God Save the Queen!
07 February 2012, 03:15 PM
#91
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 February 2012, 07:11 PM
#93
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see why republicans wish to see the monarchy remove so much. They don't wield any power, and despite the repeated cries of "would you rather be a subject or a citizen", can any republican actually cite any practical difference that this would make to their everyday lives?
'If' they wield no power then why would anyone on the world pay $500,000 simply to meet Prince Andrew, a royal so distant from the seat of power as to be on a different continent? Just think how much we could make for audiences with the Queen!
'If' they wield no power then how can a £2bn property development in London be canned because of a single, short letter written by Prince Charles?
The problem to me is that the prominent role is anachronistic. The people think the royals wield no power and yet they wield enormous power that is both undemocratic and opaque. There is no control, check or recourse when royal power is used.
I completely get the heritage and the history and the tourist attraction - the money argument is really a proxy (although one oddly espoused more by royalists to justify the good value!!!).
What I feel more comfortable with is democracy and meritocracy. Neither of which fit exactly with monarchy.
07 February 2012, 07:26 PM
#94
Scooby Regular
Trout - How would you feel if the nation democratically decided to take your Porsche away? Would you be happy with that decision? Is exercising that kind of 'power' fair in your opinion, or more morally just than, say, the Queen deciding you are allowed to keep it (overruling popular opinion in the process)? Serious question. I'm keen to understand your views.
07 February 2012, 07:36 PM
#95
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bourgeois family/alliance model copied the older noble one. One passes down money/capital, the other land/title.
From a meritocratic POV neither are justifiable.
07 February 2012, 07:42 PM
#96
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FYI I think Charles should no have got involved but it was not him that stopped the development.
07 February 2012, 07:50 PM
#97
Scooby Regular
Anyone who is against the Queen and moreso against the traditions of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should be shot on sight 8 times.
You card carrying commies make me want to vomit.
You card carrying commies make me want to vomit.
07 February 2012, 07:55 PM
#98
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony - why is it that you think Charles did not stop the development?
He wrote to the Qatari royal family suggesting that they reconsider. Of course, not to offend the future King they complied.
In what what is that not an opaque execution of power? There was no democratic oversight, his only qualification is that he likes nostalgic architecture, he is not a planner, he is not an architect.
It was also opaque as when it was revealed that this had happened there was an immediate 'cover up' and various emails deleted!!
He wrote to the Qatari royal family suggesting that they reconsider. Of course, not to offend the future King they complied.
In what what is that not an opaque execution of power? There was no democratic oversight, his only qualification is that he likes nostalgic architecture, he is not a planner, he is not an architect.
It was also opaque as when it was revealed that this had happened there was an immediate 'cover up' and various emails deleted!!
07 February 2012, 07:58 PM
#100
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trout - How would you feel if the nation democratically decided to take your Porsche away? Would you be happy with that decision? Is exercising that kind of 'power' fair in your opinion, or more morally just than, say, the Queen deciding you are allowed to keep it (overruling popular opinion in the process)? Serious question. I'm keen to understand your views.
This is a bit like saying the Queen can be good because she can rule that all children get free ice cream at break time.
07 February 2012, 08:00 PM
#101
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tony - why is it that you think Charles did not stop the development?
He wrote to the Qatari royal family suggesting that they reconsider. Of course, not to offend the future King they complied.
In what what is that not an opaque execution of power? There was no democratic oversight, his only qualification is that he likes nostalgic architecture, he is not a planner, he is not an architect.
It was also opaque as when it was revealed that this had happened there was an immediate 'cover up' and various emails deleted!!
He wrote to the Qatari royal family suggesting that they reconsider. Of course, not to offend the future King they complied.
In what what is that not an opaque execution of power? There was no democratic oversight, his only qualification is that he likes nostalgic architecture, he is not a planner, he is not an architect.
It was also opaque as when it was revealed that this had happened there was an immediate 'cover up' and various emails deleted!!
