UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Ostroeuropa]

I think they're aiming to reduce it in the long term even if it intensifies for a while. You can't really blame the victim if someone says;

"I'm quitting my job because you keep harassing me" and then that person escalates their harassment.

I guess you'd decide "Well obviously that can't be why they quit then, because the harassment got worse. They must be lying.".

It is an argument because it casts doubt on the claim that 'reducing media attention and coverage' is the reason for the shock announcement that the two of them will be withdrawing from their royal duties. More likely this is just a desire not to have to discharge the burdens and responsibilities of attending royal engagements, avoiding all the time and effort involved and pushing that burden onto all the other senior royals.

The press doesn't need to cover them more. They're choosing to do so despite the public not really caring.

[Purgatio]

Fine, I will, I didn't think the phrase was anything to raise an eyebrow about because that's literally how they are referred to in the media and is how senior members of the royal family refer to it themselves, but if you don't like then I won't use it. I don't see why its a big deal though.

It's a big deal because it is cringe. It is cringe because in normal discourse it doesn't get said constantly, like you are using it. Even media articles don't use it as much as you are using it.

The phrase serves a communicative purpose here, both King George VI and Prince Phillip described the royal family as "the Firm" precisely because it highlights that being a member of the royal family comes with responsibilities and duties, no different than the duties that attend any other job and occupation, and just as all employees in a company work together towards the common goal of discharging those responsibilities, senior royals cooperate and work together in the same fashion. Given that the conversation was about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex attempting to unilaterally act in dereliction of full-time royal duties, the phrase is even more salient in this context when discussing the royal family, than in most other occasions.

[Purgatio]

Cool, sounds like this whole thing will be temporary, or at least that's what the quote "period of transition" implies, that the two of them will return to their full-time royal duties in the future.

That's...not how I interpret that statement...

It could mean transition into not being full-time royals, the article is really short and light on details so like I said, better to follow the story until more details about this agreement breaks

[Andsed]

Why should we care about the “prestige and respect” of the royal family though? It really does not effect us.

If you don't think the royal family is culturally relevant or socially important, then that's an argument for doing away with the monarchy altogether. But if Britain retains its monarchy, then the purpose of that royal family, so long as they continue to remain the royal family, is to be a living and breathing embodiment of British history and culture, all the senior royals are collectively symbols of British heritage and her historical legacy. That position comes with essential roles and responsibilities. If you are to remain a prestigious symbol of national cultural heritage, you have to remain relevant and participate in British high society, in British public life, particularly her social, cultural, and charitable sectors of society. The 2,000 annual royal engagements I keep harping on are central to the very function of the British monarchy, its entire raison d'être is to be living embodiments of Britain's historical legacy and identity as a nation, and that comes with basic duties and responsibilities, as well as perks and privileges.

Still failing to see the big deal. The monarchy is not vital to the well being of the British public and a guy retiring from public life because he does not like being hounded by the media is not going to hurt anyone.

[The New California Republic]

That's...not how I interpret that statement...

It could mean transition into not being full-time royals, the article is really short and light on details so like I said, better to follow the story until more details about this agreement breaks

She said in a statement she is "entirely supportive" of their desire for a new role but "would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family".

It's pretty clear it won't be temporary...

[The New California Republic]

It's a big deal because it is cringe. It is cringe because in normal discourse it doesn't get said constantly, like you are using it. Even media articles don't use it as much as you are using it.

The phrase serves a communicative purpose here, both King George VI and Prince Phillip described the royal family as "the Firm" precisely because it highlights that being a member of the royal family comes with responsibilities and duties, no different than the duties that attend any other job and occupation, and just as all employees in a company work together towards the common goal of discharging those responsibilities, senior royals cooperate and work together in the same fashion. Given that the conversation was about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex attempting to unilaterally act in dereliction of full-time royal duties, the phrase is even more salient in this context when discussing the royal family, than in most other occasions.

Not really. We know what you are discussing, so you don't need to keep spamming it.

