The English Monarchy

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is all very well when you get to squeeze into the end of the trough or get enough scraps from the table to satisfy you.
And no, the monarchy does not serve the same purpose as an elected president, because a president doesn't shore up a class system. And that is why monarchies are wrong and in particular the British version.

And are you suggesting that the existence of the class system in Britian isn't a daily problem???

not a problem for me,because i am british,so why is it a problem for you a irishman ?.ireland hasent got a class system,but i has a snob system, the way some irishmen talk down to fellow citizens is bad, as far as presidents ,you need not look to far to find out how bad they can be,

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

I see it as more evidence of the Irish Inferiority Complex which affects some Irish, typically those, who for one reason or another, where against the fight for a republic.
Criticism of the royals is seen as somehow vindicating those who fought for our republic, therefore all monarchies are ok.:rolleyes:
Hugely evident at the time of the visit was the ability to forget the suffering of their forebears at the hand of this institution and worse, the shunning of those who fought to change that. All done in order that they wouldn't be dammed in the eyes of the royal visitor.
They demand apologies from the IRA but Mrs Winsdor only has to utter a cupla focal and gave a mealy mouthed acknowledgement of what her forbears and army did and she and the monarchy she represents is clasped to the Irish breast once again!
Crazy logic, but there you go....crazy country sometimes.

But most of the people who have offered a contrary opinion to yours on this thread are either British or live in Britain, from what I can see.

It seems to me that Irish Republicanism was more about Ireland's right to stand on it's own and the oppression that Ireland had suffered rather than being an ideological objection to Monarchies in general. Had Britain been a Republic then the demand for Home Rule would have still existed and the events of the early part of the twentieth century would still have taken place.

It seems strange to me that you'd turn a thread about the meagre cost of the Royal Family into something more than that. Discussions on the place of the Monarchy today need to be on the basis of it's position in society today and what pragmatically would work if you look at the Royal Family vs other alternative ways of fulfilling the function of the Head of State. It's nothing to do with any historic grudges you may have.

wendell borton

IvySlayer wrote: »

They bring in more money in tourism than what they cost the state.

God save the Queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems

.

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

But most of the people who have offered a contrary opinion to yours on this thread are either British or live in Britain, from what I can see.

It seems to me that Irish Republicanism was more about Ireland's right to stand on it's own and the oppression that Ireland had suffered rather than being an ideological objection to Monarchies in general. Had Britain been a Republic then the demand for Home Rule would have still existed and the events of the early part of the twentieth century would still have taken place.

It seems strange to me that you'd turn a thread about the meagre cost of the Royal Family into something more than that. Discussions on the place of the Monarchy today need to be on the basis of it's position in society today and what pragmatically would work if you look at the Royal Family vs other alternative ways of fulfilling the function of the Head of State. It's nothing to do with any historic grudges you may have.

You are missing my point, to be critical of Monarchy as a system of governance is seen as vindicating the fight for freedom here. It's comes from a deep seated inferiority complex, the fear of being seen to support the struggle for Irish freedom. They can't separate the two. An objection to monarchy as a system is seen as an attack on Mrs Winsdor in particular, which is cute but ridiculous.

There are those in Britian who trenchantly oppose the monarchy with no reference to anything else.
Objections to monarchy as a system has nothing to do with grudges or Irish republicanism, they are separate, which is what some Irish can't see, for very particular reasons.

summerskin

Happyman42 wrote: »

Which is all very well when you get to squeeze into the end of the trough or get enough scraps from the table to satisfy you.
And no, the monarchy does not serve the same purpose as an elected president, because a president doesn't shore up a class system. And that is why monarchies are wrong and in particular the British version.

And are you suggesting that the existence of the class system in Britian isn't a daily problem???

It's no problem at all, in 39 years I've never come up against a problem as a result of the class system.

In fact I've come up against more snobbery and barriers in Ireland..."Shur, his da's a councillor and his grandaddy was a TD, no way they're going to turn down his planning application, but nobody knows you so ye're fcuked with yours" is just one example....

Happyman42

summerskin wrote: »

It's no problem at all, in 39 years I've never come up against a problem as a result of the class system.

