The English Monarchy

golden lane

Rascasse wrote: »

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.

poor man.....i bet he couldn't go to a building site in london....and earn loadsa money.......

Happyman42

Alright, I'm going to bow out (excuse the royal pun)
If nobody wants to engage on the basis of thoughtful and academic analysis, then I'm out. As I said, the fact that people own their own houses, doesn't really cut it as a counter argument. Nor does the, 'you don't live here, what would you know' one either. And the argument that Benn's opinion is not admissable because 'I'm' a republican is frankly, sad and a little desperate.

indioblack

Happyman42 wrote: »

Alright, I'm going to bow out (excuse the royal pun)
If nobody wants to engage on the basis of thoughtful and academic analysis, then I'm out. As I said, the fact that people own their own houses, doesn't really cut it as a counter argument. Nor does the, 'you don't live here, what would you know' one either. And the argument that Benn's opinion is not admissable because 'I'm' a republican is frankly, sad and a little desperate.

I think they just found his opinion a bit rich, (!), coming from him.

vixdname

Skid wrote: »

All Welsh and Scottish Boardsies logged off in anger at this point.

If you say so:rolleyes:

Nodin

Fratton Fred wrote: »

......

Don't feed him and he will give up.

We said the same about you. Yet here we are....

Fratton Fred

Nodin wrote: »

We said the same about you. Yet here we are....

Nodin in "getting a dig in" shocker!

golden lane

i am rapidly coming to the conclusion.....that the green on the republic's flag, represents something else......

Happyman42

Yamanoto wrote: »

Ya wha gay?

The US Federal CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) has issued a report titled 'Health Effects of Gentrification'
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/hea...rification.htm

The Washington based think-tank, the Brookings Institution, released the paper 'Dealing with Neighbourhood Change: 'A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Issues'
http://www.brookings.edu/research/re...opolitanpolicy

In 2003, PBS broadcast a documentary 'What is Gentrification?' detailing what happened to the Olde Towne East community in Columbus, Ohio, when the neighborhood went through the process of gentrification in the mid-to-late 1990s.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/spec...rification.php

The NY Times have provided coverage of the profound demographic shift and ensuing gentrification of Harlem over a period of a decade or more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/ny...pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/ny...13journal.html

Point of Order: The word was coined to descibe the changes in BRITISH urban areas (eg, Portland St,) I was describing.
It may have been adopted by others but would not be in common parlance, in any colloquial sense, certainly not in America, as they don't have a Gentry.

Edit: I see you thought better of it.

Yamanoto

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?

What on earth are you on about?

The term itself is widely in use in the English-speaking world, regardless of any given State's constitutional arrangements.

The US Federal CDC (Center for Disease Control and Prevention) has issued a report titled 'Health Effects of Gentrification'
http://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/gentrification.htm

The Washington based think-tank, the Brookings Institution, released the paper 'Dealing with Neighbourhood Change: 'A Primer on Gentrification and Policy Issues'
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2001/04/metropolitanpolicy

In 2003, PBS broadcast a documentary 'What is Gentrification?' detailing what happened to the Olde Towne East community in Columbus, Ohio, when the neighborhood went through the process of gentrification in the mid-to-late 1990s.
http://www.pbs.org/pov/flagwars/special_gentrification.php

The NY Times have provided coverage of the profound demographic shift and ensuing gentrification of Harlem over a period of a decade or more.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/nyregion/06harlem.html?pagewanted=all
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/nyregion/13journal.html

Happyman42

Yamanoto wrote: »

What on earth are you on about?

The term itself is widely in use in the English-speaking world, regardless of any given State's constitutional arrangements.

As I said before you deleted your post, it may well be in use but it was orginally coined to define a British situation, where the wealthy or 'gentle' classes displaced the poor.

christmas2012

a lot of people in the uk are sick of the monarchy being a strain on the tax payer and would rather see them non existant..

