No cost of living crisis for the King

Why – because the parallels with brexit only exist in your mind. 🙂

Or, because that’s how analogies work and I’m trying to make people think.

A friend was telling me the other day that his otherwise well-adjusted mother was glad when she heard that a boatload of children had drowned because it was “sickening” that they were coming over here. (This is true, I’ll C&P the exact text if anyone wants.) Meanwhile, it’s “sickening” that Charlie boy and his extended family have more personal wealth than many countries. Which may be true but it’s the same emotive language.

I’m going to leave this thread here for tonight because I’m not well myself. Enjoy.

because that’s how analogies work

No it isn’t. There is no comparison between a woman who is, for whatever reason, glad children have drowned, and believing that it is wholly unacceptable for a highly wealthy and privileged family receiving a huge pay rise from UK taxpayers during a cost of living crises. Even if you throw the word “sickening” into the argument in an attempt to connect the two.

For analogies to work the comparisons need to be reasonable.

I hope you feel better soon Cougar.

The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism

I dont suppose you have any evidence for stating this do you?
As you demand from everyone else?
Your arrogance is only matched by your incoherence and hypocrisy.

The entire argument fuelling both world views is populism. Everything that’s wrong in your life is caused by someone else, those [better|worse|different] than you. You have no money, it’s those rich folk in London. You have no money, it’s those poor people coming over here simultaneously working and not working, all two dozen of them in a small boat. You have no money, it’s literally anyone else’s fault bar your own.

Not from me it isn’t. I couldn’t care less about how much money they have. For me it’s the very basic concept of being in a modern world with some, quite frankly insane, weird arse Middle Ages Disney thing cobbled on. It’s some out of touch, old fashioned bullshit with absolutely no place in a civilised society. It’s the antithesis of progressive and just needs to go away.

It is in no way remotely related to immigration. I’d bet my left nut that there’s some substantial crossover between the royal loving flag wavers and those that support the horrendous Rwanda deportation idea.

No. The point of the thread was pointing out they had received a bunch more cash whilst the country is in crisis.

But that’s the laughable point I already made.

Charlie never put the country in crisis. Neither did Liz.

Dave, Theresa, Boris, a lettuce and Rishi did. By choice. Because let’s not pretend every one of those **** made a political decision to take us where we are today.

That’s not a case of not being able to look at two issues at once, it’s a case of one issue being so **** insignificant in the big scheme that it’s barely a blip and yet…

As for Brexit comparisons it’s absolutely legit. Bad bad bogeyman that’s stealing your money/land/sovereignty/raptors. Look, squirrel!

I’m no fan of them and honestly @covert is probably the only one that’s put forward a decent argument regarding meritocracy. The rest is just tabloid nonsense that doesn’t focus on the real reasons for the inequalities in question.

How on earth is it anything like brexit?  No one is saying its a big bad bogey man taking our money.  There is no populist campaign in the press being taken up by politicians.  there is no racist scaremongering

Its just some of us do not want a royal family – you know republicans.  Its perhaps not the most important issue around but its time we lived in a modern democracy not this pseudo democracy we have.

Because the depth of argument and evidence base is the same. At the end of the day a lot (not all but a lot) of the arguments are either emotional or costed as “but Versailles!”. Even fat Eck’s Book of Dreams had more depth. It suits certain people’s agendas that folk get hot under the collar about Charlie costing the nation a fraction of a percent of **** all (if you believe Rone) whilst they syphon and spaff untold billions. As I said, I’m not a royalist by any means but I at least try to be objective. If you’re going to make an argument against the status quo then you’d better come prepared with a good case, so far I’ve seen very little that could be called more than an accounting error (in the grand scheme).

Put it this way, which is going to deliver a bigger benefit to the nation; change of government, electoral reform or abolition of the monarchy?

As for Brexit comparisons it’s absolutely legit.

No its utter drivel and really the exact opposite of the interaction.
With how the royals (especially charlies approach to architecture and farming) harks back to the gilded age just the same as the brexiteers did.
The tedious declarations that patriotism is the simplistic monarchy support and wrapping in the union jack to hide the looting. The casual disregard of laws that bind the rest of us.

We need all 3 and  proper electoral reform which includes getting rid of the monarchy and the HOL would be the best for the country long term.  We need a proper democracy

The fact we have these remnants of feudalism of which the royal family are a part holds this country back.  Unelected lawmakers including the god botherers, Monarch is able to interfere in the legislative process, royal estates are immune from police action over raptor deaths.

I don’t think you realise how insidious and all pervading their actual power is and how much they exercise it

I am not bothered by the money.  I am bothered by the antidemocratic nature

As am I but there are far greater and more immediate concerns on that list that would better serve our interests. Pick your battles and all that.

I disagree that in the long term that’s the battle we should focus on now (not sure if that’s what you actually meant, if it’s not apologies), it’s really not. The biggest hurdle is electoral reform, after that the world’s your lobster.