Why would you....you support it.

In fact I've come up against more snobbery and barriers in Ireland..."Shur, his da's a councillor and his grandaddy was a TD, no way they're going to turn down his planning application, but nobody knows you so ye're fcuked with yours" is just one example....

That's not a class system at work.

robbiezero

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would you....you support it.



That's not a class system at work.

What way does the class system work in Britain so and how does it a daily problem?

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would you....you support it.



That's not a class system at work.

you mean like freemasons/orange order ect

golden lane

630,000 irish born live in the uk......5 million others also born outside the uk......

the class system in the uk is such.......that they are all rushing to the airports to get back where they came from.....

summerskin

Happyman42 wrote: »

Why would you....you support it.



That's not a class system at work.

How exactly do i support it? Your post makes no sense, as i have repeatedly pointed out that i am not a royalist.

I was raised on a council estate, received a scholarship to a private school after excelling in the entrance examination, and went on to travel, develop a career etc. I've seen most sides of this alleged "class system" and can assure you, it doesn't really exist in modern Britain. All of your ideas seem to be rooted in the early 20th century.

Funny how you don't get many lads from council estates in private schools in Ireland though, isn't it?

Happyman42

robbiezero wrote: »

What way does the class system work in Britain so and how does it a daily problem?

There was a repeat of a doc on BBC2 last night about 'streets' in London. This one was about the history of Portland St. Look it up on the iplayer, fascinating stuff. After all the history and for various reasons what has happened is that there is an imaginary line across the street. 2 sections have houses valued at 2m to 4m and one section is council flats.
Nothing particularly unusual in that, but it is clear if you look deeper why that has happened. When you are a member of a particular social class in a monarchy you get locked into it in a generational sense. The people in the council flats have no real way out of the circle, not in the way that an American (I'm avoiding comparing it with here) with responsibility and ambition can 'get out' of the cycle. The system in a monarchy is against them, all the way.
And yes, there are exceptions to that, but in the main, if you are born into that class you invariably stay in it. That is Britian's enduring problem, and it happens as a result of the tiered system. That many (particularly in the middle classes) go along with it, doesn't diminish the problem.

summerskin

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was a repeat of a doc on BBC2 last night about 'streets' in London. This one was about the history of Portland St. Look it up on the iplayer, fascinating stuff. After all the history and for various reasons what has happened is that there is an imaginary line across the street. 2 sections have houses valued at 2m to 4m and one section is council flats.
Nothing particularly unusual in that, but it is clear if you look deeper why that has happened. When you are a member of a particular social class in a monarchy you get locked into it in a generational sense. The people in the council flats have no real way out of the circle, not in the way that an American (I'm avoiding comparing it with here) with responsibility and ambition can 'get out' of the cycle. The system in a monarchy is against them, all the way.
And yes, there are exceptions to that, but in the main, if you are born into that class you invariably stay in it. That is Britian's enduring problem, and it happens as a result of the tiered system. That many (particularly in the middle classes) go along with it, doesn't diminish the problem.

Absolute rubbish and the more you write the more convinced i am that you have never visited England, even.

I "got out of the cycle" as did many of my peers. The Houses of Parliament are filling all the time with people from backgrounds on the lower socio-economic scale.

The funniest thing is that I spent 9 years of my life living in London, about 5 minutes walk from Great Portland St, Portland Place, etc. In fact I lived in, and bought, one of the council houses nearby and made a substantial profit. The reason that some of the properties are 2-4m is simply because they are bigger, nicer, older and mostly face directly on to Regent's park. Sven Goran Eriksson used to own one of them, it was roughly 400m up the road from my ground floor, two storey maisonette. His was worth 3.5m as it was detached, had a large garden, 5 bedrooms and a garage. Mine was 450k because it was in a block, 2 bedrooms, small garden(unusual to have one in London so it boosted the price), on street parking.

But there was no "class system" to stop me buying Sven's house, the only barrier was finance. One of the other residents, who used to drink in the local, was a self made millionaire from Cornwall who had paid 3m for his place, and came from a "working class" as I'm sure you'd like to call it,l background.

