Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
The things the Founding Fathers missed, were the emergence of the two-party system and the recent extreme polarisation, that leads to barely a majority for anything, and very little on which most Americans can agree needs to change. They arguably left too much power with the Supreme Court, and didn’t expect lifetime appointments to be abused by the politicians and judges. But overall it’s stood the test of time.
There probably needs to be an attempt at a modern Bill of Rights, but fear that most of the proposals will come from the more extreme political factions trying to codify a ‘win’ for their pet cause.
There was one such attempt with the Equal Rights Amendment in the early seventies. It is admirably simple, and had bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. And then stalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
It's entirely right, I think, that constitutional amendments should require supermajorities, as a way of ensuring that they have cross party support, but the US hurdles are excessive.
"And then stalled" is not quite right - a huge reactionary movement coalescing against integration, women's rights and gay rights made massive headway into the Republican party with the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, Jerry Falwell Sr and others who argued for the "moral majority" and spent millions of dollars to do so.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
First Plaid, now a fascist.
Isn't it about time you abandoned your "I'm a Tory" facade?
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
The things the Founding Fathers missed, were the emergence of the two-party system and the recent extreme polarisation, that leads to barely a majority for anything, and very little on which most Americans can agree needs to change. They arguably left too much power with the Supreme Court, and didn’t expect lifetime appointments to be abused by the politicians and judges. But overall it’s stood the test of time.
There probably needs to be an attempt at a modern Bill of Rights, but fear that most of the proposals will come from the more extreme political factions trying to codify a ‘win’ for their pet cause.
There was one such attempt with the Equal Rights Amendment in the early seventies. It is admirably simple, and had bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. And then stalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
It's entirely right, I think, that constitutional amendments should require supermajorities, as a way of ensuring that they have cross party support, but the US hurdles are excessive.
"And then stalled" is not quite right - a huge reactionary movement coalescing against integration, women's rights and gay rights made massive headway into the Republican party with the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, Jerry Falwell Sr and others who argued for the "moral majority" and spent millions of dollars to do so.
As depicted in the brilliant Mrs America on iplayer.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
The things the Founding Fathers missed, were the emergence of the two-party system and the recent extreme polarisation, that leads to barely a majority for anything, and very little on which most Americans can agree needs to change. They arguably left too much power with the Supreme Court, and didn’t expect lifetime appointments to be abused by the politicians and judges. But overall it’s stood the test of time.
There probably needs to be an attempt at a modern Bill of Rights, but fear that most of the proposals will come from the more extreme political factions trying to codify a ‘win’ for their pet cause.
There was one such attempt with the Equal Rights Amendment in the early seventies. It is admirably simple, and had bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress. And then stalled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment
It's entirely right, I think, that constitutional amendments should require supermajorities, as a way of ensuring that they have cross party support, but the US hurdles are excessive.
"And then stalled" is not quite right - a huge reactionary movement coalescing against integration, women's rights and gay rights made massive headway into the Republican party with the likes of Phyllis Schlafly, Jerry Falwell Sr and others who argued for the "moral majority" and spent millions of dollars to do so.
Again, of course. But none of that takes away from the fact that excessive hurdles to ratification stalled a bipartisan amendment, which had supermajority support, for the next half century.
One of the things which has enabled the current toxic state of US politics is a system which grants political minorities complete vetoes on reform.
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I mean, I don't think that should be the lesson of the US constitution or SCOTUS - the real lesson should be it doesn't matter how much positive change happens, if you don't keep your foot on the pedal reactionaries will entrench the status quo. This SC in particular seems to be aggrieved by the very existence of the administrative state and the reconstruction amendments of the constitution - but SCOTUS prior have been similarly reactionary. There was a brief light in the Warren court where I think some sensible readings of the constitution happened (Miranda rights being one), but the right time and again flip the US constitution on its head to do what they want. Hell, there is even a whole part of the constitution that says "rights not enumerated here are also protected by the constitution, btw" and the right just ignore that in favour of defending only enumerated rights; with Bork going so far as to say interpreting that would be like trying to interpret what is written underneath an "inkblot".
The real lesson of the US constitution is that you shouldn't make codified constitutions quite so hard to amend. The ERA struggle is a perfect example of that.
That difficulty apart, it was a pretty good effort for its time.
I mean, the US constitution is really difficult to amend, and I agree that's bad - but also they did do it quite a lot. Again, the framers really didn't foresee two political parties with such oppositional relationships to each other - they hoped a form of elite consensus would hold the thing together and if it didn't the "vetocracy" they designed would force them to. The whole US system right now is showing it doesn't work - Congress rarely does the things it is supposed to do, the role of POTUS is huge and SCOTUS have made themselves the arbiter of what is and isn't constitutional in a system that supposedly has three equal branches that hold each other in check.
