The Royal Family Discussion Thread

[glennpickard 10]

As I understand it the lineage goes back to William the Conqueror (a Norman) in 1066,but there have been a few breaks along the way eg. the introduction of the Hanoverians in the 1700s to keep a male line intact.

But my point is that the UK has been a good custodian of what happened historically, why, and the consequences (good or not so good). And transitioned to a successful constitutional monarchy. The country has learnt a lot by this and the Queen, despite the naysayers, embodies all that experience and knowledge and is respected for this. I don't support throwing that away.

Also the institution has value to many people in the UK, because foreign visitors want to see the most successful monarchy for themselves, bringing in millions of pounds to small businesses, the country's largest employee group.

 

Could it be wishful thinking when you say "Only 30% of the people care about the monarchy?" From my review of support for the Monarchy it appears significantly higher, but I don't know the exact number.

And you may have a point in that many people are apathetic. But try to remove something of national value, and they will come alive quickly

Edited October 24, 2018 by glennpickard
wrong word

[Anna B 1,414]

How does that show that the people haven't got there because of what they know?

 

Because Privately educated individuals are vastly over represented in the top jobs.

Tim nice but Dim can still get a cracking job in spite of being a bit thick if he knows the right people - you know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Don't bump into them very often down the jobcentre.

 

I can only assume that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie (2:! degree) are particularly gifted as they seem able to do their jobs in spite of being on holiday for large parts of the year, (14 last year.)

 

Takes 'working from home' to a whole new level.

[truman 10]

Because Privately educated individuals are vastly over represented in the top jobs.

Tim nice but Dim can still get a cracking job in spite of being a bit thick if he knows the right people - you know it, I know it, everybody knows it. Don't bump into them very often down the jobcentre.

 

I can only assume that Princesses Beatrice and Eugenie (2:! degree) are particularly gifted as they seem able to do their jobs in spite of being on holiday for large parts of the year, (14 last year.)

 

Takes 'working from home' to a whole new level.

 

Who in particular? Are you saying top judges only get there because of who they know? Nothing to do with the bar exams etcetc?

[Anna B 1,414]

Who in particular? Are you saying top judges only get there because of who they know? Nothing to do with the bar exams etcetc?

 

 

7% of the population goes to private school, yet 70+% of judges are privately educated. Hardly representative of the population.

 

Law is still a bit of a closed shop because of the need to complete training 'in chambers.' Places are limited and in the gift of the people concerned so it's not surprising that they are given to people with personal connections, friends of the family etc.

 

A friend's daughter (privately educated as it happens,) left Durham University with a double first in Law and a prestigious prize (sorry, can't remeber the name of it,) but failed several attempts to get into chambers, because, she said, all the places were earmarked for sons, nephews and nieces etc.

End of career in Law. However, she now works for Goldman Sachs, so that's alright...

 

Anecdotal to be sure, although I have heard it said in several situations.

 

I'd like to know how many judges come from council houses, especially in areas with no grammar schools.

Edited October 24, 2018 by Anna B

[truman 10]

7% of the population goes to private school, yet 70+% of judges are privately educated. Hardly representative of the population.

 

Law is still a bit of a closed shop because of the need to complete training 'in chambers.' Places are limited and in the gift of the people concerned so it's not surprising that they are given to people with personal connections, friends of the family etc.

 

A friend's daughter (privately educated as it happens,) left Durham University with a double first in Law and a prestigious prize (sorry, can't remeber the name of it,) but failed several attempts to get into chambers, because, she said, all the places were earmarked for sons nephews and nieces etc. End of career in Law. However, she now works for Goldman Sachs, so that's alright...

 

Anecdotal to be sure, although I have heard it said in several situations.

 

I'd like to know how many judges come from council houses, especially in areas with no grammar schools.

 

Just to contrast a friend of mine is a respected barrister in London..only went to the local comp like me their dad was an electrician ..box standard ordinary folk...can't give names etc 'cos that wouldn't be fair to them..I also know someone whio got their first job in a factory 'cos their dad knew the manager of the department...

Edited October 24, 2018 by truman

[Anna B 1,414]

Just to contrast a friend of mine is a respected barrister in London..only went to the local comp like me their dad was an electrician ..box standard ordinary folk...can't give names etc 'cos that wouldn't be fair to them..I also know someone whio got their first job in a factory 'cos their dad knew the manager of the department...

 

Your friend is one of the 30% then. Good for him.

 

I'm not saying it never happens, just that the odds are against it.

[blake 10]

you may have a point in that many people are apathetic. But try to remove something of national value, and they will come alive quickly

 

if there was a referendum on the matter then yes, the vote would be massive to retain the monarchy. At least 2:1 and very possibly even 3:1. But turnout would probably be very low. Most people just don't care. A lot of young people, in particular, are going to realise that it is totally and manifestly unjust, which it is, and an anachronism.

 

there is no way for Republicans to get rid of the monarchy really, even if it were to get genuinely unpopular instead of most people not giving two hoots about it, unless there is some major disaster like a war, revolution, pestilence, or famine.

[phil752 10]

As I understand it the lineage goes back to William the Conqueror (a Norman) in 1066,but there have been a few breaks along the way eg. the introduction of the Hanoverians in the 1700s to keep a male line intact.

But my point is that the UK has been a good custodian of what happened historically, why, and the consequences (good or not so good). And transitioned to a successful constitutional monarchy. The country has learnt a lot by this and the Queen, despite the naysayers, embodies all that experience and knowledge and is respected for this. I don't support throwing that away.

Also the institution has value to many people in the UK, because foreign visitors want to see the most successful monarchy for themselves, bringing in millions of pounds to small businesses, the country's largest employee group.

 

Could it be wishful thinking when you say "Only 30% of the people care about the monarchy?" From my review of support for the Monarchy it appears significantly higher, but I don't know the exact number.

And you may have a point in that many people are apathetic. But try to remove something of national value, and they will come alive quickly

 

Only recently has the lineage , been given the equal rights bit, so in reality our current royal are all of German heritage.

[alchemist 37]

if there was a referendum on the matter then yes, the vote would be massive to retain the monarchy. At least 2:1 and very possibly even 3:1. But turnout would probably be very low. Most people just don't care. A lot of young people, in particular, are going to realise that it is totally and manifestly unjust, which it is, and an anachronism.

 

there is no way for Republicans to get rid of the monarchy really, even if it were to get genuinely unpopular instead of most people not giving two hoots about it, unless there is some major disaster like a war, revolution, pestilence, or famine.

 

You have a vote on becoming a republic and having a president instead of a Queen/King and we all know what the first argument in favour of retaining the monarchy is going to be. Pointing to America and asking, you want a president? really, REALLY????

[blake 10]

at least in the US that no matter who the president is they are going to out of there in eight years maximum. They are never going to be stuck with the same retard for 50 years like can happen in a monarchy.

[davyboy 19]

It's probably said many times but consider the alternative to the monarchy.

President Tony Blair, John Major....etc.

Not what they know but who they know. The old boys club marches on.

[Top Cats Hat 10]

Why do we need a head of State at all?