Quinzy

That's an etymological fallacy. It doesn't matter if they don't have a history of gentry.
It's not like the word is in common parlance in England either to be fair.

golden lane

christmas2012 wrote: »

a lot of people in the uk are sick of the monarchy being a strain on the tax payer and would rather see them non existant..

60 million people in the uk.......just how many would you think would even be interested in the subject......

as a strain on the tax payer......thats just a leftist whim.......get real., for gods sake....

Quinzy

christmas2012 wrote: »

a lot of people in the uk are sick of the monarchy being a strain on the tax payer and would rather see them non existant..

40,000,000 people beg to differ.

Boombastic

ejmaztec wrote: »

No,they don't have to be that close together

Any idea of what head measurement would be required for the role?





As for the UK ones, they're grand, I'd go out and see them if they were passing the door, but I wouldn't be getting the bus in to town.

golden lane

Quinzy wrote: »

40,000,000 people beg to differ.

you could only get that many to vote....on an eu referendum....to get out..

Happyman42

Quinzy wrote: »

That's an etymological fallacy.

:rolleyes:

In 1964 the British sociologist Ruth Glass coined the term "gentrification" to denote the influx of middle-class people to cities and neighbourhoods, displacing the lower-class worker residents; the example was London, and its working-class districts such as Islington:[11][12]

Next week's lesson: How the Vacumn Cleaner came to be called the hoover. :rolleyes:

Quinzy

So what the hell is your point?
Either the fact that it originated in Britain matters or it doesn't.
If it matters, then why? Given the identical influx was or is happening outside of Britain.
If it doesn't matter, then why are you pushing the point that it's a term that originated in Britain?

All I'm saying is gentrification once was used to refer to a phenomenon happening in Britain, and this phenomenon is happening outside of the UK too. So why limit the term to just Britain, and why attribute the phenomenon to a monarchy? Especially a monarchy that operates constitutionally with an elected parliament.

Jimoslimos

Quinzy wrote: »

40,000,000 people beg to differ.

When was this vote taken? I seem to have missed it.

_Gawd_

I've no problem with the British Monarchy per se....

What I do have a problem with is why all the plebs queue up in their droves to watch a family they made multi-billionaires because they managed to convince their ignorant braindead ancestors they were superior because god said so....

I couldn't really care less about British and Irish past relations - my argument comes from the fact that I think Britain should be a Republic. The Royal family are for all intents and purposes the greatest trolls and con artists of our time.

Happyman42

Quinzy wrote: »

So what the hell is your point?
Either the fact that it originated in Britain matters or it doesn't.
If it matters, then why? Given the identical influx was or is happening outside of Britain.
If it doesn't matter, then why are you pushing the point that it's a term that originated in Britain?

All I'm saying is gentrification once was used to refer to a phenomenon happening in Britain, and this phenomenon is happening outside of the UK too. So why limit the term to just Britain, and why attribute the phenomenon to a monarchy? Especially a monarchy that operates constitutionally with an elected parliament.

I didn't question it's origins. And I'm done with the debate tbh, I can't answer posters who say things like 'I own my own house', '40, 000,000 voters can't be wrong' or 'you don't live there, how would you know'.

I presented studies, thought out ideologies and this ^ ^ is all I got back. I'm out of this one.

Ellis Dee

Since its 4 July, let's hear it from the Americans (and congratulations on this special day). They have their shortcomings and failings, as I have been known on occasion to point out, but they also knew how to deal with English royalty: they kicked them out of their country. Crowd of parasites the lot of them!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yamanoto

Happyman42 wrote: »

The word was coined to descibe the changes in BRITISH urban areas (eg, Portland St,) I was describing.

Portland Road.

On the basis that it was coined by a BRITISH sociologist, observing the modern phenomena IN BRITAIN, that comes as no surprise.

Happyman42 wrote: »

It may have been adopted by others but would not be in common parlance, in any colloquial sense, certainly not in America, as they don't have a Gentry

As if the lack of an exact societal parallel between the UK / US somehow precludes a word from being transposed into the other's vernacular.

