Morrissey and The Royals: Where Do You Stand?

[Anonymous]

You could well be right, but it hardly matters. (I voted twice: the first time I picked the last option, but when I went back and checked all the possible options after reading your post, I voted that he usually has his facts wrong. That more accurately reflects what I think.) As I say, though, the poll was always gonna be pretty meaningless.

I think the comments in the actual thread are telling, tho. Nobody who's agreed with Morrissey's stance vis-à-vis royalty seems to have anything persuasive or even substantive to say. The Royals aren't a "dictatorship" and any claim to the contrary is ridiculous. Any Royal involvement in the political/legislative process is mere window-dressing; Royal Assent hasn't been refused in over three-hundred years.

Yeah, the Royals' inherited wealth and status is undeserved. Of course it is! On the other hand, the UK's class structure is pervaded not just with material inequality, but with inequality of opportunity and inherited advantage/disadvantage. That's down to the nature of the economy and society, though. It's nothing to do with whether the UK has a monarchy or not. In principle, there's no reason at all why a republic should be any more equal or equitable than a society with a Royal figurehead. You can't denounce the monarchy without, by implication, denouncing British capitalism in its entirety and Morrissey certainly can't do that since he's profited so handsomely from it.

Brilliantly reasoned. Intelligent and informative - the complete opposite of Morrissey's embarrassing, idiotic outpourings.

 

[King Leer]

Morrissey created and worked for his wealth starting out at his bedsit -- I've never understood where the "rich" comparison comes from. Sorry to use Japanese but「関係ないっス」is all that comes to mind.

As for the depth of Morrissey's knowledge of royals history, yes he could study his "enemy" better. He could spend a year off researching and come back with the kind of "unassailable" "airtight" criticisms of the kind internet nerds often demand. But I don't think it'd change his opinion an iota. The inherent inequality you correctly mention comes from the past/top on down, so his hatred is directed up and back. Historical accuracy, semantics etc. aside, the fact that any famous person of note questions their never ending, inherited fantasy should be applauded even if you may scoff at individual comments. Questioning power and authority, even if can be shambolic at times, is one thing I love about Morrissey. Stuff like the "subspecies" and Norway comments are much more up for debate IMO. Let the Royals by carried away by a flood of HP Sauce for all I care.

You could well be right, but it hardly matters. (I voted twice: the first time I picked the last option, but when I went back and checked all the possible options after reading your post, I voted that he usually has his facts wrong. That more accurately reflects what I think.) As I say, though, the poll was always gonna be pretty meaningless.

I think the comments in the actual thread are telling, tho. Nobody who's agreed with Morrissey's stance vis-à-vis royalty seems to have anything persuasive or even substantive to say. The Royals aren't a "dictatorship" and any claim to the contrary is ridiculous. Any Royal involvement in the political/legislative process is mere window-dressing; Royal Assent hasn't been refused in over three-hundred years.

Yeah, the Royals' inherited wealth and status is undeserved. Of course it is! On the other hand, the UK's class structure is pervaded not just with material inequality, but with inequality of opportunity and inherited advantage/disadvantage. That's down to the nature of the economy and society, though. It's nothing to do with whether the UK has a monarchy or not. In principle, there's no reason at all why a republic should be any more equal or equitable than a society with a Royal figurehead. You can't denounce the monarchy without, by implication, denouncing British capitalism in its entirety and Morrissey certainly can't do that since he's profited so handsomely from it.

 

[123xyz]

Yeah, the Royals' inherited wealth and status is undeserved. Of course it is! On the other hand, the UK's class structure is pervaded not just with material inequality, but with inequality of opportunity and inherited advantage/disadvantage. That's down to the nature of the economy and society, though. It's nothing to do with whether the UK has a monarchy or not. In principle, there's no reason at all why a republic should be any more equal or equitable than a society with a Royal figurehead. You can't denounce the monarchy without, by implication, denouncing British capitalism in its entirety and Morrissey certainly can't do that since he's profited so handsomely from it.

I don't know ; isn't this a false absolutism ( you know , the idea that one mustn't criticise one instance of X without criticising every instance of X ) ?

 

[Anonymous]

Morrissey created and worked for his wealth starting out at his bedsit -- I've never understood where the "rich" comparison comes from.

Yes, you said he'd "earned" his wealth earlier in the thread and I think that's the key issue here. Morrissey is said to have amassed a personal net fortune of just under £20 million and, though I dunno for sure whether or not that's accurate, it seems like a reasonable estimate, compared to the fortunes of other pop stars. Wealth of that magnitude would place him easily among the richest 1% of people in the UK and if we accept that that £20 million figure is proabably about right, you have to ask whether he has actually "earned" his money. No doubt he's worked hard and been careful with his pennies, and I guess he deserves credit for that, but £20 million-worth of hard work? Really?

