The Royal Family

[Houdini Logic]

7 hours ago, MPH said:

 

and yet he’s also the one who has had to publicly apologize for making racist comments  in the past. 

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-harry/prince-harry-apologizes-over-paki-remark-idUSTRE5092E720090111

 

 

 

 

Actually now you mention it... didn't Harry dress up as Hitler?

 

I mean what sort of family did Meghan think she was marrying into??

[Scotch]

1 hour ago, worth_the_wait said:

On the wider subject of why we still have a Royal Family, in this modern age ...
 
I think that the question is often asked the wrong way round.  Some people say "why should we have a Royal Family?" and then irrelevant things like tourism are mentioned in its defence.
 
But surely the question that should be asked is "what benefits would the Country get from its abolition".   If you want to change something that has been around for a long time, you have to come up with a strong justification with what's going to get better.
 
One of the biggest arguments would probably be that it would be better to have an elected Head of State, rather than one that is inherited via birthright.  But surely this is a big double-edged sword.
 
People who want to be elected (for anything) tend to be self-serving publicists who are doing it for their own benefit.  To get to the top of any position of "power" (for want of a better word), you have to sell yourself, exaggerate, tell half-truths, put down other people, etc etc.   The list is endless.   And if it's anything political, then it's very grubby and nasty as well.
 
And if it was going to be an elected President, would it be of the political type? (eg USA, France) or a non-political type? (eg Republic of Ireland).
 
Either of these options open the door to a even worse situation than we have at present.
 
We could have a political Head of State such as President Boris Johnson, Tony Blair or maybe even Nick Clegg.   Which would almost certainly mean that half the Country hated them, and would be of no use as a respected unifying force.    Would we really want something like that?
 
Or we could have a totally non-political Head of State, who we just dig up from somewhere.   But who would that be?  The winner of Bake Off?  Some bloke off X Factor?  Some bird off Strictly Come Dancing?  Alan Sugar?  Bob Geldof?  Billy Connolly?  Rita Ora?    If you were very, very lucky you might get someone that most people thought was ok.   More likely, we'd get some hideous self-serving wannabe who would be a total embarrassment.   Which again I'd ask, is that really want you'd want?
 
Which comes back to the Constitutional Monarchy.   
 
They don't have to get elected, so they don't need to keep on climbing the grubby, greasy pole of popularity.  
They go out of their way to remain politically neutral, so don't attract hatred from people with strong political opinions.
They generally get on with their jobs of representing the Country, helping 100's of charities and cheering people up in hospital.  
 
Obviously, there has been odd serious mistake and no one would pretend everything has been perfect ... but when it comes to representing the Country and being Head of State, The Queen has done a pretty good job over nearly 70 years.

 

The point I'm getting to is this ...
 
I can't say we have the best system in this Country, but I think it's the least worst.   And in these divided, polarised times, with hatred filling the airwaves and internet ... I think "least worst" is a pretty good recommendation for not getting rid of it.

 

You see, this is where I've clearly been naive and ignorant. 

 

I was always under the impression that the crown could not in any way interfere with politics, only to find that they indeed can and have in relation to legislations and laws that they will be affected by. Of which there has been over 1000 in the queens time. 

 

This doesn't sit well with me. Not so much the fact that they can benefit by amending or even blocking laws and legislations from ever reaching parliment but rather, they do so with only themselves in mind and not the rest of the country who it could also have implications for. 

 

Like you say, they are unelected therefore, there is no way in which they can be held accountable for their decisions. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Blarmy said:

Yes, in my opinion it is acceptable that old people do not keep up with every social change taking place. I’m sure the vast majority of them don’t hold on to outdated views out of malice. They have failing bodies, failing minds, friends and family dying all around them and the knowledge that they are not going to be alive themselves much longer. It’s hardly surprising that they don’t prioritise the feelings of minority groups.

Hmmm...I think that is perhaps a little condescending towards older members of the population.

 

Personally when I get to that stage I would hope to have enough physical and emotional energy to rage against the dying of the light by making sure I understood the future and help make it as good a place as possible for future generations rather than retreating into myself and a rose coloured view of the past, but who knows?

 

9 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Then you guess wrong IMO.  I do not believe it is fair or reasonable to dismiss someone's views simply because of their age or skin colour or sex.  But if it is, it is fair for all ages, all skin colours, all sexes.  Allowing the principle that anyone's views should be dismissed simply because of their race is a very dubious practice.  As is any principle that says white people are different from black people.

