Happy Birthday Prince Philip

[jobo]

The math based on your numbers suggest otherwise, but okay. You can go back to your conspiracy theories that the monarchy has faked military records.

coz your working on the assumption they do one engagement in a day in stead of several.

 

[Tez3]

At the time Phillip was in the Royal Navy he was a very poor relation coming from a Greek Royal Family that had been deposed and were in exile. He joined the Royal Navy aged 18 before the war started and trained as all Naval officers do as cadets at Dartmouth College. In 1940 he was a Midshipman, a very lowly rank, 1941 he was promoted to sub Lieutenant after training at Portsmouth, still a lowly rank though but the normal progression for naval officers. His war record is pretty food and quite real, the men he served with have affirmed that many times. As for the rest of his life, well maybe he worked maybe he didn't but frankly who would anyone get worked up about it unless they themselves have nothing better to do?

 

[Steve]

Read the bio.
and unlike our very own Nigerian prince family the royals have a long record of serving.
So in essence, haters gonna hate.
he has a considerable body of work in his own right, and as spouse he was also subject to public duties which may or may not seem to be important to haters.
You know, heading charities (unless one needs this particular one)
Seems he had over 22 thousand appearances without the queen over the course of his active duty as royal spouse, not considering the joint ones. And non for personal business trips.

Maybe it is to their detriment that they don't toot their own horn at all, so much of what they do goes unnoticed by the detractors. But then again, if you spend you whole life in the lime light....not getting noticed might be a blessing at times.

It is quite snobbish to assume a person in a certain position has never done anything worthwhile.

I agree with your post. It struck me as funny, though, that you're suggesting members of the royal family are the subjects of snobbery.

 

[granfire]

I agree with your post. It struck me as funny, though, that you're suggesting members of the royal family are the subjects of snobbery.

the commoners are known to be snobby and classist as well.
Strange thought, eh?

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

the commoners are known to be snobby and classist as well.
Strange thought, eh?

I've found this true in general. Lower/middle/upper class all tend to be snobs against the other classes. I view it just as general classism.

 

[Steve]

the commoners are known to be snobby and classist as well.
Strange thought, eh?

By definition, snobs view themselves as higher class, and snobbery is a disdain for things or people who are viewed as "low-class." To be clear, I get that the common folk can be disdainful of the upper class and/or royalty. But, by definition, snobbery goes one direction, from top to bottom. The idea of common folk being snobbish to royalty is literally funny. (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense, not the figurative sense)

 

[jobo]

By definition, snobs view themselves as higher class, and snobbery is a disdain for things or people who are viewed as "low-class." To be clear, I get that the common folk can be disdainful of the upper class and/or royalty. But, by definition, snobbery goes one direction, from top to bottom. The idea of common folk being snobbish to royalty is literally funny. (and I mean "literally" in the literal sense, not the figurative sense)

its the concept of inverted snobbery, where you pride yourself on how down to earth you are.

this manifested at my first wedding, where all her posh relatives and friends sat on one side of the room and all my down to earth relatives and friends on the other, with both sides sneering at the other with complete contempt,

what really anoyed her lot, is the actual royalty that had come to the wedding, a viscount no less, came and sat with my friends all night, he was an alright guy for a toff

it went down hill from there with numerious fist fights breaking out, nearly all involving me

 

[Steve]

its the concept of inverted snobbery, where you pride yourself on how down to earth you are.

this manifested at my first wedding, where all her posh relatives and friends sat on one side of the room and all my down to earth relatives and friends on the other, with both sides sneering at the other with complete contempt,

what really anoyed her lot, is the actual royalty that had come to the wedding, a viscount no less, came and sat with my friends all night, he was an alright guy for a toff

it went down hill from there with numerious fist fights breaking out, nearly all involving me

Jobo, for a guy who was talking about how precise the English are with regards to language, you're missing the point here. I get the concept, but it's just the wrong word. Inverted snobbery isn't a thing, because the definition of snobbery relates intrinsically to a class relationship.

It's kind of like sexual harassment. A subordinate employee can be inappropriate to a member of management, but a subordinate can never sexually harass their boss. The behavior is the same, but the power dynamic matters.

