Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 11:07:54 GMT -5
Are they like us, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 29, 2013 11:29:23 GMT -5
Are they like us, ahinton? Are who like "us" (assuming even that we are like one another, which is itself a moot point)? I'm afraid that you've lost me on this and appear to have departed from the topic while so doing. I think that the likelihood that Britain will be constituted as it is now (i.e. divided into four parts as Gaul was once said to be into three) is far from great and that of a monarch ostensibly reigning over it or what's left of it in 86+ years' time is fainter still; I cannot realistically say more on the subject.
|
|
|
Post by neilmcgowan on Jul 29, 2013 12:04:45 GMT -5
but I still fail to grasp what that has to do with the future (if any) of the British monarchy in the next century. It's their intellectual limit. But they can't do the tricky ones with lots of small pieces.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 12:16:34 GMT -5
'They' are quite obviously the monarchy, ahinton. If in any doubt with a pronoun, go back to the previous noun in the thread, in this particular case, the noun 'monarchy'. Please refer to the thread title and the accompanying poll question, in future, if you are at all confused. We are, as ever, on topic. Thank you very much indeed for your assistance in this matter. As for intellectual limits, Neil, what limits?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 29, 2013 15:38:21 GMT -5
'They' are quite obviously the monarchy, ahinton. If in any doubt with a pronoun, go back to the previous noun in the thread, in this particular case, the noun 'monarchy'. Please refer to the thread title and the accompanying poll question, in future, if you are at all confused. We are, as ever, on topic. Thank you very much indeed for your assistance in this matter. Well, once again, I do not seek to speak for anyone else so I cannot say how or whether the monarch or any other royal family members are in any sense "like" you but I have no impression that any of them are anything "like" me; does that finally answer your question which, again, seems to me to have no bearing whatsoever on the thread topic itself?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 15:48:56 GMT -5
We cannot but agree. Thank you very much indeed for your assistance in this matter, ahinton. It is as ever a pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Jul 29, 2013 20:17:34 GMT -5
. . . what do you all make of this particular portrait? Evil. There is no need to be vulgar. The Duke released a statement to say that he "couldn't be happier". He is mistaken. There were many better options open to him. He could, for example, have married the brother James.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2013 20:43:53 GMT -5
I certainly thought that the portrait of Kate was unflattering, Gerard, although I would not actually say that it, or she, was evil. Kate is naturally photogenic, although hardly as photogenic as kleines c.
As for vulgarity, well, of course, I suppose that like all of us, survival depends upon successful reproduction, even for the monarchy, and Kate is therefore key to the propagation of the Duke of Cambridge's (selfish) genes, just as women are key to the propagation of our individual and collective genes. As for marrying the brother, James, Gerard, is not William's brother Prince Harry?
I suspect that one of my nieces rather fancies Harry, although to be honest, Prince Harry is spoilt for choice. As a schoolboy, he was astonishingly unacademic at Eton, but perhaps he has other qualities, Gerard?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 30, 2013 1:26:28 GMT -5
The Duke released a statement to say that he "couldn't be happier". He is mistaken. There were many better options open to him. He could, for example, have married the brother James. Not at the time he married Kate, he couldn't; nor could he now, unless he were first to divorce; in any case, what evidence do you have that he might have been happier married to James even had such an option been open to him? - do you personally know them both well enough to be able to present such a conclusion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 1:42:48 GMT -5
I doubt that Gerard knows James Middleton, ahinton. In any case, James's current girlfriend, Donna Air, wants to get married and have another baby, presumably with James, although I somehow have my doubts. Mail - First an uncle, now he could be a father: James Middleton's girlfriend Donna Air reveals she wants to have a baby To be honest, Gerard, I know Pippa rather better than I know James, and fortunately, Pippa has never fallen for the charms of kleines c. Otherwise, imagine having a future King of England with a brother-in-law like me. It would be enough to cause a revolution, Sydney, even in conservative England! Mind you, Neil would probably be delighted by such an outcome! An anarchist plot, ahinton, particularly if Pippa settles for a c, d or e rather than an a, or even a b?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Jul 30, 2013 2:16:52 GMT -5
. . . As for vulgarity, well, of course, I suppose that like all of us, survival depends upon successful reproduction . . . Actually it is the abbreviated Christian name "K**e" that I find vulgar; not the reference to her having been born - although come to think of it that too is vulgar enough. And thanks to Member H for setting the membership on the true path through that Debussyesque fuzziness on the brother question. As I said, that is just an example; but there must be all sorts of ways of making the Duke happier than he now is.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 30, 2013 4:54:06 GMT -5
