A thought. If Westminster had 3 member constituencies, say 220 of them, with annual elections for one-third, would we be better or worse governed?
A very interesting thought. Not quite chartist, but almost.
It's hard to argue we are particularly well governed with a mass change every 3-5 years on average, but being small c conservative I do worry about a government being able to take a medium term view even if something which might in the long run be popular causes them to lose seats after a year. I don't credit we the public with sufficient foresight on what will end up being good policy. But it would certainly keep them on their toes.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
Things can be anahronistic and still not necessarily need replacing. If we were starting from scratch now would we have it? Probably not. But is it worth replacing the whole thing? No thanks.
I don't know how they count the ballots in multi member wards. How do you put the same ballot into three different piles?
On that note of bafflement, goodnight.
There's a clever though very analogue (i.e. non-digital) solution: you line up all the ballots side by side and overlay them with a grid to keep them tidy, then count the votes for each candidate from left to right.
Sometimes they literally stick the paper onto the countsheet to make sure you keep them aligned. It's a damn sight easier to spot errors now that the people checking them put them into an excel spreadsheet (you need to count the blanks too)
It's a chore when you can have up to 20+ in a single parish ward.
A thought. If Westminster had 3 member constituencies, say 220 of them, with annual elections for one-third, would we be better or worse governed?
Worse. Unless there's a large majority then there'd be little stability so governments would be even less inclined to make unpopular decisions for fear of being kicked out within 12 months.
Yes, although I agree with Lost Password that it's not an obviously democratic solution, it enables government (and councils) to have a fair go at their preferred policies and show how they work out. If they're constantly fighting elections you'll get even more populism and short-termism.
Also, most people aren't as keen on politics as we are. Many voters feel that making a decision every few years is quite enough - then let governments get on with the job while apolitical people pursue other interests.
As previously stated here, I had £600 on UKR to win at 4.8 and sold the bet at 3.55, banking nearly £200. UKR are currently favourites at 2.52. Value or not?
I've been thinking a bit more about this market. If UKR are able to file a team and they win - as expected - it will be a great PUCK FUTIN message. But will it actually affect the outcome of the war? I don't think so.
Ed Sheeran is about to hold a concert in Birmingham in support of UKR and the UKR band Antytila were keen to perform remotely. But they are all currently fighting the war and are soldiers in combat gear and the idea has been turned down by the organisers because of the fact that they are soldiers and the concert organisers state that the concert has "a purely humanitarian purpose".
The current Eurovision UKR entry, Kalush Orchestra, band members are also currently fighting the war. It would probably be a huge PR success if they left battle and attended Eurovision and won the vote. But it might not be possible for them to do so. It won't win them the war and it might be viewed by some voters as the wrong priority choice for them at this moment in time. And if they don't make Eurovision this time and UKR remain as an independent state, they would surely be a shoo in for next year.
So, for now, I'm keeping out of this market.
There's a contingency plan for Ukraine if the act otherwise can't perform. The act was recently in Lviv to film a recorded version of their song so it'll be there regardless.
The same is the case for all performing nations in case of Covid, they can record a video entry. The UK's act was in Bulgaria doing this earlier this week.
That is important and relevant information which I wasn't aware of. Thanks.
A thought. If Westminster had 3 member constituencies, say 220 of them, with annual elections for one-third, would we be better or worse governed?
Worse. Unless there's a large majority then there'd be little stability so governments would be even less inclined to make unpopular decisions for fear of being kicked out within 12 months.
Yes, although I agree with Lost Password that it's not an obviously democratic solution, it enables government (and councils) to have a fair go at their preferred policies and show how they work out. If they're constantly fighting elections you'll get even more populism and short-termism.
Also, most people aren't as keen on politics as we are. Many voters feel that making a decision every few years is quite enough - then let governments get on with the job while apolitical people pursue other interests.
I think we should probably have elections every 3 years like they do in Australia.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
How dare he call them an anachronism! I nearly fell off my penny-farthing when I heard him say it. God Save the King!
A close call, by jove. You could have severely damaged your top hat and morning jacket.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
Things can be anachronistic and still not necessarily need replacing. If we were starting from scratch now would we have it? Probably not. But is it worth replacing the whole thing? No thanks.
What would we throw out with the bath water of that revolution? The very thread that holds all our differences together, unites us in our history, All the lessons learned no matter how hard. The fruits of the dapple. The mercies only being dead in eye of the law. All the lessons thrown away with the history which binds us, leaving us incomplete. A bourgeois hell.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
I have been a republican most of my life but really do respect HMQ
I am not a member of the conservative party anyway and I absolutely do not support your idea of the conservative party
I don't know how they count the ballots in multi member wards. How do you put the same ballot into three different piles?
On that note of bafflement, goodnight.
In my area, they have piles for those who vote the slate for each party (which is most people) and have a separate pile for split votes. They simply count the "vote the slate" votes, tabulate the split votes, and add together. Different returning officers do it differently, but I think that's the most efficient way.
I mean how do we REALLY know that the 100+ dead children aren't cRiSiS aCtOrS
Were those 4 Russian helicopters being shot down on here this morning really from a computer game?
It had a sort of Ukraine government video message stamped on it I thought odd, why would it gratuitously need that? It was created by Russians wasn’t it? So it was a propaganda to try to undermine honest Ukraine message, which mainly feed onto our news as true facts, Ukraine message discredited by Russians with fake message using computer game footage?
It’s got to be going on. I have suspected this all along. fake Russian pretend Ukraine propaganda, to undermine Ukraine giving us the facts. It doesn’t surprise me, firstly, as you would think the Russians would pay dirty truck loads of money to people to do that, whilst the real Ukraines are up their eyebrows in war zone, and a few times when bad news story’s of Russian aggression have come out, the Ukraine government have clarified it to excuse the Russians, so come across as honest to me.
