Isnt it kind of tragic being born rich/famous...

She was the only family member besides him who didn't look like a troll. He must have been lonely as hell until Kate showed up.

william was very handsome as a young lad

Attached: Young-Prince-William.jpg (1655x1655, 358K)

very evil and so is his whole family OH WAIT YOU’RE SLAVES AND THINK OF THESE BLOODRINKING ROTHSCHILD COHORTS AS GOODPEOPLE BECAUSE QUEEN AND COUNTRY MATE

lol

the literary establishment in the UK these days is a very cliquey liberal middle class Londoner group

>Henry Charles Albert David hit "post" and sat back in his silk-mahogany chair. As he read over what he'd written, submitted to the popular online form Veeky Forums.org, a single tear rolled down his cheek, and for a moment, he felt a strange sensation that with all his power and opulence he'd rarely been able to afford: self pity. But here, on the internet, he was not simply His Royal Highness Prince Henry of Wales; nor was he Captain of The Blues and Royals, Knight Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, and recipient of the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal; he was not even the younger son of Charles and Diana, who had stoically bared not only the weight of his mothers death, but the media circus that followed. He is not the little Prince of his boarding schools, constantly taunted and bullied by the other classmates; nor the confused British youth in Lesotho, working on various sanitation projects and deflowering hundreds of Lesothian women; nor the coked up humanitarian inventing the Invictus Games. No, today he was anonymous, and for an instant, he let slide the mask of excellence that had been welded on him from before his birth, and feel an instant of doubt and sadness for the many lives he would never live.

Attached: 1521326254625.png (3384x2104, 183K)

being rich in those days was definitely a whole lot shitter than being rich in the present day

>how could he fuck up?
idk, marry a brown mutt when your status enables you to marry any woman in the entire world?

While I understand where you guys are coming from, I insist, that the key here is not precisely that they had luxury and what not (I would insist that they did have plenty of luxury but, that would not be as encompassing as what follows), but rather that their savings, inheritance, enterprises, etc. have given them leeway to not toil for other people. In spite of the (I believe correct) claims that people used to have more free time before, I believe the quality of such free time was only truly enlightening/insightful to the rich or at least higher middle classes. It is indeed worse than today that they had no proper way to wipe their asses and had to endure through winters but they also had servants and "play spaces" we obviously can't even dream of having today. They were worse off in most senses, but in a few instances they were objectively more set for creativity.

you're comparing apples to oranges. Elite of today are just souped up ultra bourgoise, whereas the elite from the past were aristocrats with the implicit expectation from birth of being cultured.

I think the key was that they had a clearly defined leadership role to play in society that isn't present in the rich today. They knew where they were supposed to go so to speak and some of them at least used their free time accordingly

here,

I think this is an adequate answer to my own post which also addresses the problem with today's elite.

Now, do you guys believe lack of culture and being a swine actually trickles down unlike wealth? Are the masses condemned if they are to follow our neo-bourgoise?

>It is indeed worse than today that they had no proper way to wipe their asses and had to endure through winters but they also had servants and "play spaces" we obviously can't even dream of having today
Idk, there are a lot more luxuries available today and people still buy them. Sure you can't just go hunt people anymore (allegedly) but overall there's more stuff to play with.
The ultra wealthy today aren't very creative because despite what Bernie Sanders says they do spend a ton of time working. It doesn't leave a lot of juice with which to make art. Then they have kids who aren't creative because they're mostly dipshits. The best we can hope for is probably Megan Ellison.

aristocrats in the past were highly disciplined and educated from birth and forced to learn history, philosophy, multiple languages, Mathematics, how to ride a horse and fight, how to be a gentleman and proper etiquette etc

the upper class these days are just over indulged retards, especially nouveau rich

Chuckled

I agree with the sentiment, think this has been established by now. So I guess to the OP it would be proper to say "Yes, today it's kind of tragic, but writers in the past were aristocrats who fucked up, not common folk who fucked up.". This leaves the question of who is going to carry our literature's legacy. Where are the guys with interesting stories, socially speaking? I'm not eager to say "slums" to be honest

I think the problem is that culture trickles upwards nowadays. Why do you think bourgeois rich kids love underground rap? culture only flows from a birthright/stable environment. that used to encompass peasants, aristocrats, priestly caste, etc. now it's pretty much limited to the underclass (white trash for country, black ghetto dwellers for rap, maybe foreigners from places like the middle east as well) who are the last people left with a claim of authenticity. There is no downward flow of high culture anymore

Upper middle class to bh. People who live comfortably from a young age but still get exposed to things without drowning in the shit.