Even if you accept the classical Liberal justification of socioeconomic inequality as a reflection of individual merit, it's difficult to see how Morrissey finds his way into the richest 1%. According to the ethos of capitalism, a person's position in the class structure reflects his/her importance to the functioning of society - hence the Liberal objection to monarchy, since they "do" nothing. Each person's income is supposed to be a monetary quantification of their individual worth which, again, is supposedly determined by the contribution that they make to the life of the wider community. What contribution does Morrissey make to our world, though? He sings songs. Granted, he has to write the lyrics to them first, but even so, what he does is, he stands on a stage and he sings songs... ...for a living. He gets to travel the world, singing his songs to thousands of people who respond by hanging on his every word, telling him they love him and generally treating him like God. Back-breaking stuff.

Blasphemous though it is, I can think of a variety of professions more valuable pop singers. Not only are they more valuable as people, but I reckon they probably work harder too. To take just a couple examples: the average qualified nurse is paid less than £30,000 per annum and a primary school teacher is on just slightly more. If a firefighter were to work for seven hundred years, s/he still wouldn't be able to accumulate £20 million. Now, I dunno about you, but as far as I'm concerned, in a competition between someone who, as part of their job description, saves people's lives - literally - and someone who makes commodified leisure products for the entertainment industry, I know which one I think "earns" their money.

Still, we really must fight the injustices of feudalism. Man the barricades etc.! Morrissey will serenade us while we fight the good fight. No, wait. He'll probably be holed-up in the penthouse suite of a luxury hotel in some exotic corner of the world, won't he? Reader meet author, indeed.

Incidentally, do we know if he ever bought somewhere new after selling off his Beverley Hills mansion?

Sorry to use Japanese but「関係ないっス」is all that comes to mind.

I pasted this into Google Translate and it returned something like, "it doesn't matter". I'm not sure if that's an accurate translation, but on the off-chance that it is, I'll just say that if you're gonna criticise the unearned wealth of others, despite being inexcusably rich, yourself, it probably does matter... quite a lot. (If that isn't the meaning of what you wrote, then I apologise on behalf of Google.)

As for the depth of Morrissey's knowledge of royals history, yes he could study his "enemy" better. He could spend a year off researching and come back with the kind of "unassailable" "airtight" criticisms of the kind internet nerds often demand.

So when he launches cluelessly into yet another of his ill-considered rants, he should be lauded, whereas if somebody actually takes the issue seriously and tries to marshall even a few elementary facts they're an "internet nerd". Great. And all this from a fan of somebody who markets himself as an "intellectual". Well done, you.

(In keeping with your ad hominem criticism, though, I'm not sure a middle-aged man who uses an avatar of himself dressed up as his favourite 1980s pop star is in a position to call anyone nerd. Just saying.)

But I don't think it'd change his opinion an iota.

He really missed his vocation as a taxi driver.

The inherent inequality you correctly mention comes from the past/top on down, so his hatred is directed up and back.

I pasted this into Google Translate, but it didn't come up with anything.

Historical accuracy, semantics etc. aside, the fact that any famous person of note questions their never ending, inherited fantasy should be applauded even if you may scoff at individual comments. Questioning power and authority, even if can be shambolic at times, is one thing I love about Morrissey. Stuff like the "subspecies" and Norway comments are much more up for debate IMO. Let the Royals by carried away by a flood of HP Sauce for all I care.

At the risk of labouring the point, it's the twenty-first century: the queen does not have any power and Morrissey isn't questioning anybody in a position of authority. He isn't a revolutionary and he isn't going to be sent to the Tower. He's just a celebrity trying to get a few headlines; that's what they do.

 

[Anonymous]

 

[Anonymous]

How about you look it up and then come back and fill us in? Tell us what percentage of bills are vetoed annually by the queen. Then tell us why said bills were vetoed and the extent to which they had to be altered before they were given Royal Assent.

I am with you that Morrissey is getting tiresome re the Monarchy and that his rants are increasingly resembling a possessed hosepipe.
HOWEVER, the Monarchy isn't just the Queen.

And when you talk about parliamentary bills you've got to take into account the unelected House of Lords, unelected peers and various aristos who still have power to veto legislation.

Three clear examples from the last 20 years. The Age of Consent for same-sex couples. The homophobic Section 28. The foxhunting bill.