Class is no barrier, ability is the only obstacle.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was a repeat of a doc on BBC2 last night about 'streets' in London. This one was about the history of Portland St. Look it up on the iplayer, fascinating stuff. After all the history and for various reasons what has happened is that there is an imaginary line across the street. 2 sections have houses valued at 2m to 4m and one section is council flats.
Nothing particularly unusual in that, but it is clear if you look deeper why that has happened. When you are a member of a particular social class in a monarchy you get locked into it in a generational sense. The people in the council flats have no real way out of the circle, not in the way that an American (I'm avoiding comparing it with here) with responsibility and ambition can 'get out' of the cycle. The system in a monarchy is against them, all the way.
And yes, there are exceptions to that, but in the main, if you are born into that class you invariably stay in it. That is Britian's enduring problem, and it happens as a result of the tiered system. That many (particularly in the middle classes) go along with it, doesn't diminish the problem.

so, the people with money class.....and the people without money class.....

you work, you get educated.....you are the with money class.....

you sit on your bum, you moan.....you are the without money class....

and everybody has that choice.........

that is the situation all over the world.......

i come from the slums of dublin.........and i end up with a big house.....by working on building sites.........in the uk.....

no help from any class.....same opportunity that everybody in the uk has.......

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

There was a repeat of a doc on BBC2 last night about 'streets' in London. This one was about the history of Portland St. Look it up on the iplayer, fascinating stuff. After all the history and for various reasons what has happened is that there is an imaginary line across the street. 2 sections have houses valued at 2m to 4m and one section is council flats.
Nothing particularly unusual in that, but it is clear if you look deeper why that has happened. When you are a member of a particular social class in a monarchy you get locked into it in a generational sense. The people in the council flats have no real way out of the circle, not in the way that an American (I'm avoiding comparing it with here) with responsibility and ambition can 'get out' of the cycle. The system in a monarchy is against them, all the way.
And yes, there are exceptions to that, but in the main, if you are born into that class you invariably stay in it. That is Britian's enduring problem, and it happens as a result of the tiered system. That many (particularly in the middle classes) go along with it, doesn't diminish the problem.

everyone who has their own house in the UK is part of a class system that looks down at those who live in rented accommodation,this thread has gone crazy,note;i must get out of village i am missing all of this

golden lane

this thread is full of posters......who realise their country is in the mire....and a looking to run down everywhere else ....to try and make themselves look good.....

60 million people in the uk........running around saying ...yes my lord......lol....

Happyman42

summerskin wrote: »

Absolute rubbish and the more you write the more convinced i am that you have never visited England, even.

I "got out of the cycle" as did many of my peers. The Houses of Parliament are filling all the time with people from backgrounds on the lower socio-economic scale.

The funniest thing is that I spent 9 years of my life living in London, about 5 minutes walk from Great Portland St, Portland Place, etc. In fact I lived in, and bought, one of the council houses nearby and made a substantial profit. The reason that some of the properties are 2-4m is simply because they are bigger, nicer, older and mostly face directly on to Regent's park. Sven Goran Eriksson used to own one of them, it was roughly 400m up the road from my ground floor, two storey maisonette. His was worth 3.5m as it was detached, had a large garden, 5 bedrooms and a garage. Mine was 450k because it was in a block, 2 bedrooms, small garden(unusual to have one in London so it boosted the price), on street parking.

But there was no "class system" to stop me buying Sven's house, the only barrier was finance. One of the other residents, who used to drink in the local, was a self made millionaire from Cornwall who had paid 3m for his place, and came from a "working class" as I'm sure you'd like to call it,l background.

Class is no barrier, ability is the only obstacle.