It's not a big deal. I understand what was intended. Just, as I said initially, it struck me as funny to think of a common person being snobbish to a member of royalty. That's a humorous thought.

 

[jobo]

Jobo, for a guy who was talking about how precise the English are with regards to language, you're missing the point here. I get the concept, but it's just the wrong word. Inverted snobbery isn't a thing, because the definition of snobbery relates intrinsically to a class relationship.

It's kind of like sexual harassment. A subordinate employee can be inappropriate to a member of management, but a subordinate can never sexually harass their boss. The behavior is the same, but the power dynamic matters.

It's not a big deal. I understand what was intended. Just, as I said initially, it struck me as funny to think of a common person being snobbish to a member of royalty. That's a humorous thought.

what do you mean its not a thing, it even has its own dictionary definition, that generally makes it a '' thing ''

INVERTED SNOB | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

 

[Steve]

what do you mean its not a thing, it even has its own dictionary definition, that generally makes it a '' thing ''

INVERTED SNOB | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary

I stand corrected. I guess we have a new phrase to use when referring to Trump supporters.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I stand corrected. I guess we have a new phrase to use when referring to Trump supporters.

Ummm, Im quite sure you're not supposed to discuss politics here.

 

[Steve]

Ummm, Im quite sure you're not supposed to discuss politics here.

I'm pretty sure you're not.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Ummm, Im quite sure you're not supposed to discuss politics here.

We are not. And another mod is free to give me a warning/points for this. But the trump idea is almost perfectly encapsulated by the idea of inverted snobbery (whether accurate or not), so I think Steve's post makes sense, without actually being any sort of political stance.

 

[jobo]

We are not. And another mod is free to give me a warning/points for this. But the trump idea is almost perfectly encapsulated by the idea of inverted snobbery (whether accurate or not), so I think Steve's post makes sense, without actually being any sort of political stance.

maybe we can discuss politic science ?

i think the rise in identity politics has broken the existing model of politics.

certainly in the UK, where political allegiance has historical been down to class of birth, if your born in a lower class, you want more fairness and in a high class you want less fairness, this is largely irrelevant of how much wealth you accumulated, but as the lower class faced unfairness from birth they seldom acquire much wealth so it doesn't really matter much, and a sprinkling of middle class idealists who want more fairness when they are young and have little and then changes sides when someone wants to redistribute their wealth later in life or if they become uber rich retain their socialist ideas, but move to a tax heaven

we have been locked in a near 50 50 split for a 100 years, with each side moving the election boundaries to favour their portion of the vote.

however the last election was fought largely on the concept of British identity, a concept that is a lot stronger in the poor working class areas than it is in the more affluent areas, so the vote more or less reversed, with poor area voting for the more right wing party and the more affluent areas voting socialists

this of course is not with out an element of self regard. the rich had grown richer under the auspices of being part of Europe so both sides were still looking out for their own interests, just the party they thought would do that changed

i take the comment about trunmp appealing to inverted snobs to mean that perhaps a similar revesal is happening in america with the poor less educated being drawn by the concept of american identity and the more educated being drawn by the concept of less nationalism

 

[PhotonGuy]

maybe we can discuss politic science ?

i think the rise in identity politics has broken the existing model of politics.

certainly in the UK, where political allegiance has historical been down to class of birth, if your born in a lower class, you want more fairness and in a high class you want less fairness, this is largely irrelevant of how much wealth you accumulated, but as the lower class faced unfairness from birth they seldom acquire much wealth so it doesn't really matter much, and a sprinkling of middle class idealists who want more fairness when they are young and have little and then changes sides when someone wants to redistribute their wealth later in life or if they become uber rich retain their socialist ideas, but move to a tax heaven

we have been locked in a near 50 50 split for a 100 years, with each side moving the election boundaries to favour their portion of the vote.

however the last election was fought largely on the concept of British identity, a concept that is a lot stronger in the poor working class areas than it is in the more affluent areas, so the vote more or less reversed, with poor area voting for the more right wing party and the more affluent areas voting socialists

this of course is not with out an element of self regard. the rich had grown richer under the auspices of being part of Europe so both sides were still looking out for their own interests, just the party they thought would do that changed

i take the comment about trunmp appealing to inverted snobs to mean that perhaps a similar revesal is happening in america with the poor less educated being drawn by the concept of american identity and the more educated being drawn by the concept of less nationalism

I see, you say some really interesting stuff. Anyway, without getting too much into politics Im wondering how the government functions in your country. From what I know there's the parliament and the prime minister but I was wondering how much influence the reigning monarch, in this case the Queen, has over them. At one time I think she could fire the prime minister and any of the members of parliament although I don't think that's how it is now.

