Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
jaggy

Roughie OBE

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, fifexile said:

I find the whole system an embarrassing, class ridden throwback and handing out awards named after something that doesn't exist except in the minds of Daily Mail readers and Nigel Farage sadly pathetic. It wouldn't be overly complex to modernise the honours and recognise the contribution of individuals to society with a single ctizenship award.

It will never happen although I wonder what might happen in an independent Scotland.

The honours system as it stands still treats us all as subjects of the current monarch. We definately need one which recognises us as citizens.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Fair enough - you don’t like the establishment. However, I am pretty sure the “ordinary people” are delighted to be recognised for what they do out of the “ordinary”. 

Some ordinary people, in fact probably most, fall into the trap category you mention.

Personally, I'd love the opportunity to be recognized for turning one down, but that ain't gonna happen. :)

In fact, they don't even publish the names of refuseniks, out of embarrassment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we would be hard pressed to find a society where some section of it doesn’t hold a privileged position, even in the remotest villages.

I guess everybody that is opposed to the Royal family and the honours system politely declined the extra days holiday this year.

I am not fussed about the Royal family one way or another. I just don’t get the angst that some are displaying here as that establishment would be replaced by something else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I think we would be hard pressed to find a society where some section of it doesn’t hold a privileged position, even in the remotest villages.

I guess everybody that is opposed to the Royal family and the honours system politely declined the extra days holiday this year.

I am not fussed about the Royal family one way or another. I just don’t get the angst that some are displaying here as that establishment would be replaced by something else.

As legally, public holidays can count as part of annual holiday entitlement, many didn't have that option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I guess everybody that is opposed to the Royal family and the honours system politely declined the extra days holiday this year.

You could extend that logic to atheists not taking Christmas and Easter holidays. Agnostics would maybe knock off at lunchtime on Easter Monday.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

I think we would be hard pressed to find a society where some section of it doesn’t hold a privileged position, even in the remotest villages.

I guess everybody that is opposed to the Royal family and the honours system politely declined the extra days holiday this year.

I am not fussed about the Royal family one way or another. I just don’t get the angst that some are displaying here as that establishment would be replaced by something else.

If you truly believe in democratically-elected leaders who are periodically accountable to the population who can vote them in again or out, when they want, you will understand it. Monarchies whether constitutional, feudal or whatever, all depend on people accepting  the archaic notion that a head of state should come from just one family and that certain off-spring are born, to be king or queen. We live in the modern era where nepotism or deference to people like this does not fit with notions of equality, fairness and eg multi-culturism where anybody regardlesss of creed, colour, or background can aspire to high position.. ie  If you’re British, dependent on your character, skills and abilities,  the opportunity should be there. Queen Elizabeth 2nd (1st of Scotland) may be popular with a lot of people, though statistics tell us this is mainly with over-65s. But, the ‘others’ in her family are much less so. The present monarch could well be-and I believe should be-the last! We still have all the history and the palaces etc for people to look at and enjoy if they want plus the history books to read etc. (The buildings would be more open to the public than they are now!) When the present monarch’s ‘reign’ ends, it would be a good time to consign this anachronism to history, and allow Britain (or Scotland and Britain minus) to move on to progress to a modern, less class-conscious society. I would also say this applies to the House of Lords, where over 800 people-more than elected in the House of Commons (650) -are all receiving tax payers’ money, privilege and power, to support an undemocratic second chamber. Britain sadly, remains an extremely class-ridden country with power, wealth and privilege paramount. Why does Nicola Sturgeon never mention the amount of land owned in Scotland  by aristocrats, rich landowners and corporate moguls-not a word about it. The same applies in England, including that owned by the Church of England. Very little land in both countries is actually still what could be regarded as the ‘‘commons’ available for all, to be used by all. Many of the points I’ve raised are swept under the carpet or ignored by monarchists who prefer the status quo ie the glamour/pomp/celebrity of the monarchy. But, the present monarch is at the apex of  a ruling ‘class’, which many at the top would like to see carry on in perpetuity. That’s what the present monarch is doing, holding on, until she can safely pass things over intact to the next member of her family. Except,  she, like many, perhaps feels less than confident or secure,  in the present  ‘heir apparent’! Looking at the current ‘desperation’ of right wing newspapers constantly trumpeting (pun intended!) members of the royal family in a positive way on their front pages, on a daily basis, whilst surveys tell us more and more of the public are either disinterested or against, she may be right to be concerned!

