Among Europe’s Ex-Royals • Hacker News Board

Re: Among Europe’s Ex-Royals

#61

Post by madaxe_again » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

Biologist123 wrote: post #59

madaxe_again wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. There definitely are others from that circle who have gone down the same path as me, but it’s a distinct minority. Most end up completely inured within that world, and reinforce and justify each other’s values and prejudices.

Very interesting. Your comment opens more questions than is probably polite. But can I ask, what are the core tenets of this weltanschaung (the values and prejudices) and would you say there is an ethnic dimension to it? I ask because (whilst fuzzy at the edges) there’s a fair argument that British aristocrats are essentially ethnic Normans. Is there a sense of different ethnicity? For full disclosure, I’m exploring…

I wouldn’t say there’s a sense of different ethnicity, quite, but there’s definitely a view of inherent superiority. Behind closed doors, you’ll hear terms like “plebs” and “proles” and “chavs” thrown around frequently, to refer to everyone from the working classes - which from the perspective of the aristocracy is practically everyone who isn’t part of the aristocracy.

There’s also a distinct disdain for the “nouveau riche” - they are seen as well-to-do merchants (urgh, how bourgeois!) - but will mostly forever be on the outside - mostly, because there are exceptions, but you don’t get into the circle due to wealth, but due to class - which is something you pretty much have to be educated into from birth, as what you see from the outside is not how it works on the inside, and if you try to enter being all polite and humble and ever so nice you will be seen - as an imposter. The aristocracy are not polite - they have no need to be - you demonstrate that you are “one of us” by putting your feet up on the kitchen table, lighting a cigarette, and getting smashed (but not obviously so) before supper, and then throwing the croquet set in the reflecting pool.

So… it’s not so much ethnicity as it is culture - and it’s a pretty closely guarded and distinct culture, which I think your hypothesis of being Norman in origin is absolutely spot on - it’s even in the language - beef/cow, venison/deer, mutton/sheep, pork/pig and so-forth - the words of those who consume the product versus the words of those who produce the product. The proactive disdain for niceties is distinctly Norman.

Perfect use of Graeber, and I couldn’t agree more. If you’re interested in the topic of manufactured reality, Hobbes and Baudrillard both had some pretty stonking insights into it.

Re: Among Europe’s Ex-Royals

#62

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 11:37 PM UTC

yywwbbn wrote: post #5

mongol wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Started yesterday to read Churchill's "The Gathering Storm", where he describes the follies of the victors after the first world war: "Wise policy would have crowned and fortified the Weimar Republic with a constitutional sovereign in the form of an infant grandson of the Kaiser, under a Council of Regency. Instead a gaping void was opened in the national life of the German people. All the strong elements, military a…

Having a king didn’t help Italy too much. However Churchill probably had a point conservatives and monarchists weren’t really ever wholeheartedly committed to the survival of the Weimar republic. They might not had been as keen to undermine at every opportunity had it been ruled by a monarch. Then again , the nazis might just have turned the emperor into an impotent figurehead (as happened in Japan and Italy).

[deleted]

Re: Among Europe’s Ex-Royals

#63

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 11:38 PM UTC

danans wrote: post #19

inglor_cz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is an observation, though, that most European monarchies that turned into republics or dictatorships in the 20th century did so after losing a major war. Monarchist countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK ... that either stayed out of the war mess or ended up on the winning side were more likely to keep their monarchy. Prior to the military conflagrations that started in 1914, v…

> Monarchist countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, the UK ... that either stayed out of the war mess or ended up on the winning side were more likely to keep their monarchy. If I'm not mistaken, those are also countries that had already significantly diminished the actual power of their monarchs prior to WWI. The UK in particular arguably started that process centuries earlier with Magna C…

[deleted]

Re: Among Europe’s Ex-Royals

#64

Post by pyuser583 » Wed, Apr 27, 2022, 11:41 PM UTC

dathinab wrote: post #30

Barrin92 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may want to remember the moment when the King of Spain successfully preserved the democracy of the country by shutting down a military coup just 40 years ago. "[...]the King of Spain appeared live on television, wearing the uniform of the Captain General of the Armed Forces (Capitán General de los Ejércitos), the highest Spanish military rank, to oppose the coup and its instigators, defend the Spanish Constitutio…

They also can to the opposite, i.e. actively destabilizing the country, preventing needed reforms, call for coups etc. In difference to politicians you can't as simply remove their authority on misbehavior because royalty is not something you are elected to. The fundamental flaw of monarchies is that they raise or fall with the character and competency of a single person (or very small group). (This also applies to s…

I mean things did end pretty bad for the King.

Re: Among Europe’s Ex-Royals

#65

Post by Biologist123 » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

madaxe_again wrote: post #61

Biologist123 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very interesting. Your comment opens more questions than is probably polite. But can I ask, what are the core tenets of this weltanschaung (the values and prejudices) and would you say there is an ethnic dimension to it? I ask because (whilst fuzzy at the edges) there’s a fair argument that British aristocrats are essentially ethnic Normans. Is there a sense of different ethnicity? For full disclosure, I’m exploring…

I wouldn’t say there’s a sense of different ethnicity, quite, but there’s definitely a view of inherent superiority. Behind closed doors, you’ll hear terms like “plebs” and “proles” and “chavs” thrown around frequently, to refer to everyone from the working classes - which from the perspective of the aristocracy is practically everyone who isn’t part of the aristocracy. There’s also a distinct disdain for the “nouvea…

Thanks for the Baudrillard recommendation. Not someone I’d heard of.

Your choice of words (beef/cow, venison/deer, mutton/sheep, pork/pig) is interesting because they are all of either French or Germanic origin according to your consumption/production logic - likely Norman or Saxon I guess.

I found your comments on being “trained in setting the scene” to be curious, as it has seems to have more in common with a magical or mystical training than the familiarization with brute logic and scientific process that was my own education. In anthropological terms I should not be surprised, every culture has its Brahmin class adept in the use of secret knowledge.

It’s been enjoyable exchanging and given me much to think about.

Re: Among Europe’s Ex-Royals

#66

Post by pasabagi » Sat, Apr 30, 2022, 9:04 AM UTC

mongol wrote: post #3

verisimi wrote: post #2

Quoted post unavailable.

Started yesterday to read Churchill's "The Gathering Storm", where he describes the follies of the victors after the first world war: "Wise policy would have crowned and fortified the Weimar Republic with a constitutional sovereign in the form of an infant grandson of the Kaiser, under a Council of Regency. Instead a gaping void was opened in the national life of the German people. All the strong elements, military a…

Does he go on to discuss Hindenburg?

The problem for his argument, obviously, is that Hindenburg was the president of the Wiemar republic for the ten or so years that were the meat of the Nazi's rise to power, and he was far more of a hero to the 'strong elements' (far right / conservatives) than the monarchy ever were.

(Obviously, there's a second problem, which is that it's unclear to me if a lack of respect for 'democratic and Parliamentary processes' was the problem with the Nazis. They were voted in, and elections were suspended during wartime, which is normal in a democracy, and were by all accounts very popular throughout the war and after[0]. They also did not substantially alter or suspend the constitution: rather, they used emergency provisions and broadly interpreted resources that were already there).

[0]: Notably, many of the laws they authored, many of the companies and people they elevated or created, went on to successful post-war careers.