The Queen isn't the issue, or even really the royal family, although when we get that smug homeopathic tree-bothering-Diana-betraying nincompoop on the throne, I suspect a lot of residual affection for the royal family will disappear.
The issue is what it says about a society, and the way it is structured, the triumph of inherited privilege over merit, the assumptions about social mobility etc etc. The Monarchy by being at the symbolic top of this perhaps acts as one anchor which prevents this changing, and stops people saying... "hey,,, WTF ? "
But we English (I'd exempt the Celtic nations from this) are inert and lazy and reluctant to change, which has saved us (along with the English Channel) from lots of painful turmoil since 1688, and I cannot see the monarchy disappearing anytime soon.
What's funny TJ is that you and others are talking about this like I and others don't get it? We do get it, ironically its you and others that do not. We understand what the Monarchy is and where it came from.
Then the Republicans amongst us can only stand back in awe at your complete acceptance of servility.
All gains that have been made in this country to do with freedoms, civil and human rights and public entitlements have been made IN THE FACE OF royalty, not because of it.
"The Firm" (as Philip likes to refer to it) maintains itself through clever manipulation of the media by getting it's victims to concentrate on the personalities rather than think about the valueless institution that they represent.
If all the monarch is, is a figurehead with no power, why is she allowed to influence policy? Why does Charles continue to have access to government at the highest levels to lobby on behalf of his ridiculous obsessions? The latest insurance against change was the well-choreographed splicing of the next-but-one in line, to a "commoner" who has suddenly become "royal". How did she achieve this transformation? We are constantly being told that "Aaaaahhh - they're just an ordinary family like us". They're not, of course. They are the guarantor of the British Establishment.
Know your place. Wave your flag. Have your party. Accept, accept, accept.
deadlydarcy - Member
Misery
You can keep repeating it over and over, and I know you're pleased with yourself, but it won't be getting funny anytime soon. Sorry.
Apologies DD, give the title thread I felt a little humour would be an antidote to the normal bullying approach that tends to be associated with these kinds of threads. Obviously over-estimated the sense of humour of some Republicans 😉
deadlydarcy - Member
How any intelligent person can be in favour of a monarchy in the 21st century, is frankly staggering. But as STW reminds one, over and over again, enlightenment is a slow process.
It really is staggering - and frankly that IS the real question. How can this be? We have some attempts at answering this, mainly derogatory ones towards people who support the monarchy (inert, stupid, servile, delusional etc). But that is all a little trivial don't you think? So how can anyone defend on moral grounds, a notion that power, income or wealth should be distributed merely according to the random accident of birth. Surely, its blindingly obvious that this shouldn't happen. And yet, inconveniently, over time from the Ancient World, through the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment period and modern times, some of the most intellectually powerful members of society have reached the opposite conclusion to the one that seems so blatantly obvious (of course they have been contested in their views as well). And these are not stupid people and their contributions already have a legacy well beyond any of us who post on STW. So how can an idea that is (apparently) so obviously wrong and immoral sustain itself over centuries and, if current opinion polls are correct, remain a preferred option for our country. That is the challenge that the Republican lobby must ask itself without resorting to trivial insults. It is indeed an interesting question.
EDIT: I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into this, so can't be bothered really. Someone else can get into it.
some of the most intellectually powerful members of society have reached the opposite conclusion
And it's a relatively commonly held view, and possibly true, that a benevolent dictator provides the most stable form of government. Would you surrender your vote for a bit of that? I doubt it.
The issue is what it says about a society, and the way it is structured, the triumph of inherited privilege over merit, the assumptions about social mobility etc etc. The Monarchy by being at the symbolic top of this perhaps acts as one anchor which prevents this changing, and stops people saying... "hey,,, WTF ?
Top of the crooked tree. Chop it down.
So how can an idea that is (apparently) so obviously wrong and immoral sustain itself over centuries and, if current opinion polls are correct, remain a preferred option for our country. That is the challenge that the Republican lobby must ask itself without resorting to trivial insults. It is indeed an interesting question.
Could it be that we just don't want the politicians in charge? I don't believe that. We certainly wouldn't want a monarch interfering or as an absolute ruler again.
Fear of the unknown? It's not unknown, as mentioned before, other countries have remove their monarchies and operate the same if not better.
