He's spent the last two years following the government and getting rid of the crap from his own Party. All the success he's had as been Johnson own goals. This feels like something different. A decent leader with integrity draws an enormous line between the two big Parties.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
PB has gone ballistic! I usually read, assess and mentally log every comment, making suitable adjustments (if needed) to the standings of each poster on the key metrics of objectivity, judgement and ethics, but I'm going to have to let it go here. All get a pass.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
For a second, I read that as the reggae Commonwealth.
BTW, I have no idea what “regnal” means. I just saw it on a website and thought it looked cool
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
96 year old woman dies of natural causes, hotly tipped front runner eldest son succeeds? Hold the front page.
He's spent the last two years following the government and getting rid of the crap from his own Party. All the success he's had as been Johnson own goals. This feels like something different. A decent leader with integrity draws an enormous line between the two big Parties.
Without a soft spot for Boris, There’s a bit of positive spin on this for the Conservatives I can share having spoken to my Dad. All he was saying was, let’s wait and see what happens, hes thinking Starmer could get a telling off not a fine, a sort of “rules may have been broken but no firm evidence to fine” line from the police - which means Kier can carry on being attacked about it, but nothing that forces his resignation. Or, Starmer May get a FPN but wriggle out of resigning somehow, though not without damage.
So my Dad is right, as we all second guess (clause 4 moment) we don’t know, no one knows, we just have to wait and see what happens. Probably a month or more.
My skin in the game, as Lib Dem, give Starmer FPN finishing off both Starmer and Boris, leaving only Ed Davey as elder statesman. Likely women in charge of both main parties going into next election. Plus I win £50 pound on Boris 2022 exit date.
I can’t be any more than fair or honest about this than that 😇
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.
Is that you Gerhard Schroder?
More seriously, this is a load of tosh. Ultimately, it's hard to be the invader. If your military successes so far consist of blowing through a serious chunk of your front line forces, losing the flagship of your fleet, persuading your neighbours to join NATO, and imposing crippling sanctions on your economy... well, at some point it becomes too much to sustain.
The Russians could, I suppose, order a general mobilisation. But sending ever less well prepared troops with more and more outdated equipment might not end well.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
96 year old woman dies of natural causes, hotly tipped front runner eldest son succeeds? Hold the front page.
But they’ll change the rules at the last minute, let the front runners overtake, and we’ll somehow finish with Andrew and Harry first and second in line.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
For a second, I read that as the reggae Commonwealth.
BTW, I have no idea what “regnal” means. I just saw it on a website and thought it looked cool
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
No, I would say Oz would be one of the last to leave, same with Canada and New Zealand. The non white British origin majority would go well before white majority of British Isles origin Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Those are the type of ex British Empire countries which have already become Republics.
I suspect there will be a bit of a run on the republic referendums when HM passes. If not then, when? There has long been a suspicion (correctly IMHO) that a lot of places have held off for the natural transition to self determination that ends when the Queen dies.
In honest fact I suspect after 10 years of Charles the only one that will still be mulling it over will be Canada because they really don’t seem to give a fig about the whole arrangement and are generally OK with it. That said, pressure for change breeds pressure. I suspect there will be a domino effect. None of that will actually be Charles fault, nor is it really something to attribute fault to, it’s just the next page in history. In time, I suspect the UK will eventually abolish the monarchy, but I would say it’s got a good 100 years left to run at least.
20 of the Commonwealth realms became republics or got their own heads of state in the reign of the Queen or her father, only 16 are left. So the majority of Commonwealth nations got their own heads of state well before Charles becomes King.
Canada would be extremely unlikely to go as it needs approval under the constitution by every single Canadian province.
The UK will always have a monarchy, it is part of our culture, the only time we were a republic under Cromwell and his son and the Rump Parliament we swiftly returned to a more constitutional monarchy under Charles IInd after just 11 years as it was such a disaster
PB has gone ballistic! I usually read, assess and mentally log every comment, making suitable adjustments (if needed) to the standings of each poster on the key metrics of objectivity, judgement and ethics, but I'm going to have to let it go here. All get a pass.
Do you have any idea how pompous you are?
Lighten up! Our Kinabalu is part of PB's rich tapestry.
Was it worth £1.3 million before or after the car crashed into it? And what is it with the right-wing press and house prices? Incidentally, for those of you who don't know South London well, this is just how we drive down here, OK?
Nato is not going to be putting boots on the ground in Siberia or nuking Moscow. So of course the war is going to end with an agreement acceptable to Russia, at which point the question becomes whether several years of war will improve the tenor of that agreement.
Is that you Gerhard Schroder?
More seriously, this is a load of tosh. Ultimately, it's hard to be the invader. If your military successes so far consist of blowing through a serious chunk of your front line forces, losing the flagship of your fleet, persuading your neighbours to join NATO, and imposing crippling sanctions on your economy... well, at some point it becomes too much to sustain.
The Russians could, I suppose, order a general mobilisation. But sending ever less well prepared troops with more and more outdated equipment might not end well.
