The Royals
Comments
-
"Ooh, ooh, tell me how wrong I am. Do it HARDER."david37 said:ah sense this is the leftie hangout complete with taught and ingrained views.
2 -
Still a chance they might get the second automatic promo spot..DeVlaeminck said:Was hoping this was going to be a discussion about Championship football.
Can't see any justification for having a hereditary head of state that trumps the basic inequity of it. Any arguments for it seem to rest on a basic mistrust of the people being fit to govern themselves.
As for the royal family itself, I’d go for the French approach, if not their actual methods...
0 -
Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/2 -
She's a greedy self centred so-and-so who wants to be the centre of attention on her terms and doesn't have any real friends cos she's a user?Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.4 -
pblakeney said:
She's a greedy self centred so-and-so who wants to be the centre of attention on her terms and doesn't have any real friends cos she's a user?Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
No idea about that; I've never met her.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/1 -
I have no idea what most people's issue is with Meghan. I would also suggest that the only ones with an opinion strong enough to be an issue are the self selecting group who are "fans" of the royal family.Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
I imagine their issues are fairly split between a series of nots;
not good enough
not English enough
not white enough0 -
2
-
surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what most people's issue is with Meghan. I would also suggest that the only ones with an opinion strong enough to be an issue are the self selecting group who are "fans" of the royal family.Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
I imagine their issues are fairly split between a series of nots;
not good enough
not English enough
not white enough
It's all three, IMO and #1 derives from #2 and #3. Take a Royals fan who's invested enough to develop a real dislike for any particular member of the family - blood or extended - and you have someone for whom nationality and race could be an issue.
Nonces aside - I'd hope all Royals fans to take issue with Andrew.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/1 -
It's not divine right, it's birth right.imposter2.0 said:This was good, I thought...
I thought the main argument for keeping the royals is that it's much more hassle to upend the entire constitution than just have them there not doing very much.0 -
'Birth right' is the modern interpretation, that's true. It used to be referred to as a 'divine right' back in the days when people actually took religion seriously..rick_chasey said:
It's not divine right, it's birth right.
0 -
It becomes more meaningful if you do it in conjunction with abolishing the HoLrick_chasey said:
It's not divine right, it's birth right.imposter2.0 said:This was good, I thought...
I thought the main argument for keeping the royals is that it's much more hassle to upend the entire constitution than just have them there not doing very much.0 -
I think in the eyes of Royalists number 1 is more down to her being a "commoner" which has never gone down well (see Fergie) and possibly due to being a divorcee (let's face it, the last member of the Royal Family to marry someone who was a commoner, American divorcee had to abdicate as king to do so but she was white.Ben6899 said:surrey_commuter said:
I have no idea what most people's issue is with Meghan. I would also suggest that the only ones with an opinion strong enough to be an issue are the self selecting group who are "fans" of the royal family.Ben6899 said:Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.
I imagine their issues are fairly split between a series of nots;
not good enough
not English enough
not white enough
It's all three, IMO and #1 derives from #2 and #3. Take a Royals fan who's invested enough to develop a real dislike for any particular member of the family - blood or extended - and you have someone for whom nationality and race could be an issue.
Nonces aside - I'd hope all Royals fans to take issue with Andrew.0 -
I thought his abdication was more to do with him being a raving Nazi at a time when we were just about to go to war with them..Pross said:(let's face it, the last member of the Royal Family to marry someone who was a commoner, American divorcee had to abdicate as king to do so but she was white.
0 -
We went to war with Germany, it was not uncommon for the ruling classes to not want to fight Germany againimposter2.0 said:
I thought his abdication was more to do with him being a raving Nazi at a time when we were just about to go to war with them..Pross said:(let's face it, the last member of the Royal Family to marry someone who was a commoner, American divorcee had to abdicate as king to do so but she was white.
0 -
I can understand the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas not wanting to fight their own, but having an actual Nazi as king would probably have been a step too far...surrey_commuter said:
We went to war with Germany, it was not uncommon for the ruling classes to not want to fight Germany againimposter2.0 said:
I thought his abdication was more to do with him being a raving Nazi at a time when we were just about to go to war with them..Pross said:(let's face it, the last member of the Royal Family to marry someone who was a commoner, American divorcee had to abdicate as king to do so but she was white.
0 -
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
There's a bit of a myth that they don't influence anything - the Palace has the right to send back any piece of legislation that doesn't suit it (or the Queen) - they can't say what to put in Bills, but they can keep rejecting them until the 'right' version comes back.rick_chasey said:
It's not divine right, it's birth right.imposter2.0 said:This was good, I thought...
I thought the main argument for keeping the royals is that it's much more hassle to upend the entire constitution than just have them there not doing very much.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth
The palace denied the above legislation was 'blocked', which is possibly technically true, but doesn't mean it wasn't altered in order to suit the person who , ceremonially or otherwise, was signing it off.
Anyway, as per upthread an Irish or German presidential role as 'head of state' would be fine. The French still have a lot of big old houses that manage to attract tourists, which seems to be one of the main arguments put up for retaining a bunch of in-breds in some sort of revered status.
