Buck House renovations

[Sassy]

I think, Sass, that you are under the misapprehension that the attitude toward the monarch is the same throughout the so-called UK - you are wrong, for all sorts of historical reasons. For starters, when the king was king of Scots alone, even then he was little more than first among equals with his court. The line of child monarchs ensured a semi-independent attitude persisted in Scotland, rather than the centralised monarchical power in England. At the Reformation, the monarch was never head or governor of the church in Scotland - When Charles I tried to be so, the war of the three kingdoms - sometimes called the English civil war - was the result. With monarchs reigning from London and abandoning Scotland, the populous became even less inclined to defer to an authority which was increasingly remote - and the cynical attitude remains. It might be worth noting that when the monarch opens Westminster's parliament, she sits on  a throne on a dais above her' subjects'. In Scotland, when the monarch attends the 'riding of parliament', she sits on a chair beside the presiding officer as the MSPs gaze down on her.

It means nothing regarding the truth that she is on the throne because God put her there.
You waffle far too much and what you say adds nothing and takes away nothing from that truth. It has been God who has used our country to bring his words to pass in the past.
But in Christ, there is no East or West, in him, no South or North, just one great fellowship of love throughout the whole wide world.

People fear Christians as they feared the Jews and we see that people hated them being prosperous and feared they might over take them. Jesus loves us and he cares a great deal about us. Why is it you cannot see beyond your own human reasoning?

[Aruntraveller]

You waffle far too much

where is Shaker with his patented irony meter when you need him?

[Anchorman]

God put her there, Sass? Did the God - who is without error - have an off day when he planted Edward (not the) VII on the throne....the same llethario who had had more mistresses than I've had hot dinners....and invited them for a front row seat when the bishop put the bling on his bonce in the Abbey? The same king who was head of a church yet maintained a mistress till the day he snuffed it (That mistress being Camilla Parker wotsit's great great granny, by the way)? The God who is without error who put a coward like George V on the throne, who in an un-Christ like act refused the Soviet governments offer to have his own cousin, his wife and children as refugees, thus condemning them to death? And don't even start me on Edward VIII Either these were men put on an unelected position by men, or God had an off day. There is nothing of God in an unelected powerless rubber stamp of an anachronistic throwback.

[Hope]

There are plenty of historic piles which can serve as backdrops for chocolate box touristy flummery, Hope. The place on the Mall is one too many. As far as the debate over monarchy versus republic goes? Yes, a figurehead rubber stamp is needed for state rigmarole. However a figurehead rubber stamp elected by, and responsible to, the people is worthy of respect. A figurehead rubber stamp by accident of genetics is not.

But Buck House actually belongs to the nation, not to the monarchy.  Shouldn't it therefore be the one that is done up and improved rather than any other?  As you say, you have a place up in Edinburgh - Holyroodhouse - which I assume belongs to the people of the UK (or at least Scotland); are you saying you'd happily see that fall into ruin?

edit: I see from wikipedia, that HRH is owned by the Crown, not the people. but my point stands.

[Anchorman]

#24 Thanks for the cut-and- paste synopsis of the bilge that passes for a constitution in this disunited kingdom, Sass. As God gives me strength, I'll continue to treat it with the disrespect it deserves.

[Anchorman]

But Buck House actually belongs to the nation, not to the monarchy.  Shouldn't it therefore be the one that is done up and improved rather than any other?  As you say, you have a place up in Edinburgh - Holyrood - which I assume belongs to the people of the UK (or at least Scotland); are you saying you'd happily see that fall into ruin?

If it belongs to the English nation, give it to the English National trust - they look after redundant ancestral piles for tourists, don't they? (The reference to 'English national trust' was not meant to be Anglophobic - the National trust for Scotland has always operated seperately)

[torridon]

God put her there, Sass? Did the God - who is without error - have an off day when he planted Edward (not the) VII on the throne....the same llethario who had had more mistresses than I've had hot dinners....and invited them for a front row seat when the bishop put the bling on his bonce in the Abbey? The same king who was head of a church yet maintained a mistress till the day he snuffed it (That mistress being Camilla Parker wotsit's great great granny, by the way)? The God who is without error who put a coward like George V on the throne, who in an un-Christ like act refused the Soviet governments offer to have his own cousin, his wife and children as refugees, thus condemning them to death? And don't even start me on Edward VIII Either these were men put on an unelected position by men, or God had an off day. There is nothing of God in an unelected powerless rubber stamp of an anachronistic throwback.

