The Royals
Comments
-
many complained about the BBC coverage, which I think is fair... for 24 hours there was nothing else FFSleft the forum March 20230
-
And throw in some very close associations with the Nazi leadershipelbowloh said:I don't think he was seen as suitable at the time. His family were relative paupers with no country to call home.
0 -
Wow, didn't see all this on the BBC and other subservient to the cause meejah outlets.0
-
There is more to the royal family than Prince Andrew being a nonse, however aborrent that is.rick_chasey said:2 -
So basically we should have all been celebrating that at last Liz is free of the Nazi paedo that she's been in an abusive relationship with the last 80 years?
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]-1 -
It was about the trains website - now deleted because it's gone a bit OTT.shirley_basso said:
There is more to the royal family than Prince Andrew being a nonse, however aborrent that is.rick_chasey said:
0 -
Ahahahha they've made the national rail website grayscale. And done it badly so lots of it is low contrast.
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Ah! hahahaaha. Train company greyscaled their website!!??0
-
Changed it back now. Too many people responding to "They've made it more difficult for the visually impaired" with "It's what he would have wanted".pangolin said:Ahahahha they've made the national rail website grayscale. And done it badly so lots of it is low contrast.
https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/2 -
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
It would be nice to think that she could face up to theabusive nature of her relationaship and enjoy her remaining years but after all these years I think a combination of sense of duty and stockholm syndrome will prevent it.DeVlaeminck said:So basically we should have all been celebrating that at last Liz is free of the Nazi paedo that she's been in an abusive relationship with the last 80 years?
0 -
Yeah it was about the national rail.shirley_basso said:
There is more to the royal family than Prince Andrew being a nonse, however aborrent that is.rick_chasey said:0 -
All the train stuff - its all part of a pre-agreed plan - Operation Forth Bridge.0
-
I'm not sure that makes it better.elbowloh said:All the train stuff - its all part of a pre-agreed plan - Operation Forth Bridge.
0 -
I have seen this said as if it somehow explains it all.elbowloh said:All the train stuff - its all part of a pre-agreed plan - Operation Forth Bridge.
For me it just makes it worse. They've had time to think about it and they still thought it was a good idea.
Makes me feel very foreign all of this, I have to say.
I always felt the royals were a historical anachronism who were still allowed to stay for the purposes of pomp and ceremony; never with any specific relevance beyond a bit of celeb gossip. They get their lavish lives funded in return for a lot of public duty / charity work and for avoiding having create an entirely new constitution, in return for not having any influence or power.
The queen's speech is literally written for her by the gov't (and so it should be, it's a democracy!).
I thought it worked well - it was an appropriate nod to the transition of power from monarchy to democracy. It's an appropriate reminder.
Now suddenly the state is requisitioning advertising screens and making the state broadcaster do weird sh!t because one of them who married into them - not even the official head of state - died . Feels nuts to me. Properly mad.
They don't deserve any more respect than anyone else who dies because they happen to be royals - I guess that's the bit where there is disagreement.
0 -
I'd have more respect for the BBC's decision if they had just played solemn music on the TV with a picture of him or something for 24 hours - and say that's just what happens when one of these three(?) people die. I thought a news special across all channels where they constantly had to keep talking for a day was much weirder than that.0
-
The Bill of Rights was 1689, so it's a fairly long running 'anachronism'. It's not accurate to suggest that their role is purely ceremonial - the monarch is head of state. Sure, some of the reaction feels a little misjudged, but it's not as though they get a lot of practice.rick_chasey said:
I have seen this said as if it somehow explains it all.elbowloh said:All the train stuff - its all part of a pre-agreed plan - Operation Forth Bridge.
For me it just makes it worse. They've had time to think about it and they still thought it was a good idea.
Makes me feel very foreign all of this, I have to say.