[Purgatio]

If you don't think the royal family is culturally relevant or socially important, then that's an argument for doing away with the monarchy altogether. But if Britain retains its monarchy, then the purpose of that royal family, so long as they continue to remain the royal family, is to be a living and breathing embodiment of British history and culture, all the senior royals are collectively symbols of British heritage and her historical legacy. That position comes with essential roles and responsibilities. If you are to remain a prestigious symbol of national cultural heritage, you have to remain relevant and participate in British high society, in British public life, particularly her social, cultural, and charitable sectors of society. The 2,000 annual royal engagements I keep harping on are central to the very function of the British monarchy, its entire raison d'être is to be living embodiments of Britain's historical legacy and identity as a nation, and that comes with basic duties and responsibilities, as well as perks and privileges.

Still failing to see the big deal. The monarchy is not vital to the well being of the British public and a guy retiring from public life because he does not like being hounded by the media is not going to hurt anyone.

It hurts the other senior royals, and if future senior royals follow their example and disregard their duties as full-time royals, it could put immense strain on the royal family's ability to attend as many royal engagements as they presently do, which hurts the prestige and respect of the affected organisations and, by extension, the British public's faith and confidence in the ability of the royal family and the Sovereign to embody the British nation as her head of state.

[Vassenor]

Still failing to see the big deal. The monarchy is not vital to the well being of the British public and a guy retiring from public life because he does not like being hounded by the media is not going to hurt anyone.

It hurts the other senior royals, and if future senior royals follow their example and disregard their duties as full-time royals, it could put immense strain on the royal family's ability to attend as many royal engagements as they presently do, which hurts the prestige and respect of the affected organisations and, by extension, the British public's faith and confidence in the ability of the royal family and the Sovereign to embody the British nation as her head of state.

Well then maybe the Media should've thought of that before hounding his wife just for existing.

[Andsed]

Still failing to see the big deal. The monarchy is not vital to the well being of the British public and a guy retiring from public life because he does not like being hounded by the media is not going to hurt anyone.

It hurts the other senior royals, and if future senior royals follow their example and disregard their duties as full-time royals, it could put immense strain on the royal family's ability to attend as many royal engagements as they presently do, which hurts the prestige and respect of the affected organisations and, by extension, the British public's faith and confidence in the ability of the royal family and the Sovereign to embody the British nation as her head of state.

And? Why does it matter if the monarchy loses some prestige? How does that hurt the British public?

[The New California Republic]

Still failing to see the big deal. The monarchy is not vital to the well being of the British public and a guy retiring from public life because he does not like being hounded by the media is not going to hurt anyone.

It hurts the other senior royals, and if future senior royals follow their example and disregard their duties as full-time royals, it could put immense strain on the royal family's ability to attend as many royal engagements as they presently do, which hurts the prestige and respect of the affected organisations and, by extension, the British public's faith and confidence in the ability of the royal family and the Sovereign to embody the British nation as her head of state.

*Shrug*

[Purgatio]

It could mean transition into not being full-time royals, the article is really short and light on details so like I said, better to follow the story until more details about this agreement breaks

She said in a statement she is "entirely supportive" of their desire for a new role but "would have preferred them to remain full-time working members of the Royal Family".

It's pretty clear it won't be temporary...

Yeah that's true, I guess what I meant is the article's pretty ambiguous about what precisely the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be 'transitioning' into. Becoming part-time royals? Withdrawing from royal duties altogether? Something else? And what limitations will there be on their ability to benefit from public expenses on the royal family, or to market and profit from their status as members of the royal family? We won't know any of this until we get more details on what this agreement between the Queen and the two of them looks like.

[The New California Republic]

It's pretty clear it won't be temporary...

Yeah that's true, I guess what I meant is the article's pretty ambiguous about what precisely the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will be 'transitioning' into. Becoming part-time royals? Withdrawing from royal duties altogether? Something else? And what limitations will there be on their ability to benefit from public expenses on the royal family, or to market and profit from their status as members of the royal family? We won't know any of this until we get more details on what this agreement between the Queen and the two of them looks like.

Not that it really matters anyway.

[The New California Republic]

It's a big deal because it is cringe. It is cringe because in normal discourse it doesn't get said constantly, like you are using it. Even media articles don't use it as much as you are using it.

Well said. A firm response

[Ifreann]

You know, if anyone else felt like moving out of Britain they wouldn't have to negotiate a transitional period with either their gran or their boss. Anyone else can just tell their family they'll be home for Christmas and tell their boss to take the job and re-staff it and be on their way with their rich wife and newborn son.

