| Rest in peace your Majesty 18:34 - Sep 8 with 14878 views | darthvader |
Devestated.
So glad she made it to see her Platinum Jubilee .
Thank you. Ma'am [Post edited 8 Sep 2022 18:52]
|  |
| |  |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 12:23 - Sep 14 with 2246 views | kernow |
The spoilt, over-indulged man child should have learnt by now to display a bit more decorum and dignity in public.
Favourite memory of the Queen?
Handing Peter Rodrigues that FA Cup. |  | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 14:13 - Sep 14 with 2191 views | Bridders2 |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 19:34 - Sep 13 by Berber |
And today in N Ireland, signed the declaration, handed his pen to his wife, who didn’t know who to pass it to, stood up and walked out of the room whilst the Queen Consort was still sitting down to sign the doc.
Nice enough in public, but still a spoilt adolescent underneath. Not really the stuff of Kings. The media of course are still fawning. |
With all the stress he's under, you might have been a bit pissed off if somebody had given you a pen that leaked ink all over your hands just as you were signing an important document. Thought he was fairly restrained in his comments. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 14:54 - Sep 14 with 2161 views | kernow |
Why the Parker Bowles fountain ?
What’s wrong with a BIC biro? | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 15:10 - Sep 14 with 2146 views | Saintsforeverj |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 14:13 - Sep 14 by Bridders2 |
With all the stress he's under, you might have been a bit pissed off if somebody had given you a pen that leaked ink all over your hands just as you were signing an important document. Thought he was fairly restrained in his comments. |
He has just lost his mother, and is now thrown into a full time job with massive responsibility at 72 years old, when most people are retired by then. He is doing lots of public duty at the moment, and his mum has just died. I think we can forgive for being a bit stressed as you say. [Post edited 14 Sep 2022 15:11]
| |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 15:52 - Sep 14 with 2118 views | Bazza |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 15:10 - Sep 14 by Saintsforeverj |
He has just lost his mother, and is now thrown into a full time job with massive responsibility at 72 years old, when most people are retired by then. He is doing lots of public duty at the moment, and his mum has just died. I think we can forgive for being a bit stressed as you say. [Post edited 14 Sep 2022 15:11]
|
He’s 73 best get it right, and he’s been doing public duty for years though the rewards are pretty generous. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:17 - Sep 14 with 2065 views | Jellybaby |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 10:50 - Sep 14 by solent_toffee |
This time last week, Prince Charles was largely considered to be a joke across the nation and the media, his mother passes away and he is instantly turned into national treasure.
It’s baffling. |
Also seemingly forgotten is his great friendship with Jimmy Saville. | |
| I wholly disapprove of what you say and will defend to the death your right to say it. |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 15:39 - Sep 15 with 1954 views | Berber |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 14:13 - Sep 14 by Bridders2 |
With all the stress he's under, you might have been a bit pissed off if somebody had given you a pen that leaked ink all over your hands just as you were signing an important document. Thought he was fairly restrained in his comments. |
He could have called a halt, explained the issue and engaged with someone to resolve the problem, like an adult would. His recent behaviours are no change from throwing a hissy fit decades ago because his valet brought the wrong toothbrush.
A hundred staff in Clarence House? Not to mention the ones at Highfield? WTF? Tough life? Folks working 3 jobs to try to make ends meet. WAC. |  |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 13:37 - Sep 16 with 1850 views | Berber |
So what do we think, was Charley wearing makeup in Cardiff today? | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 15:49 - Sep 16 with 1796 views | Chesham_Saint |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:17 - Sep 14 by Jellybaby |
Also seemingly forgotten is his great friendship with Jimmy Saville. |
Along with virtually every member of the so-called elite at that time. I always though he was a tosser from the start though. Savile that is, not HRH.
How anyone seriously can criticize Chaz for being a bit testy after his mother has just died and who's been almost constantly on the go ever since, has clearly never held a position of any responsibility, let alone made a series of serious speeches to large gatherings.
There'll be plenty of scope to critically assess him in the coming weeks and months. |  |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 19:25 - Sep 16 with 1738 views | Berber |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 15:49 - Sep 16 by Chesham_Saint |
Along with virtually every member of the so-called elite at that time. I always though he was a tosser from the start though. Savile that is, not HRH.
How anyone seriously can criticize Chaz for being a bit testy after his mother has just died and who's been almost constantly on the go ever since, has clearly never held a position of any responsibility, let alone made a series of serious speeches to large gatherings.
