[Abernathy]

How deference is smothering the conversation Britain needs

It's hard to have a conversation with people who are irrational. Adults being deferential to a family for no reason at all other than the fact they are called The Royal Family is beyond my understanding.

Me too. I’ve been wrestling with the concept of fervent royalism for a while - and before Brenda snuffed it, as well. I don’t understand how those people can be so ardent in their adulation while simultaneously disregarding what the institution of the monarchy actually is and what it really represents -the inequality, the privilege, the anachronism, the insult to democracy, the sheer obscenity of the phenomenal wealth both of Queen Elizabeth and her son King Charles, and the simply bewildering exemption that Charles has from being obliged to pay what would be a very large chunk of revenue for the government(which is badly needed) in inheritance tax that every other individual in the entire UK is liable to have to pay.

Charitably, I’ve sort of concluded that it cannot be a deliberate or conscious disregard. It is, rather, simple ignorance, in many cases albeit accompanied by a degree of wilful disregard. Most royalists, after all, particularly those granting vox pop interviews to TV reporters, seem to be rather simple souls, easily impressed.

The other thing that is preying on my mind is this notion of, in the case of Queen Liz, “70 years of service “ to the people, that keeps being trotted out. I may be wrong about this, but I’ve always considered that the act of delivering “service” to the public usually entails an element of sacrifice, a giving up of something. What has Elizabeth had to give in order to deliver that“service”for those 70 years? As far as I can see, it is precisely nothing. On the contrary, in return for her “service”, she has been able to live a long and full life in the very lap of luxury, accruing phenomenal quantities of unearned wealth and property, with the very best of everything at her beck and call. Where is the sacrifice? I dare say that theoretically, she could have declined the crown, and declined to “serve”, but realistically, she was never going to do that.

I remain totally bewildered.

[AOB]

I'd like that post if I could @Abernathy . I'm unauthorised still.

I have a feeling there may be some kickback after the funeral when people are comfortable to express opposing viewpoints. There certainly will be next year in the run up to the Coronation. Maybe when energy bills hit early next year and the booking of summer holidays has to be rethought then some minds might change.

[RedSparrows]

How deference is smothering the conversation Britain needs

It's hard to have a conversation with people who are irrational. Adults being deferential to a family for no reason at all other than the fact they are called The Royal Family is beyond my understanding.

Me too. I’ve been wrestling with the concept of fervent royalism for a while - and before Brenda snuffed it, as well. I don’t understand how those people can be so ardent in their adulation while simultaneously disregarding what the institution of the monarchy actually is and what it really represents -the inequality, the privilege, the anachronism, the insult to democracy, the sheer obscenity of the phenomenal wealth both of Queen Elizabeth and her son King Charles, and the simply bewildering exemption that Charles has from being obliged to pay what would be a very large chunk of revenue for the government(which is badly needed) in inheritance tax that every other individual in the entire UK is liable to have to pay.

Charitably, I’ve sort of concluded that it cannot be a deliberate or conscious disregard. It is, rather, simple ignorance, in many cases albeit accompanied by a degree of wilful disregard. Most royalists, after all, particularly those granting vox pop interviews to TV reporters, seem to be rather simple souls, easily impressed.

The other thing that is preying on my mind is this notion of, in the case of Queen Liz, “70 years of service “ to the people, that keeps being trotted out. I may be wrong about this, but I’ve always considered that the act of delivering “service” to the public usually entails an element of sacrifice, a giving up of something. What has Elizabeth had to give in order to deliver that“service”for those 70 years? As far as I can see, it is precisely nothing. On the contrary, in return for her “service”, she has been able to live a long and full life in the very lap of luxury, accruing phenomenal quantities of unearned wealth and property, with the very best of everything at her beck and call. Where is the sacrifice? I dare say that theoretically, she could have declined the crown, and declined to “serve”, but realistically, she was never going to do that.

I remain totally bewildered.

