Bearman Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 In this weeks edition of Rugby League Express ex MP David Hinchliffe argues that the passing of the baton of Patron of the Rugby League from HRH to Prince Harry is a "bad thing" (to quote 1066 and all that) He points out that the Royals have never or seldom made any move to embrace rl. Indeed he points out that there always seems to be a royal at big union events. England v France and never a word about the disgraceful actions carried out by the Vichy regime. He goes on to say that the Royals were always in a position to lobby the RFU and bring pressure to bear to treat RL fairly. They never did because they were part of the establishment that wanted to crush rugby league. He says we should tell them we don't want Harry thrust upon us. That we should not kow tow and tug our forelocks and be grateful for a few minor scraps from the bi-annual honours pig trough. I agree. I think that if we were to declare rugby league a "No Royals thank you zone" there would be an immediate condemnation of the ungrateful oiks who had the nerve to criticise Her Gracious Majesty by the Tory press. I bet not one would look to see "what the Royals ever did FOR rugby league" . It would also be a rallying point for a lot of people in this country for whom the royal family is an outdated anachronism. Ron Banks Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cumbrian Fanatic Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I haven't read the article yet but based on what you have put here I have to say I whole heartedly agree with his sentiments. I believe the first the most important qualification to become a patron of Rugby League is to be a Rugby League fan. 100% League 0% Union Just because I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Difficult one this If you know your law you will realise we don't live in a democracy we live in a constitutional monarchy with no true bill of rights or common representation That's what they teach at Harvard by the way and Paris, and everywhere else for that matter, not just my opinion, and on the law degree I took as well so royal patronage is important in such a system - as much as it bugs the heck out of me we should move on and drop the patronage angle - go for a prominent figure that could help the sport not a dead duck that doesn't care about RL and spends his time promoting, at my and your expense, a game I personally have no time for to the detriment continually of RL Who it should be I genuinely don't know but we should actively seek patronage from somewhere else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I tend to agree with Hinchcliffe but willing to give Harry Windsor a fair crack of the whip. That means, at the very least, presenting the Challenge Cup to this year's winning captain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Hope Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I haven't read the article yet but based on what you have put here I have to say I whole heartedly agree with his sentiments. I believe the first the most important qualification to become a patron of Rugby League is to be a Rugby League fan. Don't think you'll find any of them in Buckingham Palace! King Kev Sinfield is perhaps closest we have... Rugby League World writer Twitter: @a_hope14 Mobile: iPhone 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share Posted January 1, 2017 In his article he says we shoild embrace " coming from beneath the blanket" Is that why they thought Harry was a good fit? Ron Banks Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 How about Sir Ken Dodd? Is he an RL fan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share Posted January 1, 2017 How about Sir Ken Dodd? Is he an RL fan? No he must be a union fan judging by his tax dodging. Ron Banks Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 In this weeks edition of Rugby League Express ex MP David Hinchliffe argues that the passing of the baton of Patron of the Rugby League from HRH to Prince Harry is a "bad thing" (to quote 1066 and all that) He points out that the Royals have never or seldom made any move to embrace rl. Indeed he points out that there always seems to be a royal at big union events. England v France and never a word about the disgraceful actions carried out by the Vichy regime. He goes on to say that the Royals were always in a position to lobby the RFU and bring pressure to bear to treat RL fairly. They never did because they were part of the establishment that wanted to crush rugby league. He says we should tell them we don't want Harry thrust upon us. That we should not kow tow and tug our forelocks and be grateful for a few minor scraps from the bi-annual honours pig trough. I agree. I think that if we were to declare rugby league a "No Royals thank you zone" there would be an immediate condemnation of the ungrateful oiks who had the nerve to criticise Her Gracious Majesty by the Tory press. I bet not one would look to see "what the Royals ever did FOR rugby league" . It would also be a rallying point for a lot of people in this country for whom the royal family is an outdated anachronism. Can't agree with so much of that. It sounds more like him grinding a republican axe. That is music to so many on here, of course, on this mainly Labour, mainly republican forum. The question he should be asking, in my view, is what has the game actually asked of the royal family? They are not going to wake up one morning and say" I know, let's call the RFL and ask them if we can present the cup". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I tend to agree with Hinchcliffe but willing to give Harry Windsor a fair crack of the whip. That means, at the very least, presenting the Challenge Cup to this year's winning captain. Well, someone had better put a plan together for this to happen. I doubt he reads this forum, and even if he did he is unlikely to come away with a nice warm feeling towards the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 I would hope Big Nige strikes while the iron is hot and gets Harry Windsor along to Wembley this August. Otherwise what's the point of having a royal patron? