That I have a lump in my throat more for the class system than the funeral

[JessicaJoens5]

Sat here with a lump in my throat after watching the funeral but I think it's more to do with realising just how unfair life is and what a lottery life can be.

A lot of people in this country are living on the breadline, children are born into poverty, using food banks, lots of homeless, children moving into hotels whilst their parents wait for a house and so much more. Now this is not a thread to bash the royal family as people but I can't help but feel a bit down at the fact that a lot of their lives are luck - luck to be born into a life of privilege or luck of marrying into it.

Now I'm not saying it's easy to be a royal but I know if I had a choice of choosing to be a person born into privilege with the risk of press following me or another person who is living in a tiny flat or house, struggling to pay bills and having to use food banks whilst working a minimum wage job, I know which one I'd choose.

Not really sure what the aim of this thread is but maybe other people had similar feelings from the funeral?

And all those people getting food from food banks and able to sleep in a hotel bed, to turn on a tap and clean water come out are unbelievably privileged in comparison to children walking miles to get dirty water, being married off once they hit double figures, 4 year olds sleeping rough in India’s streets with no one to take care of them.

I feel sorry for George and Charlotte, their lives planned out for them, no choice. I’d rather my 10 year old had his life with all its possibilities not theirs.

stop judging privileges purely in materialistic terms. Your children are more privileged I. Other ways.

we are all privileged through an accident of birth. Similarly we are all disadvantaged through an accident of birth. Be careful of what you value

And yet Charles did consistently - with proof as well. Yet there are laws in place to exempt them from things like taxes - for example both William and Charles have just inherited Billions which won't be taxes.
Do you know about PC's black spider memos?

……because socialism & communism has done so much for living standards in China & Russia👍. I’m totally pro change but we need to start with our tax system (sooooo many loop holes - employees are hard done by, contractors need to pay their fair share, don’t get me started on the rest!!!). I believe the royals currently give value and an impartial head of state is preferable…

Yes - but he wasn’t the monarch then! Yes, he is going to have to button it now (but reflecting on it, on the basis the majority of his concerns have been ecological I think we should be grateful he raised them - no one has to obey him after all!!)

Completely agree. How much did the while spectacle cost.

I didn't watch any of it. She was 96 she was nothing to me. I admirec her but not in the way people are utterly fawning over how marvellous she was. There are lots of marvellous old people who live noble lives.
I think we need to get rid off them.

And as those young people get older many will become more conservative, value tradition and continuity. Remember many of those who are now old were probably anti monarchists/ anti everything/knew how to save the world in the 60s. Peoples views change as they get older.

yes we funded it all. But do you think and other head of state is better value for money? Look at the US president.

to think getting rid of the monarchy would suddenly solve societal problems is naive to say the least.

it is usually -this person has more money than me, I want to drag them down to my level.

have you considered getting rid of most of your assets to support those less privileged than yourself eg people without clean water. If not, why do you think you should cling onto your accidental privilege whilst others suffer?

If our ancestors had been great men and won battles for the crown then we'd be Royals too, but they weren't, so we're not.

The monarchy used to be a meritocracy, nothing to do with luck back then.

Strange definition of meritocracy.

And, in any case, do you believe any old peasant had the opportunity to choose to lead men into battle?

Yes, an impartial head of state. But again, why does it need to be hereditary?
What makes members of the royal family inherently better at leading, than anyone else?
Why can't I be head of state? I've got better A levels than Charles. No scandals in my past.

And how would this impartial head of state be chosen? Someone who would be there for the long haul to ensure continuity, an overview of the long game?

as soon as someone is elected it’s not impartial and divisive.

Why can't I be head of state? I've got better A levels than Charles. No scandals in my past.

Start a campaign to get yourself appointed Head of State. There’s nothing to stop you trying.

This thread is so interesting. I would absolutely rather be poor in the UK than be a member of the royal family - particularly one of the main ones.

