Jump to content

Recommended Posts

nxjen Wrote:

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

> JohnL Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Can't we have a monarchy AND an executive

> > president who we elect.

> >

> > I know no-one else does but we can be first :)

>

> Interesting idea. What would be his job

> description?


*Ahem* Or hers?

Hello everyone


Yeah, can't wait for, at best, AT BEST, President: Fry, Lineker, or God forbid Blair and the grey, dull, municipal socialism of the Republic. In fact the 'elitist' Royal wedding has probably done more for race relations in this country than 10,000 of Owen Jones or Jezzas hideously white middle-class shouty 'rallies'. Good to see the normal bunch of lefty village idiots doing their thang on here. plus ca change



How the devil are you all?

I'm not left wing, just find the royal family an anachronism and increasingly ridiculous. A slimmed down version focused on the monarch wouldn't be so bad, but this extended celebrity family, using their position to carve out public roles for themselves in which they pose as morally superior to the rest of us, awarding themselves titles simply for existing, and spending more days on holiday than actually working, disgusts me. More importantly, the concept of 'royal' has become ridiculous - there are people out there with more royal blood than most of them - George, 4th in line to the throne, has less than 20%. They pay most of their employees peanuts too, despite their vast wealth.


ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't have to see it if you don't want to.

I believe in democracy. Electing a head of state, and being able to remove that head of state via a ballot box is way more important to me than individuals or personalities. The symbolism of a class structure in which power is inherited rather than earnt is disgusting to me. These people are parasites, they?ll do anything and everything to cling onto their situation.


Louisa.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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


>

> ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage

> of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't

> have to see it if you don't want to.


I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can completely ignore their increasingly rabid, po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers.

Loz Wrote:

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

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > ETA: loving the Guardian website: their

> coverage

> > of the wedding has a collapse button so you

> don't

> > have to see it if you don't want to.

>

> I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can

> completely ignore their increasingly rabid,

> po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers.


I feel the same about the Telegraph, I find not going to their website, or if I do not clicking on the opinion pieces, works quite well.

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

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

> there are people out there with more

> royal blood than most of them - George, 4th in

> line to the throne, has less than 20%.


Not forgetting the few drops he?s inherited through an illegitimate line from Charles II through his grandmother Diana

Louisa Wrote:

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

> I believe in democracy. Electing a head of state,

> and being able to remove that head of state via a

> ballot box is way more important to me than

> individuals or personalities. The symbolism of a

> class structure in which power is inherited rather

> than earnt is disgusting to me. These people are

> parasites, they?ll do anything and everything to

> cling onto their situation.

>

> Louisa.


I can think of nothing more disgusting that President Blair, President Benn, President Thatcher or President Cameron.


In these times of political corruption and fakery, an apolitical Head of State is a blessing.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> Is it just me, or is the fact Megan is mixed race

> and American an attempt by the Royal Family to

> modernise - or am I being cynical?

>

> (#expecting abuse)

>

> When have we ever had a biracial princess before?


I think they are both genuinely smitten but the royal family are certainly taking the opportunity to put a message across. The cynical side of me says this is aimed at the Commonwealth to foster better trading links post Brexit, I believe it has been announced the happy couple intend working to strengthen those links.

Jules-and-Boo Wrote:

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

> I think the wedding was lovely - and yes - they

> looked very happy together :-)


Absolutely! I think it was refreshingly delightful. I hadn't expected to watch it, but I popped in to see the dress and stayed for the service. Loved the Bishop Prelate's address - fantastic.

Won?t last long. Diana was used by Charles to promote the positives of monarchy, look how that ended up. Divorce. These people have previous when it comes to using people to secure their situation. No doubt the publicity this wedding gives them was carefully choreographed to make them acceptable to a 21st century audience.


Parasites thrive when given the conditions to do so. They will do whatever it takes to remain in their position. This wedding is a god send to them. Anyone who falls for this stuff is a moron.


Louisa.

