Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 194 total)
  • Republicans … miserable bunch arn't they?
  • rossi46
    Free Member

    Do people honestly believe that without a monarchy, Britain will suddenly became some sot of paradise, where everyone is equal and loves each other?

    Oliver Cromwell tried it once, that went well 😆

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Do people honestly believe that without a monarchy, Britain will suddenly became some sot of paradise, where everyone is equal and loves each other?

    Nope.

    totalshell
    Full Member

    god bless her.. the old girls 86 years old almost 20 years beyond even the latest retirement age and she turns out in all weathers to meet and greet.
    she stood in the worlds glare for 6 hours yesterday. she didnt get a choice to be qe 2 it happened she bit the bullet and has given her whole life to one role.. i could nt do it. good effort.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    Frodo
    Full Member

    I don’t see having a big party in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in modern times as ruling wisely. In fact if she actually had any sense of duty to the people of the country she would have recognised the pain many are in and done something much more appropriate.

    On the contrary I think Queenie got it spot on. In times of hardship its good to have something to celebrate …anything. All I’ve seen is people having fun in the rain!

    As usual the republicans just don’t seem to get it. We all know that a hereditary royal family is wrong in a democratic society but we don’t care. Why? …because it really doesn’t matter. They don’t rule us they don’t interfere with our lives. They do give us a reason to party and a day off!

    rossi46
    Free Member

    😆

    MSP
    Full Member

    On the contrary I think Queenie got it spot on. In times of hardship its good to have something to celebrate …anything. All I’ve seen is people having fun in the rain!

    As usual the republicans just don’t seem to get it. We all know that a hereditary royal family is wrong in a democratic society but we don’t care. Why? …because it really doesn’t matter. They don’t rule us they don’t interfere with our lives. They do give us a reason to party and a day off!

    And as usual the royalists don’t get that they are being played like the Roman mob, ignorance is bliss!

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    It does amuse me the delusions. Bread a circuses it is indeed and at that it only attracts a small %he population. Many of us see it for the crass waste of money and symbol of servitude that it is

    Its just a symbol of times gone by and servitude. Some of us have grown up beyond that hankering for the victorian era

    MrWoppit
    Free Member

    “Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
    And you think you’re so clever and classless and free
    But you’re still f*cking peasants as far as I can see”…

    Frodo
    Full Member

    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.

    As for a crass waste of money, many would argue its a good investment. Its not a significant sum in the grand scheme of things anyway.

    When the Royal family ever come to exceed their usefulness that will be the end of them, no I don’t think anyone believes they are in servitude.

    Aristotle
    Free Member

    TandemJeremy – Member

    It does amuse me the delusions. Bread a circuses it is indeed and at that it only attracts a small %he population. Many of us see it for the crass waste of money and symbol of servitude that it is

    Its just a symbol of times gone by and servitude. Some of us have grown up beyond that hankering for the victorian era

    Quite.

    If 100s of 1000s of people want to stand and watch a Royal pageant (millions didn’t and I saw a lot of people out and about who were obviously not watching it on TV) , then fair enough, but I’d prefer not to have my country represented and reigned-over as such.

    It appears to be some sort of desire to be deferential and servile to a ‘superior’, paternal/maternal being, who are somehow better than politicians by virtue of a system of eternal hereditary privilege. I wonder if there is any connection between monarchists and adherents of religion?

    I do not see any logic in it all.

    Voltaire et al were of their time. It may suit some people to hang on to quotes from 100s of years ago, but (some) things have moved on since then. You may not have noticed, but France is now a republic, and despite what some blinkered patriots like to think, France is fully-functioning country that is very popular with the British -especially the middle-classes who are probably the least likely group in the UK to be monarchists.

    Germany also has no monarch, and aside from the fact that lots of British people still base their view of the country on WW2 propaganda, it also functions well -and I like the place a lot.

    Stoatsbrother
    Free Member

    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.

    MrWoppit
    Free Member

    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.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    EDIT: I promised myself I wouldn’t get drawn into this, so can’t be bothered really. Someone else can get into it.

    zimbo
    Free Member

    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.

    El-bent
    Free Member

    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.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Starkey as the cheerleader for the monarchy – a nasty racist contrarian with well known royalist views? Well thats me persuaded 🙄

    imnotverygood
    Full Member

    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.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    imnotverygood – Member

    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.

    TBH neither side seems to be having much fun. “Obsessive arguers on the internet: miserable bunch aren’t they?”

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Bastille Day

    St. Patrick’s Day

    Festa della Republica

    Miserable bastards that have to live in republics, innit.

    Oh, and…

    EDIT: WUNUNDRED 😀

    (that makes me happy today anyway…second one!)

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    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

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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:

    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…

    From a Guardian Interview.

    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? 😉

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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

    cheekyboy
    Free Member

    TJ why do you claim that STarkey is racist, is this your personal view or do you have proof.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Plenty of evidence of him making racist statements. he may just be deliberately being controversial but he is a repeat offender on this.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    DD’s last example of Spain

    Well, unless I’m very much mistaken, that’s Italy. 😕

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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.

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    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. 😆

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    TBH I’m not sure why the fact that David Starkey’s a racist is all that relevant here.

    fatboyslo
    Free Member

    I can understand them being miserable ….

    After all wouldn’t you be when you realised you just picked Mitt Romney as your candidate

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Northwind – Member

    TBH 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

    BikePawl
    Free Member

    TJ have you got any facts to back up your claim that Starkey is a rascist.

    anagallis_arvensis
    Full Member

    Youtube is full of starkeys rubbish, knock yourself out.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    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!?!?

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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://www.metro.co.uk/news/872321-david-starkey-s-racist-remarks-spark-online-petition-for-public-apology

    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/

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    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

    anagallis_arvensis
    Full Member

    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.

    Lifer
    Free Member

    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ecEyrN6vCQ[/video]

    Go on Brian!

Viewing 40 posts - 81 through 120 (of 194 total)

The topic ‘Republicans … miserable bunch arn't they?’ is closed to new replies.