Seems there is  a certain resurgence in interest in class distinction - if I say snobbery, I could get reprimanded !

I am watching the second series of 8 Downton Abbey episodes with very mixed feelings. 

Anybody else got any special feelings or opinions?

At the same time we have been getting a spate of films about the British Royal Family.  We had Elizabeth  II,  George VI and his stutter, and now Madonna is once more reviving the melodrama of Edward who relinquished his throne for the woman he loved.  One wonders what might have happened had he no abdicated since he and Mrs. Simpson were pot pals with the Nazi ambassador to Great Britain von Ribbentrop and were delighted to hobnob with Adolf Hitler and his gang.

Before that however, there was a beautiful film about the son of King George V who was hidden away for life because he had epilepsy - a charming rather simple youngster.

I forgot to mention :-

The film "The Young Victoria" was released about a year and a half ago.

A film "The Queen" was released about 4 years prior to that

At the other end of the spectrum, a film was released just a couple of months ago called "The Iron Lady" featuring Meryl Streep.  It portrays the life of Margaret Thatcher who was the longest continuously serving British Prime Minister for the past century and a half.  She was the daughter of a small town grocer - apart from being the first woman Prime Minister in the whole of Europe, you can't get 'em more plebeian than that !!

I hear from friends and family in USA that Downton Abbey is extremely popular there.

Is this so?

Has anybody got anybody got any pros or cons?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is NOT political !!

Some extoll her others loathe her - this is most probably influenced by what political party people belong to.  But love her or hate her I don't think that anybody can deny that Margaret Thatcher is one of the most brilliant women of the 20th century.  I say IS, but although at 86 she is still alive WAS might be more appropriate.  I understand that she has suffered from increasing dementia for the past few years. 

She survived three consecutive elections and "reigned" for eleven years as Prime Minister.  She stubbornly stuck like strong glue to her policies and in so doing considerably changed the UK.  Had she not insisted on implementing the most highly unpopular 'Poll Tax' she might possibly have continued even longer.

What is almost incredible is the fact that she is a woman.  In Britain the women's suffrage movement only forced through the full rights to vote for women in 1928 yet 51 years later Thatcher was leader of her majority party and Prime Minister. And not just ANY part either, but the Tory Party - conservative right-wing.  One of the hoi polloi leading the party representing the privileged class of men mainly.  The men who met in their male only clubs where females were never ever admitted under any circumstances.

No getting away from the fact.  Whatever else you may agree or disagree with, like or dislike, you have to thoroughly admire her guts and tenacity.

I've been quoting her a lot lately "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" which is exactly what is happening in my country right now

Hi there Markornikov.

Please don't get me wrong !

We are not allowed to discuss politics (or religon) here.

I personally NEVER voted for the Tory party. But that's not the point.

Nothing to do with politics I just think  that Thatched is/was an absolutely incredible woman.

I don't say that I liked her nor necessarily supported her policies - I just say what an average person and a female to boot achieved in the United Kingdom of the 1980's.

Let's steer clear of any politics ........ OK ?

I've never undertsood my countrymen's fascination with and adoration of British royalty. 

To me, the very idea that a person can have "royal blood" flies in the face of human equality - the founding principle we have been striving to achieve since America's inception.

As for Prime Minister Thatcher, she was a rock... very smart, tough as nails and (IMO) good for that nation.

Individual politics aside, we all need strong leaders with strong convictions - not wishy-washy gladhanders afraid to take a stand.

Cheers, Terry 

I thoroughly agree with EVERYTHING you wrote above, Terry !

And not only royalty, Terry.

The sort of 'life style' illustrated in Downton (and Upstairs Downstairs, etc,) in Great Britain was also revolting. But that was nearly a century ago.. There may possibly be vestiges of it today, but by & large it has disapeared.

It was quite disgusting that one class of citizens held the lives of another class in the palms of their hands.

Wasn't it a bit similar to the behaviour of slave owners in USA not so very long ago ?

Yes M'Lord - yes M'Lady !!

Mr Green, I am sorry that you have feelings about the Windsor family and also that you feel this is the appropriate place to dump your odd thoughts about it all. This is a gaming forum where we discuss and share our mutual interest in Adventure games and other game genres. I am sure the local coffee shop or pub will be glad to discuss your personal diatribe against a family that has given service for generations to the country that they love. Also I am sory that you feel certainly classes of people are better than others because they were born without poistion or heritage. I for one am glad there are such, my own family have served both the English people and the monarchy for generations as the Earls of Sandiwch and the Lords of the Admiralty, and later as immigrants to this United States where we allow any and all people regardless of class and background an equal chance, they served as the second governor of Plymouth colony, then in the armed services incliuding a cousin who was captain of the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbour who felt so strongly that duty and honour mattered that he remains at his post on the bridge of his ship to this day.

