On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
I agree with every part of that post. In principle I am a Republican, but I don't have much of an issue with the monarchy, so when I become our benign dictator getting rid of the monarchy will be so low on the to do list it won't happen. However if @hyufd keeps coming out with his nonsense it will start creeping up the to do list rapidly.
Disestablishing the church will be high up on the list. I don't have any problem with people following some mythical god, but that is a choice that should not impact other's lives.
Yes but you are a left liberal so no surprise that is on your agenda
Well I am not left. In fact I am to the right of you on many many things. But I am liberal because I believe in freedom of the individual and not have stuff imposed on them as you seem to want.
That meaning of “Liberal” seems to be joining “literal” in becoming archaic, while the word is used by many to mean the opposite.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
Our media has its biases, too, remember.
Differently how? Even more of a disaster, or they think it went well?
Lots of people twisting themselves in knots to defend what I think is a fairly bad decision by the church court, which was made with laughable justifications.
"white muppets" wrong "everyone was at it" not everyone "we'd have to cancel a whole century" no we wouldn't
Just have a look at the case itself, and read the judgment itself.
My point is not to justify it because everyone was at it, quite the reverse. But it was a *national* enterprise, it is what we as a country fundamentally did. It therfore seems a bit pointless to pick off arbitrary individuals.
I still don’t understand why there isn’t a national monument to Britain’s part in slavery and the slave trade (though I have suspicions verging on certainties).
If by some accident of history and geography the UK had been responsible for the Holocaust, all the people who had stolen Jewish property and moved into houses vacated by deported Jews would have been financially compensated, the British Armed forces would have flip flopped to roaming Europe to prevent pogroms and been held up as a virtuous ideal, the Royals would be dispatched to patronise the denuded shtetls of the east, and instead of a huge memorial to the attempted extermination of a race in our capital city there would be a few blue plaques.
Hasn't happened with Germany. My wife's great grandparents were driven out of their home in Munich by the Nazis. A Nazi seized the (sizeable) house and all of the possessions, including sketches by Edvard Munch. Said Nazis descendants still live there and enjoy all possessions.
That's shocking. I thought that German legislation gave a clear route to recovering property seized by Nazis?
I agree with Ishmael that we've never properly confronted our role - if anything, we see ourselves as the good guys who got rid of slavery. And so we were, eventually, but it's like overlooking Hitler because of Willi Brandt.
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
Nevermind cancelling a whole century. Maybe we should just cancel our whole country. Or cancel the whole of civilisation, because the reality is that it is all built on slavery of various forms.
The whole thing is pathetic and tragic.
All civilisation in the west, surely? It derives from classical Hellenism and that was built on slavery.
Arab civilisation would have to go too as much of that and the Ottoman Empire was also built on slavery.
Don't forget either the Aztecs had slaves, so that leaves Mexico with a lot of issues.
Brexit thinking did have a strand of "You lot have had it too easy in Europe, Britain needs the economic equivalent of a cold shower followed by a cross-country run. You'll hate it at the time, but it will be worth it when you're fit, buff and can pull Natalie Imbruglia."
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
Shaking hands with black children through a chain linkfence too. Ouch!
No-one seems to be thinking "how will this look when it's photographed and filmed?"
Presumably it wasn't planned. Presumably the Cambridge's saw the children and decided to go over to them.
I actually have a lot of respect for the Cambridge's for not giving a flying fuck about "optics" in such situations.
Agreed - all this pearl clutching and faux outrage is nauseating.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
Our media has its biases, too, remember.
Differently how? Even more of a disaster, or they think it went well?
Significantly worse, it seems. When it comes to reporting royal stuff I am not convinced we can rely on our print media to give a balanced account.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
I agree with every part of that post. In principle I am a Republican, but I don't have much of an issue with the monarchy, so when I become our benign dictator getting rid of the monarchy will be so low on the to do list it won't happen. However if @hyufd keeps coming out with his nonsense it will start creeping up the to do list rapidly.
Disestablishing the church will be high up on the list. I don't have any problem with people following some mythical god, but that is a choice that should not impact other's lives.
Yes but you are a left liberal so no surprise that is on your agenda
Well I am not left. In fact I am to the right of you on many many things. But I am liberal because I believe in freedom of the individual and not have stuff imposed on them as you seem to want.
That meaning of “Liberal” seems to be joining “literal” in becoming archaic, while the word is used by many to mean the opposite.
Yes. I have commented before numerous times of specific Tory policies that smack of state control and dare I say socialism.
Brexit thinking did have a strand of "You lot have had it too easy in Europe, Britain needs the economic equivalent of a cold shower followed by a cross-country run. You'll hate it at the time, but it will be worth it when you're fit, buff and can pull Natalie Imbruglia."
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
Our media has its biases, too, remember.
Differently how? Even more of a disaster, or they think it went well?
There’s this thing called Google. I just checked the website of Jamaica’s leading newspaper
The Royal tour is notable by its low profile; the first story is buried under the sport, and reports of crime and inflation:
‘Wisdom in Trench Town's warm reception of royal visitors’
@oleksiireznikov For the 1st time, meeting in 2+2 format. With @DmytroKuleba we discuss current issues & cooperation in political & defense directions between 🇺🇦-🇺🇸 with @SecDef & @SecBlinken. In the evening we’ll also be present at @POTUS speech on the russian war against Ukraine. Details later.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
I think the truth is that young William is still learning on the job.
He has been doing it a while, he is nearly 40.
A lot of the problem with the monarchy is not so much the individuals, flawed as they are, but the obsequious funkiest around the household. The archaic protocols and stuffy orders of precedence pander to the worst of the Royal individuals.
I note a murmur on twitter that the current clusterfuck of royal pr is down to all the ‘good’ advisors being got rid of in 2017. I was unaware of this cull but I’m not sure that the huge, ramshackle Firm of Windsor can be marketed into relevance, nor if it’s all worth it just to prevent the supposed horror of an elected head of state.
Even when that head of state is Johnson? It would be you know.
I would rather that since it would be England electing him that they suffered the consequence alone, but as I prefer the ceremonial model, yeah, bring it on. Johnson with only symbolic value is vastly preferable to him having actual executive power.