I always felt the royals were a historical anachronism who were still allowed to stay for the purposes of pomp and ceremony; never with any specific relevance beyond a bit of celeb gossip. They get their lavish lives funded in return for a lot of public duty / charity work and for avoiding having create an entirely new constitution, in return for not having any influence or power.
The queen's speech is literally written for her by the gov't (and so it should be, it's a democracy!).
I thought it worked well - it was an appropriate nod to the transition of power from monarchy to democracy. It's an appropriate reminder.
Now suddenly the state is requisitioning advertising screens and making the state broadcaster do weird sh!t because one of them who married into them - not even the official head of state - died . Feels nuts to me. Properly mad.
They don't deserve any more respect than anyone else who dies because they happen to be royals - I guess that's the bit where there is disagreement.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition1 -
The death of the Queen's mother is the most recent comparable moment.0
-
They hadn't recently been in a world war with them though like they had with the rest of the 'pool'...Big marriage points thereelbowloh said:I don't think he was seen as suitable at the time. His family were relative paupers with no country to call home.
We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
- @ddraver0 -
This from 20 years ago (before the Queen mum passed on to the gin palace in the sky: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2001/aug/13/mondaymediasection.themonarchymost Brits under the age of 50 and all republicans should take note. BBC coverage of royal death will bear no similarity to the corporation’s normal journalism. Critical thinking will go out of the window.
As the guidelines put it, the programming will be “essentially a tribute” not an objective assessment. Any live interviews which do appear will be “with genuinely important establishment figures: the archbishop of Canterbury, prime minister, duke of Norfolk and so on”.
On hearing these words: “We are now interrupting our scheduled programming to bring together Radio 4 and Radio 5 Live (and probably most local and regional stations too) for a special programme”, much of Britain will revert to the social mores of 1950.
A presenter will say “This is BBC Radio. A short time ago Buckingham Palace made an important announcement.” You’ll wait for the news, she isn’t an evil old bird and only the vile celebrate death, and then you’ll put on a very long CD.0 -
What we have seen / heard from the BBC was a dry run rehearsal of the procedures they will follow when His Holy Spafferness pops a coronary while
sh@gging a bimboconsulting with a technology expert.0 -
It's ceremonial in the sense they shouldn't be doing anything beyond ceremonial work.rjsterry said:
The Bill of Rights was 1689, so it's a fairly long running 'anachronism'. It's not accurate to suggest that their role is purely ceremonial - the monarch is head of state. Sure, some of the reaction feels a little misjudged, but it's not as though they get a lot of practice.rick_chasey said:
I have seen this said as if it somehow explains it all.elbowloh said:All the train stuff - its all part of a pre-agreed plan - Operation Forth Bridge.
For me it just makes it worse. They've had time to think about it and they still thought it was a good idea.
Makes me feel very foreign all of this, I have to say.
I always felt the royals were a historical anachronism who were still allowed to stay for the purposes of pomp and ceremony; never with any specific relevance beyond a bit of celeb gossip. They get their lavish lives funded in return for a lot of public duty / charity work and for avoiding having create an entirely new constitution, in return for not having any influence or power.
The queen's speech is literally written for her by the gov't (and so it should be, it's a democracy!).
I thought it worked well - it was an appropriate nod to the transition of power from monarchy to democracy. It's an appropriate reminder.
Now suddenly the state is requisitioning advertising screens and making the state broadcaster do weird sh!t because one of them who married into them - not even the official head of state - died . Feels nuts to me. Properly mad.
They don't deserve any more respect than anyone else who dies because they happen to be royals - I guess that's the bit where there is disagreement.
The monarch is the head of state as a symbol - they're not the head of state in any practical sense, as they do not, or at least should not, have any influence on governing whatsoever.0 -
I think that's what you think the monarchy should be, rather than what it is.rick_chasey said:
It's ceremonial in the sense they shouldn't be doing anything beyond ceremonial work.rjsterry said:
The Bill of Rights was 1689, so it's a fairly long running 'anachronism'. It's not accurate to suggest that their role is purely ceremonial - the monarch is head of state. Sure, some of the reaction feels a little misjudged, but it's not as though they get a lot of practice.rick_chasey said:
I have seen this said as if it somehow explains it all.elbowloh said:All the train stuff - its all part of a pre-agreed plan - Operation Forth Bridge.
