Monarchy debate/discussion

[Johnny Martin]

20 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

Oh, agreed. I mean, she changed her name. Anyone who does that is obviously OFTW. 

Yeah.  That's all it is 

[Antlion]

2 hours ago, Johnny Martin said:

That's not how I see it Ant.

I don't see them as being elevated or profiting, but being born into unique positions where they serve their country for life.

Many on this board will have benefited from inheritances from their parents.  The difference with the Royals, is that they're getting a country.

If you don’t want to see literal facts, that’s your problem. It is a fact that “birthright” (or bloodline) elevates the nobility above other members of society (it certainly doesn’t lower them beneath others or make them equal). It is a fact that, for example, Lizzie Windsor pocketed millions in private wealth by virtue of her position (and her son is now doing the same). There’s a difference between “not seeing it that way” and refusing to see verifiable facts. If it takes wilful ignorance (in the pure sense of the word) to excuse the royals, then maybe they’re not worth excusing. 

The royals do not inherit “a country” - it’s not 1500 and that’s not the difference between them and private citizens on this board or anywhere else. The difference is that no one on this board (unless we have some aristocrats posting - possibly spongeheid?) is provided with senior political and constitutional positions, or expenses and perks provided by the state, as part of a bloodline-derived birthright.

[Granny Danger]

On 17/12/2022 at 15:15, carpetmonster said:

Jeremy Clarkson wins the Heads Gone thread in The Scum's internal Slack board. 

 

Outrage from some in the media today about Clarkson comparing Merkle to Rose West; not a peep about comparing Sturgeon with West.  Must be OK to compare a democratically elected politician with a serial killer.

Edited December 18, 2022 by Granny Danger

[Salt n Vinegar]

2 hours ago, Antlion said:

If you don’t want to see literal facts, that’s your problem. It is a fact that “birthright” (or bloodline) elevates the nobility above other members of society (it certainly doesn’t lower them beneath others or make them equal). It is a fact that, for example, Lizzie Windsor pocketed millions in private wealth by virtue of her position (and her son is now doing the same). There’s a difference between “not seeing it that way” and refusing to see verifiable facts. If it takes wilful ignorance (in the pure sense of the word) to excuse the royals, then maybe they’re not worth excusing. 

The royals do not inherit “a country” - it’s not 1500 and that’s not the difference between them and private citizens on this board or anywhere else. The difference is that no one on this board (unless we have some aristocrats posting - possibly spongeheid?) is provided with senior political and constitutional positions, or expenses and perks provided by the state, as part of a bloodline-derived birthright.

Good shout Antilon... You've reminded me of another Royal birthright. Unlike the Monarch, the identity of my parents doesn't entitle me to - how shall I put it - 'comment on' proposed legislation so as to make sure that I can be exempt from any adverse consequences for me, my family or my land and financial assets. 

[Johnny Martin]

4 hours ago, Antlion said:

If you don’t want to see literal facts, that’s your problem. It is a fact that “birthright” (or bloodline) elevates the nobility above other members of society (it certainly doesn’t lower them beneath others or make them equal). It is a fact that, for example, Lizzie Windsor pocketed millions in private wealth by virtue of her position (and her son is now doing the same). There’s a difference between “not seeing it that way” and refusing to see verifiable facts. If it takes wilful ignorance (in the pure sense of the word) to excuse the royals, then maybe they’re not worth excusing. 

The royals do not inherit “a country” - it’s not 1500 and that’s not the difference between them and private citizens on this board or anywhere else. The difference is that no one on this board (unless we have some aristocrats posting - possibly spongeheid?) is provided with senior political and constitutional positions, or expenses and perks provided by the state, as part of a bloodline-derived birthright.

Literal facts are fine.  Problems arise when people like you reframe, twist and give their own take on the facts.

The royals do inherit a country, and it's 2022.. not 1500.  In 2022 we believe in tolerance; not bitterness and jealousy.

Many on this board will indeed have been provided with all sorts of things because of who their parents are.  There's no point in striving for every single person in life to start on a level playing field.  It's impossible.

[Antlion]

Just now, Johnny Martin said:

Literal facts are fine.  Problems arise when people like you reframe, twist and give their own take on the facts.

The royals do inherit a country, and it's 2022.. not 1500.  In 2022 we believe in tolerance; not bitterness and jealousy.

Many on this board will indeed have been provided with all sorts of things because of who their parents are.  There's no point in striving for every single person in life to start on a level playing field.  It's impossible.

I’d say it’s more of a problem when “people like you” ignore them, as you’ve just done again in your rush not to acknowledge anything you don’t like being mentioned.