Agreed. Johnson could make an amusing head of state and add to the gaiety of life. But I like the Swiss system, which elevates the institution rather than the person. The Presidency circulates every year around the Government, with Buggin's term deciding who hands out the medals and conducts the ceremonies this year. Many Swiss would struggle to tell you who the current President is, but all the ceremonies are performed with appropriate formality and pomp.
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
Nevermind cancelling a whole century. Maybe we should just cancel our whole country. Or cancel the whole of civilisation, because the reality is that it is all built on slavery of various forms.
The whole thing is pathetic and tragic.
It's a Marxist anti-capitalist argument masquerading as as an anti-racist one.
Central to Marxism is the idea of a bourgeoisie who own the means of production exploiting a proletariat who do all the work, and that capitalism would never deliver the goods. And that was a strong theme of the early industrial revolution. Slavery was an extreme example and, at the same time in the early 19th Century, we had indentured labour, penal servitude, transportation, cruel means of public execution, and economics driving non-slaves in the UK to work 6 days a week doing 14 hours a day in factories for little pay. There was certainly a racial dimension to it but the economic structure at the time was based on class divisions sinewed by religious belief of a natural order.
We reformed. That's what led to modern day liberal democracy and a mixed market economy that did deliver the goods.
Now, we still have a long way to go to help make our fellow non-white citizens feel wholly equal with the rest of us today - that is clearly the case. But the cultural and historical argument is being vociferously made today by Marxists because they think it a far more profitable route to undermine "The System" than relying upon revolution from a hitherto unreliable working class.
Brexit thinking did have a strand of "You lot have had it too easy in Europe, Britain needs the economic equivalent of a cold shower followed by a cross-country run. You'll hate it at the time, but it will be worth it when you're fit, buff and can pull Natalie Imbruglia."
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
I think the truth is that young William is still learning on the job.
He has been doing it a while, he is nearly 40.
A lot of the problem with the monarchy is not so much the individuals, flawed as they are, but the obsequious funkiest around the household. The archaic protocols and stuffy orders of precedence pander to the worst of the Royal individuals.
I note a murmur on twitter that the current clusterfuck of royal pr is down to all the ‘good’ advisors being got rid of in 2017. I was unaware of this cull but I’m not sure that the huge, ramshackle Firm of Windsor can be marketed into relevance, nor if it’s all worth it just to prevent the supposed horror of an elected head of state.
Even when that head of state is Johnson? It would be you know.
I would rather that since it would be England electing him that they suffered the consequence alone, but as I prefer the ceremonial model, yeah, bring it on. Johnson with only symbolic value is vastly preferable to him having actual executive power.
Agreed. Johnson could make an amusing head of state and add to the gaiety of life. But I like the Swiss system, which elevates the institution rather than the person. The Presidency circulates every year around the Government, with Buggin's term deciding who hands out the medals and conducts the ceremonies this year. Many Swiss would struggle to tell you who the current President is, but all the ceremonies are performed with appropriate formality and pomp.
Boris as King would be a hoot. Prince Philip on steroids.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
Its just typical HYUFD. When he doesn't have a valid argument to support his cause - which is most of the time - he just makes something up, no matter how ludicrous or stupid it is. One would think from the way he talks that Martin Luther and John Calvin had never existed. The CofE would just be another of the many protestant churches around the world.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in many of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Denmark and Norway the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
Why do we need one church to be established? In Switzerland you indicate which church you belong to, and they get a small slice of income tax. If you say "none" IIRC you pay less, but as you say probably don't gret to use the church for weddings etc. Businesses are taxed too, which is controversial:
Brexit thinking did have a strand of "You lot have had it too easy in Europe, Britain needs the economic equivalent of a cold shower followed by a cross-country run. You'll hate it at the time, but it will be worth it when you're fit, buff and can pull Natalie Imbruglia."
But it's not what the people voted for.
Why would you shower before the run, not after?
That would be more sensible. But more sensible would be a less accurate metaphor for 2016 - now.
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
Nevermind cancelling a whole century. Maybe we should just cancel our whole country. Or cancel the whole of civilisation, because the reality is that it is all built on slavery of various forms.
The whole thing is pathetic and tragic.
It's a Marxist anti-capitalist argument masquerading as as an anti-racist one.
Central to Marxism is the idea of a bourgeoisie who own the means of production exploiting a proletariat who do all the work, and that capitalism would never deliver the goods. And that was a strong theme of the early industrial revolution. Slavery was an extreme example and, at the same time in the early 19th Century, we had indentured labour, penal servitude, transportation, cruel means of public execution, and economics driving non-slaves in the UK to work 6 days a week doing 14 hours a day in factories for little pay. There was certainly a racial dimension to it but the economic structure at the time was based on class divisions sinewed by religious belief of a natural order.
We reformed. That's what led to modern day liberal democracy and a mixed market economy that did deliver the goods.
Now, we still have a long way to go to help make our fellow non-white citizens feel wholly equal with the rest of us today - that is clearly the case. But the cultural and historical argument is being vociferously made today by Marxists because they think it a far more profitable route to undermine "The System" than relying upon revolution from a hitherto unreliable working class.
Depends which kind. Many traditional Marxists are dismissive of race as a factor of importance, and that racial, and other cleavages, are used to distract from class consciousness. See the RCP.
Lots of people twisting themselves in knots to defend what I think is a fairly bad decision by the church court, which was made with laughable justifications.
"white muppets" wrong "everyone was at it" not everyone "we'd have to cancel a whole century" no we wouldn't
Just have a look at the case itself, and read the judgment itself.
My point is not to justify it because everyone was at it, quite the reverse. But it was a *national* enterprise, it is what we as a country fundamentally did. It therfore seems a bit pointless to pick off arbitrary individuals.
I still don’t understand why there isn’t a national monument to Britain’s part in slavery and the slave trade (though I have suspicions verging on certainties).
If by some accident of history and geography the UK had been responsible for the Holocaust, all the people who had stolen Jewish property and moved into houses vacated by deported Jews would have been financially compensated, the British Armed forces would have flip flopped to roaming Europe to prevent pogroms and been held up as a virtuous ideal, the Royals would be dispatched to patronise the denuded shtetls of the east, and instead of a huge memorial to the attempted extermination of a race in our capital city there would be a few blue plaques.
Hasn't happened with Germany. My wife's great grandparents were driven out of their home in Munich by the Nazis. A Nazi seized the (sizeable) house and all of the possessions, including sketches by Edvard Munch. Said Nazis descendants still live there and enjoy all possessions.
