TS: Prince Charles vs "Plebs" vs New Labour

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Our future King thinks we are all getting above our station.

Despite the fact that his argument is entirely undermined by the fact that he's the one arguing it (Dear Meritocratic Pot, Yours Sincerely Kettle), what do you think? Should we accept our mundane lot in life and stay below stairs where we belong, or should other people realise that it's the instinctive urge to go beyond what are deemed to be your capabilities that enables any sort of progress in humanity to begin with?

And why the fuck do I now find New Labour 1000000000 x 10(992) times more annoying than dull old High Tory royalty?

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 19 November 2004 10:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Its NIMO!

(Not in MY office!)

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:36 (twenty-one years ago)

ha, he's got a point - and he's made it relatively well - in that it's no good encouraging people to be whatever they want to be without considering what's realistic. i could probably do with someone having told me the one thing i should've stuck to instead of trying to be some jack of all trades master of none.

Chuck's clearly been talking to Simon Cowell.

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Even so, you must admit that complaining about people who think that social history can be "genetically and socially re-engineered" in contradiction of the "lessons of history" and "realities of nature" is a bit rich coming from a member of the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 19 November 2004 10:43 (twenty-one years ago)

yes i'm removing the complaint from the complainer for my own convenience. for some reason tho i tend to find myself liking the guy (not as my King tho, bugger that -INSERT CONTROVERSIAL GAG...HERE-)

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Steve - I somewhat doubt that the medium echelons of royal servitude were exactly beyond this particular woman's capabilities though, so Charlie was talking nonsense in this particular instance. Probably got a bit wound up watching Pop Idol as well or something.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:46 (twenty-one years ago)

i'm ignoring the particular instance as well. i guess i was just thinking about TV presenters really (Fern Cotton's okay tho).

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:47 (twenty-one years ago)

HRH obviously wanted Jason to win Big Brother and is still miffed about it

― My Son Calls Another Man Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:49 (twenty-one years ago)

Mind you, this Elaine Day sounds like she's a bit of a nightmare to work with. The sort of person who gets pissed off because she hasn't been promoted to General Manager on her second day of employment and thereafter waits to be offended.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 19 November 2004 10:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I'm sure there were a few parts of the job description she just couldn't reach, right? Like the rubdowns? Stupid thick prince needs people being VERY disrespectful to his face. Usually the problem with any such person is that they are living a lie WRT how much respect they really get in the world and nobody wants to be the fucker to tell them how it is. Anyway, I hope the royal household has to pay this woman a fortune; Marcello, you are on dangerous 'uppity' ground with that last post. THINK.

At a dinner a few weeks back I was seated next to a tweedy young man who was a society portrait painter. He'd been painting the Queen and eating her caviar, which Putin sends but she hates, and he'd been paid £100k to paint her. Really not part of the world we live in, but at the same time, regrettably in it all the same.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:55 (twenty-one years ago)

i hope he messed it up and his head is now on a spike in Traitor's Cloister

― Freelance Hiveminder (blueski), Friday, 19 November 2004 10:58 (twenty-one years ago)

My other thought was THIS IS THE KIND OF TWAT PRs INVITE TO DINNER AT THE GHERKIN? Because I can assure you I did not.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:01 (twenty-one years ago)

The problem here is that Chuck seems to have been the one to tell this particular fucker to her face. Whatever the reality of what actually happened, she comes across in the media as a rather humourless, self-righteous, self-fancying bore whom I certainly wouldn't employ, as based on previous experience such people would (a) walk in on their first day like they owned the place; (b) lounge about all day doing fuck all work; (c) invoke all known anti- laws to prevent them from ever getting fired.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 19 November 2004 11:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Unfortunately, I am more likely to be found having lunch of a gherkin than lunch at the Gherkin

― My Son Calls Another Man Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Marcello, just be careful, she might not have much control over how she's made to look by powerful people in the media with lots of letters after their names. If you have Fatty Soames briefing against you in public you've got hella problems in private.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, look what happened to Diana!

― mark grout (mark grout), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Hmm, I remember Fatty Soames coming on Newsnight a split second after the Diana Panorama thing finished and saying that, well, you know, she's not right in the head. So you're correct, I should take that into account. It's all about how everything is put across. Maybe she was just trying to do as good a job as possible and got shat on and made to look like an uppity pleb. But then it's also all about how we perceive people. She needs to be careful not to paint herself as an institutional victim.

Then again, the mere fact of the existence of Toby Young's one-man West End stage show inclines me towards thinking: (a) yes, a man's gotta know his limitations; and (b) how impossible true meritocracy will ever be in this society.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 19 November 2004 11:15 (twenty-one years ago)

Hold on, Toby Young has a one-man West End stage show? We're all going to hell in a handcart etc.

― My Son Calls Another Man Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I am so not making this up.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 19 November 2004 11:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Ha ha. "Metro's critic declares that Toby's performance is "not a disaster". I like that.

― My Son Calls Another Man Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Thanks be to Toby's dad for writing up the whole meritocracy thing in the first place.

― suzy (suzy), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:30 (twenty-one years ago)

Meritocracy and New Labour - two words that don't belong in the same sentence, paragraph, manifesto etc.

― My Son Calls Another Man Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 19 November 2004 11:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I love reading hattersley on Young - he keeps going on about how Blair doesn't realise Young's books was a critique of the idea, not extolling it.

― Dave B (daveb), Friday, 19 November 2004 12:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I saw Prince Charles last Sunday. I was struck by what a decent chap he seemed. I was obviously wrong, and I take it back.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Friday, 19 November 2004 12:08 (twenty-one years ago)

Man born to power and wealth says 'social hierarchies inevitable' shocker.

― Dave B (daveb), Friday, 19 November 2004 12:14 (twenty-one years ago)

INSERT CONTROVERSIAL GAG...HERE

* resists temptation to post bondage-porn pics

― caitlin (caitlin), Friday, 19 November 2004 12:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Despite the fact that his argument is entirely undermined by the fact that he's the one arguing it

That doesn't undermine his argument, it supports it! If he'd been arguing for a completely meritocratic society the he'd have undermined himself quite badly.

― Charles Dexter (Holey), Friday, 19 November 2004 13:03 (twenty-one years ago)

according to

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 19 November 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a bit of irony here that someone so inbred said such a thing, HOWEVER if you strip his comments of the 'royal/commoner' context, it really is a good point. I'm so sick of 'reality tv' encouraging dipshit hacks thinking that they're somehow interesting or intelligent or talented. Guess what, average person, you're AVERAGE! You're not special or beautiful or unique like a snowflake, you're just fucking dull, stupid, trite and petty. Sure, there are generally people dumber and less interesting than you, but there's a whole group of people on the other side of you. Yes, you really DO have social betters, although the standards various societies use to define what makes them such are sometimes (often) lacking. Despite the lack of adequate standards, however, one cannot force homogeniety where none exists. Some people are smarter than other people, and some are more talented. Some are better looking, and a few lucky souls trump most people in most ways!

― trigonalmayhem (trigonalmayhem), Friday, 19 November 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.