Identity. This is where it's at. Even though people mis-interpret what the "Great" in Great Britain means, there is this feeling of decline in this country. The Empire is gone, we won't be involved in the likes of those great victories like in the world wars, unless of course there's another world war(god help us), our industrial revolution is now just heritage. We have a proud history of what we gave to the world, but now we are just trading on past achievements.
We are members of the permanent security council at the UN, we punch above our weight, That is what Trident Nuclear submarines are for, not to be used as a weapon, but as a tool for access to the top table of World politics. But now other countries are overtaking us, we are slipping away.
It sounds negative, but it shouldn't be. We just need to find ourselves again and discover what we can give to the world.
The monarchy sits in this as a link to our past glories, a reluctance to let go of it, because we know who we were, but we don't know who we will be. There is no other logic to keeping something to which monarchists claim "does not interfere" with the running of the country, other than for sentimental reasons.
Starkey as the cheerleader for the monarchy - a nasty racist contrarian with well known royalist views? Well thats me persuaded 🙄
Well. Whatever your views on the current constitional position. I can't help thinking that the thread title has indeed proved itself to be justified.
imnotverygood - MemberWell. Whatever your views on the current constitional position. I can't help thinking that the thread title has indeed proved itself to be justified.
TBH neither side seems to be having much fun. "Obsessive arguers on the internet: miserable bunch aren't they?"
Bastille Day
[img] 
[/img]
St. Patrick's Day
[img] 
[/img]
Festa della Republica
[img] 
[/img]
Miserable bastards that have to live in republics, innit.
Oh, and...
EDIT: WUNUNDRED 😀
(that makes me happy today anyway...second one!)
THM why dont republic countries have massive public support for the return of a monarch?
My view is people conform and prefer the status quo/ dont care about politics much
JY - that is a very good question. To narrow the answers down a bit lets look at DD's last example of Spain and tie that in with one of the arguments that some monarchists put forward that the existence of constitutional monarchies can help to avoid the rise of political extremes. Was it not King Juan Carlos who oversaw the transition from dictatorship to a parliamentary monarchy?
Of course, that is an idea (among others) put forward by the likes of Starkey. So let's address TJ's sarcastic point above (gosh, he must have bit his lip with that one!):
TandemJeremy - Member
Starkey as the cheerleader for the monarchy - a nasty racist contrarian with well known royalist views? Well thats me persuaded
...and then lets link that with TJ's request in the helmet thread to maintain rigour and reliability in debate rather than 'intellectual dishonesty' and read what Starkey actually says:
From a Guardian Interview.And it did not come, he insists, from a craven support for monarchy for its own sake. He admits to being seduced by narrative, biography, colour, but sternly says he is "a rational monarchist", who is perfectly capable of envisioning the abolition of the royal family. "We would have to engage in a really radical rethinking of our constitution ... which in some ways, I think, might be a rather good thing...
Of course, we may not want to let fact get in the way of a good argument though!!! But perhaps reading what people actually say and alternative views would benefit us all. Still puzzling this enduring appeal though isn't it? 😉
THM - more laughable pish really. Is that the best you can do?
starkey is a very nasty racist. His views are unacceptable in modern society and anyone who is racist disqualifies themselves from being considered rational.
To use this contemptible man as the cheerleader for your position shows the poverty of your argument
TJ why do you claim that STarkey is racist, is this your personal view or do you have proof.
Plenty of evidence of him making racist statements. he may just be deliberately being controversial but he is a repeat offender on this.
DD's last example of Spain
Well, unless I'm very much mistaken, that's Italy. 😕
TJ - stick to the point otherwise you will be into bullying mode again! And we dont want to descend to those depths again. Leave those arguments on the helmet thread.
DD - I stand corrected! It is indeed Italy with an "elected" President which achieved the same thing.
Oh THM - that is the point. You choice of a bigot and racist as your champion shows the poverty of your argument.
Oh - and stop calling me a bully. Yes I know I have successfully got under you skin by showing the cant, humbug and hypocrisy you come out with. If you can't take it don't dish it out.
with that I am going back into ignore mode for you.
DD - I stand corrected! It is indeed Italy with an "elected" President which achieved the same thing.