Therefore we must conclude that the institution of monarchy constitutes immoral and inexcusable oppression of those born into it. For their own good the royal family must be granted the status of ordinary British citizen at once, they must be liberated from the yoke of their titles, lands, and wealth.

[Novus America]

I think they're aiming to reduce it in the long term even if it intensifies for a while. You can't really blame the victim if someone says;

"I'm quitting my job because you keep harassing me" and then that person escalates their harassment.

I guess you'd decide "Well obviously that can't be why they quit then, because the harassment got worse. They must be lying.".

It is an argument because it casts doubt on the claim that 'reducing media attention and coverage' is the reason for the shock announcement that the two of them will be withdrawing from their royal duties. More likely this is just a desire not to have to discharge the burdens and responsibilities of attending royal engagements, avoiding all the time and effort involved and pushing that burden onto all the other senior royals.

No, the average tabloid reader, especially in the US for example (the British Windsor family drama is all over the shitty tabloids at drugstore counters here) does not give a fuck about whatever theory you have about the implications for the royal institutions or whatever.

Do you really think the bored suburban housewives who read those rags are philosophical monarchists who look at such things in the light of monarchist political philosophy?
Do you think they also read Hobbes?
Especially when they care just as much about the Kardashians?

Most just like spicy drama and spicy memes. It is a soap opera.
The readers and publishers WANT the family to be dysfunctional. If the Windsors were always functional and boring they would not sell tabloids.

[Salandriagado]

Queen agrees "period of transition" in which Harry and Meghan will spend time in Canada and UK - statement.

You don't need to be so worked up about it anymore Purgatio, as ma'am has spoken.

Cool, sounds like this whole thing will be temporary, or at least that's what the quote "period of transition" implies, that the two of them will return to their full-time royal duties in the future. I'd be curious to see what the full agreement looks like when it's reached, as well as how long that transitional period will be.

That is literally the opposite of what the word "transition" means.

[Novus America]

Queen agrees "period of transition" in which Harry and Meghan will spend time in Canada and UK - statement.

You don't need to be so worked up about it anymore Purgatio, as ma'am has spoken.

Cool, sounds like this whole thing will be temporary, or at least that's what the quote "period of transition" implies, that the two of them will return to their full-time royal duties in the future. I'd be curious to see what the full agreement looks like when it's reached, as well as how long that transitional period will be.

Umm “periods of transition” while of course limited in duration imply an intermediary status from going to one thing to another very different one.
You would not refer to a temporary sabbatical or vacation as a “period of transition”.

If you revert to the same status after the period as you had before it is NOT a period of transition.

What this means is after the period of transition ends their status will be very different than it was before and they will no longer be “full time royals”.

[Purgatio]

It hurts the other senior royals, and if future senior royals follow their example and disregard their duties as full-time royals, it could put immense strain on the royal family's ability to attend as many royal engagements as they presently do, which hurts the prestige and respect of the affected organisations and, by extension, the British public's faith and confidence in the ability of the royal family and the Sovereign to embody the British nation as her head of state.

And? Why does it matter if the monarchy loses some prestige? How does that hurt the British public?

The British Monarch is the Sovereign, she is the Head of State, she is literally the symbolic representation of the British State and nation and all that that entails. So when the Monarch's prestige is impaired, because the actions of a senior royal and his spouse are dealing blows to that prestige, it hurts the honour and prestige of the British nation by extension.

[Purgatio]

You know, if anyone else felt like moving out of Britain they wouldn't have to negotiate a transitional period with either their gran or their boss. Anyone else can just tell their family they'll be home for Christmas and tell their boss to take the job and re-staff it and be on their way with their rich wife and newborn son.

Therefore we must conclude that the institution of monarchy constitutes immoral and inexcusable oppression of those born into it. For their own good the royal family must be granted the status of ordinary British citizen at once, they must be liberated from the yoke of their titles, lands, and wealth.

