Harry & Megan to step back from Public life

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, there’s no reason why it would be so - but it often is.
"often" - are you sure? Any examples of any?

I expect there are some, but I can't actually think of any where they have no political function and are purely meeters and greeters.

These same arguments are always trotted out, but they seldom hold up to any scrutiny or rational debate.
Why do you care anyway? You live in Thailand don’t you? Maybe have a pop at the Chakri lot?
I'm still British, British domiciled, and pay British taxes.

I'm not against monarchies per se at all - in my view it depends entirely on the country's circumstances, culture, democratic system, etc, and the alternatives.

In Bhutan, for example, I think they currently have the ideal solution for them with their monarchy.

I simply don't see the rationale behind a primo genitur monarchy in the UK in the 21st century.

Even with "Blair / Blair or Bercow, Kinnock Junior or Prescott Junior, Straw senior or junior or any Milliband / Thatcher; May; Cameron; Farage; Salmond; Cable, etc, etc." plus countless others who may be equally unsuitable ( Carter, Peach, Houghton, Richards, etc, etc) and a few who may be rather more suitable at least you have a choice.

Under the present system there's none, and while Brenda may have done nothing wrong there's no possible reason to think that will apply to Charles, William, George, etc. Had Edward VIII not been otherwise distracted by his particular American divorcee, for example, things may have been very different, and rather more recently if Charles had had his way the UK wouldn't have either a Human Rights Act or any Health and Safety at Work legislation .....

and for a considerable time Mr M-W was unavoidably third in line to the throne, just as his Uncle Andy was for a couple of decades.

For the UK in the 21st century it simply makes no rational sense.
 

Grownup_Rafbrat

LE
Book Reviewer
Trouble is, 21st century politicians are so self centred and short term focussed that they would throw out the constitutional baby with the monarchical bathwater*. I like the monarchy we have. It's not perfect, as it depends on ,'who you get', but it's infinitely better than 'who has most money' or 'who is most corrupt/militarily invincible'.

*For examples Nicola Sturgeon ruining her country financially, economically and educationally to support her own dogmatic desire to remove 500 years of joint history from the record books. Nick Clegg bringing down reform of the House of Lords because he wanted to nominate failed party Apparatchiks as members.
 
These same arguments are always trotted out, but they seldom hold up to any scrutiny or rational debate.
I could say the same about your point of view- if it ain’t broke etc etc.
You mentioned a Royal’s standpoint on a particular piece of legislation- to paraphrase, “if he’d had his way”. The point is he didn’t have his way.
 
If you were living in a Commonwealth country then you might have been aware that it is no longer a primogeniture monarchy.
You've been strangely mis-informed.

"Primo genitur" means "first born". The Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 changed succession from male preference primo genitur to primo genitur.

The British monarchy is now more strictly primo genitur than before.
 
I could say the same about your point of view- if it ain’t broke etc etc.
I don't see how, since the "arguments" I referred to that "are always trotted out, but seldom hold up to any scrutiny or rational debate" were about
  1. the comparative costs of heads of state, and
  2. countries with the most highly successful, popular and respected apolitical "meet and greet" heads of state generally avoiding ex-politicians.
You've completely ignored both points - I can only assume because any arguments you may have against them "don't hold up to any scrutiny", etc.
I could say the same about your point of view- if it ain’t broke etc etc.
You mentioned a Royal’s standpoint on a particular piece of legislation- to paraphrase, “if he’d had his way”. The point is he didn’t have his way.
But the point is that if you look beyond the present monarch it very clearly is broke.

The two examples I gave were of
  1. Edward VIII who wanted to go against the clear wishes of the country and ally the country with the Nazis.
  2. The current next inline who tried to get rid of both the Human Rights Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act, both of which have had very broad cross party support.
That's not only against the constitution but against the wishes of the vast majority of the population.

That's also two out of four monarchs*. How "broke" does it have to be until it needs "fixing"? Do we really have to wait until we get the next:

  • Mad King George (George III), who was "old, mad, blind, despised and dying" ?
  • George IV who took over as regent from his mad father and then became the country's biggest spendthrift?
  • Edward II, whose French wife hoofed him out in favour of their 14 year old son and had him killed (possibly with the proverbial red hot poker in an unpleasant place)?
  • James II, who was so bad that his parliament and nobles invited a Dutchman to take over, followed by his German relatives?
  • William Rufus, who was "hateful to his people and odious to God"?
Just how broke does it have to be before enough people ask "what are they for?"