For me it just makes it worse. They've had time to think about it and they still thought it was a good idea.
Makes me feel very foreign all of this, I have to say.
I always felt the royals were a historical anachronism who were still allowed to stay for the purposes of pomp and ceremony; never with any specific relevance beyond a bit of celeb gossip. They get their lavish lives funded in return for a lot of public duty / charity work and for avoiding having create an entirely new constitution, in return for not having any influence or power.
The queen's speech is literally written for her by the gov't (and so it should be, it's a democracy!).
I thought it worked well - it was an appropriate nod to the transition of power from monarchy to democracy. It's an appropriate reminder.
Now suddenly the state is requisitioning advertising screens and making the state broadcaster do weird sh!t because one of them who married into them - not even the official head of state - died . Feels nuts to me. Properly mad.
They don't deserve any more respect than anyone else who dies because they happen to be royals - I guess that's the bit where there is disagreement.
The monarch is the head of state as a symbol - they're not the head of state in any practical sense, as they do not, or at least should not, have any influence on governing whatsoever.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
OK maybe i don't understand, but they have no power or influence, right?rjsterry said:
I think that's what you think the monarchy should be, rather than what it is.rick_chasey said:
It's ceremonial in the sense they shouldn't be doing anything beyond ceremonial work.rjsterry said:
The Bill of Rights was 1689, so it's a fairly long running 'anachronism'. It's not accurate to suggest that their role is purely ceremonial - the monarch is head of state. Sure, some of the reaction feels a little misjudged, but it's not as though they get a lot of practice.rick_chasey said:
I have seen this said as if it somehow explains it all.elbowloh said:All the train stuff - its all part of a pre-agreed plan - Operation Forth Bridge.
For me it just makes it worse. They've had time to think about it and they still thought it was a good idea.
Makes me feel very foreign all of this, I have to say.
I always felt the royals were a historical anachronism who were still allowed to stay for the purposes of pomp and ceremony; never with any specific relevance beyond a bit of celeb gossip. They get their lavish lives funded in return for a lot of public duty / charity work and for avoiding having create an entirely new constitution, in return for not having any influence or power.
The queen's speech is literally written for her by the gov't (and so it should be, it's a democracy!).
I thought it worked well - it was an appropriate nod to the transition of power from monarchy to democracy. It's an appropriate reminder.
Now suddenly the state is requisitioning advertising screens and making the state broadcaster do weird sh!t because one of them who married into them - not even the official head of state - died . Feels nuts to me. Properly mad.
They don't deserve any more respect than anyone else who dies because they happen to be royals - I guess that's the bit where there is disagreement.
The monarch is the head of state as a symbol - they're not the head of state in any practical sense, as they do not, or at least should not, have any influence on governing whatsoever.
If they do then it's not a proper democracy.0 -
I see it like this - they are there by the consent of the population - above and beyond any hereditary rules. They are answerable to the general public, via the HoC.
If not, they should be abolished.0 -
All acts of parliament still require royal ascent.0
-
-
You can see it how you like, but it doesn't make it so.rick_chasey said:I see it like this - they are there by the consent of the population - above and beyond any hereditary rules. They are answerable to the general public, via the HoC.
If not, they should be abolished.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition2 -
You keep saying this, but you don't give a proper answer.rjsterry said:
You can see it how you like, but it doesn't make it so.rick_chasey said:I see it like this - they are there by the consent of the population - above and beyond any hereditary rules. They are answerable to the general public, via the HoC.
If not, they should be abolished.
How is it not like that?
They're lucky they're there at all. This is a democracy.1
