|
Post by fretslider on Apr 29, 2011 15:45:57 GMT -5
Back in the real world, below this thin layer of pomp, there is a social dislocation whose cracks are starting to emerge...
Polly Toynbee guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011
How well we do it! Was the princess beautiful in lace and was the prince charming? Indeed they were. The glorious pomp and circumstance did not disappoint those 2 billion worldwide watchers, indulging vicariously in the theatre of majesty. They tell us this is what we are best at, the great parade, the grand charade. If you weep at weddings here was one to cry for, for us more than them. The more extreme a ceremony's extravagance, the more superstitious you might feel about the outcome: the simpler the better the prognosis, in my experience.
But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did.
Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives.
Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones.
The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school.
Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%.
In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state.
A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement.
How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging.
This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer?
The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report.
Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are.
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Apr 29, 2011 17:13:10 GMT -5
I've always been a staunch Royalist. Today I'm a reluctant one.
I cried when Diana died and wrote a poem about it a few hours later which I might post here.
Kate Middleton's a different kettle of fish.
The ONLY person I've heard today on the media saying that William has made a mistake - which IMO he has - was David Starkey.
Yes, Starkey's a right-wing nut who generally talks out of the back of his head but on this occasion he got it right IMO.
If monarchy has mystique it has a chance.
If it marries into someone who could be you or me the mystique is gone.
Kingship is rather similar to religion. It's a mystical thing that needs a certain distance to make it work.
By marrying the daughter of an internet party planner rather than choosing his bride from "the cold daughter of an Earl" (John Betjeman), Willim has IMO dragged the monarchy into the gutter and made it MORE likely that it will go rather than LESS.
As Starkey said, in his famously tactless and arrogant way, royalty, at least heirs to the throne, should stick to their own class.
By marrying Kate Middleton what's happened is that William has dragged it down.
I fear for its future now while before I didn't.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 29, 2011 18:46:04 GMT -5
"Kingship is rather similar to religion. "
How right you are.
The divine right of Kings, now there's a laugh.
|
|
Erasmus
Moderatorz
Deep Thought Mod
"We do not take prisoners - we liberate them" - http://www.aeonbytegnosticradio.com
Posts: 2,489
|
Post by Erasmus on Apr 29, 2011 19:05:27 GMT -5
Linda, Bullshit. Polly Toynbee bullshit also. The Disney monarchy that Brits whine about so much is their own creation that they have forced upon monarchy. Diana was part of the entire Thatcherite Great Leap Backwards dragging England from the 20th into the 19th (the 18th century had more sense). She was the absolute icon of everything women had been rejecting for the previous near 20 years; valued only for her looks and childishness, unaware of anything except she was a girl, so a delicate sub-human liable to throw herself down stairs in a tantrum if Daddy didn't give her what she wanted NOW, in need of being told every five minutes what a pretty adorable pet she was, or she'd stamp her little feet and cry how nasty everybody was to her.
She was every Marilyn Monroe simpering child-woman that women had been struggling to liberate themselves from. It is no wonder that she became a 'Feminist' icon. She shows, as I learnt from dealing with them on these boards, just what a reaction against Women's Liberation and equality 'Feminists' are. When we saw the marriage, we pitied Charles for being forced to marry a retarded child instead of the woman as mature as himself that he wanted. Only a paederast would want sex with that child. It must have felt like being forced to commit rape to make it with that, unless he looked at the body and imagined it had an adult woman's mind.
This generation might be the ones to modernize monarchy. The Queen did so in her own time and terms. She ended courtiers powdering their hair and other 18th century customs. Charles would have gone much further, but his support for values that really matter threatened corporate domination and set Murdoch and his fellow new corporate feudalists against a 'socialist monarch'. Charles can look back to Edward VIII who got it wrong in retrospect, but at the time most people believed in all working together as suited each best for the National Good under Fascism, and to James VII/II whom the English booted out for rejecting religious discrimination.
Polly Toynbee here is on a loser because she is fighting a fantasy of her own making just as the English Press always does. But she does not see that it is only her own creation that she is attacking.
There's none of this boring self-obsessed crap about the Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Spanish, Luxembourgish, Liechtensteinian monarchies. And who wouldn't prefer their standard of life and freedom to Britain's? Why not? because those people understand monarchy i a modern sense, where Brits are still cast in the past. They pretend that their monarchy is at fault. Nothing of the kind; when even the most minor royalty show signs of behaving like normal people, the Media are all over them screaming abuse that they are Royal, they must Set an Example. And when they do speak out against commonly accepted prejudices, it is Who do they think they are, Royalty?
I hope that Charles bypasses when his time comes, because he could be ancient given how long they live, but also because he knows that the crown is a political gag, and as long as he does not wear it, he can speak freely against corporate domination and the politicians seeking to sell his people to American-based financial feudalism.
