When one irrelevance defends another....

[anotherbob]

Here is the jubilee girl obeying orders......

[ahinton]

out of touch with what, exactly? life for the privileged elites?

I think that out of touch with reality was what was meant -a nd what you write suggests either this, or a preference to change the subject (to the evident plight of many other 85-year-old women of your acquaintance, for example), or perhaps even both.

Perhaps I am just too dim to be able to figure out how tough life is for the royals.

I neither know nor care, frankly; what you do seem to be, however, is too entrenched and agenda driven to do much other than imply that the royals are complaining about their lot whereas, in reality, I've never heard any of them doing anything of the kind.

Oh, and I have spent a spell as a civil servant, and it wasn't the hard work that made me quit !!

But, again, what does this fact have to do with the subject at hand?

When I see the royals having to give sell their only posession of any worth after a lifetime of work, so that they can fade away quietly in a care home, then I will discuss how hard life is for them.

I presume that the word "give" is present in the above sentence by accident, but that's not the point, which is that, whilst it is always an unpleasant spectacle when anyone has to do this, it has no more to do with the royals who won't have to do it than it has to do with anyone else of sufficient means to enable them to avoid doing it - so you're wandering off the subject yet again!

John , if we are discusssing "out of touch" ,some people might suggest that you are out of touch with the way that most people have to work to make a living. But I won't suggest that, because maybe you aren't.

Well, you don't have any more direct knowledge of the extent of John's understanding of that than you have of the detailed working hours of each of the royals, so it's perhaps just as well that you refrain from suggesting any such thing, even though, as you know well, you are in fact doing so merely by mention of it in the first place! Very unsubtle, that...

[Serial_Apologist]

Here is the jubilee girl obeying orders......

Waving not drowning

[teamsaint]

I think that out of touch with reality was what was meant -a nd what you write suggests either this, or a preference to change the subject (to the evident plight of many other 85-year-old women of your acquaintance, for example), or perhaps even both.


I neither know nor care, frankly; what you do seem to be, however, is too entrenched and agenda driven to do much other than imply that the royals are complaining about their lot whereas, in reality, I've never heard any of them doing anything of the kind.


But, again, what does this fact have to do with the subject at hand?


I presume that the word "give" is present in the above sentence by accident, but that's not the point, which is that, whilst it is always an unpleasant spectacle when anyone has to do this, it has no more to do with the royals who won't have to do it than it has to do with anyone else of sufficient means to enable them to avoid doing it - so you're wandering off the subject yet again!


Well, you don't have any more direct knowledge of the extent of John's understanding of that than you have of the detailed working hours of each of the royals, so it's perhaps just as well that you refrain from suggesting any such thing, even though, as you know well, you are in fact doing so merely by mention of it in the first place! Very unsubtle, that...

Damn.........you win. Just too good for me.
I now see, the royals are hard working and they are doing us a big favour by taking on all that wealth and privilege.

Thank goodness for all the help I have had on here, and its saved me the price of a copy of the mail.

(PS, what is agenda driven? does that mean actually believing in something ?)

[ahinton]

My suggestions of a working day was a bit of fun.(but I don't suppose its that far from the truth). I would have thought that was obvious.

Much of what you write is all too obvious and this was no exception but, whilst it may have been "a bit of fun" to you, it was as pointless as it was harmless.

If you are happy being a subject, and allowing hereditary wealth and privilege to continue unabated, then that is your choice.

It would indeed be so if that's how I felt (although what I'd then be supposed to feel after Scotland separates from the remainder of the UK I cannot say with certainty) but, as I've never been made to feel like a "subject" while living in Britain, the thought doesn't really occur to me. That said, your reference to "hereditary wealth and privilege" here is not, as I'm sure you realise, confined to the royal family; on the contrary, it's not even confined to the fabulously wealthy, either, as anyone who has done some inheritance tax planning for the benefit of younger generations in their family knows well (or at least should!). It's all relative, of course, but in principle it's identical except for the fact that the Queen's personal Estate is not subject to inheritance tax (and, since she agreed some years ago to be subject to income tax, there is a reasonable argument that it ought perhaps to be so and that, were the Queen to agree that her assets during her lifetime and her private Estate following her death to be made subject to the same taxes as apply to the rest of us, those who moan about her wealth might moan a little less about it).

One point I will bother to reply to, the point about 85 year olds is indeed relevant. The royal 85 year olds do not have to put up with what much of the rest of the population put up with. They enjoy the best of everything, including, not coincidentally, very good health. People who work really hard through their lives, (the sorts of jobs I mentioned,) are often physically worn out at 85, and these days at the mercy of harsh economic conditions.That is the relevance.