On all three occasion the unelected House of Lords (intrinsically linked to the MOnarchy as an institution) vetoed and blocked and delayed legislation that was backed *overwhelmingly* by the British public and by the elected House of Commons.

If you think this is fair....

 

[Anonymous]

How about you look it up and then come back and fill us in? Tell us what percentage of bills are vetoed annually by the queen. Then tell us why said bills were vetoed and the extent to which they had to be altered before they were given Royal Assent.

I am with you that Morrissey is getting tiresome re the Monarchy and that his rants are increasingly resembling a possessed hosepipe.
HOWEVER, the Monarchy isn't just the Queen.

And when you talk about parliamentary bills you've got to take into account the unelected House of Lords, unelected peers and various aristos who still have power to veto legislation.

Three clear examples from the last 20 years. The Age of Consent for same-sex couples. The homophobic Section 28. The foxhunting bill.

On all three occasion the unelected House of Lords (intrinsically linked to the MOnarchy as an institution) vetoed and blocked and delayed legislation that was backed *overwhelmingly* by the British public and by the elected House of Commons.

If you think this is fair....

The thread has nothing to do with the House of Lords (though I agree with you about it); it's about the monarchy.

 

[Qvist]

Essentially I see the royals as more or less irrelevant, hence I do not think they merit the kind of attention and passion Morrissey lavishes upon them.

 

[Kewpie]

Essentially I see the royals as more or less irrelevant, hence I do not think they merit the kind of attention and passion Morrissey lavishes upon them.

 

[Anonymous]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

The monarchy exercises no power?

 

[Anonymous]

http://m.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills

The monarchy exercises no power?

Before you get all excited about this Earth-shattering 'scoop' from The Grauniad, you should keep in mind the following points...

1. The article fails to state what proportion of bills was blocked by royalty.

2. The article states that a grand total of just thirty-nine bills have required the extra, 'secret' approval of royalty since 1962. Since, on average, more than one hundred bills pass through Parliament during each year, this means that the royal family have been asked to give their secret approval to less than 1% of British legislation in the last fifty years.

3. Notwithstanding the above, all bills that have been passed by parliament require to be approved by the monarch. Royal Assent is a constituent element of the UK's legislative process. Royal Assent has not been withheld since the 1700s.

 

[Anonymous]

Before you get all excited about this Earth-shattering 'scoop' from The Grauniad, you should keep in mind the following points...

1. The article fails to state what proportion of bills was blocked by royalty.

2. The article states that a grand total of just thirty-nine bills have required the extra, 'secret' approval of royalty since 1962. Since, on average, more than one hundred bills pass through Parliament during each year, this means that the royal family have been asked to give their secret approval to less than 1% of British legislation in the last fifty years.

3. Notwithstanding the above, all bills that have been passed by parliament require to be approved by the monarch. Royal Assent is a constituent element of the UK's legislative process. Royal Assent has not been withheld since the 1700s.

the Queen blocked a bill about the procedures by which the state decides to go to war! Hardly a trivial matter. I think that's quite astonishing. And why did this 'scoop' only come to light after a court order? One could surmise that the Government did not really want this information out in the public domain and the media's complicity in not reporting this more widely suggests that the subjects if the Crown should remain in blissful ignorance. For our own good.
Of course it could also be because it really isn't that important.... I beg to differ.


By the way are any of us plebs afforded a weekly face to face meeting with the PM? Primus inter pares indeed. Do we know what they chat about? Probably like most Brits last night's Corrie, the weekend's football action and the weather?

 

[Anonymous]

the Queen blocked a bill about the procedures by which the state decides to go to war! Hardly a trivial matter. I think that's quite astonishing. And why did this 'scoop' only come to light after a court order? One could surmise that the Government did not really want this information out in the public domain and the media's complicity in not reporting this more widely suggests that the subjects if the Crown should remain in blissful ignorance. For our own good.
Of course it could also be because it really isn't that important.... I beg to differ.


By the way are any of us plebs afforded a weekly face to face meeting with the PM? Primus inter pares indeed. Do we know what they chat about? Probably like most Brits last night's Corrie, the weekend's football action and the weather?

One instance of the queen blocking a bill passed by Parliament in fifty years? That's 0.02% of British law. Doesn't really sound much like dictatorship to me.

If you have a genuine concern with the subversion of democracy, I suggest you pay more attention to the influence wielded over government by the owners of big business, instead of this pathetically trivial non-issue. Because Morrissey hasn't voiced any concerns about that problem, however, it doesn't register with you. Grow up and try thinking for yourself.

 

[Qvist]

Would you people just sign up, for f***'s sake? This looks like some mad bloke with MPD arguing with himself.