Monarchy can speak for The People. Politics speaks for its financiers
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 30, 2011 2:23:14 GMT -5
i felt sad when dianna died...not because she was royal in any way...but simply because she was too young to die and had two young sons and hadnt yet lived out her life..i disliked her for her behaviour..just as i disliked charles for his and the spencers for their hypocracy and loathed the afternath of her death all the hysteria and nonsense that she was the """peoples princess""and that people couldnt tell the difference between the royal standard and the flag..it was all just too uncomfortable....the weeping and the wailing....and the expectation that a family must be devestated by the death of an ex daughter in law..an expectation they wouldnt have of their own families .do i care if the monarchy survives...not really..... am very torn on the subject..i like tradition on the one hand...and prefer it to any other system..on the other hand its unrealistic. if the monarchy goes..i want every thing associated with it gone..am not of the school that says off with their heads but we will keep the best bits...it they go the whole thing must go....all the ceremonial..the uniforms...its like religion and those who want it gone...if it goes then every thing associated with it must also be destroyed and i think if we take out the influence of monarchy and religion from our country...what do we have left...very little...no grand gatherings,,cerimonal..pagentary..it would be greyer........rather like the russians who left them selves with bottles of gut rotting vodka..no past...no presence and a future bassed on the obligarchs and criminal thugs
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Apr 30, 2011 3:46:07 GMT -5
Back in the real world, below this thin layer of pomp, there is a social dislocation whose cracks are starting to emerge...Polly Toynbee guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 How well we do it! Was the princess beautiful in lace and was the prince charming? Indeed they were. The glorious pomp and circumstance did not disappoint those 2 billion worldwide watchers, indulging vicariously in the theatre of majesty. They tell us this is what we are best at, the great parade, the grand charade. If you weep at weddings here was one to cry for, for us more than them. The more extreme a ceremony's extravagance, the more superstitious you might feel about the outcome: the simpler the better the prognosis, in my experience. But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did. Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives. Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones. The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school. Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%. In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state. A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement. How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging. This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer? The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report. Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are. I saw the name Poly Toynbee, the Guardian and new what sort of drivel would be written. The same sort of anti anything English/British pouring out from this shrew like woman frothing over her article. I note (suprise, suprise) that Bliar and McBroon's absence at the wedding was shoehorned into the article, two men and a party that systematically tried to dismantle the traditions/culture of the nation. What a sad act.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 30, 2011 3:57:18 GMT -5
Back in the real world, below this thin layer of pomp, there is a social dislocation whose cracks are starting to emerge...Polly Toynbee guardian.co.uk, Friday 29 April 2011 How well we do it! Was the princess beautiful in lace and was the prince charming? Indeed they were. The glorious pomp and circumstance did not disappoint those 2 billion worldwide watchers, indulging vicariously in the theatre of majesty. They tell us this is what we are best at, the great parade, the grand charade. If you weep at weddings here was one to cry for, for us more than them. The more extreme a ceremony's extravagance, the more superstitious you might feel about the outcome: the simpler the better the prognosis, in my experience. But let's not speculate, for we know next to nothing of these best-marketed of global celebrities beyond the homely platitudes sparingly fed to the multitudes. We might agree that they are indeed "grounded"; we might ponder on the chances of a prince surviving so dysfunctional a childhood; or we may just wish them well and use the day off to party, as many did. Is this what Britain is and who we are? Here was a grand illusion, the old conspiracy to misrepresent us to ourselves. Here arrayed was the most conservative of establishments, rank upon rank, from cabinet ministers to Prince Andrew to the Sultan of Brunei, the apotheosis of the Daily Telegraph and the Spectator in excelsis, a David Starkey pageant choreographed by Charles, the prince of conservatives. Of course Tony Blair and Gordon Brown had no invitation, being the prime ministers who held back the forces of conservatism for 13 years. Displayed in all its assertiveness was a reminder of what Labour is always up against as perennial intruder. Constitutional monarchy is constitutionally Tory, the blue inherited with its wealth, in its fibre, in its bones. The manicured story of the Middletons' four-generation rise from pit village to throne offers such perfect justification, living proof of David Cameron's promised social mobility, echoed in the jokey "It should have been me" souvenir mugs. Notwithstanding repellent sniggers of the Eton set who call the Middleton girls "the wisteria sisters" for their social climbing, or the "doors to manual" giggle at their former air steward mother, the Middletons belong in the top 0.5% of earners: children of new wealth always did marry into aristocracy. Besides, Kate Middleton, Samantha Cameron and the Hon Frances Osborne all went to the same school. Yet despite months of coverage, rising to a crescendo of print and broadcasting frenzy this week, the country has remained resolutely phlegmatic. Cameras pick out the wildest enthusiasts camped out or dressed as brides, yet the Guardian/ICM poll and others put those expressing "strong interest" at only 20%. In poll after poll, more than 70% refused to be excited. Laconic, cool, only half the population said they would watch Friday's flummery. Few are republicans – though latest YouGov polls show those of us hoping the Queen will be Elizabeth the Last has risen to 26% – but a healthy scepticism thrives. Not love of monarchy but fear of something worse wins the day as the spirit