That's by no means the immutable and exceptionless truth as which you seek to portray it; as I mentioned above, there are women of the Queen's age who are in decent shape healthwise and comfortably off, whether or not they have worked at all, let alone hard, during their lives, although not many of them are still working - so it's not just the royals who are in a position to exempt themselves from the kinds of plight that affect the poorer members of society in their advanced age.

[Lateralthinking1]

Radio 3 Management.

Prefer to hear more or less of a sense of obedience in them to the licence paying public?

Could you live with it if that obedience wasn't direct exactly but still delivered the goods via a "higher power"?

In fact, would the indirect route be less awkward and therefore preferable?

My answers are more, yes and yes.

[scottycelt]

I think the whole
"they work hard for us" script is largely "received wisdom"
it's part of the "script" that we are all supposed to go along with
other parts of the same narrative are

"all soldiers are heroes"
"petrol is expensive"
"we all are fascinated by football"
"young people are rude and self centred"
"all disabled people on benefits are fraudsters"
"we have an epidemic of alcohol problems that is confined to the lower classes"
"rain is bad, sun is good"
"the alternative to the Royal Family is president Blair"




etc etc

fiction is a powerful thing indeed

Most of these are certainly familiar, though I've never been particularly aware of your 'football' and 'disabled' examples ...

There also used to be All Nurses Are Angels which mercifully (not least to nurses themselves) seems to have slipped from press vocabulary in recent months, and, of course, the much-loved and perennial It's All Europe's Fault.

Still, we even get the same sort of powerful fiction from learned members on this forum, don't we? ... like ... All Religion Is Bad.

[anotherbob]

Thank goodness for all the help I have had on here, and its saved me the price of a copy of the mail.

(PS, what is agenda driven? does that mean actually believing in something ?)

[eighthobstruction]

Scrivenors at work again....

[ahinton]

I now see, the royals are hard working and they are doing us a big favour by taking on all that wealth and privilege.

Some of them work considerably harder than others - and I said nothing about them doing anyone a favour by "taking on all that wealth and privilege", which is just as well since they already had it! Do you exhibit as much - and/or the same - kind and level of resentment towards others who are extremely wealthy but who are not members of the royal family, or do you reserve your negative sentiments for the royals alone?

Thank goodness for all the help I have had on here, and its saved me the price of a copy of the mail.

If by that you mean the ghastly rag known as the Daily Mail, you wouldn't need to be "saved" the cost of a copy if you had the eminent good sense not even to have considered purchasing one in the first place!

(PS, what is agenda driven? does that mean actually believing in something ?)

In the context in which I used the term, it meant "believing in" the apparent wisdom of trying to change the subject into something that you'd rather discuss than the topic at hand; I would have thought that this was obvious and I daresay that it is to some others here.

[teamsaint]

Much of what you write is all too obvious and this was no exception but, whilst it may have been "a bit of fun" to you, it was as pointless as it was harmless.


It would indeed be so if that's how I felt (although what I'd then be supposed to feel after Scotland separates from the remainder of the UK I cannot say with certainty) but, as I've never been made to feel like a "subject" while living in Britain, the thought doesn't really occur to me. That said, your reference to "hereditary wealth and privilege" here is not, as I'm sure you realise, confined to the royal family; on the contrary, it's not even confined to the fabulously wealthy, either, as anyone who has done some inheritance tax planning for the benefit of younger generations in their family knows well (or at least should!). It's all relative, of course, but in principle it's identical except for the fact that the Queen's personal Estate is not subject to inheritance tax (and, since she agreed some years ago to be subject to income tax, there is a reasonable argument that it ought perhaps to be so and that, were the Queen to agree that her assets during her lifetime and her private Estate following her death to be made subject to the same taxes as apply to the rest of us, those who moan about her wealth might moan a little less about it).


That's by no means the immutable and exceptionless truth as which you seek to portray it; as I mentioned above, there are women of the Queen's age who are in decent shape healthwise and comfortably off, whether or not they have worked at all, let alone hard, during their lives, although not many of them are still working - so it's not just the royals who are in a position to exempt themselves from the kinds of plight that affect the poorer members of society in their advanced age.

