Long to Reign over Us.

[Shaker]

Shaker, if you look at stats, "what contraception people use and whether they divorce" may be an issue for the leadership of the Catholic Church but the only way that they seem to be an issue for most ordinary Catholics is in their ignoring of most of the ecclesiastical legislation regarding them.

Which suggests that some Catholics possess some sense in some quarters at least.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think from his comments, and the context he was clearly implying that she does wield considerable influence behind the scenes - but whether that was his attempt to bolster Madge's position/image or whether it was the truth, we'll never know.

No doubt she does - I don'think that many Brits believe that she doesn't; what we won't know is how often has that influence stopped the Government taking Britain to war; how often have social reform ideas come from her before coming from Government ministers; in other words, how often has that influence actually benefitted the ordinary British citizen and how often hasn't it?

I think her influence is more about maintaining the status quo within the establishment. And that is partly achieved by nothing more than her continued presence (the ultimate in soft power when you exert it merely by your presence).

The UK remains massively dominated by a tiny elite who exert massive control over the rest of the population, and (lets face it) are concerned largely with maintaining influence and wealth within that tiny elite. And the Queen sits right at the heart of that elite - without her the ability to continue to perpetuate that elite would be significantly undermined.

[Shaker]

I think her influence is more about maintaining the status quo within the establishment. And that is partly achieved by nothing more than her continued presence (the ultimate in soft power when you exert it merely by your presence).

The UK remains massively dominated by a tiny elite who exert massive control over the rest of the population, and (lets face it) are concerned largely with maintaining influence and wealth within that tiny elite. And the Queen sits right at the heart of that elite - without her the ability to continue to perpetuate that elite would be significantly undermined.

What better reason is there to get rid of her and her kind?

[Hope]

Which is part of the problem with the institution. Even if we all agree that, on balance, Queen Elizabeth II has been a pretty good, caring, reticent, politically neutral in the public arena monarch, the system means that there is no accountability, no right of recall, and no transparency.

In which of the existing Presidential systems do any of those really exist?  Is there any evidence that whatever system that we might choose to replace the monarchy with would be any better?  For instance do we, as the electorate, have any right of recall on any elected person?

[Hope]

The UK remains massively dominated by a tiny elite who exert massive control over the rest of the population, and (lets face it) are concerned largely with maintaining influence and wealth within that tiny elite. And the Queen sits right at the heart of that elite - without her the ability to continue to perpetuate that elite would be significantly undermined.

Oddly enough, the tiny elite you refer to have far less control than most major company bosses, bankers and probably also less influence than most MPs.  Notconvinced that their position could be undermined that much more than it has been since the rise of capitalism (remember that most of these 'elite' families may have started out as a result of money, inherited or 'earned', but few if any actually hold any influence now).

[OH MY WORLD!]

"...get rid of her and her kind"

No, get rid of the Marxists and their kind.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Congratulations to the Queen on being the longest reigning monarch in British history and second longest reigning monarch over here.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oddly enough, the tiny elite you refer to have far less control than most major company bosses, bankers and probably also less influence than most MPs.

Err - they are often one and the same.

Don't forget that our PM went to Eton, as did the mayor of London, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a number of others in the cabinet, plus plenty in senior back room positions that really pull the strings of government.

And don't forget that pretty well half of the Chairs of FTSE100 companies also went to top public schools

And so it goes on.

We have a tiny elite that are exceptionally good at ensuring that 'their kind' are maintained in the top positions of influence (and of wealth).

[Dicky Underpants]

Problem is that of course Charles was popular in his youth, similar to William - don't you remember that lovely couple in the 80s with their 2 sweet kids.

I don't remember him ever being popular.  In fact, I seem to remember personally being a bit resentful that he got into Cambridge on substandard A-level grades.

I was more resentful when I heard that Jeffrey Archer had got into Oxford with no A-levels at all.
I used to like Prince Charles' voice when he was younger - it sounded really quite melodious. Until he strongly adopted the standard royal affectation of talking about "a hice" (rather than a house - or should that be "a pelless". Must be orff now.