You know it, I know it, and Russia know it. Why think we get a better deal after five years that may feature Trump, an EU split, and failed advances into ethnic Russian territory?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
I haven't seen a single documented example of a baby boomer claiming to have been 'in the war'. Yet the 'fact' that this seemingly pointless affectation (who wants to seem older than they are?) is constantly being adopted has become a staple of sneering remoanerism.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
Yes, and I think it's bollocks.
William is just as popular and we will hold out for him. Charles will be ok in the interim.
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew he favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
I think the general consensus is pretty damn unimpeachable constitutional monarch, not the best at family matters. She relied on the D of E heavily for the latter, reportedly. And he didn’t always do a decent job of it either.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I’m happy to offer a wager on that
I reckon after 24 months of King Charles III we will have polls wanting to be a republic.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
Even Charles now has a net favourable rating of +27%, William of +67%, almost the same as the Queen's +71%.
The British monarchy has with the exception of the Protectorate lasted for a 1000 years in England, Scotland and then the UK with monarchs coming and going. The Queen has been a good one but her loss after a long reign will be no different to Victoria's after a long 64 year reign and then the Prince of Wales proved a better than expected monarch as Edward VIIth for his relatively short 9 year reign https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/02/public-opinion-prince-charles-improves-latest-roya
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew he favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
I think the general consensus is pretty damn unimpeachable constitutional monarch, not the best at family matters. She relied on the D of E heavily for the latter, reportedly. And he didn’t always do a decent job of it either.
It's not unimpeachable. Remember her disgraceful intervention in the indyref?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I’m happy to offer a wager on that
I reckon after 24 months of King Charles III we will have polls wanting to be a republic.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
For a second, I read that as the reggae Commonwealth.
BTW, I have no idea what “regnal” means. I just saw it on a website and thought it looked cool
It's a bit like a Singapore grip.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I’m happy to offer a wager on that
I reckon after 24 months of King Charles III we will have polls wanting to be a republic.
Polls in favour of the UK becoming a Republic? No chance.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I’m happy to offer a wager on that
I reckon after 24 months of King Charles III we will have polls wanting to be a republic.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
I’m happy to offer a wager on that
I reckon after 24 months of King Charles III we will have polls wanting to be a republic.
£20 bet that isn’t the case?
Sure.
Cool. Quite an easy one to frame
I’m happy to take the extreme position
“Within 24 months of the Coronation of Prince Charles as king, there will not be a single poll showing majority support for a republic in the UK”
Feel free to amend the terms, you do this more than me
Not enough I have to say. I presume that is without an oil embargo and much of a move on gas supplies? Even if it takes a few years for the economic effects to be completely felt the important thing is for the elite to find themselves staring into the abyss.
The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.
If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.
She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
It's always struck me as interesting that republicans think the best way to advance their arguments is to be extremely rude about one of the most widely respected and admired people on the planet.
It might explain why they never get anywhere, I suppose.
TSE is a pro austerity, anti Brexit, anti monarchy, liberal elitist. No surprise he does not really care what the masses think!
All good proper conservatives are pro austerity, does sound money mean nothing to you?
The problem with socialists like you is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
No, classical liberalism is pro austerity more than traditional conservatism. Hence you have now found your natural home as a Liberal Democrat voting Orange Book LD. Support for the monarchy and traditional values is far more a cornerstone of traditional conservatism in this country than slashing spending as Boris has proved.
I am not a socialist, I support tax cuts and oppose nationalisation of industry and unchecked union power but I am not a spending slasher either.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
Not enough I have to say. I presume that is without an oil embargo and much of a move on gas supplies? Even if it takes a few years for the economic effects to be completely felt the important thing is for the elite to find themselves staring into the abyss.
They made bank over the spring, as the Germans kept the oil and gas flowing at high prices. Next autumn is key, need to make sure there’s no European demand for Russian O&G exports - which will screw up their production as the storage gets full.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.
If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.
She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
It's always struck me as interesting that republicans think the best way to advance their arguments is to be extremely rude about one of the most widely respected and admired people on the planet.
It might explain why they never get anywhere, I suppose.
TSE is a pro austerity, anti Brexit, anti monarchy, liberal elitist. No surprise he does not really care what the masses think!
All good proper conservatives are pro austerity, does sound money mean nothing to you?
The problem with socialists like you is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
No, classical liberalism is pro austerity more than traditional conservativism. Hence you have now found your natural home as a Liberal Democrat voting Orange Book LD. Support for the monarchy and established church is far more a cornerstone of traditional conservativism than slashing spending as Boris has proved.
I am not a socialist, I support tax cuts and oppose nationalisation but I am not a spending slasher either.
Mrs Thatcher is a classic liberal?
You are supporting a government that has raised taxes to their highest level since the war and want me to list all the nationalism Boris Johnson has undertaken?
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
Just catching up on the rapidly moving goalposts of currygate. If I've got this right, the Mail/Sun and their fans on here have moved the goalposts off the pitch:
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN. 2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction. 3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police. 4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.