No, they do not inherit a country. The monarch is not the owner of the UK or any other country; he or she is not even the private owner of the Crown Estate - a corporation sole. They inherit national office and influence, not nations. If you’re going to defend these people, do so based on reality, not Game of Thrones-esque fantasy. It’s nearly 2023 and I would hope cringing deference and the “fake news” you’re peddling are a thing of the past.

I’m not engaging with the whataboutery, I’m afraid. Bringing up private inherited wealth or office (which has its own flaws) isn’t the magic defence of the aristocracy you seem to think it is, any more than would be claiming the KKK must be fine because we live with all kinds of other prejudice.

[Johnny Martin]

17 hours ago, Antlion said:

I’d say it’s more of a problem when “people like you” ignore them, as you’ve just done again in your rush not to acknowledge anything you don’t like being mentioned.

No, they do not inherit a country. The monarch is not the owner of the UK or any other country; he or she is not even the private owner of the Crown Estate - a corporation sole. They inherit national office and influence, not nations. If you’re going to defend these people, do so based on reality, not Game of Thrones-esque fantasy. It’s nearly 2023 and I would hope cringing deference and the “fake news” you’re peddling are a thing of the past.

I’m not engaging with the whataboutery, I’m afraid. Bringing up private inherited wealth or office (which has its own flaws) isn’t the magic defence of the aristocracy you seem to think it is, any more than would be claiming the KKK must be fine because we live with all kinds of other prejudice.

What have I not acknowledged?  I try to cover everything.

I do see it as them as inheriting a country, but they then delegate power to Parliament and take a back seat.  This is far more than inheriting mere national office or influence.  It is indeed nearly 2023, and like I previously said, we now believe in tolerance rather than jealousy and bitterness.  I ask you to take that on board, please.

Whataboutery isn't something I engage in, and your KKK analogy is as weak as it is poor.

Anyway, agree to disagree? (This time for real?  )

[Antlion]

18 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

What have I not acknowledged?  I try to cover everything.

I do see it as them as inheriting a country, but they then delegate power to Parliament and take a back seat.  This is far more than inheriting mere national office or influence.  It is indeed nearly 2023, and like I previously said, we now believe in tolerance rather than jealousy and bitterness.  I ask you to take that on board, please.

Whataboutery isn't something I engage in, and your KKK analogy is as weak as it is poor.

Anyway, agree to disagree? (This time for real?  )

You refused to acknowledge the extent by which the late Elizabeth Windsor profited financially (to the tune of millions) in a way unprecedented by her predecessors. Did you not know she was a grasping, money-grubbing piece of excrement - or did you just not mind?

I’d ask you to take on board reality - not fantasy, nor even “how you see it”. You’re simply wrong. Your medieval fetishes of the idea of monarchy notwithstanding, legally the monarch does not “inherit a country”. The law and constitution do no support this fantasy. The cringing, sycophantic, childish fairytale notion of a king inheriting a country has never really been true. I’m amazed to hear someone claiming to believe it.

Trying to justify the corrupt Windsor clan supposedly inheriting a country (which, as I’ve pointed out, they don’t) by pointing to private citizens inheriting private wealth or property was textbook whataboutery, so obviously you do engage in it - just not skilfully.

[Johnny Martin]

8 hours ago, Antlion said:

You refused to acknowledge the extent by which the late Elizabeth Windsor profited financially (to the tune of millions) in a way unprecedented by her predecessors. Did you not know she was a grasping, money-grubbing piece of excrement - or did you just not mind?

I’d ask you to take on board reality - not fantasy, nor even “how you see it”. You’re simply wrong. Your medieval fetishes of the idea of monarchy notwithstanding, legally the monarch does not “inherit a country”. The law and constitution do no support this fantasy. The cringing, sycophantic, childish fairytale notion of a king inheriting a country has never really been true. I’m amazed to hear someone claiming to believe it.

Trying to justify the corrupt Windsor clan supposedly inheriting a country (which, as I’ve pointed out, they don’t) by pointing to private citizens inheriting private wealth or property was textbook whataboutery, so obviously you do engage in it - just not skilfully.

I've already stated that I don't see it as profiting when you take her unique circumstance into account, which you don't want to do.

You either misunderstand what whataboutery actually is, or the motive behind my mentioning of inheritance.

Anyway, agree to disagree?  This is getting a bit nasty now.  I don't want to end up in a slagging match.

[Antlion]

6 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

I've already stated that I don't see it as profiting when you take her unique circumstance into account, which you don't want to do.

You either misunderstand what whataboutery actually is, or the motive behind my mentioning of inheritance.

Anyway, agree to disagree?  This is getting a bit nasty now.  I don't want to end up in a slagging match.