Can anyone actually name the German president without google (I couldn't). Seems like a sensible solution - they can take actions if required and act on behalf of the state, but generally stay out the way and let the leader of the government (largest parliamentary party / coalition) get on with the politics and policies.0 -
my point is that fighting the Nazis was invented around 1970 in the spirit of reconciliation. In the 1930s we were fighting Germany and the Germans. It is not just the top family who are German. After WW1 they introduced a law that you couldnot sit in the HoL if you had fought for the wrong side.imposter2.0 said:
I can understand the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas not wanting to fight their own, but having an actual Nazi as king would probably have been a step too far...surrey_commuter said:
We went to war with Germany, it was not uncommon for the ruling classes to not want to fight Germany againimposter2.0 said:
I thought his abdication was more to do with him being a raving Nazi at a time when we were just about to go to war with them..Pross said:(let's face it, the last member of the Royal Family to marry someone who was a commoner, American divorcee had to abdicate as king to do so but she was white.
On different scale one of the problems Roosevelt had helping us out in WW2 was that as well as the people who didn't want to join in there were many who would wanted to support the other side due to their German ancestry or dislike of the Brits.0 -
Not sure what point you are making here. WW2 was indeed fought against Germany - but specifically a Germany in the authoritarian and expansionist grip of Hitler's National Socialist (Nazi) party. The Nazis weren't invented in the 1970s. Unless I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, then that's absurd.surrey_commuter said:
my point is that fighting the Nazis was invented around 1970 in the spirit of reconciliation. In the 1930s we were fighting Germany and the Germans.
0 -
Me too, although I've always preferred our previous nickname as The BiscuitmenDeVlaeminck said:Was hoping this was going to be a discussion about Championship football.
0 -
What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
2 -
This forum would die if you could only form opinions on people you have met. 😉Ben6899 said:
If it looks like a fish...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
It's not about stepping out of the limelight, is it?kingstonian said:What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
It's leaving Britain and its press (who Harry feels killed his mother and have given the love of his life a very rough ride - to the point where she successfully sued them). In the meantime, they need to earn a living, so why not get the US on their side?
It's not like Harry knows any different than being in the public eye.
0 -
kingstonian said:
What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
Oprah and agents can have a bad influence. Let's be honest, without scandal Oprah is out of a job and without Meghan doing stuff in the public eye, her agent is sat next to Oprah in the Jobcentre.Ben
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
It seems my position is impossible to explain in the number of words I can be bothered to type so let’s just agree that I believe that Hitler and the National Socialist Party were not in existence before the 1970s.imposter2.0 said:
Not sure what point you are making here. WW2 was indeed fought against Germany - but specifically a Germany in the authoritarian and expansionist grip of Hitler's National Socialist (Nazi) party. The Nazis weren't invented in the 1970s. Unless I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, then that's absurd.surrey_commuter said:
my point is that fighting the Nazis was invented around 1970 in the spirit of reconciliation. In the 1930s we were fighting Germany and the Germans.
Strangely that would not be the craziest suggestion in cake stop0 -
True - the likes of Manc33 certainly had more absurd opinions than that. I just think it's a pity that you are unable to explain your position, especially in what is presumably your native language.surrey_commuter said:
It seems my position is impossible to explain in the number of words I can be bothered to type so let’s just agree that I believe that Hitler and the National Socialist Party were not in existence before the 1970s.imposter2.0 said:
Not sure what point you are making here. WW2 was indeed fought against Germany - but specifically a Germany in the authoritarian and expansionist grip of Hitler's National Socialist (Nazi) party. The Nazis weren't invented in the 1970s. Unless I've misunderstood what you are trying to say, then that's absurd.surrey_commuter said:
my point is that fighting the Nazis was invented around 1970 in the spirit of reconciliation. In the 1930s we were fighting Germany and the Germans.
Strangely that would not be the craziest suggestion in cake stop
0 -
Isn't SC's point merely that to the British people at the time the fact that Germany was run by the National Socialists was irrelevant. To the man in the street we were simply at war with Germany (again) and the issue was that they were empire building. The fact that they were facists really didn't matter to Britain, that was an internal matter for the Germans. It is only over time that we were fighting the Nazis became the reasoning for it being a "just" war. No-one really knew at the time about the Holocaust (and as unpopular as it will be to say it I suspect a lot of Brits would have shrugged their shoulders even if they had). If the Germans hadn't built up their military and started invading other countries we would probably have just left them be despite their internal politics.0
-
I think there's quite a difference in being papped/followed everywhere and giving an interview to a purportedly friendly face.kingstonian said:What I can’t quite understand about all this furore is how H & M wanted to step out of the limelight and move their life to the US and then they decide to step right back into the spotlight with this interview. Seems an odd approach if you really do want to get your life back.
1 -
Thank youPross said:Isn't SC's point merely that to the British people at the time the fact that Germany was run by the National Socialists was irrelevant. To the man in the street we were simply at war with Germany (again) and the issue was that they were empire building. The fact that they were facists really didn't matter to Britain, that was an internal matter for the Germans. It is only over time that we were fighting the Nazis became the reasoning for it being a "just" war. No-one really knew at the time about the Holocaust (and as unpopular as it will be to say it I suspect a lot of Brits would have shrugged their shoulders even if they had). If the Germans hadn't built up their military and started invading other countries we would probably have just left them be despite their internal politics.
0