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, lady-isobel-barnett said:

You could extend that logic to atheists not taking Christmas and Easter holidays. Agnostics would maybe knock off at lunchtime on Easter Monday.

Why do we need the word, ‘atheist’?  That’s like having a specific name for people that refuse to believe that Patrick Thistle won the 1st division title in 1978 when Arthur Montford was the manager. 

Still, it’s nice to see big Roughie being recognised for his achievements.  We’ll done big fella, we’re proud of you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lenziejag said:

I think we would be hard pressed to find a society where some section of it doesn’t hold a privileged position, even in the remotest villages.

I guess everybody that is opposed to the Royal family and the honours system politely declined the extra days holiday this year.

I am not fussed about the Royal family one way or another. I just don’t get the angst that some are displaying here as that establishment would be replaced by something else.

Can anyone come up with a better reason for maintaining a head of state purely determined by birth-right than "it's been like that for a long time and we can't think of an alternative so we should just accept it for what it is"? If they can then maybe people will embrace the monarchy as a worthwhile and necessary social institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their existence may boost tourism visits to London, but no I can’t. They were mince at presenting Its a Knockout.

Edited by sandy
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, sandy said:

Their existence may boost tourism visits to London, but no I can’t. They were mince at presenting Its a Knockout.

Actually, the ‘tourism’ argument is much over-played and there is evidence to suggest it is false. But, even if it was true, which other leader can you think of in a powerful position, would you accept her/him saying, “I am resigning but I am giving my job to my son or daughter!” ? Oh yes, North Korea with the Kim dynasty! (Plus the relatives/close friends of the House of Windsor.)

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most small family firms perhaps, but yes it’s wrong to cede power not on merit alone.

What if the family developed some kind of bizarre gene? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, sandy said:

Most small family firms perhaps, but yes it’s wrong to cede power not on merit alone.

What if the family developed some kind of bizarre gene? 

Well there’s a lot of close inter-marriage in the royal family. But, have you ever read the history surrounding Edward V111? (Present queen’s uncle)  This man was considered a playboy before he took the throne on the death of the present queen’s  grandfather George V. He ultimately abdicated to marry an American woman, of whom many disapproved because she was a divorcee. But, before this he was king for a short while and had a great liking for…Adolph Hitler and the Nazis in Germany in the mid-1930s. There are pictures of Edward and his wife meeting Hitler and hobnobbing with them. Edward, as king was privy to a lot of top-secret information and there is evidence not only was he loose-tongued about some of it in the company of German sympathisers and people loyal to Hitler, but that he actively passed on information deliberately. It’s also thought, If Germany HAD invaded Britain, the German dictator would have put Edward back on the throne as a puppet leader. In fact, there’s evidence Edward was not exactly adverse to this notion. There’s a picture of uncle David (his real name) (Edward V111) teaching his nieces Elizabeth (present Queen) and her sister to give the fascist salute. The present royal family’s original name was Saxe Coburg-Gotha. They were German, but changed their name to ‘Windsor’ after World War One, because they thought a German name would not be popular and Windsor sounded more English. The present Queen came to the throne because her father George V1 got it by default, when his older brother abdicated. And talking of ‘bizarre’ genes, what about the present queen’s (apparent) favourite son…..Andrew?!! 
 

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, sandy said:

Their existence may boost tourism visits to London, but no I can’t. They were mince at presenting Its a Knockout.

Still. they have had their fair share of Jokers!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, a f kincaid said:

Still. they have had their fair share of Jokers!