I disagree, upper middle class are still too coddled. Lower middle class is our last hope. People who are shit on, but still have the ability genetically and environmentally to raise up. probably projecting alot here but still.

Kinda this.

I read an indicator that a society is on the upswing when the poor emulate the rich, in mannerisms and taste. Common people put on airs and pretenses and attempt to act or look aristocratic. Conversely when society is on the decline, the wealthy and rich emulate the poor.

You see much of the latter these days.

>Now, do you guys believe lack of culture and being a swine actually trickles down unlike wealth? Are the masses condemned if they are to follow our neo-bourgoise?
Of course it does. High culture is sustained and funded by the upper class troughout History
And they already do and are. The fall of aristocratic values and the rise of thr money-worshipping Nouveau Rich is a direct cause for the cultural decline of today. Who do you think pays for all these Marvel movies? Not the same type of people who funded Wagner, that's for sure

>There is no downward flow of high culture anymore
the masses being uncultured is beneficial
>Who do you think pays for all these Marvel movies? Not the same type of people who funded Wagner, that's for sure
there is the world meant to be seen by the masses, and the world not
all the money milked from the masses is not entirely rededicated to milk money from the masses

Freedom, what more is wanted? How many channels are there on tv? There are some cultural channels, the masses have the option

with the internet anyone from any background can become educated if they want to, it isn't like before where they would need to get into the right schools and university

future writers will be coming from all walks of life

>be born
>ginger nut
>stupid at school
>your mum dies in a car crash
>go join army
>fail the maths test but pass on second attempt
>kill a bunch of mudskins in your helicopter
>return and realize you're late 20s with no wife, no future, no prospects
>realize you're a prince
>tour world doing princely things, this is your only reassurance you're not a complete fuckup
>come back and realize you're still a fucking loser but now you're 30
>get engaged to divorced African American, if your family didn't hate you they sure do now
>have niglets/get assassinated with your wife by brexitor in your late 30s - time will tell

science/substances/items/products and foods is 99% more important than culture

>Why do you think bourgeois rich kids love underground rap?
It's mostly just kids with nouveau rich families who act like that

The proper old money people are extremely insular with close-knit communities

Says the uncultured user who doesn't have the language skills to properly express ratios.

what would an increase of culture be and look like? what would outcomes be?

All of those things are a part of culture you absolute pleb

Culture is not just art and entertainment

Attached: hx4Prda.jpg (228x221, 5K)

I don't know. I was just pointing out how that guy was trying to say culture is 1% as important as the material, but his lack of language ability made it sound like he was saying it's 49.5% as important.

x is 100% more important than y

how is science/substances/items/products lacking?

100% = total, complete, absolute, highest

99% = very very close to that

100% more important means x is twice as important as y.

Is 1, 99% less than 100?

Not only that but he gets to be reminded of it every time another conspiracy comes on the air.

I was using it metaphorically and symbolically: as 100% = fully, and 99% = near fully

totally, completely, absolutely, more important.

this is one of the lowest iq, most juvenile nonsensical “arguments” ive ever seen online, fucking idiot

And I understood that because of culture. I'm saying if I had looked at your sentence from a 100% material point of view I would have misunderstood it.

As you can have a pie with all its pieces x with a perimeter of 22 inches, and a pie with all its pieces y with a perimeter 55 inches: both pies are 100%. So 100% x would =/= 100% y

And I could say y tasted 99% more delicious than x,

Lets say x tasted 5 units of delicious how many units of delicious would y taste?

If x tasted 72 units of delicious, how many units of delicious would y taste?

So you see if culture is 999999 units of important: science/etc. being 99% more important may be significant after all, even considering your appropriate correction

Do you remember where you read that? It's an interesting idea.

>The proper old money people are extremely insular with close-knit communities
Yeah, but they still like to listen to shitty coon music and do all sorts of mind-ruining drugs even at the most landed of parties. I mean, look at the Manners sisters.

Checkled