There'll be plenty of scope to critically assess him in the coming weeks and months. |
That is a bit of a wild accusation regarding holding positions of responsibility and being tetchy under in bereavement. Without going into the details, I can assure you that you are way off the mark. | |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 22:57 - Sep 16 with 1691 views | saintpaz |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 19:25 - Sep 16 by Berber |
That is a bit of a wild accusation regarding holding positions of responsibility and being tetchy under in bereavement. Without going into the details, I can assure you that you are way off the mark. |
wake me up when it's all over, what drivel |  | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 16:12 - Sep 19 with 1560 views | GasGiant |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 11:04 - Sep 9 by Capt_Koons |
Nah, I'm not buying it. Now would be a perfect time to draw a line under the whole monarchy thing, and move on. Go out on a high note if you like. |
Move on to what? It seems that our republican notion of a Presidential role is a non political one - yet that just creates a circular argument - any elected position is a political position - anyone who claims that it is possible to elect anyone into a presidential role without any political dimension is fooling themselves. Talk of the so called financial burden of the Monarchy is a nonsense, because you don't just pay for a president (which would be a pointless fatuous thing to do) , you'll pay for the whole burden of an administration and then a snails trail of all the former Presidents administrations on fat sinecures and pensions. And guess what - the administration won't be elected anyway - it'll be appointed - by the President. Politics twice over. The Monarch's role on the other hand is symbolic and it is non political by virtue of just "being there", but it also requires a lifetime of preparation to provide the necessary continuity that links our past and present - the embodiment of all that we are meant to stand for. There is this peculiar notion underpinning Republicanism that somehow any normal person would actually covet the Monarch's role. Really? WHo would covet the job if it had no personal power? And if it did have personal power who thinks that another layer of pointless bickering Government would be a good trade off for what we are giving up? When pressed, republicans fall back on all the so called Monarchical privilege of always being the focus of anything you do, at the front of an NHS queue and so on. But if you had a the choice of a London Residence would you favour a nice quiet Mews house in a private corner of Chelsea or the Goldfish Bowl of a vast impersonal Palace where a million cellphones click if you so much as draw the curtains? It's the same with all the other privileges - they can and are already bought by the fat cats who have nobody to serve but themselves, epecially all those hypocritical celebs clapping the NHS as though they don't go private when they need it - on the other hand It is a nightmare living in a goldfish bowl and maintaining the notion of decorum and service unless you have spent a lifetime building up to it until it becomes a strange kind of normal. You may think this is Monachist bullshit but ask yourselves why so many other heads of state came to the funeral willingly. There is a dignity in keeping politics away from our Head of State and that is what just about every other head of state wishes they had - but haven't got. Polls may show 1 in 4 people want a Republic but I have spoken to many Republicans and almost none of them has actually thought through all the consequences of what they want instead.It nearly always boils down to facile whinges of the so called "privileges" and "wealth" enjoyed by the Monarch. The only money the Queen ever actually needed in her life was Maundy - and that was only to give it away. Money had no power over her. I can't say the same about any elected President. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 17:38 - Sep 19 with 1488 views | Dellbert_Wilkins |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 16:12 - Sep 19 by GasGiant |
Move on to what? It seems that our republican notion of a Presidential role is a non political one - yet that just creates a circular argument - any elected position is a political position - anyone who claims that it is possible to elect anyone into a presidential role without any political dimension is fooling themselves. Talk of the so called financial burden of the Monarchy is a nonsense, because you don't just pay for a president (which would be a pointless fatuous thing to do) , you'll pay for the whole burden of an administration and then a snails trail of all the former Presidents administrations on fat sinecures and pensions. And guess what - the administration won't be elected anyway - it'll be appointed - by the President. Politics twice over. The Monarch's role on the other hand is symbolic and it is non political by virtue of just "being there", but it also requires a lifetime of preparation to provide the necessary continuity that links our past and present - the embodiment of all that we are meant to stand for. There is this peculiar notion underpinning Republicanism that somehow any normal person would actually covet the Monarch's role. Really? WHo would covet the job if it had no personal power? And if it did have personal power who thinks that another layer of pointless bickering Government would be a good trade off for what we are giving up? When pressed, republicans fall back on all the so called Monarchical privilege of always being the focus of anything you do, at the front of an NHS queue and so on. But if you had a the choice of a London Residence would you favour a nice quiet Mews house in a private corner of Chelsea or the Goldfish Bowl of a vast impersonal Palace where a million cellphones click if you so much as draw the