Harry & Megan to step back from Public life

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ni? I thought it was all bonnie prince Charlie and Jacobean?
It was, and led to finger bowls not being on the table at formal dinners in some Scottish regiments. Can't remember which ones though, but it will be the ones who didn't fight under Cumberland at Culloden.

Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk
 
Probably the most bizarrely contradictory post I think I've ever read here.

First you say "Your trawl through history is irrelevant" then you justify the monarchy on the grounds that "the status quo has hundreds of years of history behind it" !!

Then you claim that "the point is that however bonkers a modern monarch might be, it is impossible for them to have a detrimental effect" which is totally untrue.

You said that: "He was also outspoken in his views on modern architecture. I thought it was quite interesting to hear an alternative view... but nothing changed." Totally untrue. Everything changed.
So maybe you could explain, rationally, exactly why someone who's chosen from 66 million as the most suited to the job is "a bellend in a suit" unlike someone who's not chosen by anyone but just given it from the day they've born because of their parentage - and also wears a suit?

... or maybe not, and you'll just choose to be abusive instead.
You are only seeing it as contradictory because you are being a bit thick. Your potted history of interesting monarchs was presented as a warning of what might come in the future but the monarch is no longer the absolute ruler, rendering all that a bit pointless. We can enjoy history and our link with the past without the danger of having a loopy king ceding Somerset to the Innuit. Or indeed, being in receipt of a large hot object in one’s fundament- something which I imagine is dear to your heart- because it is more myth than fact.
Your rather hysterical contention that “everything changed” with Charles’ “carbuncle” comment is patently untrue. Charles got the Chelsea Barracks plans changed because it looked like a pile of poo and he was mates with the Qataris, of course Richard Rogers called it unconstitutional- he was the guy who’s hideous design was hoofed. Charles could no doubt have similarly influenced the project behind closed doors so it was indicative of his passion for good architecture that he stuck his head above the parapet and spoke as he did. And no, he didn’t change much- developers naturally want to maximise profits and their architects facilitate this. Planners who should arbitrate for all our benefit are often overawed and toothless in the face of powerful and wealthy developers. I wish Chas had had a chat with the Oxford College who built the horrible student accommodation blocks blighting the view across Port Meadow.
You didn’t explain how you thought Charles’ opinions on the Human Rights Act and Safety at Work Act changed anything? I suspect you were the type who was getting all frothy-mouthed about the “black spider” letters, then realised on their release that, actually, he made some good points.

On the contrary, I think royalty has its place and have said so very clearly in the post you quoted but edited:
Evidently your previous editing of my posts wasn't an accident. Disappointing that your argument is so weak that you have to resort to that.
Sooo, let’s talk about bizarre contradictions. It seems that in the world of John G some countries’ monarchs aren’t, “someone who's not chosen by anyone but just given it from the day they've born because of their parentage,”
The Thai monarchy is far more interfering in matters of state and the media than ours. Some guys who live in Thailand were crapping themselves because someone posted a pisstake about the king’s odd behaviour. That’s verging on dictatorship.
Why on Earth would a fine upstanding fellow like you, with a logical (as you see it) antipathy towards the hereditary principle and interfering monarchy move to a country known for it’s wacko king and unsavoury sex tourism?
Mmmm.

Oh, by the way, I didn’t “edit” your post, I took the relevant quote from it. The omission of the remainder in no way changed the idiotic context of what you said.
 
So where do you draw the line?

When Lady Diana divorced Charles she lost her royal protection and paid for it herself. Why should Mr and Mrs H M-W be treated any differently?

She didn't lose it, she declined it (apart from when at Kensington Palace or in the presence of her children).

Total difference.
 
I fail to see how my first post breaks any rules, it is merely a reply to another poster with no reference to another poster while remaining on topic. However, if the cap fits......

Finally, I am only a Moderator on the Military Modelling forum, not the rest of the site.

I wouldn't overly stress yourself.

If Rule 3 above were to be adhered to, 95% of what that utter buffoon posts would be deleted.
 

