The Upper House

[Robbie]

It's ill mannered and unpleasant, NS. Would've thought you could see that I but wasn't targeting Anchor.

So while Israel murders Palestinian children, the lead story on the main BBC news is Meghan Markle's dad. Yep, keep eating the bread and watching the circuses!

Before I went to work this morning I was looking at the BBC news and was horrified that the toll was 55 dead Palestinians, when husband woke I told him & we talked about the horrors of it for a while before getting ready for work.

Also over the last couple of days Tessa Jowell's death was in the news and that was extremely moving. Plus the plight of the Rohingys which is something very close to my heart for various reasons.

We can take in different types of news you know, I expect you do, not just the doom and gloom. I don't know why you're having a go at me.

(Couldn't care less about Meghan Markle's dad except that the current story must be embarrassing for her & I'm sorry for that, hope her day isn't spoilt because her father was indiscreet. I could shake him but guess he didn't realise the implications of what he was doing, that is if what's been reported is true.)

[Nearly Sane]

It's ill mannered and unpleasant, NS. Would've thought you could see that I but wasn't targeting Anchor.

Before I went to work this morning I was looking at the BBC news and was horrified that the toll was 55 dead Palestinians, when husband woke I told him & we talked about the horrors of it for a while before getting ready for work. Couldn't care less about Meghan Markle's dad except that the current story must be embarrassing for her & I'm sorry for that. We can take in different types of news you know, I expect you do, not just the doom and gloom. I don't know why you're having a go at me.

If you think it is ill mannered and unpleasant, and Anchorman does it, which he does, then you are stating that about Anchorman.

 And yep, if you think that Meghan Markle's dad is worth being the lead news story I am having a go at you.

[Robbie]

OK NS. Read my previous post please (or not if you don't want to), I was modifying it while you were posting.

Doesn't matter anyway, I care not what you think of me.

[Nearly Sane]

OK NS. Read my previous post please (or not if you don't want to), I was modifying it while you were posting.

Doesn't matter anyway, I care not what you think of me.

What difference do you you think your update makes to the logic of you thinking what Anchorman does is ill mannered and unpleasant but somehow you aren't stating that Anchorman is being ll mannered and unpleasant?

[Robbie]

I'd moved on from that one, you haven't. My last post was more about media, serious and trivial.

Previously I was not specifically targeting Anchorman but if you think I was, if it looked that way, so be it, it matters not a whit to me nor, would I think, to Anchorman.

I do actually understand how many Scots feel differently about the monarchy and our government & have some sympathy with their views even if I don't like how they are expressed.

End of please.

[Nearly Sane]

I'd moved on from that one, you haven't. My last post was more about media, serious and trivial.

Previously I was not specifically targeting Anchorman but if you think I was, if it looked that way, so be it, it matters not a whit to me nor, would I think, to Anchorman.

I do actually understand how many Scots feel differently about the monarchy and our government & have some sympathy with their views even if I don't like how they are expressed.

End of please.

I didn't say you were targeting Anchorman. Just that your point states that. If you didn't want to say that then you can choose to explain what you got wrong.

[Anchorman]

Surely my remarks on the Windsors are subjective? Are they meant to be provocative? You bet! Are they aimed at insulting persons by their character or private lives? No. I would never stoop so low. Are they aimed at showing as much disdain, scorn, ridicule and conrempt for an anachronistic pile of tripe as I can muster without resorting to blasphemy? You bet. HTH.

[SteveH]

It's possible to be republican/anti-monarchist without resorting to personal venom and nicknames which are just ignorant & ill mannered. Steven H. doesn't do that & he's a republican, as are others but Stephen is an educated & cultured man so one would not expect him to resort to stupid name calling.

I wonder about some posters on here who seem to take a delight in being enraged at the slightest thing - which probably doesn't affect any of them personally. How childish, are they resentful and jealous I wonder. Do they automatically resent anyone (with lower profiles than the royals) who have more money and privilege than themselves.

On Saturday morning I'm going to be in work in a - relatively - poor area of Bromley, Kent, where the people will be celebrating Prince Henry's wedding & enjoying it all with absolutely no jealousy at all. I'll be proud to be amongst such people.

Thanks for the compliment, but I have been known to be rude! However, I've nothing against the royals as people.

[Robbie]

Good for you but tho' I've seen you bluster I've never seen you be rude. I'll take your word for it that you are sometimes.

My only objection was to people calling them "Big Ears", "Betty" and "Phil the Greek"; I was brought up not to call people by nicknames without their permission. That's extremely rude.