curtains? It's the same with all the other privileges - they can and are already bought by the fat cats who have nobody to serve but themselves, epecially all those hypocritical celebs clapping the NHS as though they don't go private when they need it - on the other hand It is a nightmare living in a goldfish bowl and maintaining the notion of decorum and service unless you have spent a lifetime building up to it until it becomes a strange kind of normal. You may think this is Monachist bullshit but ask yourselves why so many other heads of state came to the funeral willingly. There is a dignity in keeping politics away from our Head of State and that is what just about every other head of state wishes they had - but haven't got. Polls may show 1 in 4 people want a Republic but I have spoken to many Republicans and almost none of them has actually thought through all the consequences of what they want instead.It nearly always boils down to facile whinges of the so called "privileges" and "wealth" enjoyed by the Monarch. The only money the Queen ever actually needed in her life was Maundy - and that was only to give it away. Money had no power over her. I can't say the same about any elected President. |
Absolutely spot on. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 17:55 - Sep 19 with 1463 views | Chesham_Saint |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 09:05 - Sep 14 by 130yrs_and_one_Cup |
Don't kid yourself you are some kind of alpha male, it's just not convincing for someone so emotional. |
The simple fact is that I wouldn’t need to be an alpha male (or female for that matter) to worry about you, sonny boy. | |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:45 - Sep 19 with 1396 views | kingolaf |
Days like today make me immensely proud to be British. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:46 - Sep 19 with 1396 views | saint68 |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 16:12 - Sep 19 by GasGiant |
Move on to what? It seems that our republican notion of a Presidential role is a non political one - yet that just creates a circular argument - any elected position is a political position - anyone who claims that it is possible to elect anyone into a presidential role without any political dimension is fooling themselves. Talk of the so called financial burden of the Monarchy is a nonsense, because you don't just pay for a president (which would be a pointless fatuous thing to do) , you'll pay for the whole burden of an administration and then a snails trail of all the former Presidents administrations on fat sinecures and pensions. And guess what - the administration won't be elected anyway - it'll be appointed - by the President. Politics twice over. The Monarch's role on the other hand is symbolic and it is non political by virtue of just "being there", but it also requires a lifetime of preparation to provide the necessary continuity that links our past and present - the embodiment of all that we are meant to stand for. There is this peculiar notion underpinning Republicanism that somehow any normal person would actually covet the Monarch's role. Really? WHo would covet the job if it had no personal power? And if it did have personal power who thinks that another layer of pointless bickering Government would be a good trade off for what we are giving up? When pressed, republicans fall back on all the so called Monarchical privilege of always being the focus of anything you do, at the front of an NHS queue and so on. But if you had a the choice of a London Residence would you favour a nice quiet Mews house in a private corner of Chelsea or the Goldfish Bowl of a vast impersonal Palace where a million cellphones click if you so much as draw the curtains? It's the same with all the other privileges - they can and are already bought by the fat cats who have nobody to serve but themselves, epecially all those hypocritical celebs clapping the NHS as though they don't go private when they need it - on the other hand It is a nightmare living in a goldfish bowl and maintaining the notion of decorum and service unless you have spent a lifetime building up to it until it becomes a strange kind of normal. You may think this is Monachist bullshit but ask yourselves why so many other heads of state came to the funeral willingly. There is a dignity in keeping politics away from our Head of State and that is what just about every other head of state wishes they had - but haven't got. Polls may show 1 in 4 people want a Republic but I have spoken to many Republicans and almost none of them has actually thought through all the consequences of what they want instead.It nearly always boils down to facile whinges of the so called "privileges" and "wealth" enjoyed by the Monarch. The only money the Queen ever actually needed in her life was Maundy - and that was only to give it away. Money had no power over her. I can't say the same about any elected President. |
I'd say the global audience for her majesty Queen Elizabeth's funeral shows clearly that a president of the United Kingdom would be a non starter.
Great Post as per usual GG. | |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:50 - Sep 19 with 1392 views | saint68 |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 12:23 - Sep 14 by kernow |
The spoilt, over-indulged man child should have learnt by now to display a bit more decorum and dignity in public.
Favourite memory of the Queen?
Handing Peter Rodrigues that FA Cup. |
His beloved Mother has died, he's then thrust into relentless public televised duties..more decorum..yeh..
A new low for you. | |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:53 - Sep 19 with 1390 views | saint68 |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:45 - Sep 19 by kingolaf |
Days like today make me immensely proud to be British. |
A sombre sad but amazingly well presented and orchestrated farewell to a woman of integrity compassion and devotion to the country...