 

Ah, a mighty fine thing to see Jim flow

[Anchorman]

You aint seen nuffin yet, Torridon! By the way, I've just watched Tory sycophant Michael Forsyth congratulating himself on returning stolen property to Scotland....the lump of stone Longshanks nicked and planted in Westminster... Now it's with the Honours in the crown room in Edinburgh Castle, it doesn't seem so important....a bit like the Windsor shower, really.

[Anchorman]

20 years on since the return of stolen property.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-38131633

[Anchorman]

Sotrry, I won't comment on individuals (Though, having met Chairlie a few times, I might.....) I reserve the right to pour scorn, ridicule and disdain on the unearned, unelected roles they claim, though.

[ad_orientem]

There are plenty of historic piles which can serve as backdrops for chocolate box touristy flummery, Hope. The place on the Mall is one too many. As far as the debate over monarchy versus republic goes? Yes, a figurehead rubber stamp is needed for state rigmarole. However a figurehead rubber stamp elected by, and responsible to, the people is worthy of respect. A figurehead rubber stamp by accident of genetics is not.

If it's just a " rubber stamp", what does it matter? It makesnot one jot of difference. Either way, it's a pretty pricey rubber stamp.

[ippy]

I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.

I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one  happens to be, big ears no doubt.

Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit. 

ippy

[L.A.]

I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.

I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one  happens to be, big ears no doubt.

Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit. 

ippy

Long live Good Queen Beth I say. but King Big Ears does not inspire confidence.

Possibly marginally better than President Blair?

[Harrowby Hall]

Long live Good Queen Beth I say. but King Big Ears does not inspire confidence.

Possibly marginally better than President Blair?

I'm no monarchist - far from it - but are we really being fair to Charles?

He is clearly a man of some intelligence but he has been forced to spend decades doing nothing. His constitutional role is to hang around until his mother's heart stops. He will then step from a position of having nothing to do to a position where he can have no opinion about anything. The general perception of him has been largely manufactured by "newspapers" (like the Mail and the Express) who see their appointed mission as disguising scurrilous nonsense as news. He was encouraged (almost an arranged marriage) to marry an upper-class bimbo for dynastic reasons. His own choice was not virgo intacta and thus ineligible for consideration.

He should have been given a real job somewhere (not just in the armed services) so that he could see how the real world works. It would have kept him focussed, he could have developed, used and tested skills and kept him out of the limelight which enabled the world to observe him engaged for decades in complex thumb twiddling. But who knows, for the relatively short period he will occupy the throne, he may well be as "exemplary" as has been his mother.

He may well surprise us all by announcing the termination of the monarchy. If so - with luck - he will be followed by a non-executive president who will be the choice of the populace.

Step forward President Farage.

[Aruntraveller]

Step forward President Farage.

I was having quite a good day.

Thank you for putting a thought in my head that spoiled that feeling 

[Anchorman]

I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.

I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one  happens to be, big ears no doubt.

Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit. 

ippy


[/quote






Betty 2?
Of what, Ippy?

[L.A.]

I'm no monarchist - far from it - but are we really being fair to Charles?

He is clearly a man of some intelligence but he has been forced to spend decades doing nothing. His constitutional role is to hang around until his mother's heart stops. He will then step from a position of having nothing to do to a position where he can have no opinion about anything. The general perception of him has been largely manufactured by "newspapers" (like the Mail and the Express) who see their appointed mission as disguising scurrilous nonsense as news. He was encouraged (almost an arranged marriage) to marry an upper-class bimbo for dynastic reasons. His own choice was not virgo intacta and thus ineligible for consideration.

He should have been given a real job somewhere (not just in the armed services) so that he could see how the real world works. It would have kept him focussed, he could have developed, used and tested skills and kept him out of the limelight which enabled the world to observe him engaged for decades in complex thumb twiddling. But who knows, for the relatively short period he will occupy the throne, he may well be as "exemplary" as has been his mother.