Yes, and the result of that is that the SCOTUS has been required to be a part of the legislature - or has been actively pushed into becoming such (take your pick as to cause or effect but the reality is that it has, whatever the route to it).
It's not inevitable that Supreme Courts will become political but it's certainly a risk - and the risk increases the harder it is to amend the constitution (and hence the greater the power of the court to determine political questions in a lasting way).
Of course another lesson that can be learned from this, and the ever more appalling rulings of the SC in the US supposedly based on one, is that written constitutions are a very bad idea. They inevitably become archaic, contrary to modern mores and are notoriously difficult to change. Lets not go there. Ever.
I'm not sure (genuinely: that's not a rhetorical trick)
1. Perhaps this case is an argument for one, not against one. In Ireland, any change to the constitution must be agreed by a referendum. The political put forward an idea, put it to the people, who rejected it. From one point of view that's very democratic.
2. ...but having said that, I think we're getting democracy a bit wrong. A political class has become distanced from the people and in order to retain power it needs to know what the people want. So focus group, citizens jurys, citizen's assemblies, NGOs, etc. These are ways whereby a political class can theoretically remain in power indefinitely by ensuring the people get the correct bread and circuses. But the point of democracy is not just to get consent from the governed, it's to ensure the government comes from the governed: by the people, not just for the people.
Having created his literary Three Laws, Asimov then spent a lifetime on what happens when the laws are changed or ignored. We have developed a political class distanced from the people and overlooked the "by the people" clause. Hence the kerfuffle.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
First Plaid, now a fascist.
Isn't it about time you abandoned your "I'm a Tory" facade?
I am a monarchist Tory, if we had no monarchy or established church then the Tory Party would have died with them. Instead we would have a rightwing largely looking like Farage
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Careful what you wish for as you don't know what rabbit hole that might take you down, but I'm guessing you don't mean it, although I rather liked @Nigelb tongue in cheek reply to you.
Re the president I agree with your comment, but we don't have to have one. I know in the past when we have had this discussion you have pointed out the head of state roles we have, but that can be changed such there is not a need for both a president/prime minister.
Personally I guess I am in principle a republican BUT we are a monarchy and I have no desire to change that as I don't think a change would bring any benefits and I rather like the pomp and ceremony. My wife on the other hand.....
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Dunno. We shall see. Kate is as we know a saint and if William has been off shagging while she has been on her sickbed I'm not sure how much people will be prepared to tolerate it.
There is no suggestion he has, the only very dodgy rumour on social media related to Kate and the former tragically recently deceased husband of Lady Gabriella which I am sure is also rubbish
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible for President ie the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them and jail them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Dunno. We shall see. Kate is as we know a saint and if William has been off shagging while she has been on her sickbed I'm not sure how much people will be prepared to tolerate it.
There is no suggestion he has, the only very dodgy rumour on social media related to Kate and the former tragically recently deceased husband of Lady Gabriella which I am sure is also rubbish
As I noted upthread, the chances of someone like you being aware of what has or hasn't happened in the Royal Shagarama are very small.
David Attenborough Stephen Fry David Dimbleby Helen Mirren John Humphries Ian McKellan Alan Bennett Joanna Lumley Alan Sugar Melvyn Bragg
A conversationalist to do the lunches with heads of state. A clerk in the lords to rubber stamp bills. As much as I like the concept of the monarchy, I’d be ok with that I suppose.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Perhaps not to the institution of state, but very likely to their spouse.
Who knows what is going on, but if this was a physical illness would expect to have seen photos of her propped up in bed or sofa surrounded by doting family. We have seen nothing of that sort, at least until this dodgy photo.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Careful what you wish for as you don't know what rabbit hole that might take you down, but I'm guessing you don't mean it, although I rather liked @Nigelb tongue in cheek reply to you.
Re the president I agree with your comment, but we don't have to have one. I know in the past when we have had this discussion you have pointed out the head of state roles we have, but that can be changed such there is not a need for both a president/prime minister.
Personally I guess I am in principle a republican BUT we are a monarchy and I have no desire to change that as I don't think a change would bring any benefits and I rather like the pomp and ceremony. My wife on the other hand.....
Every nation has a head of state, the vast majority of republics with a politician or ex politician as president
AIUI the railways have been doing some research into quality of rest as well as required rest times between shifts.
It also reminds me of the 1892 Thirsk Crash, where a signalman was forced to work despite being in no state to:
"Holmes was charged with manslaughter and found guilty, but was given an absolute discharge upon the strong recommendation of the jury, who were sympathetic to Holmes' personal tragedy; public opinion was also in Holmes' favour"
It's still a live issue with the railways now, around which a lot of care is taken - and even so we still occasionally get incidents - e.g. this one in 2010 where a driver dozed off whilst coasting gently up to a signal going up Shap, and after coming to a stand the train rolled away backward for a couple of miles...
