FAO subjects, colonials etc
Duderonomy
Haut de la Garenne 7,789 Posts
Up in this bitch.
Duderonomy
Haut de la Garenne 7,789 Posts
Comments
"Where's my colonials at?"
I agree with your view Doc, but my republicanism is tempered by the alternatives I see elsewhere.
To quote another Briddish institution, [Westwood] Bow down and kiss the ring [/Westwood].
:-P
To which I would respond; even if we acknowledge that the quest for true equality is unlikely to ever be fulfilled, this doesn't mean we have to live in the shadow of totems and figureheads that represent the exact opposite.
Doesn't the Monarchy have a 70% - 80% approval rating?
If so, that would probably make it the most popular governing entity in the world.
If that's what the people want, why shouldn't they have it?
To wit...
It's one thing for the Royal Family to be sucking a small fortune out of the public purse, but when a big chunk of that is bankrolling the Duke Of Jam Butty and the Duchess Of Jam Roll...sorry, but fuck that.
I'm told that these millions show just how much support and love there is for the queen, but when an equal number of millions go out on strike then it's all damp squib this and vocal minority that.
Really though, all these excessive displays of Britishness are a fucking embarrassing.
Except that they don't really govern in any discernible way. If they did, and they had to take responsibility for policies and laws that were passed, you can be sure that they would have nowhere near as high an approval rating. Can you imagine a governing royal family pushing through austerity measures, slashing benefits and public services while pocketing public money to fund their royal lifestyle?
(As a minor point of order, the Royal Family don't actually govern. The Queen is a constitutional rather than absolute monarch.)
Yes, the monarchy is massively popular. It would represent the most spectacular case of political suicide anywhere in the world, possibly ever, if a British government were to undertake the kind of constitutional reforms aimed at abolishing the monarchy.
However, that doesn't mean we all like it, or want it, or should keep quiet about the fact because the received wisdom states that to do otherwise is somehow unpatriotic.
The monarchy infantilises us. On occasions like this, the British public turns en masse into a bunch of forelock-tugging, flag-waving lickspittles, all too happy to buy into the centuries-old notion that some people - in this case, a family whose bloodline isn't even British to begin with - are "better" than the rest of us, simply by virtue of birth. The current House Of Winsdor barely has an A-Level to its name - there are kids who grew up in relative poverty on some of the grimmest, most deprived sink estates in the country that are educated to a higher standard than the British Royal Family.
Just to be clear, I'm not that much of a Bolshevik that I think they should all be strung up along The Mall. But I hope I live long enough to see the back of them one way or another.
B/w asking to choose between said miserablist's sour boat versus pic of William n Kate beaming from ear to ear on a gilded barge...even sink-estate smart-but-feral anti privilege and chips on both shoulders like me know which is the more attractive option.
And that's when ya lost.
Honorary Brit, iirc.
How does one accept austerity and funding the royal family at the same time?
That said, the Queen and her dad scored high points with my mom during WWII.
????????????
Sounds like equality to me!
(sorry, I'll go now)
But anyone struggling to understand the acceptance of the privileged monarchy versus the pain of austerity needs to make the case of their cost versus tourist income.
Then there are intangible add-ons like the (never used) monarchic veto meaning no government has absolute power, and how this plays into centuries of stability and the economic benefits that brings.
Believe, this model ain't going away for a long-assed time.
Because no-one can call it either way.
At least with a monarch you always know who you are pissed at and that doesn't change from year to year. Which is why most governments continue to screw over the people. Every few years a new leader or government comes into play and people actually believe they will be different.
Mind you, my thoughts on having a monarch only really works if the people can rise up when they are really pissed and chop off heads...
Truth be told, the British monarchy still makes sense on just a tourism level. The amount of money that is made on a whole, is far greater than what they cost the public.
I had a convo with someone yesterday. Who was going on about Beckham being overpriced and past his prime. But refusing to grasp the concept that in the MLS he still pulls in big numbers. He puts people in the seats and is more valuable in the grand scheme of things, than what they pay him. The same is true with the royal family. Until the day comes that they are no longer a money making machine, there will be a Royal family.
Loyal-subjects-of-the-crown-R
"No sportswear, hats or hoods. Ladies free B4 10. 2 for 1 offers on selected beers and spirits. ROAR."
We know this.
Kids and helpers doing a jubilee street party are not nazis.
This cherry picking of events on the far outskirts of sane behaviour to make a point is a bit bizarre, IMHO.
I don't know what your point is, actually.
Not really cherry-picking anything. I just thought it represented an interesting echo of the events of 35 years ago, when any statement or gesture which went against the prevailing orthodoxy ran the risk of meeting a hostile response. Quite often from people who believe themselves to hold the monopoly on patriotism too. What a long way we've all come since then, eh?
I'm all for letting the kids enjoy their street parties. Ditto the republican types. The very last thing I'd ever want to do is spoil someone else's fun. So long as I can sit the whole thing out, unmolested and in peace, we'll all be happy.