 

As for the idea of stereotyping - the idea that old white men tend to have one set of views, young black women have another set of views, and if you don't agree with those views then they can be ignored - isn't that what the anti-racism campaign has been working against for decades?

And that is why I took very, very great pains to highlight the *act on* part of my post. Was it not obvious enough?

 

Viewpoints should of course be considered as they come in, dissonant from the demographic of the people that hold them (sometimes, like with climate change ignorance, anti vaxxer beliefs and racism and misogyny, the consideration often doesn't need to be very long).

 

But when members of a demographic use these viewpoints and take action to exert power over others of a different one (politically or otherwise, and there are numerous examples of this even today) then that shouldn't simply be ignored.

 

Freedom of thought and conscience comes hand in hand with freedom to take the consequences when you use it to exert power over others. That's the way a functional society should work.

[dsr-burnley]

1 minute ago, Foxy_Bear said:

You see, this is where I've clearly been naive and ignorant. 

 

I was always under the impression that the crown could not in any way interfere with politics, only to find that they indeed can and have in relation to legislations and laws that they will be affected by. Of which there has been over 1000 in the queens time. 

 

This doesn't sit well with me. Not so much the fact that they can benefit by amending or even blocking laws and legislations from ever reaching parliment but rather, they do so with only themselves in mind and not the rest of the country who it could also have implications for. 

 

Like you say, they are unelected therefore, there is no way in which they can be held accountable for their decisions. 

Most of the royal prerogatives are restricted to advising, not blocking.  (The full Royal Prerogative of blocking legislation hasn't been used since Queen Anne.)

 

The PM does consult with the Queen, as have all 13 previous PMs suring her reign.  The Queen's advice, I am told, can be invaluable.

 

While berating yourself for naivety, remember that you are taking the word of one journalist who (like you) has suddenly found out what thousand of politicians and journalists already knew, and thinks that it is a big story, is correct.  This isn't cutting edge investigative journalism - IMO it's a non-story used to fill a column.

[dsr-burnley]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

And that is why I took very, very great pains to highlight the *act on* part of my post. Was it not obvious enough?

 

Viewpoints should of course be considered as they come in, dissonant from the demographic of the people that hold them (sometimes, like with climate change ignorance, anti vaxxer beliefs and racism and misogyny, the consideration often doesn't need to be very long).

 

But when members of a demographic use these viewpoints and take action to exert power over others of a different one (politically or otherwise, and there are numerous examples of this even today) then that shouldn't simply be ignored.

 

Freedom of thought and conscience comes hand in hand with freedom to take the consequences when you use it to exert power over others. That's the way a functional society should work.

I don't think it matters whether it's the thought or the deed.  If we accept the principle that views can be dismissed or diminished because they come from old, white, men, then we also risk accepting the principle held by the BNP that the views of black people can be dismissed or diminished.  If "white" is allowed as an insult, then so is "black".  That's my objection to any use of stereotypes such as "pale male stale".

Edited 11 March 2021 by dsr-burnley

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I don't think it matters whether it's the thought or the deed.  If we accept the principle that views can be dismissed or diminished because they come from old, white, men, then we also risk accepting the principle held by the BNP that the views of black people can be dismissed or diminished.  If "white" is allowed as an insult, then so is "black".  That's my objection to any use of stereotypes such as "pale male stale".

I think there's a very important distinction between thoughts, words, and deeds themselves in terms of the way they affect society today and have done throughout history.

 

However, I think this is veering rather off topic so I'll leave it there.

[Scotch]

9 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Most of the royal prerogatives are restricted to advising, not blocking.  (The full Royal Prerogative of blocking legislation hasn't been used since Queen Anne.)

 

The PM does consult with the Queen, as have all 13 previous PMs suring her reign.  The Queen's advice, I am told, can be invaluable.

 

While berating yourself for naivety, remember that you are taking the word of one journalist who (like you) has suddenly found out what thousand of politicians and journalists already knew, and thinks that it is a big story, is correct.  This isn't cutting edge investigative journalism - IMO it's a non-story used to fill a column.

Yeah, I've looked into it a little more. Its not so much that PMs seek her advice (which I'm sure they do) but rather that its actually parliamentary procedure for any legislation that could have implications for the Queen be approved before being discussed. 

 

It's reassuring to see that this particular monarch has always granted permission and never actually blocked legislation but still a little worrying to speculate on such a procedure at the hands of a monarch who may not be as morally admirable. 