If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.
I realise that Atos is generally useless (and that's being kind), but I think even they might accept that a 96 year old might be unable to go out to work every day.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
We go back a long way, is the thing. It's a mathematical certainty that [peasant] ancestors of mine fought under twats like Edward III and Harry V at Crecy and Agincourt, and no doubt thought them twats, but you get used to the feeling of abject submissiveness, over the centuries.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
I hope Netflix do a series on Bertrand Dawson, that would be box office.
The man who murdered the King/ our Queen's grandfather, and he ended up with a Viscountcy for that, and then he tried to nobble Baldwin during the abdication crisis, the sitting PM!
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
I haven't seen a single documented example of a baby boomer claiming to have been 'in the war'. Yet the 'fact' that this seemingly pointless affectation (who wants to seem older than they are?) is constantly being adopted has become a staple of sneering remoanerism.
That's interesting. It has certainly become a commonplace. IIRC there was a whole hoo-ha when the German Ambassador raised the issue of British identity being formed by war-generation parents imprinting "standing alone" ideas on their boomer children. I don't think anyone denies the reality of that identity. And then it is exaggerated for effect by both sides (from Dad's Army references in red top headlines to earnest letters pages in the Guardian.)
And we will see a load of it amplified by the passing of HMQ.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
No one knows what sort of judgement she has. She has spent her reign saying nothing of any significance whatsoever.
That is the point of a constitutional monarchy. Yet you also complain about Prince Chas HAVING opinions. An ungallant PB-er might conclude that you’re just quite dim
The royal family are the country's biggest benefit scroungers.
If the Queen was on universal credit she'd get sanctioned for not going to work.
She has been working as Head of State for 70 years you ignorant republican!
It's always struck me as interesting that republicans think the best way to advance their arguments is to be extremely rude about one of the most widely respected and admired people on the planet.
It might explain why they never get anywhere, I suppose.
TSE is a pro austerity, anti Brexit, anti monarchy, liberal elitist. No surprise he does not really care what the masses think!
All good proper conservatives are pro austerity, does sound money mean nothing to you?
The problem with socialists like you is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
No, classical liberalism is pro austerity more than traditional conservativism. Hence you have now found your natural home as a Liberal Democrat voting Orange Book LD. Support for the monarchy and established church is far more a cornerstone of traditional conservativism than slashing spending as Boris has proved.
I am not a socialist, I support tax cuts and oppose nationalisation but I am not a spending slasher either.
Mrs Thatcher is a classic liberal?
You are supporting a government that has raised taxes to their highest level since the war and want me to list all the nationalism Boris Johnson has undertaken?
Thatcher arguably had more in common on economics with classical Liberal PMs like Gladstone than she did with traditional Tory PMs like Disraeli and Macmillan and Baldwin and Salisbury.
However even Thatcher backed keeping the monarchy despite occasional disagreements over South Africa for example with the Queen.
Nationalism is often part of Tory history, as it was under Disraeli, Salisbury and even Thatcher and with figures from Joseph Chamberlain to Enoch Powell as well as Boris.
Nationalisation of industry is not and Boris has not done so, albeit Macmillan and Heath for example accepted the post war consensus of state influence in industry after the Attlee Labour government's nationalisations.
Johnson and Sunak have cut NI for those earning under £35k, have proposed a cut in income tax and have cut the amount people have to pay in social care costs too
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
So it is exactly like royalty then... it is about bing on top and f**king everyone underneath them ... ?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
Even Charles now has a net favourable rating of +27%, William of +67%, almost the same as the Queen's +71%.
The British monarchy has with the exception of the Protectorate lasted for a 1000 years in England, Scotland and then the UK with monarchs coming and going. The Queen has been a good one but her loss after a long reign will be no different to Victoria's after a long 64 year reign and then the Prince of Wales proved a better than expected monarch as Edward VIIth for his relatively short 9 year reign https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/02/public-opinion-prince-charles-improves-latest-roya
There’s a strong argument when Liz, sadly, moves on that they should skip a generation to help make the monarchy more relevant to diverse, dynamic, modern Britain.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
On the other hand, the other weekend we went to a local talk by a professor from Leicester on Pompeii's domestic life, and it was brilliant, even for a seven-year old.
And at uni, I had a materials lecturer - a subject I found, and find, fascinating - who would talk in a dull monotone and make me want to do *anything* other than attend lectures.
I'm currently reading a Stephen fry book, the third part of his memoirs. And it is the most turgidly overwritten piece of **** I've read in a long time. But if I was listening to him speak it, it might well be fascinating ....
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
I haven't seen a single documented example of a baby boomer claiming to have been 'in the war'. Yet the 'fact' that this seemingly pointless affectation (who wants to seem older than they are?) is constantly being adopted has become a staple of sneering remoanerism.
That's interesting. It has certainly become a commonplace. IIRC there was a whole hoo-ha when the German Ambassador raised the issue of British identity being formed by war-generation parents imprinting "standing alone" ideas on their boomer children. I don't think anyone denies the reality of that identity. And then it is exaggerated for effect by both sides (from Dad's Army references in red top headlines to earnest letters pages in the Guardian.)