You need to watch the programme, watch what happened to these houses over the decades and listen to the people who used to live in these houses and those that live there now and try to pick up the nuances of 'class'. They where not always worth what they are now, in fact, they where worthless in financial terms, but hugely valuable in community terms, until 'gentrification'. Ever heard of that term, it's fairly unique to a monarchial system, can you imagine an American using that term about housing?
Again, I am not that interested in 'exceptions', I am more interested in why huge swathes of communities and people are locked into social immobility. Of course that is not to ignore those that are 'locked' into lifestyles based on who they happened to be born to, either.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

You need to watch the programme, watch what happened to these houses over the decades and listen to the people who used to live in these houses and those that live there now and try to pick up the nuances of 'class'. They where not always worth what they are now, in fact, they where worthless in financial terms, but hugely valuable in community terms, until 'gentrification'. Ever heard of that term, it's fairly unique to a monarchial system, can you imagine an American using that term about housing?
Again, I am not that interested in 'exceptions', I am more interested in why huge swathes of communities and people are locked into social immobility. Of course that is not to ignore those that are 'locked' into lifestyles based on who they happened to be born to, either.

you need to ignore programmes made for profit.....and see the real uk.....you are so misinformed......

all my friends from council estates have their own houses....they are called...the get up and work for a living class.....

Happyman42

golden lane wrote: »

you need to ignore programmes made for profit.....and see the real uk.....you are so misinformed......

all my friends from council estates have their own houses....they are called...the get up and work for a living class.....

You remind me of one of the contributors, displaced by gentrification and a concerted effort by officialdom to run down the area in a blatant and corrupt scheme to allow exploitation by property speculators.
But here he was, sitting in hankerchief sized 'garden' lamenting the loss of his community and speaking from a soulless suburban estate, excusing his treatment by saying, 'but I own my own house, now'. That makes it alright I suppose.
Counterpoint that with the woman living in the 4m house, who didn't know that the council properties a few hundred metres away had the same address as her until the TV crew arrived and told her, after 9 years living there??? :eek: And you tell me there isn't a gaping social divide in that society?

Happyman42

I'm flabberghasted that there are so many in denial that a problem with class exists in Britian in particular.
Even more so that there are people from Ireland willing to join in in the denial.
A quick (two clicks) of google and you have something like this study appearing. 'But, sure, it was probably undertaken by Irish republicans with a grudge'. :rolleyes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/11/britain-earnings-mobility-oecd

A father's income determines his son's to a greater extent in Britain than in any other wealthy nation, with half of a high earner's "economic advantage" being transmitted to their children, a study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has found.
Its research painted a picture of a highly stratified society in Britain where background determines a person's success to a far higher degree than in almost any other rich country. "Education is not as important for social mobility in Britain as for other countries. Class, to be honest, is the most likely explanation," said Romain Duval, head of division in the Paris-based OECD's economics department.
The study showed it is easier to climb the social ladder and earn more than one's parents in Canada than Britain. Opportunities for the poor in Britain to better themselves are harder to come by than in the United States and France. And the link between a father's background and his son's future in Britain was three times greater than that found in egalitarian Australia, Norway or Denmark.
Britons enjoyed neither equal opportunities nor equal outcomes. Income is shared out less evenly than in most rich countries – among OECD members, only Italy and America are more unequal. The study finds that social mobility between generations tends to be lower in more unequal societies and calls for redistributive tax and benefit policies.
Only France of the countries studied is as "anomalous", said the OECD, which reports on 30 rich nations.
The researchers found that in Britain people whose fathers have a university degree earn on average 62% more than the children of men whose education ended at upper-secondary level. In Europe, only in Portugal is that gap wider.
While there was little difference between the qualifications of the children of graduates and non-graduates, this did not translate into higher wages.
"Britain does not fit the normal analysis here. It is about average in terms of educational social mobility. People can attain a tertiary education but it is doing a lot worse in terms of wage mobility," Duval said. "What you see is a gap between education mobility and wage mobility."
Many experts said the findings showed that Britain was still a stratified society, in which different classes are brought up to follow different rules about how to think, talk and behave.
"I think there are two lessons here. One is the extent of hoarding of opportunities by the middle classes in Britain. These kick away the ladder for the poor," said Richard Reeves of the thinktank Demos. "The other is that we have to begin to measure the so-called soft skills of networking and communications … I think we have to understand why the middle classes put so much time and effort to teach their kids how to speak properly and look someone in the eye when they shake their hand. They know it's worth something."
The research comes as the issue of class returns to frontline debate in British politics. Reeves pointed out that the Conservatives had begun to highlight how "feminism had triumphed over egalitarianism". "I think [shadow universities spokesman] David Willetts has pointed out that women's educational achievement over the decades was basically a story of how middle class women went to university. You begin to understand how much of the opportunity has been captured by sections of society."
Duval said that in other rich nations such as Germany the solution to social mobility was much more straightforward. The route out of poverty in a "normal standard rich country" was through education. The way to make sure people can escape their background is to encourage a greater social mix in the classroom, provide high-quality education to the very young which improves the chances of academic success as the child grows, and stop segregating pupils too early on the basis of academic ability. "In Germany they start segregating at the age of 10. It really has undermined their social mobility."