That aristocracy you so dislike served with honour and dedication for genrations and were decimated in both world wars doing their duty, my own cousin the 11th Earl of Sandwich gave up his peerage and title to continue serving in the House of Commons and i never saw him once in his relations with tenants, friends and people of all classes to be other than a complete gentleman and a man of kind courtesy and coridal mutual respect.

You clearly do not understand that mature societies are built on the generations that give their lives and ther duty to ther countries and their fellows, and that communities are built on cordial respect, not divisive criticism and rancoir.  Please if you cant say anything nice about things, just dont bother to say anythnig at all.

This is the off Topic Forum and I chosse to stay ON topic relating to this thread which I would much rather had never been posted. If any admin feels i have been dispresectful of a fellow forum member please ask the veteran staff here the troubles we have had from Mr Green and be advised that I do not choose my words here lightly or without cause or prupose. My overall goal is as always to promote the courtesy and fellowship of our wonderful forum, and to speak out when I see people trolling and spreading rancor and ill will under the guise of non political commentary.

In case you are not aware, women have been an honoured and equal part of English society and culture for thousands of years, there were significant english women at every level of life. The custom you mention of clubs being reserved for one gender is indeed intended as a relaxation for both genders not for the oppression of one, it provides a time out and a surcease not an escape. I have had the pleasure of being a member of such clubs and I can assure you that women continue to be honoured highly not inspite of that factor. Mrs. Thatcher has her good points and my family supported her as conservatives, but some of her policies especially related to immigration and the social services have been disasterous for not only the UK but many other European nations but that is a topic for another thread. It just does not fly for you to try to load anti feminisim on top of your polemic and charges against english society and it is just not appropriate.

And by the way, it was my great uncle, Armistead Byrd Carter who introduced the Duke of Windor to the Duchess (Mrs. Wallis Simpson) at the Hotel Del Coronado during his good will visit to San Diego where they first met. We always were glad they were able to find happiness and love even in the face of extreme opposition and criticism, for they felt as any sane person would that love should triumph over tradidtion and that their relationship was indeed worth a kingdom. I have had the personal pleasure of knowing most of the current royal family of the United Kingdom and found them to be kind, courteous, and not at all superior in attitude or behaviour. So please understand when you bring your personal grudges into our forum and try to ruffle the water you will be opposed with determination and sincere censure. If you can't say anything nice, please refrain from muddying the waters here in our much beloved forum. Good day.

And you neednt bother replying to my comment, i shant be back to read this thread any more, i have better things to do, community serivce and my own job to focus on as well as my work supporting game development and game modding for a wide vareity of games of all genres. I don't mean to criticize you personally, this is about principles not personalities. I just had to speak up when I saw overt criticism without foundation happening.

Mr. Ger,

I asked for opinions on the Downton Abbey series and some associated subjects.  To every controversial su;bject there are different opinions (and there is more than one controversial topic on JA), sometimes very different, and you have certainly supplied yours.  I will not reply at all to any of them.

P.S.

Although we cannot compete in any way with your illustrious past & present, Our family has also done its tiny bit in both World Wars ! For example ;-

I have a photo of my wife Sylvia's FIVE older brothers all in British Worl War 2 army uniforms. They each served between 4 and 5 years continuously & simultaneously . All five were posted abroad and did not see their wives or families for years on end. They were all in the British army on active service - one in France, two in Germany, one in Iraq, and one in Burma !!

While it is laudable to defend the honor of your ancestors, the fact that they served their country honorably does not change the fundamental unfairness that aristocracy breeds. Not just in England, but in all monarchies where simply being born into a certain family automatically bestows various very special privileges on a person - who may or may not turn out to be a fine individual.

Additionally, the fact that many people of royal blood have led honorable lives and served their nations well, does not place them in some higher class than countless "commoners" who have done the same - without the advantages or privileges of royal title.  Every honorable soldier, diplomat or other public servant who sacrifices selflessly for their country should be respected equally. 

With monarchies come different forms of serfdom and sharp class distinctions that defy the basic concept of human equality. 

The same essential problem exists right here in America where unchecked corruption and greed has resulted in a greatly divided society of have-everythings and have-nothings with a huge mass of middle-class workers being pressured hard to accommodate and support both extremes. 

