Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh Passed Away

[Standingstones]

That’s fatuous remark. Name me a country that doesn’t have a contrived sense of it’s own history and national identity.

No need to get your UK knickers in an uproar. God save the Queen!

 

[Hipper]

I’m British citizen and would prefer not to have a monarchy. However, have you considered how much of your own situation you can truly attribute to anything other than blind luck?

Yes I have. The success or otherwise of people in a meritocracy involves luck.

 

[Frank Dernie]

You neatly miss the point. There is property (wealth) and I have agreed that taking it would be morally difficult.

I don't see any extra privilege in royalty over and above a wealth. In some ways it is worse because of inevitably being in the public eye. princess Ann did the right thing to leave her children without titles and they have lived a much more normal (if wealthy) life than the princes and princesses around them.

Anyway I'm not any more jealous of them than I am of anybody else inheriting wealth they have done nothing to deserve, personally.

 

[Phorize]

Yes I have. The success or otherwise of people in a meritocracy involves luck.

It doesn’t just involve it; it can only be based entirely on it.

 

[Phorize]

No need to get your UK knickers in an uproar. God save the Queen!

I’m not in love with a constitutional monarchy, just taking offence at your entitled ad gentem.

 

[Hipper]

It doesn’t just involve it; it can only be based entirely on it.

Why do you say a position in a meritocracy is only based on luck?

Is this something on the lines of none of us having any control of anything?

 

[Longshan]

He was a parasite.

Good riddance.

 

[Phorize]

Why do you say a position in a meritocracy is only based on luck?

Is this something on the lines of none of us having any control of anything?

Well, can you name a personal attribute that isn’t heritable or contingent on something that is?

 

[Phorize]

It doesn’t surprise me but it’s always depressing to see the moral confusion that it inherent to a lot of the posts in this thread. Relishing the passing of an individual and the suffering that it involves on the basis that one doesn’t don’t agree with the institution that the person was born into or because they are taken to personify something you don’t agree with is not itself a morally defensible position or one that shows any degree of seriousness about the moral virtues that I am assuming the holders belief themselves to be conveying.

 

[Wes]

I don't see any extra privilege in royalty over and above a wealth. In some ways it is worse because of inevitably being in the public eye. princess Ann did the right thing to leave her children without titles and they have lived a much more normal (if wealthy) life than the princes and princesses around them.

Anyway I'm not any more jealous of them than I am of anybody else inheriting wealth they have done nothing to deserve, personally.

Yes, I'd like to know what privileges the Royal Family has, ind. of their wealth?

Besides wearing various ornate gee-gaws (since Elon musk could have some made for himself too).

 

[Phorize]

There is no material change to anything if someone takes delight in some's death or not, so some of us don't really care about whether or not it's considered "moral" to cheer at the death of someone.

I don't take exquisite delight in anyone's death, but someone's absence can make the world a better place, and pointing that fact out can be a nice balance to all the eulogistic bullshit that's been said about him. I mean the OP sounds like he wants to give Phillip a blow-job, for crying out loud. It's pretty ridiculous.

Monarchies are absolutely idiotic institutions that have done a lot of harm around the world, and the British throne is the worst of all time. Hopefully they'll all die soon.

Well, we are the product of our thoughts so the best way to avoid becoming a moral monster is to care about others, perfect or not. I wish you well, seriously.

 

[Phorize]

Why do you say a position in a meritocracy is only based on luck?

Is this something on the lines of none of us having any control of anything?

You might find the work of this chap
on meritocracy to be of merit

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Markovits

 

[Gorgonzola]

I don't see any extra privilege in royalty over and above a wealth. In some ways it is worse because of inevitably being in the public eye. princess Ann did the right thing to leave her children without titles and they have lived a much more normal (if wealthy) life than the princes and princesses around them.

Anyway I'm not any more jealous of them than I am of anybody else inheriting wealth they have done nothing to deserve, personally.

Wealth is hardly a privilege reserved for royalty. Nor are members of royalty the only people whose wealth has come to them without actually earning it.