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Double post Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C H Calthrop Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Its much better being in the tent peeing out than the other way round. I'm not remotely a royalist but perhaps it's time RL changed tack and started using things to it's advantage instead of being the outsider. Harry may not change one thing but if you tell him to get lost, then nothing will change for definite. But of course if you are not wanted in the tent standing outside full of expectation will only end up in a face full of wee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bearman Posted January 1, 2017 Author Share Posted January 1, 2017 Can't agree with so much of that. It sounds more like him grinding a republican axe. That is music to so many on here, of course, on this mainly Labour, mainly republican forum. The question he should be asking, in my view, is what has the game actually asked of the royal family? They are not going to wake up one morning and say" I know, let's call the RFL and ask them if we can present the cup".But he is right that on her watch rugby league was victimised by the RFU. Had she told them to stop, the snivelling toerags would have fallen overthemselves to comply. Ron Banks Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulwalker71 Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 How about Sir Ken Dodd? Is he an RL fan? Well the old Liverpool Stanley club used to play in Knotty Ash... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Man of Kent Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 Well the old Liverpool Stanley club used to play in Knotty Ash... How tickled he would be to present the Challenge Cup! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cumbrian Fanatic Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 But he is right that on her watch rugby league was victimised by the RFU. Had she told them to stop, the snivelling toerags would have fallen overthemselves to comply. RL was also banned in the armed forces, which I believe she is commander in chief, during her patronage. 100% League 0% Union Just because I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
themainbrace Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 I'm not expecting great things but I'd give Prince Harry a chance and see what he does. It is probably worth asking what the role of patron involves before we spend too long wondering who it should be. I'm sure I read that the Queen was patron to 3,000 odd organisations, in which case each organisation wouldn't have been expecting her to do much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C H Calthrop Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Then you adopt the policy of 'when in Rome...beat up the Romans' It worked for the Visigoths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 But he is right that on her watch rugby league was victimised by the RFU. Had she told them to stop, the snivelling toerags would have fallen overthemselves to comply. Hmmm. I'm not sure she may have been aware of the situation, though. I certainly don't recall her saying anything to me about it. I was also on her watch that over 5000 people a year die in accidents in the home. Had she told them to stop, the snivelling toerags would have fallen over themselves to comply, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cumbrian Fanatic Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Hmmm. I'm not sure she may have been aware of the situation, though. I certainly don't recall her saying anything to me about it. I was also on her watch that over 5000 people a year die in accidents in the home. Had she told them to stop, the snivelling toerags would have fallen over themselves to comply, too. Obviously you do not understand the difference between accident and deliberate action 100% League 0% Union Just because I don't know doesn't mean I don't understand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C H Calthrop Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Love the bit in the Hinchliffe article "bearing in mind Prince's Harrys infatuation with Union, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that some mischief is actually afoot" I mean given the evidence it is a perfectly reasonable assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxford Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 From Ken Dodd to is the Queen aware of anything that happens in her kingdom? via give Harry a chance! Most of the people on here have either grown old or in the process of doing so whilst "her watch" has been going along it's merry way. Assuming she knew nothing and such facts were never brought to her attention is a bit strange. Who on earth would there be in her network of advisors that would be remotely connected to or have an interest in, RL? Love the bit in the Hinchliffe article "bearing in mind Prince's Harrys infatuation with Union, it is difficult to avoid the feeling that some mischief is actually afoot" I mean given the evidence it is a perfectly reasonable assumption. You can't say that on here! The establishment doesn't have to do anything because the dice is already loaded and when that is the case you sit back and collect the rewards. That's why they're the establishment and how it works. Having a royal anything is a necessity that RL has always had and always done without so nothing will change because it's Harry. He is quite capable of turning up as seldom as his his mam. So this is a discussion not worth it's salt, really. The funniest is post though was the Labour/ Republican stronghold description of this forum. I wish? 2 warning points Non-Political Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnM Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Good grief, man, you only have to peruse the mass of verbiage on AOB to see that this forum is predominantly Labour/left/republican in nature..and protected too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Rhino Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 From memory HMQ gave up being patron of over 20 organisations and handed them to Harry. The press of course made it sound personal, I very much doubt this happened. The Queens PA will have suggested it and handed it to Harry's flunky. My money would be on HMQ not caring about what she has lost and Harry having little idea of what he's gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.