Off Topic The Politics Thread

[Quite Possibly Raving]

I think you are an outlier in your age group Raving.

If Charles croaks soon (and judging by his swollen hands his circulation is ****ed, or he has an autoimmune issue) I can see that there won’t be much public energy left for another funeral and coronation. And as for this idea of a bald forty something bloke being able to ‘transform’ the monarchy by connecting wiv da yoof……I think not.

Also sensationally bad value for money, according to the Daily Mail(!)
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/...chs-receive-hefty-public-subsidy-compare.html

All European royal families receive hefty public payments for their ‘official duties’ but ours is by far the most expensive. Plus ours is by far the richest, Charles has a pot of £1.8bn. All hard earned of course. Handily he doesn’t pay corporation or capital gains tax on his £40m pa income from the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and of course sovereigns don’t pay inheritance tax, like the rest of us. Even without removing the monarchy, surely this bollocks has to change? Oops, silly me, he’s anointed and consecrated by God, not my place to question.

I used to be pretty apathetic about the Royals, but recently I’ve become convinced they are a symbol of our long, increasingly rapid decline, a tabloid freak show, sedating the plebs. Get rid.

I'm not sure I'm too much of an outlier. Quick check of the polling broken down by age and support for monarchy in the UK appears pretty strong until you get to the 18-24 bracket, who appear indifferent rather than opposed (YouGov - here). I appreciate it's polling data with all its limitations, but I can't think of a better yardstick to look at.

As I understand it, the Duchy of Lancaster (+ Crown Estate etc) and all the land is still owned by the Royal Family - who essentially 'gift' all of the income from that land to the Govt, in exchange for being able to keep a portion of that as their own income. If we got rid of them, legally I'd imagine the Govt wouldn't be able to take the land away from them without setting what would be (for me at least) a very worrying precedent. Given that, I don't think the Mail analysis is complete. Plus, the level of financing I think we'd need to put in place for a Presidential Head of State - salary, staff, security etc etc - wouldn't end up being that different from what we have, more or less. I think the financial argument is a red herring whichever side of the fence you're on.

I take a different view, which stems back from my acceptance that nations are 'imagined constructs' after reading Benedict Anderson at university. Imagined constructs need commonalities to tie people together, which in turn helps with social cohesion, economic prosperity and more. I think in recent decades we've lost much of what people have in common - whether that is people attending churches en masse, mass membership of political parties, unions, social clubs, even Scouts etc etc. We've become increasingly a society of individuals and the Royal Family feels to me like one of the last things that a lot of people have in common. Major events like Saturday, the Queen's funeral, and the Weddings have a unifying effect that very little else does. I don't think the rocky few years for the Royals with Andrew & Harry should detract from the stability and common purpose that can be provided over many decades.

And that's before we get on to how much I dislike some of the alternative options, and some of the softer power a good Monarch like QEII can exert.

Sorry for the long post - trying to avoid doing my expenses.

 

[Uber_Hoop]

I'm not sure I'm too much of an outlier. Quick check of the polling broken down by age and support for monarchy in the UK appears pretty strong until you get to the 18-24 bracket, who appear indifferent rather than opposed (YouGov - here). I appreciate it's polling data with all its limitations, but I can't think of a better yardstick to look at.

As I understand it, the Duchy of Lancaster (+ Crown Estate etc) and all the land is still owned by the Royal Family - who essentially 'gift' all of the income from that land to the Govt, in exchange for being able to keep a portion of that as their own income. If we got rid of them, legally I'd imagine the Govt wouldn't be able to take the land away from them without setting what would be (for me at least) a very worrying precedent. Given that, I don't think the Mail analysis is complete. Plus, the level of financing I think we'd need to put in place for a Presidential Head of State - salary, staff, security etc etc - wouldn't end up being that different from what we have, more or less. I think the financial argument is a red herring whichever side of the fence you're on.

I take a different view, which stems back from my acceptance that nations are 'imagined constructs' after read Benedict Anderson at university. Imagined constructs need commonalities to tie people together, which in turn helps with social cohesion, economic prosperity and more. I think in recent decades we've lost much of what people have in common - whether that is people attending churches en masse, mass membership of political parties, unions, social clubs, even Scouts etc etc. We've become increasingly a society of individuals and the Royal Family feels to me like one of the last things that a lot of people have in common. Major events like Saturday, the Queen's funeral, and the Weddings have a unifying effect that very little else does. I don't think the rocky few years for the Royals with Andrew & Harry should detract from the stability and common purpose that can be provided over many decades.

And that's before we get on to how much I dislike some of the alternative options, and some of the softer power a good Monarch like QEII can exert.

Sorry for the long post - trying to avoid doing my expenses.

Great post.

