Jamie123

Prince Andrew

Recommended Posts

I'm not going to say anything about Epstein, or if Randy Andy (as they used to call him) did anything naughty in his house, or on his island, or anywhere else. I don't know whether he did or not, and I've no way of finding out, so I'm not going to talk about it.

What does bother me though is the way everyone on TV keeps banging on about how he's the Queen's "favourite son". How anyone knows that either I don't know, but ideally, a good mother doesn't have a favourite son/daughter. She loves all her sons and daughters exactly the same.

Of course, we're all only human and some of us are bound to love some of our kids more than others - but that's a fault us. It's something we should strive to avoid.

All this "Queen's favourite son" stuff is basically saying: "Yah! Boo! The nasty old Queen's a horrible favouritist!"

Which isn't very nice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2nd-born is my favorite son.  My 1st-born is my mini-me, he has no use for titles such as these.

My 2nd-born will have the responsibility of housing me and wiping my butt when I get too old to do it myself.  That’s the duty of being the favorite son.

Prince Andrew is the favorite son.  Prince Charles is going to be King and has his own set responsibilities.  Andrew gets to indulge his mother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My 2nd-born is my favorite son.  My 1st-born is my mini-me, he has no use for titles such as these.

My 2nd-born will have the responsibility of housing me and wiping my butt when I get too old to do it myself.  That’s the duty of being the favorite son.

Prince Andrew is the favorite son.  Prince Charles is going to be King and has his own set responsibilities.  Andrew gets to indulge his mother.

Curiously enough, "back in the day" kings (and probably queens too, though I don't suppose they advertised it quite as widely) had personal butt-wipers. The king's butt-wiper was called the Groom of the Stool, and despite what you might expect it was the job everybody in the palace wanted. The advantage was that you got to be alone with the king, and you could tell him who you thought ought to get "the chop" without having them interrupt you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a lot of respect for the Queen, but she sure seems to have a pretty useless set of offspring.  Charles, methinks, is going to be a disaster.  William seems to be a stand-up guy, and seems to have married reasonably well (other than the whole modeling-underwear-in-her-college-days unpleasantness); otherwise I’d be quite content to just let the monarchy end with Elizabeth II.

Share this post


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

I have a lot of respect for the Queen, but she sure seems to have a pretty useless set of offspring.  Charles, methinks, is going to be a disaster.  William seems to be a stand-up guy, and seems to have married reasonably well (other than the whole modeling-underwear-in-her-college-days unpleasantness); otherwise I’d be quite content to just let the monarchy end with Elizabeth II.

Harry is also the late Diana's favorite son. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always rather despised the English fascination with class, keeping to one's level, and living according to societal privilege. If "the American way" means anything beyond a trite Superman phrase, it is the rejection of the whole class-based society paradigm. That's what I was always taught the American Dream meant: That you could work to be anything or anyone you wanted to be, no matter who your parents were, no matter what your dad did when you were young. So as an extension, I've never been enthralled by the Queen (or King) of England. Not really my thing.

That said, I have to admit having a healthy respect for Elizabeth that she values the propriety of action and the good name of her family enough to let Andrew suffer at least some of the consequences of his shameful and possibly damning actions. In at least some ways, she seems to be a very principled person, not at all the typical American (or perhaps a better term would be "western") man or woman who's in it for whatever s/he can get. Elizabeth seems willing (at least in this case) to do the right thing, even if uncomfortable, painful, or humiliating. She seems to intuit the difference between a humiliation that leaves a stain and a betrayal of principle that destroys all credibility, and is unwilling to enter into the latter course of action in order to mitigate the consequences of the former.

Or maybe it's all just cynical sociopolitical navigation, ever seeking to minimize damage. But for the moment, I prefer to assume better of her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Vort said:

That's what I was always taught the American Dream meant: That you could work to be anything or anyone you wanted to be, no matter who your parents were

In theory for sure, but do think George W Bush would ever have become president if his father hadn't been before him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

In theory for sure, but do think George W Bush would ever have become president if his father hadn't been before him?

My thoughts (which are not necessarily the same as @Vort's thoughts).

There are classes of people in the United States much like the rest of the World.  We have an upper class, an upper middle class, a middle class and so forth till you hit the unseens (those that are lower than normal poverty, normally those that are homeless and the like). 

I'm not sure that Bush 2 would have ever become President if his father had not also been president or not.  I think it is very possible he could have been President with no one in his family being president previously.  HOWEVER...I also think that much of what helped him become nominated and get into the position he was in was due to his family's wealth, political and social position in society.  In that, they would be in the upper echelons of the political elite and he benefited from many of their social connections in Texas and the surrounding states throughout his life to be able to do things others would not be able to get away with or do themselves.