[Anchorman]

Dear Jim,

Aye awe right big man, whit else should we get rid of, oh I know!! That bloody English invention, the dress kilt

Bye the way, I still love.

Gonnagle.

-
She doesn't 'get rid of' anything, Gonners.
WE'RE the ones who should get rid of the monarchy!

[Hope]

Oddly enough, the tiny elite you refer to have far less control than most major company bosses, bankers and probably also less influence than most MPs.

Err - they are often one and the same.

Don't forget that our PM went to Eton, as did the mayor of London, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a number of others in the cabinet, plus plenty in senior back room positions that really pull the strings of government.

And don't forget that pretty well half of the Chairs of FTSE100 companies also went to top public schools

And so it goes on.

We have a tiny elite that are exceptionally good at ensuring that 'their kind' are maintained in the top positions of influence (and of wealth).

And don't forget that most of the major posts holders of the last Labour Government went to Cambridge or Oxford - or that some of the best political orators of the 20th century went to public schools. 

May I also remind you that many of the richest people in British society either went to their local comp. or did poorly (academically, at least) at public schools.  May I also remind you that Eton is but one of several hundred private schools around the UK, many of which started out life as grammar schools that charged fees to the wealthy, but also provided education for nothing to many bright students from poor backgrounds.  The vast majority of the alumni of said schools are teachers, medics, scientists, journalists, aid workers, care workers, bankers, - in other words, no different from the rest of society. 

It's less what school you went to, and more what you did with the education you got.  Leadership in politics isn't the only way one can influence society, and even if it were, there have been plenty of non-private school products who have run things like local councils, etc.

[Harrowby Hall]

....  May I also remind you that Eton is but one of several hundred private schools around the UK, many of which started out life as grammar schools that charged fees to the wealthy, but also provided education for nothing to many bright students from poor backgrounds.

Yes? And now they are profitable businesses which have registered themselves as charities and get nice tax benefits at the expense of the vast majority of people who didn't go to them.

To send a boy to somewhere like Eton probably costs about £500,000 for the time he is there. Do you think that that is good value for money?

[ProfessorDavey]

....  May I also remind you that Eton is but one of several hundred private schools around the UK, many of which started out life as grammar schools that charged fees to the wealthy, but also provided education for nothing to many bright students from poor backgrounds.

Yes? And now they are profitable businesses which have registered themselves as charities and get nice tax benefits at the expense of the vast majority of people who didn't go to them.

To send a boy to somewhere like Eton probably costs about £500,000 for the time he is there. Do you think that that is good value for money?

The key value of Eton (and similar schools) isn't the education per se, but the contacts it makes you. It allows you into a clique, an old boys club like no other. So are that massively disproportionate block of old Etonians who effortlessly rise to the top of their chosen professions better than all the others - I doubt it, but they have the contacts to ensure that the next rung on their particular career ladder is achieved with ease.

Now it has to be emphasised that even in the kind of uber-elite club that is the old Etonians there are still levels. So those 'new money' upstarts still won't be quite accepted in the manner of the 'old money' generation after generation elite.

[Anchorman]

As we approach the close of this day of history, it is only fitting that we pause for reflection....

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/liz-the-last-takes-the-train/


(Courtesy of the Wee Ginger Dug)

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jim,

Aye well!! I have to admit that that gingerdug boy is good with words, probably one of those educated Glaswegians that myth and legend are made of.

So we have a Queen! Deal with it ( or don't ) but using the Queen to have a dig at benefit sanctions!

I would rather he kept his vitriol for the anti Christian, anti British party who allow the use of benefit sanctions.

Gonnagle.

[Anchorman]

So: how can you justify the Windsor wasters getting an increase in their benefits, while the rest are sanctioned, cowed, forced to live without an increase, and, in some cases, driven to suicide?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jim,

I can't!!