Sixty

ADC
Moderator
Book Reviewer
I fail to see how my first post breaks any rules, it is merely a reply to another poster with no reference to another poster while remaining on topic. However, if the cap fits......

Post two is again a reply to another posters and is only a mild Mickey take. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
You are the one pictured in uniform wearing what purports to be French Parachute Wings. If you don't want comments about them, don't wear them.

Finally, I am only a Moderator on the Military Modelling forum, not the rest of the site.
I, among others, moderate this bit and am happy to confirm that your posts were fine. Much as I hate to contradict the Wise One.
 

anglo

LE
The story was that Edward VIII favoured the knot which then took his name. It’s more symmetrical and favoured the new soft collars of post WWII fashions. The more traditional knot was the one used on older stiff collars. (see pictures of Neville Chamberlain).

Apparently there was a sort of ‘silent protest’* by those who were Edward VIII supporters wearing ‘Windsor Knots’. The knot was still frowned upon at RMAS in 81-82 (when I was there). Almost as unacceptable as a pre-tied bow tie or (gasp!) a brown suit.** it’s the sort of knot one might see estate agents or RAF officers using.

We did occasionally do some military training too.

* similar to people waving their hand over their water glass during a royal toast.

** Brown tweed is of course acceptable in the country, i.e. Chateâu @Ravers.
What knot did you use?
 

skeetstar

Old-Salt
Substitute 'MP/President' for 'Head of state' and you'll notice that the elected reps are also getting decided on accidents of birth.

The Benns, Kinnocks and Churchill* spring to mind. By marriage, Yvette Cooper/Balls, Jack Dromey/Harman both parachuted into parliament via safe seats. I'm sure there are more.

*(Soames MP)
I think
Euueuaeiouen Blair tried to get into a safe seat in Coventry a few years back. Prescott's son was slated for a safe seat too at one time, but it never happened for him.
The hereditary principle is alive and well in the house of commons.
 
Substitute 'MP/President' for 'Head of state' and you'll notice that the elected reps are also getting decided on accidents of birth.

The Benns, Kinnocks and Churchill* spring to mind. By marriage, Yvette Cooper/Balls, Jack Dromey/Harman both parachuted into parliament via safe seats. I'm sure there are more.

*(Soames MP)
In Canada the Conservative Party are going through a leadership race where the leading candidate is someone who got his start in politics by "inheriting" his seat from his father. Two of the big names who had been proposed to go against him (but bowed out) had a father who was a former PM (one of these is currently a provincial cabinet minister in Ontario). He will of course be facing across the commons someone whose own father was a former PM and who grew up in 24 Sussex Drive (the PM's residence). Meghan by the way has long standing social connections to 3 out of the 4 above through mutual friends (she was busy social climbing long before she met Harry).

Any significant change to the status of the monarchy in Britain by the way has potentially catastrophic political and constitutional consequences for Canada due to the unique way the monarchy is legally linked between the two (it's different than with for example Australia or New Zealand). There was a mini constitutional melt-down in Canada as a consequence of the way that Cameron mishandled the girl/boy succession issue before the birth of William and Kate's first child. Anything affecting the status of the monarchy in Britain will re-open a very nasty can of worms that we spent a generation closing the lid on and have no appetite for re-opening.

Those who suggest changing it have no idea of the scope or consequences of what they are proposing. I would suggest that Britain has far more pressing things that need addressing than major constitutional changes to a system that is working quite satisfactorily now.

Those class warriors who think that eliminating the monarchy will somehow eliminate the British class system at a single stroke are deluding themselves. There are plenty of countries which share the same monarch who have little to no class system to speak of, and plenty of republics where the class and social divisions are wide and stark. Proposing to overthrow the monarchy is just a way for the politically marginal to try to maintain the illusion of being relevant despite their previous hobby horse of international socialism having proven to be politically and intellectually bankrupt.
 