On the sacrifice thing, I think the only way it works (i.e. makes compelling sense to me) is that the monarch is - in lieu of their actual rule, which went away long ago - a sacrifice, in the sense her personal life becomes entirely beholden to the national story. As in, she has to live a certain way, she has to act a certain way. She has 'duty' and 'service' to it, and thus to us, in our (apparently) need for some kind of sense of higher - even spiritual - life. Thus 'we love her for it' cos it means there's someone living to an ideal, and doing it well, in front of our eyes.

Of course, none of this precludes the following:

a) questions about the details and the overall story - why is it quite so hierarchical, etc?;
b) the fact she could have a lot of privacy all the same;
c) quite why we demand this of anyone (that is a more interesting ethical question for me);
d) what is that ideal? Why do we fail to meet it elsewhere? Why do we have such a poor relationship to it? Why is THIS the way we deal with it?!

[Malcolm Armsteen]

The Golden Bough?

[Youngian]

How deference is smothering the conversation Britain needs

It's hard to have a conversation with people who are irrational. Adults being deferential to a family for no reason at all other than the fact they are called The Royal Family is beyond my understanding.

Me too. I’ve been wrestling with the concept of fervent royalism for a while - and before Brenda snuffed it, as well. I don’t understand how those people can be so ardent in their adulation while simultaneously disregarding what the institution of the monarchy actually is and what it really represents -the inequality, the privilege, the anachronism, the insult to democracy, the sheer obscenity of the phenomenal wealth both of Queen Elizabeth and her son King Charles, and the simply bewildering exemption that Charles has from being obliged to pay what would be a very large chunk of revenue for the government(which is badly needed) in inheritance tax that every other individual in the entire UK is liable to have to pay.

Charitably, I’ve sort of concluded that it cannot be a deliberate or conscious disregard. It is, rather, simple ignorance, in many cases albeit accompanied by a degree of wilful disregard. Most royalists, after all, particularly those granting vox pop interviews to TV reporters, seem to be rather simple souls, easily impressed.

The other thing that is preying on my mind is this notion of, in the case of Queen Liz, “70 years of service “ to the people, that keeps being trotted out. I may be wrong about this, but I’ve always considered that the act of delivering “service” to the public usually entails an element of sacrifice, a giving up of something. What has Elizabeth had to give in order to deliver that“service”for those 70 years? As far as I can see, it is precisely nothing. On the contrary, in return for her “service”, she has been able to live a long and full life in the very lap of luxury, accruing phenomenal quantities of unearned wealth and property, with the very best of everything at her beck and call. Where is the sacrifice? I dare say that theoretically, she could have declined the crown, and declined to “serve”, but realistically, she was never going to do that.

I remain totally bewildered.

On the sacrifice thing, I think the only way it works (i.e. makes compelling sense to me) is that the monarch is - in lieu of their actual rule, which went away long ago - a sacrifice, in the sense her personal life becomes entirely beholden to the national story. As in, she has to live a certain way, she has to act a certain way. She has 'duty' and 'service' to it, and thus to us, in our (apparently) need for some kind of sense of higher - even spiritual - life. Thus 'we love her for it' cos it means there's someone living to an ideal, and doing it well, in front of our eyes.

Of course, none of this precludes the following:

a) questions about the details and the overall story - why is it quite so hierarchical, etc?;
b) the fact she could have a lot of privacy all the same;
c) quite why we demand this of anyone (that is a more interesting ethical question for me);
d) what is that ideal? Why do we fail to meet it elsewhere? Why do we have such a poor relationship to it? Why is THIS the way we deal with it?!

I’ve learned this week that all of the Queen’s crowned predecessors in the 20th century were deemed to have done a good job. That’s because the bar is so low; keep your nose out of politics, engage with civic society and schmooze foreign leaders. The monarchy is like Dennis Skinner; easy to love for their integrity as they never have to make shitty decisions in government that piss people off.