Brilliant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

If you truly believe in democratically-elected leaders who are periodically accountable to the population who can vote them in again or out, when they want, you will understand it. Monarchies whether constitutional, feudal or whatever, all depend on people accepting  the archaic notion that a head of state should come from just one family and that certain off-spring are born, to be king or queen. We live in the modern era where nepotism or deference to people like this does not fit with notions of equality, fairness and eg multi-culturism where anybody regardlesss of creed, colour, or background can aspire to high position.. ie  If you’re British, dependent on your character, skills and abilities,  the opportunity should be there. Queen Elizabeth 2nd (1st of Scotland) may be popular with a lot of people, though statistics tell us this is mainly with over-65s. But, the ‘others’ in her family are much less so. The present monarch could well be-and I believe should be-the last! We still have all the history and the palaces etc for people to look at and enjoy if they want plus the history books to read etc. (The buildings would be more open to the public than they are now!) When the present monarch’s ‘reign’ ends, it would be a good time to consign this anachronism to history, and allow Britain (or Scotland and Britain minus) to move on to progress to a modern, less class-conscious society. I would also say this applies to the House of Lords, where over 800 people-more than elected in the House of Commons (650) -are all receiving tax payers’ money, privilege and power, to support an undemocratic second chamber. Britain sadly, remains an extremely class-ridden country with power, wealth and privilege paramount. Why does Nicola Sturgeon never mention the amount of land owned in Scotland  by aristocrats, rich landowners and corporate moguls-not a word about it. The same applies in England, including that owned by the Church of England. Very little land in both countries is actually still what could be regarded as the ‘‘commons’ available for all, to be used by all. Many of the points I’ve raised are swept under the carpet or ignored by monarchists who prefer the status quo ie the glamour/pomp/celebrity of the monarchy. But, the present monarch is at the apex of  a ruling ‘class’, which many at the top would like to see carry on in perpetuity. That’s what the present monarch is doing, holding on, until she can safely pass things over intact to the next member of her family. Except,  she, like many, perhaps feels less than confident or secure,  in the present  ‘heir apparent’! Looking at the current ‘desperation’ of right wing newspapers constantly trumpeting (pun intended!) members of the royal family in a positive way on their front pages, on a daily basis, whilst surveys tell us more and more of the public are either disinterested or against, she may be right to be concerned!

These democratically elected leaders you mention find a way to stay in their privileged positions, not just in this country, but in other countries, none more so than the supposed most democratic country of them all - USA.  Not that I know a lot about the Russian and French societies, but looking in it still seems to me that those in power have more privileges than the ordinary people. And these are 2 countries where Aristocracy was overthrown. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scotty said:

Can anyone come up with a better reason for maintaining a head of state purely determined by birth-right than "it's been like that for a long time and we can't think of an alternative so we should just accept it for what it is"? If they can then maybe people will embrace the monarchy as a worthwhile and necessary social institution.

It seems to be going down pretty well in England, this Jubilee stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

These democratically elected leaders you mention find a way to stay in their privileged positions, not just in this country, but in other countries, none more so than the supposed most democratic country of them all - USA.  Not that I know a lot about the Russian and French societies, but looking in it still seems to me that those in power have more privileges than the ordinary people. And these are 2 countries where Aristocracy was overthrown. 

Which particular democratically-elected leaders are YOU referring to? I didn’t mention anyone specifically. In the USA, a far from perfect example of true democracy, the President can only serve two terms of four years before giving up office. In the UK a king/queen is Head of State for life. If you get one you don’t like you’re stuck with him/her. You’ve chosen to mention two countries-Russia and France-but they’re not the only ones who don’t have a monarchy. They both had violent revolutions to get rid of theirs but you don’t need a revolution  to have an elected head of state. There are many. But, I have to say, for someone who wrote (above) “I am not fussed about the royal family one way or another” you seem to be going out of your way to defend it or at least to challenge any alternative to it. I am a republican in outlook and freely admit that. That’s my motivation. What’s yours?

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

It seems to be going down pretty well in England, this Jubilee stuff.

I live in England and, though the Mall outside Buck. Palace was packed by union flag waving crowds, it is just not the case that everyone down here is all for it. The BBC and ITV news broadcasts give a very ‘royal-approval-from the public’ picture that is over-the-top compared to what many ordinary people think. The BBC which is supposed to be impartial and balanced rarely features the voices of the naysayers to monarchy. As I said, in a recent survey it was found, the biggest amount of royal support comes from the over-65s. This is to be expected . Younger people are found to be generally less interested/not interested, apart from getting a couple of days off work. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

Which particular democratically-elected leaders are YOU referring to? I didn’t mention anyone specifically. In the USA, a far from perfect example of true democracy, the President can only serve two terms of four years before giving up office. In the UK a king/queen is Head of State for life. If you get one you don’t like you’re stuck with him/her. You’ve chosen to mention two countries-Russia and France-but they’re not the only ones who don’t have a monarchy. They both had violent revolutions to get rid of theirs but you don’t need a revolution  to have an elected head of state. There are many. But, I have to say, for someone who wrote (above) “I am not fussed about the royal family one way or another” you seem to be going out of your way to defend it or at least to challenge any alternative to it. I am a republican in outlook and freely admit that. That’s my motivation. What’s yours?

