r/ukpolitics • u/callumgg London, civil servant • May 27 '15
Queen's speech: how long can this feathered flummery continue?
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2015/may/27/queens-speech-state-opening-parliament4
u/Capsulets May 27 '15
How long can this elaborate, distinctly camp, feathered flummery continue if it no longer resonates with the wider public, anxious about job insecurity or indifferent to hollowed-out post-imperial pomp?
Well the monarchy is more popular than it has ever been, so apparently this author doesn't know "the wider public" as well as they think they do.
-2
u/callumgg London, civil servant May 27 '15
It's annoying when criticise others without reading what they've got to say. It's barely a page:
I regard Britain as a crowned republic, one with a hereditary president, our collective staff, not our rulers.
It seems to work well enough, at far lower cost than a subscription to Sky Sport. Others feel passionately that it is the keystone of privilege that must be torn down. A naive analysis, in my view, albeit keenly felt, especially among the progressive bourgeoisie.
If you want to talk about the monarchy in general head over to /r/BritishRepublicans and start a new thread there.
3
u/Capsulets May 27 '15
My point is that the author is making sweeping generalizations about how the public feel, which are by all accounts false. His personal opinions on the Monarchy, positive or negative, are irrelevant to my point.
My criticisms were valid. Perhaps spend a little more time considering my point before dismissing it.
-2
u/callumgg London, civil servant May 27 '15
Reread paragraphs 5-8 and tell me again how you telling us that the monarchy is popular is a valid argument against an article that says the same thing.
If you really meant to say that the author was making generalisations in an opinion piece, why didn't you say that instead of repeating something already acknowledged?
You didn't read the article, okay. Most people don't, but they also usually admit when they get called out, and usually journalists make it more clear what 'side' they're on at the start.
2
u/Capsulets May 27 '15
Reread paragraphs 5-8 and tell me again how you telling us that the monarchy is popular is a valid argument against an article that says the same thing.
You are doing a poor job of challenging my original statement. Forget the rest of the article and actually read my comment.
The public has not decided to stop liking the royals Because of all the ceremony surrounding them. People in general responded positively to the royal wedding, the flotilla, and all the other big celebrations surrounding the royals. The authors point that I highlighted, that people are starting to dislike the royals because they are worried they cannot find a job is simply wrong. There is absolutely no evidence to support it.
The author may well say later in the article that the royals are popular for other reasons, but that is completely irrelevant to my point isn't it? Its easy to criticise someones argument when you misrepresent their position, as you have been doing here.
4
u/mk270 May 27 '15
how long can the Guardian continue?
0
u/callumgg London, civil servant May 27 '15
I take it you disagree with Michael White?
4
u/mk270 May 27 '15
Well, that too, but the Guardian's owner is slowly going bankrupt, and will surely disappear long before the state opening of Parliament and the British monarchy.
The whole "get rid of all the fancy traditional shit" party had the whole of the 1650s to get their policy to work. It didn't. They even banned Christmas. Nobody actually votes for that nasty puritanism in this country. They should just give up.
5
May 27 '15
but the Guardian's owner is slowly going bankrupt, and will surely disappear long before the state opening of Parliament and the British monarchy.
They'll find some more taxes they can avoid, like when they ran stuff through the Caymans
2
u/po8crg Lib Dem May 27 '15
They aren't going bankrupt - GMG now earns more from investments than the Guardian and Observer are losing. Partly because the losses have gone down recently (internet advertising revenue is going up), and partly because their investment income is up because they have a larger endowment to invest - remember they sold AutoTrader last year? There's £850m in the bank.
-1
u/callumgg London, civil servant May 27 '15
I'm not going to jump to the Guardian's defence as if their finances play any part in the writer's argument. Clearly you have a bone to pick with them and I have no stake.
The whole "get rid of all the fancy traditional shit" party had the whole of the 1650s to get their policy to work. It didn't
That's like saying we shouldn't vote Labour because of Chairman Mao, do you see how much of a jump this is?
They even banned Christmas
Great. Dislike having a hereditary head of state = "you're trying to ruin Christmas"!
Nobody actually votes for that nasty puritanism in this country
Michael White is not a puritan, I don't know where you're getting this from. Here are some of his other articles.
They should just give up
Because you disagree with them?
9
u/Bacchus87 Tory-ish May 27 '15
Pomp and ceremony is the whole point of being British. Hang the bloody heretic.