Charles certainly come-across as an idiot, but the worrying part is the fact that he has been 'dabbling' in politics and has signalled that he intends to do so in future when he is King. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable for a constitutional monarch.

He may well surprise us all by announcing the termination of the monarchy. If so - with luck - he will be followed by a non-executive president who will be the choice of the populace.

I don't think it is in the power of a monarch to abolish the monarchy itself, though they can of course abdicate.

Step forward President Farage.

Quick - pass the sick-bucket

[ekim]

God put her there, Sass? Did the God - who is without error - have an off day when he planted Edward (not the) VII on the throne....the same llethario who had had more mistresses than I've had hot dinners....and invited them for a front row seat when the bishop put the bling on his bonce in the Abbey? The same king who was head of a church yet maintained a mistress till the day he snuffed it (That mistress being Camilla Parker wotsit's great great granny, by the way)? The God who is without error who put a coward like George V on the throne, who in an un-Christ like act refused the Soviet governments offer to have his own cousin, his wife and children as refugees, thus condemning them to death? And don't even start me on Edward VIII Either these were men put on an unelected position by men, or God had an off day. There is nothing of God in an unelected powerless rubber stamp of an anachronistic throwback.

God works in mysterious ways.

[Harrowby Hall]

I was having quite a good day.

Thank you for putting a thought in my head that spoiled that feeling 

Sorry about that, Trent. It was an attempt at irony.

[Harrowby Hall]

Charles certainly come-across as an idiot, but the worrying part is the fact that he has been 'dabbling' in politics and has signalled that he intends to do so in future when he is King. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable for a constitutional monarch.

I agree entirely.

My point was that a man - possibly with usable skills and abilities - has been (constitutionally) abandoned to his own devices with nothing constructive to do except wait for his mother to drop dead. He should have been given something meaningful to do. I do recall - when he was a young adult - that he received a similar kind of press treatment to that of his elder son.

Another point to be considered is that by having this family operating as the figurehead of the state - we are doing them no favours and are denying them the opportunity to be normal people.

I don't think it is in the power of a monarch to abolish the monarchy itself, though they can of course abdicate.

I dare say Sassy might disagree. 

[L.A.]

Another point to be considered is that by having this family operating as the figurehead of the state - we are doing them no favours and are denying them the opportunity to be normal people.

Possibly the strongest argument against monarchy is the huge burden it places on an individual who never asked for the job.

[ippy]

I'm a republican and think we were no more than lucky to have Betty 2 as head of state, she's made a really good job of it, not perfect, but pretty near.

I wonder if we'll manage to have much more luck with whoever the next one  happens to be, big ears no doubt.

Why should we have to suffer this continual indignity? It's a really good system being reliant on luck in preference to merit. 

ippy






[/quote






Betty 2?
Of what, Ippy?

Sorry Anchor, not cap in hand or reverential enough to our Betty?

ippy

[Nearly Sane]

Sorry Anchor, not cap in hand or reverential enough to our Betty?

ippy

I suspect Anchorman's point is that Scotland didn’t have Betty 1

[ippy]

It means nothing regarding the truth that she is on the throne because God put her there.
You waffle far too much and what you say adds nothing and takes away nothing from that truth. It has been God who has used our country to bring his words to pass in the past.
But in Christ, there is no East or West, in him, no South or North, just one great fellowship of love throughout the whole wide world.

People fear Christians as they feared the Jews and we see that people hated them being prosperous and feared they might over take them. Jesus loves us and he cares a great deal about us. Why is it you cannot see beyond your own human reasoning?

From Sass below, about our Betty, the Queenie:

"It means nothing regarding the truth that she is on the throne because God put her there".

Don't miss a single day of taking the tablets Sass.

ippy

[ippy]

I suspect Anchorman's point is that Scotland didn’t have Betty 1

Sorry, I live in the South East where we're inclined to think when Scotland is mentioned, oh yes Scotland, not meaning to be dismissive of them perhaps, wrongly, not thinking to include them; my apologies, no offence intended.

ippy