ckn Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 The coverage today seems to be split between euphoria saying the world is now set to rights (and Diana can finally rest, seriously) and that Harry's unhappy about the press. Now, I think he's a decent sort, way at the top of my "favourite royal" list by a very long way but he has a choice, accept the publicity with all that comes with it or resign into the depths of nowhere refusing all publicity and royal funding. They get a life of extreme privilege funded by the state at a time of indefinitely extended austerity, they are in the public spotlight whenever they step out and that's a fair trade in my opinion. That doesn't mean they should get abusive coverage or Diana levels of paparazzi harassment but neither does it mean they get to dictate the coverage they receive. While I'm on it, I'm no fan of the Queen, she intrudes into politics far too much for my liking, the recent "leaks" from Buck Palace, about how she's been unhappy about certain things our democratically elected Prime Minister has been doing and how the democratically elected Leader of the Opposition has used a Parliamentary procedure that invokes her name, are out of order. She should mind her manners and stay as an ornament in her palace for tourists to look at. Her husband gets the same level of tolerance that Boris does "oh don't mind his racism and intolerance, it's just Phil, the sweet old man". Chuck seems a decent sort, I think I might get on with him just fine. Unfortunately, he'd be even more of a "just one thing" drag on the government of the day, thinking he actually deserves a say beyond a vote at general elections. William just doesn't strike me as a likeable sort at all, right into the Andrew levels. He has none of his grandmother's or father's obvious understanding of the trade-off between privilege and duty. Everything I've seen of him suggests someone there on far lower levels of tolerance than Chuck for royal duties, but without the courage to walk away from all the privilege. I wonder how he'll pay for this third child given state benefits now only cover two children. "When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 39 minutes ago, JohnM said: Certainly beats having a President: Trump, Mugabe, Kim Jong Un, Chavez, Maduro, Castro, Pinochet, Erdoğan, Putin, Nazarbayev, the Pope, Margvelashvili, most African presidents, even a de facto pres such as one-time forum poster girl and darling of the liberal left, Aung San Suu Kyi Monarchies are awesome. King Salman is my favourite. But they are all so much better than us. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Evans Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 32 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said: Just think how much worse it's going to become. Sometimes there just isn't enough vomit in the world. Wall to wall sycophantic fawning dribble..... just can't get out of it.... I think I'll eat bacon to compensate for all this carry on and hope the idea of a tv channel république catches on quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 6 minutes ago, ckn said: he has a choice, accept the publicity with all that comes with it or resign into the depths of nowhere refusing all publicity and royal funding. It's a nice thought but how practically could someone leave the firm. And in the social media age how hidden could he really be? At least he actually seems to try and give something back - William just seems to want to fertilise his fragrant wife and look bored. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiltshire Rhino Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Robin Evans said: We have gone to France to avoid the jubilee (gold and diamond) and the odd royal wedding.... When I think about the cost to the tax payer.... Dear Daily Mail, I think it is a disgrace that us hard working southern tax payers pay for northern oiks to go on holiday. Yours, Disgusted of Wiltshire *Sorry Robin, couldn't help myself 2014 Challenged Cup Winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckn Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 minute ago, gingerjon said: It's a nice thought but how practically could someone leave the firm. And in the social media age how hidden could he really be? At least he actually seems to try and give something back - William just seems to want to fertilise his fragrant wife and look bored. It's a fair point but it is manageable. I doubt the media in the UK would dare oppose the Son-of-Diana too much if he said he's completely stepping away from it all. There still would be some but I think the British print media would abide by it. "When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 18 minutes ago, Robin Evans said: Wall to wall sycophantic fawning dribble..... just can't get out of it.... I think I'll eat bacon to compensate for all this carry on and hope the idea of a tv channel république catches on quick. If and when it does, that's when you had better learn how to be sycophantic. After all, you can say what you like about the British royal family and you need never feel in any danger. Do the same thing in some Republics that I assume you might approve of, for example Cuba, and you would soon find that the state would be breathing down your neck. Of the 52 Commonwealth countries, there are 16 that still have the Queen as Head of State. My bet, as a broad generalisation, is that you would much rather live in the majority of those 16 countries than in most of those that don't have her as Head of State. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: If and when it does, that's when you had better learn how to be sycophantic. After all, you can say what you like about the British royal family and you need never feel in any danger. Do the same thing in some Republics that I assume you might approve of, for example Cuba, and you would soon find that the state would be breathing down your neck. Of the 52 Commonwealth countries, there are 16 that still have the Queen as Head of State. My bet, as a broad generalisation, is that you would much rather live in the majority of those 16 countries than in most of those that don't have her as Head of State. Is this the thing where you wind up telling us that more monarchies lead to more peace in the world? That's one of the all time classics. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: If and when it does, that's when you had better learn how to be sycophantic. After all, you can say what you like about the British royal family and you need never feel in any danger. Do the same thing in some Republics that I assume you might approve of, for example Cuba, and you would soon find that the state would be breathing down your neck. Of the 52 Commonwealth countries, there are 16 that still have the Queen as Head of State. My bet, as a broad generalisation, is that you would much rather live in the majority of those 16 countries than in most of those that don't have her as Head of State. As an argument in favour of Monarchy pointing out there are worse places to live is hardly a strong point in their favour. France, Germany, The USA and Finland don't have a monarchy either and they seem OK places, but what (and I apologise for speaking on Robin's behalf here) I suspect he would prefer is to live in this country without a monarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Shadow said: As an argument in favour of Monarchy pointing out there are worse places to live is hardly a strong point in their favour. France, Germany, The USA and Finland don't have a monarchy either and they seem OK places, but what (and I apologise for speaking on Robin's behalf here) I suspect he would prefer is to live in this country without a monarchy. But then we won't have any tourists. Tourists only go to places with actual royal people. