The Royals

24567…54

Comments

  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,290
    david37 said:

    ah sense this is the leftie hangout complete with taught and ingrained views.

    "Ooh, ooh, tell me how wrong I am. Do it HARDER."
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    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.

    Still a chance they might get the second automatic promo spot.. ;)

    As for the royal family itself, I’d go for the French approach, if not their actual methods...

  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    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/
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,840
    Ben6899 said:

    Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.

    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?
    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.
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    pblakeney said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.

    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?

    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/
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    Ben6899 said:

    Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.

    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.

    I imagine their issues are fairly split between a series of nots;
    not good enough
    not English enough
    not white enough
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    This was good, I thought...

  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    surrey_commuter said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.

    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.

    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/
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,789
    imposter2.0 said:

    This was good, I thought...

    It's not divine right, it's birth right.


    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.
    _
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    rick_chasey said:



    It's not divine right, it's birth right.

    '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..
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    rick_chasey said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    This was good, I thought...

    It's not divine right, it's birth right.


    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.
    It becomes more meaningful if you do it in conjunction with abolishing the HoL
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,641
    Ben6899 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.

    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.

    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.
    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.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    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.

    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.. ;)

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    imposter2.0 said:

    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.

    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.. ;)

    We went to war with Germany, it was not uncommon for the ruling classes to not want to fight Germany again
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    surrey_commuter said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    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.

    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.. ;)

    We went to war with Germany, it was not uncommon for the ruling classes to not want to fight Germany again
    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...
  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,392
    I quite like this...

    (thread)

    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • yorkshireraw
    yorkshireraw Posts: 1,632
    rick_chasey said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    This was good, I thought...

    It's not divine right, it's birth right.


    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.
    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.

    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.
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    imposter2.0 said:

    surrey_commuter said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    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.

    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.. ;)

    We went to war with Germany, it was not uncommon for the ruling classes to not want to fight Germany again
    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...
    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.

    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.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    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.

    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.

  • Tashman
    Tashman Posts: 3,401
    DeVlaeminck said:

    Was hoping this was going to be a discussion about Championship football.

    Me too, although I've always preferred our previous nickname as The Biscuitmen
  • kingstonian
    kingstonian Posts: 2,847
    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.

  • ddraver
    ddraver Posts: 26,392
    Why is there a furore in the first place tho..?
    We're in danger of confusing passion with incompetence
    - @ddraver
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,840
    Ben6899 said:

    pblakeney said:

    Ben6899 said:

    Let's be honest, we all know what most people's issue is with Meghan.

    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?

    No idea about that; I've never met her.
    This forum would die if you could only form opinions on people you have met. 😉
    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.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,789
    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 not about stepping out of the limelight, is it?

    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.

    _
  • Ben6899
    Ben6899 Posts: 9,686
    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/
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    imposter2.0 said:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Strangely that would not be the craziest suggestion in cake stop
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    surrey_commuter said:

    imposter2.0 said:

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Strangely that would not be the craziest suggestion in cake stop
    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.

  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,641
    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.
  • Jezyboy
    Jezyboy Posts: 2,938
    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.

    I think there's quite a difference in being papped/followed everywhere and giving an interview to a purportedly friendly face.

  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    Pross 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.

    Thank you

Categories