Jump to content

I think I know why I admire Prince Harry.


You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 102 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Gopi Passiflora said:

I'm sorry...maybe this topic was in bad taste....

It's not the slightest bit in bad taste, Gopi, nor, I think, are you to blame for the timing. On top of which, you aren't slagging him: you express your admiration for him. I see absolutely no call to criticize you for this.

The royals are an immensely privileged and powerful family that has spent literally centuries amassing wealth at the expense of their nation, and who are even now still on the public payroll. And some of them -- hello, Charles! -- are quite comfortable using their position to articulate ideologies and critiques of British culture.

God knows, it's a job I wouldn't want. But discussions about them, and, yes, even criticisms, are entirely fair game. They are public figures, and the institution that they represent very much a matter of public interest.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I do admire about the boys, the children of Charles and Diana, is that they seemed to marry for love rather than a pedigree or wealth, and refused to be put in a fake marriage like their Mom and Dad.  I saw one headline recently while in the grocery store, "The Royal's Think Meghan's Wealth is Shameful".   To me, with the royals and the press, it mostly plays out as a dysfunctional soap opera.  

Edited by JanuarySwan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Gopi Passiflora said:
On 4/9/2021 at 11:47 PM, Garnet Psaltery said:

A man who didn't see his grandfather last Christmas, and now it's too late.  What bad timing, Gopi.

I'm sorry...maybe this topic was in bad taste....

I would assume Covid-19 was the main reason the family did not see each other.  I wouldn't take any guilt upon yourself for starting this thread anymore than someone should take guilt upon themselves if a loved one passed away that they could not see during the holidays of 2020.  It was considered for the best for one's family to avoid gatherings last year at holiday time.  There were no vaccines then, it was all taking a 100% chance if you did.  

Edited by JanuarySwan
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Coffee Pancake said:

 

The royal family are no less political or corrupt than any self declared politician. They have unfettered access, influence and untold direct power over civil and secret institutions. They are also for all practical purposes above the law. The Queen has been very careful to keep her hand in national affairs hidden from view, her children have been less skilled, the tip of the iceberg is visible via the now decade old  black spider memos, to assume he only wrote the odd letter is naïve in the extreme. 

At least with a president you can vote them out if (when) they fail to deliver on their promises / decide to go off in a random direction and start /support / authorize a war / etc

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_spider_memos

Utter garbage! The sentence that I bolded implies without any doubt that the British royal family are corrupt. But you don't provide a shred of evidence to back up the statement, which is total and utter garbage.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

The royals are an immensely privileged and powerful family that has spent literally centuries amassing wealth at the expense of their nation

It's the "and powerful" bit that is nonsense. Where on earth did you get that idea from? Imagination? Assumption? Gutter press?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always been a supporter of the British 'royal' system, but in recent years I've slowly changed my mind, and I would prefer it to end when the Queen goes - but not before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/11/2021 at 12:47 AM, Sid Nagy said:

We have a royal charade in the Netherlands as well.
This stuff belongs in the fairytales from the Grimm brothers or Hans Christian Andersen not in 21st centuries modern democracies. 

The monarchy from the UK can't be compared to the Dutch one, they are from a total different level, different protocol, different position in state and origin, and different financial statute.

Edited by Alwin Alcott
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 the institution that they represent very much a matter of public interest.

yes, and it depends on where we are/live in the world and our circumstances

if on the passing of Elizabeth, Britain went republic, then Charles would still be King of the Dominions Overseas

and if this ever were to be the case (which I pretty much doubt, as while Charles is not all that popular, William is)

but if it were then I would support the continuation of the monarchy in New Zealand (a Dominion Overseas) where I live

not because I personally want a king/monarch. I want a continuation of the Crown as an institution in my country. Tribal relationships with the general (settler/descendants) population in Aotearoa/New Zealand is governed by Treaty between the native tribes and the Crown. Not between the tribes and the Government

as it is now the Government is a servant of the Crown, and as a servant then it must accede to the demand of the Crown, that treaties between the Crown and the people (tribes) is not within the remit of a servant to change without the consent of the Crown

were New Zealand to become a republic, an elected President being the head, then the settlers/descendants elected representatives thru the power wielded by popular vote, would immediately chuck the Treaty of Waitangi in the bin by majoritarian demand. A majoritarian demand pretty much summed up by: All New Zealanders Matter