I may have expressed myself badly, I was suggesting in my little alternative history that as with British slave owners, the state would have compensated those who had to hand back stolen Jewish property after the war.
That sounds awful; if it doesn't invade the privacy of you and your wife can you name names - disinfectant of sunlight and all that? I'm aware that there are plenty of people that 'got away with it' post war but isn't that down to passivity and inaction rather than complicity of the German state (taking into account that there have been many twists and turns in what constitutes the post war German state)?
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
Our media has its biases, too, remember.
Differently how? Even more of a disaster, or they think it went well?
Significantly worse, it seems. When it comes to reporting royal stuff I am not convinced we can rely on our print media to give a balanced account.
Really?
I just checked the website of the main Belizean paper. There, the Royal visit is bigger news (but still not major)
‘BELIZE CITY, Mon. Mar. 21, 2022– The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s three-day visit to Belize—the first stop in their Commonwealth Tour—has been deemed mostly a success, having gone smoothly even as it sparked debate in communities both on and offline. ‘
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
Doesn't the Jamaican government play a pretty key role in organising a royal visit - agreeing the logistics, who and what get seen, the transport arrangements etc? So if there have been difficulties or poor optics or poor decisions part of the responsibility lies with them, surely? Jamaicans would - or should - understand the sensitivities of their history rather better than another royal prince and his actress wife.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
I think the truth is that young William is still learning on the job.
He has been doing it a while, he is nearly 40.
A lot of the problem with the monarchy is not so much the individuals, flawed as they are, but the obsequious funkiest around the household. The archaic protocols and stuffy orders of precedence pander to the worst of the Royal individuals.
I note a murmur on twitter that the current clusterfuck of royal pr is down to all the ‘good’ advisors being got rid of in 2017. I was unaware of this cull but I’m not sure that the huge, ramshackle Firm of Windsor can be marketed into relevance, nor if it’s all worth it just to prevent the supposed horror of an elected head of state.
Even when that head of state is Johnson? It would be you know.
I would rather that since it would be England electing him that they suffered the consequence alone, but as I prefer the ceremonial model, yeah, bring it on. Johnson with only symbolic value is vastly preferable to him having actual executive power.
Agreed. Johnson could make an amusing head of state and add to the gaiety of life. But I like the Swiss system, which elevates the institution rather than the person. The Presidency circulates every year around the Government, with Buggin's term deciding who hands out the medals and conducts the ceremonies this year. Many Swiss would struggle to tell you who the current President is, but all the ceremonies are performed with appropriate formality and pomp.
Boris as King would be a hoot. Prince Philip on steroids.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
On the Royal tour ,presumably Jamaica asked for /were quite happy with the tour so canto see a problem in it . It would have been rude not to go . As for "gaffes" on it I dont see many or any in fact . A misplaced photo here or there is par for the course in social media world but Prince William was diplomatic enough to keep a neutral face when the Pm talked about a republic (not sure what else he could have done) . Dont see the fuss on here . Actually i dont see much fuss outside of PB of it
It seems that the tour is being reported rather differently in the British media from the reports locally.
Our media has its biases, too, remember.
Differently how? Even more of a disaster, or they think it went well?
There’s this thing called Google. I just checked the website of Jamaica’s leading newspaper
The Royal tour is notable by its low profile; the first story is buried under the sport, and reports of crime and inflation:
‘Wisdom in Trench Town's warm reception of royal visitors’
@oleksiireznikov For the 1st time, meeting in 2+2 format. With @DmytroKuleba we discuss current issues & cooperation in political & defense directions between 🇺🇦-🇺🇸 with @SecDef & @SecBlinken. In the evening we’ll also be present at @POTUS speech on the russian war against Ukraine. Details later.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
Its just typical HYUFD. When he doesn't have a valid argument to support his cause - which is most of the time - he just makes something up, no matter how ludicrous or stupid it is. One would think from the way he talks that Martin Luther and John Calvin had never existed. The CofE would just be another of the many protestant churches around the world.
The C of E is NOT a primarily evangelical church like most Protestant churches.
It is a Catholic Church so its authority would come more from the Pope the moment the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor. Indeed many Anglicans in England would become Roman Catholic at that point
I didn't follow the Royal Caribbean tour closely. But what I saw of it made me think it was from 50 years ago. It was a stage-managed show that was patronising and condescending, where grateful 'natives' were corralled into showing their gratitude for...... I don't quite know what.
In another world, I could imagine a certain Boris Johnson writing a coruscating account of the tour for a daily newspaper, full of rich metaphors to illustrate how such tours are out of kilter in the modern world, while trying to avoid racial epithets.
If our post Brexit fate is to become a North Atlantic theme park that wasn't a bad taster!
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in many of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Denmark and Norway the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
Why do we need one church to be established? In Switzerland you indicate which church you belong to, and they get a small slice of income tax. If you say "none" IIRC you pay less, but as you say probably don't gret to use the church for weddings etc. Businesses are taxed too, which is controversial:
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
Its just typical HYUFD. When he doesn't have a valid argument to support his cause - which is most of the time - he just makes something up, no matter how ludicrous or stupid it is. One would think from the way he talks that Martin Luther and John Calvin had never existed. The CofE would just be another of the many protestant churches around the world.
The C of E is NOT a primarily evangelical church like most Protestant churches.
It is a Catholic Church so its authority would come more from the Pope the moment the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor. Indeed many Anglicans in England would become Roman Catholic at that point
I do love the way you just make this stuff up as though it has any basis in fact. Takes some front I must say.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in many of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Denmark and Norway the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
Why do we need one church to be established? In Switzerland you indicate which church you belong to, and they get a small slice of income tax. If you say "none" IIRC you pay less, but as you say probably don't gret to use the church for weddings etc. Businesses are taxed too, which is controversial:
We don't of course need one church, or any, to be established. The reasons for where we are right now are Burkean not calculated, organic not logical. We are not a 'Year Zero' people but an evolved society.