Its not immoral and inexcusable oppression, we all have our roles to play in an organised social community, the role of the British royal family and its senior royals is to embody and represent the highest ideals of British cultural heritage, and that comes with the responsibility of heavy involvement and regular participation in apolitical parts of British public life, especially in the cultural, artistic, and charitable sectors (the royal engagements and charities tend to be heavily involved in these specific areas). That's what it takes to remain continuing symbols of the nation who inspire love from the people. But it also comes with privileges too - the adoration and love of much of the British public, personal expenses maintained through public financing, access to the Crown Estates (with its revenues turned over to the Treasury) and proceeds from the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall, noble titles, a position of social privilege and prestige. As with all things, you have to take the rough with the smooth, the nobility and privilege that comes with being born into the royal family carries its attendant responsibilities and duties that you cannot just shrug off and burden the other senior royals with at a whim, just because you and your wife aren't willing to do your job.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

I am so very unhappy Dan Jarvis didn't get enough nominations to stand.

[Purgatio]

It is an argument because it casts doubt on the claim that 'reducing media attention and coverage' is the reason for the shock announcement that the two of them will be withdrawing from their royal duties. More likely this is just a desire not to have to discharge the burdens and responsibilities of attending royal engagements, avoiding all the time and effort involved and pushing that burden onto all the other senior royals.

No, the average tabloid reader, especially in the US for example (the British Windsor family drama is all over the shitty tabloids at drugstore counters here) does not give a fuck about whatever theory you have about the implications for the royal institutions or whatever.

Do you really think the bored suburban housewives who read those rags are philosophical monarchists who look at such things in the light of monarchist political philosophy?
Especially when they care just as much about the Kardashians?

Most just like spicy drama and spicy memes. It is a soap opera.
The readers and publishers WANT the family to be dysfunctional. If the Windsors were always functional and boring they would not sell tabloids.

I've literally seen articles in CNN, NBC News, the New York Times, and other such reputable newspapers covering the latest updates from the Sandringham summit and this latest royal crisis. Here's one such example from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/sandringham-summit-explained-prince-harry-and-the-queen-may-discuss-titles-money-and-the-royal-brand/2020/01/13/9fbc5680-360f-11ea-a1ff-c48c1d59a4a1_story.html). These are far from disreputable or trashy tabloid media outlets.

And the royal family's cultural function is very different from that of soap opera stars or reality TV celebrities, like the Kardashians. The crass spectacle of crude popular entertainment attracts many idle minds precisely because it is a form of gutter entertainment that appeals to people's basest primordial instincts, but I think its safe to say members of the British public who follow the lives of Love Island celebrities do so for very different reasons than they follow the lives of the royal family. The royal family represents an enduring an indelible aspect of British history, the lasting legacy and product of a family tree stretching over (literally) centuries, that aesthetic comes with a sense of regalness, an elegance, and a nobility, that evades and eludes most of the ordinary people that entices one's imagination towards higher ideals of gentility and refinement, it is that aesthetic that draws public attention, British and non-British alike, towards the lives of the royal family. Scandals that make the royals look like trashy bickering relatives on a reality TV show would gradually erode and undermine that aesthetic of refinement, elegance and prestige that makes the royals so attractive in the first place, turning a polished source of entertainment into more of your usual typical garden-variety version of crass, rough, and crude spectacle of modern entertainment. The unique and distinctive appeal of the royal family would not last long under those circumstances.

[Purgatio]

Cool, sounds like this whole thing will be temporary, or at least that's what the quote "period of transition" implies, that the two of them will return to their full-time royal duties in the future. I'd be curious to see what the full agreement looks like when it's reached, as well as how long that transitional period will be.

Umm “periods of transition” while of course limited in duration imply an intermediary status from going to one thing to another very different one.
You would not refer to a temporary sabbatical or vacation as a “period of transition”.

If you revert to the same status after the period as you had before it is NOT a period of transition.

What this means is after the period of transition ends their status will be very different than it was before and they will no longer be “full time royals”.

I misread Her Majesty's quote, when she spoke of a "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" my immediate assumption was that this meant the Duke and Duchess of Sussex would be transitioning from their present state, as estranged royals seeking to part with or extricate themseleves from the other senior royals, to a state of returning back to their usual duties and responsibilities as full-time royals not in a state of attempting to extricate themselves from that position. In retrospect that does seem like a very non-intuitive interpretation of that quote, which is why I replied to NCR's reply stating I had misunderstood the quote and conceded it makes more sense to interpret "period of transition" to mean a transition to a state of not being full-time royals, but I think the reason I immediately jumped to that interpretation of "period of transition" is because of all the recent news about Her Majesty having been blindsided by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's surprise announcent, her personal dissatisfaction and unhappiness about that decision (according to the royal experts that appeared on ITV's This Morning and on the BBC, anyway), and so when I read the quote about "period of transition in which the Sussexes will spend time in Canada and the UK" I jumped to assuming this meant the Duke and Duchess would enjoy a 'temporary break' from being full-time royals before transitioning back into becoming permanent full-time royals (as opposed to their current state of being full-time royals presently attempting to extricate themselves from that occupation).