Edited by Mollymews
()
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Mollymews said:

were New Zealand to become a republic, an elected President being the head, then the settlers/descendants elected representatives thru the power wielded by popular vote, would immediately chuck the Treaty of Waitangi in the bin by majoritarian demand. A majoritarian demand pretty much summed up by: All New Zealanders Matter

The only reasonable transition strategy from the Crown to a republic government would preserve the existing treaty and any other agreements that are in place and make them standing agreements with any future republic government.  This could be done as part of a binding legal framework of the transition.  There wouldn't have to be a vote on this in the same way there isn't a vote on a lot of things.  It would be a move to keep the existing status quo just without the monarchy.  I doubt any candidate in a republic would get a majority vote on chucking the treaty in the bin after that, we tend to like the existing status quo or something close to it.  If that wasn't the case some radical party would be already gaining huge ground in popularity and seeking some way to tear it all up, Crown or not.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

The monarchy from the UK can't be compared to the Dutch one, they are from a total different level, different protocol, different position in state and origin, and different financial statute.

Of course they are different, thank the force for that. 🤪
The Republic Of The Seven Provinces (big part of the current Netherlands) was the first republic in the western world.
Napoleon Bonaparte made The Netherlands a kingdom again, with his brother as king on the throne.

Our current king is only the seventh ruler in succession from the house of Oranje Nassau.
And we did not make the historical mistake to keep the king/queen head of state of our former colonies (or better the former colonies were smart enough not to chose such a construction).

But no matter what, the British royals are as undemocratic and obsolete as in all the other monarchies in Europe IMHO.

 

Edited by Sid Nagy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sid Nagy said:

the British royals are as undemocratic and obsolete as in all the other monarchies in Europe IMHO.

The British royals (the top ones who are paid) are not obsolete at all. They do plenty of very valuable work for the UK, and they sacrifice a helluva lot for the UK. I wouldn't like the job with its lack of freedom.

Edited by Phil Deakins
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They certainly do good jobs. Our king as well. We are lucky 4 times in a row now.
And the next generation will do fine too in the NL. She seems to be a smart girl.
Our 3 first kings were disastrous though. Especially Willem II and Willem III.

And that is the risk of monarchies, it is not about capacities, but to be born in the right cradle.
No skills whatsoever required.

Even the simplest of jobs need qualifications these days, but not the one of head of state in the UK and the other European kingdoms. That does not feel right IMHO.

 

Edited by Sid Nagy
Adjustments
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Phil Deakins said:

 I wouldn't like the job with its lack of freedom.

Freedom to do what ? Mingle with us? Nip down to Sainsburys and queue for packet of crisps and a bottle of lukewarm coke.

You do realize Prince Philip wanted to be reincarnated as a deadly virus to combat overpopulation. They HATE us.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prince-philip-deadly-virus/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Coffee, but you've started writing some idiotcally stupid posts that cannot be taken even slightly seriously.

Yesterday I wrote something positive about you in a post. I take it back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Sorry Coffee, but you've started writing some idiotcally stupid posts that cannot be taken even slightly seriously.

Yesterday I wrote something positive about you in a post. I take it back.

RESTORED THE BALANCE HAS BEEN - Yoda | Meme Generator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Phil Deakins said:

It's the "and powerful" bit that is nonsense. Where on earth did you get that idea from? Imagination? Assumption? Gutter press?

Depends rather on how you define "powerful," Phil.

No, they don't get to choose the PM anymore. They actually haven't done that since the early 18th century. But they have enormous influence and wealth, and both of those things equate to power in any cultural context. People listen to them (for some reason), and they have money and time to devote to things they care about. Want to compare my social, political, and financial clout with that of the Prince of Wales? Who do you think is more "powerful," of the two of us?

Sometimes the things the royals throw themselves behind are good things. The point is that there is no particular reason, other than an accident of birth, that they should wield that kind of power.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
Coffee. Damn, where is my coffee?
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mollymews said:

were New Zealand to become a republic, an elected President being the head, then the settlers/descendants elected representatives thru the power wielded by popular vote, would immediately chuck the Treaty of Waitangi in the bin by majoritarian demand. A majoritarian demand pretty much summed up by: All New Zealanders Matter

I suppose that a somewhat similar situation pertains to Canada, although that might have changed since we repatriated the British North America Act in the 80s. I'm not sure.

There is no shortage of idiots here who think that our First Nations people get "special treatment" that should be denied them. I guess they want to share around the undrinkable water supplies, terrible unemployment, and high suicide rate? But I think -- I want to think -- that public perception and understanding of the real state of things for our indigenous populations has changed enough in the past 30 years that that is not the majority view.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gabriele Graves said:

The only reasonable transition strategy from the Crown to a republic government would preserve the existing treaty and any other agreements that are in place and make them standing agreements with any future republic government. 

