The Royal Family #16

[hannah123]

I think History does move in massive cycles........I think the Royal family were a lot less popular during the 1960s and 1970s, than they are now. there were a lot more critical comments in TV shows etc. And there have been times when the RF were a lot less popular, eg during the later Diana years. They were openly laughed at during the ''Its a Knockout debacle''.

Sadly with the popularity of shows like Downton and the Crown, I do think there is an increasing move towards accepting and encouraging the gap between rich and poor, and expecting British people to defer to their ''betters''. Look at people like Jacob Rees Mogg...(ugh) .he is the kind of person who encourages and expects this deference from the masses. The UK has lost the flexibilty for children from poor families to do better, and to end up being rich. Its part of the death of social mobility. If you are born poor, you stay poor, if you are born rich, everything is given to you on a silver platter! It is now a lot harder to escape the class you were born into!

Is this true or an opinion? Genuine question of is there any research to back this up.

I can only speak from my experience and others around me, I came from a working class family and I can say for certain the opportunities I was afforded to better my life were far beyond those offered to my parents. Neither of them would have been able to go to university even if they’d wanted to, even back in the 80s religion was still so prevalent that they were forced into marriage young, the only benefit it feels they got over me was they were able to buy their council house with no wealth or deposit, but even that seems like a burden now they’re separated and it forced the number of council houses down and my mums struggling to get one.

No doubt the country is an absolute state right now, but I know so many people that were able to become the first in their family to go to uni, move to a city and get a well paying grad job at big firms and now out earn their parents before 30. A lot of that would have seemed unthinkable 40 years ago.

 

[thegirlscout]

Is this true or an opinion? Genuine question of is there any research to back this up.

I can only speak from my experience and others around me, I came from a working class family and I can say for certain the opportunities I was afforded to better my life were far beyond those offered to my parents. Neither of them would have been able to go to university even if they’d wanted to, even back in the 80s religion was still so prevalent that they were forced into marriage young, the only benefit it feels they got over me was they were able to buy their council house with no wealth or deposit, but even that seems like a burden now they’re separated and it forced the number of council houses down and my mums struggling to get one.

No doubt the country is an absolute state right now, but I know so many people that were able to become the first in their family to go to uni, move to a city and get a well paying grad job at big firms and now out earn their parents before 30. A lot of that would have seemed unthinkable 40 years ago.

This is quite interesting so I looked it up and it seems that the U.K. is one of the poorest performing countries when it comes to social mobility.
Goldman Sachs Research did a study of this and published the results earlier this year. Seems it isn’t due to films and tv programmes (though that may hold a certain sway, I don’t believe there has been much research in the area

Why is the U.K. performing so badly on social mobility and has the situation been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic?

Steffan Ball: There is actually very little consensus on causes of the U.K.’s relatively poor performance both on social mobility and inequality metrics. Some researchers have argued that’s it’s due to a combination of strong education transmission from generations to generations and, added to that, the significant earning premium for graduate level jobs. A second explanation has been the large regional income differences we have in the U.K. and the growth of higher paying service sector jobs, particularly in the South. Finally, other researchers have noticed that the more progressive tax systems in some countries such as Denmark, Finland and Norway often lead to higher social mobility. And in the U.K., it could be that the tax system is disadvantageous to inequality and mobility.

Undoubtedly, the pandemic has increased inequality further and there is survey evidence to show this. YouGov did a report not so long ago and it showed over half - 56% - of the U.K. population felt Covid-19 had increased social inequality. This is consistent with the impact you see in the labor market. Covid-19 has had a larger impact on lower income jobs as they tend to be consumer facing rather than office based. These lower income jobs were more likely impacted by government lockdowns, while office jobs could be done remotely more easily.

Surveys also show a big regional difference. People in the North of England tend to say they have experienced harsher conditions recently than people in the South – particularly for employment and education. Survey evidence compiled by the Social Mobility Commission shows that 35% of people living in the North said Covid-19 had a detrimental impact on employment, whereas only 17% in the South did. On education: 21% in the North thought that they suffered more during the pandemic in terms of education outcomes, whereas only 8% of people thought that was the case in the South. More recently, rising energy prices are a concern, because they have a large impact on the households at the bottom of the income distribution and these people also tend to have little to no saving buffer as well.


How can social mobility be improved in the U.K.?

Steffan Ball: In the report we highlighted four main policy areas for improvement. The first one is improving geographical inequality by increasing public investment in less well-off regions of the U.K. The second is education and in particular focusing education on equalizing opportunities and improved access for children from lower income households. The third policy area is apprenticeships and retraining programmes that are retargeted toward people from disadvantaged backgrounds. And finally, high quality digital access for less wealthy households, in particular those living in more remote locations.

Granted this is just one study by one company.