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 2 minutes ago, gingerjon said: But then we won't have any tourists. Tourists only go to places with actual royal people. I must go to France next summer, it will be empty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerjon Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Just now, Shadow said: I must go to France next summer, it will be empty. France has the worst of all worlds. It is French. It is in the EU. Its palaces have no royals in them. And it's French. Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, gingerjon said: France has the worst of all worlds. It is French. It is in the EU. Its palaces have no royals in them. And it's French. Spain is always crowded in August, it must be because of King Juan Carlos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonM Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 France has the world's biggest tourist industry. Imagine how much bigger it could be if they hadn't foolishly chopped off the head of their king back in the 18th century. Maybe America would get some visitors too. Plenty of people seem to enjoy the royal soap opera. It's no worse than z list celebs in the jungle or anything else of that ilk, which we're all paying for too, one way or another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 20 minutes ago, gingerjon said: Is this the thing where you wind up telling us that more monarchies lead to more peace in the world? That's one of the all time classics. Not necessarily! It depends on a number of factors, as I'm sure you appreciate. But a Constitutional Monarchy with limited powers is hard to beat as a guarantor of liberty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 16 minutes ago, Shadow said: As an argument in favour of Monarchy pointing out there are worse places to live is hardly a strong point in their favour. I would have thought it was a very strong point in their favour. 17 minutes ago, Shadow said: France, Germany, The USA and Finland don't have a monarchy either and they seem OK places, but what (and I apologise for speaking on Robin's behalf here) I suspect he would prefer is to live in this country without a monarchy. He obviously would, but I'm simply advising him to be careful what he wishes for. It doesn't always turn out for the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 3 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: I would have thought it was a very strong point in their favour. Not really, we have a monarchy. Finland does not. Finland frequently tops and always outperforms the UK in lists of happiest nations and best places to live, ergo, by your logic, Monarchies bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckn Posted November 28, 2017 Author Share Posted November 28, 2017 9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: Not necessarily! It depends on a number of factors, as I'm sure you appreciate. But a Constitutional Monarchy with limited powers is hard to beat as a guarantor of liberty. I simply don't get that. A proper separation of powers, such as in the US as the first example to mind, is a far better guarantor of liberty. Look at the dribblings of Trump, Congress has essentially neutered him in most of his big policies. In the UK, our legislature also forms our executive and our executive drives the agenda of our legislature. Our unelected, beyond the order she came out of her mother, monarch intrudes into our executive far too much and our legislature is hampered by an unelected chamber of political appointees. "When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Evans Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 39 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said: If and when it does, that's when you had better learn how to be sycophantic. After all, you can say what you like about the British royal family and you need never feel in any danger. Do the same thing in some Republics that I assume you might approve of, for example Cuba, and you would soon find that the state would be breathing down your neck. Of the 52 Commonwealth countries, there are 16 that still have the Queen as Head of State. My bet, as a broad generalisation, is that you would much rather live in the majority of those 16 countries than in most of those that don't have her as Head of State. I reckon I'd be fairly safe to slate Macca en france Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martyn Sadler Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 11 minutes ago, Shadow said: Not really, we have a monarchy. Finland does not. Finland frequently tops and always outperforms the UK in lists of happiest nations and best places to live, ergo, by your logic, Monarchies bad. In the 2017 World Happiness Report, published by the United Nations, Constitutional Monarchies occupy seven of the top ten places, including the overall leader, which is Norway. I rest my case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadow Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Martyn Sadler said: In the 2017 World Happiness Report, published by the United Nations, Constitutional Monarchies occupy seven of the top ten places, including the overall leader, which is Norway. I rest my case. I am convinced. The fact that Chile and the UAE are at 20 and 21 with the UK at 19 in no way invalidates your argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tongs ya bas Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 https://www.thepoke.co.uk/2017/11/28/harry-meghan-downing-street-donald-trump-responded/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Evans Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 2 hours ago, gingerjon said: France has the worst of all worlds. It is French. It is in the EU. Its palaces have no royals in them. And it's French. Aye..... so dreadful ?? Think I've only visited the place 100 or so times.....? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tongs ya bas Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said: If and when it does, that's when you had better learn how to be sycophantic. After all, you can say what you like about the British royal family and you need never feel in any danger. Do the same thing in some Republics that I assume you might approve of, for example Cuba, and you would soon find that the state would be breathing down your neck. Of the 52 Commonwealth countries, there are 16 that still have the Queen as Head of State. My bet, as a broad generalisation, is that you would much rather live in the majority of those 16 countries than in most of those that don't have her as Head of State. Do the same thing where there is no elected head of state including some monarchies and the state would do more than breathe down your neck Saying that there is a choice between the mountbattens and some brutal dictatorships is daft. They have vast unearned wealth and privilege right enough, but no power. Do you really believe that those sixteen countries you mention are better countries to live in because Elizabeth Mountbatten is head of State? Her position is purely ceremonial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleep1673 Posted November 28, 2017 Share Posted November 28, 2017 Look at it this way, it's less than 100 years since a King had to abdicate because he wanted to marry an American divorcee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.