of "confound their politics" prevails over the thought of some second-hand politician as head of state. A jaundiced view of royalty is not confined to blasé metropolitan sophisticates: you can hear it everywhere, north more than south, in any pub or bus stop and on Twitter – the knowing shrug that finds this stuff preposterous, childish and not who we are. How embarrassingly Brown stumbled trying to pin down an ineffable definition of Britishness. But he was fumbling for something other than images of monarchy and empire to assert, quite rightly, that this is not a conservative nation: after all, Cameron did not win the last election, even with an open goal. This may not be a nation of reforming radicals, but there is no lack of robust popular riposte to royal displays of inherited entitlement. How will history look back on this day? Out in the world of bread, not circuses, in the kingdom behind the cardboard scenery, this has been a week that told a bleak story of the state of the nation. History may see the wedding as a Marie Antoinette moment, a layer of ormolu hiding a social dislocation whose cracks are only starting to emerge. The Office for National Statistics just showed GDP flatlining for the last six months, recovery stalled ever since the announcement of the government's great austerity. Most household incomes are shrinking – as never since the 1920s. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being cut, services slashed, £18m taken from the welfare budget, university fees in crisis, consumer confidence plunging. This week I went to Barclays' annual meeting to watch another monarch, CEO Bob Diamond. He is in line for £27m pay this year, despite shares falling, £1.6bn profits lost and dividends cut – at a time when bank lending to manufacturing has fallen. Angry shareholders in the hall rose one by one to protest. Elderly, sometimes inchoate, they echoed the Association of British Insurers, who recommended voting against the bank's grotesque boardroom remuneration. But no, the little shareholders were voted down by unseen fund managers, all in the same game. The board shrugged off its critics, claiming that if they cut their own pay "we could very quickly jeopardise the true rewards of our success". But for how much longer? The NHS, the most politically sensitive of public services, is warned by the public accounts committee that patient care is at risk in a £20bn cut with no plan for services that go bankrupt. The OECD, hardly a left-leaning organisation, this week warned that poverty in British households will rise inexorably so "social spending on families needs to be protected". But it is not being protected: the opposite is happening, as Sure Start is stripped bare. "Cutting back on early years services will make it difficult for the UK to achieve its policy of making work pay," says the OECD report. Few yet realise the scale of the conservative revolution in progress. Professors Peter Taylor-Gooby and Gerry Stoker have just revealed that by 2013 public spending will be a lower proportion of GDP in Britain than in the US. They write in the Political Quarterly: "A profound shift in our understanding of the role of the state and the nature of our welfare system is taking place without serious debate." Can that really be done without rebellion? That will be the test of what kind of nation we are. I saw the name Poly Toynbee, the Guardian and new what sort of drivel would be written. The same sort of anti anything English/British pouring out from this shrew like woman frothing over her article. t. her and others....one always knows what she is going to write..it never suprises
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 30, 2011 3:58:38 GMT -5
New Labour blew it, just a slightly different shade of Tory - as are the Dum-Libs. Toynbees memory is rather short term.
Erasmus say's "Monarchy can speak for The People. " Clearly the product of delusional thinking
|
|
|
Post by Soulman on Apr 30, 2011 5:35:30 GMT -5
No doubt the Guardian's George Monotones Monbiot will be having his say soon. He's enough to send a glass eye to sleep as well. No offence mean't to any posters that have a glass eye by the way.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 4, 2011 7:55:30 GMT -5
i'm so confused. i have always been under the impression that success meant making profit, having shares rise, and increasing dividends. now, i am aghast that i could have been so wrong. i learn from the directors of one of the world's largest banks that success means losing 1.6 billion in profit, shares falling as well as dividends, is success. i am so dismayed
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on May 4, 2011 11:21:29 GMT -5
i'm so confused. i have always been under the impression that success meant making profit, having shares rise, and increasing dividends. now, i am aghast that i could have been so wrong. i learn from the directors of one of the world's largest banks that success means losing 1.6 billion in profit, shares falling as well as dividends, is success. i am so dismayed Bankers That's why you have to substitute the 'B' with a 'W'
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 4, 2011 16:47:44 GMT -5
one of my nephews is a banker ;D and not spelt with a W he is also a rather pleasant chap in spite of his ocupation...has red hair too....so he is a ginger as well
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 4, 2011 16:53:49 GMT -5
i'm so confused. i have always been under the impression that success meant making profit, having shares rise, and increasing dividends. now, i am aghast that i could have been so wrong. i learn from the directors of one of the world's largest banks that success means losing 1.6 billion in profit, shares falling as well as dividends, is success. i am so dismayed Bankers That's why you have to substitute the 'B' with a 'W' apparently. i wish i could make twenty million a year Wing. i wouldn't care how tired my arm got. these fools apparently don't either
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on May 4, 2011 16:55:26 GMT -5
one of my nephews is a banker ;D and not spelt with a W he is also a rather pleasant chap in spite of his ocupation...has red hair too....so he is a ginger as well the true test is whether he would be more concerned with the bank making money than in keeping the newvendor on the corner from going under
|
|
|
Post by mouse on May 5, 2011 1:43:01 GMT -5
one of my nephews is a banker ;D and not spelt with a W he is also a rather pleasant chap in spite of his ocupation...has red hair too....so he is a ginger as well the true test is whether he would be more concerned with the bank making money than in keeping the newvendor on the corner from going under i dunno jumbo...what i do know is he loves his family and is in his private life an honourable man
|
|