Of course Rawls doesn’t make the claim, that is why I said that he says the same thing as me. Rawls uses the sport analogy (basketball not football) so I reckon it’s still a good argument.

You can strive for meritocracy if you like – THE POINT (according to Rawls and me), is that will not give you the solution that you desire not does it solve the fundamental problem.

If that is meaning I have limited horizons and self worth, so be it.

oh so whats the problem, I thought it was that Monarchy is wrong, have we been talking about something else all this time?

Rawls uses the sport analogy (basketball not football) so I reckon it’s still a good argument.

it might be in the way he uses it I don’t know, its piss weak in the way you used it

Fundamentally do you think everyone should have an equal chance in life, yes or no?

THM – I’m sorry to pick on you, but can you please, pretty please, explain what you think you are “rejecting” ? I am beginning to suspect that you simply misread my post ….

DrJ makes claim that if I cannot accept that people are not born equal then I have limited horizons and a lack of self worth and that no further substantive discussion is possible. To be precise

DrJ – Member
The idea that we are born equal is fanciful at best anyway
As I said pages ago, this is the heart of the issue. If you really believe that, I’m sorry for your limited horizons and lack of self-worth, but there’s really no further substantive discussion possible.

I rejected that, commenting that there is very substantial debate on this issue

since the underlined bit is precisely the opposite of what I said.

The real issue is surely not whether the monarchy as it is at the moment is ok? Liz and family doing their duty in WW2, steadying influence in turbulent times, tourist assets and some light comic relief from Phil-the-Greek… Patrician but tactful with a sense of where the line is…

Isn’t the issue what we are going to have when the next wave comes through…? And it makes you see why Liz hangs in there.

Charles is a well-intentioned nincompoop. He misunderstands love, science, evidence and his role. In another era he should have been shipped off to govern some faraway minor colony. His children were produced with a troubled, beautiful woman he didn’t love, who despite her advantages failed all her O levels, twice. His attempts to interfere with Government are well documented. He has not dealt well with people who have pointed out the stupidity of some of his beliefs.

AA grossly overstates things by calling this oppression. I’d me more worried by the CofE links to the Establishment and government TBH. BUT it is telling that no one in this thread has really effectively answered his point about the Letters.

Getting back to the OP, if the Monarchy actually skipped a generation and went to Wills & Kate, a bloke who seems bright, decent and is actually doing a proper job in the forces and to keep his mouth shut, and a girl who seems nice, managed to get to university and do a proper job afterwards, then I’d probably be ok with that.

I’m still not sure why we need a monarchy at all though

A fair summary imo stoatsbrother although what I think they symbolise is important and that is inequality.

they symbolise is important and that is inequality.

Perhaps they symbolise the opposite – that despite the panacea of money and privilege, many of the challenges of normal life face us all equally, love, loss, bereavement, disappointment, failure – despite all the riches that can be bestowed upon a child, they can lose the things that really matter, like their mother, however with a supportive and loving family, albeit somewhat dysfunctional as all families are in their own way, they still come out of it a seemingly well settled and caring individual.

Perhaps thats why they’re still popular?

Perhaps thats why they’re still popular?

You’re saying we should be ruled by the cast of Made In Chelsea?

Perhaps, sounds like bollocks to me though. I see lots of kids who have to cope with similar and yet dont have a money no object life and things often dont turn out so well for them. I lost a parent when I was 2. Had my mum not had to work and had we not lost our house which was tied to my dads job I’m sure I have grown up to be a much more balanced individual 😀

Food for thought…

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKyCuybAVUE[/video]

we do have to remember that so much of the power of the Royal Family comes from PR…

I have no evidence to suggest that Wills or Kate are not caring and sincere people on a superficial level, but given the wealth they have access to, if they had genuine concerns about the welfare of the country and the world at large, do you not think their influence could be put to better use than waving at paupers and posing for photos, especially in these times of austerity, when we are all in it together?

do you not think their influence could be put to better use than waving at paupers and posing for photos

So, on the one hand, they get criticised for interfering in the democratic process if they, say, intervene to countenance an opinion on climate change – and on the other hand you want to criticise them for not using their influence! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t 😕

I see lots of kids who have to cope with similar and yet don’t have a money no object life and things often dont turn out so well for them

And unfortunately they often don’t work out so well for the kids that do – I’ve certainly know kids who had a fairly privileged upbringing that ended up falling to the demons of drink and drugs. Once you’ve got past the money and status, you’re left with the really big challenges, You are left with the problems of human nature, and even the future kings of England have seen their fair share of them.

Like I say, perhaps not so unequal after all!

Stoats brother.

Wills quit after a couple of years playing in Anglesey and is now on the dole along with his wife. His workshy brother is now an army party planner after we spent millions training him to pull the trigger on a helicopter. Hardly proper jobs or careers.

So, on the one hand, they get criticised for interfering in the democratic process if they, say, intervene to countenance an opinion on climate change – and on the other hand you want to criticise them for not using their influence! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

Ah Bless, not their fault; they were born into such a position 😆

Certainly, it’s a dilemma, however, if they were the paragons of blue blooded caring and virtue they are portrayed to be, they would make the effort to find a suitable solution to this easily surmounted problem…

Of course, they could just keep living it large and basking in the tax funded glory, thanks to the general levels of brainwashing of the populace.

disappointment, failure

I am not sure that a person born to be king experiences this in the same way anyone else does but I agree you have proved they are not immortal nor infallible.

THM i think you are trying to move us to discuss rawls rather than the issue. we cannot cure all disease but it does not mean we should not try same as inequality [ ie different abilities and not actually different rights or expectations – its still equivocation IMHO] – especially the inequalities that are due to our society and how it is organised. The monarchy represent that bit more than most but there are others.

we cannot eliminate illiteracy [ I spelt that wrong initially hehe] either as some of our subjects are stupid, it does not mean we should not give them all an equal chance.