Don't care about anyone's views on monarchy, etc. We all vary on that issue.

[ippy]

Good for you but tho' I've seen you bluster I've never seen you be rude. I'll take your word for it that you are sometimes.

My only objection was to people calling them "Big Ears", "Betty" and "Phil the Greek"; I was brought up not to call people by nicknames without their permission. That's extremely rude.

Don't care about anyone's views on monarchy, etc. We all vary on that issue.

So Rob, the institution of the monarchy isn't an insult to the fair minded? Fair minded, you know, the ones that think for themselves and ignore the daily overdose of pro royal propaganda.

Regards ippy



 

[Rhiannon]

So Rob, the institution of the monarchy isn't an insult to the fair minded? Fair minded, you know, the ones that think for themselves and ignore the daily overdose of pro royal propaganda.

Regards ippy

So people who are anti royal haven’t been influenced by the anti royal propaganda thatvis also in our daily papers?

[ippy]

So people who are anti royal haven’t been influenced by the anti royal propaganda thatvis also in our daily papers?

Rhi, tell me where this anti-royal propaganda is I'll have a look, only all I've seen up to this date is the silly grin on the faces of royalists fawning over people like Phill the Greek etc.

I have seen fellow republican views expressed here on this forum and virtually none anywhere else, oh yes and that saying of Thomas Paine, 'Why don't we have hereditary mathematicians'?

By the way Tom Paine was a quaker, although admittedly he did have other reasons to dislike royalty at that time.

Regards ippy 

[Rhiannon]

You’ll find, Ippy, that generally those papers that are supposedly ‘pro royal’ are also the most savage. You won’t find pap shots of private moments or articles slagging off Kate’s weight or Meghan’s heritage in publications whose readership isn’t interested in the royals.

[Aruntraveller]

This about sums up my views:


Royal wedding symbolises privilege & unequal UK. This is a private wedding. The public should not fit the bill

Commenting on Saturday’s royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, human rights campaigner and anti-monarchist, Peter Tatchell said:

“I wish Harry and Meghan every happiness but this is a private wedding and the public should not be picking up any of the bill. They are making it a public event and should therefore fund it out of their own pockets, like any other couple getting married.

“London LGBT Pride has to pay for road closures, policing and suspension of parking bays. So should Harry and Meghan.

“Meghan and Harry live an exceptionally privileged lifestyle, with wealth and opportunities that are denied to most young people. They have their own luxurious home and access to six royal palaces. Many people their age have no prospect of ever owning any own home.

“The royal wedding is escapist nonsense; a real-life soap opera for people who fantasise about fame, riches, status and fairy-tale romance. Good luck to Meghan and Harry but don’t expect me to fawn over them.

“Royalty is an outdated, feudal, aristocratic and anti-democratic institution that should be consigned to history. It is time we had an elected head of state, not an inherited dynastic one. Monarchism is incompatible with democracy and equal human rights,” he said.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This about sums up my views:


Royal wedding symbolises privilege & unequal UK. This is a private wedding. The public should not fit the bill

Commenting on Saturday’s royal wedding between Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, human rights campaigner and anti-monarchist, Peter Tatchell said:

“I wish Harry and Meghan every happiness but this is a private wedding and the public should not be picking up any of the bill. They are making it a public event and should therefore fund it out of their own pockets, like any other couple getting married.

“London LGBT Pride has to pay for road closures, policing and suspension of parking bays. So should Harry and Meghan.

“Meghan and Harry live an exceptionally privileged lifestyle, with wealth and opportunities that are denied to most young people. They have their own luxurious home and access to six royal palaces. Many people their age have no prospect of ever owning any own home.

“The royal wedding is escapist nonsense; a real-life soap opera for people who fantasise about fame, riches, status and fairy-tale romance. Good luck to Meghan and Harry but don’t expect me to fawn over them.

“Royalty is an outdated, feudal, aristocratic and anti-democratic institution that should be consigned to history. It is time we had an elected head of state, not an inherited dynastic one. Monarchism is incompatible with democracy and equal human rights,” he said.

Tatchell is a hero and I agree with the vast majority.

The failure of his last statement though can be summed up in two words:

President Farage.

[Aruntraveller]

Tatchell is a hero and I agree with the vast majority.

The failure of his last statement though can be summed up in two words:

President Farage.

I understand this to a degree, and if we were talking about a Presidential system like America or France then maybe it would be worrying.

Personally I would prefer a purely ceremonial role, with the business of government left to government.