Must be quite difficult to keep concentration with nothing happening around you! Try driving on a deserted motorway……. not that it’s easy to find on in UK nowadays.
My pet hate is driving in the middle of the night on an empty smart motorway with speed restrictions. It's virtually impossible hold a car down at 40mph with three completely empty lanes, it feels so stationary.
Thats where cruise control is great, if you have it.
Remember that most PBers’ cars don’t work: the majority cannot drive at 20mph, for example. So if he does have CC, it will likely malfunction.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Careful what you wish for as you don't know what rabbit hole that might take you down, but I'm guessing you don't mean it, although I rather liked @Nigelb tongue in cheek reply to you.
Re the president I agree with your comment, but we don't have to have one. I know in the past when we have had this discussion you have pointed out the head of state roles we have, but that can be changed such there is not a need for both a president/prime minister.
Personally I guess I am in principle a republican BUT we are a monarchy and I have no desire to change that as I don't think a change would bring any benefits and I rather like the pomp and ceremony. My wife on the other hand.....
You wish to change your wife? And replace her with an elected candidate?
But, maybe this is the future of the monarchy. We keep the line of succession, but future royal matches are decided in a love island style format (or some other dating show) so we don't get to choose the future monarch, but we do get to choose 50% of their genes (1st generation) rising asymptotically -> 100% (50%, 75%, 87.5%, 93.75%...) over time.
Yes, I wonder why this Irish proposal failed. It's heart looks in the right place, ie aiming to bring the Constitution up to date.
On the Care proposal: The State would no longer endeavour to ensure that mothers can afford to stay at home and fulfil their care duties - instead it was going to strive to support all family members in undertaking care duties.
Deconstructing, there are 2 changes:
(1) "Endeavour to ensure" is replaced by "strive to support"
Is that a problem? Does this language change represent a watering down of the state's obligations?
(2) It says all family members, not just mothers, have a duty of care to each other.
Is that more the problem? Do the majority still feel more comfortable singling out women and mothers as being responsible for this?
One voter the Irish Times spoke to said that the new wording wasn't what they wanted and they were voting to tell the government to think again.
It's a mistake to view the vote as simply a binary choice between two sets of words. Voters implicitly hold new wording to a higher standard. That the constitution still talks about a mother's duty in the home means that there is likely to be another attempt to change the wording in the future - hopefully with a better amendment.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible for President ie the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them and jail them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Perhaps not to the institution of state, but very likely to their spouse.
Who knows what is going on, but if this was a physical illness would expect to have seen photos of her propped up in bed or sofa surrounded by doting family. We have seen nothing of that sort, at least until this dodgy photo.
She went to hospital for abdominal surgery and we know she will not be seen in public again until Easter
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Careful what you wish for as you don't know what rabbit hole that might take you down, but I'm guessing you don't mean it, although I rather liked @Nigelb tongue in cheek reply to you.
Re the president I agree with your comment, but we don't have to have one. I know in the past when we have had this discussion you have pointed out the head of state roles we have, but that can be changed such there is not a need for both a president/prime minister.
Personally I guess I am in principle a republican BUT we are a monarchy and I have no desire to change that as I don't think a change would bring any benefits and I rather like the pomp and ceremony. My wife on the other hand.....
Every nation has a head of state, the vast majority of republics with a politician or ex politician as president
AIUI the railways have been doing some research into quality of rest as well as required rest times between shifts.
It also reminds me of the 1892 Thirsk Crash, where a signalman was forced to work despite being in no state to:
"Holmes was charged with manslaughter and found guilty, but was given an absolute discharge upon the strong recommendation of the jury, who were sympathetic to Holmes' personal tragedy; public opinion was also in Holmes' favour"
The most intriguing part of the Batik Air story is: "According to the report, his wife had just given birth to one-month-old twin babies" That must be a first. Babies tend to be newborn when you've just given birth, not one-month-old!
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
I don't understand why we would need to replace them with anything - or why a head of state needs political power. You could roll the speakership into a nominal head of state for all I care - or be like RoI which has a purely ceremonial figure. As long as we get shift of the sponging bastards who claim to be better than us all due to their special blood, or a dictat from God or whatever, I don't care.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
get you and your you have to destroy to rebuild schtick.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Perhaps not to the institution of state, but very likely to their spouse.
Who knows what is going on, but if this was a physical illness would expect to have seen photos of her propped up in bed or sofa surrounded by doting family. We have seen nothing of that sort, at least until this dodgy photo.
I don’t think the royal family do hospital bed photos. On top of all this the P+POW have famously been rather guarded of their privacy (remember if you may the heat and fury that got generated by topless-photogate back in the day).