[davidjay]

Given all the deference this week, it's certainly not difficult to see how we keep having Tory governments

[RedSparrows]

Me too. I’ve been wrestling with the concept of fervent royalism for a while - and before Brenda snuffed it, as well. I don’t understand how those people can be so ardent in their adulation while simultaneously disregarding what the institution of the monarchy actually is and what it really represents -the inequality, the privilege, the anachronism, the insult to democracy, the sheer obscenity of the phenomenal wealth both of Queen Elizabeth and her son King Charles, and the simply bewildering exemption that Charles has from being obliged to pay what would be a very large chunk of revenue for the government(which is badly needed) in inheritance tax that every other individual in the entire UK is liable to have to pay.

Charitably, I’ve sort of concluded that it cannot be a deliberate or conscious disregard. It is, rather, simple ignorance, in many cases albeit accompanied by a degree of wilful disregard. Most royalists, after all, particularly those granting vox pop interviews to TV reporters, seem to be rather simple souls, easily impressed.

The other thing that is preying on my mind is this notion of, in the case of Queen Liz, “70 years of service “ to the people, that keeps being trotted out. I may be wrong about this, but I’ve always considered that the act of delivering “service” to the public usually entails an element of sacrifice, a giving up of something. What has Elizabeth had to give in order to deliver that“service”for those 70 years? As far as I can see, it is precisely nothing. On the contrary, in return for her “service”, she has been able to live a long and full life in the very lap of luxury, accruing phenomenal quantities of unearned wealth and property, with the very best of everything at her beck and call. Where is the sacrifice? I dare say that theoretically, she could have declined the crown, and declined to “serve”, but realistically, she was never going to do that.

I remain totally bewildered.

On the sacrifice thing, I think the only way it works (i.e. makes compelling sense to me) is that the monarch is - in lieu of their actual rule, which went away long ago - a sacrifice, in the sense her personal life becomes entirely beholden to the national story. As in, she has to live a certain way, she has to act a certain way. She has 'duty' and 'service' to it, and thus to us, in our (apparently) need for some kind of sense of higher - even spiritual - life. Thus 'we love her for it' cos it means there's someone living to an ideal, and doing it well, in front of our eyes.

Of course, none of this precludes the following:

a) questions about the details and the overall story - why is it quite so hierarchical, etc?;
b) the fact she could have a lot of privacy all the same;
c) quite why we demand this of anyone (that is a more interesting ethical question for me);
d) what is that ideal? Why do we fail to meet it elsewhere? Why do we have such a poor relationship to it? Why is THIS the way we deal with it?!

I’ve learned this week that all of the Queen’s crowned predecessors in the 20th century were deemed to have done a good job. That’s because the bar is so low; keep your nose out of politics, engage with civic society and schmooze foreign leaders. The monarchy is like Dennis Skinner; easy to love for their integrity as they never have to make shitty decisions in government that piss people off.

An interesting point that rings true for me. So maybe what we have is a good old paradox: service, duty, etc etc, but as you say, in reality rather more prosaic.

[Yug]

Well, err...

The world’s only asparagus fortune teller believes King Charles III will hand over the crown to Prince William next year.

‘Asparamancer’ Jemima Packington predicted the Queen’s death when she saw a broken crown in her spears, and now thinks King Charles will abdicate in the next 12 months.

The whacky veggie psychic from Bath has previously predicted Brexit, Prince Phillip’s death and Theresa May being ousted as Prime Minister.

She also foresaw Meghan stepping back from the Royal family through her tips.

Jemima has now made a string of predictions about the immediate future of the monarchy.

They include a bombshell prediction that King Charles III will hand over many of his duties to Prince William...

https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/16/asparagu ... 88097/amp/

Whut...?

[Bones McCoy]

Well, err...

The world’s only asparagus fortune teller believes King Charles III will hand over the crown to Prince William next year.

‘Asparamancer’ Jemima Packington predicted the Queen’s death when she saw a broken crown in her spears, and now thinks King Charles will abdicate in the next 12 months.