There's a school of family psychology that says the first child in a family lives out the overt values and aspirations of the more powerful parent and the second one the more covert values and aspirations of the less powerful parent. This seems to be playing out with William and Harry, though I suspect there is more sympathy between the two of them than that might sometimes imply.

rendelharris Wrote:

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

> Loz Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> > Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> >

> --------------------------------------------------

>


> > >

> > > ETA: loving the Guardian website: their coverage of the wedding has a collapse button so you don't

> > > have to see it if you don't want to.

> >

> > I just wish they'd extend the idea so you can completely ignore their increasingly rabid,

> > po-faced, half-witted "opinions" writers.

>

> I feel the same about the Telegraph, I find not going to their website, or if I do not clicking on

> the opinion pieces, works quite well.


Unfortunately 1) The Guardian is still quite useful for news (though rather less so than it used to be), 2) The Graun like to plaster clickbait links all over the page (because - lets face it - they have to do something to get the nodding dogs of Gruaniadworld to stump up ?5 a month for nothing).

dbboy Wrote:

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

> Harry is apparently not Royal, being the supposed

> son of James Hewitt's liaison with Diana.

> Was he at the wedding?? Their still trying to do

> away with him.


I used to think he was obviously Hewitts's, but I'm not so sure now. As Harry gets older he's starting to look more like Charles than he does like Hewitt. Plus, Harry was conceived in very early 1984, which is a just little too soon.

Who knows? It's interesting that the rumours persist. Personally I think he looks like Charles around the eyes - small, round and rather close together - but more likely he just takes after his mother's family in his looks and colouring as there's a strong streak of reddish-mouse hair there, a very English colour.


The ancestor he reminds me of most is another Henry, the young Henry VIII, also a younger son and much admired at Harry's age. He too married an older, previously attached woman from another country (previously betrothed to his brother before he died), and was by all accounts very much in love with her romantically.

Loz Wrote:

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


> Unfortunately 1) The Guardian is still quite

> useful for news (though rather less so than it

> used to be), 2) The Graun like to plaster

> clickbait links all over the page (because - lets

> face it - they have to do something to get the

> nodding dogs of Gruaniadworld to stump up ?5 a

> month for nothing).


You don't see any contradiction in saying they're quite useful and that asking for subscriptions is demanding money for nothing? The two chief rightwing "broadsheets" demand payment, why do the right find it so risible that the Guardian should ask for a voluntary payment, and why do you insult people who think it's appropriate to do so? Why aren't you mocking people who pay for the Times (where the quality of journalism is far lower, by the way). There are a million sources for you to get the news, if you don't like the Guardian don't use it, but stop talking about it as if it has some sort of duty, which it's betraying, to conform to your point of view.

SO when the current Queen dies Charles III will become King and Camilla will become Queen, I really can't see that being acceptable or won't do the Royals any favours based on Camilla's track record. Them William will eventually inherit the throne William V maybe in 20 years with Katherine (Kate) becoming Queen. That will be followed by George VII, Queen Charlotte and potentially King Louie. Can't see Harry becoming King Harold III.


I have no problem with William onwards taking their future Royal roles although. They are flesh and blood the same as we are, their privilege being inherited makes them no better or worse than any other man, women or child in the UK, Commonwealth or World.


In 1937 Edward VIII married an American divorcee, Wallis Simpson, you'd have thought the monarchy would have learnt from history. It seems Harry's wife already has made it clear she wants to continue with her campaigning and being a feminist. I wonder how the Royals and the Court see her?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
    • Niko 07818 607 583 has been doing jobs for us for several years, he is reliable, always there for us, highly recommended! 
    • I am keeping my fingers crossed the next few days are not so loud. I honestly think it is the private, back garden displays that are most problematic as, in general, there is no way of knowing when and where they might happen. For those letting off a few bangers in the garden I get it is tempting to think what's the harm in a few minutes of 'fun', but it is the absolute randomness of sudden bangs that can do irreparable damage to people and animals. With organised events that are well advertised there is some forewarning at least, and the hope is that organisers of such events can be persuaded to adopt and make a virtue of using only low noise displays in future.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...