- they do a lot for tourism! Look at all the Americans visiting Buckingham Palace. Because of course a) literally everyone who visits Buck House gets a personal audience with the Queen and b) literally no-one visits the palaces at Versailles or Schönbrunn any more now they aren't inhabited by your actual living breathing royalty.
- they seem like nice people! and they've just had a baby! WHY DO YOU HATE NICE PEOPLE!? AND BABIES!! I'm sure they're lovely. And I'm delighted that all is well with the baby, just as I'm generally disposed not to wish ill upon any other pair of randomly-selected prospective parents that I don't know from Adam. Actually, I say I'm sure they're lovely; what I actually think is that I'm sure they're achingly dull in person to the extent that you'd have to chew your own lower limbs off if you ever got stuck in a room with them, but on the other hand they're both blandly attractive with nice teeth, which is the main thing. I think we can all agree that Prince Charles is an idiot, though. So much so that when Liz finally pops her clogs I think we should take the homeopathic approach to the succession; maximum royal power will be achieved by successively diluting the number of monarchs until it is at an infinitesimal and indeed undetectable level.
Thursday, July 25, 2013
last refuge of the scoundrel
I should point out that while the conversation referenced in that last post was a pretty good stab at filling out the Unthinking Deference To Unearned Privilege Bingo card, other royalist tropes are available. Off the top of my head a couple we didn't cover are:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
OK well I guess Anna is probably bored of me getting mildly irate at the blanket coverage of the royals recently.
As might be my few followers on twitter by now I suppose.
I try to keep my tweets non-provocative and controversy free as alluded to on another comment on this blog, but I forgot that stance momentarily and suggested once to my followers that "JOYSUS....haven't we celebrated her maj enough now" (after the most recent diamante concert in the palace gardens).
That all said, I have let them (da firm) get away with it (the magic blood thing)over the years primarily because I was always led to believe that they did make a pretty substantial difference to the UK economy - and were well worth the money that we pay (as taxpayers) to prop 'em up.
Now though I hear the FT has debunked that myth (and suggests that they are actually a nett drain to our economy).
Now that I am happily married and have no need (any more) to stand under the Waterloo Station Clock with a copy of the FT under my arm and a rose in my hand waiting for my blind-d-d-d-d-d d-d--d-dates - I don't buy the FT nor do I subscribe to its online edition.
Pity really as I'd like to "scrutinize their math" on that assertion - its a big call.
As for Will and Kate being "achingly dull" which you've suspected they are at least twice now in two blogs, - well you may well be right of course, but I'd at least like to hope that a Sea King pilot who's seen a fair bit in his time might have something interesting to drop into his anecdotes?
Dunno really though.
Haven't met him.
You?
I have briefly met his mother though, with two of my sisters in High Wycombe in the mid-late 80s I guess.
I could dress up the fact that I refused to shake her hand (I had the opportunity - both my sisters did if I remember correctly) as an anarchistic protest - but in reality I think I felt a bit uncomfortable shaking the hand of a person with "magic blood" and also a person who had sat on her husband's 1970 Aston Martin the day before, possibly dented it, got told off and allegedly sulked like a spoiled child.
I was always told that I shouldn't sulk.
I think on the whole I feel sorry for the lot of them - magic blood or no magic blood.
Fin.
Agreed on the sympathy bit, up to a point. But the answer to that is not to shrug and say, well, someone's got to do it (and I'm not saying this is your position). Actually, no-one's got to do it if we get rid of the institution, at least (depending on the replacement regime) no-one who hasn't specifically volunteered for the job.
As for the profit/loss thing, well, it's an interesting detail but it's not central to the argument. If it could be conclusively shown that the royals provided a net gain to the economy that would not persuade me we should keep them. I daresay public executions and bear-baiting pulled in the punters back in the day, but that doesn't mean that it would have been right to keep them either.
as for the dullness thing a) apologies for repeating myself, I should proof-read more carefully and b) it's the regime they're born into that does it; it's hard to see how you could not grow up being a bit of an arse. Especially with Prince Charles as a father.
I think on balance I am fine with our current heriditary monarchy system (which I think is pretty harmless if daft?) if it makes our country's economy substantially wealthier.
I guess thats where we differ on this.
Post a Comment