 

After all, this can be legislation that affects Taxes, homeowners, landowners and employers. 

[Alf Bentley]

Excellent post above by @worth_the_wait

 

I'm certainly not a royalist by instinct. If a new democratic state was being set up, I wouldn't be calling for a hereditary head of state.

 

But the role and powers of our hereditary head of state have been defined and refined in response to centuries of historical change.

They co-exist and interlock with other constitutional and democratic systems (democratically-elected parliament, indirectly elected govt, laws/judiciary, cumulative unwritten constitution, politically neutral civil service, local authorities etc.).

 

If you removed one major element of that system (hereditary head of state), you'd inevitably be disrupting the system as a whole.

Now, that alone isn't an argument for NOT doing it. But it IS an argument for thinking carefully about what role and powers your elected head of state should have, what checks there should be on them, how they should fit in with the roles and powers of the other elements of your democracy etc.

 

Given the risks described by @worth_the_wait, we should only ever consider getting rid of the monarchy as part of a comprehensive plan for our whole democratic system of governance - one that is well thought through and has wide approval.

 

Elected heads of state in other countries have very different roles:

- The French and US Presidents have dominant highly political roles that are strictly defined, interacting with other democratic institutions, checks & balances etc.

- Germany, Italy & Ireland have Presidents who play a much less overtly political role, more some combination of constitutional guarantor, figurehead & wise voice on broad principles

- The Irish President, like the US & French Presidents, is directly elected. But the Presidents of Germany and Italy are indirectly elected via a parliamentary convention or parliament: directly v. indirectly elected, alone, would be a big question

 

I reckon that, for now, we have enough other issues to deal with, including malfunctions in our democratic institutions, without needlessly opening a whole massive, dangerous can of worms by seeking to abolish the monarchy.

Unpopular view from a lefty, I know.... 

 

[Blarmy]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Hmmm...I think that is perhaps a little condescending towards older members of the population.

 

Personally when I get to that stage I would hope to have enough physical and emotional energy to rage against the dying of the light by making sure I understood the future and help make it as good a place as possible for future generations rather than retreating into myself and a rose coloured view of the past, but who knows?

 

And that is why I took very, very great pains to highlight the *act on* part of my post. Was it not obvious enough?

 

Viewpoints should of course be considered as they come in, dissonant from the demographic of the people that hold them (sometimes, like with climate change ignorance, anti vaxxer beliefs and racism and misogyny, the consideration often doesn't need to be very long).

 

But when members of a demographic use these viewpoints and take action to exert power over others of a different one (politically or otherwise, and there are numerous examples of this even today) then that shouldn't simply be ignored.

 

Freedom of thought and conscience comes hand in hand with freedom to take the consequences when you use it to exert power over others. That's the way a functional society should work.

No, it’s not condescending.  It’s a realistic and appropriate examination of the lives of many elderly people. The vast majority of people will have views stuck from around the latest time they had the energy, wherewithal and faculties to be majorly concerned with groups of people who have nothing directly to do with their lives.    

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

No, it’s not condescending.  It’s a realistic and appropriate examination of the lives of many elderly people. The vast majority of people will have views stuck from around the latest time they had the energy, wherewithal and faculties to be majorly concerned with groups of people who have nothing directly to do with their lives.    

Perhaps you're right about that developing lack of empathy with respect to age.

 

I hope that you're not, though, because decisions made based on that lack of empathy, if widespread enough to be implemented through a democratic system, could and will have dire consequences for the future.

[Blarmy]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps you're right about that developing lack of empathy with respect to age.

 

I hope that you're not, though, because decisions made based on that lack of empathy, if widespread enough to be implemented through a democratic system, could and will have dire consequences for the future.

Well it’s been going on forever, up to you to decide if things are better now than they were, say, 400 years ago. 

[Buce]

12 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

Well it’s been going on forever, up to you to decide if things are better now than they were, say, 400 years ago. 

 

Not true.

 

We have only had what passes for a democratic system for circa 100 years.

[Blarmy]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Not true.

 

We have only had what passes for a democratic system for circa 100 years.

I was referring to the elderly caring less about those outside of their immediate circle. 

[MPH]

1 hour ago, Houdini Logic said:

Actually now you mention it... didn't Harry dress up as Hitler?

 

I mean what sort of family did Meghan think she was marrying into??

 

yes he dressed up as a nazi soldier for a party..

[String fellow]

42 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Perhaps you're right about that developing lack of empathy with respect to age.