Their lives are so controlled and restrained and they have little choice in what they do a lot of the time.

I think I have a different perspective on this because my Dad was born poor, at six his mum died, his granny with dementia looked after him - he got no proper schooling/exams, used to sort the council money from a very young age and struggled to afford to rent and clothing.

Despite this he always talks about his wonderful childhood - roaming the streets with friends, looking after his gran etc.

My mum by comparison had very uncaring, rich parents and imo fared far worse psychologically.

It's interesting... People value money a lot but once you have enough to eat, and shelter, the quality of your upbringing is way more to do with your relationships.

Not saying this inequality should exist... I just have no envy at the royal family whatsoever for their situation, in fact I feel a bit sorry for them. I know I'd hate a public, predetermined and controlled life like that

Oh @GreySeat eveyone has one of those now! It's the latest fashion! You need to get your piedpiperuber app. Mine plays me "It's a Long Way to the Top" every morning before my salmon and scrambled eggs royale.. MUCH better than Spotify or iTunes and no annoying ads..

The worst-off children in the UK live with abuse, poor parenting, illness including mental illness. No amount of money will fix those issues.

Actually, to a great extent, it can.

Firstly such issues are less likely to occur in a more equitable society.

Secondly, in a society where there is proper support for when such issues do occur, the impacts can be largely mitigated and vastly reduced. For example, in Denmark children who grow up in care have comparable outcomes to those who are raised by their parents - despite the trauma they have been through - because the care system is so good and it is ensured that those children are well-supported and get the help and opportunities that they need.

Treating certain people as expendable is a choice. Wasting a large proportion of our tax money is a choice. Having a tax system which enables little of wealthy people's income to be taxed at a comparable rate to the tax rates that the general population pay is a choice: Brexit was largely designed so that the public didn't become aware of the scale of this due to the UK having to implement the EU directive on tax avoidance if it had continued to be a member.

You can make assertions all you like, but the models in other countries prove that it is perfectly possible to have a society that largely functions. Not one where the wealthy pay next to nothing but anybody on PAYE is fleeced and yet receives utterly crap services in return.

I am ambivalent about the Royals, do not really care tbh. With a Monarch you may be lucky and get a decent one, and while crass the cost of them is a drop in the ocean in public finance terms. With politicians you almost always get the worst possible candidates putting themselves forward. We'd need total overhaul of our political system to make the prospect attractive to the type of people we need in those roles.

But the idea that it's inevitable to have a society where children suffer and nobody can do anything to improve their lot is for the birds.

Indeed.

For example:

amp.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions

If Charles dies within 7 years, will the new Prince and Princess of Wales be paying inheritance tax on the 1bn they have just inherited from his father? Will they fuck!!

@RainingRubies words
“You can make assertions all you like, but the models in other countries prove that it is perfectly possible to have a society that largely functions. Not one where the wealthy pay next to nothing but anybody on PAYE is fleeced and yet receives utterly crap services in return.” THIS. We need to sort this. I’m surrounded by ‘entrepreneurs’ and contractors who pay themselves £12k per year (threshold for tax free) and then very little on their dividends (From the 2022-23 tax year, basic rate dividend tax will be charged at 8.75% instead of 7.5% this year. Higher rate dividend taxpayers will be charged 33.75% instead of 32.5% - well under what they’d pay on PAYE. On top of which there are LOADS of schemes and cunning avoidance techniques that mean they pay even less!).

Meanwhile they have people squabbling over tax thresholds and who gets child benefit etc for PAYE employees. People who earn £50k or £100k are not wealthy. It is all to distract from going after the real money that is passed on tax free or held offshore. Billions and billions.

OMG - get a clue about UK politics!!!! She may have had a meeting with the PM Every week for 70 years but the Monarch is NOT ALLOWED to influence politics ffs, they have to be neutral. Christ I’m so for discussion but SO BORED of people spouting shit🙈

Easy there.