Soon a revolution of sorts will occur, probably in the monarchy and church. At the moment with regard to church, the maintaining of thousands of the most important listed buildings in England, and a treasure of global importance, is looked after by local committees of six old ladies and a dog. The county of Lincolnshire alone has over 600 of them. When the change comes the taxpayer will pick up that burden. The old ladies will breathe a sigh of relief and focus on the flower and coffee rota. They are already begin to give up the unequal struggle.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
Its just typical HYUFD. When he doesn't have a valid argument to support his cause - which is most of the time - he just makes something up, no matter how ludicrous or stupid it is. One would think from the way he talks that Martin Luther and John Calvin had never existed. The CofE would just be another of the many protestant churches around the world.
The C of E is NOT a primarily evangelical church like most Protestant churches.
It is a Catholic Church so its authority would come more from the Pope the moment the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor. Indeed many Anglicans in England would become Roman Catholic at that point
I do love the way you just make this stuff up as though it has any basis in fact. Takes some front I must say.
Isn’t @HYUFD technically correct here? The CoE is a reformed branch of the Catholic Church, with a different dude in charge. That was the very English compromise, thrashed out to avoid further civil war and burnings
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in many of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Denmark and Norway the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
Why do we need one church to be established? In Switzerland you indicate which church you belong to, and they get a small slice of income tax. If you say "none" IIRC you pay less, but as you say probably don't gret to use the church for weddings etc. Businesses are taxed too, which is controversial:
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax shoudl be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of 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
Nevermind cancelling a whole century. Maybe we should just cancel our whole country. Or cancel the whole of civilisation, because the reality is that it is all built on slavery of various forms.
The whole thing is pathetic and tragic.
It's a Marxist anti-capitalist argument masquerading as as an anti-racist one.
Central to Marxism is the idea of a bourgeoisie who own the means of production exploiting a proletariat who do all the work, and that capitalism would never deliver the goods. And that was a strong theme of the early industrial revolution. Slavery was an extreme example and, at the same time in the early 19th Century, we had indentured labour, penal servitude, transportation, cruel means of public execution, and economics driving non-slaves in the UK to work 6 days a week doing 14 hours a day in factories for little pay. There was certainly a racial dimension to it but the economic structure at the time was based on class divisions sinewed by religious belief of a natural order.
We reformed. That's what led to modern day liberal democracy and a mixed market economy that did deliver the goods.
Now, we still have a long way to go to help make our fellow non-white citizens feel wholly equal with the rest of us today - that is clearly the case. But the cultural and historical argument is being vociferously made today by Marxists because they think it a far more profitable route to undermine "The System" than relying upon revolution from a hitherto unreliable working class.
I agree with your historical view - and it makes you something of a Marxist in analysing past centuries (it was all recent history for Marx, after all) - and with your conclusion that we've substantially reformed but still have a long way to go in making black people feel they're treated entirely equally. I also think that the current government has done a good job in disposing of the idea that you can't be successsful in the Tory Party unless you're white - clearly, being politically reliable is sufficient.
But I don't see why we shouldn't come more publicly to terms with what you describe historically, in much the same way as modern Germany has done with the Nazis. "We made a horrible mistake with dreadful consequences and we have only slowly and painfully rehabilitated ourselves". I nstead, we treat it as an interesting bit of history without much moral dimension, like the Glorious Revolution or the English Civil War.
I didn't follow the Royal Caribbean tour closely. But what I saw of it made me think it was from 50 years ago. It was a stage-managed show that was patronising and condescending, where grateful 'natives' were corralled into showing their gratitude for...... I don't quite know what.
In another world, I could imagine a certain Boris Johnson writing a coruscating account of the tour for a daily newspaper, full of rich metaphors to illustrate how such tours are out of kilter in the modern world, while trying to avoid racial epithets.
I think everyone can take solace that it was a Royal Caribbean tour and not a P&O one.
Clearly the latter would have resulted in the Governor General being sacked and replaced with Gavin Williamson.
Brilliant detail in the Economist’s coverage of THAT rally in Moscow
Putin was, apparently, wearing a ‘Lora Piano’ coat, made in Italy. Price: $14,000
Tommy Hilfiger gilet, go fuck yourself.
When I watched that rally, I actually remember thinking, omg Putin is now a full on Fascist leader…. but that really is quite a nice coat. Worked well with the rollneck jumper, too
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
Its just typical HYUFD. When he doesn't have a valid argument to support his cause - which is most of the time - he just makes something up, no matter how ludicrous or stupid it is. One would think from the way he talks that Martin Luther and John Calvin had never existed. The CofE would just be another of the many protestant churches around the world.
The C of E is NOT a primarily evangelical church like most Protestant churches.
It is a Catholic Church so its authority would come more from the Pope the moment the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor. Indeed many Anglicans in England would become Roman Catholic at that point
I do love the way you just make this stuff up as though it has any basis in fact. Takes some front I must say.
Isn’t @HYUFD technically correct here? The CoE is a reformed branch of the Catholic Church, with a different dude in charge. That was the very English compromise, thrashed out to avoid further civil war and burnings
HY's job isn't to be correct, technically or otherwise. He exists to exemplify for the rest of us the incorrectness of the reactionary wing of Tory membership.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
Doesn't the Jamaican government play a pretty key role in organising a royal visit - agreeing the logistics, who and what get seen, the transport arrangements etc? So if there have been difficulties or poor optics or poor decisions part of the responsibility lies with them, surely? Jamaicans would - or should - understand the sensitivities of their history rather better than another royal prince and his actress wife.
By liason between Palace and Jamaica, I expect.
Certainly Meghan and Harry dealt with post-colonial legacy rather well on their visit to South Africa. Much less stuffy too.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
Its just typical HYUFD. When he doesn't have a valid argument to support his cause - which is most of the time - he just makes something up, no matter how ludicrous or stupid it is. One would think from the way he talks that Martin Luther and John Calvin had never existed. The CofE would just be another of the many protestant churches around the world.
The C of E is NOT a primarily evangelical church like most Protestant churches.
It is a Catholic Church so its authority would come more from the Pope the moment the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor. Indeed many Anglicans in England would become Roman Catholic at that point
The Anglicans who were likely to do that mostly did so already when the ordination of women went through.