And we will see a load of it amplified by the passing of HMQ.
If that is sneering remoanerism, fair enough.
I’ve seen plenty of voxpops of people evidently born well after 1945 saying “well we survived the blitz so we’ll get through this”.
I doubt they truly believe they were alive during the Blitz. But they speak to it with an ownership that claims the blitz spirit as some kind of inheritance. The same as those Russians saying today that “we beat the Nazis in 1943 so we’ll beat those Ukrainian Nazis in 2022”.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
Just catching up on the rapidly moving goalposts of currygate. If I've got this right, the Mail/Sun and their fans on here have moved the goalposts off the pitch:
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN. 2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction. 3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police. 4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
I don't think it's hysterical - it's just that they see a possible future of Starmer getting no FPN sanction and enjoying the run up to the next GE holding the moral high ground. I think their fears are well-grounded because that is exactly what is going to happen - and will be exacerbated when Johnson gets a further three or four FPNs!
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
The sycophantic tripe that will go on for weeks will indeed be quite something. Thank God for streaming services!
I am not too bothered either way if Britain is a monarchy or a republic. It's a lottery with these inbred aristocrats, but fortunately they seem to be more bothered over trivia like titles and precedence than anything that actually matters.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
Sex may have been part of it. But a likely just as - if not more important - part of it was that she provided him with the unconditional love and support he did not get from his mother (or father).
It is worth remembering that Russia's economy is currently benefitting from the high prices for oil, coal and natural gas. Simply: the Chinese, Indians, and a host of others have been very happy to buy from them, and the world market price of commodities has risen sharply.
I mention this, because it tells you how shafted the rest of the Russian economy is, that - in a world where energy prices are up 50% - the economy has shrunk more than a tenth.
Former top manager of Lukoil and billionaire Alexander Subbotin has died after an anti-hangover session with a shaman. He experienced heart pain after using toad poison. The shaman didn’t call an ambulance but dripped Corvalol and put the billionaire to sleep in his basement.
Just catching up on the rapidly moving goalposts of currygate. If I've got this right, the Mail/Sun and their fans on here have moved the goalposts off the pitch:
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN. 2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction. 3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police. 4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
I suspect it will be 2 as that was pretty much where Cummings ended up. Hence his offer.
Should he go ? By his own logic yes.
I doubt he will, I doubt big dog will.
Meanwhile while the media and political classes obsess over this the cost of living crisis and the unfolding catastropic lockdown in China continues.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
Even Charles now has a net favourable rating of +27%, William of +67%, almost the same as the Queen's +71%.
The British monarchy has with the exception of the Protectorate lasted for a 1000 years in England, Scotland and then the UK with monarchs coming and going. The Queen has been a good one but her loss after a long reign will be no different to Victoria's after a long 64 year reign and then the Prince of Wales proved a better than expected monarch as Edward VIIth for his relatively short 9 year reign https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/02/public-opinion-prince-charles-improves-latest-roya
There’s a strong argument when Liz, sadly, moves on that they should skip a generation to help make the monarchy more relevant to diverse, dynamic, modern Britain.
King William.
Charles deserves his chance, he will have a relatively short reign anyway compared to his mother and then William will reign
PB has gone ballistic! I usually read, assess and mentally log every comment, making suitable adjustments (if needed) to the standings of each poster on the key metrics of objectivity, judgement and ethics, but I'm going to have to let it go here. All get a pass.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
96 year old woman dies of natural causes, hotly tipped front runner eldest son succeeds? Hold the front page.
I mean, a wesbite managed to make 'Crown Prince will succeed Queen' a news story
Prince Charles is ready to becoming king whenever his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, decides to step down from the throne.
“Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that.”
Just catching up on the rapidly moving goalposts of currygate. If I've got this right, the Mail/Sun and their fans on here have moved the goalposts off the pitch:
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN. 2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction. 3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police. 4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
Circumstance has essentially given us a pivotal turning point on the road to the next election, which revolves around whether SKS gets a FPN or not.
The consequences of FPN or no FPN will cause a huge shift. I find it hard at this stage to exactly say how. I could see how a SKS exit could both help and hinder Labour election chances, ditto the other way round. And the same goes for no FPN. All I can safely say is that either way, there’ll probably be some sizeable shifts in both parties election chances over the next few months.
If you were forcing me to give an view, I’d say Labour will come out of it with the better standing.
Recently I was promoted and it took me six months to update my profile on the corporate intranet.....
Congratulations are in order for sex offender and now ex-MP Imran Ahmad Khan, whose early retirement has allowed him to get round to updating his Linkedin profile. His fellow users were notified today with news of his latest job:
Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, the procedural title given to MPs quitting the Commons. An exciting opportunity with room for professional growth and development…
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
I haven't seen a single documented example of a baby boomer claiming to have been 'in the war'. Yet the 'fact' that this seemingly pointless affectation (who wants to seem older than they are?) is constantly being adopted has become a staple of sneering remoanerism.