I believe the world would be a better place if mankind could ever create a lasting, global civilization founded on genuine equality for people of every creed, color, faith, gender and sexual orientation - with no social classes whatsoever.  Every single human being would then stand on his or her own merit, not on that of inherited wealth and power or a sense of entitlement to lifelong welfare. 

Cheers, Terry 

P.P.S..

I may have done a small injustice to my own family including a small contribution of my own. Many members served tGreat Britain in WW-II, including:-

My considerably older first cousin Elsie who joined the W.A.A.F/s (Women's Auxiliary Air Force) where she net and married a wonderful Australian bomber pilot. After the war she left her family in London and was a champion amateur boxer. He Australia whre they raised a happy family.

And my dear uncle Bennie : He was born in the slumd of the East End of London and was a champion amateur boxer. He volunteered for the Territorial Army the day WWII broke out/ He was shipped to France with the British Expeditionary Force and was one of the very lucky ones to be evacuated safely in the wonderful Dunkirk beaches early in the war when the British army withdrew from France.

And my own father - overage for the army joined the ARP (Air Raid Precautions) and quickly rose to be the deputy head of the ARP in one of the districs of Londopn. He was out in all the blitzes and later V1 & V2 rockets supervising the rescuing of trapped folk buried in bombed & fire bombed buildings. A VERY dangerous job.

Etc.

Just a reminder for those whose toes are edging across the line:

The Rules for the Just Adventure Forum

-No posts or topics about politics or religion are allowed.

I love the Downton Abbey series. I think they are doing a good job of portraying the horrors of war. Personally, I don't mind the class distinctions. It's not the job you do, but how you are treated by your superiors, whether you are in the employ of a mansion or a business company.

As to Royalty, I like the romanticism and the tradition.

Hi Colpet.

My 2 daughters agree with you about "Downton Abbey"/

The Elder (Noemi aged 55 lives in Tel Aviv) thinks the 2nd series is absolutely fabulous. The younger (Dana aged 52 lives in Irvine Orange County California) similr. At the end of the 1st series, one of Dana's closest friends in USA said (How am I going to hold out until the 2nd series begins?" - I haven't heard since then but my guess is that she is even more impressed now !!

World War I was a horrific war - the trench warfare + gas was almost unendurable

TA Staff 3 - am I allowed to erite anything about WW-I or would that be considered politics?

 meant to add - and forgot !

Our son (David aged 58 lives in Haifa not far from us) thinks its quite good.

But he's only seen the first series being too busy with his "CONCEPTIS puzzle" Company the largest graphic-logic-puzzl;e Co. ion the world (apart from newsparers, journals, magazines, books, etc. in over 60 countries, is now available over Internet and iPad).

colpet wrote "I think they are doing a good job of portraying the horrors of war" - I agree wholeheartedly. 

All wars are equal but some wars are more equal than others - and WWI was one of the worst.  The trench warfare that developed on the Western Front was absolutely horrific.  Apart from the newish weapons, high powered rifles, hand grenades, howitzers, primitive air warfare, chlorine and mustard gas etc. which killed and maimed hundreds of thousands.  But just the life in the trenches especially in winter with the mud and the rats and the lice and the trench feet was enough to drive sane men mad without even having to fight and kill and be killed. 

Over and above it all, tens of thousands of men were slaughtered like cattle within just a few days in order to advance (or often retreat) just a hundred or two metres - with luck.

We get very little films that we enjoy on any of our 50 or 60 tv channels (more than half of them are in a multitude of different languages).  However by chance during the past month we saw two excellent films both relating to WWI.  Both exemplified some of the shocking sides of that horrible war (and maybe all wars).  Quite likely you have seen one or the other ?? 

 "My son Jack" (2007) relates the real life story of Rudyard Kipling, internationally acclaimed Nobel Prize winner, poet & author of 'The Jungle Book', 'Kim', 'Just So' Stories', 'Gunga Din', and very many more.

His son Jack (actually John) was played competently in the film by Daniel (Harry Potter) Radcliffe.  Jack had extremely bad eyesight and without his spectacles could only see  a couple of metres in front of him.  Nevertheless he desperately wanted to get into the military early in WWI but was rejected due to his terrible vision.  However, his father had connections to the very highest in the army and even to royalty.  So Rudyard encouraged his son, pulled a few strings, and managed to get him accepted as an officer in the Infantry.  He was fairly quickly shipped off to France and was killed soon after in the terrible Battle of Loos in 1915 when he had only just turned 18.