Bizarre statement.

Happyman42

Yamanoto wrote: »

Portland Road.

On the basis that it was coined by a BRITISH sociologist, observing the modern phenomena IN BRITAIN, that comes as no surprise.



As if the lack of an exact societal parallel between the UK / US somehow precludes a word from being transposed into the other's vernacular.

Bizarre statement.

Bizarre pedantry. The point I was making had nothing to do with transposition of words. I suggest you stop getting your vernaculars in a twist about it. :rolleyes:

Yamanoto

Happyman42 wrote: »

Bizarre pedantry.

Says Mr 'Point of Order'

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

Bizarre pedantry. The point I was making had nothing to do with transposition of words. I suggest you stop getting your vernaculars in a twist about it. :rolleyes:

you are seeing a non existant problem............on the basis of a television programme.......if there was a problem in the uk....me and my friends and my family would notice it........

ignore the loony left.....they just hat everybody who has done well for themselves......

go and find an arguement where one exists........

60 million people in the uk.......most are happy.......they don't need you interfering......sort your own problems out.......thank you...

Beefy78

Happyman42 wrote: »

I didn't question it's origins. And I'm done with the debate tbh, I can't answer posters who say things like 'I own my own house', '40, 000,000 voters can't be wrong' or 'you don't live there, how would you know'.

I presented studies, thought out ideologies and this ^ ^ is all I got back. I'm out of this one.

You presented studies but none which dealt with the point of this thread, which was the Monarchy.

Unless you can find a study which shows a clear link between Monarchical systems and gentrification/social mobility....?

Fratton Fred

Happyman needs to take a stroll over to D26, I mean D6w

vixdname

mattjack wrote: »

Quiet tonight isn't it. ?

Didnt stay quiet for very long did it ? Smart ass

getz

_Gawd_ wrote: »

I've no problem with the British Monarchy per se....

What I do have a problem with is why all the plebs queue up in their droves to watch a family they made multi-billionaires because they managed to convince their ignorant braindead ancestors they were superior because god said so....

I couldn't really care less about British and Irish past relations - my argument comes from the fact that I think Britain should be a Republic. The Royal family are for all intents and purposes the greatest trolls and con artists of our time.

it was once a republic,it did not work, or have you already forgot about olivers army

philologos

vixdname wrote: »

I just saw on the ticker tape on Skynews tonight that in the last financial year the upkeep of the monarchy has cost the british taxpayer £32.2 million sterling.

With the UK, like ourselves going through its worst financial storm since ww2 is it really worth spending this kind of money on a family that can well afford to support themselves ?

I'd be interested to hear from any english boardsies and of course any irish ones aswell if you have an opinion on this.

£32.2 million is a drop in the ocean for the British economy.

Secondly, I'd hazard a guess to say that the royal family probably bring much more money into Britain in the end.

I'm actually not really all that interested in monarchies at all. However, it's up to the British people to decide what they want. I think in a sense the royal family does add something to British culture. If one looks back to the Jubilee weekend recently, it did a lot of good I think.

getz

philologos wrote: »

£32.2 million is a drop in the ocean for the British economy.

Secondly, I'd hazard a guess to say that the royal family probably bring much more money into Britain in the end.

I'm actually not really all that interested in monarchies at all. However, it's up to the British people to decide what they want. I think in a sense the royal family does add something to British culture. If one looks back to the Jubilee weekend recently, it did a lot of good I think.