 

[Inner Space]

The irritation for me comes from the fawning public and the fawning media, who want to invent a fantasy about the DoE's lifetime of hard work and service. My dad was the same age, likewise fought in WW2 (army not navy) and then grafted hard for 50 years, responsible for himself and his family, often broke, often struggling, never giving up, always soldiering along.

Whereas the DoE had it pretty easy - zero money worries, everything done for him, mollycoddled, chauffeured everywhere, etc, etc. No knock against him personally, but it's crazy that ordinary folk (who all had dads like mine) can't see the difference.

 

[Frank Dernie]

The irritation for me comes from the fawning public and the fawning media, who want to invent a fantasy about the DoE's lifetime of hard work and service. My dad was the same age, likewise fought in WW2 (army not navy) and then grafted hard for 50 years, responsible for himself and his family, often broke, often struggling, never giving up, always soldiering along.

Whereas the DoE had it pretty easy - zero money worries, everything done for him, mollycoddled, chauffeured everywhere, etc, etc. No knock against him personally, but it's crazy that ordinary folk (who all had dads like mine) can't see the difference.

I see the difference between people born rich and people born poor, I sort of disapprove of it being possible to inherit any money since it isn't deserved in any way at all and then we would be all equal but don't see any practical way to achieve it.

 

[Phorize]

They have con

Yes, I'd like to know what privileges the Royal Family has, ind. of their wealth?

Besides wearing various ornate gee-gaws (since Elon musk could have some made for himself too).

They have informal access to power, but are required to be pretty parsimonious in how they use it. Prince Charles attracted criticism for being too demanding of government a few years back. The most consequential bit is the royal prerogative exercised. This is exercised over a range of policy but on Government advice. In other words the prime minister or a Secretary of State recommend that it is exercised. It’s usually just a technical device but in theory it is problematic. Cabinet ministers don’t have to be elected MPs, so it is quite possible to have both an unelected head of state and a unelected prime minister or Secretaries of State. I’ve never known it happen but if you look at the areas of policy that are executed by royal prerogative it could in theory get very problematic democratically speaking,

 

[q3cpma]

Royalty is a privilege only when you don't have the enormous responsibilities nor the complete lack of personal time or just don't take your position seriously; which is the case of today's "monarchy for the image".
Personally, I wouldn't take a king's job expecting something pleasant.

Real privilege is in stuff like banking and other professions creating power/money just by virtue of existing. Something that has been called parasitism or just dishonest work by most wise (and unwise) people in history.

Well, can you name a personal attribute that isn’t heritable or contingent on something that is?

None, but effort to nurture this potential still has to be given, time lost that the have-nots have wasted watching TV, partying or doing other inane stuff. Obviously, it's easier to whine about the cards you're given than what's done with them.

 

[Phorize]

I see the difference between people born rich and people born poor, I sort of disapprove of it being possible to inherit any money since it isn't deserved in any way at all and then we would be all equal but don't see any practical way to achieve it.

That’s the John Rawls argument. It’s interesting. Basically he argued that any societal inequality should be optimised to benefit the worst off; the well known veil of ignorance. One can argue how a society should arrange inequality (including trying to eliminate it) but it’s hilarious to watch people morally self immolate by arguing that contrary to the veil of ignorance we should know who we are in society before we are asked to judge the morality of any given policy.

 

[Phorize]

Royalty is a privilege only when you don't have the enormous responsibilities nor the complete lack of personal time or just don't take your position seriously; which is the case of today's "monarchy for the image".
Personally, I wouldn't take a king's job expecting something pleasant.

None, but effort to nurture this potential still has to be given, time lost that the have-nots have wasted watching TV, partying or other inane stuff. Obviously, it's easier to whine about the cards you're given than what's done with them.

But where does your capacity to make that effort come from?

 

[q3cpma]

But where does your capacity to make that effort come from?

I see we're on the same page. Yes, all of this is probably mostly hereditary and environmental; but I wasn't talking about capacity, but how said have-nots don't see the other side of the coin; it's not just a "boon".