That's interesting. It has certainly become a commonplace. IIRC there was a whole hoo-ha when the German Ambassador raised the issue of British identity being formed by war-generation parents imprinting "standing alone" ideas on their boomer children. I don't think anyone denies the reality of that identity. And then it is exaggerated for effect by both sides (from Dad's Army references in red top headlines to earnest letters pages in the Guardian.)
And we will see a load of it amplified by the passing of HMQ.
If that is sneering remoanerism, fair enough.
Did His Excellency also mention those tired old "not murdering seven-figure numbers of Jews" memes?
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
Sex may have been part of it. But a likely just as - if not more important - part of it was that she provided him with the unconditional love and support he did not get from his mother (or father).
The rumour seems very mean. Also, I think in photographs she looks very striking, and quite beautiful. We're constantly told how ugly she was, but if she was that bad, one wonders how she got all the opportunities to prove her vulvic dexterity in the first place.
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
Sex may have been part of it. But a likely just as - if not more important - part of it was that she provided him with the unconditional love and support he did not get from his mother (or father).
Indeed, if you ever wonder why Meghan and Harry are as they are, consider the same toxic parenting.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
The sycophantic tripe that will go on for weeks will indeed be quite something. Thank God for streaming services!
I think most people will tune out much of the coverage after a couple of days, except for the day of the funeral, so it won't be that burdensome even though for those who want to there will be wall to wall stuff.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
I haven't seen a single documented example of a baby boomer claiming to have been 'in the war'. Yet the 'fact' that this seemingly pointless affectation (who wants to seem older than they are?) is constantly being adopted has become a staple of sneering remoanerism.
That's interesting. It has certainly become a commonplace. IIRC there was a whole hoo-ha when the German Ambassador raised the issue of British identity being formed by war-generation parents imprinting "standing alone" ideas on their boomer children. I don't think anyone denies the reality of that identity. And then it is exaggerated for effect by both sides (from Dad's Army references in red top headlines to earnest letters pages in the Guardian.)
And we will see a load of it amplified by the passing of HMQ.
If that is sneering remoanerism, fair enough.
I’ve seen plenty of voxpops of people evidently born well after 1945 saying “well we survived the blitz so we’ll get through this”.
I doubt they truly believe they were alive during the Blitz. But they speak to it with an ownership that claims the blitz spirit as some kind of inheritance. The same as those Russians saying today that “we beat the Nazis in 1943 so we’ll beat those Ukrainian Nazis in 2022”.
Well, my earliest memories are from about 1943 and what sticks in my mind is parental worry. Worry about what might happen, especially during the nightly bombing raids, worry about food, worry, for my mother, about running her business, and shortages.
Not exactly an ardent monarchist, but republicans need to think about the following question: which political party - who could conceivably be in government in the next 10-15 years - is going to have a referendum on whether to scrap the monarchy? Tories - no chance Labour - even if whoever is Labour leader is sympathetic to a republic, they won't touch it out of fear pissing of a chunk of the electorate they need to win. Lib Dems & other parties who might be in coalition or have C&S with Tories/Labour - not going to be a priority for negotiations, and will instead focus on getting PR, re-joining the SM, legalising cannabis etc... from one of the major parties. It's not going to happen.
Recently I was promoted and it took me six months to update my profile on the corporate intranet.....
Congratulations are in order for sex offender and now ex-MP Imran Ahmad Khan, whose early retirement has allowed him to get round to updating his Linkedin profile. His fellow users were notified today with news of his latest job:
Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, the procedural title given to MPs quitting the Commons. An exciting opportunity with room for professional growth and development…
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
I have no idea what a "Singapore Grip" is. Is it like being "regnal"?
Well, it's nearly the lagershed.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
Just catching up on the rapidly moving goalposts of currygate. If I've got this right, the Mail/Sun and their fans on here have moved the goalposts off the pitch:
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN. 2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction. 3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police. 4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
Very good indeed but you missed one -
This threat to resign if he's fined is putting the heat on the Durham police and attempting to corrupt them - this in itself is totally unacceptable and a resigning offence if ever there was one.
PB has gone ballistic! I usually read, assess and mentally log every comment, making suitable adjustments (if needed) to the standings of each poster on the key metrics of objectivity, judgement and ethics, but I'm going to have to let it go here. All get a pass.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
Even Charles now has a net favourable rating of +27%, William of +67%, almost the same as the Queen's +71%.
The British monarchy has with the exception of the Protectorate lasted for a 1000 years in England, Scotland and then the UK with monarchs coming and going. The Queen has been a good one but her loss after a long reign will be no different to Victoria's after a long 64 year reign and then the Prince of Wales proved a better than expected monarch as Edward VIIth for his relatively short 9 year reign https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/02/public-opinion-prince-charles-improves-latest-roya
There’s a strong argument when Liz, sadly, moves on that they should skip a generation to help make the monarchy more relevant to diverse, dynamic, modern Britain.