That would be due to his class or status of position in the United States.

At the same time you can take a man like William Clinton (Bill Clinton) who came from being a basic nobody (some would say from the lower dredges of white society) to the highest political office in America.  Many on the right do not respect him, but he is an example of someone who was born into what many would consider circumstances of lower society and rose up to be the most powerful man in the world.  His father was not legally married to his wife (though he had gone through the motions at the time, he was married to his third wife already at that point) and then died several months before William Clinton was born.  His stepfather had slightly better circumstances being somewhat economically well off at points but was considered an abusive father by Bill Clinton.  Bill Clinton got out of the abusive situation, went to College with the help of scholarships, then became a Rhodes scholar and then went on to Yale in law school.  Eventually he rose through the ranks to be a governor and then a US president.

Today in our present time, his family is also among the elite, but he is a good example of what is possible in the United States where you can come from nothing and rise to the highest elevations of society (and the opposite can happen to someone as well).

Edited by JohnsonJones
Attempting to make the post clearer...clarifications

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Today in our present time, his family is also among the elite, but he is a good example of what is possible in the United States where you can come from nothing and rise to the highest elevations of society (and the opposite can happen to someone as well).

I don't disagree, but the same thing is true in the uk. Look at Thatcher - ok she didn't come from the "dregs" of society, but she wasn't born with a silver spoon either. Her father was a simple shopkeeper. And look at Lord Sugar - do you think the way he speaks mark's him as an aristocrat? True you cannot be a king or queen without being born to it, but just about everything else is as accessible to the "low born" as it is in the us.

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 9:09 PM, JohnsonJones said:

My thoughts (which are not necessarily the same as @Vort's thoughts).

There are classes of people in the United States much like the rest of the World.  We have an upper class, an upper middle class, a middle class and so forth till you hit the unseens (those that are lower than normal poverty, normally those that are homeless and the like). 

I'm not sure that Bush 2 would have ever become President if his father had not also been president or not.  I think it is very possible he could have been President with no one in his family being president previously.  HOWEVER...I also think that much of what helped him become nominated and get into the position he was in was due to his family's wealth, political and social position in society.  In that, they would be in the upper echelons of the political elite and he benefited from many of their social connections in Texas and the surrounding states throughout his life to be able to do things others would not be able to get away with or do themselves.

That would be due to his class or status of position in the United States.

At the same time you can take a man like William Clinton (Bill Clinton) who came from being a basic nobody (some would say from the lower dredges of white society) to the highest political office in America.  Many on the right do not respect him, but he is an example of someone who was born into what many would consider circumstances of lower society and rose up to be the most powerful man in the world.  His father was not legally married to his wife (though he had gone through the motions at the time, he was married to his third wife already at that point) and then died several months before William Clinton was born.  His stepfather had slightly better circumstances being somewhat economically well off at points but was considered an abusive father by Bill Clinton.  Bill Clinton got out of the abusive situation, went to College with the help of scholarships, then became a Rhodes scholar and then went on to Yale in law school.  Eventually he rose through the ranks to be a governor and then a US president.

Today in our present time, his family is also among the elite, but he is a good example of what is possible in the United States where you can come from nothing and rise to the highest elevations of society (and the opposite can happen to someone as well).

We have political classes and wealth classes and intellectual classes - this is common everywhere, even in old England (the commoners still manage to divide themselves into wealth and intellectual classes) and tribal Philippines.  The difference between this and England is that classes have mobility.  England, not so much, as they were not wise enough to establish a society with the basic tenet that all men are created without built-in privilege. 

The Bush family is a perfect illustration - W Bush climbed the ranks of political power with a little help from their position in the political class but tides turned against them and sunk Jeb.  The Philippines COULD have mobility but the divide between the high class to the low class is so wide that it is much easier for the high class to exert power over the low class.

And this is why Class Warfare in the USA is very bad because it destroys the cultural belief of men being born equal - when you have politicians that tell you "we're going to tax the 1% to pay for benefits of the welfare class" you're actually establishing a PERMANENT wealth class which is terribly erroneous.  Because, wealth is very mobile - when people think of "taxing the 1%" they think of Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, etc.  They don't think of Joe Blow who finally made it to the 1% through 5 generations of digging themselves out of poverty just to be knocked down back to poverty after the government takes 90% of the fruits of his labors.  Or Jane Crane whose family was in the 1% for 5 generations but then wasted all her money so she ended up with Joe Blow's money.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, anatess2 said:

The difference between this and England is that classes have mobility.  England, not so much, as they were not wise enough to establish a society with the basic tenet that all men are created without built-in privilege.

I'm curious - how much experience do you really have of English society?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jamie123 said:

I'm curious - how much experience do you really have of English society?

