Monarchy in the UK

Carlos The Badger · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:46 pm

Big Rob wrote:

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Fine. Yes, that's the point. Olive branch excepted. You dismissed my argument as if I was an ill-informed Mailtard with no original thoughts. Mull over what I've got to say.

Let me just point out.

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Purleaze!! What is this, some sixth form Marxists having a hissy fit purely out of jealousy?

You have no problems with attempting to insult other people.

As I said, perhaps now is the time to drop it.

Oh, for fucks sake, that was meant to mean ME and You.

See the dirty Trotskiest's post above.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:47 pm

To people like me and Rob (and Abers) we have a monarchy which symbolises the lingering remnants of a feudal system of obeisance and privilege. To most people the monarchy symbolises a British love of pageantry and spectacle.
To some she is a parasite, to others an asset.
Some people see her role as hardworking and assiduous, others think she is the pampered product of vast wealth and idleness.

Thing is that all those views are, to an extent, true. Which is what makes it hard to argue any position.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:48 pm

Rotherhithe/Bermondsey.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Sun Jun 03, 2012 11:53 pm

Carlos The Badger wrote:

Oh, for fucks sake, that was meant to mean ME and You.

Yes I suspected you meant me. However .... read Malcolm's post above....

It really is nothing to get that upset about. Seriously.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:02 am

July the 4th soon.

Already getting my fireworks in....

Abernathy · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:04 am

Paul wrote:

Personally, I think the whole concept of deference has held the greater population back for at least two generations or more.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:10 am

But I think the question here is to what extent deference as a societal trait is linked to the monarchy. It certainly shows most when a member of the Royal Fambly is about, but it's also built in to a class structure which accords such status and prestige to people who hold their position by dint of high birth not in terms of titles but in terms of wealth and influence.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:12 am

Where's the kittens?

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:14 am

Abernathy · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:15 am

In fact, I'd go further and suggest there is a crucial confluence between mindless royal idolatry and brain-dead Mail/Express reading fuck-wittedness. Delve into the jumbo shopping bag of any one of the Brenda & Phil fan club camping out on the embankment and getting soaked in the pissing rain and it's odds on that nestling amongst the scotch eggs and thermos flasks there'll be a copy of that day's Mail or Express.

Malcolm Armsteen · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:17 am

Very likely. We've discussed the g of Mailies and Expressies on many occasions.
Deference to the monarchy is like line dancing, but more enduring.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:36 am

I suppose it should be pointed out that deference does not automatically follow from someone being pro-Monarchy. I regard myself as a small "m" Monarchist but I don't bow or scrape to them. They're an interesting connection to our national past and have a line which can be traced back a thousand years. That has to count for something.

Four words though which make my think my position is a good one to have. President Thatcher, President Cameron.

Big Rob · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:43 am

bluebellnutter wrote:

They're an interesting connection to our national past and have a line which can be traced back a thousand years. That has to count for something.

Sheesh....

No it doesn't have to count for anything.

bluebellnutter · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:49 am

Big Rob wrote:

bluebellnutter wrote:

They're an interesting connection to our national past and have a line which can be traced back a thousand years. That has to count for something.

Sheesh....

No it doesn't have to count for anything.

So lets bulldoze St Pauls Cathedral, the Palace of Westminster and Stonehenge then. After all history is unimportant these days.

All hail President Thatcher!

Abernathy · **Posted:** Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:51 am

I do wish people would stop raising the spectre of "President Blair/Thatcher/Cameron/whoever" as some sort of pat magical argument-settling point (FACT.) against an elected head of state.

All of these (except Cameron, of course) were elected as PM. Would having them as elected head of state (as if that were even remotely likely) really be any worse than that?

The other thing is of course that nobody really minds Brenda much because she has spent 60 years basically waving at crowds and opening things, and has never expressed an opinion on anything. It's quite hard to become unpopular on that basis - unlike your Blairs, Thatchers, etc.

I don't think it's worth keeping them on as a quaint remnder of our history either.

Monarchy in the UK

Who is online