RIP...Elizabeth The Great. | |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 23:59 - Sep 19 with 1239 views | Bazza |
A lot of monarchist anti republican argument by gg who seems to think a President would reconstruct royalty with a different name. Not so. Royalty is an outdated unnecessary anachronism that’s exemplifies privilege by birthright not by personal talent and effort. How fortunate that the Queen was unusually good at her job but nonetheless has some feckless relatives who do not deserve to hold high office, and severally unworthy ancestors. The almost daily PR promotion of royalty in many news sources over recent years has created a sympathetic bias. Royal wealth is truly extraordinary in billions and not challenged by usual tax demands and scrutiny but enhanced by special concessions. Their dodgy personal secrets are protected by repeatedly extending privacy periods.
Also time for the House of Lords to be updated and reduced in size with heredity peers and bishops removed.
Royalty does provide an interesting if blemished historical background but is a distraction from progressing in the modern world. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 05:02 - Sep 20 with 1210 views | kernow |
Being orphaned at age 16 is about as low as it gets Mister Pompous Sanctimonious | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 08:26 - Sep 20 with 1137 views | GasGiant |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 23:59 - Sep 19 by Bazza |
A lot of monarchist anti republican argument by gg who seems to think a President would reconstruct royalty with a different name. Not so. Royalty is an outdated unnecessary anachronism that’s exemplifies privilege by birthright not by personal talent and effort. How fortunate that the Queen was unusually good at her job but nonetheless has some feckless relatives who do not deserve to hold high office, and severally unworthy ancestors. The almost daily PR promotion of royalty in many news sources over recent years has created a sympathetic bias. Royal wealth is truly extraordinary in billions and not challenged by usual tax demands and scrutiny but enhanced by special concessions. Their dodgy personal secrets are protected by repeatedly extending privacy periods.
Also time for the House of Lords to be updated and reduced in size with heredity peers and bishops removed.
Royalty does provide an interesting if blemished historical background but is a distraction from progressing in the modern world. |
Yes. I suggested that most Republicans fail to think through their motives for removal of the Monarchy and their vision for a Republican replacement. You espouse a Britain entirely stripped of tradition; one in which anything that has no functional value is to be discarded. And all this is to be done because the Royal Family are "rich". THe reality is, as you know as well as I do, is that with many positions of state there is a huge responsibility of representation that does not come automatically upon being elected, but needs a lifetime's preparation, and this goes for the Monarch and it even goes for many of the Dukes and Earls who might be "rich" in land but have what we would call a cashflow issue. No point in brushing this under the carpet. The Duchy of COrnwall might look like a multi billion pound asset but it still has to run as a business and the income all goes back into it one way or another. What would be the point in "profits" going into the Duke of Cornwall's private bank account? What the hell would the Duke spend his money on - another Duchy? One point about the Monarchist system is that it is not corrupted by money because it has no need of money. Monarchy and the unwritten Constitution are in many ways a pragmatic human solution to the Ultimate Political Problem of the corruption of power, and it does it by separating the notion of ultimate power away from any ability to exercise it. You invent a president to pretend to do this every 5 years but it doesn't actually work because nobody believes it. It is more of a sham than the Monarchy itself. Look at the President of Germany. Nobody outside the UK knows his name and most people don't even know he exists, unless he is wheeled out to shake hands with somebody. I can't imagine which people you would populate these positions of state with in the UK , but if you think that a Britain stripped of its pageantry and living history would be a nicer more interesting place to live, consider your alternative, in which the failed politicians of today become the Presidents of tomorrow. Watch the undignified clamour to be the first one. The Tory Party Leadership was bad enough, can you imagine the squabble to be the first president, and all the dirt that will be aired before the first one gets to wrap their grubby little hands in emine and take the salute as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 08:35 - Sep 20 with 1123 views | Berber |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 08:26 - Sep 20 by GasGiant |
Yes. I suggested that most Republicans fail to think through their motives for removal of the Monarchy and their vision for a Republican replacement. You espouse a Britain entirely stripped of tradition; one in which anything that has no functional value is to be discarded. And all this is to be done because the Royal Family are "rich". THe reality is, as you know as well as I do, is that with many positions of state there is a huge responsibility of representation that does not come automatically upon being elected, but needs a lifetime's preparation, and this goes for the Monarch and it even goes for many of the Dukes and Earls who might be "rich" in land but have what we would call a cashflow issue. No point in brushing this under the carpet. The Duchy of COrnwall might look like a multi billion pound asset but it still has to run as a business and the income all goes back into it one way or another. What would be the point in "profits" going into the Duke of Cornwall's private bank account? What the hell would the Duke spend his money on - another Duchy? One point about the Monarchist system is that it is not corrupted by money because it has no need of money. Monarchy and the unwritten Constitution are in many ways a pragmatic human solution to the Ultimate Political Problem of the corruption of power, and it does it by separating the notion of ultimate power away from any ability to exercise it. You invent a president to pretend to do this every 5 years but it doesn't actually work because nobody believes it. It is more of a sham than the Monarchy itself. Look at the President of Germany. Nobody outside the UK knows his name and most people don't even know he exists, unless he is wheeled out to shake hands with somebody. I can't imagine which people you would populate these positions of state with in the UK , but if you think that a Britain stripped of its pageantry and living history would be a nicer more interesting place to live, consider your alternative, in which the failed politicians of today become the Presidents of tomorrow. Watch the undignified clamour to be the first one. The Tory Party Leadership was bad enough, can you imagine the squabble to be the first president, and all the dirt that will be aired before the first one gets to wrap their grubby little hands in emine and take the salute as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? |
 | |
| |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 11:49 - Sep 20 with 1086 views | Bazza |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 08:35 - Sep 20 by Berber |
|
GG we’ll never agree on the royals but you’re making things up about my views. No way would Britain need be stripped of tradition if a President replaced royalty as its figurehead. But there would be no place for the numerous royal relatives or negative church influence.
