To find Prince William a bit smug

[strawberriesandpecans]

I'm sure he means well, it's just that he seems to be lecturing everyone on the environment while he travels by helicopter a lot and has a mansion. Also I just find them quite twee and irritating, particularly at the moment when so many people are struggling. AIBU?

'Livingtothefull there are plenty of countries without monarchies which have gross inequality and unearned wealth'.

It is true that other nations have inequality too, but do we not want to do all we can to minimise inequality, be an example of best practice rather than the worst?

What monarchy does is institutionalise privilege and inequality at the very core of our national life. We can't claim to be an egalitarian society with equality of opportunity for all, because frankly we are not. Our constitutional arrangements entrench and proclaim the absolute converse.

It is true that other nations have inequality too, but do we not want to do all we can to minimise inequality, be an example of best practice rather than the worst?

Livingtothefull which countries do you think do the best in minimising inequality?

A lot of countries do better than us at minimising inequality Andante57. The levels of inequality are unacceptable to me personally and COVID-19 has exacerbated these.

Nobody is claiming that abolishing monarchy will make inequality disappear overnight; but IMO monarchy cements privilege at the top of state and society. Abolishing the monarchy wouldn't erase Britain’s class divide overnight, but a republican form of government would at least be able to lay claim to the principles of equality and democracy.

A lot of countries do better than us at minimising inequality Andante57

Could you name some of those which you think do better at minimising inequality?

Plenty of information out there Andante. Here's one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI

[quote Livingtothefull]Plenty of information out there Andante. Here's one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI[/quote]
Interesting that number one on the list is Norway, a monarchy. 3 other European monarchies - Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands - are also in the top 10. In 3rd place is Japan, whose head of state is the emperor. So that means that almost half of the top 10 most equal societies in the world are constitutional monarchies.

I don't agree with hereditary monarchy on principle, but I'm not sure it has any effect on overall levels of social equality. The statistics you linked to would appear to support t6hat.

Ultimately I oppose monarchy on principle too. It would be simplistic to argue that no monarchy inevitably = more equality, but I don't think any conclusions can be drawn by the fact that some monarchies are among the more equal countries. Other monarchies are very different in terms of the number & makeup of the population, their culture and history.

Monarchy does nothing to promote equality, quite the reverse. I don't think it has a place anywhere, particularly not in a grossly unequal country like ours.

Interesting points, Icedpurple.
Also, a class system is not unique to Britain.
America may not have titles or a monarchy but there’s definitely a class system.

It would be simplistic to argue that no monarchy inevitably = more equality, but I don't think any conclusions can be drawn by the fact that some monarchies are among the more equal countries.

No, definitely not. Nor did I claim it did.

However, you wrote this:

"What monarchy does is institutionalise privilege and inequality at the very core of our national life. We can't claim to be an egalitarian society with equality of opportunity for all, because frankly we are not. Our constitutional arrangements entrench and proclaim the absolute converse."

The fact that 4 out of the 10* most equal nations on earth are monarchies, even though only a minority of the world's nations have a monarch as head of state, surely undermines what you wrote above. I think equality has a lot more to do with social norms and attitudes than it does with who is nominally head of state. That's why the vey egalitarian Nordic countries - whether monarchies or republics - are all represented in the top 10. The statistics certainly do not suggest that having a monarchy in itself does not make a country less egalitarian.

*In fact, technically Australia is also a monarchy so that makes 5 out of 10.

The other European countries which are monarchies have a very different version to ours. We have the luxury version, they have the budget version.

Livingtothefull who knows what will happen next. Few predicted Brexit or Trump or Coronavirus.
Maybe during your lifetime you will have the opportunity of a front row seat as the tumbrils bring their cargo to the guillotine.

@CounsellorTroi

The other European countries which are monarchies have a very different version to ours. We have the luxury version, they have the budget version.