One example was the cars of women and children destroyed on the safe route out of maripole, it did happen, but the Ukraine government said they were actually not on the agreed safe route when butchered by Russians, the other example is when Russia claimed chemical weapon factories, the US said there are no factories, the Ukraine government said yes there are chemicals factories US built with us, but definitely not making weapons. Do you agree with me sometimes the Ukraine government playing it too honest, maybe thinking it’s important for us to trust them?
so it’s fake Russian pretend Ukraine propaganda that could be causing your argument with LuckyMan? It’s obvious now PB are discussing these things to decide what’s true and not. We also need to appreciate, despite &kraine Government Official stamped on it, it’s come from GRU.
It’s hard for lamestream news to back track, so they put this “not yet verified by us message” out a lot now hoping to protect their integrity.
will you agree to meet LuckyMan in the middle and shake hands, as what is news and what is not is a bit hard? 💁♀️
"Lamestream" fucking christ
I knew you wouldn’t agree.
That’s the clear difference between us maybe? You trust everything in old media newspapers and TV, more than you trust coming here to PB, and learning from it questioned and analysed by subject matter experts and put to debate?
Perhaps I've just had 8 years of cretins dismissing the valuable work of journalists as "lamestream media". First it was SNPers, then Corbynites, Brexiters, Trumplettes at the same time, and now Putin apologists.
You calling me a Putin apologist? Eh? You want some? I’ll fight you Farooq.
No, you're the weirder variety, the Putin apologist apologist.
I made a point nothing about the war but about PB being better than old style media. I prefer to get understanding from PB, it gets tested here against different points of view, backgrounds, experiences, speshullisms. The old media is owned and edited by people with a particular bent. I trust it less now as “the valuable work of journalists” than you do. I always liked to cross refer, I recommend it to you. No not in all instances there is good people and stuff you can trust. Not particularly in the papers though, the hacks will hammer Johnson over parties one week, get promotion and pay rise to different organ and earn their living hammering Captain Hindsight instead.
I feel sorry for you Farooq, you get more bitter with every post, sat there with Ukraine flag on both cheeks thinking only you are worthy and unless we don’t hit your level of fervour, we don’t care. We bloody do care. We are battling on for what’s right and meaningful in this world as much as everyone. But You’ve got yourself lost mate, turning on your brothers and sisters and free speech.
I’ll go and pray for you now.
All four cheeks, thank you very much.
I’ll at least give you a few marks out of 10 for the effort achieving that 🙂
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
Things can be anachronistic and still not necessarily need replacing. If we were starting from scratch now would we have it? Probably not. But is it worth replacing the whole thing? No thanks.
What would we throw out with the bath water of that revolution? The very thread that holds all our differences together, unites us in our history, All the lessons learned no matter how hard. The fruits of the dapple. The mercies only being dead in eye of the law. All the lessons thrown away with the history which binds us, leaving us incomplete. A bourgeois hell.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
Things can be anachronistic and still not necessarily need replacing. If we were starting from scratch now would we have it? Probably not. But is it worth replacing the whole thing? No thanks.
What would we throw out with the bath water of that revolution? The very thread that holds all our differences together, unites us in our history, All the lessons learned no matter how hard. The fruits of the dapple. The mercies only being dead in eye of the law. All the lessons thrown away with the history which binds us, leaving us incomplete. A bourgeois hell.
I salute your prose.
I am very drunk you know. I better log out before I post something completely un coming back able. 🥴
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
I have been a republican most of my life but really do respect HMQ
I am not a member of the conservative party anyway and I absolutely do not support your idea of the conservative party
Some bedtime reading for Big G and all PB Republicans
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
Isn't that the idea behind the mandate of heaven? Monarchs lose the favour of God and so lose their position, to be replaced by someone with the favour of God?
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
The British monarch is anointed by God as they are also anointed Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Whether the Jamaicans wish to continue to keep the monarch as their head of state is up to them.
Yes God by the coronation ceremony blesses the transition, as he did when Charles IInd succeeded Charles 1st
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
The British monarch is anointed by God as they are also anointed Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Whether the Jamaicans wish to continue to keep the monarch as their head of state is up to them.
Yes God by the coronation ceremony blesses the transition, as he did when Charles IInd succeeded Charles 1st
Was Oliver Cromwell blessed during the interregnum, and if not, what were the negative consequences for the people as a whole?
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
Isn't that the idea behind the mandate of heaven? Monarchs lose the favour of God and so lose their position, to be replaced by someone with the favour of God?
Gotcha.
So if there were a revolution, and Jeremy Corbyn were anointed Jeremy I (or Gavin, which would be his regnal name), he would therefore be the recipient of God's favor.
Every time I speak to people in Ukraine, they always, always, always ask me to let people in Britain know how grateful they are for your support and the support from the British Government."
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
Isn't that the idea behind the mandate of heaven? Monarchs lose the favour of God and so lose their position, to be replaced by someone with the favour of God?
Gotcha.
So if there were a revolution, and Jeremy Corbyn were anointed Jeremy I (or Gavin, which would be his regnal name), he would therefore be the recipient of God's favor.
No as he would not be a hereditary monarch but a President in all but name
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
The British monarch is anointed by God as they are also anointed Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Whether the Jamaicans wish to continue to keep the monarch as their head of state is up to them.
Yes God by the coronation ceremony blesses the transition, as he did when Charles IInd succeeded Charles 1st
Was Oliver Cromwell blessed during the interregnum, and if not, what were the negative consequences for the people as a whole?
No as we were a republic under Cromwell, hence it needed Charles IInd to restore the line and God's anointment
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
How dare he call them an anachronism! !