 

[Steve]

We are not. And another mod is free to give me a warning/points for this. But the trump idea is almost perfectly encapsulated by the idea of inverted snobbery (whether accurate or not), so I think Steve's post makes sense, without actually being any sort of political stance.

Exactly. I shouldn’t have used the name. I was referring to the idea some have that intelligence, education, and culture are bad things, not good. For example, the issues we are seeing with wearing a mask being a conspiracy to take folks’ rights away. I think inverted snobbery seems very apropos to this. Not intended to be political, per se.

 

[Steve]

i take the comment about trunmp appealing to inverted snobs to mean that perhaps a similar revesal is happening in america with the poor less educated being drawn by the concept of american identity and the more educated being drawn by the concept of less nationalism

Pretty much. In America, there is an idea that if you work hard enough, you can become rich. So, it’s complicated. Education is mistrusted by some. Plain language is valued, and vocabulary is met with skepticism. Scientists are elitists.

But business men are the idols. A lot of poor folks revere and protect the interests of rich folks, because somewhere in their psyche they believe two things to be true. 1: rich people are smart, because if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be rich. But this is the right kind of smart... street smarts. Not book smarts, which is elitist. And 2: if I work hard enough, I could be one of them. I’ve known many of these folks, many in my own family, I grew up lower middle class in Texas, and my older brothers, and most of my mom’s family fall into this category: very poor and very reverential of the rich businessman.

so, inverted snobbery (thank you, @jobo!) seems spot on, but only against a perceived elitist class that includes some celebrities, some athletes, pretty much every academic, and anyone who even whiffs of “socialism.” Exempt from this, regardless of wealth or class, are businessmen and clergy (unless they’re gay).

 

[jobo]

I see, you say some really interesting stuff. Anyway, without getting too much into politics Im wondering how the government functions in your country. From what I know there's the parliament and the prime minister but I was wondering how much influence the reigning monarch, in this case the Queen, has over them. At one time I think she could fire the prime minister and any of the members of parliament although I don't think that's how it is now.

its exactly the same as it has been for three hundred years, the queen appoints the prime minister and can fire him if she wishes,, what would happen if she did is another matter, the main argument for having a constitutional monarchy, is that we couldnt have a govenment that went mad and started killing every one, as the queen would put a stop to it, she of course being in charge of both the army and the police , what happen if she goes mad and starts killing everybody, is never answered

 

[PhotonGuy]

its exactly the same as it has been for three hundred years, the queen appoints the prime minister and can fire him if she wishes,, what would happen if she did is another matter, the main argument for having a constitutional monarchy, is that we couldnt have a govenment that went mad and started killing every one, as the queen would put a stop to it, she of course being in charge of both the army and the police , what happen if she goes mad and starts killing everybody, is never answered

So it sounds like the Queen has the final say to everything even if she doesn't exercise it all that much. If she can fire the prime minister for whatever reason then she could make demands that the prime minister would have to either follow or lose his or her job. If she ultimately controls both the army and the police then I suppose technically she could go mad and start killing everybody although I seriously doubt she ever would.

 

[jobo]

So it sounds like the Queen has the final say to everything even if she doesn't exercise it all that much. If she can fire the prime minister for whatever reason then she could make demands that the prime minister would have to either follow or lose his or her job. If she ultimately controls both the army and the police then I suppose technically she could go mad and start killing everybody although I seriously doubt she ever would.

its in relatively recent memory that the '' queen''fire the prime minster of Australia, caused quite a row at the time, she as you possibly know the queen of lots of places not just the UK