A lot actually.  The abandonment of the Divine Right of Kings in England developed before the French Revolution.  But, until today, you still have your nobles.  The commoners still look up to their nobles to do noble things.  They simply do not have political power.  Commoners still support them in the same manner they tilled the nobles' lands back when the Divine Right was in place.  And now the English have a furor because one of their nobles married a commoner who has no problem spending the commoner's money to buy Wimbledon tickets but will not allow the commoners to take her picture.  So yes, a commoner can become noble - like if you marry into the peerage - but nobility is granted at birth and you can't become un-noble (well, I guess you can abdicate your title - but I don't think that makes you a commoner).  It's a permanent class.  There's no such permanent classes in the USA.

Now, here's a snarky question right back at you.  How much understanding do you really have of what CLASS means?

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 1:02 PM, Jamie123 said:
On 11/22/2019 at 12:03 PM, Vort said:

That's what I was always taught the American Dream meant: That you could work to be anything or anyone you wanted to be, no matter who your parents were

In theory for sure, but do think George W Bush would ever have become president if his father hadn't been before him?

Note that we're talking about two different things. You're pointing out that privilege is inheritable and not equally distributed, a point with which I agree. But that does not negate my underlying point, which is that the promise of America was that you have the right to try to better your lot in life without being constrained by societal requirements having to do with the situation of your birth. This is true even for immigrants, who enjoy the protection of all the same rights as native-born Americans.

The only thing I know of that is kept from immigrants is the Constitutional requirement that restricts the ability of an immigrant to be elected as the President of the United States of America. Other than that, the sky's the limit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

A lot actually.  The abandonment of the Divine Right of Kings in England developed before the French Revolution.  But, until today, you still have your nobles.  The commoners still look up to their nobles to do noble things.  They simply do not have political power.

As a matter of fact they do...somewhat. The hereditary peers are allowed to elect 93 of their number to sit and vote in the Upper House. But compare that with the 600+ life peers who were NOT born noble. Tony Blair tried to get rid of the hereditaries altogether, and the residual 92 were a temporary compromise he had to agree to. Their days are numbered - I reckon in another generation they'll be gone and irrelevant. Even now we don't think about them anything like as much as you seem to think we do.

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Commoners still support them in the same manner they tilled the nobles' lands back when the Divine Right was in place.

Oh yes...absolutely. Every morning I put on my peasant's smock and go down to Lord Muck's pig farm, tug my forelock and say "OO arrr m'lord do you want me to shovel away all last night's pig muck, and then polish all the piglets shiny with patent piglet polish?"

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

And now the English have a furor because one of their nobles married a commoner who has no problem spending the commoner's money to buy Wimbledon tickets but will not allow the commoners to take her picture.

Actually he was a prince, not a noble. (He only got a noble title after the marriage.) But your point is...?

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So yes, a commoner can become noble - like if you marry into the peerage - but nobility is granted at birth and you can't become un-noble

You can lose a peerage. It's uncommon, but it does happen. You can do it voluntarily: Alec Douglas Home gave up his title Earl of Home in 1963 so he could stand for election to parliament. Tony Benn (Lord Stansgate) did the same thing the same year. Admittedly it is very uncommon for a peer to be stripped of their title involuntarily, but I think sooner or later there will be laws to allow this to happen more often. (A lot of people thought it should have happened to Jeffrey Archer after he got convicted of telling porkies in court!)

Also marrying into the peerage doesn't make you a substantive peer. If you were for example to marry Lord Muck you could style yourself Lady Muck - but it would be a title and nothing else. Most peers of any importance these days are life peers - they were appointed by the government and they vote in the Upper House. The closest equivalent to them are the US Senate.

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It's a permanent class.  There's no such permanent classes in the USA.

To some very limited extent yes - but it's rapidly becoming a permanent nothing. If you don't have money and lands, what does it actually mean to be an Earl or a Marquis? Most of the great country estates collapsed during the 20th Century, and the few who are left are strapped for cash. Many had to marry into rich Anglophile American families to stay afloat. 

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Now, here's a snarky question right back at you.  How much understanding do you really have of what CLASS means?

*BUUURRPP* It's a fing that's used to create objects, innit? 😁

 

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

As a matter of fact they do...somewhat. The hereditary peers are allowed to elect 93 of their number to sit and vote in the Upper House. But compare that with the 600+ life peers who were NOT born noble. Tony Blair tried to get rid of the hereditaries altogether, and the residual 92 were a temporary compromise he had to agree to. Their days are numbered - I reckon in another generation they'll be gone and irrelevant. Even now we don't think about them anything like as much as you seem to think we do.

Oh yes...absolutely. Every morning I put on my peasant's smock and go down to Lord Muck's pig farm, tug my forelock and say "OO arrr m'lord do you want me to shovel away all last night's pig muck, and then polish all the piglets shiny with patent piglet polish?"