2022.
They look wonderful, good idea to send them up to Edinburgh like that too to wind up the Nats!
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
Isn't that the idea behind the mandate of heaven? Monarchs lose the favour of God and so lose their position, to be replaced by someone with the favour of God?
Gotcha.
So if there were a revolution, and Jeremy Corbyn were anointed Jeremy I (or Gavin, which would be his regnal name), he would therefore be the recipient of God's favor.
The Mandate of Heaven is a particularly Chinese idea, distinctly different to the European concept of the Divine Right of Kings. We would have been less likely to have had the persistent divisions of the War of the Roses, or of the Reformation, had we believed in the Mandate of Heaven.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
How dare he call them an anachronism! !
2022.
Yes, it's 2022 - and that Landy still looks classy.
"Once the Americans arrived an unforeseen problem arose: many Britons preferred the African Americans to their white counterparts. Among other things they were freer with their rations and complained less about the plumbing and food. “The general consensus of opinion,” wrote George Orwell in 1943, “seems to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroes.”"
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
The British monarch is anointed by God as they are also anointed Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Whether the Jamaicans wish to continue to keep the monarch as their head of state is up to them.
Yes God by the coronation ceremony blesses the transition, as he did when Charles IInd succeeded Charles 1st
You have some extremely odd beliefs. You are a bit like someone who took communist propaganda - “our beloved leader” - seriously.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1507502555865169927 Czech Defense Minister Jana Chernohova refuses to go to Budapest for Visegrad Four ministerial meeting. "I have always supported V4 and I am very sorry that cheap Russian oil is more important for Hungarian politicians than Ukrainian blood,"–she tweeted @jana_cernochova
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic. You are not going to contradict a PM publicly in their host country.
One thing that hasn't been commented on so much is the growing trend towards Republicanism in the Caribbean seems to be directly correlated with the growing influx of Chinese money and influence into the region.
Of course, if you are China and let's say you wanted to have more political influence over these countries, then having the Queen as Monarch is not in your interests - not only because you want to get one over the British but also because, for countries that still maintain the links and have the position of Governor-General, it means you do not have control over all aspects of that country's politics - far better to have a President whom it is easier to influence.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
Great thread Quincel. Really interesting. Thank you.
Hopefully now that Corbyn has gone Starmer's Labour will regain trust. It may take a while though and there are still hard left anti-semites like Corbyn around. The better Labour do, the more they get winkled out.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder. Have you been diverted from your duties on backing the Russians to now attacking the monarchy?
Some of us might argue that questioning China’s intentions is taking a healthy interest in what’s going on, instead of reading some tired old trope that it means you are a “Sinophobe”.
Anyway, you think that being a republic is a sign of progress and modernity. How quaint.
F1: saw some of practice yesterday. Commentary suggesting Red Bull might be faster on the flowing circuit although the most representative session was a little sotp and start with Magnussen and Tsunoda stopping on-track, and both Ferraris touching the wall which meant an early shower for them.
Also, a suggestion Alfa Romeo's short wheelbase might be less well-suited to high speed Saudi Arabia, but I'll try and keep them in mind for Monaco (not to win, but to do well).
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
How dare he call them an anachronism! !
2022.
Yes, it's 2022 - and that Landy still looks classy.
Ridiculous photo. Absolutely absurd in this day and age.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
[...]
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
Indeed. There is nothing there.
It's an institution for another age, one inhabited I am afraid by a few of our pb posters who live under the illusion of a golden haze: the throwbacks to an era when Britain was considered great and which they thought they would spirit back when they voted Brexit.
Their generation is dying out and so is the monarchy.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
What I can’t understand is why you are posting replies on PB.com at 5:30am on a Saturday morning. Most respectable PB.comets are recovering from the Friday night * Anyway, you haven’t been posting that long and you are up to nearly 1800 posts.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
What I can’t understand is why you are posting replies on PB.com at 5:30am on a Saturday morning. Most respectable PB.comets are recovering from the Friday night * Anyway, you haven’t been posting that long and you are up to nearly 1800 posts.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
What I can’t understand is why you are posting replies on PB.com at 5:30am on a Saturday morning. Most respectable PB.comets are recovering from the Friday night * Anyway, you haven’t been posting that long and you are up to nearly 1800 posts.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
What I can’t understand is why you are posting replies on PB.com at 5:30am on a Saturday morning. Most respectable PB.comets are recovering from the Friday night *
Like this site's founder Mike Smithson I don't drink alcohol. I don't see anything respectable in those who drink alcohol: all I see is aggression and anger.
I don't stay up late and if you bothered to know anything about me (instead of childishly calling me a troll because you're not capable of debating the issues) you would know that my lifestyle is about getting more nature-based. That means I go to bed closer to when the sun sets and rise when it does.
I also don't engage with any news outlets at all after my morning catch-up.
Yes, I'm an alternative voice. But one which is increasingly resonant with where so many in the world are turning.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
What I can’t understand is why you are posting replies on PB.com at 5:30am on a Saturday morning. Most respectable PB.comets are recovering from the Friday night * Anyway, you haven’t been posting that long and you are up to nearly 1800 posts.
Anyway I shall head out for the day and leave you Ok Boomers and Gammons to your cosy little white male club. Pat yourselves on the back, argue with each other but above all make sure you call out any alternative perspective as a troll. Like one another's posts and stay as safe as you possibly can inside your echo chamber.
Outside the world is turning. No wonder you are so embittered so much of the time.
To the minority on here who have brains and capacity to think outside the box: good on you. Illegitimi non carborundum.
Good morning everybody. I'm neither a Boomer nor a Gammon, I think/hope, but as posted yesterday I do like a nice glass of wine. Or beer. In a social setting, and by no means to excess.