 

[TYL159]

This is quite interesting so I looked it up and it seems that the U.K. is one of the poorest performing countries when it comes to social mobility.
Goldman Sachs Research did a study of this and published the results earlier this year. Seems it isn’t due to films and tv programmes (though that may hold a certain sway, I don’t believe there has been much research in the area
View attachment 1402805
Why is the U.K. performing so badly on social mobility and has the situation been exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic?

Steffan Ball: There is actually very little consensus on causes of the U.K.’s relatively poor performance both on social mobility and inequality metrics. Some researchers have argued that’s it’s due to a combination of strong education transmission from generations to generations and, added to that, the significant earning premium for graduate level jobs. A second explanation has been the large regional income differences we have in the U.K. and the growth of higher paying service sector jobs, particularly in the South. Finally, other researchers have noticed that the more progressive tax systems in some countries such as Denmark, Finland and Norway often lead to higher social mobility. And in the U.K., it could be that the tax system is disadvantageous to inequality and mobility.

Undoubtedly, the pandemic has increased inequality further and there is survey evidence to show this. YouGov did a report not so long ago and it showed over half - 56% - of the U.K. population felt Covid-19 had increased social inequality. This is consistent with the impact you see in the labor market. Covid-19 has had a larger impact on lower income jobs as they tend to be consumer facing rather than office based. These lower income jobs were more likely impacted by government lockdowns, while office jobs could be done remotely more easily.

Surveys also show a big regional difference. People in the North of England tend to say they have experienced harsher conditions recently than people in the South – particularly for employment and education. Survey evidence compiled by the Social Mobility Commission shows that 35% of people living in the North said Covid-19 had a detrimental impact on employment, whereas only 17% in the South did. On education: 21% in the North thought that they suffered more during the pandemic in terms of education outcomes, whereas only 8% of people thought that was the case in the South. More recently, rising energy prices are a concern, because they have a large impact on the households at the bottom of the income distribution and these people also tend to have little to no saving buffer as well.


How can social mobility be improved in the U.K.?

Steffan Ball: In the report we highlighted four main policy areas for improvement. The first one is improving geographical inequality by increasing public investment in less well-off regions of the U.K. The second is education and in particular focusing education on equalizing opportunities and improved access for children from lower income households. The third policy area is apprenticeships and retraining programmes that are retargeted toward people from disadvantaged backgrounds. And finally, high quality digital access for less wealthy households, in particular those living in more remote locations.

Granted this is just one study by one company.

So Denmark and Norway with constitutional monarchys are best in terms of social mobility and the Republic of the USA, supposedly built on meritocracy, is worst followed by the Republic of Switzerland. Ironic

 

[thegirlscout]

So Denmark and Norway with constitutional monarchys are best in terms of social mobility and the Republic of the USA, supposedly built on meritocracy, is worst followed by the Republic of Switzerland. Ironic

Monarchy hasn’t been mentioned as a reason for any country’s success or failure.

 

[BigMavis]

Princess Michael is gorgeous. Horrid apparently, I guess you can't have everything.

 

[LoopyLou47]

So Denmark and Norway with constitutional monarchys are best in terms of social mobility and the Republic of the USA, supposedly built on meritocracy, is worst followed by the Republic of Switzerland. Ironic

Counries with monarchies have them because they have not had long periods of instability where the Monarchy has been overthrown. The Scandi countries have used that stability to increase their countries prosperity, and opportunities. We haven't. I think maybe you need to look at why, out of all your beloved Monarchies, ours is doing so much worse in terms of social mobility than the others, even worse than Japan, a country steeped in tradition that also keeps people in their place. If the Monarchy affects equality, as you have said, why is our Monarchy doing so little for us compared to the others? Switzerland has no social mobility because its extremely wealthy as are the vast majority of their citizens. The US has poor health care and poor welfare, they are the country your buddies on the Right of the Tory party want us to emulate in that regard. Why are we keeping company with them?

 

[TYL159]

Monarchy hasn’t been mentioned as a reason for any country’s success or failure.

This whole thread is about monarchy and the royal family. Just notable that constitutional monarchies like Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Australia and Canada are in the top half of that social mobility table.

Constitutional monarchy Japan is ahead of France, a republic. Constitutional monarchy Spain is ahead of Italy, a republic. Plus constitutional monarchy the UK is ahead of the USA, a republic, too

Counries with monarchies have them because they have not had long periods of instability where the Monarchy has been overthrown. The Scandi countries have used that stability to increase their countries prosperity, and opportunities. We haven't. I think maybe you need to look at why, out of all your beloved Monarchies, ours is doing so much worse in terms of social mobility than the others, even worse than Japan, a country steeped in tradition that also keeps people in their place. If the Monarchy affects equality, as you have said, why is our Monarchy doing so little for us compared to the others? Switzerland has no social mobility because its extremely wealthy as are the vast majority of their citizens. The US has poor health care and poor welfare, they are the country your buddies on the Right of the Tory party want us to emulate in that regard. Why are we keeping company with them?

