The Queen / The Monarchy

[the snail]

... but there could be a means test to establish if the carer, who formerly could afford the child, can now not afford it.

Getting the parent/s off on the right foot - they can afford every child - is desirable.

If that puts them under pressure to stay together and/or work, that may be no bad thing.
...

Why two though, I mean why give people any money for kids; if they can't afford them why allow the poor to reproduce at all?

 

[AndyRM]

How come so many sweaties are ginger and angry?

We're not. It's fun when we get called "sweaties" though.

 

[Ian H]

My former occupation has nothing to do with anything, same as yours.

The advantage of saying:



Is that it is meaningless claptrap, it cannot be argued against because it doesn't say anything.

Having come across this type of cobblers so many times, I've formed the conclusion that those using it know fine well the 'advantages'.



That's a point, but there could be a means test to establish if the carer, who formerly could afford the child, can now not afford it.

Getting the parent/s off on the right foot - they can afford every child - is desirable.

If that puts them under pressure to stay together and/or work, that may be no bad thing.



Seemed to have an element of the green-eyed monster about it to me.

I'm sure most of us would like to have more than we have.

The difference is that it's never bothered me that someone else has loads of money, I just want more for myself.

Although that seems less important as I get older.

Does it bother you that others have less than you - less than they need for essentials?

 

[Mr Celine]

I didn't realise you weren't allowed to actually have more than 2 children I just thought the free money you got for them was being limited to the first 2?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Of course you're allowed to have more than two. But surely the 'free money' includes money from the civil list?

You don't get child benefit for a third child, so why should a spare spare get money from the civil list?

 

[BoldonLad]

They are doing harm. They are the apex of one of the most unequal nations in Europe.

They are the standard bearers of unearned privilege.

Which leads me on to this...



They don't.

This is just an example of British exceptionalism, and is something we say about ourselves.

If you bothered to find out what other nations were saying about us during the coronation, they were laughing at us.

Any actual evidence to support the suggestion of what “other nations” were thinking?

 

[multitool]

Any actual evidence to support the suggestion of what “other nations” were thinking?

Well, I habitually read the foreign press, but I can remember where I read what I read, so I'll just resort to what you could perhaps have done yourself and googled it.

This seems a fair summation:

https://inews.co.uk/news/how-global...n-grand-spectacle-cringing-discomfort-2324496

 

[BoldonLad]

Well, I habitually read the foreign press, but I can remember where I read what I read, so I'll just resort to what you could perhaps have done yourself and googled it.

This seems a fair summation:

https://inews.co.uk/news/how-global...n-grand-spectacle-cringing-discomfort-2324496

So, there were SOME notable snubs, I am amazed.

 

[Pale Rider]

Does it bother you that others have less than you - less than they need for essentials?

I don't like the thought, but self-reliance has always been paramount with me.

It bothers me more those people may have had children which they had no chance of supporting without state aid.

Of course you're allowed to have more than two. But surely the 'free money' includes money from the civil list?

You don't get child benefit for a third child, so why should a spare spare get money from the civil list?

The civil list has been much reduced, it is part of what I was referring to when I said The Queen/Charles had reduced the overall size of the monarchy.

 

[Ian H]

I don't like the thought, but self-reliance has always been paramount with me.

It bothers me more those people may have had children which they had no chance of supporting without state aid.



The civil list has been much reduced, it is part of what I was referring to when I said The Queen/Charles had reduced the overall size of the monarchy.

Doing what they need to to retain the support of the majority of their 'subjects'. Mere cynical self-preservation.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Well, I habitually read the foreign press, but I can remember where I read what I read, so I'll just resort to what you could perhaps have done yourself and googled it.

This seems a fair summation:

https://inews.co.uk/news/how-global...n-grand-spectacle-cringing-discomfort-2324496

it is difficult to relate that article to what you said earlier

If you bothered to find out what other nations were saying about us during the coronation, they were laughing at us.

Perhaps there is more from the foreign press that you habitually read, but that article reports the obvious politically motivated comments from state owned media in Russia and China, plus critical comments from, surprise, surprise, the NY Times. The rest seemed generally positive with some questions about the role of a monarchy.

Case not proven. It seems that, just as in the UK, foreign opinions are mixed about the Royal Family and its pomp.

 

[Pale Rider]

And yet the ungrateful beggars had a rebellion to get rid of the monarchy. Maybe we could let the yanks have them back?

It did give me a nice patriotic feeling when I heard the last people to storm the White House before the Trump idiots were the British.

Think we might have made a better job of it, too, but I'm not sure about that.

 

[multitool]

it is difficult to relate that article to what you said earlier




Perhaps there is more from the foreign press that you habitually read, but that article reports the obvious politically motivated comments from state owned media in Russia and China, plus critical comments from, surprise, surprise, the NY Times. The rest seemed generally positive with some questions about the role of a monarchy.

Case not proven. It seems that, just as in the UK, foreign opinions are mixed about the Royal Family and its pomp.

Well, amongst other problems are paywalls, and assumptions about forumites language skills, for example:

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...nique-une-querelle-anglaise_6172163_3232.html

You won't find much sympathy in France for monarchy, for obvious reasons, nor indeed Germany. The oft quoted example is the US, but there again they like Disney parades. The truth is they aren't looking at the UK monarchy in admiration, despite the myths we tell ourselves about global affection for the Queen, they are looking at us as a backward, retrogressive nation stuck in post-imperial decline.

 

[Pale Rider]

Well, amongst other problems are paywalls, and assumptions about forumites language skills, for example:

https://www.lemonde.fr/idees/articl...nique-une-querelle-anglaise_6172163_3232.html

You won't find much sympathy in France for monarchy, for obvious reasons, nor indeed Germany. The oft quoted example is the US, but there again they like Disney parades. The truth is they aren't looking at the UK monarchy in admiration, despite the myths we tell ourselves about global affection for the Queen, they are looking at us as a backward, retrogressive nation stuck in post-imperial decline.

Even you can't talk away the obvious worldwide regard expressed for The Queen in the wake of her death.

The only good news for you is we have lost our star player.

 

[multitool]

Even you can't talk away the obvious worldwide regard expressed for The Queen in the wake of her death.

Diplomatic protocol is just another thing of which you are unaware. What did you think foreign governments would say, "Good, we are glad she is dead"?

The only good news for you is we have lost our star player.

One of the tropes rolled out after her death was along the lines of " all the things she has done for the nation", and yet, when I took a break from the hysterical and mindless coverage to reflect upon her role I couldn't name one single thing she had done for our nation.

She sat there, kept her mouth shut, and took the money. Behind the scenes she did all she could to ensure her family retained all their huge privileges, even vetting proposed laws and rejecting those that harmed her financial position regardless of the effect on the nation.

But here's you...

 

[Deleted member 28]

Of course you're allowed to have more than two. But surely the 'free money' includes money from the civil list?

You don't get child benefit for a third child, so why should a spare spare get money from the civil list?

Spare spare?