King William.
People have been saying that literally for decades, I don't think it is that strong of an argument at this point. A balding 40 year old may be closer to the average person in the country but is not that much more relevant. Especially as part of Will's appeal seems to be he is personally boring, like his grandmother - a steady hand.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
I haven't seen a single documented example of a baby boomer claiming to have been 'in the war'. Yet the 'fact' that this seemingly pointless affectation (who wants to seem older than they are?) is constantly being adopted has become a staple of sneering remoanerism.
That's interesting. It has certainly become a commonplace. IIRC there was a whole hoo-ha when the German Ambassador raised the issue of British identity being formed by war-generation parents imprinting "standing alone" ideas on their boomer children. I don't think anyone denies the reality of that identity. And then it is exaggerated for effect by both sides (from Dad's Army references in red top headlines to earnest letters pages in the Guardian.)
And we will see a load of it amplified by the passing of HMQ.
If that is sneering remoanerism, fair enough.
I’ve seen plenty of voxpops of people evidently born well after 1945 saying “well we survived the blitz so we’ll get through this”.
I doubt they truly believe they were alive during the Blitz. But they speak to it with an ownership that claims the blitz spirit as some kind of inheritance. The same as those Russians saying today that “we beat the Nazis in 1943 so we’ll beat those Ukrainian Nazis in 2022”.
Just catching up on the rapidly moving goalposts of currygate. If I've got this right, the Mail/Sun and their fans on here have moved the goalposts off the pitch:
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN. 2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction. 3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police. 4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
Very good indeed but you missed one -
This threat to resign if he's fined is putting the heat on the Durham police and attempting to corrupt them - this in itself is totally unacceptable and a resigning offence if ever there was one.
Thanks, though I thought that was covered by my No. 3, at least implicitly?
Not exactly an ardent monarchist, but republicans need to think about the following question: which political party - who could conceivably be in government in the next 10-15 years - is going to have a referendum on whether to scrap the monarchy? Tories - no chance Labour - even if whoever is Labour leader is sympathetic to a republic, they won't touch it out of fear pissing of a chunk of the electorate they need to win. Lib Dems & other parties who might be in coalition or have C&S with Tories/Labour - not going to be a priority for negotiations, and will instead focus on getting PR, re-joining the SM, legalising cannabis etc... from one of the major parties. It's not going to happen.
Indeed. Ed Davey is a constitutional monarchist as much as Boris, Starmer has said he backs a reformed monarchy.
Republicans best chance was probably a Corbyn majority government in 2017 or 2019 given he was a republican or one propped up by the SNP.
Corbyn's defeat means republicans likely lost their best chance for a generation or more
Just catching up on the rapidly moving goalposts of currygate. If I've got this right, the Mail/Sun and their fans on here have moved the goalposts off the pitch:
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN. 2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction. 3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police. 4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
Circumstance has essentially given us a pivotal turning point on the road to the next election, which revolves around whether SKS gets a FPN or not.
The consequences of FPN or no FPN will cause a huge shift. I find it hard at this stage to exactly say how. I could see how a SKS exit could both help and hinder Labour election chances, ditto the other way round. And the same goes for no FPN. All I can safely say is that either way, there’ll probably be some sizeable shifts in both parties election chances over the next few months.
If you were forcing me to give an view, I’d say Labour will come out of it with the better standing.
I almost feel sorry for Durham plod. If they don't issue a FPN they will be accused of bowing to pressure not to cause a change of LOTO (i.e. giving in to Labour pressure rather than there being insufficient evidence). If they do issue an FPN they will be accused of bowing to pressure to cause a change of LOTO (i.e. giving in to Tory pressure rather than there being sufficient evidence).
Hopefully plod won't care about the fact that Boris is in power and Keir isn't - they are both lawmakers so they should be treated equally. I suspect this will weigh against SKS. But IANAL.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
You've just ticked off another poster for pomposity and now you're telling me my republicanism is a symptom of my autism?
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
96 year old woman dies of natural causes, hotly tipped front runner eldest son succeeds? Hold the front page.
I mean, a wesbite managed to make 'Crown Prince will succeed Queen' a news story
Prince Charles is ready to becoming king whenever his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, decides to step down from the throne.
“Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that.”
Former top manager of Lukoil and billionaire Alexander Subbotin has died after an anti-hangover session with a shaman. He experienced heart pain after using toad poison. The shaman didn’t call an ambulance but dripped Corvalol and put the billionaire to sleep in his basement.
I'm a bit worried about this, what toad poison are they on about? I do a fair amount of N,N-DMT which is the entry-level version of the toad-derived 5-MeO-DMT, having always thought it was physically harmless. Am I OK if I keep out of top level Russian politics?
Not exactly an ardent monarchist, but republicans need to think about the following question: which political party - who could conceivably be in government in the next 10-15 years - is going to have a referendum on whether to scrap the monarchy? Tories - no chance Labour - even if whoever is Labour leader is sympathetic to a republic, they won't touch it out of fear pissing of a chunk of the electorate they need to win. Lib Dems & other parties who might be in coalition or have C&S with Tories/Labour - not going to be a priority for negotiations, and will instead focus on getting PR, re-joining the SM, legalising cannabis etc... from one of the major parties. It's not going to happen.