Those left would be not keen on a church that seems to be taking even longer than the CofE did to go down the same road.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
i honestly think nobody in the real world cares much about the photo - which is a argument for him not doing it in the first place as well. In the end the tories will get booted out next time because they have not played up to the thing the public generally trust them with - money and the economy - what with record borrowing , NI hike (tax on jobs) the highest tax take in modern history , rampant inflation. The seem unable to tear away from big government spending which gives natural tories no reason to vote for the,m
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
Rishi Sunak is the Emma Raducanu of politics. Discuss
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
Doesn't the Jamaican government play a pretty key role in organising a royal visit - agreeing the logistics, who and what get seen, the transport arrangements etc? So if there have been difficulties or poor optics or poor decisions part of the responsibility lies with them, surely? Jamaicans would - or should - understand the sensitivities of their history rather better than another royal prince and his actress wife.
A subtle of kind of paternalism perhaps. In all practical matters Jamaica basically is independent notwithstanding sharing a Head of State with us, and would surely need to sign off on anything that is planned for a royal tour rather than just do whatever some twonk at the Palace might have suggested. But we remove them from the equation entirely as if they are complete non entities and bystanders so that we in Britain can moralise, defend or criticise it all from what it means for us.
Brilliant detail in the Economist’s coverage of THAT rally in Moscow
Putin was, apparently, wearing a ‘Lora Piano’ coat, made in Italy. Price: $14,000
Tommy Hilfiger gilet, go fuck yourself.
When I watched that rally, I actually remember thinking, omg Putin is now a full on Fascist leader…. but that really is quite a nice coat. Worked well with the rollneck jumper, too
Which leaves the really important question a begging, what shoes? I'm guessing Gucci or perhaps Ferragamo.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
His PR for quite some time was seen as pretty slick. But even if he hadn't borrowed someone elses car etc, I can't really see what his team thought was being achieved. "Rishi mate, people won't understand the policy unless we show you know what a car is and how is is refueled".
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
Nevermind cancelling a whole century. Maybe we should just cancel our whole country. Or cancel the whole of civilisation, because the reality is that it is all built on slavery of various forms.
The whole thing is pathetic and tragic.
It's a Marxist anti-capitalist argument masquerading as as an anti-racist one.
Central to Marxism is the idea of a bourgeoisie who own the means of production exploiting a proletariat who do all the work, and that capitalism would never deliver the goods. And that was a strong theme of the early industrial revolution. Slavery was an extreme example and, at the same time in the early 19th Century, we had indentured labour, penal servitude, transportation, cruel means of public execution, and economics driving non-slaves in the UK to work 6 days a week doing 14 hours a day in factories for little pay. There was certainly a racial dimension to it but the economic structure at the time was based on class divisions sinewed by religious belief of a natural order.
We reformed. That's what led to modern day liberal democracy and a mixed market economy that did deliver the goods.
Now, we still have a long way to go to help make our fellow non-white citizens feel wholly equal with the rest of us today - that is clearly the case. But the cultural and historical argument is being vociferously made today by Marxists because they think it a far more profitable route to undermine "The System" than relying upon revolution from a hitherto unreliable working class.
I agree with your historical view - and it makes you something of a Marxist in analysing past centuries (it was all recent history for Marx, after all) - and with your conclusion that we've substantially reformed but still have a long way to go in making black people feel they're treated entirely equally. I also think that the current government has done a good job in disposing of the idea that you can't be successsful in the Tory Party unless you're white - clearly, being politically reliable is sufficient.
But I don't see why we shouldn't come more publicly to terms with what you describe historically, in much the same way as modern Germany has done with the Nazis. "We made a horrible mistake with dreadful consequences and we have only slowly and painfully rehabilitated ourselves". I nstead, we treat it as an interesting bit of history without much moral dimension, like the Glorious Revolution or the English Civil War.
I am in no sense a Marxist. They would believe in a revolution leading to common ownership of the means of production, and an implicit rejection of virtually all other social and cultural ties that bind societies together as an obstacle to that and undesirable in and of themselves.
I am able to recognise the need for reasoned reform without being a revolutionary, and preserving what's best of our cultural and social traditions at the same time.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
Rishi Sunak is the Emma Raducanu of politics. Discuss
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
Rishi Sunak is the Emma Raducanu of politics. Discuss
Are you going to say she's a beautiful girl even though she's not even 18 like you did with Raducanu
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in many of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Denmark and Norway the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
Why do we need one church to be established? In Switzerland you indicate which church you belong to, and they get a small slice of income tax. If you say "none" IIRC you pay less, but as you say probably don't gret to use the church for weddings etc. Businesses are taxed too, which is controversial:
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
The certainly used to be something similar in Spain. As with political parties, it's not ideal but it may be necessary.
As institutions, they are probably needed- we would all lose if they didn't exist. We need broad-based organisations doing political thinking and doing, and churches meet needs and touch places that others don't. But neither has enough activists to really keep them going. Then you end up with both parties and churches doing stuff that's not really in society's interests, because they need the money.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
Rishi Sunak is the Emma Raducanu of politics. Discuss
Doesn't work - she has actually had an incredible achievement even if she never wins anything again. Sunak was chosen to be a patsy, splashed cash around whilst being more coherent than Boris and so got popular is all.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
I am 150% sure that once Her Majesty passes on there is going to be so much shit flung between Harry and William. The accusations from the former are too serious to be bottled up, and he needs it to be relevant to boot, Charles will try not to get involved as King, but William can hardly not counter accusations so the briefings will be on.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
Don't know about you, but I quite often hang around petrol stations to fill up other people's cars. Doesn't everybody?
I feel like the whole thing perfectly encapsulates how the Tory Party now are completely out of touch.
I genuinely don't think parties need to be 'in touch' in order to do a good job, overall. Lack of understanding of normal people doesn't preclude doing right by them, nor does understanding them mean you do a good job. But at present the Tories are not offering much of either.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
uh like this quiz errm
Gazza?
Gazza was laid low by injury then the drink. But he had a long, distinguished career at the very top.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Sure, there is a lot of theatre that goes into a Royal visit, but theatre is there to tell a story. A story where costume, sets and setting all need to align. So which was the more effective story to tell in the modern age?
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
Its just typical HYUFD. When he doesn't have a valid argument to support his cause - which is most of the time - he just makes something up, no matter how ludicrous or stupid it is. One would think from the way he talks that Martin Luther and John Calvin had never existed. The CofE would just be another of the many protestant churches around the world.
The C of E is NOT a primarily evangelical church like most Protestant churches.
It is a Catholic Church so its authority would come more from the Pope the moment the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor. Indeed many Anglicans in England would become Roman Catholic at that point
I do love the way you just make this stuff up as though it has any basis in fact. Takes some front I must say.