 

[rangercol]

I'm not sure I'm too much of an outlier. Quick check of the polling broken down by age and support for monarchy in the UK appears pretty strong until you get to the 18-24 bracket, who appear indifferent rather than opposed (YouGov - here). I appreciate it's polling data with all its limitations, but I can't think of a better yardstick to look at.

As I understand it, the Duchy of Lancaster (+ Crown Estate etc) and all the land is still owned by the Royal Family - who essentially 'gift' all of the income from that land to the Govt, in exchange for being able to keep a portion of that as their own income. If we got rid of them, legally I'd imagine the Govt wouldn't be able to take the land away from them without setting what would be (for me at least) a very worrying precedent. Given that, I don't think the Mail analysis is complete. Plus, the level of financing I think we'd need to put in place for a Presidential Head of State - salary, staff, security etc etc - wouldn't end up being that different from what we have, more or less. I think the financial argument is a red herring whichever side of the fence you're on.

I take a different view, which stems back from my acceptance that nations are 'imagined constructs' after read Benedict Anderson at university. Imagined constructs need commonalities to tie people together, which in turn helps with social cohesion, economic prosperity and more. I think in recent decades we've lost much of what people have in common - whether that is people attending churches en masse, mass membership of political parties, unions, social clubs, even Scouts etc etc. We've become increasingly a society of individuals and the Royal Family feels to me like one of the last things that a lot of people have in common. Major events like Saturday, the Queen's funeral, and the Weddings have a unifying effect that very little else does. I don't think the rocky few years for the Royals with Andrew & Harry should detract from the stability and common purpose that can be provided over many decades.

And that's before we get on to how much I dislike some of the alternative options, and some of the softer power a good Monarch like QEII can exert.

Sorry for the long post - trying to avoid doing my expenses.

Superb post. Summed up my views, but put more eloquently than I could.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

I'm not sure I'm too much of an outlier. Quick check of the polling broken down by age and support for monarchy in the UK appears pretty strong until you get to the 18-24 bracket, who appear indifferent rather than opposed (YouGov - here). I appreciate it's polling data with all its limitations, but I can't think of a better yardstick to look at.

As I understand it, the Duchy of Lancaster (+ Crown Estate etc) and all the land is still owned by the Royal Family - who essentially 'gift' all of the income from that land to the Govt, in exchange for being able to keep a portion of that as their own income. If we got rid of them, legally I'd imagine the Govt wouldn't be able to take the land away from them without setting what would be (for me at least) a very worrying precedent. Given that, I don't think the Mail analysis is complete. Plus, the level of financing I think we'd need to put in place for a Presidential Head of State - salary, staff, security etc etc - wouldn't end up being that different from what we have, more or less. I think the financial argument is a red herring whichever side of the fence you're on.

I take a different view, which stems back from my acceptance that nations are 'imagined constructs' after reading Benedict Anderson at university. Imagined constructs need commonalities to tie people together, which in turn helps with social cohesion, economic prosperity and more. I think in recent decades we've lost much of what people have in common - whether that is people attending churches en masse, mass membership of political parties, unions, social clubs, even Scouts etc etc. We've become increasingly a society of individuals and the Royal Family feels to me like one of the last things that a lot of people have in common. Major events like Saturday, the Queen's funeral, and the Weddings have a unifying effect that very little else does. I don't think the rocky few years for the Royals with Andrew & Harry should detract from the stability and common purpose that can be provided over many decades.

And that's before we get on to how much I dislike some of the alternative options, and some of the softer power a good Monarch like QEII can exert.

Sorry for the long post - trying to avoid doing my expenses.

Good post, Raving. And being non-political, the Crown provides a structure within which the cut and thrust of a parliamentary system can operate without excessive destabilisation. When Boris wanted to prorogue Parliament, he had to explain himself to the Queen. In the event of political drama, there is continuity, and stability as you say. Compare with the polarisation in US politics after the hostility with which Trump contested the last presidential election. Had the US system had a QEII, whom Trump greatly admired, the worst excesses (Capitol Building) might have been avoided.

 

[rangercol]

Good post, Raving. And being non-political, the Crown provides a structure within which the cut and thrust of a parliamentary system can operate without excessive destabilisation. When Boris wanted to prorogue Parliament, he had to explain himself to the Queen. In the event of political drama, there is continuity, and stability as you say. Compare with the polarisation in US politics after the hostility with which Trump contested the last presidential election. Had the US system had a QEII, whom Trump greatly admired, the worst excesses (Capitol Building) might have been avoided.

Yes, and yet some on here still seem to think the royal family have some bearing on their lives.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Yes, and yet some on here still seem to think the royal family have some bearing on their lives.

Has anyone said that?

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Everton fans drowned out the anthem with a song rather than booing which is hopefully more palatable for the free speech brigade.