@dissonance I’m doing my best not to make an obvious joke but the substance of your argument is exactly the same. That is to say none. You have shown no evidence in your working, no hard data to back up your claims. Two cheeks of the same arse as they say up here.

Proper electoral reform means an end to the monsrchy.

Some ballast to the “but Versailles!” erm, yes Versailles angle – here in Staffordshire Lord Lichfield’s pile, Shugborough, saw record numbers of visitors after his death, largely because parts of the house that had previously been private were opened up to the public. It is impossible to argue that opening up Buckingham Palace fully, especially given the private art collection there, would not result in an immediate boost in visitor numbers. Now whether that boost would be sustained if the Monarchy was as historic as the house is debatable, but certainly “but Versailles!” would suggest so.

As much as i’m a Republican at heart, however, one can’t help but view this in the same vein as the ‘climate oblivion’ thread – it’s tinkering with the frayed edges, really. Is it really worth concentrating much effort upon? Millions mean little when billions are in play.

#bemorefrench

In so proud of typing that because I’m drunk…🤪

We chopped a King’s head off over a hundred years before the French thought it was cool.

We lacked the Philosophers to see it through – tbf we had them, but they were too busy digging and levelling.

Is it really worth concentrating much effort upon?

Whose effort and how much effort?

That’s not a case of not being able to look at two issues at once, it’s a case of one issue being so **** insignificant in the big scheme that it’s barely a blip and yet…

This argument does not take into account how symbolism can have such a massive impact on society. Impact is not measured in pounds. Without the poster boys and girls of social inequality where might our society go? Had they not Ben around in the first place how might we have developed differently. Clearly we can’t know for certain, but I am confident their impact is much begged than £140 million a year (or whatever the hell it is).

Not read the thread im afraid so if I tread on anybody’s toes it’s not intentional!

I am just forced to remind myself that the Royals love to portray themselves as serving us. We are certainly reminded of it at ceremonies of state when royal commentators are at great lengths to point out their loyal devotion.

Trouble is, I don’t see it. Surly even by modern political standards in the UK, it’s one of the most carefully constructed gaslighting con-jobs ever perpetuated upon a countries citizens?

We fight for them, die for them, pay for them, wait on them… but apparently they serve us?

It’s a really poor joke in my book.

II’ll say this though, if Charlie turned down this massive “pay rise” I would honestly rethink my negative opinions on him at least and to a lesser degree the whole institution. I genuinely would. It would be met with similar sentiments by many others I would think, too.

I’m going too assume he will do no such thing though. If that’s the case this is wonderfully self defeating in its tone deafness. It will be another nail in the royal families coffin and will, hopefully, speed up their demise.

Just my thoughts anyway.

We fight for them, die for them

Do ‘we’? Please go on…

Do ‘we’? Please go on…

A Royal “we” of course in my case.😉… Though my father most definitely did. Fight, not die, fortunately.

so far I’ve seen very little that could be called more than an accounting error (in the grand scheme).

Can you please send me £1000? A K is, like, little more than an accounting error in the grand scheme of things.

It’s not purely a monetary argument. A republic will waste money too.

Probably the downsides of a republic are a lack of focus, ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme. Also, the monarchy is supposed to be impartial, although this is debatable in practice.

On balance, a republic has more advantages for me. More democratic, better distribution of resources and the potential for future reform. The difference is that you have to pursue it every single day. There’s no ‘hanging around’ for the king or aristocrats to decree some worthy activity.

Probably the downsides of a republic are a lack of focus, ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme.

Commemorative plates?

ie the monarchy provides a single unifying theme.

Not really when many of us abhor their involvement in politics

Why does it have to be one extreme or another? Step 1 is not to get rid of them, it’s to have them pay their own way with the vast reserves of wealth they own. We don’t need to pay them to retain all the perceived benefits of having a royal family. We can keep them but spend the money on something more worthwhile without any downside other than maybe a bit of a strop from one old man, win win surely?

Where laws can be overturned by unelected Lords. That’s not democracy

As the Illegal Immigration bill proved this week, that is a total fallacy, the elected House of Commons can and does override the Lords. It was the unelected chamber, for all its faults, that tried to water down the elected governments awful proposals.

Again, lets have debates based on facts please. If we don’t know the facts or figures, let’s admit it, try and find them, and educate ourselves to raise the level of the debate.

Otherwise it just becomes a circle jerk repeating opinions from our preferred echo chambers. Like the Brexit arguments.

Your arrogance is only matched by your incoherence and hypocrisy.

I’ve skipped a bit of this overnight – have you provided any evidence to support a debate or is your contribution limited to name calling?

I am just forced to remind myself that the Royals love to portray themselves as serving us. We are certainly reminded of it at ceremonies of state when royal commentators are at great lengths to point out their loyal devotion

Ah the greatest bit of advertising ever – ‘Service’ whoever came up with that one deserved to be made a peer.