Isn’t @HYUFD technically correct here? The CoE is a reformed branch of the Catholic Church, with a different dude in charge. That was the very English compromise, thrashed out to avoid further civil war and burnings
Sure, that's the history, but it doesn't mean that if the Monarch was no longer head of the church the Pope would become so. Some other arrangement would be made.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
Rishi Sunak as Delle Alli?
Oh, come on. I know Rishi's useless, but he's not that bad.
Another glorious day so the ground will be quickening at the horse race tracks. The return of Flat racing on grass at Doncaster before it goes away for a couple of weeks to allow for a brace of Nationals.
I was once told by a punter not to have a bet on the flat before Royal Ascot - that may be a shade excessive but I'll leave today's card to others.
Kempton stages a meeting on the Polytrack and I'm going there for my three to be sunk without trace.
Today's Stodge Saturday Patent:
2.05 Kempton: FELIX 3,55 Kempton: TOMMY DE VITO 4.30 Kempton: MY DUBAWI
Good luck in all your punting endeavours today - fantastic card at Meydan. The Sheema Classic is the best race we'll see this side of Ascot. I think the best bet may be AL NEFUD in the first.
I agree with your historical view - and it makes you something of a Marxist in analysing past centuries (it was all recent history for Marx, after all) - and with your conclusion that we've substantially reformed but still have a long way to go in making black people feel they're treated entirely equally. I also think that the current government has done a good job in disposing of the idea that you can't be successsful in the Tory Party unless you're white - clearly, being politically reliable is sufficient.
But I don't see why we shouldn't come more publicly to terms with what you describe historically, in much the same way as modern Germany has done with the Nazis. "We made a horrible mistake with dreadful consequences and we have only slowly and painfully rehabilitated ourselves". I nstead, we treat it as an interesting bit of history without much moral dimension, like the Glorious Revolution or the English Civil War.
I am in no sense a Marxist. They would believe in a revolution leading to common ownership of the means of production, and an implicit rejection of virtually all other social and cultural ties that bind societies together as an obstacle to that and undesirable in and of themselves.
I am able to recognise the need for reasoned reform without being a revolutionary, and preserving what's best of our cultural and social traditions at the same time.
That makes me conservative.
Yes, I was teasing you. But I think you agree with the analysis of the 18th century, though not with the conclusions. I agree with your penultimate sentence, though I'm not sure it is well-represented by Mr Johnson and the current party. What is your view of them? (Genuine non-teasing question.)
I agree with your historical view - and it makes you something of a Marxist in analysing past centuries (it was all recent history for Marx, after all) - and with your conclusion that we've substantially reformed but still have a long way to go in making black people feel they're treated entirely equally. I also think that the current government has done a good job in disposing of the idea that you can't be successsful in the Tory Party unless you're white - clearly, being politically reliable is sufficient.
But I don't see why we shouldn't come more publicly to terms with what you describe historically, in much the same way as modern Germany has done with the Nazis. "We made a horrible mistake with dreadful consequences and we have only slowly and painfully rehabilitated ourselves". I nstead, we treat it as an interesting bit of history without much moral dimension, like the Glorious Revolution or the English Civil War.
I am in no sense a Marxist. They would believe in a revolution leading to common ownership of the means of production, and an implicit rejection of virtually all other social and cultural ties that bind societies together as an obstacle to that and undesirable in and of themselves.
I am able to recognise the need for reasoned reform without being a revolutionary, and preserving what's best of our cultural and social traditions at the same time.
That makes me conservative.
Yes, I was teasing you. But I think you agree with the analysis of the 18th century, though not with the conclusions. I agree with your penultimate sentence, though I'm not sure it is well-represented by Mr Johnson and the current party. What is your view of them? (Genuine non-teasing question.)
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
Absolutely, and I am a little surprised how tone deaf the Palace has been to the issues. Perhaps if they still had Harry and Meghan in the room they might have addressed the issues a bit better. Not just the slavery one, but also the issues around post colonial development.
say what you like about flsoj, the odd phrase does cut through. They are trapped in piccaninny think. That Land Rover was a serious disaster.
There are plenty of pictures of HMQ in similar vehicles from decades ago, which is why it looks a bit anachronistic now.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
I am 150% sure that once Her Majesty passes on there is going to be so much shit flung between Harry and William. The accusations from the former are too serious to be bottled up, and he needs it to be relevant to boot, Charles will try not to get involved as King, but William can hardly not counter accusations so the briefings will be on.
What's this Landrover thing, and why is it an issue?
(It sounds like people with no argument to make getting furious as a figleaf.)
And what is this "trapped in picaninny-land" thing?
That sounds like another figleaf by someone wanting mud to sling.
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax shoudl be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
I don't like any system that forces you to pay more tax but there is a similar system in Norway. You pay a small tax which goes to the church/religion of your choice or you can choose to have it go to the Humanist society. If you don't designate anyone then it goes to local charities/welfare organisations.
Often think this kind of forced tax but the taxpayer decides what it is spent on should be trialed here. As long as the overall tax take is not higher. A significant amount of what government spends today is fluff and gimmicks - not bad things per se but not what a government should be forcing taxpayers to fund if they dont want - Sport is an example as is churches , woke campaigns , some cultural spend etc - a few pence of income tax shoudl be able to be nominated to whatever the individual taxpayer deems most worthy from this sort of stuff
The Norwegian system seems fair enough, and I like the idea. Curiously, I believe it was common in Eastern Europe under communism and it still persists in places. There are two snags, though. First it squeezes out things that almost any rational person would think desirable but aren't remotely sexy - improving prisoner rehabilitation, say. Worse, it makes charities spend a lot of their money on "nominate us for your tax money!" campaigns. On a visit to Poland, I found the train covered in adverts from rival charities, as it was the time of year when people make the choice.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
uh like this quiz errm
Gazza?
Gazza was laid low by injury then the drink. But he had a long, distinguished career at the very top.
Indeed, and was at the heart of England’s near-misses at glory in both 1990 and 1996.
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
Which lands does Orban have his eye on? Ukraine is much bigger than Hungary so I doubt he'd fair better there than the Russians have.
Brilliant detail in the Economist’s coverage of THAT rally in Moscow
Putin was, apparently, wearing a ‘Lora Piano’ coat, made in Italy. Price: $14,000
Tommy Hilfiger gilet, go fuck yourself.