 

[sb_73]

I'm not sure I'm too much of an outlier. Quick check of the polling broken down by age and support for monarchy in the UK appears pretty strong until you get to the 18-24 bracket, who appear indifferent rather than opposed (YouGov - here). I appreciate its polling data with all its limitations, but I can't think of a better yardstick to look at.

As I understand it, the Duchy of Lancaster (+ Crown Estate etc) and all the land is still owned by the Royal Family - who essentially 'gift' all of the income from that land to the Govt, in exchange for being able to keep a portion of that as their own income. If we got rid of them, legally I'd imagine the Govt wouldn't be able to take the land away from them without setting what would be (for me at least) a very worrying precedent. Given that, I don't think the Mail analysis is complete. Plus, the level of financing I think we'd need to put in place for a Presidential Head of State - salary, staff, security etc etc - wouldn't end up being that different from what we have, more or less. I think the financial argument is a red herring whichever side of the fence you're on.

I take a different view, which stems back from my acceptance that nations are 'imagined constructs' after reading Benedict Anderson at university. Imagined constructs need commonalities to tie people together, which in turn helps with social cohesion, economic prosperity and more. I think in recent decades we've lost much of what people have in common - whether that is people attending churches en masse, mass membership of political parties, unions, social clubs, even Scouts etc etc. We've become increasingly a society of individuals and the Royal Family feels to me like one of the last things that a lot of people have in common. Major events like Saturday, the Queen's funeral, and the Weddings have a unifying effect that very little else does. I don't think the rocky few years for the Royals with Andrew & Harry should detract from the stability and common purpose that can be provided over many decades.

And that's before we get on to how much I dislike some of the alternative options, and some of the softer power a good Monarch like QEII can exert.


Sorry for the long post - trying to avoid doing my expenses.

You are older than I thought…

Why can’t the public financing be more like, say the Spanish royal family? You wouldn’t need to confiscate the royal duchies, just tax them. We’d get them through inheritance tax pretty soon.

Yuval Harari is very good on ‘imagined constructs’ too. As you know they are acts of collective self deception to fake things in common with people that you don’t know. At their best they stop us killing each other. Hey, we’ve got the same king/god/bank let’s cooperate! Often consciously used by the elite to maintain the status quo, and stoke up fear and hatred of those outside of a particular ‘construct’ or those who represent a conflicting one. You’ve noted many that that have disintegrated over the last decades and I have no doubt that the royal family is on that slope as well. I wish I could say the same for nations. Of course those champions of the individual have taken great joy in attacking some of these cohesive constructs, like unions.

Anyway, you have your King Charles III and Queen Camilla and will have them for the foreseeable. Enjoy. According to my brother (I have some doubts sadly) we have an ancestor who was a Leveller member of the New Model Army who preferred the Agreement of the People’s egalitarian republicanism to swearing an oath to Thomas Fairfax as head of the NMA. He was executed as a result (Corkbush Field Mutiny). So you’ll appreciate that for sentimental reasons I seek other ‘constructs’ around which to build communities. Ones which don’t rely on God’s magic oil and displays of equine military discipline, and which perhaps depend a little more on ideas.

 

[Stroller]

I'm not sure I'm too much of an outlier. Quick check of the polling broken down by age and support for monarchy in the UK appears pretty strong until you get to the 18-24 bracket, who appear indifferent rather than opposed (YouGov - here). I appreciate it's polling data with all its limitations, but I can't think of a better yardstick to look at.

As I understand it, the Duchy of Lancaster (+ Crown Estate etc) and all the land is still owned by the Royal Family - who essentially 'gift' all of the income from that land to the Govt, in exchange for being able to keep a portion of that as their own income. If we got rid of them, legally I'd imagine the Govt wouldn't be able to take the land away from them without setting what would be (for me at least) a very worrying precedent. Given that, I don't think the Mail analysis is complete. Plus, the level of financing I think we'd need to put in place for a Presidential Head of State - salary, staff, security etc etc - wouldn't end up being that different from what we have, more or less. I think the financial argument is a red herring whichever side of the fence you're on.

I take a different view, which stems back from my acceptance that nations are 'imagined constructs' after reading Benedict Anderson at university. Imagined constructs need commonalities to tie people together, which in turn helps with social cohesion, economic prosperity and more. I think in recent decades we've lost much of what people have in common - whether that is people attending churches en masse, mass membership of political parties, unions, social clubs, even Scouts etc etc. We've become increasingly a society of individuals and the Royal Family feels to me like one of the last things that a lot of people have in common. Major events like Saturday, the Queen's funeral, and the Weddings have a unifying effect that very little else does. I don't think the rocky few years for the Royals with Andrew & Harry should detract from the stability and common purpose that can be provided over many decades.

And that's before we get on to how much I dislike some of the alternative options, and some of the softer power a good Monarch like QEII can exert.

Sorry for the long post - trying to avoid doing my expenses.