All I would ask is the man points his finger at Holyrood and Westminster.

Gonnagle.

[Anchorman]

What has that to do with the Windsor waster's pay benefuit increase?
As for MPs and MSPs?
To be fair, many decent elected members of all parties have refused to accept the increase - many donating the increase, which they hacve to accept under a Westminster law, to charities - and food banks.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jim,

To be fair!! I take it you are talking of the wage increase for politicians.

Another smoke and mirrors from the Tories, it should never have been given parliamentary time, it should have been stood on as a non starter.

Politicians saying, oh look at me, I am giving it to charity, smoke and mirrors.

And please don't tell me that politicians had no say in this matter, who runs this country.

A blatent slap in the face to every citizen of this country.

Smoke and mirrors, forget this nonsense, tell your politician to focus on the real issues, then and only then will they regain my respect, and they have a long way to go before that happens.

Gonnagle.

[Anchorman]

Dear Jim,

To be fair!! I take it you are talking of the wage increase for politicians.

Another smoke and mirrors from the Tories, it should never have been given parliamentary time, it should have been stood on as a non starter.

Politicians saying, oh look at me, I am giving it to charity, smoke and mirrors.

And please don't tell me that politicians had no say in this matter, who runs this country.

A blatent slap in the face to every citizen of this country.

Smoke and mirrors, forget this nonsense, tell your politician to focus on the real issues, then and only then will they regain my respect, and they have a long way to go before that happens.

Gonnagle.

-
Hang on:
When the vote to tie MPs' wages to civil servant scales came up, The Lib-dums and Tory farce of a coalition vorted for it.
Labour, SNP and a few independants voted against it.
The majority of the farce called a democracy in Westminster voted to keep their snouts in the trough.
Just as the Tory Eton supporters club voted an increase in the Windsor benefit scroungers' income.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Jim,

Bloody hell!! Yer a hard man to get through to, there should not have been a vote, a simple sentence  saying, forget it, it is not happening, next item on the agenda is housing.

Smoke and mirrors from the Tories, and the rest of the politicians fell for it.

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

I suspect that whilst we will keep the RF its nature will change, and that will be driven in part by government but also from within, specifically from William, Katherine and Harry. The princes lost their mother and saw what life in the public eye did to her. There are signs that Katherine is struggling with trying to be a normal mother in a freakish existence for which she is very unprepared. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see William and Harry downgrade their status in some way in order to save their families in a similar way that Princess Anne did with her children.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

I agree, and this might send me reaching for my tin hat but I think Charlie will be a game changer.

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

I suspect that whilst we will keep the RF its nature will change, and that will be driven in part by government but also from within, specifically from William, Katherine and Harry. The princes lost their mother and saw what life in the public eye did to her. There are signs that Katherine is struggling with trying to be a normal mother in a freakish existence for which she is very unprepared. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see William and Harry downgrade their status in some way in order to save their families in a similar way that Princess Anne did with her children.

I think it was easy for Princess Anne to downgrade her status (or have it downgraded) because she was so far down the line of successful the chances of her ever coming close to the top job were zero. Although not quite to the same extent Harry is the same so he could (and to my mind should) be expected to head off into the wild blue yonder of normal life, moral job etc etc. and with the expectation that there shouldn't be public funding for him.

But William is different - he is likely to become King and we (and in part the media) have created this kind of monster which requires the heirs to be public figures even if they don't really have the job yet. I suspect other countries with monarchies are much better at accepting that we shouldn't expect the heir to the throne to kick their heals in a kind of 'non' public role for decades waiting for their chance to be head of state. Rather they should be able to go off and enjoy a normal life and career (and be expected so to do) until the point at which on the death of the current monarch they need to step into their new role. We are a long way from that in the UK and until we are the Royals will continue to be a kind of reality soap opera, at the beck and call of the media day in day out for decades. This isn't right and isn't reasonable.