Then you’re wilfully not seeing a fact: she literally profited by earning and saving money (to the tune of hundreds of millions) in ways none of her predecessors did. When the old boot finally departed for pastures hotter, she left a greater fortune than she began her reign with. Her circumstances were not “unique”. George VI, Edward VII, Victoria I - all occupied these positions without profiting - increasing their private wealth by virtue of clandestine business practices and operations secured by their roles - as the venal spiv Elizabeth Windsor did. 

Whataboutery is the practice of trying to derail debate of an issue by raising another: for example, you tried to derail discussion of the royals, in the public sphere, using their bloodline-derived access to privileged constitutional and elevated social positions, by raising the issue of private citizens on this forum maybe inheriting private wealth or property from their parents. No one’s wearing it.

[Johnny Martin]

11 hours ago, Antlion said:

Then you’re wilfully not seeing a fact: she literally profited by earning and saving money (to the tune of hundreds of millions) in ways none of her predecessors did. When the old boot finally departed for pastures hotter, she left a greater fortune than she began her reign with. Her circumstances were not “unique”. George VI, Edward VII, Victoria I - all occupied these positions without profiting - increasing their private wealth by virtue of clandestine business practices and operations secured by their roles - as the venal spiv Elizabeth Windsor did. 

Whataboutery is the practice of trying to derail debate of an issue by raising another: for example, you tried to derail discussion of the royals, in the public sphere, using their bloodline-derived access to privileged constitutional and elevated social positions, by raising the issue of private citizens on this forum maybe inheriting private wealth or property from their parents. No one’s wearing it.

Your lack of knowledge, as well as inability to understand the points presented to you and use of foul, bitter and nasty language, have left me with no other option but to cease communications.

Have a good day.

[Antlion]

42 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

Your lack of knowledge, as well as inability to understand the points presented to you and use of foul, bitter and nasty language, have left me with no other option but to cease communications.

Have a good day.

I have to admit, the easy way out of defending or justifying the aristocracy, which you’ve been desperately trying to take (for several posts) took you longer than I expected it would - but it does achieve your ongoing goal of still not acknowledging any of the facts about monarchy presented to you, I suppose - just in a more embarrassing, transparent way.

[Clown Job]

 

[Salt n Vinegar]

10 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

 

Man whose very existence will be celebrated at a massive party that tells everyone how great he is, favours massive party that tells everyone how great he is. 

Shocked. 

[O'Kelly Isley III]

18 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Man whose very existence will be celebrated at a massive party that tells everyone how great he is, favours massive party that tells everyone how great he is. 

Shocked. 

With respect, I think you're wrong there.  I am certainly no royalist, far from it, but this has the paws of a desperate, truly desperate Tory Government written all over it.  Read the piece carefully and what emerges is that any and every attempt is being made to deflect from the utter disaster that is Brexit.  I mean, they are not even trying to disguise it, as it is being run in the Telegraph, the Tory Party house journal.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

The thick Tory voters who can barely afford to heat their house or feed themselves will still lap this shite up.

[williemillersmoustache]

"We've looked at the numbers and done a whole pile of focus groups and polling. I'm sorry your majesty but the only way to save the country and by that we mean the election is to have another state funeral."

[aDONisSheep]

On 18/12/2022 at 11:19, Johnny Martin said:

That's not how I see it Ant.

I don't see them as being elevated or profiting, but being born into unique positions where they serve their country for life.

Many on this board will have benefited from inheritances from their parents.  The difference with the Royals, is that they're getting a country.

I would say not paying inheritance tax on the estate is a differentiator, but that's probably just me...  Oh and very few people inherit the right to get 'saved' as part of a national anthem.   Oh,  oh and very few inherit a publicly funded cunty boat.

[Antlion]

On 22/12/2022 at 13:47, O'Kelly Isley III said:

With respect, I think you're wrong there.  I am certainly no royalist, far from it, but this has the paws of a desperate, truly desperate Tory Government written all over it.  Read the piece carefully and what emerges is that any and every attempt is being made to deflect from the utter disaster that is Brexit.  I mean, they are not even trying to disguise it, as it is being run in the Telegraph, the Tory Party house journal.

Charlie is as entitled as they come, too, though. It’s been reported for a while from the usual leaks that he has privately insisted that he wants to “downsize” the monarchy only as long as there is absolutely no effect on his own household and perks.

A bunch of Tory crooks desperate to deflect from their own failings, and a self-aggrandising, thick-as-f**k con-artist whose massive ego they’re willing to make use of for publicly funded spectacle: a match made in hell.

[Suspect Device]

 

Some people have a strange way of spending Xmas.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/royal-family-charles-christmas-sandringham-b2251283.html

 

ETA. I realise the irony of posting this on Xmas day. 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Suspect Device