summerskin

Happyman42 wrote: »

You need to watch the programme, watch what happened to these houses over the decades and listen to the people who used to live in these houses and those that live there now and try to pick up the nuances of 'class'. They where not always worth what they are now, in fact, they where worthless in financial terms, but hugely valuable in community terms, until 'gentrification'. Ever heard of that term, it's fairly unique to a monarchial system, can you imagine an American using that term about housing?
Again, I am not that interested in 'exceptions', I am more interested in why huge swathes of communities and people are locked into social immobility. Of course that is not to ignore those that are 'locked' into lifestyles based on who they happened to be born to, either.

Actually, I don't. I LIVED there, that's a bit more reliable than a tv show.

Oh, and here's an article from the Independent about your beloved "gentrification" happening here, in a republic, so definitely not "unique to a monarchial system"....

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/city-needs-to-clean-up-its-act-or-families-will-be-forced-to-leave-2480824.html

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

You remind me of one of the contributors, displaced by gentrification and a concerted effort by officialdom to run down the area in a blatant and corrupt scheme to allow exploitation by property speculators.
But here he was, sitting in hankerchief sized 'garden' lamenting the loss of his community and speaking from a soulless suburban estate, excusing his treatment by saying, 'but I own my own house, now'. That makes it alright I suppose.
Counterpoint that with the woman living in the 4m house, who didn't know that the council properties a few hundred metres away had the same address as her until the TV crew arrived and told her, after 9 years living there??? :eek: And you tell me there isn't a gaping social divide in that society?

when you wake up from your dream.....and join the sixty million diverse people living in the uk......maybe you will have something usefull to say......

your accusations against the people in the uk.....are taking one extreme against the opposite............

when i was a kid in dublin......i did not compare my conditions in a single room....to a big house in blackrock.......no..i was far too intelligent for that...

i suggest you take better examples to come to your conclusions.....

remember....60 million people in the uk.........

and stop watching crap tv programmes......you wont learn much that way....

summerskin

golden lane wrote: »

when you wake up from your dream.....and join the sixty million diverse people living in the uk......maybe you will have something usefull to say......

your accusations against the people in the uk.....are taking one extreme against the opposite............

when i was a kid in dublin......i did not compare my conditions in a single room....to a big house in blackrock.......no..i was far too intelligent for that...

i suggest you take better examples to come to your conclusions.....

remember....60 million people in the uk.........

and stop watching crap tv programmes......you wont learn much that way....

on a seperate note, is there any chance could could use a single comma or full stop in place of all the full stops you currently use? It makes your posts awkward to read, as though it's being said by William Shatner.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm flabberghasted that there are so many in denial that a problem with class exists in Britian in particular.
Even more so that there are people from Ireland willing to join in in the denial.
A quick (two clicks) of google and you have something like this study appearing. 'But, sure, it was probably undertaken by Irish republicans with a grudge'. :rolleyes:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/feb/11/britain-earnings-mobility-oecd

like a lot of those think tanks they miss the obvious if your family is on a low income you will struggle to find money to go on to further education[university ect]=less education =less money. nothing to do with class.notice under their rule of thumb,germany has a bigger class problem

Happyman42

summerskin wrote: »

Actually, I don't. I LIVED there, that's a bit more reliable than a tv show.

golden lane wrote: »

and stop watching crap tv programmes......you wont learn much that way....