The main battle was a 3-day attempt to take a German stronghold which failed completely, to no advantage whatsoever for the British.  Nothing at all was gained and according to some statistics the British suffered 50.000 casualties in the 3-day battle whilst the Germans had 25,000 casualties. 

The other film was a shocker.  It featured a fairly young Kirk Douglas and was made in 1957 but is as fresh and ghastly today.  It also is based on true events somewhat fictionalized.  It also deals with an abortive French attack on German positions with enormous appalling loss of life and limb.  Three innocent soldiers are sent to a firing squad for trumped-up cowardice - TERRIBLE !  This film, "Paths of Glory" made in English was directed by the then very young but brilliant Stanley Kubrick.

It not only shows up the horrors, brutality and savagery of total war but also the ugly ambitious competition between different generals sometimes leading to shocking corruption often costing countless hundreds of thousands of lives of ordinary soldiers.

Three quarters of the 8 episodes of the second series of Downton Abbey were devoted to the period covering the second half of WW-I (1916 thro' 191

It touched to some extent on some of the horrors of that terrible trench warfare.  In actuality it was far worse. Young men, on both sides were mowed down in their tens of thousands like a scythe cutting through a field of corn.

Some were shot by firing squad for so called cowardice although some of them were simply suffering from very severe shell shock – today recognized everywhere as 'post traumatic trauma' and were not in their right minds.- not surprising; I'm amazed that there were not very many more. When not actually 'going over the top' to be decimated by enemy machine guns , grenades and artillery, the 'quiet' conditions of 'life' in the trenches was almost insufferable – especially in winter with the cold & rain & mud/

Towards the end it was like 2 equally matched professional heavy weight boxers in the 18^th round – both staggering around the ring, completely punch drunk, faces bleeding. Noses broken, cauliflower ears, black eyes, etc., hardly knowing what they are doing !!

I am no historian or academician, but I sometimes wonder *what* would have been the outcome if the Americans had not come in on the side of the "Allies" on 6 April 1917 nearly one and a half years before the end of the 4 year ghastly conflict (for ALL sides more or less equally !) with thir huge amounts of fresh troops, arms, & equipmentetc ?!

I may well be wrong (and I hope this is not taken as politics in ANY way but nearly a full century ago of world history) WW-I marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire and the beginning of the era of USA world power in its place !!??!!

Originally Posted By Len Green (8 FEB 2012 1:24pm)

Seems there is  a certain resurgence in interest in class distinction - if I say snobbery, I could get reprimanded !

That's the economy for you. The poor have become poorer, the rich have been unaffected, and that means the class gap has widened and become more visible. 

Even people in the US have started to notice that they have a class sytem over there, what with the "We are the 99%" movement. 

I have no fondness for the upper classes. 

"MJEccles ---- That's the economy for you. The poor have become poorer, the rich have been unaffected, and that means the class gap has widened and become more visible".

I don't want to get too deeply into this since it could be accused of being the forbidden 'Politics'.

But leaving aside what systems etc. have caused it, I can't think that factually your above statement is right - please correct me if I'm wrong !

Restricting myself to what is known as the 'Developed countries', on the one hand they are awash with millionaires, multi-milionaires, and even billionaires. If I'm not mistaken these are not from the old 'Aristocracy' (e.g. in UK) but self made folk who have risen from the ranks; many of them (especially in USA maybe) having become extraordinarily wealthy at a very young age.

Yes, there is a section of the population which is REALLY poor - homeless, jobless, without a penny in the world and without much hope for the future -

all too many on drugs accompanied by crime to purchase their addictions.

But the vast majority of those who are sometimes called 'poor are not

REALLY so, compared to the poor of even only a century ago.

When I grew up in England there were hardly any motor cars on th roads - nowadays almost everybody has a vehicle - if not a car then at least a motor bike or a scooter, and witness the traffic jams & restrictions. (N.B. When I was young there was no such thing as a driving test or a driving license !). I think that almost all houses, all maybe except those of the extremely poor (??) have indoor running water, flush toilets, electricity, etc. Who has not got a TV & some sort of telephone - and not all that many nowadays have not got some type of computer - if only a very cheap second hand slightly older model.

Historically, AFAIK, there have *always* been richer & poorer people and for all I know there may always be such ???

But the differentiation is *VERY* much less nowadays and depends very little on 'Aristocratic' birth & inheritance than in the days of Downton Abbey !!