Though arguably social mobility on that metric is also based on economics. Switzerland and the US still have higher gdp per capitas like Norway and higher than say France or Italy. For example if most people had £5000 and a few at the top had £10 000 it would be easier to be socially mobile and less unequal than a nation where most had £50 000 and a few had over £1 million. However people in the latter would be wealthier

 

[Great_Kate]

Interestingly enough, if I check the studies conducted in my country it’s a different picture with the UK outperforming us in the question how many generations it needs to move up. Obviously there is a certain bias and interest and that influences how data is selected and interpreted.
I think with how different all our countries are, it’s complicated to make good comparisons. Not only are the reasons different, as are the set ups of those reasons, also you really can’t compare certain classes between countries. Our upper class is build very differently than the one in the UK and the resources and benefits are too. And we definitely have a better understanding and awareness of those problems nowadays, so there are more tools to help. So if social mobility is stagnant or even worse you could argue that those progresses didn’t help at all and we would be better off in a setting of 1970. Which is not preferable I think.

 

[Miss Begotten]

Im obviously not a fan of any of them, but just look at the ridiculous outfit this poor little sod has had to wear to sit about in this heat. No shade, no hat. And his childcare expert mother is in a short sleeved dress and sunglasses

 

[Libbylulu]

Im obviously not a fan of any of them, but just look at the ridiculous outfit this poor little sod has had to wear to sit about in this heat. No shade, no hat. And his childcare expert mother is in a short sleeved dress and sunglasses
View attachment 1406211

Isn’t it Wimbledon royal box rules that men wear a jacket and tie?

 

[Reraciara]

Isn’t it Wimbledon royal box rules that men wear a jacket and tie?

But he's a child? Even let him take off the coat or dress him in a linen or lightweight suit wouldve been more appropriate!

 

[Miss Begotten]

But he's a child? Even let him take off the coat or dress him in a linen or lightweight suit wouldve been more appropriate!

Exactly. I’m pretty sure if he turned up in a t shirt and shorts no one would have to him to shove off until he’d put a tie on.

 

[wishiniwasskinny]

I have to say Kate has looked absolutely stunning the past couple of days! Loved her in that yellow Roksanda (I think) dress. She really does turn out well

 

[wideopenspace]

My son has spent the day in swimmers in a paddling pool. If I'd tried to put him in a suit he'd have gone mad in this heat. Surely tailored shorts and shirt would have been acceptable as he's still a child.

 

[Chocolategoggler]

But he's a child? Even let him take off the coat or dress him in a linen or lightweight suit wouldve been more appropriate!

The Wimbledon rule that Prince George and other royal children don't have to follow

The future King enjoyed his first outing to Wimbledon in 2022

www.hellomagazine.com

But rules is rules no matter what!......... B*****ds....

 

[LoopyLou47]

The Wimbledon rule that Prince George and other royal children don't have to follow

The future King enjoyed his first outing to Wimbledon in 2022

www.hellomagazine.com

But rules is rules no matter what!......... B*****ds....

I mean, the advice was to keep children out of the sun today, not shove them in a suit and tie and make them sit in the sun all day! Why did he have to go?

 

[hannah123]

I mean, the advice was to keep children out of the sun today, not shove them in a suit and tie and make them sit in the sun all day! Why did he have to go?

It doesn’t seem that unreasonable to think he just wanted to go? A young boy who’s into sport being asked if he wanted to go to a final, can’t imagine many boys would say no and there doesn’t seem much point spending money on a linen suit he’ll wear once and get too big for. it was a good game and his first time so he’s probably had a good day that he didn’t care about being hot for a couple of hours and others are just upset for him.

 

[Boring Monday]

It doesn’t seem that unreasonable to think he just wanted to go? A young boy who’s into sport being asked if he wanted to go to a final, can’t imagine many boys would say no and there doesn’t seem much point spending money on a linen suit he’ll wear once and get too big for. it was a good game and his first time so he’s probably had a good day that he didn’t care about being hot for a couple of hours and others are just upset for him.

it would just go in the dressing up box in the Buckingham Palace attic.
Louis will get the chance to wear it in a couple of years.
in 20 or 30 years time their own kids will get a turn.
plenty of wear in Royal kid clothes.

 

[FenellaTheWitch]

It doesn’t seem that unreasonable to think he just wanted to go? A young boy who’s into sport being asked if he wanted to go to a final, can’t imagine many boys would say no and there doesn’t seem much point spending money on a linen suit he’ll wear once and get too big for. it was a good game and his first time so he’s probably had a good day that he didn’t care about being hot for a couple of hours and others are just upset for him.

Exactly. He seemed to enjoy himself and liked holding the trophy.

 

[LoopyLou47]

there doesn’t seem much point spending money on a linen suit he’ll wear once and get too big for.

Lol All their clothes are worn about twice, then they get praised for ' recycling' an outfit that cost hundreds of £. I'm sure he has a smart pair of shorts, a short sleeved shirt and a sunhat!