07 February 2012, 08:00 PM
#102
Scooby Regular
The inheritance of property: a family have built a house, a farm, capital goods, etc. They choose to give them to their sons/daughters. No one else is involved, unless you are coming from the ideological standpoint that everybody in the world owns all of it, regardless of the degree of effort others have put towards any certain part of it. There's a great deal of a presumption of authority involved there, though. The merit is in having transformed a piece of land (separate to where others have gathered) into a home/capital. What wouldn't be representative of merit would be someone then coming along and deciding arbitrarily to take it by force; which leads us on to...
The inheritance of power: one works on the assumption that they and their family have a divine right to control everyone else they occupy some space with, regardless of merit. It's difficult to see how any rational thinker could see a similarity between the two. Private property exists in whole idea of 'natural rights' (a western, post-enlightenment lifestyle) because it's meritocratic, it's fair.
If the inheritance - a voluntary transaction - of property isn't representative of merit, what is?
07 February 2012, 08:09 PM
#104
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see how the two are comparable.
The inheritance of property: a family have built a house, a farm, capital goods, etc. They choose to give them to their sons/daughters. No one else is involved, unless you are coming from the ideological standpoint that everybody in the world owns all of it, regardless of the degree of effort others have put towards any certain part of it. There's a great deal of a presumption of authority involved there, though. The merit is in having transformed a piece of land (separate to where others have gathered) into a home/capital. What wouldn't be representative of merit would be someone then coming along and deciding arbitrarily to take it by force; which leads us on to...
The inheritance of property: a family have built a house, a farm, capital goods, etc. They choose to give them to their sons/daughters. No one else is involved, unless you are coming from the ideological standpoint that everybody in the world owns all of it, regardless of the degree of effort others have put towards any certain part of it. There's a great deal of a presumption of authority involved there, though. The merit is in having transformed a piece of land (separate to where others have gathered) into a home/capital. What wouldn't be representative of merit would be someone then coming along and deciding arbitrarily to take it by force; which leads us on to...
There is no merit involved in that just accidents of birth or alliance.
The inheritance of power: one works on the assumption that they and their family have a divine right to control everyone else they occupy some space with, regardless of merit. It's difficult to see how any rational thinker could see a similarity between the two. Private property exists in whole idea of 'natural rights' (a western, post-enlightenment lifestyle) because it's meritocratic, it's fair.
If the inheritance - a voluntary transaction - of property isn't representative of merit, what is?
If the inheritance - a voluntary transaction - of property isn't representative of merit, what is?
07 February 2012, 08:09 PM
#105
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They didn't have to comply though did they is the point. Charles has no force to actually exercise. It could easily have been some mega-rich British businessman writing to moan to them. Plenty of businessman (and Bankers!) weigh into political matters far more than Charles. I believe his issues was aesthetic rather than political or business related anyway?? He is known for his environmental patronage etc. It's not like he stood to gain financially from the cancellation is it?
Power does not equal, or require gain (although further cementing the power through execution is of course gain in itself)
Businessmen weigh into political matters is irrelevant to the case in point
His views may be aesthetic, political, economic, whimsical - the motivation is irrelevant.
He had a personal view and executed it which carried disproportionate weight as he is the future King England and the other bits.
You also forget that in taking this action he then ensured that many thousands of man years of work were flushed down the Thames which the site backs onto.
07 February 2012, 08:13 PM
#107
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The monarchy haven't been absolutist since the magna carta, they do not 'control everyone'. What they are though is a kind of caste (albiet one with almost no power though). Caste is not open to everyone, but money or capital is. Anyone can accumulate money or capital according to 'merit' but you cannot become a royal by 'merit', still the principle of inheritance is equally unmeritocratic whether one is talking about the inheritance of caste or money/capital.
Inheriting capital is meritocratic - as an idiot inheriting capital can lose it all and lose it all very quickly in some cases.
An idiot inheriting the throne will remain a royal idiot until the day they die.
Also, clinging to the notion that the royals have 'almost no power' is truly laughable!