Although, like I said when I replied to NCR, there are a lot of details that the short BBC article still doesn't tell us, because the details about this transitional agreement are not yet out to the public. We still don't know what state they will be transitioning to after that period, whether they will be part-time royals or not participate in any remaining royal engagements and charities thereafter, whether they will retain their titles as Duke and Duchess of Sussex and all the other titles they hold (Earl of Dumbarton, Baron Kilkeel etc.), what restrictions there will be on their ability to market their royal status or capitalise on their title for private profit (if any), whether there will be any remaining personal expenses of theirs still to be paid for by the Treasury (like travel expenses, if they become part-time royals and so take part in some royal engagements), the status of Frogmore Cottage, whether they will have access to revenues from say the Duchy of Cornwall, that sort of thing. So I agree with you that "transition" means to transition out of the state of being full-time royals into something else, what that something else is however, is less clear at the moment.

[Andsed]

And? Why does it matter if the monarchy loses some prestige? How does that hurt the British public?

The British Monarch is the Sovereign, she is the Head of State, she is literally the symbolic representation of the British State and nation and all that that entails. So when the Monarch's prestige is impaired, because the actions of a senior royal and his spouse are dealing blows to that prestige, it hurts the honour and prestige of the British nation by extension.

And how exactly does any of that actually harm the average British citizen? Because the loss of a nations “prestige and honor” is purely symbolic and not that harmful to citizens.

[Ifreann]

You know, if anyone else felt like moving out of Britain they wouldn't have to negotiate a transitional period with either their gran or their boss. Anyone else can just tell their family they'll be home for Christmas and tell their boss to take the job and re-staff it and be on their way with their rich wife and newborn son.

Therefore we must conclude that the institution of monarchy constitutes immoral and inexcusable oppression of those born into it. For their own good the royal family must be granted the status of ordinary British citizen at once, they must be liberated from the yoke of their titles, lands, and wealth.

Its not immoral and inexcusable oppression, we all have our roles to play in an organised social community,

I was not assigned a social role at birth. I rather suspect you weren't either. In a free country, people get to find their place in their community themselves. The royals are denied this freedom. Theirs may be a gilded cage, but it is a cage nonetheless, and if we value freedom we must tear it open and set them free.

the role of the British royal family and its senior royals is to embody and represent the highest ideals of British cultural heritage, and that comes with the responsibility of heavy involvement and regular participation in apolitical parts of British public life, especially in the cultural, artistic, and charitable sectors (the royal engagements and charities tend to be heavily involved in these specific areas). That's what it takes to remain continuing symbols of the nation who inspire love from the people. But it also comes with privileges too - the adoration and love of much of the British public, personal expenses maintained through public financing, access to the Crown Estates (with its revenues turned over to the Treasury) and proceeds from the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall, noble titles, a position of social privilege and prestige. As with all things, you have to take the rough with the smooth, the nobility and privilege that comes with being born into the royal family carries its attendant responsibilities and duties that you cannot just shrug off and burden the other senior royals with at a whim, just because you and your wife aren't willing to do your job.

Why not? Every other person is allowed to quit their job if they want to do something else.

[Novus America]

Although yes some more serious outlets did report on the matter, they simple fact is that such reports are not the ones driving most the media attention. They are not the paparazzi.

A massive portion of the media attention is in fact “gutter entertainment” as you would put it.
If not for such entertainment the interest in the royal family would drop.

And yes you can argue using them as such undermines the while simultaneously keeping them relevant in the popular perception sure, and thus the system is self defeating and unsustainable but that does not change the fact that such a system is the system currently in place.

Philosophical monarchists are a tiny number, the vast majority of monarchy supporters do not support it for such philosophical reasons. And instead based on emotion and entertainment.