When I watched that rally, I actually remember thinking, omg Putin is now a full on Fascist leader…. but that really is quite a nice coat. Worked well with the rollneck jumper, too
Yes he has a good wardrobe, doesn't he. Low key, no bling, but quality.
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Denmark and Norway the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
Just get rid of the established church, drop the bishops from the Lords, and those people who want to cling to their superstitions can do so in private.
Absolutely not.
We must fight the left agenda of the likes of you to continue to destroy yet more of our heritage.
It is in some respects yet another battle in the culture wars.
The Church of England must remain the established church with the monarch as the Supreme Governor and Bishops in the Lords. It links the monarch to God, ensures a Parish wedding and funeral available to every Parishioner. Otherwise too established authority within the Church would return to Rome and the Pope
Are you actually saying that Non-Conformist churches have returned established authority to Rome?
I would need a large bucket of popcorn to hear you explain that to Mr Paisley!
Not to mention every Presbyterian in Scotland. And every single historian of Scots history.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
I feel like the photo of Rishi at the petrol station has perfectly demonstrated his inability to do politics.
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
The photo ops worked for furlough and Eat Out, so he assumed that was brilliant image management rather than the popularity of giving people money.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
Rishi Sunak is the Emma Raducanu of politics. Discuss
Are you going to say she's a beautiful girl even though she's not even 18 like you did with Raducanu
I am not sure what you are saying there but Raducanu is 19 and born on the 13 November 2002 in Toronto, Canada
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
Which lands does Orban have his eye on? Ukraine is much bigger than Hungary so I doubt he'd fair better there than the Russians have.
It varies by looney nationalist to loony nationalist.....
On the imperial thing. It was interesting to see a number of people who were uncomfortable with describing the Russian and Chinese Empires as such, when we were discussing them. Before Russia invaded Ukraine.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
My old Welsh heart beats a little faster whenever I see Humphrey Llwyd's map:
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 Caribbean tour struggled to straddle the obvious fissures between the monarchy and the modern world, with only partial success. Once HMQ has risen to her throne in the sky, a lot of questions are going to come to the fore.
I think that's a key issue. There's enough accrued sentiment that it seems best to let her live our her life in peace rather than upset a very old lady. Not entirely rational, but a politically interfering middle-aged chap with a poor reputation for marital stability is a very different kettle of fish when ti comes to people claiming the Divine Right (prop: James VI and I). And remember the very concept of an Established Church, let alone one with the King or Queen as head and the bishops as state employees, was explosive politically from 1540s to the 20th century (and was resolved in part by eradicating the concept, as in Scotland). It's only because of the decline in religion that the insistence of retaining a mediaeval theocracy, complete with legislative seats for the shamans of only one religion out of many, is not still more explosive today.
Rubbish, we had and have an established church to ensure its authority comes from the monarch not the Pope. The Parish system it provides also ensures any Parishioner can get married or buried in their Parish Church.
The Bishops represent less than 5% of a House of Lords which is still completely unelected anyway
Our whole constitutional arrangement centred around the monarch drawing their power from God is outdated:
“Of the 16% of people who define as belonging to the Church of England, 51.9% never attend services and in fact only 10.7% of people who identify with the Church of England report attending church at least weekly.”
The only reason we still have what we have is inertia and a lack of consensus on what to have instead. Rather like the Tory parliamentary party’s view of the PM incidentally.
So what, it must still be the established church. Otherwise by definition the established church returns to the Papacy and to Rome.
Hence in mamy of the non Roman Catholic majority nations of Western Europe like Sweden the Lutheran Church remains the established church.
Plus you end the Church of England as the established church you end the right of residents of the Parish to an automatic church wedding or funeral. Only regular churchgoers would keep that right
?.
Why would the established church return to Rome. Why not just not have an established church? Churches should thrive or not in their own right.
And why shouldn't a church wedding be restricted (if they want) to church goers. If you don't belong to a society/club why should you expect to benefit from it.
Also why does it remove that right? If the church of England wants to provide it to residents of the parish, it can if it wishes.
As by definition the main Christian authority in this country outside of God would automatically be the Pope again as it was before the Reformation if the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England.
I personally value our Parish system and the fact everyone can get a Church wedding or funeral even if they rarely go to Church, it is part of what makes England great. Lose that and the Church of England would become more closed off from the community around it. It would of course have to be removed if the Church of England was no longer the established church as it would no longer have any obligation or connection to the community around it except its worshippers and some help for the poor and homeless via Christian charity
"country". Not mine, pal, and I'm as much of a UK subject as you are.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
Comments
Our media has its biases, too, remember.
Putin was, apparently, wearing a ‘Lora Piano’ coat, made in Italy. Price: $14,000
I agree with Ishmael that we've never properly confronted our role - if anything, we see ourselves as the good guys who got rid of slavery. And so we were, eventually, but it's like overlooking Hitler because of Willi Brandt.
But it's not what the people voted for.
The Royal tour is notable by its low profile; the first story is buried under the sport, and reports of crime and inflation:
‘Wisdom in Trench Town's warm reception of royal visitors’
https://www.jamaicaobserver.com/
Not exactly rapturous enthusiasm, neither is it rabid republicanism
Central to Marxism is the idea of a bourgeoisie who own the means of production exploiting a proletariat who do all the work, and that capitalism would never deliver the goods. And that was a strong theme of the early industrial revolution. Slavery was an extreme example and, at the same time in the early 19th Century, we had indentured labour, penal servitude, transportation, cruel means of public execution, and economics driving non-slaves in the UK to work 6 days a week doing 14 hours a day in factories for little pay. There was certainly a racial dimension to it but the economic structure at the time was based on class divisions sinewed by religious belief of a natural order.
We reformed. That's what led to modern day liberal democracy and a mixed market economy that did deliver the goods.
Now, we still have a long way to go to help make our fellow non-white citizens feel wholly equal with the rest of us today - that is clearly the case. But the cultural and historical argument is being vociferously made today by Marxists because they think it a far more profitable route to undermine "The System" than relying upon revolution from a hitherto unreliable working class.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/empty-coffers-_church-tax-issue-divides-swiss-catholics/36453132#:~:text=In most of Switzerland, individuals registered as church,collected from legal persons, which means essentially businesses.?msclkid=83138d49aced11ecb77dcd3e0f68a87e
Many traditional Marxists are dismissive of race as a factor of importance, and that racial, and other cleavages, are used to distract from class consciousness.