I think there was a study out recently which claimed that the British royal family costs less per head of population than most of the other European royal families. After all, Britain's population is greater than that of all the other European Protestant monarchies combined.

In any case, the principle is the same: monarchs get to be head of state through an accident of birth, not merit or popularity. That's as true in the Netherlands or in Denmark as it is in Britain.

Where did I imply I wanted any harm to come to anyone? If anyone is cruel to the RF it is monarchists....part of me hopes that William is smug about the prospect of being King and wants it, because if he doesn't it must be an absolute nightmare for him.

Look at the vilification his brother got for leaving; it would be a thousand times worse if William as the direct heir wanted out. It is monarchists not me who wants to force them into that life regardless of their personal wishes.

America may not have titles or a monarchy but there’s definitely a class system

There’s not a class system in the British sense. It’s very fluid and really only based on money, which can change in just one generation. There’s really not any snobbery towards new money and if you are a formerly prominent family with no money ... you are no longer prominent.

It’s very fluid and really only based on money, which can change in just one generation

How can it be much different from the UK rich - some american family millionaires from the early 19thC making money from oil or the railways or whatever are most likely still multibillionaires.
They live rich secluded lives and don't get mention in the tabloids. As do many rich UK families.

Despite the 'American dream' myth, America is one of the least socially mobile countries in the western world.

Despite the 'American dream' myth, America is one of the least socially mobile countries in the western world

I know income inequality is high in the US, but it’s more that you cannot be poor/become poor and expect to maintain any kind of social status. Titles and such still have meaning in the U.K., do they not?

Yes. Doesn't everyone admire a down at heel baronet with a huge pile of a house that has a leaking roof. He and family live in one room because of the mahoosive heating bills, they have holes in their jumpers, barely a penny to their name, but they are still looked up to in general, because they are Lord and Lady or whatever.

@Roussette

Yes. Doesn't everyone admire a down at heel baronet with a huge pile of a house that has a leaking roof. He and family live in one room because of the mahoosive heating bills, they have holes in their jumpers, barely a penny to their name, but they are still looked up to in general, because they are Lord and Lady or whatever.

Well, Mumsnet is certainly proof of that. There's a staggering amount of forelock-tugging towards aristocrats, and every single time a thread about social class comes up, dozens of people leap in with assertions that 'real' old money is charming, gracious, humble, and dodders about self-effacingly covered in dog hair in rattletrap cars, while 'new money' is viewed as crass, vulgar, materialistic and driving around roughshod over the less successful in their blinding white Range Rovers waving their Gucci bags out the jewelled sunroof.

@Roussette

Yes. Doesn't everyone admire a down at heel baronet with a huge pile of a house that has a leaking roof. He and family live in one room because of the mahoosive heating bills, they have holes in their jumpers, barely a penny to their name, but they are still looked up to in general, because they are Lord and Lady or whatever.

I remember years ago visiting a 'Lord' at his home for work reasons. As I pulled up, I asked the gardener where I could find Lord Whateverhisnamewas. The gardener said 'come with me' and we walked about 2 miles (!) into the Study.......you can guess the rest!

Yes. Doesn't everyone admire a down at heel baronet with a huge pile of a house that has a leaking roof.

No.

I'm not putting myself in that category! When I say 'doesnt everyone'

Smug? - ain't he just!

He has worked as a flyer; and Attenborough makes has made his living from flying. We need better front men/women for this important issue.

I know income inequality is high in the US, but it’s more that you cannot be poor/become poor and expect to maintain any kind of social status. Titles and such still have meaning in the U.K., do they not?

I don’t know. Maybe some titled people who’ve become poor have friends who don’t drop people because they’ve lost their money.
Can you give an example of poor titled people who insist on maintaining social status?

Mischance -Prince William worked as an air ambulance pilot.
Do you think air ambulances should be stopped on environmental grounds, even though they can rescue people from mountains where motor vehicles cannot access and the speed with which they can take people to hospital means lives can be saved?