You are only seeing it as contradictory because you are being a bit thick. Your potted history of interesting monarchs was presented as a warning of what might come in the future but the monarch is no longer the absolute ruler, rendering all that a bit pointless. We can enjoy history and our link with the past without the danger of having a loopy king ceding Somerset to the Innuit. Or indeed, being in receipt of a large hot object in one’s fundament- something which I imagine is dear to your heart- because it is more myth than fact.
Your rather hysterical contention that “everything changed” with Charles’ “carbuncle” comment is patently untrue. Charles got the Chelsea Barracks plans changed because it looked like a pile of poo and he was mates with the Qataris, of course Richard Rogers called it unconstitutional- he was the guy who’s hideous design was hoofed. Charles could no doubt have similarly influenced the project behind closed doors so it was indicative of his passion for good architecture that he stuck his head above the parapet and spoke as he did. And no, he didn’t change much- developers naturally want to maximise profits and their architects facilitate this. Planners who should arbitrate for all our benefit are often overawed and toothless in the face of powerful and wealthy developers. I wish Chas had had a chat with the Oxford College who built the horrible student accommodation blocks blighting the view across Port Meadow.
You didn’t explain how you thought Charles’ opinions on the Human Rights Act and Safety at Work Act changed anything? I suspect you were the type who was getting all frothy-mouthed about the “black spider” letters, then realised on their release that, actually, he made some good points.


Sooo, let’s talk about bizarre contradictions. It seems that in the world of John G some countries’ monarchs aren’t, “someone who's not chosen by anyone but just given it from the day they've born because of their parentage,”
The Thai monarchy is far more interfering in matters of state and the media than ours. Some guys who live in Thailand were crapping themselves because someone posted a pisstake about the king’s odd behaviour. That’s verging on dictatorship.
Why on Earth would a fine upstanding fellow like you, with a logical (as you see it) antipathy towards the hereditary principle and interfering monarchy move to a country known for it’s wacko king and unsavoury sex tourism?
Mmmm.

Oh, by the way, I didn’t “edit” your post, I took the relevant quote from it. The omission of the remainder in no way changed the idiotic context of what you said.
Personally I agree with Charles. Some modern architecture is gopping and not fit for purpose.

Is he still building that village in Dorset? Penny something was it?
 
Don't know if this is true or not...just found it interesting...

How Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are a boost worth more than $28M for Canada


@terminal
There have been a number of news stories from marketing companies tooting their own horn with respect to calculating "brand value" in connection with the Sussexes and anything connected with that story. It's their own attempting at using the situation to advertise themselves. I haven't been posting them as overall it's just people speculating and pulling numbers of of their arses.

There is one thing that is interesting in that story though, and it's the calculations that "the Monarchy" costs Canada $62 million per year. That's the cost of the Governor General and the provincial Lieutenant Governors and their offices, not payments to Her Majesty. Canada would be paying at least that much per year to fulfil those functions with or without a monarchy.

A quick google shows multiple news sites saying the UK spends £67 million per year on the monarchy, and the UK gets far more diplomatic and global PR mileage out of them than Canada does out of our spending. For example, how many people reading this could name the Canadian GG without googling it?

It's an interesting perspective.
 
There have been a number of news stories from marketing companies tooting their own horn with respect to calculating "brand value" in connection with the Sussexes and anything connected with that story. It's their own attempting at using the situation to advertise themselves. I haven't been posting them as overall it's just people speculating and pulling numbers of of their arses.

There is one thing that is interesting in that story though, and it's the calculations that "the Monarchy" costs Canada $62 million per year. That's the cost of the Governor General and the provincial Lieutenant Governors and their offices, not payments to Her Majesty. Canada would be paying at least that much per year to fulfil those functions with or without a monarchy.

A quick google shows multiple news sites saying the UK spends £67 million per year on the monarchy, and the UK gets far more diplomatic and global PR mileage out of them than Canada does out of our spending. For example, how many people reading this could name the Canadian GG without googling it?

It's an interesting perspective.
I only posted it because it showed up in my news feed, and CBC is one of the subscribed ones on the feed.

And no, I couldn't name your GG without Googling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top