(*: including the next-in-line)
 
Trouble is, 21st century politicians are so self centred and short term focussed that they would throw out the constitutional baby with the monarchical bathwater*. I like the monarchy we have. It's not perfect, as it depends on ,'who you get', but it's infinitely better than 'who has most money' or 'who is most corrupt/militarily invincible'.

*For examples Nicola Sturgeon ruining her country financially, economically and educationally to support her own dogmatic desire to remove 500 years of joint history from the record books. Nick Clegg bringing down reform of the House of Lords because he wanted to nominate failed party Apparatchiks as members.
We're actually in heated agreement, however unpleasant and unpalatable that may be to you.

I couldn't agree more that the vast majority of politicians, from this or any other century, are totally unsuitable to be "heads of state" as representatives of the UK and head meeters and greeters, as are " 'who has most money' or 'who is most corrupt/militarily invincible'."

Why, though, should the first-born in any one particular family be any more suitable?

Why should it be someone who wants to ally the country to the Nazis (Edward VIII)? Who wants to bin the Human Rights Act and Health and Safety at Work Act because he thinks they're "petty minded litigiousness" (Charles des)? Who gets other monarchies to fire firms of British architects because he doesn't like their designs, in the UK, replacing them with his own approved firms (ditto)? Who wants to trade mark and sell the royal "brand" for personal profit (Mr H M-W, third in line for nearly thirty years)?
It's not perfect, as it depends on ,'who you get',
Ummm ..... yes ..... just a minor problem there, as you're selecting from a choice of ..... one.

... and to be more accurate, you're not doing any selecting but supposedy getting what the man in the sky chose for you a few centuries ago.

Why not look just a little wider and choose someone who is suitable from a wider choice of 66 million? Are the British really that bad that there's nobody more suitable and never will be, and Mr H M-W was the third best available for thirty years and his Uncle Andrew the third best available for the previous twenty?
 
Last edited:

Toppet

War Hero
We're actually in heated agreement, however unpleasant and unpalatable that may be to you.

I couldn't agree more that the vast majority of politicians, from this or any other century, are totally unsuitable to be "heads of state" as representatives of the UK and head meeters and greeters, as are " 'who has most money' or 'who is most corrupt/militarily invincible'."

Why, though, should the first-born in any one particular family be any more suitable?

Why should it be someone who wants to ally the country to the Nazis (Edward VIII)? Who wants to bin the Human Rights Act and Health and Safety at Work Act because he thinks they're "petty minded litigiousness" (Charles des)? Who gets other monarchies to fire firms of British architects because he doesn't like their designs, in the UK, replacing them with his own approved firms (ditto)? Who wants to trade mark and sell the royal "brand" for personal profit (Mr H M-W, third in line for nearly thirty years)? Ummm ..... yes ..... just a minor problem there, as you're selecting from a choice of ..... one.

... and to be more accurate, you're not doing any selecting but supposedy getting what the man in the sky chose for you a few centuries ago.

Why not look just a little wider and choose someone who is suitable from a wider choice of 66 million? Are the British really that bad that there's nobody more suitable and never will be, and Mr H M-W was the third best available for thirty years and his Uncle Andrew the third best available for the previous twenty?
Why are you posting as yourself again, rather than your @Handy Mandy sock?
 
Just had a nasty idea.
Get them onto Dragon's Den with a special brand of Moose Milk.;)
I'd pay to see the result.
1580043141031.png
 
This is CA, not the NAAFI. As these posts are your sole contributions to / interest in the thread maybe they would be more appropriate elsewhere.

Sorry, but I have no intention of rising to any bait here.
Give Mandy my regards. She must be very close to you.

Meanwhile.

Personally, I hope Harry has his happily ever after.

It's sad he's stepped down and I hope he hasn't turned his back. I also trust he realises that there is no coming back from this.
 
I don't see how, since the "arguments" I referred to that "are always trotted out, but seldom hold up to any scrutiny or rational debate" were about
  1. the comparative costs of heads of state, and
  2. countries with the most highly successful, popular and respected apolitical "meet and greet" heads of state generally avoiding ex-politicians.
You've completely ignored both points - I can only assume because any arguments you may have against them "don't hold up to any scrutiny", etc.
But the point is that if you look beyond the present monarch it very clearly is broke.

The two examples I gave were of
  1. Edward VIII who wanted to go against the clear wishes of the country and ally the country with the Nazis.
  2. The current next inline who tried to get rid of both the Human Rights Act and the Health and Safety at Work Act, both of which have had very broad cross party support.
That's not only against the constitution but against the wishes of the vast majority of the population.