Your point being...?

You can lose a peerage. It's uncommon, but it does happen. You can do it voluntarily: Alec Douglas Home gave up his title Earl of Home in 1963 so he could stand for election to parliament. Tony Benn (Lord Stansgate) did the same thing the same year. Admittedly it is very uncommon for a peer to be stripped of their title involuntarily, but I think sooner or later there will be laws to allow this to happen more often.

Also marrying into the peerage doesn't make you a substantive peer. If you were for example to marry Lord Muck you could style yourself Lady Muck - but it would be a title and nothing else. Most peers of any importance these days are life peers - they were appointed by the government and they vote in the Upper House. The closest equivalent to them are the US Senate.

To some very limited extent yes - but it's rapidly becoming a permanent nothing. If you don't have money and lands, what does it actually mean to be an Earl or a Marquis? Most of the great country estates collapsed during the 20th Century, and the few who are left are strapped for cash. Many had to marry into rich Anglophile American families to stay afloat. 

*BUUURRPP* It's a fing that's used to create objects, innit? 😁

 

Peerage is a nobility versus commoner class.  Nothing much to do with how much money you got (which would be a wealth class) or how much political power you got (which would be political class).  The fact still remains - nobility is a permanent class that comes with specific privileges - some form of deference.  Currently, the nobles lifestyle are subsidized by commoner's work (in form of taxes).

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Peerage is a nobility versus commoner class.  Nothing much to do with how much money you got (which would be a wealth class) or how much political power you got (which would be political class).  The fact still remains - the nobles lifestyle are subsidized by commoner's work (in form of taxes).

Really? Are you telling me that anyone with "Lord" or "Lady" in front of their name is siphoning money out of my pay packet? That's news to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Really? Are you telling me that anyone with "Lord" or "Lady" in front of their name is siphoning money out of my pay packet? That's news to me!

I edited my post.  The fact that they get the privilege of you having to refer to them as Lord or Lady just for being born illustrates my point completely.  And I thought you got all the experience of being British... how do you not know that the British public pays for the royal family?  Last year, the monies the royals received, if spread across all Brits equally, cost each of you 69 pence.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

I edited my post.  The fact that they get the privilege of you - a commoner - having to refer to them as Lord or Lady is a privilege.  And I thought you got all the experience of being British... how do you not know that the British public pays for the royals?  Last year, the expenditures of the royals, if spread across all Brits equally, cost each of you 69 pence.

I don't know any nobles, but if I did I would call them "lord" or "lady" because that's what their title is. I wouldn't tug my forelock or grovel on the ground.

As for the royals you're talking about the civil list. Yes that money does come from taxes. What *you* don't seem to realize is that in return for that, the government gets all the revenues from the crown estates. The only way you're going to get around that is saying that "all property is theft" and those estates belong to the country anyway because the royals (ore more precisely the Queen) didn't work for them but inherited them. But Americans have no problem with inherited wealth so....yah boo right back at you, sister!! 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jamie123 said:

Americans have no problem with inherited wealth

Oh yes they do. In fact, people really resent it if you inherited a large amount of money or property. Envy came across the pond too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

I don't know any nobles, but if I did I would call them "lord" or "lady" because that's what their title is. I wouldn't tug my forelock or grovel on the ground.

EXACTLY.  Permanent Class.

 

Quote

As for the royals you're talking about the civil list. Yes that money does come from taxes. What *you* don't seem to realize is that in return for that, the government gets all the revenues from the crown estates. The only way you're going to get around that is saying that "all property is theft" and those estates belong to the country anyway because the royals (ore more precisely the Queen) didn't work for them but inherited them. But Americans have no problem with inherited wealth so....yah boo right back at you, sister!! 😛

Except... that the royals at genesis owned the property not by purchase or spoils of war... but by claims to the Permanent Class.  

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Vort said:

...the promise of America was that you have the right to try to better your lot in life without being constrained by societal requirements having to do with the situation of your birth.

Absolutely! What I don't agree with is that this is more true for Americans than it is for the British. OK you can point at people like Boris dePffeff[whatever] Johnson and say that his current position as PM had something to do with his privileged upbringing...Eton...Oxford etc. But I could just as easily point at George W. Bush and say the same thing.

And sorry to keep banging on about Lord Sugar, but he started his career selling car radio antennas out of the back of a van which he bought for 50 quid.

Edited by Jamie123

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Oh yes...absolutely. Every morning I put on my peasant's smock and go down to Lord Muck's pig farm, tug my forelock and say "OO arrr m'lord do you want me to shovel away all last night's pig muck, and then polish all the piglets shiny with patent piglet polish?"

I knew it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now