So if Mr/Ms Heathener has gone for the day I'm quite pleased; we do need a range of views, although it's much more better if they are expressed reasonably courteously and moderately.
What is important, I think, is Mr Dickson's post at 10 or so minutes ago.The only area where the YG/Times poll has consistently shown a good Con share has been the Midlands & Wales; if previously Con voters in that area are much less likely to vote that might suggest that the 'lead' is more apparent than real.
And from my personal standpoint, ten years isn't long in the grand scheme of things!
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
What I can’t understand is why you are posting replies on PB.com at 5:30am on a Saturday morning. Most respectable PB.comets are recovering from the Friday night * Anyway, you haven’t been posting that long and you are up to nearly 1800 posts.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
What I can’t understand is why you are posting replies on PB.com at 5:30am on a Saturday morning. Most respectable PB.comets are recovering from the Friday night *
Like this site's founder Mike Smithson I don't drink alcohol. I don't see anything respectable in those who drink alcohol: all I see is aggression and anger.
I don't stay up late and if you bothered to know anything about me (instead of childishly calling me a troll because you're not capable of debating the issues) you would know that my lifestyle is about getting more nature-based. That means I go to bed closer to when the sun sets and rise when it does.
I also don't engage with any news outlets at all after my morning catch-up.
Yes, I'm an alternative voice. But one which is increasingly resonant with where so many in the world are turning.
"Once the Americans arrived an unforeseen problem arose: many Britons preferred the African Americans to their white counterparts. Among other things they were freer with their rations and complained less about the plumbing and food. “The general consensus of opinion,” wrote George Orwell in 1943, “seems to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroes.”"
"Once the Americans arrived an unforeseen problem arose: many Britons preferred the African Americans to their white counterparts. Among other things they were freer with their rations and complained less about the plumbing and food. “The general consensus of opinion,” wrote George Orwell in 1943, “seems to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroes.”"
It's an interesting read, I like Gary Younge's writing a lot.
There was a Neville Shute novel, I think the first I read, which had the preference of the British for Afro-American over white American servicemen as a significant part of the plot.
"Once the Americans arrived an unforeseen problem arose: many Britons preferred the African Americans to their white counterparts. Among other things they were freer with their rations and complained less about the plumbing and food. “The general consensus of opinion,” wrote George Orwell in 1943, “seems to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroes.”"
It's an interesting read, I like Gary Younge's writing a lot.
There was a Neville Shute novel, I think the first I read, which had the preference of the British for Afro-American over white American servicemen as a significant part of the plot.
"Once the Americans arrived an unforeseen problem arose: many Britons preferred the African Americans to their white counterparts. Among other things they were freer with their rations and complained less about the plumbing and food. “The general consensus of opinion,” wrote George Orwell in 1943, “seems to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroes.”"
It's an interesting read, I like Gary Younge's writing a lot.
There was a Neville Shute novel, I think the first I read, which had the preference of the British for Afro-American over white American servicemen as a significant part of the plot.
The Chequer Board.
Obliged. Also included an RAF pilot who, shot down over Burma, ended up married to a local girl.
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
It's called being diplomatic.
It is but that doesn't alter the truth of MikeL's comments.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Oh God, another Pb.com intruder.
I've been on here quite a while, and I'm sorry to drop a pebble into the quiet pond of your own complacency.
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
Rubbish, 61% of British voters still back the monarchy.
Most of the Commonwealth severed the link with the British Head of State during the Queen's reign anyway
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left. He was not a slave trader like Colston who was, for example, deputy governor of the Royal African Company
F1: saw some of practice yesterday. Commentary suggesting Red Bull might be faster on the flowing circuit although the most representative session was a little sotp and start with Magnussen and Tsunoda stopping on-track, and both Ferraris touching the wall which meant an early shower for them.
Also, a suggestion Alfa Romeo's short wheelbase might be less well-suited to high speed Saudi Arabia, but I'll try and keep them in mind for Monaco (not to win, but to do well).
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
I always like to raise “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” with "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (faulkner). With slavery the latter is true: the causal nexus between what Rustat did in the 1600s and what happened to George Floyd is absolutely solid.
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
Most of the large companies on the Stock Exchange in the 17th century would have had some investment in slavery and the slave trade.
It was not the Church's argument as such, Justin Welby backed removing the memorial but the argument of the Judge at the Church Court. It was a sound one as Rustat was not a slave trader
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
The argument is, and it's one to which I subscribe, that whether or not one's 'specific' ancestors were actually engaged in the horrific practices, most people in the country benefited from, for example, cheap sugar, rum and cotton. In the latter case of course it provided both clothing and employment. Mrs C's ancestors might, in the 1860's have protested about the use of slave-produced cotton, but a couple of generations earlier it provided employment. It's complicated of course; if the landowners hadn't Enclosed formerly common land, then those who formerly worked that land wouldn't have needed to go into the mills.
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
At peak slave trade, it amounted to about 12% gdp. In a massively agrarian economy they is pretty much everything which isn't farming. It is therefore quite likely that Rustat was say 10% slaves 90% landowner
Mind you HYUFD s claim doesn't excuse anything it just spreads the blame more widely
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
I always like to raise “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” with "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (faulkner). With slavery the latter is true: the causal nexus between what Rustat did in the 1600s and what happened to George Floyd is absolutely solid.
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
IIRC - and early modern history is not my strong point - although Henry VIII made some tentative moves on slave trading it was Elizabeth I who established it as a major economic concern. Hence the 'Royal' part. One of the key people involved was Drake.
Are there any movements afoot to remove statues of Drake and Elizabeth? If not, is it just because these people don't know, that they don't care, or that they're looking to cause trouble and embarrassment to current institutions for political reasons now than actually debate the past in a meaningful way?