That's what they want you to think, though.

I know nothing of Benedict Anderson, but 'imagined construct' seems like a very good way of describing patriotism, an entirely illogical devotion to one's country of birth. Too often this tips over into nationalism, which is a destructive and dangerous construct. Why should I and my neighbours and friends need to share a family that 'rules over us' to help us get on? We have many other more important commonalities.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

You are older than I thought…

Why can’t the public financing be more like, say the Spanish royal family? You wouldn’t need to confiscate the royal duchies, just tax them. We’d get them through inheritance tax pretty soon.

Yuval Harari is very good on ‘imagined constructs’ too. As you know they are acts of collective self deception to fake things in common with people that you don’t know. At their best they stop us killing each other. Hey, we’ve got the same king/god/bank let’s cooperate! Often consciously used by the elite to maintain the status quo, and stoke up fear and hatred of those outside of a particular ‘construct’ or those who represent a conflicting one. You’ve noted many that that have disintegrated over the last decades and I have no doubt that the royal family is on that slope as well. I wish I could say the same for nations. Of course those champions of the individual have taken great joy in attacking some of these cohesive constructs, like unions.

Anyway, you have your King Charles III and Queen Camilla and will have them for the foreseeable. Enjoy. According to my brother (I have some doubts sadly) we have an ancestor who was a Leveller member of the New Model Army who preferred the Agreement of the People’s egalitarian republicanism to swearing an oath to Thomas Fairfax as head of the NMA. He was executed as a result (Corkbush Field Mutiny). So you’ll appreciate that for sentimental reasons I seek other ‘constructs’ around which to build communities. Ones which don’t rely on God’s magic oil and displays of equine military discipline, and which perhaps depend a little more on ideas.

Fair enough - but I'm not sure what the other constructs are or should be. And my instinct is to be careful what we wish for.

I'd be fine with the financing model suggested.

As for Yuval Harari...a brilliant writer, but he just summarises other people's thinking.

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

That's what they want you to think, though.

I know nothing of Benedict Anderson, but 'imagined construct' seems like a very good way of describing patriotism, an entirely illogical devotion to one's country of birth. Too often this tips over into nationalism, which is a destructive and dangerous construct. Why should I and my neighbours and friends need to share a family that 'rules over us' to help us get on? We have many other more important commonalities.

Yes, it can tip over into nationalism at its worst. But all good things can tip over into bad things at their worst.

Glad you have more important commonalities. We on this board obviously all share a more important commonality. Not sure how many truly national ones there are nowadays.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Yes, it can tip over into nationalism at its worst. But all good things can tip over into bad things at their worst.

Glad you have more important commonalities. We on this board obviously all share a more important commonality. Not sure how many truly national ones there are nowadays.

Is supporting, or indeed, playing for a national sports team, a form of patriotism in your view?

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

Is supporting, or indeed, playing for a national sports team, a form of patriotism in your view?

Nope.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

Nope.

So when we see supporters of the American Olympics Team chanting "USA, USA", this has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism...

 

[Quite Possibly Raving]

So when we see supporters of the American Olympics Team chanting "USA, USA", this has absolutely nothing to do with patriotism...

Fair point. I said 'no' because I don't think it has to be or is automatically a form or patriotism.

A schoolmate of mine went on to play for Wales national football team despite having no links to Wales as far as we knew. I don't think that was patriotism for example.

Plenty of others where it can be, like the example you gave.

So my first answer should have been 'sometimes' or 'it can be'.

 

[rangercol]

Has anyone said that?

It's what many of you are implying.
You said the scousers were entitled to hate the royal family because of the way Liverpool has been treated....."you can't blame them".....or words to that effect.
Stan is on about being "reigned over".
Etc etc.
The royal family don't have any governing power etc.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

It's what many of you are implying.
You said the scousers were entitled to hate the royal family because of the way Liverpool has been treated....."you can't blame them".....or words to that effect.
Stan is on about being "reigned over".
Etc etc.
The royal family don't have any governing power etc.

So no.

Anyone is entitled to hate whoever they want if they do it peacefully.

There might be a reason certain pockets of society don’t share your warmth for the rich people with the fancy hats.

 

[rangercol]

So no.

Anyone is entitled to hate whoever they want if they do it peacefully.

There might be a reason certain pockets of society don’t share your warmth for the rich people with the fancy hats.

A non answer then.
I'll leave you to your hating.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

A non answer then.
I'll leave you to your hating.

You’d have to ask a question to get an answer.

As always, this boils down to you being unable to accept that not everyone is ok with the status quo that you’re happy to be subservient to.

 

[Goldhawk-Road]

You’d have to ask a question to get an answer.

As always, this boils down to you being unable to accept that not everyone is ok with the status quo that you’re happy to be subservient to.

Are the French less subservient than the British?