...and the survey from the OECD and numerous other studies and opinions on the subject of the British class system? All rubbish because you 'own your own house' or because you 'live there'?

Beefy78

Britain has historically low social mobility. Removing the Monarchy would do nothing to change that. It would be nothing more than paying lip service to a problem.

If Britain had President Johnson or Brown as Head of State the situation would be exactly the same.

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

You need to watch the programme, watch what happened to these houses over the decades and listen to the people who used to live in these houses and those that live there now and try to pick up the nuances of 'class'. They where not always worth what they are now, in fact, they where worthless in financial terms, but hugely valuable in community terms, until 'gentrification'. Ever heard of that term, it's fairly unique to a monarchial system, can you imagine an American using that term about housing?

Actually, Social Mobility in America is pretty much level with the UK. Social Mobility is nothing to do with Republics vs Monarchies. It's far more to do with socio-economic conditions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility#Socio-economic_mobility_in_the_US

EDIT - just seen you quote the Guardian piece about intergenerational income changes in a previous post. yes Britain's score was the 'worst' for that, but America's is the second 'worst', and is only fractionally bellow Britain's level.

Denmark, a Monarchy, scores very well in that test. Much better than any Republic.

Quinzy

Happyman42 wrote: »

They where not always worth what they are now, in fact, they where worthless in financial terms, but hugely valuable in community terms, until 'gentrification'. Ever heard of that term, it's fairly unique to a monarchial system, can you imagine an American using that term about housing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwC_r3T9p3Q
I think Lupe made good use of the term.

Which is all very well when you get to squeeze into the end of the trough or get enough scraps from the table to satisfy you.
And no, the monarchy does not serve the same purpose as an elected president, because a president doesn't shore up a class system. And that is why monarchies are wrong and in particular the British version.

And are you suggesting that the existence of the class system in Britian isn't a daily problem???

Any grievances about the operations of the UK economy are issues with a market system in general. If you're born to a poor family it's still as straight forward moving up the social ladder. The existence of all this new money in the UK is testament to that.

Even if the monarch supports a class system, the most that's made of it is no different to the quasi-class systems in non monarchical governments. I am suggesting the existence of the class system is not a problem. I'm even suggesting the class system exists only in name in the UK. Wealth is so transient and social mobility is easier than it has been in a long while that an arbitrary class system begins to break down in to simply "has lots of money", "has some money" and "has little money". Which is the same system we have here in Ireland.

getz

Beefy78 wrote: »

Britain has historically low social mobility. Removing the Monarchy would do nothing to change that. It would be nothing more than paying lip service to a problem.

If Britain had President Johnson or Brown as Head of State the situation would be exactly the same.

can you imagine a president blair or bush,anyway i would miss prince philips gaffs ..[princess ann]if it doesent eat hay or fart she is not interested, cost of the royal family for every citizen is £1.50 a year,the royal family brings in £6 back in income per person. its win .win every time

summerskin

Happyman42 wrote: »

...and the survey from the OECD and numerous other studies and opinions on the subject of the British class system? All rubbish because you 'own your own house' or because you 'live there'?

Don't go taking that out of context, it was a reply to your post that i should watch the TV show about great portland st. Why would i need to watch a TV show, when i know the area, the people.... Nope, only people who know nothing of the place need watch the programme, people like you.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

...and the survey from the OECD and numerous other studies and opinions on the subject of the British class system? All rubbish because you 'own your own house' or because you 'live there'?

living here has the great advantage of seeing exactly what is going on.....

experience....is worth more than assumptions.........

in 51 years i have not come across any class barriers. nor have any of the people i know.....

i cannot speak for ireland at the present time, but when i lived there class was a major factor in irish life.i hope it is changed now.

the reason i left ireland,and i left a good job (apprenticev printer) to come to the uk when i old enough, was because of the system there.....

yes, i came to the uk because everybody was treated equal.

and many of the irish at that time, also did.

so stop adding two and two together......and coming up with five.