07 February 2012, 08:15 PM
#108
Scooby Regular
Taken to the level of principle this means that the Queen has no right to exercise power contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the people, no? Or is there a cut off point - a unique situation - when one's Porsche is in jeopardy?
07 February 2012, 08:17 PM
#109
Scooby Regular
Capital is a form a power though Glesgakiss. If a son inherits a business empire he suddenly has a lot of workers who have to obey his caprices, he is in charge of that capital , he wields it. It is POWER; an elite position in society.
There is no merit involved in that just accidents of birth or alliance.
There is no merit involved in that just accidents of birth or alliance.
07 February 2012, 08:24 PM
#110
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 15,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not absurd at all. The question was with regard to the exercising of power. Your posts suggest (some explicitly so) that you have problem with the undemocratic nature of sovereign power/authority, and that you view democratic power as fair or just - i.e. the people's decision carries moral authority.
Taken to the level of principle this means that the Queen has no right to exercise power contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the people, no? Or is there a cut off point - a unique situation - when one's Porsche is in jeopardy?
Taken to the level of principle this means that the Queen has no right to exercise power contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of the people, no? Or is there a cut off point - a unique situation - when one's Porsche is in jeopardy?
As absurd as your example is - no I do not think there should be a cut off point.
However, there are clearly cut off points and Her Majesty is masterful in executing these in subtle ways that we rarely see, a word here, a hint there. That is true power.
My argument would be for a more democratic balancing of the scales - an elected first house and second house.
We have an elected first house and a largely inherited second house in the court of the Queen.
07 February 2012, 08:25 PM
#111
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Knowledge is a form of power also, perhaps you should read Foucault? But since we cannot stop Charles reading wikipedia perhaps we should just look at formal forms of power - of which coercion/force is one - which the law is within its rights to limit regarding the Royals entitlement to use them.
I am not sure that extends to the Prince blasting off nuisance emails expressing his architectural preferences?
It's a right you or I have up until spamming becomes an offense?
Well the point is to guard against corruption by the Royals (or any political elite), hence why limits on Royal (formal) power were gradually introduced.
As is his sending them. You or I could have done so.
It only carried weight in the minds of the Qatari Royal family. If the Prince wrote to me expressing an opinion about an extension I had planned on my modest dwelling, I would probably throw it in the bin. 
I am not sure that extends to the Prince blasting off nuisance emails expressing his architectural preferences?
It's a right you or I have up until spamming becomes an offense?
He had a personal view and executed it which carried disproportionate weight as he is the future King England and the other bits.
You also forget that in taking this action he then ensured that many thousands of man years of work were flushed down the Thames which the site backs onto.
You also forget that in taking this action he then ensured that many thousands of man years of work were flushed down the Thames which the site backs onto.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 07 February 2012 at 08:26 PM.
07 February 2012, 08:29 PM
#112
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Retaining it is meritocratic sure but not inheriting it per se, but it requires much less merit to maintain capital than it does to acquire it in the first place. I think we can agree upon that?
07 February 2012, 08:35 PM
#114
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 February 2012, 08:37 PM
#115
Scooby Regular
although the Queen does not, in the normal course of events, exercise any power personally, quite a lot is exercised on behalf of the “crown”, with archaic institutions like the Privy Council, royal prerogative etc
and in hung parliaments, where politicians could not agree how the government is formed, she may well have quite a deal of power
and in hung parliaments, where politicians could not agree how the government is formed, she may well have quite a deal of power
07 February 2012, 08:37 PM
#116
Scooby Regular
Capital is a form a power though Glesgakiss. If a son inherits a business empire he suddenly has a lot of workers who have to obey his caprices, he is in charge of that capital , he wields it. It is POWER; an elite position in society.
There is no merit involved in that just accidents of birth or alliance.
There is no merit involved in that just accidents of birth or alliance.
Just my take on it.
Last edited by GlesgaKiss; 07 February 2012 at 08:39 PM.
07 February 2012, 08:39 PM
#117
Scooby Regular
And he replied – “start with a large one”