as said in a earler post,the queen brings back into the country five times as much as it costs in keeping a royal family,on top of that, she is head of a commonwealth that trades with each other,the members enjoy up to a 50% trade advantage,without a royal family i would doubt that most of the 54 countries who are now members would still be in it,she is the common link

robroy1234

Getz - that is totally untrue. The supposed amount as quoted is false, the real cost to the British economy is far far greater. Royal protection officers and policing is drawn from various police budgets, the military guards, titles, honours, positions (colonel-in-chief to all regiments held by royals) come from MOD budget and in excess of 250 million pounds per year. The British government is giving back all the crown estates to the estimated cost to the exchequer of 300 million pounds per year. Also excluded are private holdings, property and bank accounts held abroad, and the charities such as the Prince's Trust which act as personal accounts for Prince Charles to play with - he has paid his polo fees, land and property deals, and funded his failed homeopathy and alternative medicine company by dipping into the Prince's Trust funds. The cost of wedding and jubilee also took a massive toll on the British economy. It is a complete myth that the royals bring in tourism considering if that was true then they wouldn't need tax payers money to fund them and their excessive lifestyle.
However, it is the British own fault to the degree of financial difficulty it faces, despite the triple dip recession the Brits still live beyond their means by excessively funding the no good royals.

mike65

Thanks for that fair and balanced insight Rob Roy!

robroy1234

Well Mike - what else would you expect from an old republican who sees no value at all in pomp and circumstance as well as excessive spending on a group of people who do absolutely nothing. But, I am extremely thankful to be living in a republic and not have to put up with the hypocrisy that the Brits have to suffer. I mean Prince Charles continued political lobbying through his "charities and trusts" and "sicknote Prince Harry Hewitt" bravely running and hiding against the taliban. Prince Edward's pick and mix military uniform and medal collection. And, the queen applying for winter fuel allowances for all the palaces and getting an extra 5 million pounds etc., ah list goes on and on., so three cheers to our forebears who kicked the Brits out....

DEFTLEFTHAND

The paddies always denounce the royal family. They've a fierce inferiority complex towards Britain. They don't realise that the British civilised them and gave them a legal and class structure.

They won their freedom but the rest of the world still considers them as being part of the UK, so the complex persists.

robroy1234

Not at all...no inferiority complex here - it is more that the Brits have an inferiority complex due to their need to have royalty etc., and the Brits main export during the empire was violence and repression. Look at the Brits now and their view of law and being civilized, they are trying to get rid of Health and Safety and Human Rights, and how is it civilized to rob the working people of Britain with stinging cuts yet at the same give generously to the royals?

Wibbs

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

They don't realise that the British civilised them and gave them a legal and class structure.

Muhahahahhahahhahaha *breathe* hahahhahahahhahahahah. Oh man I needed a laugh this morning. Thanks. And why in god's name would a class structure be a good thing, especially one based on the British model? It's bad enough for them and has been beyond bad for the majority of ordinary British people for centuries.

wolfpawnat

ejmaztec wrote: »

The word "pedigree" appears to be missing from this post.:P

I think you meant extensive inbreeding;)

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

The paddies always denounce the royal family. They've a fierce inferiority complex towards Britain. They don't realise that the British civilised them and gave them a legal and class structure.

They won their freedom but the rest of the world still considers them as being part of the UK, so the complex persists.

Woohoo, the Brit's are the ones to give Irish people notions and for us to get the idea that we should look down on one another! Wow, 800 years of control and an superiority complex, we'd have never got on without them!!!! :pac:

On a serious note, what the Brits do with their tax pounds is their own business. But I would think that family has enough money to get by and they are capable of earning more since to go into one of their castles in £25 a pop in some cases (and yes they pay tax paid on that), so maybe, like us, they should get their priorities straight and look after the needy and not posh people and their houses of hoity toity government.

Wibbs

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I think you meant extensive inbreeding;)

To a scary degree, though the younger ones are looking beyond (already very closely related)first cousins which makes a nice change.

robroy1234

Wibbs and Wolf - bang on there. The Brits are living beyond their means with the upkeep of the royals and especially in this day and age when such notions of royalty is a peculiar anachronism. Maybe the British stop punishing the working people and really deal with their upper class loafers who are a real drain on their economy. But, thankfully its their problem and not ours. We have to deal with our own corrupt politicians and bankers and not have to deal with the extra burden of having royals...

robroy1234

To a scary degree, though the younger ones are looking beyond (already very closely related)first cousins which makes a nice change.