Beefy78

getz wrote: »

can you imagine a president blair or bush,anyway i would miss prince philips gaffs ..[princess ann]if it doesent eat hay or fart she is not interested, cost of the royal family for every citizen is £1.50 a year,the royal family brings in £6 back in income per person. its win .win every time

Agreed. Only President Boris could provide as much value as Phil.

Rascasse

getz wrote: »

cost of the royal family for every citizen is £1.50 a year

I thought if was roughly 50p. £32m per year and 60 odd million citizens.

Interestingly the President costs €4.2m per annum (2011) not including upkeep of the Áras. Plus there is the several million it costs for an election every 5 years.

Happyman42

Quinzy wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwC_r3T9p3Q
I think Lupe made good use of the term.

That others have borrowed the term to signify economic upward mobility underlines the point though. There are many in Ireland who would like to think that they come from 'de gintry'. Aping the gentry here is a by product of our colonial past.

Any grievances about the operations of the UK economy are issues with a market system in general. If you're born to a poor family it's still as straight forward moving up the social ladder. The existence of all this new money in the UK is testament to that.

Even if the monarch supports a class system, the most that's made of it is no different to the quasi-class systems in non monarchical governments. I am suggesting the existence of the class system is not a problem. I'm even suggesting the class system exists only in name in the UK. Wealth is so transient and social mobility is easier than it has been in a long while that an arbitrary class system begins to break down in to simply "has lots of money", "has some money" and "has little money". Which is the same system we have here in Ireland.

Confusing economic success with your position in the class system is nothing new. Lets go back to the lowest common denonminator of TV, wasn't that Dell-Boy's great and comic delusion? That's a comedy series written by people who 'live in' Britian, add to that all the similar scenarios and characters from British writers. All bogus???
If they can identify it, why can't others?

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

That others have borrowed the term to signify economic upward mobility underlines the point though. There are many in Ireland who would like to think that they come from 'de gintry'. Aping the gentry here is a by product of our colonial past.





Confusing economic success with your position in the class system is nothing new. Lets go back to the lowest common denonminator of TV, wasn't that Dell-Boy's great and comic delusion? That's a comedy series written by people who 'live in' Britian, add to that all the similar scenarios and characters from British writers. All bogus???
If they can identify it, why can't others?

fools and horses was fantasy TV, there is a boardie thread on soaps,they talk as if corrie and emmerdale are real,

Quinzy

So if you can be wealthy and not upper class, what does it matter exactly?

Only Fool and Horses is also about 25 years old now. Do you reckon Steptoe and Son is as on-the-ball?

Happyman42

getz wrote: »

fools and horses was fantasy TV, there is a boardie thread on soaps,they talk as if corrie and emmerdale are real,

Well, if they won't accept studies from the OECD, what's a guy to do? :rolleyes:

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, if they won't accept studies from the OECD, what's a guy to do? :rolleyes:

But the OECD study doesn't support your claims. If you look at the countries studied it's clear that whether a country is a Monarchy or if it is a Republic does not determine where it stands in the mobility rankings.

The very Guardian article that you linked to noted the progressive position of both Australia and Denmark, whereas America - the poster child of the Republican system - performs equally as badly as the UK does.

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Well, if they won't accept studies from the OECD, what's a guy to do? :rolleyes:

all i can say mate is live over here,irish are particular welcome as irish is part of the british culture ,while its hard to get a job in most countries,there are more chances in a bigger pool,and you will find your british bogeyman is like your mate next door.

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

But the OECD study doesn't support your claims. If you look at the countries studied it's clear that whether a country is a Monarchy or if it is a Republic does not determine where it stands in the mobility rankings.

The very Guardian article that you linked to noted the progressive position of both Australia and Denmark, whereas America - the poster child of the Republican system - performs equally as badly as the UK does.

Its research painted a picture of a highly stratified society in Britain where background determines a person's success to a far higher degree than in almost any other rich country.

Class, to be honest, is the most likely explanation," said Romain Duval, head of division in the Paris-based OECD's economics department.

There are other factors at play in America.

And I have not held America up as a paragon of republicanism, I merely contrasted the use of the word gentrification there.

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

There are other factors at play in America.

And I have not held America up as a paragon of republicanism, I merely contrasted the use of the word gentrification there.