 

I hope that you're not, though, because decisions made based on that lack of empathy, if widespread enough to be implemented through a democratic system, could and will have dire consequences for the future.

What the younger generations seem to forget is that whilst moaning about the elderly, they too will be elderly one day! It will creep up on them almost without them realising.

[I am Rod Hull]

 

14 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

I was referring to the elderly caring less about those outside of their immediate circle. 

 

[dsr-burnley]

16 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

I was referring to the elderly caring less about those outside of their immediate circle. 

The immediate circle of most elderly people includes their grandchildren. 

 

This was one of the canards thrown round during the Brexit debate - that older people don't care about wanting the best for their grandchildren, they only want what is best for themselves.  In my experience the reverse is true.

[Blarmy]

5 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

The immediate circle of most elderly people includes their grandchildren. 

 

This was one of the canards thrown round during the Brexit debate - that older people don't care about wanting the best for their grandchildren, they only want what is best for themselves.  In my experience the reverse is true.

Yes of course they care about their grandchildren.  But as people age the reach of people they have the resources to care about reduces.  I think this is totally normal and natural, and isn’t restricted to the elderly.

[leicsmac]

53 minutes ago, Blarmy said:

Well it’s been going on forever, up to you to decide if things are better now than they were, say, 400 years ago. 

As other people have noted, that possible lack of empathy becomes rather dangerous when paired with a system where such lack of empathy can become state policy, which has only been the case for the last century or so.

 

If you are right about it being normal and "natural" (and it's certainly possible), then this is *incredibly* bad news for the future, for any one of a variety of reasons. So I'm hoping that you're not right.

 

21 minutes ago, String fellow said:

What the younger generations seem to forget is that whilst moaning about the elderly, they too will be elderly one day! It will creep up on them almost without them realising.

Old age comes to us all, yes. I have a bit of faith in people though and think and hope that attitudes based on short term self interest that block human progress don't have to come with it.

[String fellow]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As other people have noted, that possible lack of empathy becomes rather dangerous when paired with a system where such lack of empathy can become state policy, which has only been the case for the last century or so.

 

If you are right about it being normal and "natural" (and it's certainly possible), then this is *incredibly* bad news for the future, for any one of a variety of reasons. So I'm hoping that you're not right.

 

Old age comes to us all, yes. I have a bit of faith in people though and think and hope that attitudes based on short term self interest that block human progress don't have to come with it.

Maybe, but I venture to suggest that people of every age group are hard-wired to look after their own interests ahead of other considerations. Indeed, there are many psychologists and sociologists who argue that in the egoism v. altruism debate, there is no such thing as true altruism. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Maybe, but I venture to suggest that people of every age group are hard-wired to look after their own interests ahead of other considerations. Indeed, there are many psychologists and sociologists who argue that in the egoism v. altruism debate, there is no such thing as true altruism. 

Well, to be honest I can't see much evidence contrary to this, yes. There is some, but probably not enough. So yeah, you could well be right.

 

Thing is though, one has to try to believe that a different way exists and we can take it, because if one doesn't then it's basically accepting that humanity is fvcked in short order (geologically speaking, anyway).

 

But this probably isn't the right thread for this.

Edited 11 March 2021 by leicsmac

[dsr-burnley]

59 minutes ago, String fellow said:

Maybe, but I venture to suggest that people of every age group are hard-wired to look after their own interests ahead of other considerations. Indeed, there are many psychologists and sociologists who argue that in the egoism v. altruism debate, there is no such thing as true altruism. 

And is there any such thing as true egoism?  True altruism would be that a starving me would give up my only bit of bread to a starving person in India.  True egoism would mean that a full-up me would eat an extra slice of cake rather than give it to the starving child at my feet.  Neither is realistic.

[Tommy G]

Just seen the reporter asking William a dumb question about whether the royal family is racist? I mean whats he going to say, yes we are? Stupid question and a stupid position to put William in. Hope he's sacked.

[hejammy]

5 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Just seen the reporter asking William a dumb question about whether the royal family is racist? I mean whats he going to say, yes we are? Stupid question and a stupid position to put William in. Hope he's sacked.

I highly doubt the Journalist was thinking William would say yes, it's asked to get a reaction, to provoke a discussion, or to make them think about a reaction. It's like when a football journalist asks a manager who lost 5-0 "well that wasn't a great result for you how do you feel about it"? Hardly a reason for a journalist to be sacked?! 

[bovril]

He should've said "well apart from my brother dressing up as a Nazi and calling people pak*s we're not racist".