I am not in any way defending the monarchy. All the arguments against have been about it being a privileged group, albeit one where that privilege is passed from generation to generation. Past Presidents in the USA continue with privilege. Even past PM’s and political leaders in the U.K. manage to get themselves privileged positions once they are outof  office./politics(Cameron,Blair,Osborne,Miliband to name a few.) My whole point is that our Establishment is the monarchy, other countries have their own. The notion that ridding the country of the monarchy and we get rid of the establishment, I think, is misguided. 
Politically, I don’t have strong views, but would probably be more socialist than conservative if that helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I am not in any way defending the monarchy. All the arguments against have been about it being a privileged group, albeit one where that privilege is passed from generation to generation. Past Presidents in the USA continue with privilege. Even past PM’s and political leaders in the U.K. manage to get themselves privileged positions once they are outof  office./politics(Cameron,Blair,Osborne,Miliband to name a few.) My whole point is that our Establishment is the monarchy, other countries have their own. The notion that ridding the country of the monarchy and we get rid of the establishment, I think, is misguided. 
Politically, I don’t have strong views, but would probably be more socialist than conservative if that helps.

No, MY main argument has been about democracy and accountability. The monarchy is not elected periodically or otherwise. It is not accountable. I believe we should be able to get rid of leaders we change our minds about and no one should have a leadership role for life. I also don’t see why one baby should be considered more important than another because of who the mother and father are. The monarchy is privileged because the present one has continued to build up its wealth, which now totals £billions. The ‘Panama Papers’ revealed a few years ago, that our present monarchy squirrels money away in tax havens to avoid paying taxes, which isn’t exactly in keeping with being truly patriotic IMO. My ‘patriotism’ hinges on the people in this country being given a fair deal, being looked after when times are hard, and not subject to the vagaries of ‘the market’. If we’re all British why should anyone be treated differently. In the sixth richest economy in the world, why can’t we do better at getting rid of relative poverty and particularly child poverty? Neoliberalism which arrived via Thatcher in this country (and the USA via Reagan ) reversed the postwar concensus. The Welfare State has been stripped back, the NHS is under-funded, receiving a smaller share in percentage terms of GDP than most other western European countries’ health provision. Public services eg energy have been handed over to the private sector, where profit is paramount. And, employers  nowadays have too much power, with employees at a disadvantage, which unsurprisingly has led us to eg ‘the Gig econmomy’, hire and fire, zero hours contracts, low pay, and in-work poverty. Many people in work rely on food banks to survive. Where does the royal family fit in to this? Well, the rich (incl. the monarchy)  got massively richer, whilst the majority suffered (through austerity) from 2010.  Yet,  British governments continue to increase the amount given to subside the monarchy year on year.  It is clear the government believes the monarchy must be cosseted and protected at all costs, through all economic times.  They are considered more important than the rest of us. There is no question of them being told they will have to tighten their belts. (Whatever that would mean to obscenely rich people!) The financial costs of monarchy are actually huge eg security costs alone are enormous with a large royal family.  The present Jubilee is costing £millions. Does the present monarch ask, at these times of hardship for the people for costs to be toned down? No she does not. Food banks are burgeoning, people are avoiding using energy and some even missing meals. These are hard times for a lot of people. Yet, some of the royal family want a gold coach for a marriage, or expensive private air travel, or some other big projects to be paid for out of the public purse. And, of course, our present monarch reinforces the ‘class system’ with deference-bowing and curtsying, and older adults having to address younger royals as ‘Sir’ and ‘Ma’am’. There are many royal protocols to be followed, which is anathema in a modern, progressive society. The monarchy is all about power, prestige, patronage, deference and tradition. Some traditions are harmless. IMO this one is pernicious. That is why I oppose it. It holds the country back in the past. That is why some ex-colonies  have decided more recently to cecede from the Commonwealth and remove our present queen as their head of state. We should do so with her successor.