It would be far more complicated than that. Whilst not sure about New Zealand, but insofar as Australia goes it could be its doom.

As of now Australia is a federation under a constitutional monarchy with the Queen as head of state. Should any form of republic happen in Australia the constitution would need to be rewritten thrown out and a new one made to a federated republic of which would give individual, now federated states, the possible ability to remove themselves from the current country of Australia and start there own country. Western Australia and Queensland have been wanting that for decades (since 1920's) so any possibility would be acted on.

The same would apply for any law that requires royal consent that is currently given by the Governor General on behalf of the queen. Any established laws such as crown land etc will be obsolete, irrelevant and subject to abuse. Who would get the crown land? Which state? Will landowners that have a lease agreement with the Crown for 99 years at $1 per year have to renew that and if so for how much?

Maybe Australia is unique but I do believe Canada is the same federation of states therefore may have the same issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No, they don't get to choose the PM anymore.

Oddly enough, they do :)  The people don't elect a Prime Minister. The Queen invites someone to be it. It's just that she doesn't invite anyone other than the leader of the party that won the election. But it's the monarch's choice - literally.

 

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

No, they don't get to choose the PM anymore. They actually haven't done that since the early 18th century. But they have enormous influence and wealth, and both of those things equate to power in any cultural context. People listen to them (for some reason), and they have money and time to devote to things they care about. Want to compare my social, political, and financial clout with that of the Prince of Wales? Who do you think is more "powerful," of the two of us?

Money is irrelevant to power, unless the money can be spent to arrange decisions and, in this case, it can't, so it's irrelevant.

There may be some influence at the very top, but that's just in the form of being listened to, which is very different to what you said - that they are corrupt. They can't make government decisions, or tell the government what to do and what not to do. The monarch alone can invite someone to be Prime Minister, and that's it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Send me all your irrelevant money please.
I don't mind taking care of it.

If it is irrelevant, why are all royal families so keen on the Euro (and the pound sterling in case of the UK)?
They even let their face to be pressed on the coins. So everybody knows where they really belong.

Edited by Sid Nagy
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Phil Deakins said:

Money is irrelevant to power, unless the money can be spent to arrange decisions and, in this case, it can't, so it's irrelevant.

You either have an enormously naive notion of how "power" works, Phil, or you are living in an alternate reality where wealth means nothing more than gold-plated toilets.

I'll ask again -- which of us influences more people? Charles, or me?

And if your answer is the former -- but only because Charles is sooo much more bright and articulate than I am -- I will block and mute you forever.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles does - but NOT because of money. It's because he is listened to by people in government, because of who he is, and you are not. It's nothing to do with money. He is not obeyed by people in government, or he could be corrupt.

I have no idea how bright and articulate you and Charles are Scylla, so I can't judge between you, but I don't mind anyone blocking and muting me. It's not a powerful threat.

You accused the British royal family of being corrupt, Scylla. You were wrong. It's interesting that you haven't even attempted to justify the accusation. Instead you falsely claim that them having money means that they are powerful; i.e. can cause certain government decisions to be made.

You are totally wrong.

Money is only power if it can be used to cause things. In this case it cannot be used in such ways.

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Phil Deakins said:

You accused the British royal family of being corrupt, Scylla.

I'm sorry? Where did I say this?

I said that the royal family had been amassing wealth for centuries at the expense of their nation. That is a simple historical fact. I did not suggest that the current royals or corrupt. (Or, I suppose, that the Tudors, Stuarts, et al. were "corrupt" either, as they simply used the legitimate mechanisms of power at their disposal.) I'd be happy to provide evidence of that, ranging from Henry VIII's despotic behaviour, to Charles II's secret Treaty of Dover with Louis XIV.

I suppose one might argue that Andrew is almost certainly ethically corrupt. But I prefer to think of him as just plain monstrous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OOPS! It wasn't you. It was Coffee. Sorry 🥵

Yes, the Royal family have been amassing wealth for ages past. You did say that they are powerful though, and they are not - not in the way that we would understand that word in this context; i.e. powerful in the way the country is run. They don't have that power - not since King John signed the Magna Carta.

I have no idea what Andrew is, but neither have you. You can think of him as "ethically corrupt" and/or "monstrous" if you like, but it's just you making it up. Neither you nor I have any idea one way or the other.

 

Edited by Phil Deakins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 102 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...