I'm really sorry, AH, but you pull out the bits you want to, and ignore what you don't, and also make suppositions that my posts don't justify.
One example. The fact that some non royal 85 year olds enjoy good incomes and wealth does not diminish the fact either A) that the royals do very well on the best of everything or B), that lots of 85 year olds are indeed physically and financially exhausted by hard working lives.
And I am well able to figure out that wealth power, and inherited privilege are not confined to the Royals. But their existence , in my opinion, serves as a justification for far too much inherited privilege.
As regards the monarchy's financial position, they may have done deals on tax etc.....but they do OK, and I know for a fact(actual personal knowledge and experience) that they hava a habit of making their own rules up. Not opinion, this, but to my certain knowledge, from my working and personal life.

[teamsaint]

Some of them work considerably harder than others - and I said nothing about them doing anyone a favour by "taking on all that wealth and privilege", which is just as well since they already had it! Do you exhibit as much - and/or the same - kind and level of resentment towards others who are extremely wealthy but who are not members of the royal family, or do you reserve your negative sentiments for the royals alone?


If by that you mean the ghastly rag known as the Daily Mail, you wouldn't need to be "saved" the cost of a copy if you had the eminent good sense not even to have considered purchasing one in the first place!


In the context in which I used the term, it meant "believing in" the apparent wisdom of trying to change the subject into something that you'd rather discuss than the topic at hand; I would have thought that this was obvious and I daresay that it is to some others here.

As a piece of information, I make it a policy NEVER to resent anybody their good fortune, as I consider it, for me, unhealthy.

I do however, see people in a more favourable light if the acknowledge their good fortune. (EG I was lucky to be born a royal/brilliant footballer/great songwriter etc etc). also I have respect for people who make the best of what they have , in terms of hard work, or who make the best of their position.

[ahinton]

I'm really sorry, AH, but you pull out the bits you want to, and ignore what you don't

The only "bits" that I "pull out" here are yours, since my recent posts have been direct responses to points that you have sought to make!

and also make suppositions that my posts don't justify.
One example. The fact that some non royal 85 year olds enjoy good incomes and wealth does not diminish the fact either A) that the royals do very well on the best of everything or B), that lots of 85 year olds are indeed physically and financially exhausted by hard working lives.

Of course that is true, but where did I suggest that either A) or B) were/are not the case?!

And I am well able to figure out that wealth power, and inherited privilege are not confined to the Royals. But their existence, in my opinion, serves as a justification for far too much inherited privilege.

You're welcome to that opinion, of course, but on what gronds do you hold it and who do you see as doing the justifying? Do you really believe that, were the British monarchy to be abolished or resign, the general public attitudes to - or the continued existence of - inherited wealth (and the privileges that go with it) would be any different? If so, why are they not already different in reasonably well off republics?

As regards the monarchy's financial position, they may have done deals on tax etc

Not to my knowledge, they haven't (although I do not pretend to be an expert on that particular subject); the Queen herself, who was exempt from income tax, agreed to become subject to it but that's the only tax change of which I'm aware within the royal family.

but they do OK

Indeed - but is there anything inherently wrong with that and, if so, is it any different for royals than it is for other wealthy people, in your view?

and I know for a fact (actual personal knowledge and experience) that they hava a habit of making their own rules up. Not opinion, this, but to my certain knowledge, from my working and personal life.

Without examples, it's impossible to know what you mean here; "rules" about what, for instance? - and how and in what particular ways might the making up of such rules affect others? I'm not arguing with you about this - just asking for some explanation.

[teamsaint]

Here is the jubilee girl obeying orders......

Cheers AB. it sure is tough at the top !!
The world would be a better place if we all waved a bit more, and bickered on internet forums a bit less.

[ahinton]

As a piece of information, I make it a policy NEVER to resent anybody their good fortune, as I consider it, for me, unhealthy.

Good!

I do however, see people in a more favourable light if the acknowledge their good fortune.

But how are they to do this? Should they all do it in the same way? How much of a fortune should anyone have before they become socially obliged to advertise it? Wouldn't too much acknowledgement of good fortune on the part of those who enjoy it risk making some of those who don;t feel even worse? Do you have an in-principle objection to people keeping details of their wealth private? and, if so, above what income and fixed asset thresholds might you deem that either or both should be publicly acknowledged?

(EG I was lucky to be born a royal/brilliant footballer/great songwriter etc etc)

If you were born a royal, you would indeed be "lucky" if you saw it as a fortune of birth; no one is "born" a "brilliant footballer" or a "great songwriter" - they only become these during life if and when they do so and, in any case, by no means all "brilliant footballers" or "great songwriters" make fortunes from their professional activities!

also I have respect for people who make the best of what they have, in terms of hard work, or who make the best of their position.

Fine!