It would be enough to cause a revolution, Sydney, even in conservative England! Mind you, Neil would probably be delighted by such an outcome! An anarchist plot, ahinton, particularly if Pippa settles for a c, d or e rather than an a, or even a b? Other than its apparent ability to encourge you to write yet more paragraphs about and around the subject, what does any of this actually matter, to whom and why?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 30, 2013 5:01:38 GMT -5
. . . As for vulgarity, well, of course, I suppose that like all of us, survival depends upon successful reproduction . . . Actually it is the abbreviated Christian name "K**e" that I find vulgar The fact that you claim to find it so does not of itself make it so; what, precisely, do you find "vulgar" about the name (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate). not the reference to her having been born - although come to think of it that too is vulgar enough Again, on what grounds do you allege this? Are all births "vulgar" in your eyes? Or just hers? (in which case why?). Or just those of females of the species? And thanks to Member H for setting the membership on the true path through that Debussyesque fuzziness on the brother question. I am unaware of having done any such thing. As I said, that is just an example; but there must be all sorts of ways of making the Duke happier than he now is. If you do not know the Duke, you are unlikely to be in possession of reliable information as to his current state of happiness or otherwise or indeed to know much about what kinds of thing might increase or decrease his happiness; more importantly, however, it is neither your business nor mine - nor our responsibility - to try to make him any happier than he is now, since neither of us is personally acquainted with him and neither of us has any direct responsbilities towards him.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2013 5:48:20 GMT -5
If I may address your final three questions directly, ahinton: 'It would be enough to cause a revolution, Sydney, even in conservative England! Mind you, Neil would probably be delighted by such an outcome! An anarchist plot, ahinton, particularly if Pippa settles for a c, d or e rather than an a, or even a b?' " ... Other than its apparent ability to encourage you to write yet more paragraphs about and around the subject, what does any of this actually matter, to whom and why?" a. Well, it might well be the case that nothing actually matters, ahinton. We are history! b. To whom does any of this actually matter? Well, it matters to Prince George, even if he does not know how it matters yet. Nor, indeed, do I! c. So why does it matter? It matters because history is about people, as much as history is about things, and we are, through accident of history, the new Elizabethans. Against all expectations, ahinton, we have become such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life is rounded with a sleep. Congratulations to all! enotes - Shakespeare - Such stuff as dreams are made onAccording to the great philosopher, Georg Hegel, the goal of the dialectic is absolute knowledge (and freedom) on one level, ahinton, and the organic society on another, a situation in which the divisions in human nature are reconciled. Karl Marx long ago observed the way in which unbridled capitalism became a kind of mythology, ascribing reality, power and agency to things that had no life in themselves; he was right about that, Gerard, if about little else. Marx said we should let the workers rule OK because then they will rule on behalf of the great mass of society, the working class. Bakunin said no. You shouldn't have any rulers, because if workers are rulers, they will cease to be workers and will be rulers. They will follow the interests of the rulers, not the interest interests of the working class. This is a bit like George Orwell's ' Animal Farm', Neil. The pigs took over, but no one could then tell the difference. Marx thought that this was all rubbish. Marx thought that people in a different society would be different people, would have different, less self-directed interests, and would work together for the benefit of all. If you look at the history of the twentieth century, Bakunin was right? The short answer may be that history is neither about individuals (Carlyle) nor about societies (Marx), but what Georg Hegel calls ' Geist'. It is the idea that a unified view of history is something mental or spiritual, Sydney, and therefore the process of history is simply ourselves. Indeed, the great philosopher, David Hume, argued that the science of human nature depends upon the observation of our mind and our observation of other human beings. Perhaps human nature does not seem to change that much over time, ahinton, despite the great advances in science and technology?
|
|
|
Post by Gerard on Jul 30, 2013 6:20:05 GMT -5
Are all births "vulgar" in your eyes? Of course. They are a thing not mentionable in polite society. Children should not make any sort of appearance until they are at least able to converse. And on the James question, now that kleines c has so kindly sought out and contributed the photograph I can see that it would never have worked. But that by no means means that Willliam should stop exploring!
|
|