Upper Class Twit: Difference between revisions

Upper Class Twit (view source)

Revision as of 15:41, 5 May 2018

4 bytes removed , 6 years ago

it's (= "it is") changed to "its" (possessive), as usual when cleaning up after Jason taylor

Automoderated users, Autopatrolled users, Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, Confirmed users, Forum administrators, Interface administrators, Moderators, Rollbackers, Administrators

116,957

edits

Revision as of 01:09, 5 May 2018 (view source) Jason taylor (talk \| contribs) No edit summary ← Older edit		Revision as of 15:41, 5 May 2018 (view source) Looney Toons (talk \| contribs) (it's (= "it is") changed to "its" (possessive), as usual when cleaning up after Jason taylor) Newer edit →
Line 53: * In the older (black and white) version of ''[[The Scarlet Pimpernel (film)\|The Scarlet Pimpernel]]'', Sir Percy acts like this once finds out that his wife is probably spying on him for the French. It's really just a show to fend off suspicion that he's helping French nobles escape to England. * ''[[Temptation Island]]'' has bitchy contestant Suzanne (Serafina in the remake), and the pageant coordinator Joshua. * ''The Swan'' with Grace Kelly is a take on this that makes twitiness ~~it's~~its own punishment. An absurdly proud family of royal pretensions, uses servants as toys and tools and thinks kin politics is relevant long after it has been made meaningless by bureaucracy, thus breaking a potentially healthy romance needlessly. The result is the chief villain pines for power, the antiheroine loses her chance for happiness, and all because of their absurd devotion to irrelevant snobbery. The description sounds harsh but the characters are not really unlikable, just pitiable, and even the chief villain is not really evil and her cruelties are petty and the results of frustrations. If they had been happy with the comfort they had and not made a fuss of it they would have been nicer to themselves and nicer to other people. Instead they are a group of rather tragic Upper Class Twits. == Jokes == Line 195: == Real Life == * At the start of [[World War I]] general was largely a political position for most countries and as a result many countries had generals whose only qualifications were being upper class and connected, most had never seen combat and sent men to their deaths in hopes of glorious victories. This was a major contributor to the war being the mess it was. **That is an example of how a ~~societal~~social institution can run out ~~it's~~its efficiency. In their heyday aristocrats were far more brutal but the difficulty of keeping trained warriors without rewarding them with privilege gave them a social purpose, while war was so common that a considerable portion of those who weren't any good at it would have been weeded out by [[Asskicking Equals Authority]]. Even in [[World War I]] several of the upper class folk were reasonably able. But the lack of a war had allowed rot in much of the system. {{reflist}}