But, not a monarchy...you go on ahead and take my images to prove people who live in republics can be cheery to support your arguments though. 😆
Well TJ -if you resort to language like
THM - more laughable pish really. Is that the best you can do?... the poverty of your argument
then you are not debating like others do, merely playing the playground bully here, as on the helmet thread (ruining another thread again!). I note that you chose not to look specifically at Starkey's comments on the monarchy but rather label him as a "royalist" despite his comments to the contrary ["who is perfectly capable of envisioning the abolition of the royal family."]
But that is no surprise. How about the other people quoted - far brighter than you or I, are they all to be dismissed with the same bullying contempt? There are plenty of rational reasons for rejecting the concept of monarchy (DD gives an example above) - you don't have to resort to abusive nonsense. You don't get under my skin. You are simply tiresome as you make no pretence of rationale debate but hide behind personal abuse - that's bullying in my book.
DD - I made a mistake on Italy and admitted it. The argument re Spain is still valid as is the fact that Italy has achieved the same result with an elected President.
TBH I'm not sure why the fact that David Starkey's a racist is all that relevant here.
I can understand them being miserable ....
After all wouldn't you be when you realised you just picked Mitt Romney as your candidate
[img] 
[/img]
Northwind - MemberTBH I'm not sure why the fact that David Starkey's a racist is all that relevant here.
To call anyone intellectual and to give any weight to their views when they are a racist and a bigot and seems odd to me. To my view it pretty well excludes them from serious consideration. Beneath contempt
TJ have you got any facts to back up your claim that Starkey is a rascist.
Youtube is full of starkeys rubbish, knock yourself out.
Kendal Grammar School, scholarship to Fitzwilliam Cambridge, first class degree, PHD and fellowship....and you dispute his intellectual capabilities? A bit like you dont have to be clever to get into Eton, just have a rich Dad. What was it about paucity of arguments? Again plenty of reasons to criticise Starkey without the playground bully approach of pretending that his historical work is beyond serious consideration. Rigorous and reliable debate!?!?
Yup
Dr Starkey was taking part in a discussion with the author Owen Jones, who wrote the book Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Classes which explored issues around the class snobbery and prejudice faced by the working classes in the UK.Addressing himself to Mr Jones, Mr Starkey said: "What has happened is that the substantial section of the 'chavs' that you wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion.
"Black and white, boy and girl operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country."
Dr Starkey went on to add the Tottenham MP David Lammy, whose parents are from Guyana, sounded white. "If you turn the screen off, so you were listening to him on radio, you would think he was white."
http://postdesk.com/david-starkey-newsnight-racist-analysis
and he has plenty of other incidents for example
http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/dr-david-starkey-in-another-racism-row/
More than 100 historians have signed an open letter expressing their dismay at Starkey's controversial comments on the riots during an appearance on the BBC's Newsnight programme.They asked the BBC to stop referring to Starkey as a "historian" on anything but his specialist subject, the Tudors, claiming that he is "ill-fitted" to hold forth on other topics.
Signatories to the letter include academics from Cambridge and the London School of Economics, institutions at which Starkey once taught
Teamhurtmore I had a nerc fellowship to do my MRes, I also have a phd, did research funded by numerous bodies and and have quite a few peer reviewed publications and I am as thick as mince.
Go on Brian!
I am as thick as mince
Tru dat.
And, you're a teacher as well. Jeezus.
😆
😉 etc.
Thats the first time you've ever agreed with me dd, I'm touched.
starkey is a particularly loathsome individual................
The core of history is narrative and biography. And the way history has been presented in the curriculum for the last 25 years is very different. The importance of knowledge has been downgraded. Instead the argument has been that it's all about skills. Supposedly, what you are trying to do with children is inculcate them with the analytical skills of the historian. Now this seems to me to be the most goddamn awful way to approach any subject, and also the most dangerous
actually i've been led to believe that the core of history is the analysis of sources and debate regarding the historiography. obviously this forms personal opinions of history which is an obviously dangerous outcome to this odious little man who quite obviously thinks that historical narrative is all that young people need. If that's not downgrading knowledge then I don't know what is, particularly if that narrative comes from anyone as narrow minded as him.
