hope we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14528 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Don't knock Charles, Renton - he's the best hope we have. Youve said this before...can you explain how this may work? Is he any more corrupt or power hungry than anyone in Westminster?..fair enough we cant vote him out but him and his family are a small part of the big picture iyam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Youve said this before...can you explain how this may work? Is he any more corrupt or power hungry than anyone in Westminster?..fair enough we cant vote him out but him and his family are a small part of the big picture iyam. I think a lot of people dislike him because of Diana but that's just a starting point for me. I think if he does get the chance he'll become a very divisive figure because he genuinely thinks he has a role as a "leader" evidenced by his intensive lobbying of government which he doesnt realise is directly at odds with the perceived role of king. I also think his views on religion will cause a crisis in the CofE which can only be a good thing in my view. The worst thing they could do in my view is to skip him - and funnily enough the fact that's been quite widely suggested gives credence to my view that he will be "good" for the republican cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 14528 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 I think a lot of people dislike him because of Diana but that's just a starting point for me. I think if he does get the chance he'll become a very divisive figure because he genuinely thinks he has a role as a "leader" evidenced by his intensive lobbying of government which he doesnt realise is directly at odds with the perceived role of king. I also think his views on religion will cause a crisis in the CofE which can only be a good thing in my view. The worst thing they could do in my view is to skip him - and funnily enough the fact that's been quite widely suggested gives credence to my view that he will be "good" for the republican cause. Never going to happen...your hopes will be realised, as you say he has a finger in a lot of pies and lobbies Westminster to get his "vision" for the country at least on the agenda, the fuckin old hippy. Thing is his sons are hugely popular. You'll have to strike before he croaks it. Diana was treated appallingly to begin with, but when she learnt the game she was as bad as the rest of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Never going to happen...your hopes will be realised, as you say he has a finger in a lot of pies and lobbies Westminster to get his "vision" for the country at least on the agenda, the fuckin old hippy. Thing is his sons are hugely popular. You'll have to strike before he croaks it. Diana was treated appallingly to begin with, but when she learnt the game she was as bad as the rest of them. Perhaps - I can see a scenario where theres a huge shitstorm in his reign and instead of having a sensible debate about the whole thing, the cretinous mass just demand William. I didnt mean I was in the diana camp above btw - I thought she was just another parasite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 What's the cost-benefit of the Royals in terms of tourism value vs cost of their upkeep? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17628 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 What's the cost-benefit of the Royals in terms of tourism value vs cost of their upkeep? I think it's as irrelevant as asking what the cost benefit of compulsory euthanasia. But anyway, who knows? What are the metrics and how can they be measured? I reckon only a tiny proportion of tourists visit the country to catch a glimpse of a royal, and would come because of our history and heritage regardless if that floats their boat. France and the USA have more tourism than the UK, don't they? Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13814 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Compulsory euthenasia? Do you mean murder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17628 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 Compulsory euthenasia? Do you mean murder? Yes, Logan's Run style. Would solve a lot of problems and save tons of money, so must be a great idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 13814 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 This is what privatization does to the country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gemmill 34186 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 You could still benefit from the tourism without the actual family. Keep the palaces, open them up to the public etc. Just do away with the family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 25, 2013 Share Posted July 25, 2013 How much value comes from culture? For example, how important was 60's British music in maintaining the relevance and strength of British culture in the world over the past few decades? British identity and culture helps to sell all sorts of British products, services and media. I think it's hard to capture that in any meaningful way until you take it away. I don't see the point in them but i am unconvinced by any argument that says they are a burden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17628 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 My argument isn't that they are a burden. My argument is that they are symbolic of an entrenched class system not fit for purpose in the 21st century. I think economic factors are likely to be slight and an irrelevance in any case, yet this is consistently the argument trotted out by royalist, much like supporters of capital punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Exactly. I dont have a lot of respect for a lot of the public but how the hell they don't recognise how fundamentally wrong inherited position is never ceases to amaze me. Especially when meritocracy is so hailed at the same time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 How fundamentally wrong inherited position is? That cant be the issue. The King of Sweden inherits his position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 I think it's as irrelevant as asking what the cost benefit of compulsory euthanasia. But anyway, who knows? What are the metrics and how can they be measured? I reckon only a tiny proportion of tourists visit the country to catch a glimpse of a royal, and would come because of our history and heritage regardless if that floats their boat. France and the USA have more tourism than the UK, don't they? Enough said. Compulsory euthanasia is not a morally equivalent scenario. Also the idea that the France and USA have more tourism than the UK, therefore the Royal family doesn't attract tourists, is definitely the stupidest thing I've seen you post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 You could still benefit from the tourism without the actual family. Keep the palaces, open them up to the public etc. Just do away with the family. Exactly. People visit the castles in Germany not cause there might be royals creeping about in them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 How fundamentally wrong inherited position is? That cant be the issue. The King of Sweden inherits his position. The queen is the tip of the iceberg though. A lot of the wealth and power in this country is birth dependent. Now of course that's pretty universal but my view is a measure of the "decency" of a country should be the extent to which it at least tries to mitigate that fact. The sickening worship of the royal family actually celebrates it which is what appalls me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 The queen is the tip of the iceberg though. A lot of the wealth and power in this country is birth dependent. Now of course that's pretty universal but my view is a measure of the "decency" of a country should be the extent to which it at least tries to mitigate that fact. The sickening worship of the royal family actually celebrates it which is what appalls me. There was that story that there was hassle signing some new laws cause the Royals didn't like them? (Guardian a few months back). Jaw dropping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChezGiven 0 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Yeah jaw dropping. Some laws were delayed. So NJS, your problem is inherited wealth? Ok comrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Yeah jaw dropping. Some laws were delayed. So NJS, your problem is inherited wealth? Ok comrade Very much so I think I've said before I'd set IHT at 100% and agressively clamp down on evasion. We could of course just drop this meritocracy bullshit. (Note I do believe "mobility" is possible but not on a grand scale). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 (edited) Yeah jaw dropping. Some laws were delayed. So NJS, your problem is inherited wealth? Ok comrade You think it's cool a bunch of inbred/semi-mental Krauts who go bald at 25 are allowed any say in our laws? Astounding. Edited July 26, 2013 by Park Life Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 Between the Chuch and the Royal family they own about a 1/3 of the best land in Scotland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJS 3960 Posted July 26, 2013 Share Posted July 26, 2013 By the way my new royal fact for this year is that legally the queen owns every piece of land in England. We are granted "estates" which are actually licences to notionally buy and sell the land but if she wanted to she could revoke the estate at any time with no legal comebacks. Now I dont think for one second its likely but its another example of shit that's still in place that's just accepted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now