It would take some pretty dramatic revelations and/or the reigning monarch doing something very very stupid. I don't think Charles or William are so reckless, so it is relying on the former to provide a moment.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
London Bridge will be the most astonishing event that most of us have ever experienced.
(And I was at the 2021 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix).
I imagine it will be somewhere between the brilliant episode of Upstairs Downstairs when Edward VII dies; and a week of wall-to-wall jingoism where weeping pensioners talk about how brilliant she was in the war, despite said pensioners not being born until 1950.
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
I haven't seen a single documented example of a baby boomer claiming to have been 'in the war'. Yet the 'fact' that this seemingly pointless affectation (who wants to seem older than they are?) is constantly being adopted has become a staple of sneering remoanerism.
If I could make head or tail of what your post means, I am sure it would be worth a "like".
Comments
I do agree with your earlier assertion that for all her faults Brenda deserves better than a Johnson eulogy. Peppa Pig World anyone?
It will certainly be memorable, though. I don't deny that.
A certain genre of films left me with unrealistic expectations for what an au pair would be willing to do for me.
“ This is the right decision by Keir Starmer and in contrast to Boris Johnson , shows integrity , decency and respect to the bereaved “ .
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
So my Dad is right, as we all second guess (clause 4 moment) we don’t know, no one knows, we just have to wait and see what happens. Probably a month or more.
My skin in the game, as Lib Dem, give Starmer FPN finishing off both Starmer and Boris, leaving only Ed Davey as elder statesman. Likely women in charge of both main parties going into next election. Plus I win £50 pound on Boris 2022 exit date.
I can’t be any more than fair or honest about this than that 😇
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
More seriously, this is a load of tosh. Ultimately, it's hard to be the invader. If your military successes so far consist of blowing through a serious chunk of your front line forces, losing the flagship of your fleet, persuading your neighbours to join NATO, and imposing crippling sanctions on your economy... well, at some point it becomes too much to sustain.
The Russians could, I suppose, order a general mobilisation. But sending ever less well prepared troops with more and more outdated equipment might not end well.
Canada would be extremely unlikely to go as it needs approval under the constitution by every single Canadian province.
The UK will always have a monarchy, it is part of our culture, the only time we were a republic under Cromwell and his son and the Rump Parliament we swiftly returned to a more constitutional monarchy under Charles IInd after just 11 years as it was such a disaster
Incidentally, for those of you who don't know South London well, this is just how we drive down here, OK?
William is just as popular and we will hold out for him. Charles will be ok in the interim.
The British monarchy has with the exception of the Protectorate lasted for a 1000 years in England, Scotland and then the UK with monarchs coming and going. The Queen has been a good one but her loss after a long reign will be no different to Victoria's after a long 64 year reign and then the Prince of Wales proved a better than expected monarch as Edward VIIth for his relatively short 9 year reign
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/02/public-opinion-prince-charles-improves-latest-roya
Just imagine if she had intervened the other way.
I’m happy to take the extreme position
“Within 24 months of the Coronation of Prince Charles as king, there will not be a single poll showing majority support for a republic in the UK”
Feel free to amend the terms, you do this more than me
I am not a socialist, I support tax cuts and oppose nationalisation of industry and unchecked union power but I am not a spending slasher either.
As a male's penis is in the female's vagina, the male chooses not to thrust. The Female then clenches the vagina and continues to have intercourse with the stationary man, simulating the feeling of a vigorous handjob.
"Oh Honey, I've had a long day at work and don't feel likely pleasuring me, can we do the singapore grip tonight?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Singapore Grip
which leads to Wallace Simpson and the Duke of Windsor.
. "It's assumed she must have magic powers; that she must have hypnotised him. But nobody can put their finger on what it was about her. She wasn't even young; she was 40; she wasn't even beautiful. But clearly a woman who attracted three husbands must have had something." That something was rumoured to be a string of sex tricks learned in the brothels of the East, where she spent time with her first husband. The Shanghai Squeeze and Singapore Grip are both probably self-explanatory, but think "matchstick" and "cigar", and men, at least, might start to fathom her hold over Edward.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/the-return-of-wallis-simpson-2219771.html
This years Xmas message
https://twitter.com/drivelcast/status/1523720730218704896?s=21&t=jkcXw-MdV5TeRIQF7Co-fQ
You are supporting a government that has raised taxes to their highest level since the war and want me to list all the nationalism Boris Johnson has undertaken?
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote.
2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like.
3. Artists made it up.
4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house.
5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
1. Starmer must resign if he gets an FPN.
2. Okay, he's said he will. But that's not good enough. He must resign even if he doesn't get an FPN if there's even a hint of wrongdoing but no sanction.
