Jump to content

Monarchy debate/discussion


Richey Edwards
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

If you can find proof that the royal family consider their bloodlines to be superior and purer then I'll happily eat humble pie.

I base my thoughts on what they believe on the hereditary bloodline system of nobility they subscribe to and embody, which you’ve just ignored. You seem to base the claim “They don't believe that though..” on nothing, on the other hand.

ETA: Unless, that is, you’ve been having cosy tête-à-têtes with the highest tier of the aristocracy which have led you to believe they don’t really believe that hereditary aristocratic bloodlines should perpetuate an upper class.

Edited by Antlion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't know what all the fuss is about. 

Clearly, a fine way to put people into a revising chamber of a modern democratic government is to include folk who are senior office-holders in one organisation whose purpose is to maintain and promote belief in the supernatural and the distant descendants of folk who supported a monarch by sending his estate's serfs to fight in wars, or provided the monarch with "personal services" or covered up extra-marital affairs. Or similar. 

And of course, don't forget some of the other means of securing a seat in the Lords... bunging a few million quid to political parties, losing elections, being the pals of defeated or disposed-of former leaders, etc. All of course ideal qualifications for those to be given political power - and with no upper age limit an appointee can exercise that political power for decades... with no democratic means of removal. 

Much better than that boring, new fangled "democracy" nonsense. 

What a country.  If only a UK political party with an intention to abolish the House of Lords had ever managed to gain a majority at Westminster over the last say, 112 years... oh, no, wait a minute... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

Chicken Fillets for Michelle Mone.

The blood of tens of thousands of avoidable deaths for Matt Hancock.

A fridge full of Tesco Extra wine for Boris. 

A very dilute lemon squash for Keir. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scottsdad said:

Pegs for Wills, surely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That boy Witchell grinds my gears. Quote on the 6pm news: "but the idea that ANYONE was out to destroy her (Markle), frankly I think is absurd ...".

He may or may not be right but that's only his fucking opinion. And when you see how some in the media are behaving (especially the right wing nut job element), how the f**k does he know what level of briefing is going on? 

If we've learned nothing else from the Andrew thing, it's that the media don't go in hard on the Royal Family. There would have been f**k all on the BBC if he himself hadn't made a voluntary rip-roaring c**t of things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/12/2022 at 19:56, Antlion said:

I base my thoughts on what they believe on the hereditary bloodline system of nobility they subscribe to and embody, which you’ve just ignored. You seem to base the claim “They don't believe that though..” on nothing, on the other hand.

ETA: Unless, that is, you’ve been having cosy tête-à-têtes with the highest tier of the aristocracy which have led you to believe they don’t really believe that hereditary aristocratic bloodlines should perpetuate an upper class.

I ignored nothing.  Nobility doesn't equate or even infer superiority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

I ignored nothing.  Nobility doesn't equate or even infer superiority.

How do you know what the nobility infers about its bloodlines? Are you you a hereditary aristocrat? The dictionary definition of nobility certainly holds that it implies superiority:

 the nobility [ S,  + sing/pl verb ]
 
the people of the highest social rank in a society, considered as a group:
Edited by Antlion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Antlion said:

How do you know what the nobility infers about its bloodlines? Are you you a hereditary aristocrat? The dictionary definition of nobility certainly holds that it implies superiority:

 the nobility [ S,  + sing/pl verb ]
 
the people of the highest social rank in a society, considered as a group:

No, I'm not a hereditary aristocrat 🙄

That definition backs up my stance.  Zero about superiority, never mind superior bloodlines.

The royals are just at the top of a hereditary system.  Your claim that they consider themselves to have superior bloodlines to everyone else is just plain false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

No, I'm not a hereditary aristocrat 🙄

That definition backs up my stance.  Zero about superiority, never mind superior bloodlines.

The royals are just at the top of a hereditary system.  Your claim that they consider themselves to have superior bloodlines to everyone else is just plain false.

Ah, so you’re not one, you don’t know any, and you still feel qualified to speak for them? Odd.

A hereditary bloodline which places some people in a higher social rank than others means that those people’s bloodline-derived rank is ostensibly superior to others. Unless you are now pretending to believe that higher social ranks are inferior or equal to lower social ranks in a class system?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Antlion said:

Ah, so you’re not one, you don’t know any, and you still feel qualified to speak for them? Odd.

A hereditary bloodline which places some people in a higher social rank than others means that those people’s bloodline-derived rank is ostensibly superior to others. Unless you are now pretending to believe that higher social ranks are inferior or equal to lower social ranks in a class system?

I don't feel qualified to speak for them at all.

There's just nothing to suggest that they consider themselves as being superior to others or having superior bloodlines to others.  It just means they are higher up in the hierarchical system.

To answer you - Having a higher social rank in a class system does not make one superior at all, nor does it mean they have a superior bloodline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

I don't feel qualified to speak for them at all.

There's just nothing to suggest that they consider themselves as being superior to others or having superior bloodlines to others.  It just means they are higher up in the hierarchical system.

To answer you - Having a higher social rank in a class system does not make one superior at all, nor does it mean they have a superior bloodline.

It's the literal meaning of the word noble. Now pipe down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...