TBF, I'm not a big fan of iconoclasm perpetrated by AFAICS mostly white muppets with violent tendencies anyway.
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
Most of the large companies on the Stock Exchange in the 17th century would have had some investment in slavery and the slave trade.
It was not the Church's argument as such, Justin Welby backed removing the memorial but the argument of the Judge at the Church Court. It was a sound one as Rustat was not a slave trader
You seem to be making the opposite argument to the one in the church court judgment. They are saying he had great wealth but most of it was unconnected to slavery, you are saying that all wealth at the time was connected to slavery. You can't both be right.
Every time I speak to people in Ukraine, they always, always, always ask me to let people in Britain know how grateful they are for your support and the support from the British Government."
Is there a north south divide in Europe? Between us, Scandinavia, the Baltics and Poland on one side as the hawks and the rest as the doves? Not sure if all the scandis could be ascribed as hawks?
Hungary is a funny one. I notice Austria isn't in Nato either. Is this some sort of post imperial funk? Are Hungarians really on Putin's side vs Ukraine?
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
At peak slave trade, it amounted to about 12% gdp. In a massively agrarian economy they is pretty much everything which isn't farming. It is therefore quite likely that Rustat was say 10% slaves 90% landowner
Mind you HYUFD s claim doesn't excuse anything it just spreads the blame more widely
One corollary of those statistics is that Britain took a voluntary hit of 12% GDP in ending slavery and the slave trade. The country did the right thing — eventually! — knowing the cost.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
Why would he? That would be to take sides in a political debate and undermine the role of the monarchy. It’s up to the people of Jamaica to make their decision
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
The argument is, and it's one to which I subscribe, that whether or not one's 'specific' ancestors were actually engaged in the horrific practices, most people in the country benefited from, for example, cheap sugar, rum and cotton. In the latter case of course it provided both clothing and employment. Mrs C's ancestors might, in the 1860's have protested about the use of slave-produced cotton, but a couple of generations earlier it provided employment. It's complicated of course; if the landowners hadn't Enclosed formerly common land, then those who formerly worked that land wouldn't have needed to go into the mills.
Edit: massive over-simplification, I realise.
Not sure what it has to do with anybody's ancestors in this case? It's about removing a memorial to a specific slave trader in Jesus College Chapel and putting it somewhere else in the college.
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
At peak slave trade, it amounted to about 12% gdp. In a massively agrarian economy they is pretty much everything which isn't farming. It is therefore quite likely that Rustat was say 10% slaves 90% landowner
Mind you HYUFD s claim doesn't excuse anything it just spreads the blame more widely
One corollary of those statistics is that Britain took a voluntary hit of 12% GDP in ending slavery and the slave trade. The country did the right thing — eventually! — knowing the cost.
The other way of looking at it is that by that stage the economy was sufficiently well established and diversified that ending the trade wasn't going to make much difference - particularly as slavery elsewhere continued to underpin large sections of the British economy until 1865.
Meanwhile, it struck a far more damaging blow to France.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
I always like to raise “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” with "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (faulkner). With slavery the latter is true: the causal nexus between what Rustat did in the 1600s and what happened to George Floyd is absolutely solid.
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
It's about moving a memorial to a slave trader from the chapel to another part of the college.
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
I always like to raise “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” with "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (faulkner). With slavery the latter is true: the causal nexus between what Rustat did in the 1600s and what happened to George Floyd is absolutely solid.
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
IIRC - and early modern history is not my strong point - although Henry VIII made some tentative moves on slave trading it was Elizabeth I who established it as a major economic concern. Hence the 'Royal' part. One of the key people involved was Drake.
Are there any movements afoot to remove statues of Drake and Elizabeth? If not, is it just because these people don't know, that they don't care, or that they're looking to cause trouble and embarrassment to current institutions for political reasons now than actually debate the past in a meaningful way?
TBF, I'm not a big fan of iconoclasm perpetrated by AFAICS mostly white muppets with violent tendencies anyway.
Yeah they had a pop at Drake in Tavistock. I muddied the waters by pointing out that he was a shit in other ways too, look at Rathlyn Island. Now they are putting up a board to explain everything next to the statue
My main concern was James 2 who was the boss of the Bristol chap and has a fine statchoo by the national gallery
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
I always like to raise “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” with "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (faulkner). With slavery the latter is true: the causal nexus between what Rustat did in the 1600s and what happened to George Floyd is absolutely solid.
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
IIRC - and early modern history is not my strong point - although Henry VIII made some tentative moves on slave trading it was Elizabeth I who established it as a major economic concern. Hence the 'Royal' part. One of the key people involved was Drake.
Are there any movements afoot to remove statues of Drake and Elizabeth? If not, is it just because these people don't know, that they don't care, or that they're looking to cause trouble and embarrassment to current institutions for political reasons now than actually debate the past in a meaningful way?
TBF, I'm not a big fan of iconoclasm perpetrated by AFAICS mostly white muppets with violent tendencies anyway.
Yeah they had a pop at Drake in Tavistock. I muddied the waters by pointing out that he was a shit in other ways too, look at Rathlyn Island. Now they are putting up a board to explain everything next to the statue
My main concern was James 2 who was the boss of the Bristol chap and has a fine statchoo by the national gallery
Perhaps we could compromise and remove him on the grounds he was a coward who deserted his post?
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
At peak slave trade, it amounted to about 12% gdp. In a massively agrarian economy they is pretty much everything which isn't farming. It is therefore quite likely that Rustat was say 10% slaves 90% landowner
Mind you HYUFD s claim doesn't excuse anything it just spreads the blame more widely
One corollary of those statistics is that Britain took a voluntary hit of 12% GDP in ending slavery and the slave trade. The country did the right thing — eventually! — knowing the cost.