See the RCP.
That sounds awful; if it doesn't invade the privacy of you and your wife can you name names - disinfectant of sunlight and all that? I'm aware that there are plenty of people that 'got away with it' post war but isn't that down to passivity and inaction rather than complicity of the German state (taking into account that there have been many twists and turns in what constitutes the post war German state)?
I just checked the website of the main Belizean paper. There, the Royal visit is bigger news (but still not major)
‘BELIZE CITY, Mon. Mar. 21, 2022– The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge’s three-day visit to Belize—the first stop in their Commonwealth Tour—has been deemed mostly a success, having gone smoothly even as it sparked debate in communities both on and offline. ‘
https://amandala.com.bz/news/royals-begin-their-caribbean-tour-in-belize/
I do not sense the guillotine is near. Most of the foaming outrage is British, and confined to Britain
But, I doubt anything good of it will come for Jamaica as a result.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_W._Grady#/media/File:ADM_Christopher_W._Grady_(2).jpg
It is a Catholic Church so its authority would come more from the Pope the moment the Monarch ceased to be Supreme Governor. Indeed many Anglicans in England would become Roman Catholic at that point
How did he think that was a good idea!?!
Soon a revolution of sorts will occur, probably in the monarchy and church. At the moment with regard to church, the maintaining of thousands of the most important listed buildings in England, and a treasure of global importance, is looked after by local committees of six old ladies and a dog. The county of Lincolnshire alone has over 600 of them. When the change comes the taxpayer will pick up that burden. The old ladies will breathe a sigh of relief and focus on the flower and coffee rota. They are already begin to give up the unequal struggle.
They're for Italians to wear when it isn't really cold.
But I don't see why we shouldn't come more publicly to terms with what you describe historically, in much the same way as modern Germany has done with the Nazis. "We made a horrible mistake with dreadful consequences and we have only slowly and painfully rehabilitated ourselves". I nstead, we treat it as an interesting bit of history without much moral dimension, like the Glorious Revolution or the English Civil War.
Clearly the latter would have resulted in the Governor General being sacked and replaced with Gavin Williamson.
Certainly Meghan and Harry dealt with post-colonial legacy rather well on their visit to South Africa. Much less stuffy too.
https://youtu.be/SBVn3OAt9vg
Those left would be not keen on a church that seems to be taking even longer than the CofE did to go down the same road.
I'm trying to thing of sporting analogies... Someone talented but raw, gets catapulted to the top tier too young, does well on their first outing but then gets found out because they've not done the Wednesday nights away at Grimthorpe United or the bowling 30 overs on the trot at Basingstoke.
But people are rushing to judgment. Whose Land Rover is it anyway? Probably the Jamaican government's. Who made the decision to use it? Etc etc.
As for Harry and Meghan being more sensitive, give me a break. When they went round South Africa they were far too grand to use any of the local vehicles and had their own Land Rover transported over - much as Charles did with his Rolls when he visited Romania a few years ago. Harry can't even be arsed to come back for his grandfather's memorial service and take the opportunity to see his grandmother.
Gazza?
Absolute berk must walk the plank, says absolute berk who refuses to walk the plank.
I am able to recognise the need for reasoned reform without being a revolutionary, and preserving what's best of our cultural and social traditions at the same time.
That makes me conservative.
As institutions, they are probably needed- we would all lose if they didn't exist. We need broad-based organisations doing political thinking and doing, and churches meet needs and touch places that others don't. But neither has enough activists to really keep them going. Then you end up with both parties and churches doing stuff that's not really in society's interests, because they need the money.
Amazing that Russia has once again all the requirements for a Marxist revolution.
But he had a long, distinguished career at the very top.
I think though that the Palace flunkies were appalled by the informality and relaxed nature of Meghan and Harry in South Africa. I suspect that it was that rather than racism that drove the backbiting against her.
Another glorious day so the ground will be quickening at the horse race tracks. The return of Flat racing on grass at Doncaster before it goes away for a couple of weeks to allow for a brace of Nationals.
I was once told by a punter not to have a bet on the flat before Royal Ascot - that may be a shade excessive but I'll leave today's card to others.
Kempton stages a meeting on the Polytrack and I'm going there for my three to be sunk without trace.
Today's Stodge Saturday Patent:
2.05 Kempton: FELIX
3,55 Kempton: TOMMY DE VITO
4.30 Kempton: MY DUBAWI
Good luck in all your punting endeavours today - fantastic card at Meydan. The Sheema Classic is the best race we'll see this side of Ascot. I think the best bet may be AL NEFUD in the first.
Quite the czar, indeed
Apparently Putin’s personal wristwatch collection is worth £700,000
Salaries for Russian politicians must be REALLY high
(New carved back in, I believe.)
But, I don't think he's Putin either.
Someone mentioned Orban earlier - he is of course hanging out with Hungarian Irredentists, who describe themselves as Greater Hungarian Nationalists*. Yes, they want a much bigger Hungary - essentially, their thing is that we-was-robbed when the Austro-Hungarian Empire went out of business. They have a thing for drawing maps of all the land that should be in Hungary.
So yes, Orban is a fan of a number of the things that Putin is - just a milder implementation. So far.
*Easily identified by worshipping Horthy, minimising the participation in the Holocaust hy Hungary and wanting large chunks of other peoples countries.
(It sounds like people with no argument to make getting furious as a figleaf.)
And what is this "trapped in picaninny-land" thing?
That sounds like another figleaf by someone wanting mud to sling.
But do correct me.
That's not how the MafiaRussian State works.
Putin doesn't own the coat or the watch. It's just that he has really generous friends who lend him things.
https://kafkadesk.org/2020/05/11/neighbours-react-to-orbans-geater-hungary-controversy/
https://mappingwelshmarches.ac.uk/maps/1-humphrey-llwyd/
For a start we'd gain another country cricket ground, albeit perpetually waterlogged at Worcester.
That's part of the problem - there never has been any attempt to spread the coverage in Parliament, or better abolish the C of E's establishment altogether. It's a massively outdated privilege for a small and declining sect.
Twice the average weekly wage may be an over estimate.