We Are the Normal Ones - And the Outside World are the Fruit-Loops

Desmond1979 said:

I can safely assume that we're the level-headed ones.

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

We have had some on here saying we should get the aristocrats to take over power in the country to take us back ot the the good old days.

Some are advocating getting rid of immigrants to take us back to the good old days.

Others saying we should put the church in charge to keep the sinners under control like back in the good old days.

And so forth.

The one thing all have in common is an opinion that it was better in the good old days, whatever that may mean.

The good old days is a fairytale, different for everybody, Yesterday is gone. Civil society and (British) values need to be protected though. 

The good old days is a fairytale, different for everybody, Yesterday is gone. Civil society and (British) values need to be protected though. 

A Constitutional Republic, as opposed to a Democratic Republic.

That was America's original aim. Then it got skewed, in a myriad of war and espionage.

TheCatWoman said:

Prince Andrew, isn't he the scandal that keeps on giving!

His proper title now is "The Andrew formerly known as Prince".
Apparently they're threatening to take away his campaign medals from the Falklands, which seems to me a step too far: he did serve, even if they did make certain that his service didn't put him in danger (which they may or may not have done).

Prince Andrew, isn't he the scandal that keeps on giving!

Perhaps we should bring back the idea that all members of a common gr grandfather should be eligable for the throne, and hopefully the best is picked by the family. This seems to have been a common system in mediaeval Ireland and probably much further back than that, the Witan in Anglo-Saxon England seems to have worked in much the same way.

Primogeniture seems about the worst way to pick a leader and wasn't established firmly in this country until quite late on in the Mediaeval period.

I think most of the aristocracy had affairs, its because of arranged and dynastic marriage, marriage was a business arrangement, allying families and vested interests with the "right blood". Even for women once you'd produced an heir and a spare, you were quite often free to follow your own romantic interests.

I have a two word answer to why I'd rather have the monarchy, President Blair. I would like to see a republic, but the tricky question is how do we elect a president? Would it be something handed to former Prime Minister, hence my president Blair remark, or would it be some kind of populairty contest where we might end up with a President Beckham? Not that theres anything wrong with Mr Beckham, I just don't see him as head of state material.

I would like to see a more European style of monarchy and one that dosen't have the sort of political privalege or cost of the current set up.

I think the other question is what do we want our head of state to do? If we just want somebody to cut ribbons and open things, then thats a very different thing to a person who's our cheif diplomat, who wines and dines with other world leaders and has some gravitas on the world stage.

I agree with what Iain said about "the good old days", we forget that crime was rife, we glorify some of the gangs and criminals who terrorised whole towns, such as the Kray twins, or the real Peaky Blinder's. We forget that Victorian London had so many prosititutes, women who were pretty much forced to sell thier bodies or starve, we forget the horrors of the work house, we forget the way the mentally ill were treated, put into Bedlam, and treated as a public spectacle. I think nostalgia is a sort of national pathology.

We're a country thats had migration for centuries and I think we're better for it.

The structure of land ownership, tax, politics is all based on this. Without it the country would fall into (undemocratic/uncivil) chaos, which I am sure is a what a lot of these disruptors want.

The human side if being a royal is probably too much because they are now also required to be celebrities, something which they were never asked to be subscribed to. Being the one in the throne means you are dedicated but for everyone below that it must be demoralising seeing as they get dragged through the mud.

pietro_21 said:

Its become a fruitless pursuit because nothing is improving.

I agree, but it is a panacea for the masses. It keeps them "happy" and engaged so they are not getting engaged. It is the modern opiate for the people.

They are still the ones who need to make decisions about who they let rule them however - if we do not respect their wishes then we become tyrants imposing out will on them.

The real questions is, how do you make them care enought to engage.

pietro_21 said:

The monarchy is the most important thing in this country

What makes you believe this?

Outside of the spectacle they provide for the tourists and good diplomatic PR for the country with some charity work as well, they are not really involved in the running of the country and have been steadily removed from the decision making process to the point where they are really only symbolic.

You have much bad behaviour demonstrated by various members of royalty too - the Andrew formerly known as Prince is a prime example of a rotten apple and we also had until recently Prince Phillip who was a notorious generator of gaffs.

Most of the monarchy have poorly disguised extra marital affairs also which makes them a poor role model for the standards I believe you want them to promote.

Do we not have anyone better to do this?

No because screens are not reality, they are a distraction. I personally dont want to go to work with 'easy life'ers talking about tv and football, Its become a fruitless pursuit because nothing is improving.

The public are responsible for making the country better. But I was talking about this the other day and I really feel that lifelong British citizens should be paid a minimum wage (like we were in lockdown).

pietro_21 said:

These things are being lost because people want want want and look at screens all day and don't help communities

Now comes a difficult question.

If this is what people want (ie screens are more important than culture) then should we allow the majority to have their way? 

The monarchy is the most important thing in this country

I relate it to museums and culture, for which the notions really developed out of Victorian Culture, living in a monarchy. Visiting parks and museums and events under the King or Queen, understanding that if you live in that culture you uphold those values and obey those rules. 

The thing about contemporary culture is everyone wants to influence things their way, if there are rules they want to change them otherwise they complain about living in an autocratic state. Many people coming to the UK want the perks without committing to any of the norms (language, civil behaviour, integrating with the community, giving back (paying taxes/volunteering their time to the public). These things are being lost because people want want want and look at screens all day and don't help in building the community.

pietro_21 said:

Civil society and (British) values need to be protected though. 

How could you define these though? A serious question.

Values change with time and need to be constantly revisited otherwise women would not be able to vote and slavery would still be legal.

Who will be responsible for defining these and then policing them?

All are important questions.