Really? Ending the slave trade was a 12% hit to British GDP? Doesn't sound right
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
Most of the large companies on the Stock Exchange in the 17th century would have had some investment in slavery and the slave trade.
It was not the Church's argument as such, Justin Welby backed removing the memorial but the argument of the Judge at the Church Court. It was a sound one as Rustat was not a slave trader
You seem to be making the opposite argument to the one in the church court judgment. They are saying he had great wealth but most of it was unconnected to slavery, you are saying that all wealth at the time was connected to slavery. You can't both be right.
When the Jamaican PM said it was going to become a Republic, William just stood there and said nothing.
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
No, he correctly made clear it is a decision for Jamaicans.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
Wait.
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
Obligatory Terry Pratchett quote: "The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy", according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: "you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably", he said, "there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queeons -- that do the job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon."
His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expounded because, at that point, the bar closed.
I think the writing is on the wall. By the time they succeed dear old Katie is going to look like the desiccated mummy of Cruella de Ville, baldy is going to turn into fat Old Baldy, and the more they mishandle the whole piccaninny thang, the more shutting out (the admittedly ghastly) Meghan is going to look like a terrible mistake.
Some of the pictures were embarrassing and shameful and really did the royal family no favours
I have long been of the opinion that once HMQ goes so most countries will separate from the monarchy
It is becoming an anachronism
Whaaaaaaaaaat rubbish!
Anachronism? Why compare it to spiders?
Who are we as a people, as a nation? What direction do we want to go? Sure there comes a time when the most fundamental questions need to be addressed, no matter how challenging. Where One needs ones heart to follow an idea, it is the monarchy that is already bringing us together. Holding us together. A monarchy to unite Our colours, Our Faiths, our principles. Before us now is our future, a wider road upon which we seek one another in our aloneness, and we walk the road when we have no hearth to sit beside. Where we will live upon one another according to the law, ancient and timeless, and thus live together in loving kindness. A path To cross the divides of neighbourhoods. A way shared by all Cultures and religion. Our monarchy is that opening, an opportunity To Walk rough shod over the divide between us, as nations, and as people’s. When you are Venturing forth together into unknown territory. You cannot be an adventurer without an unknown to explore. Each and every one of us venturing now into a new landscape, we can only be guided by our hearts, our love, our faith. The monarchy let’s all hearts join with ours, it’s never been more relevant.
How BigG can call our beloved royal family an anachronism and still pretend he is a Tory is beyond me!!
How dare he call them an anachronism! !
2022.
Yes, it's 2022 - and that Landy still looks classy.
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
I always like to raise “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” with "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (faulkner). With slavery the latter is true: the causal nexus between what Rustat did in the 1600s and what happened to George Floyd is absolutely solid.
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
IIRC - and early modern history is not my strong point - although Henry VIII made some tentative moves on slave trading it was Elizabeth I who established it as a major economic concern. Hence the 'Royal' part. One of the key people involved was Drake.
Are there any movements afoot to remove statues of Drake and Elizabeth? If not, is it just because these people don't know, that they don't care, or that they're looking to cause trouble and embarrassment to current institutions for political reasons now than actually debate the past in a meaningful way?
TBF, I'm not a big fan of iconoclasm perpetrated by AFAICS mostly white muppets with violent tendencies anyway.
Is the master of Jesus College a white muppet? Moving something to a place where it can actually be given more context is also hardly "iconoclasm" - thought I don't think this guy should be any kind of icon if that is what mean.
Do you realise for the first time in history there is not a single white man in any of the 3 great offices of state outside the pm...an Asian man, an Asian woman and a white woman...if the proponents of diversity are correct this should be the greatest govt ever...
Depends what people are proponing about it I suppose. It is a diverse government, way more than someone just trying to make token appointments, but I don't know why anyone would think diversity in itself would lead to quality, incompetence knows no ethnicity or gender after all.
It is full of crap. Who cares what colour or sex they are when they are talentless , unprincipled donkeys at best.
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Given almost anyone with any capital at all in the 17th century would have invested in a company with some connection to the slave trade, sound decision by the Church of England Court.
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left.
Source for your claime? I'm not sure how that tallies with the church's own argument that investments in slavery were only an insignificant part of Rustat's "great wealth".
Most of the large companies on the Stock Exchange in the 17th century would have had some investment in slavery and the slave trade.
It was not the Church's argument as such, Justin Welby backed removing the memorial but the argument of the Judge at the Church Court. It was a sound one as Rustat was not a slave trader
You seem to be making the opposite argument to the one in the church court judgment. They are saying he had great wealth but most of it was unconnected to slavery, you are saying that all wealth at the time was connected to slavery. You can't both be right.
All non agrarian wealth was connected to slavery
Was there no money in eg trading other things?
And weren't there any wealthy people who invested their wealth only in agrarian stuff?
The decision by the church of England Court to refuse Jesus College (Cambridge) request to remove a memorial to a slave trader from its chapel is a gem
"The true position, as set out in the historians’ expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691, some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P. Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods, or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
I always like to raise “The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.” with "The past is never dead. It's not even past" (faulkner). With slavery the latter is true: the causal nexus between what Rustat did in the 1600s and what happened to George Floyd is absolutely solid.
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
IIRC - and early modern history is not my strong point - although Henry VIII made some tentative moves on slave trading it was Elizabeth I who established it as a major economic concern. Hence the 'Royal' part. One of the key people involved was Drake.
Are there any movements afoot to remove statues of Drake and Elizabeth? If not, is it just because these people don't know, that they don't care, or that they're looking to cause trouble and embarrassment to current institutions for political reasons now than actually debate the past in a meaningful way?