Its perhaps not the most important issue around but its time we lived in a modern democracy not this pseudo democracy we have.

What exactly does the moarchy do that prevents us having a modern democracy? Have they blocked the removal of FOTP? Have they driven through laws against protest? Have they stopped the government passing laws to tax them more?

Technically,they have the right and power to do so. But they don’t use it because they understand that it’s the elected government that make the laws, not the monarchy.

They technically get oversight and influence over legislation – apparently they’ve used it protect their land owning interests, which is wrong. But royal interference and self interest has done a lot less damage than press self interest, or ministers self interest, or Russian oligarchs self interest.

Some very clever people on here who i respect on so many issues seem to have a mental block about the monarchy.

Some ballast to the “but Versailles!” erm, yes Versailles angle – here in Staffordshire Lord Lichfield’s pile, Shugborough, saw record numbers of visitors after his death, largely because parts of the house that had previously been private were opened up to the public. It is impossible to argue that opening up Buckingham Palace fully, especially given the private art collection there, would not result in an immediate boost in visitor numbers. Now whether that boost would be sustained if the Monarchy was as historic as the house is debatable, but certainly “but Versailles!” would suggest so.

IMHO I think the real Queen is synonymous with Buck Pal and turning it into a museum around her would be a visitor attraction.

I’m not sure that the new King and Queen are that great a visitor pull.

IMHO the Queen was it and I just don’t think they are in the same league as her.

(Not a royalist but I think the length of her unexpected reign from a young un plays a big part)

For me it’s the very basic concept of being in a modern world with some, quite frankly insane, weird arse Middle Ages Disney thing cobbled on. It’s some out of touch, old fashioned bullshit with absolutely no place in a civilised society. It’s the antithesis of progressive and just needs to go away.

But enough about religion, what about the monarchy?

How on earth is it anything like brexit?
…
Its just some of us do not want

There you go.

I don’t think you realise how insidious and all pervading their actual power is and how much they exercise it

Examples please. Any exercises which affected you personally and detrimentally would be particularly insightful.

I am not bothered by the money. I am bothered by the antidemocratic nature

Then you’re in the wrong country. From the crown through the HoL via the Civil Service down to public referendums, with a side order of FPTP, our current implementation of “democracy” is a farce.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

Interfering with the law making process.  Its all secret so we do not know for sure but we do know that Scots law has had to be changed due to this.  We also know its used to hide wealth.

Killing of raptors on royal estates.  the police have to ask permission to investigate which is either refused or delayed allowing criminals to escape justice

Then you’re in the wrong country.

NOpe – I’m in the right one.  Scotland which has the capacity to become and independent european democracy.

Any self-respecting adult should be a citizen not a subject. Philosophers? Tom Paine dealt with these arguments very amusingly and succinctly in The Rights of Man 1791 (?)

Interfering with the law making process.

That article says “vetting,” not interfering, or changing, or vetoing. The queen was the head of state, this is literally what she’s supposed to do. Honestly (exponentially so given the current government) I wish this happened more often. I’d have done the dance of joy if Liz has told Other Liz to shove brexit up her arse.

The usually robust Guardian reporting suggests that they uncovered four laws which she’d asked to be amended for her own personal gain.

Its all secret so we do not know for sure

So you don’t know, then.

We also know its used to hide wealth.

Do we?

Killing of raptors on royal estates.

This is worth a read.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/02/sandringham-royal-estate-linked-to-many-deaths-and-disappearances-of-protected-birds

But enough about religion, what about the monarchy?

I would have no qualms with ditching that too. Like the monarchy it’s a hangover from an older time that has no place in the modern world.

Any self-respecting adult should be a citizen not a subject

Do you feel like a subject? I was brought up in a Forces family, been involved in Scouting one way or another for 45 years, been a civil servant for 20 years now, never thought of myself as a subject. It’s just a word.

What have they done to you to make you feel that way?

Subject? Having to pay for an unelected sovereign. Prince George is 10 today. Odds on he’ll go on to Eton and will have the option of Oxbridge even with low grades (like his grandpa) and eventually king, leading a life of unparalled privilege and influence simply by an accident of birth. Monarchy is the ultimate symbol of social immobility and medieval reactionary nonsense with a load of vastly expensive (largely made-up) pageantry so you know they are different (used to be done with sumptuary laws).  The only person worthy of knee bending is George Floyd.

The queen was the head of state, this is literally what she’s supposed to do.

Nonsense – even the fact she had the right to preaprove laws and to have changed ones she didn’t like was kept secret and this is not a function of a normal ceremonial head of state.  YOU even accept she had laws altered for personal gain.

That article about the birds of Sandringham makes my point – and its the same at Balmoral which IIRC has grouse moors and where raptors have disappeared

So we have examples of the queen interfering in law, hindering criminal investigations and you think this is acceptable?

Didn’t the queen ask for equal opps employment legislation not to be applied to the monarchy?