The whacky veggie psychic from Bath has previously predicted Brexit, Prince Phillip’s death and Theresa May being ousted as Prime Minister.

She also foresaw Meghan stepping back from the Royal family through her tips.

Jemima has now made a string of predictions about the immediate future of the monarchy.

They include a bombshell prediction that King Charles III will hand over many of his duties to Prince William...

https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/16/asparagu ... 88097/amp/

Whut...?

I'll only believe this when pear reviewed by an avocado alchemist.

[satnav]

I wonder why they ever list all the things she got wrong like predicting that Manchester United would win the premier league last season. She also predicted that Johnson wouldn't be toppled this year.

[Bones McCoy]

I wonder why they ever list all the things she got wrong like predicting that Manchester United would win the premier league last season. She also predicted that Johnson wouldn't be toppled this year.

Paranormalists pretty much invented the Johnson model.

Say a lot of shit.
Make a big fuss about the shit that went well.
Bury the rest under next week's gish gallop.

[Bones McCoy]

At some point, the royalty debate wil collide with Benn's five questions.

“What power have you got?”
“Where did you get it from?”
“In whose interests do you use it?”
“To whom are you accountable?”
“How do we get rid of you?”

[mattomac]

Well, err...

The world’s only asparagus fortune teller believes King Charles III will hand over the crown to Prince William next year.

‘Asparamancer’ Jemima Packington predicted the Queen’s death when she saw a broken crown in her spears, and now thinks King Charles will abdicate in the next 12 months.

The whacky veggie psychic from Bath has previously predicted Brexit, Prince Phillip’s death and Theresa May being ousted as Prime Minister.

She also foresaw Meghan stepping back from the Royal family through her tips.

Jemima has now made a string of predictions about the immediate future of the monarchy.

They include a bombshell prediction that King Charles III will hand over many of his duties to Prince William...

https://metro.co.uk/2022/09/16/asparagu ... 88097/amp/

Whut...?

This one really boils my piss, she is a Brexiteer “Boris fan”, it’s why she tipped Boris to survive and why she now expects him to return, she also predicted Starmer to stand down this year in a shock twist which ironically would have been one to claim forever if he had over the fine).

Her prediction of the Queen’s death amount to “royal scandal to rock the monarchy”, she predicted the economy would grow to be a beacon for other countries to follow and best of all as Russia lined up on the border of Ukraine her asparagus told her that there would be no world conflicts.

I have an idea about throwing Brussel sprouts at a wall and sending things I want to happen to the local paper I’m bound to get as many right as this one does.

[Oboogie]

I’ve learned this week that all of the Queen’s crowned predecessors in the 20th century were deemed to have done a good job.

Who said that? I'd be interested to hear of Edward VIII's great deeds.

[davidjay]

I’ve learned this week that all of the Queen’s crowned predecessors in the 20th century were deemed to have done a good job.

Who said that? I'd be interested to hear of Edward VIII's great deeds.

He quit while he was ahead.

[Andy McDandy]

If dancing the Charleston, doing phenomenal amounts of cocaine, and trying to shag his mistress qualify, he's got gold medals.

[Youngian]

I’ve learned this week that all of the Queen’s crowned predecessors in the 20th century were deemed to have done a good job.

Who said that? I'd be interested to hear of Edward VIII's great deeds.

‘crowned predecessors’ circumnavigates that one.

[Oboogie]

I’ve learned this week that all of the Queen’s crowned predecessors in the 20th century were deemed to have done a good job.

Who said that? I'd be interested to hear of Edward VIII's great deeds.

‘crowned predecessors’ circumnavigates that one.

So it does! Too clever for me today, I fear over exposure to Dead Queen Fever has turned my brain to mush.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Were you educated by the Jesuits, Ian?

[Youngian]

Were you educated by the Jesuits, Ian?

No but been pondering as to why a king who swears to uphold the Protestant faith is crowned by a bishop in a coronation. Wasn’t the concept of a monarch being anointed by God blasphemous for reformationists?