TBF, I'm not a big fan of iconoclasm perpetrated by AFAICS mostly white muppets with violent tendencies anyway.
Yeah they had a pop at Drake in Tavistock. I muddied the waters by pointing out that he was a shit in other ways too, look at Rathlyn Island. Now they are putting up a board to explain everything next to the statue
My main concern was James 2 who was the boss of the Bristol chap and has a fine statchoo by the national gallery
Perhaps we could compromise and remove him on the grounds he was a coward who deserted his post?
I see Rustat and James were both Grinling Gibbons. This makes GG parasitic on the slave trade so should we cancel all his stuff too?
Comments
But betting opportunities!!!
It's a chore when you can have up to 20+ in a single parish ward.
Also, most people aren't as keen on politics as we are. Many voters feel that making a decision every few years is quite enough - then let governments get on with the job while apolitical people pursue other interests.
I am not a member of the conservative party anyway and I absolutely do not support your idea of the conservative party
Well if there was a good reason for it remaining a Monarchy wouldn't William have said what it was?
Surely if anyone could think of a reason it would be William? After all he's almost 40 and has spent his whole life preparing to do the job and even he can't think of any positive reason for it?
What a total and utter farce. When someone actually bothers to challenge it it's immediately obvious that there's nothing there.
However as any true monarchist knows, the monarch gets their post on a hereditary basis by grace of God. So they have no need to do anything so vulgar as to sell themselves to the public.
That is politicians job. We have a ceremonial monarch as head of state precisely to stop party politicians doing it
For free
https://i.4pcdn.org/tg/1614284574827.pdf
I don’t expect any thanks. My mission is merely to help you all find your own way
Is is a decision for the Jamaicans, or for God? And how does it work when one King is (say) beheaded or exiled, and replaced by another? Does God bless the "transition"?
Yes God by the coronation ceremony blesses the transition, as he did when Charles IInd succeeded Charles 1st
SKS fans please explain why he’s going forwards
So if there were a revolution, and Jeremy Corbyn were anointed Jeremy I (or Gavin, which would be his regnal name), he would therefore be the recipient of God's favor.
Every time I speak to people in Ukraine, they always, always, always ask me to let people in Britain know how grateful they are for your support and the support from the British Government."
https://twitter.com/KonstantinKisin/status/1507488270279749634
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-60882753
Sale of our defence crown jewels is madness in the face of Russian aggression
Selling off important infrastructure weakens our ability to protect ourselves from hostile powers
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/03/25/letting-defence-crown-jewels-sold-madness-face-russian-aggression/ (£££)
"Once the Americans arrived an unforeseen problem arose: many Britons preferred the African Americans to their white counterparts. Among other things they were freer with their rations and complained less about the plumbing and food. “The general consensus of opinion,” wrote George Orwell in 1943, “seems to be that the only American soldiers with decent manners are the Negroes.”"
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/a-dream-of-britain/2022/03/what-does-it-mean-to-be-british
You are a bit like someone who took communist propaganda - “our beloved leader” - seriously.
https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1507502555865169927
Czech Defense Minister Jana Chernohova refuses to go to Budapest for Visegrad Four ministerial meeting.
"I have always supported V4 and I am very sorry that cheap Russian oil is more important for Hungarian politicians than Ukrainian blood,"–she tweeted
@jana_cernochova
https://twitter.com/ObsoleteDogma/status/1507201286827032579
One thing that hasn't been commented on so much is the growing trend towards Republicanism in the Caribbean seems to be directly correlated with the growing influx of Chinese money and influence into the region.
Of course, if you are China and let's say you wanted to have more political influence over these countries, then having the Queen as Monarch is not in your interests - not only because you want to get one over the British but also because, for countries that still maintain the links and have the position of Governor-General, it means you do not have control over all aspects of that country's politics - far better to have a President whom it is easier to influence.
Now, this may be coincidence. I suspect not.
It has nothing to do with China and please spare us your Sinophobia. Ous monarchy is ridiculous in a modern world: a throwback to something the majority of people beyond the Daily Mail's quota of old white fogeys no longer want.
When HMQ dies there will be big changes. She's a great lady and has done sterling service.
But the institution is a farce.
Hopefully now that Corbyn has gone Starmer's Labour will regain trust. It may take a while though and there are still hard left anti-semites like Corbyn around. The better Labour do, the more they get winkled out.
Some of us might argue that questioning China’s intentions is taking a healthy interest in what’s going on, instead of reading some tired old trope that it means you are a “Sinophobe”.
Anyway, you think that being a republic is a sign of progress and modernity. How quaint.
F1: saw some of practice yesterday. Commentary suggesting Red Bull might be faster on the flowing circuit although the most representative session was a little sotp and start with Magnussen and Tsunoda stopping on-track, and both Ferraris touching the wall which meant an early shower for them.
Also, a suggestion Alfa Romeo's short wheelbase might be less well-suited to high speed Saudi Arabia, but I'll try and keep them in mind for Monaco (not to win, but to do well).
After HMQ goes the monarchy is finished unless is undergoes a massive reformation. And that's just for the UK. After her, countries with historic ties to Britain's colonial past will thankfully sever the monarchic link.
I don't think republicanism is particularly brilliant but it's a lot better than the nonsense of this decaying British monarchy.
Anyway, thankfully whatever you and I think is irrelevant. Princes Andrew, Charles and Harry-Meghan are doing the self-destruction of the monarchy for us.
It's an institution for another age, one inhabited I am afraid by a few of our pb posters who live under the illusion of a golden haze: the throwbacks to an era when Britain was considered great and which they thought they would spirit back when they voted Brexit.
Their generation is dying out and so is the monarchy.
"The public is turning on the shambolic Tories.