If the monarch isn't "ALLOWED to influence politics ffs", why do they hold the weekly meeting?

Thank you @RainingRubies👍 ! Do you think peeps might eventually cotton on to why BoJo, Rees-Mogg et al wanted Brexit (means to avoid fairer tax rules imposed by EU)?! To be honest I’ve sort of given up on anyone bothering to educate themselves on anything before having a pop☹️

It isn't a different conversation, though. As many posters have explained to you, the comparison of poor people in one country to rich people in another is no different to comparing even poorer people in another country to the people in the first country. Unless you think being born on one side of an arbitrary line on a map makes people special, and if you do that negates your initial argument.

This thread is so interesting. I would absolutely rather be poor in the UK than be a member of the royal family - particularly one of the main ones.

But do you mean poor as in “not rich” or poor as in properly on the breadline, “heat or eat”, not sure if you’ll get a meal tomorrow poor? Because that’s what many in the UK are being reduced to.

In might be on balance a happier life overall to be middle class than royal (although perhaps a less interesting life?) but it’s not happier to be poor in my opinion.

Well, there is plenty of evidence that she managed to influence laws just fine and get exceptions for her family only when it might reveal their financial and tax affairs. So, in short, you're wrong about that I'm afraid.

This thread has made me feel a bit better. I've been getting more and more pissed off by the way the death and funeral arrangements have dominated the media to the point where other news was barely covered. I've been watching Al Jazeera for about 3 days.

I was a republican before I even knew the word, the inequality of putting one family and their descendants above all others has always seemed intrinsically wrong to me and I found today's display frankly rather sickening.

We desperately need a more equal society and I'd love to see the monarchy go, but at 67 I doubt it's going to happen in my lifetime, if ever.

I really don't know. I tried to explain at the time why very wealthy people with offshore holdings were funding the campaign. I've tried to explain since. It largely (very largely) falls on deaf ears. It's extremely depressing that people are so unwilling to admit that they were duped that they'd rather this continue than lose face. Personally, I have a lot of respect for people who can admit when they made a mistake, particularly when they were misled so deliberately. But few seem to be capable of it, or willing to even face up to the basic, well-evidenced facts.

My current view is that perhaps the reality will be included in my grandchildren's history lessons, once Government papers etc from the time are no longer embargoed. It would be interesting to see what those text books contain, and to hear the conversations that generation have with their grandparents, in disbelief!

The pageantry, ceremony and tradition is the heritage of our country for us all to experience and connect to our past. For me that has been the meaningful thing, that link with British heritage. Its been going on for nearly 1000 years, that is pretty amazing.

As for life - yep I'm a peasant. Scraping by on peanuts. I wouldn't want their gilded cage although I suspect it would have been amazing to be a monach when they had true power rather than ceremonial power. However I am very envious that they know their history in such detail. I don't know anything past great grandparents.

I mean if Rees-Mogg moving his investment company to Ireland and writing to the investirs to tell them that it was because GBP was about to crash (because of a campaign he personally backed!!) or the fact that his father wrote a book called "Blood on the Streets" about how to make a fortune for instigating societal disruption, was insufficient evidence, then what exactly are you supposed to show people to remove their cognitive dissonance? The mind boggles. Brexit, inequality, the Royal Family are all part of the same disaster zone that is early 21st century Britain and one thing I am certain of is that that fact will be recognised in the history books of the future. The weakness of our (lack of) proper constitutional system was exposed enormously when Parliament was illegally disbanded and the Monarch did not to her duty at all. She tolerated it. And elected head of state would have known it was not just a moral but also their legal duty to step in. The Queen did not, because she thought it may jeopardise her own family's position. So when it came to the crunch and one of the few situations where she was meant to use her power, she didn't act with "duty" or "service" to democracy or her citizens. I lost a lot of respect for her that day. And frankly that disfunction of the system: that the Royals are not capable if holding "their" Parliament to account is far, far more concerning than the cost of their events.