Ah come on Wibbs - the Brits need to have inbred royals with their lack of intelligence and Hapsburg Lip just for purely entertainment purposes....

DEFTLEFTHAND

Wibbs wrote: »

Muhahahahhahahhahaha *breathe* hahahhahahahhahahahah. Oh man I needed a laugh this morning. Thanks. And why in god's name would a class structure be a good thing, especially one based on the British model? It's bad enough for them and has been beyond bad for the majority of ordinary British people for centuries.

We aren't all born equal, a class structure is vital for any society as long as no restrictions are put on bettering one's self. The lower orders bitch and moan because they never sought a better life.

wolfpawnat

Wibbs wrote: »

To a scary degree, though the younger ones are looking beyond (already very closely related)first cousins which makes a nice change.

Sure isn't that the thing, Diana and Charles were actually related. I think Williams wife isn't and that's going to mean their kid will be the first non-inbred monarch in centuries!

DEFTLEFTHAND

wolfpawnat wrote: »

I think you meant extensive inbreeding;)



Woohoo, the Brit's are the ones to give Irish people notions and for us to get the idea that we should look down on one another! Wow, 800 years of control and an superiority complex, we'd have never got on without them!!!! :pac:

On a serious note, what the Brits do with their tax pounds is their own business. But I would think that family has enough money to get by and they are capable of earning more since to go into one of their castles in £25 a pop in some cases (and yes they pay tax paid on that), so maybe, like us, they should get their priorities straight and look after the needy and not posh people and their houses of hoity toity government.

Why don't you drop the Brit's slang and refer to them as the British or Britons. I'll lose the paddy term then. We can speak like adults.

wolfpawnat

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Why don't you drop the Brit's slang and refer to them as the British or Britons. I'll lose the paddy term then. We can speak like adults.

You said Paddy first

We had an amazingly advanced society long before Anglo invasion. We had created things as amazing as Newgrange, we had high-kings and we had monasteries and a social hierarchy. We didn't need them for that. We had laws dating back centuries before they arrived indicating a civilized and structured society and we we had ways of displaying wealth via cattle, homesteads and finery like the Ardagh Chalice and the beautiful Torc neckware clearly visible in our Nation History Museum far predating English settlement.

wolfpawnat

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

We aren't all born equal, a class structure is vital for any society as long as no restrictions are put on bettering one's self. The lower orders bitch and moan because they never sought a better life.

..........they never sought? Until Socialist structures came in such as free education and basic free healthcare, they were NOT ALLOWED above their menial stations. Even today it is clear, people in Medical professions who do not have a daddy or uncle in them before them are looked down upon by their "peers"

Clareboy

The English people love their Royal Family which represents over a thousand years of noble kingship and all the history and tradition that goes with it. The English monarchy unites the nation in a way that politicians never could. Public life and events in Britain and other countries that have monarchies are much more colorful and ceremonial as a result.

All we have to look at in this country at public events are rows of men in drab suits, and they are costing us Irish a fortune as well!

robroy1234

Well Deft - We are all equal in terms of Human Rights, Equality, and all the benefits of a free democratic, egalitarian society. The right to free and proper healthcare and education means that a lowly, culchie like me can work and earn a PhD., whereas the Prince's require teachers to cheat for them and they are given degrees and military ranks without earning them. The class system only benefits those at the top and no one else, and only pathetic sycophants who are deluded that they can "rise beyond their status".
Besides that we are all equal in terms that we will all kick the bucket., however when its my time to spring off this mortal coil at least I won't cost the taxpayers a cent, which I am sure everyone will be grateful for, however when queeny lizzy pops her clogs then the taxpayers have to foot the bill, and we all know the terrible cost the jubilee and the wedding was to the economy.

robroy1234

Well at least Clare those "men and women" in drab suits as well as Michael D Higgins are voted in (in some cases) and not there by accident of birth....and again at least we don't have to brown nose in the most pathetic sycophantic way to a load of snobs who require valets to put toothpaste on their tooth brushes...