Ok, find me and academic that would suggest that the Duke of Westminster handing his title down to his son affects society now.
Not previous things leading up to this having an affect, but the thing that we're actually talking about.
Dodgy debating tactics would be stretching out someone's point to an absurd level, where it's no longer recognisable.
Another one would be to put words into someone's mouth.
Has our system of monarchy had any effect on society? Of course it has. I didn't claim otherwise.
Does this example that I've addressed influence anyone in the slightest manner? I don't believe so. Please demonstrate that it does.
I doubt that it even has much of an effect on the two Lady Grosvenors, to be honest.
If you think that this minor footnote in history has done anything, then how much influence must having a Queen as head of state have had?
She's been the longest reigning monarch in our history, having overtaken Victoria last September.
With those two at the helm for so long, we must be a bloody matriarchy, I guess.
The Duke of bloody Westminster and his poor, hard-done by daughters
came up as a little example in Spurf's post earlier as a passing reference to how **** like male preference (in this case for *the* most privileged positions in society) still exists and we have some ways to go til we have a rational, fair society.
To me that's just a black and white, cold, hard fact that is worth noting, not arguing with, and moving on. It was only because you wanted to say "Yeah - but what does that matter?" that this whole, weird debate about how stuff affects other stuff came up (again).
I just have no idea why anyone would want to argue that this (minor) point is not admissible evidence or relevant. No - it's not going to affect whether or not I inherit my dad's VHS player or not. Or indeed if my fictitous elder sister should rightly inherit it.
But to actually gain a proper understanding of *anything* I think it pays to go just a little way beyond the absolute surface cause and effect.
I mean I can't possibly untangle how one human action affects the whole world but who is to say that the inheritance rights of a thousand or so people doesn't affect, physically, psychologically and financially exponentially more people beside? What do those other privileged girls think who are Lady whats-her-face's classmates about how that girl over there will not inherit what her little brother will just cos he's got a dick? What drip,drip,drip influence does it have on the young Dukeling or whatever they're called and all his social circle and his family and his staff to know that he'll be getting what his sister's won't cos of his fantastic Y chromosome? How are people's attitudes and opinions formed? Their ambitions, their hates, their desires and their resignations? And how do those in turn affect others? **** knows. I'm being ridiculously literal here with the description of "effects" too and probably throw myself open to ridicule.
And I know that I'm going further than I really should - that anyone could turn around and say "Look - you're getting into bloody chaos theory here. Weren't you supposed to be talking about how you think thing x can have effect y?"
Maybe they'd be right. But I just can't...I just cannot see why anyone would want or need or think it was helpful to say "Yeah but lineage of the aristocracy - what's that got to do with your point about male privilege?"
Also: Have I put words in your mouth or stretched out one of your points til it became absurd? I'll apologise if I have.
PS In all this talk about how stuff affects stuff and the impossible nature of describing and understanding history I'm reminded of what the Chinese Premier said to Nixon when asked what he thought the consequences of the French Revolution were:
"It's too early to tell".
Now I recently found out that this quote was a misunderstanding and something was lost in translation - he was actually being asked about the student protests etc of 1968. Bit of a shame but I still love the thought it inspires.