Can anyone be a racist and be considered an intellectual? To me racism is mainly about ignorance with a dash of fear.
triumph of inherited privilege over merit,
It sounds negative, but it shouldn't be. We just need to find ourselves again and discover what we can give to the world.The monarchy sits in this as a link to our past glories, a reluctance to let go of it, because we know who we were, but we don't know who we will be. There is no other logic to keeping something to which monarchists claim "does not interfere" with the running of the country, other than for sentimental reasons.
+ a million
I get the sense that the monarchists for some reason think that being a Republican means you are not patriotic or want your country to succeed. On the contrary as the above quotes suggest we want this country to be more meritocratic and rediscover the invention, entrepreneurial flair, audacity, confidence and enterprise that changed the world. The Royal Family is part of the inertia that prevents us moving forward as a country. Its the lynch pin of inherited privilege and the class system and there is no good reason for its continued existence
with that I am going back into ignore mode for you.
please do this I think a number of us would be very grateful
FWIW you say that in each thread you and he are in and never actually do it.
Can anyone be a racist and be considered an intellectual?
of course they can
I disagree with the archbishop of canterbury and think he has said some foolish things and reached the wrong conclusion on god. however i cannot say he is not an intellectual.
You can be very clever and very wrong - the degree PhD, etc you cannot deny he is an intellectual. it does not make him correct.Not being racist does not make you an intellectual either.
THM a figure of national unity no doubt did help but I am not sure it needed to be monarch and in top trumps mode I play this card
[img] 
[/img]
Hand over your card 😉
I was going to be controversial and go for Ghandi but thought better of it...imagine if religion got dragged into this.
On the contrary as the above quotes suggest we want this country to be more meritocratic and rediscover the invention, entrepreneurial flair, audacity, confidence and enterprise that changed the world. The Royal Family is part of the inertia that prevents us moving forward as a country. Its the lynch pin of inherited privilege and the class system and there is no good reason for its continued existence
That's funny, there was me thinking that the most vibrant, inventive and forward-striving period in our recent history was when Queen Victoria was on the throne, we had engineers like Brunel and a global Empire and Commonwealth run by a few hundred people in London. So why, exactly, is the Monarchy now an impediment when it wasn't then?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Oh, and I spent the weekend with some Scots who's attitude to Her Maj was very much like some on here, so TJ is in the very best possible place in the world he could be.
And I'm happy to man the Border patrol to make sure he stays there, too... 😈
Because that was then and this is now. We need to remove the safety blanket of tradition and past glories, increase social mobility and meritocratic progression. Dumping the Saxe Coburgs or at the very least not fawning over them is obviously not the whole solution but its a start. You can continue to tug the forelock as a loyal subject if you want I prefer to have my admiration and respect earned and not assumed as a birthright.
monarch and in top trumps mode I play this card
Hang on - your top trump against monarchy is a convicted terrorist?
You might as well have played Gerry Adams 🙄
**** me zulu you are a classy idiot arent you.
Hang on - your top trump against monarchy is a convicted terrorist?
😀 You always deliver Z-11.
Well done fella.....you never let the side down !
uponthedowns, I don't tug a forelock to anyone, and I give my respect to those who do deserve it, which is why I fully respect the Queen and how she's given her life to being the best representative for this country, but have zero respect for Princess Tony, his grinning Gargoyle of a wife, Gordon Broon, Prince Andrew, Peter ******* Mandelson, and all the politicians we have who seem to think that a position in government comes with a cast-iron sense of entitlement just as offensive as some on here find the so-called 'Toffs', seeing as how the allegedly Left-leaning ones have just as posh backgrounds, and educations, as the right-of-centre.
😈
his grinning Gargoyle of a wife
Powerful stuff. I feel I'm shifting my position based on that description of a former PM's wife.
The reference to "Gordon Broon" also challenged my previously held opinions.
Although "Peter ******* Mandelson" felt weak, any chance of upping the insult ? I feel it wouldn't take much more to be won over completely, if you managed to do that.
"Princess Tony" also lacked an edge to it btw.
so zero you like the queen and hate anyone Labour for being posh
Nice polemic well thought through. However some random caps, more swearing and some garbled stuff in the middle would really have helped your score
Its a 2/10 from me.