Equally there is no guarantee that somebody as repugnant as Farage could not be thrust upon us via the monarchy with much less opportunity for removal as things currently stand.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I understand this to a degree, and if we were talking about a Presidential system like America or France then maybe it would be worrying.

Personally I would prefer a purely ceremonial role, with the business of government left to government.

Equally there is no guarantee that somebody as repugnant as Farage could not be thrust upon us via the monarchy with much less opportunity for removal as things currently stand.

If it is purely ceremonial then reviewed status quo should surfice.
I don't understand your last sentence.

[Aruntraveller]

If it is purely ceremonial then reviewed status quo should surfice.
I don't understand your last sentence.

What do you mean by reviewed status quo? And how does that address the basic issue of privilege and influence gained and exerted purely by an accident of birth/history?

My last sentence looks perfectly clear to me.

But in plainer language you could potentially get a thoroughly nasty person in the royal family; they do after all have a history of this, how do you think they got to be the royal family in the first place? It certainly was not by throwing nice garden parties; who becomes monarch and who is then much more difficult to remove.

Having a presidential system means you can at least get rid of them every 5/7 years if they do turn out to be Farage.

[ekim]

There's no business like show business.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do you mean by reviewed status quo? And how does that address the basic issue of privilege and influence gained and exerted purely by an accident of birth/history?

My last sentence looks perfectly clear to me.

But in plainer language you could potentially get a thoroughly nasty person in the royal family; they do after all have a history of this, how do you think they got to be the royal family in the first place? It certainly was not by throwing nice garden parties; who becomes monarch and who is then much more difficult to remove.

Having a presidential system means you can at least get rid of them every 5/7 years if they do turn out to be Farage.

If it is merely ceremonial then our royal family are OK for the job by mere dint of being a tourist attraction.

An  elected  ceremonial president is likely to be a celebrity and frankly people are not going to cross the atlantic or want the TV rights for the wedding of Joe Essex...........So as to that all I have to say in conclusion is remember ''Boaty Mc Boatface''.

A reviewed status quo is therefore carry on with the Windsors,

The English though, motivated by the media and press are going to sleepwalk into a constitutional crisis at the succession by inevitably wanting a vote on whether Charles should be King and then it will be Jacob Rees Mogg Lord Protector or some thing like it..

[ippy]

You’ll find, Ippy, that generally those papers that are supposedly ‘pro royal’ are also the most savage. You won’t find pap shots of private moments or articles slagging off Kate’s weight or Meghan’s heritage in publications whose readership isn’t interested in the royals.

Yes I can see that Rhi, I sort of unconsciously filter out the royal content of newspapers, almost as if it wasn't here, in a similar way to the way that I don't read any of the children's corner type content of newspapers; yes hands up guilty, it's a bit like those sorts of articles are not there.

Generally I'm not interested in the people involved it's the whole hereditary system, it's plainly wrong/unjust.

Regards ippy

[Harrowby Hall]

The English though, motivated by the media and press are going to sleepwalk into a constitutional crisis at the succession by inevitably wanting a vote on whether Charles should be King and then it will be Jacob Rees Mogg Lord Protector or some thing like it..

I think, Vlad, that this is fanciful crap. 

In the first place, the constitutional position is clear: when his mother dies, Charles will be declared monarch - The Act of Settlement 1701 codifies this. It would require legislation to replace this Act which would have a very difficult passage through Parliament and I can conceive that Elizabeth may well defy convention and refuse to enable the Act.

Secondly, I think - following experiences with Brexit - that any government would be very wary of using volatile popular sentiment as the justification for a major constitutional change.

It is also conceivable that William would not accept the crown because he would be horrified at the idea of humiliating his own father.  Of course, Charles could always abdicate  but he would have to be enthroned already to do this. Or he decide to adopt Roman Catholicism.

It is possible, I suppose, that public sentiment could be enlisted into the abolition of the monarchy ...

[Gordon]

It is possible, I suppose, that public sentiment could be enlisted into the abolition of the monarchy ...

I'd sign-up for that: right now, and without hesitation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd sign-up for that: right now, and without hesitation.

Then every five years would be like a mini Brexit while the public would try to sort out the most unsuitable article to be POTUK and then vote for them.

Expect Lord Buckethead to have his moment in the sun.

[Gordon]

Then every five years would be like a mini Brexit while the public would try to sort out the most unsuitable article to be POTUK and then vote for them.

Expect Lord Buckethead to have his moment in the sun.

Why do we need a ceremonial Head of State at all?

Just get rid.