Voters are looking at Rishi Sunak’s chaotic mini-Budget and concluding: the party stands for nothing at all"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/03/25/public-turning-shambolic-tories/
* I’m in LA so it’s Friday night for me.
I don't stay up late and if you bothered to know anything about me (instead of childishly calling me a troll because you're not capable of debating the issues) you would know that my lifestyle is about getting more nature-based. That means I go to bed closer to when the sun sets and rise when it does.
I also don't engage with any news outlets at all after my morning catch-up.
Yes, I'm an alternative voice. But one which is increasingly resonant with where so many in the world are turning.
Outside the world is turning. No wonder you are so embittered so much of the time.
To the minority on here who have brains and capacity to think outside the box: good on you. Illegitimi non carborundum.
Absolutely certain to vote:
Scotland 62%
North 55%
London 52%
Rest of South 52%
Midlands and Wales 47%
Absolutely certain to vote:
Remain voters 65%
Leave voters 53%
Absolutely certain to vote:
LD 2019 voters 69%
Lab 2019 voters 68%
Con 2019 voters 57%
(YG/The Times; 23-24 March; 1,759)
Oh sorry, did you mean the locals?
So if Mr/Ms Heathener has gone for the day I'm quite pleased; we do need a range of views, although it's much more better if they are expressed reasonably courteously and moderately.
What is important, I think, is Mr Dickson's post at 10 or so minutes ago.The only area where the YG/Times poll has consistently shown a good Con share has been the Midlands & Wales; if previously Con voters in that area are much less likely to vote that might suggest that the 'lead' is more apparent than real.
And from my personal standpoint, ten years isn't long in the grand scheme of things!
LOL , yeah whatever
"The true position, as set out in the historians’
expert reports and their joint statement, is that Rustat’s investments in the Company of Royal
Adventurers Trading into Africa (the Royal Adventurers) brought him no financial returns
at all; that Rustat only realised his investments in the Royal African Company in May 1691,
some 20 years after he had made his gifts to the College, and some five years after the
completion of the Rustat memorial and its inscription; and that any moneys Rustat did realise
as a result of his involvement in the slave trade comprised only a small part of his great
wealth, and they made no contribution to his gifts to the College."
It's ok so many of the slaves he "invested" in died en route that he didn't really make much money from it during his lifetime.
And
" I recognise also that it does not excuse Rustat’s
involvement in the slave trade, although it may help to explain it, that, in the words of L. P.
Hartley (in his 1953 novel, The Go-Between), “The past is a foreign country: they do things
differently there.”
I'm sure the slaves themselves were fine with it for that very reason.
And the classic:
"... buying certain clothes or other consumer goods,
or eating certain foods, or investing in the companies that produce them, we are ourselves
contributing to, or supporting, conditions akin to modern slavery, or to the degradation and
impoverishment of our planet."
As Jesus said: Let he who has never eaten anything be the first to ask us not commemorate a slave trader
Most of the Commonwealth severed the link with the British Head of State during the Queen's reign anyway
https://www.statista.com/statistics/863893/support-for-the-monarchy-in-britain-by-age/
Otherwise there would be virtually no memorials to 17th century figures left. He was not a slave trader like Colston who was, for example, deputy governor of the Royal African Company
There's a lot in HYUFD's point, though. The Royal African Company was called Royal for a reason. We did this as a nation, and we can hardly, cancel a whole century
It was not the Church's argument as such, Justin Welby backed removing the memorial but the argument of the Judge at the Church Court. It was a sound one as Rustat was not a slave trader
Mrs C's ancestors might, in the 1860's have protested about the use of slave-produced cotton, but a couple of generations earlier it provided employment.
It's complicated of course; if the landowners hadn't Enclosed formerly common land, then those who formerly worked that land wouldn't have needed to go into the mills.
Edit: massive over-simplification, I realise.
Mind you HYUFD s claim doesn't excuse anything it just spreads the blame more widely
Are there any movements afoot to remove statues of Drake and Elizabeth? If not, is it just because these people don't know, that they don't care, or that they're looking to cause trouble and embarrassment to current institutions for political reasons now than actually debate the past in a meaningful way?
TBF, I'm not a big fan of iconoclasm perpetrated by AFAICS mostly white muppets with violent tendencies anyway.
Hungary is a funny one. I notice Austria isn't in Nato either. Is this some sort of post imperial funk? Are Hungarians really on Putin's side vs Ukraine?
Possibly the booze was doing the confusing there.
Meanwhile, it struck a far more damaging blow to France.
It seems my comments on the royal family last night triggered @HYUFD into a fierce debate which looks to have carried on into this morning
As I said last night I have been a republican most of my life but of recent times have had nothing but praise and admiration for HMQ but it has become an anachronism and the media coverage of William and Kate talking to children contained behind a wire fence and standing on the back of a land rover waving at the people gives credence to it
80% of my 78 years have been lived in Scotland and Wales and maybe I just do not get this Queen appointed by God and we are subservient to their position and must bow when meeting them etc
I am content for Charles to be king and William and Kate to succeed him but they do need to modernise and accept attitudes change
I give William full marks when he told the Caribbean nations that he will support any decisions to become republics and it is unthinkable that Australia, NZ, or Canada will continue indefinitely to have our monarch as their head of state
We are in a rapidly changing world and only those who accept change and even welcome it will survive
https://news.sky.com/story/prince-william-tells-caribbean-nations-that-any-decisions-to-become-republics-will-be-supported-12575266
My main concern was James 2 who was the boss of the Bristol chap and has a fine statchoo by the national gallery
"The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy", according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: "you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably", he said, "there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queeons -- that do the job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon."
His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expounded because, at that point, the bar closed.
And weren't there any wealthy people who invested their wealth only in agrarian stuff?