But that has nothing to do with whether Britain should be a Republic or a Monarchy. If there was a link between Monarchies and low social mobility then Denmark and Australia would have low social mobility. They don't.

Replacing the Monarchy in Britain with a Presidency would do nothing to change anything in that report.

Fratton Fred

I'm amazed people are still falling for Happyman's trolling.

He's never been to Britain guys, whenever there's a thread about the UK he is ever present stating what a bad place it is, because he watched a tv programme once.

Don't feed him and he will give up.

Happyman42

Beefy78 wrote: »

But that has nothing to do with whether Britain should be a Republic or a Monarchy. If there was a link between Monarchies and low social mobility then Denmark and Australia would have low social mobility. They don't.

Replacing the Monarchy in Britain with a Presidency would do nothing to change anything in that report.

Have a read of what somebody from inside the system has to say. He actually addresses the issue of (and reasons for) some people's inability to actually 'see' a class system at work, that is so evident on this thread. Although written in 2002 it is interesting to read it in the light of the recent expressions of loyalty to the crown.

http://www.tonybenn.com/jubi.html

Happyman42

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I'm amazed people are still falling for Happyman's trolling.

He's never been to Britain guys, whenever there's a thread about the UK he is ever present stating what a bad place it is, because he watched a tv programme once.

Don't feed him and he will give up.

Excuse me?
Where have I said the UK is a 'bad place' or any worse than here or anywhere else? Or, that I have never been?
I have a point to make about the monarchy, a point made by many many British people too. Please, leave the tread alone if all you want to do is cheap flag waving, it's an interesting discussion.

Beefy78

I like Tony Benn a lot. I don't agree with his politics but I wish there were more politicians like him.

I wouldn't go to him for a balanced assessment of the Monarchy though.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

Excuse me?
Where have I said the UK is a 'bad place' or any worse than here or anywhere else? Or, that I have never been?
I have a point to make about the monarchy, a point made by many many British people too. Please, leave the tread alone if all you want to do is cheap flag waving, it's an interesting discussion.

if making assumptions is interesting, then carry on.....but you are so wrong it is laughable......

social mobility.....lol......there a lots of people in the uk, who can't even get out of bed in the morning......

the majority are living a great life, and our children/grandchildren are going to university...to better themselves....

now from one room in dublin.....to a family, all with their own property.....not bad for social mobility.....of course in am not called sir....yet....

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Have a read of what somebody from inside the system has to say. He actually addresses the issue of (and reasons for) some people's inability to actually 'see' a class system at work, that is so evident on this thread. Although written in 2002 it is interesting to read it in the light of the recent expressions of loyalty to the crown.

http://www.tonybenn.com/jubi.html

i am surprised you as a republican is in benns corner,he was a member of the labour cabinet which put troops into northern ireland in 1969 and in 1970 withdrew the de falto status of political prisoners from jailed republican and loyalist prisoners .

getz

Happyman42 wrote: »

Excuse me?
Where have I said the UK is a 'bad place' or any worse than here or anywhere else? Or, that I have never been?
I have a point to make about the monarchy, a point made by many many British people too. Please, leave the tread alone if all you want to do is cheap flag waving, it's an interesting discussion.

one of the strange surveys to come out recently was the one that asked people if the queen should be head of the church of england,80% said yes,when you consider only 46% of the population are C of E,the mind boggles

golden lane

i watched a programme about drugs in dublin......horrendeous for people concerned.....
but thank god i am intelligent enough to know that it only affects some people in dublin........not the whole population as the programme suggested......

Rascasse

getz wrote: »

i am surprised you as a republican is in benns corner,he was a member of the labour cabinet which put troops into northern ireland in 1969 and in 1970 withdrew the de falto status of political prisoners from jailed republican and loyalist prisoners .

He is always held up as a leading light by the far left.

Born into a wealthy, titled, political class family. Educated at Westminster and Oxford. Millionaire, privy councillor. The archetypal champagne socialist.

ColeTrain

The first kings were gangsters.

Every monarchy should be abolished out of principle. If they are indeed descended from God then he can look after them when they're begging on the streets.