[size= x-small]

Originally Posted By Len Green (9 MAR 2012 2:09pm)

But the differentiation is *VERY* much less nowadays and depends very little on 'Aristocratic' birth & inheritance than in the days of Downton Abbey !!

Yep. But just that due to recent events, people notice it more. That's all. It's all very media-studies stuff.

've just seen all of the 2nd series of Downton Abbey and also the special solo episode 90 minute Xmas episode.

Plenty more plot boilers left open/

I guess they're now working on ta 3rd series ???     

Originally Posted By Len Green (9 MAR 2012 2:09pm)

"MJEccles ---- That's the economy for you. The poor have become poorer, the rich have been unaffected, and that means the class gap has widened and become more visible".

　

 

I don't want to get too deeply into this since it could be accused of being the forbidden 'Politics'.

 

But leaving aside what systems etc. have caused it, I can't think that factually your above statement is right - please correct me if I'm wrong !

 

　

 

Restricting myself to what is known as the 'Developed countries', on the one hand they are awash with millionaires, multi-milionaires, and even billionaires. If I'm not mistaken these are not from the old 'Aristocracy' (e.g. in UK) but self made folk who have risen from the ranks; many of them (especially in USA maybe) having become extraordinarily wealthy at a very young age.

 

Yes, there is a section of the population which is REALLY poor - homeless, jobless, without a penny in the world and without much hope for the future -

 

all too many on drugs accompanied by crime to purchase their addictions.

 

　

 

But the vast majority of those who are sometimes called 'poor are not

 

REALLY so, compared to the poor of even only a century ago.

 

When I grew up in England there were hardly any motor cars on th roads - nowadays almost everybody has a vehicle - if not a car then at least a motor bike or a scooter, and witness the traffic jams & restrictions. (N.B. When I was young there was no such thing as a driving test or a driving license !). I think that almost all houses, all maybe except those of the extremely poor (??) have indoor running water, flush toilets, electricity, etc. Who has not got a TV & some sort of telephone - and not all that many nowadays have not got some type of computer - if only a very cheap second hand slightly older model.

 

　

 

Historically, AFAIK, there have *always* been richer & poorer people and for all I know there may always be such ???

 

But the differentiation is *VERY* much less nowadays and depends very little on 'Aristocratic' birth & inheritance than in the days of Downton Abbey !!

 

[size= x-small]

　

That is such a gross oversimplification of how the super rich arrived at and remain in power via corruption and exploitation and manipulation of the system that it beggars belief.  Most of these "self-made billionaires"  have not attained what they have by being sweet, morally pristine philantropists!

A bit of research might be a good idea.

Start reading.  Anything. Anywhere.  This might be a good start: Article

**** Traveller ***

QUOTE - **** " That is such a gross oversimplification of how the super rich arrived at and remain in power via corruption and exploitation and manipulation of the system that it beggars belief.  Most of these "self-made billionaires"  have not attained what they have by being sweet, morally pristine philantropists!
-----  A bit of research might be a good idea. " ****
_______________________________________________________________________________________

******    In my opening thread, the aspect of Downton Abbey which (and many others) found disturbing was the British class distinction & snobbery etc. which accompanied the aristocracy a century or more ago.
******  Inheritance tax (death duties), multi-cultural society, egalitarianism, 2 world wars, and other factors have whittled away at this phenomenon to a VERY large degree, and in maybe a generation or two it may cease to exist entirely ?? -------- My above opinion was a socio-historic one, but both you and MJEccles have steered it into directions which can be construed as (forbidden) politics ! I did NOT want to raise the general & very thorny subject of today's 'rich' versus 'poor' which is often NOT congruent with a section of society being 'superior' not by their own efforts but by virtue of their aristocratic birth alone - some being good decent folk, whereas others were indifferent or in some cases even thoroughly bad people !
******    I recommend avoiding the ultra-controversial wealthy/poverty-stricken ENTIRELY since it is not properly relevant and also can possibly lead to infringement of the JA Forum's rules ! ------ However, and having said that Traveller, what on earth are you trying to claim ?
 -That some individuals (often very young) are ... YOUR QUOTE ... "------------ the super rich [[Who]] arrived at and remained in power via corruption and exploitation and manipulation of the system that it beggars belief". 
******    In other words, just a few examples I know just a little about - you claim that the following are no more than bloodsucking corrupt exploiters of the system, etc. .........
Bill Gates, the late Steve Jobs, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Richard Branson, Warren Buffet and very many more I know little or nothing about !
******    And you accuse ME of "gross over-simplification". 
Talk about dogmatic over-generalization party-jargon !!!