Monarchy debate/discussion

[btb]

I notice Sistah Space the charity represented by Ngozi "where is she really from?" Fulani is being investigated by the Charities Commission after online allegations of impropriety have been made.

Know yer place pleb!

[Johnny Martin]

On 16/12/2022 at 09:35, Antlion said:

Fair enough - though that does raise the question: why do you think royals and aristocrats keep subscribing to and accepting bloodline-derived higher social positions? I.e., rather than telling us what you think they don’t believe about their status and how they got it, how about telling us what you think they do.

I think they accept them because the social positions are their birthright.  They also have a duty to fulfil the roles in question.

[Johnny Martin]

31 minutes ago, btb said:

I notice Sistah Space the charity represented by Ngozi "where is she really from?" Fulani is being investigated by the Charities Commission after online allegations of impropriety have been made.

Know yer place pleb!

Sorry, but she's clearly dodgy as f***.

[carpetmonster]

21 minutes ago, Johnny Martin said:

Sorry, but she's clearly dodgy as f***.

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

[carpetmonster]

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

 

[Antlion]

1 hour ago, Johnny Martin said:

I think they accept them because the social positions are their birthright.  They also have a duty to fulfil the roles in question.

There we are. Apparently the royals happily profit - constitutionally and socially - from a system which elevates them solely due to “birthright” (and this in a supposed democracy), yet they don’t even believe that that bloodline is inherently superior to those denied the same privilege. They even think they have a duty to profit from higher positions based solely on birth. Dirty fucking b*****ds.

[Antlion]

54 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

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

True.

One hundred years ago, King George V changed the name of the British royal family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor

[dirty dingus]

6 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

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

 

He's dreaming of MM naked and getting covered in shit? He's OFTW and it must cost him a fortune to regularly replace his spunk covered Tattersall shirt and his Brax corduroy kegs.

[carpetmonster]

19 minutes ago, dirty dingus said:

He's dreaming of MM naked and getting covered in shit? He's OFTW and it must cost him a fortune to regularly replace his spunk covered Tattersall shirt and his Brax corduroy kegs.

Maybe he skelped Piers Morgan because it was actually a contest about who could crywank over her the most, rather than 'his wife's honour' as he reckoned at the time. 

[Theroadlesstravelled]

Meghan is a lying jobbie of a person. Granted she does have huge backing from American wrong’uns who still wear Covid masks in their own car, when they’re alone.

That said I hope she brings down the monarchy including the ginger Nazi.

[BFTD]

I'm taking a perverse satisfaction from not knowing WTF is going on with Harry Windsor and his wife, and it'll be a disappointment when I inevitably find out, probably by being stuck on a long train journey near a couple of auld women gossiping about the whole thing.

However, she must be a total b*****d, as I don't remember seeing so much casual hatred for a person on newspaper/magazine covers, TV, the internet, and from passing strangers since Savile was finally outed. I'm guessing she must have killed Diana, Queen of Hearts and bragged about it on Netflix? I know they're involved somehow.

[Granny Danger]

8 hours ago, BFTD said:

I'm taking a perverse satisfaction from not knowing WTF is going on with Harry Windsor and his wife, and it'll be a disappointment when I inevitably find out, probably by being stuck on a long train journey near a couple of auld women gossiping about the whole thing.

However, she must be a total b*****d, as I don't remember seeing so much casual hatred for a person on newspaper/magazine covers, TV, the internet, and from passing strangers since Savile was finally outed. I'm guessing she must have killed Diana, Queen of Hearts and bragged about it on Netflix? I know they're involved somehow.

Her skin is an unacceptable colour.  That’s all you need to know.

[Johnny Martin]

19 hours ago, Antlion said:

There we are. Apparently the royals happily profit - constitutionally and socially - from a system which elevates them solely due to “birthright” (and this in a supposed democracy), yet they don’t even believe that that bloodline is inherently superior to those denied the same privilege. They even think they have a duty to profit from higher positions based solely on birth. Dirty fucking b*****ds.

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.

[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?  )