That's also two out of four monarchs*. How "broke" does it have to be until it needs "fixing"? Do we really have to wait until we get the next:

  • Mad King George (George III), who was "old, mad, blind, despised and dying" ?
  • George IV who took over as regent from his mad father and then became the country's biggest spendthrift?
  • Edward II, whose French wife hoofed him out in favour of their 14 year old son and had him killed (possibly with the proverbial red hot poker in an unpleasant place)?
  • James II, who was so bad that his parliament and nobles invited a Dutchman to take over, followed by his German relatives?
  • William Rufus, who was "hateful to his people and odious to God"?
Just how broke does it have to be before enough people ask "what are they for?"


(*: including the next-in-line)
What you’re choosing to ignore is that our modern system of constitutional monarchy is working in the way it is intended. Your trawl through history is irrelevant- the point is that however bonkers a modern monarch might be, it is impossible for them to have a detrimental effect. You quote the instances of Prince Charles being against certain legislation. Fine, now what was the result of his opposition to it? See what I mean? He was also outspoken in his views on modern architecture. I thought it was quite interesting to hear an alternative view... but nothing changed.

You are making a weak argument to change one near irrelevance for another. The difference is that the status quo has hundreds of years of history behind it which you wish to replace with a bellend in a suit.
At the end of the day it’s really only a matter of opinion. There are those who regard the pomp and ceremony with some affection and others who sneer at it.
I recommend those in the latter camp to piss off somewhere else.

Oh you have. Well done.
 
What you’re choosing to ignore is that our modern system of constitutional monarchy is working in the way it is intended. Your trawl through history is irrelevant- the point is that however bonkers a modern monarch might be, it is impossible for them to have a detrimental effect. You quote the instances of Prince Charles being against certain legislation. Fine, now what was the result of his opposition to it? See what I mean? He was also outspoken in his views on modern architecture. I thought it was quite interesting to hear an alternative view... but nothing changed.

You are making a weak argument to change one near irrelevance for another. The difference is that the status quo has hundreds of years of history behind it which you wish to replace with a bellend in a suit.
At the end of the day it’s really only a matter of opinion. There are those who regard the pomp and ceremony with some affection and others who sneer at it.
I recommend those in the latter camp to piss off somewhere else.

Oh you have. Well done.
Careful. He'll summon handy Mandy.
 
Careful. He'll summon handy Mandy.
I’ll just tell King Maha Vajiralongkorn that there’s an ex-pat British bloke who likes the culture and scenery of Thailand but thinks that Royalty is a busted flush.

I'm not against monarchies per se at all - in my view it depends entirely on the country's circumstances, culture, democratic system, etc, and the alternatives.
You gutless twat. You can’t say anything about the weirdo Thai King because it’s illegal in Thailand isn’t it? Surely they’d be a far worthier target of your republican views than our harmless bunch?
 

UKTAP

LE
Trouble is, 21st century politicians are so self centred and short term focussed that they would throw out the constitutional baby with the monarchical bathwater*. I like the monarchy we have. It's not perfect, as it depends on ,'who you get', but it's infinitely better than 'who has most money' or 'who is most corrupt/militarily invincible'.

*For examples Nicola Sturgeon ruining her country financially, economically and educationally to support her own dogmatic desire to remove 500 years of joint history from the record books. Nick Clegg bringing down reform of the House of Lords because he wanted to nominate failed party Apparatchiks as members.
Our political system has some problems that need to be solved. That is beyond doubt. But just because we have work to do on our system of governance, it does not mean that the answer is to continue having our head of state decided by accident of birth. It's neither morally defensible, not has it been effective for the last few years.
 

smeg-head

ADC
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
One often wonders why, when a person is happy to receive the Queen's (or King's) commission and hold it for a number of years, that same person then feels it necessary to denigrate those who have him kept him in employment (however useless). It is strange how one who swears an oath of allegiance to his monarch and country, should, when safely ensconced in foreign climes, chose now as an appropriate time to decry the monarchy but still claim allegiance. One could say it is A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma.
 
One often wonders why, when a person is happy to receive the Queen's (or King's) commission and hold it for a number of years, that same person then feels it necessary to denigrate those who have him kept him in employment (however useless). It is strange how one who swears an oath of allegiance to his monarch and country, should, when safely ensconced in foreign climes, chose now as an appropriate time to decry the monarchy but still claim allegiance. One could say it is A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma.
Without wishing to stand for the JohnG award for pedantry, but isn’t our loyalty to the ‘Crown’?

That the argument turned on this point allowed us to switch loyalties between James II and William III, and more recently between Edward VIII and George VI.

I remember a little lecture on something like this at RMAS when a number of us were seem to favour a ‘Windsor’ knot*.






* I’ve never worn one since.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top