Jump to content

Monarchy debate/discussion


Richey Edwards

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Yes, it's the nature of the coverage rather than its volume (absurd though that volume is) that bothers me.

admittedly, we're now starting to see some articles and podcast features that represent some sort of analysis.  Initially, however, and even still on the BBC, what we've seen really does simply amount to propaganda.

Indeed.  Couple of mornings ago, I accidently turned on R4, instead of R6 Music.  

I think it was the Today programme, covering 'the queen is deed, and what happens next'.  The couple of minutes that I listened, 

before switching away, it was all repeated intoning of 'the constitution' ,  'constitutional arrangements'..., and 'continuity'. 

As in..... the face changes but the status quo/show will go on.

 

There is no ****ing constitution,  but we are all subjected to this barrage of crap to disguise that, and confer some kind of legitimacy

on the whole farce of these parasites.

 

Never, ever, seen or heard the BBC in quite so blatant state broadcaster mode.

Edited by beefybake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, beefybake said:

 

Never, ever, seen or heard the BBC in quite so blatant state broadcaster mode.

The BBC is widely attacked on here.

Often that's with some justification, but I actually think it's a great and important institution and that its absence would genuinely be a real loss.

This week though, the face that's been presented has been rather nuts.  I find it a bit depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, beefybake said:

Indeed.  Couple of mornings ago, I accidently turned on R4, instead of R6 Music.  

I think it was the Today programme, covering 'the queen is deed, and what happens next'.  The couple of minutes that I listened, 

before switching away, it was all repeated intoning of 'the constitution' ,  'constitutional arrangements'..., and 'continuity'. 

As in..... the face changes but the status quo/show will go on.

 

There is no ****ing constitution,  but we are all subjected to this barrage of crap to disguise that, and confer some kind of legitimacy

on the whole farce of these parasites.

 

Never, ever, seen or heard the BBC in quite so blatant state broadcaster mode.

I've just finished saying to the girlfriend that the baffling thing about the UK is that if every single last royal were to somehow die tomorrow, rather than simply say 'well that's a neat, concise point in time to wrap this nonsense up', there would be some council of unelected twats on the phone to some random Danish or Norwegian princess who probably lives in a cooncil house and works in a supermarket offering her the UK throne, despite being about 4 places further up the queue than I am, for no other reason than to ward off a mythical 'constitutional crisis' or some other bollocks. It's not like there isn't precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Boo Khaki said:

I've just finished saying to the girlfriend that the baffling thing about the UK is that if every single last royal were to somehow die tomorrow, rather than simply say 'well that's a neat, concise point in time to wrap this nonsense up', there would be some council of unelected twats on the phone to some random Danish or Norwegian princess who probably lives in a cooncil house and works in a supermarket offering her the UK throne, despite being about 4 places further up the queue than I am, for no other reason than to ward off a mythical 'constitutional crisis' or some other bollocks. It's not like there isn't precedent.

Used to go out with a girl in Edinburgh one of whose flatmates was some kind of minor aristocracy and was at that point in time a couple of hundred and somethingth in line to the throne.

I remember her saying the only way she'd get a sniff of the top job was if there was a nuclear war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

I've just finished saying to the girlfriend that the baffling thing about the UK is that if every single last royal were to somehow die tomorrow, rather than simply say 'well that's a neat, concise point in time to wrap this nonsense up', there would be some council of unelected twats on the phone to some random Danish or Norwegian princess who probably lives in a cooncil house and works in a supermarket offering her the UK throne, despite being about 4 places further up the queue than I am, for no other reason than to ward off a mythical 'constitutional crisis' or some other bollocks. It's not like there isn't precedent.

(Incidentally King Ralph could play the piano and sing, which is two more talents than King Charlie III.)

7C4F5EF1-C612-40BD-9EDD-B5F0672A9913.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Miguel Sanchez said:

Anyway, my work haven't offered counselling but we are allowed to wear black, are allowed to take time if we're overcome by grief, and we're shut on Monday. Gawd bless are maj 🇬🇧

The management of my company thinks the whole thing is a load of shit and won't be indulging in any of this claptrap.

One of the benefits of being self-employed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Antlion said:

What’s sinister and unacceptable is the private nature of the weekly discussions between the PM and an unelected monarch with vast private interests to protect.

Again, monarchists want this both ways. Charlie’s apparently politically inutile and without influence, so there’s no reason we should know what he’s telling the PM; but he apparently has a wealth of political experience (all those jollies abroad and secret deals with despots) which aid the PM immeasurably. Both can’t be true.

There are all kinds of reasons why some high-level government business should be kept secret. Weekly “audiences” between the PM and an unelected landowning aristocrat with known links to dodgy leaders provide none of them. They just reek of corruption.

I loved the revelation that auld Liz used to set her solicitors on our parliamentary representatives whenever they were proposing legislation that might have affected her personal estate. In another country, you could make a decent comedy out of Brenda throwing tantrums at the Prime Ministers of the day, but it would be sacrilege in Britain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BFTD said:

I loved the revelation that auld Liz used to set her solicitors on our parliamentary representatives whenever they were proposing legislation that might have affected her personal estate. In another country, you could make a decent comedy out of Brenda throwing tantrums at the Prime Ministers of the day, but it would be sacrilege in Britain.

She did this with regard to sustainability legislation.

She demanded and got specific opt outs for Balmoral.

Concurrently, she took advantage of state aid to build a hydro scheme on the estate.

Karma got her though as parts of the scheme are quickly wearing out due to granite-hard fine materials carried in the water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/09/2022 at 07:42, Leith Green said:

If those are your beliefs, they are similar to mine (except add in Independence).

However, your last paragraph is a wee bit silly.

Its clear to anyone that the First Minister, regardless of their religion and politics, receiving the hearse of the Queen in an official capacity, would behave in exactly the same way as NS did.

There are times to state their politics, beliefs, and hopes for the country..................and other times to keep the trap shut.

Yesterday was obviously not the former.

NS - since returning to Embra - has been an absolute credit and, much as I dislike her politics, haven't a bad word to say about that.  She discharged her role as FM with class.

I was referring to her signing off the accession of Charles III at the Privy Council on Saturday.  I'd certainly not have put my signature to 'one monarch, one kingdom and one Protestant faith' and I'm surprised she did.  Her assent to these three principles is now part of Britain's archive.

More surprising is that none of the Nats on here - including you - have any issue with this.

Edited by The_Kincardine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...