3. And if neither 1. or 2. apply, Starmer should resign because that proves that he's nobbled the Durham Police.
4. Actually, forget 1-3; Starmer should resign anyway because he's a dull, boring metropolitan lawyer who leads the evil Labour Party.
Meanwhile, Wooton in the Mail is comparing Starmer to Richard Nixon. FFS.
The Tory fans must be worried about something I reckon - quite hysterical.
I hope Netflix do a series on Bertrand Dawson, that would be box office.
The man who murdered the King/ our Queen's grandfather, and he ended up with a Viscountcy for that, and then he tried to nobble Baldwin during the abdication crisis, the sitting PM!
And we will see a load of it amplified by the passing of HMQ.
If that is sneering remoanerism, fair enough.
I think we might be looking at the musings of a wide eyed optimist here.
Look, no hands!
However even Thatcher backed keeping the monarchy despite occasional disagreements over South Africa for example with the Queen.
Nationalism is often part of Tory history, as it was under Disraeli, Salisbury and even Thatcher and with figures from Joseph Chamberlain to Enoch Powell as well as Boris.
Nationalisation of industry is not and Boris has not done so, albeit Macmillan and Heath for example accepted the post war consensus of state influence in industry after the Attlee Labour government's nationalisations.
Johnson and Sunak have cut NI for those earning under £35k, have proposed a cut in income tax and have cut the amount people have to pay in social care costs too
King William.
And at uni, I had a materials lecturer - a subject I found, and find, fascinating - who would talk in a dull monotone and make me want to do *anything* other than attend lectures.
I'm currently reading a Stephen fry book, the third part of his memoirs. And it is the most turgidly overwritten piece of **** I've read in a long time. But if I was listening to him speak it, it might well be fascinating ....
I doubt they truly believe they were alive during the Blitz. But they speak to it with an ownership that claims the blitz spirit as some kind of inheritance. The same as those Russians saying today that “we beat the Nazis in 1943 so we’ll beat those Ukrainian Nazis in 2022”.
I am not too bothered either way if Britain is a monarchy or a republic. It's a lottery with these inbred aristocrats, but fortunately they seem to be more bothered over trivia like titles and precedence than anything that actually matters.
I mention this, because it tells you how shafted the rest of the Russian economy is, that - in a world where energy prices are up 50% - the economy has shrunk more than a tenth.
https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1523481012281364480?s=20&t=W0p5r9sg0FlQkKUFbjiOgg
Should he go ? By his own logic yes.
I doubt he will, I doubt big dog will.
Meanwhile while the media and political classes obsess over this the cost of living crisis and the unfolding catastropic lockdown in China continues.
Prince Charles is ready to becoming king whenever his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, decides to step down from the throne.
“Charles will serve as king with Duchess Camilla by his side,” a source exclusively says in the new issue of Us Weekly. “This is something he’s dreamed about his entire life — he sees it as his birthright, and Her Majesty would find it extremely difficult to deprive him of that.”
https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/inside-prince-charles-plans-if-queen-elizabeth-steps-down/
The consequences of FPN or no FPN will cause a huge shift. I find it hard at this stage to exactly say how. I could see how a SKS exit could both help and hinder Labour election chances, ditto the other way round. And the same goes for no FPN. All I can safely say is that either way, there’ll probably be some sizeable shifts in both parties election chances over the next few months.
If you were forcing me to give an view, I’d say Labour will come out of it with the better standing.
Congratulations are in order for sex offender and now ex-MP Imran Ahmad Khan, whose early retirement has allowed him to get round to updating his Linkedin profile. His fellow users were notified today with news of his latest job:
Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds, the procedural title given to MPs quitting the Commons. An exciting opportunity with room for professional growth and development…
https://order-order.com/2022/05/09/imran-ahmad-khans-exciting-new-job/
Are we sure a ten year old Astra embedded in his hedge isn't just a little casual late night parking by the Big Dog?
Tories - no chance
Labour - even if whoever is Labour leader is sympathetic to a republic, they won't touch it out of fear pissing of a chunk of the electorate they need to win.
Lib Dems & other parties who might be in coalition or have C&S with Tories/Labour - not going to be a priority for negotiations, and will instead focus on getting PR, re-joining the SM, legalising cannabis etc... from one of the major parties.
It's not going to happen.
(I'm pretty happy to be out of that loop.)
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
Talk about history repeating itself.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/may/09/labour-says-can-prove-starmer-team-worked-past-1am-beergate-night
This threat to resign if he's fined is putting the heat on the Durham police and attempting to corrupt them - this in itself is totally unacceptable and a resigning offence if ever there was one.
Republicans best chance was probably a Corbyn majority government in 2017 or 2019 given he was a republican or one propped up by the SNP.
Corbyn's defeat means republicans likely lost their best chance for a generation or more
Hopefully plod won't care about the fact that Boris is in power and Keir isn't - they are both lawmakers so they should be treated equally. I suspect this will weigh against SKS. But IANAL.
Don't be such an arse.
Though QEII's heir apparent's actual title COULD have featured as a character in "The Little Mermaid" or "Nemo'!