No need to change any wealth structure just end any preferential tax treatment of royals, just treat them like any other billionaires.
Land is an asset same as privately owned houses or business so I don’t understand your point.
To say royals have no need for money shows you have completely missed recent shenanigans by Charles funding his property restoration through a charity with literally bags of foreign cash, and lots of concerning comment about Andrew/Fergie regarding loans/debts on their ski chalet/mansion.
Regarding the unknown German President; you should try discussing any royals (other than the Queen) in other countries and you will be met with blank stares despite the royal P R agency trying its best. The Commonwealth continues to diminish as countries seek independence.
Things will change. Many European countries have their royalty still but in diminished roles, that is the least progress that our great country deserves. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 18:21 - Sep 20 with 1032 views | GasGiant |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 11:49 - Sep 20 by Bazza |
GG we’ll never agree on the royals but you’re making things up about my views. No way would Britain need be stripped of tradition if a President replaced royalty as its figurehead. But there would be no place for the numerous royal relatives or negative church influence.
No need to change any wealth structure just end any preferential tax treatment of royals, just treat them like any other billionaires.
Land is an asset same as privately owned houses or business so I don’t understand your point.
To say royals have no need for money shows you have completely missed recent shenanigans by Charles funding his property restoration through a charity with literally bags of foreign cash, and lots of concerning comment about Andrew/Fergie regarding loans/debts on their ski chalet/mansion.
Regarding the unknown German President; you should try discussing any royals (other than the Queen) in other countries and you will be met with blank stares despite the royal P R agency trying its best. The Commonwealth continues to diminish as countries seek independence.
Things will change. Many European countries have their royalty still but in diminished roles, that is the least progress that our great country deserves. |
I enjoyed your post - I wasn't attacking your views specifically but the views of those republicans who want to remove the Monarchist system without thought of what would replace it. I do agree with some of the points you make - separation of Church and State for instance. Short of killing ROyal Relatives there is not much you can do about their existence, but with well known exceptions most do actually earn their keep, as well as undertaking cermonial duties that often mean a lot to the people attending them. In most cases there seems little evidence of adult Royals just "sponging" off the state rather than actually doing something - Andrew and Harry are exceptions. The point I was making about land is that while it is nice to own half of Cumbria it is not so nice if you don't actually have an income stream to go with your assets, so arguments that tot up fixed assets as the sole indicator of wealth are disingenuous. You can own the Mona Lisa and be considered a billionaire and still die of starvation. Your point about Charles is plain wrong. It was not his house - he was trying to raise money to restore an important historic house and he pulled strings and contacts to get a massive sum to save it. Everybody is asked to pull strings sometimes on someone else's behalf. If you derive benefit yourself then yes that is corruption. Perhaps he was naiive. Personally I think if he wangled a million from an Arab Prince nobody has ever heard of in exchange for preserving an architectural masterpiece I'd say, well done. In the wider Royal family, I wonder whether anyone aside from those rather odd Royal obsessives could work out exactly who Prince Michael of Kent, or the Duke of Gloucester are, for example so there's no shame in Europeans not knowing either, but in those spheres in which those Royals are a patron or a representative they will be well known enough, both at home and Internationally and in almost all cases much respected for the quiet understated good that they do. | | | |
| Rest in peace your Majesty on 19:53 - Sep 20 with 991 views | dirk_doone |
I just had a look at a list of the countries that still have monarchies and one thing that struck me is that they are some of the happiest and most prosperous countries in the world today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchies [Post edited 20 Sep 2022 19:53]
|  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