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

No, MY main argument has been about democracy and accountability. The monarchy is not elected periodically or otherwise. It is not accountable. I believe we should be able to get rid of leaders we change our minds about and no one should have a leadership role for life. I also don’t see why one baby should be considered more important than another because of who the mother and father are. The monarchy is privileged because the present one has continued to build up its wealth, which now totals £billions. The ‘Panama Papers’ revealed a few years ago, that our present monarchy squirrels money away in tax havens to avoid paying taxes, which isn’t exactly in keeping with being truly patriotic IMO. My ‘patriotism’ hinges on the people in this country being given a fair deal, being looked after when times are hard, and not subject to the vagaries of ‘the market’. If we’re all British why should anyone be treated differently. In the sixth richest economy in the world, why can’t we do better at getting rid of relative poverty and particularly child poverty. Neoliberalism which arrived via Thatcher in this country (and the USA via Reagan ) reversed the postwar concensus. The Welfare State has been stripped back, the NHS is under-funded, receiving a smaller share in percentage terms than most other western European countries’ health provision. Public services eg energy have been handed over to the private sector, where profit is paramount. And, employers  nowadays have too much power, with employees at a disadvantage, which unsurprisingly has led us to eg ‘the Gig econmomy’, hire and fire, zero hours contracts, low pay, and in-work poverty. Many people in work rely on food banks to survive. Where does the royal family fit in to this? Well, British governments continue to increase the amount given to subside the monarchy year on year.  It is clearl the government believes the monarchy must be cosseted and protected at all costs, through all economic times. There is no question of them being told they will have to tighten their belts. The financial costs of monarchy are actually huge eg security is enormous with a large royal family.  The present Jubilee is costing £millions. Does the present monarch ask, at these times of hardship for the people for costs to be toned down? No she does not. Food banks are burgeoning, people are avoiding using energy and some even missing meals. These are hard times for a lot of people. Yet, some of the royal family want a gold coach for a marriage, or expensive private air travel, or some other big projects to be paid for out of the public purse. And, of course, our present monarch reinforces the ‘class system’ with deference-bowing and curtsying, and older adults having to address younger royals as ‘Sir’ and ‘Ma’am’. There are many royal protocols to be followed, which is anathema in a modern, progressive society. The monarchy is all about power, prestige, patronage, deference and tradition. Some traditions are harmless. IMO this one is pernicious. That is why I oppose it. It holds the country back in the past. That is why some ex-colonies  have decided more recently to cecede from the Commonwealth and remove our present queen as their head of state.

I really don’t know what your argument is here. It seems to be that the elected politicians in this country don’t have the gumption to say no to Royal Family. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lenziejag said:

I really don’t know what your argument is here. It seems to be that the elected politicians in this country don’t have the gumption to say no to Royal Family. 
 

Well, if you don’t know what my “argument”(s) against the monarchy are, after the amount I have written in my various posts , I really must be wasting my time! But, of course, those in power, eg the Conservatives, are the political representatives of the ruling class and ‘shout loudest for the monarchy’ because they are really about conserving the wealth of their main supporters, power and privilege. Monarchy is a highly conservative if not Conservative institution. (It’s claimed the monarchy is neutral but this is nonsense!) The present queen didn’t want to pay taxes and didn’t do for many years. She was finally unable to get out of it. But, we don’t know what she pays and no one says we should be told. The Liberal party support the monarchy. The right wing/centre  of the Labour Party support the monarchy. They said they’d get rid of the House of Lords but….!  Nicola Sturgeon supports the monarchy so I guess, so does the SNP. The nearer to power politicians get, the more they’re in thrall to the status quo, of which the monarchy is a part. Who was it said once, “If voting changed anything very much, they’d abolish it.”? Give that gal/guy a coconut! Enjoy the rest of your jubilee weekend. There’s a whole evening devoted to the monarchy on BBC1!

Edited by denismcquadeno.eleven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, scotty said:

As legally, public holidays can count as part of annual holiday entitlement, many didn't have that option.

My work chose to ignore it business as usual for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, denismcquadeno.eleven said:

Well, if you don’t know what my “argument”(s) against the monarchy are, after the amount I have written in my various posts , I really must be wasting my time! But, of course, those in power, eg the Conservatives, are the political representatives of the ruling class and ‘shout loudest for the monarchy’ because they are really about conserving the wealth of their main supporters, power and privilege. Monarchy is a highly conservative if not Conservative institution. (It’s claimed the monarchy is neutral but this is nonsense!) The present queen didn’t want to pay taxes and didn’t do for many years. She was finally unable to get out of it. But, we don’t know what she pays and no one says we should be told. The Liberal party support the monarchy. The right wing/centre  of the Labour Party support the monarchy. They said they’d get rid of the House of Lords but….!  Nicola Sturgeon supports the monarchy so I guess, so does the SNP. The nearer to power politicians get, the more they’re in thrall to the status quo, of which the monarchy is a part. Who was it said once, “If voting changed anything very much, they’d abolish it.”? Give that gal/guy a coconut! Enjoy the rest of your jubilee weekend. There’s a whole evening devoted to the monarchy on BBC1!

Still no clearer to me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Lenziejag said:

Still no clearer to me. 

Maybe because your not listening to the arguments and falling back on a "always been that way so we daren't change it" attitude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×