To be honest, I’ve got little doubt that she’s had an operation. It is however possible it was all a little more serious than they were letting on, or plausibly that they’ve built in more recovery time because she’s not enjoyed her time in the public eye recently, or similar. The danger of being caught out in such a big lie to protect against some huge scandal doesn’t seem to me to be worth the cover up.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Dunno. We shall see. Kate is as we know a saint and if William has been off shagging while she has been on her sickbed I'm not sure how much people will be prepared to tolerate it.
There is no suggestion he has, the only very dodgy rumour on social media related to Kate and the former tragically recently deceased husband of Lady Gabriella which I am sure is also rubbish
As I noted upthread, the chances of someone like you being aware of what has or hasn't happened in the Royal Shagarama are very small.
A friend of mine briefly dated someone who worked for the Palace, and that was when I first heard rumours that Wills has had affairs - that was ages ago though. I also know the foreign press talk about it quite openly, but then they get dismissed here as being foreign rumour mongers.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
Ah, so you'd take the same route as those after the Kaiser ended in Germany. Good to know that all reactionaries end up in the same place.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
The more this goes on, the saner the Sussexes look for getting out.
Has the British Monarchy become a gilded torture chamber?
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Dunno. We shall see. Kate is as we know a saint and if William has been off shagging while she has been on her sickbed I'm not sure how much people will be prepared to tolerate it.
There is no suggestion he has, the only very dodgy rumour on social media related to Kate and the former tragically recently deceased husband of Lady Gabriella which I am sure is also rubbish
As I noted upthread, the chances of someone like you being aware of what has or hasn't happened in the Royal Shagarama are very small.
A friend of mine briefly dated someone who worked for the Palace, and that was when I first heard rumours that Wills has had affairs - that was ages ago though. I also know the foreign press talk about it quite openly, but then they get dismissed here as being foreign rumour mongers.
I know an ex personal protection officer for one of the Royals. We pump him for stuff, but he gives practically nothing away. We ferreted for ages on Prince Andrew (as he seemed like a good opportunity for juicy stuff) and all we got was a story of him rescuing a cat once.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
I don't understand why we would need to replace them with anything - or why a head of state needs political power. You could roll the speakership into a nominal head of state for all I care - or be like RoI which has a purely ceremonial figure. As long as we get shift of the sponging bastards who claim to be better than us all due to their special blood, or a dictat from God or whatever, I don't care.
The Irish President is himself an ex politician who was in the Dail, he has angered Israel with his Gaza comments and his wife angered Ukraine pushing for a peace deal with the Kremlin. He also brings in no real tourism, royal wedding, coronation or jubilee revenue and his successor is like to be Bertie Ahern, the Irish Blair and another ex politician
So Tice's 'massive news' is that an MP suspended from the Tory Party for Islamophobia has defected to Reform which was probably his natural home anyway!
Point about Anderson's defection is simple - this is the Tory nightmare. They are already flailing to the right to try and head off voters outing themselves as FUKers. Now their only recently departed Deputy Chair has defected and you can see a swathe of others following.
That May election is dead and done. Tories need time to pass a "Bring Back Hanging" law. And a referendum on sending all foreigners and people with funny names back where they came from.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Perhaps not to the institution of state, but very likely to their spouse.
Who knows what is going on, but if this was a physical illness would expect to have seen photos of her propped up in bed or sofa surrounded by doting family. We have seen nothing of that sort, at least until this dodgy photo.
She went to hospital for abdominal surgery and we know she will not be seen in public again until Easter
Yes, that's the official story, but a lot doesn't add up.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
Careful what you wish for as you don't know what rabbit hole that might take you down, but I'm guessing you don't mean it, although I rather liked @Nigelb tongue in cheek reply to you.
Re the president I agree with your comment, but we don't have to have one. I know in the past when we have had this discussion you have pointed out the head of state roles we have, but that can be changed such there is not a need for both a president/prime minister.
Personally I guess I am in principle a republican BUT we are a monarchy and I have no desire to change that as I don't think a change would bring any benefits and I rather like the pomp and ceremony. My wife on the other hand.....
You wish to change your wife? And replace her with an elected candidate?
But, maybe this is the future of the monarchy. We keep the line of succession, but future royal matches are decided in a love island style format (or some other dating show) so we don't get to choose the future monarch, but we do get to choose 50% of their genes (1st generation) rising asymptotically -> 100% (50%, 75%, 87.5%, 93.75%...) over time.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
Ah, so you'd take the same route as those after the Kaiser ended in Germany. Good to know that all reactionaries end up in the same place.
Well within two decades of removing the Kaiser Germany got Hitler as head of state yes
So Tice's 'massive news' is that an MP suspended from the Tory Party for Islamophobia has defected to Reform which was probably his natural home anyway!
PS I've just realised I am arguing with you on whether there should be a president or not in a republic when I have no desire to get rid of the royalty in the first place. Talk about a pointless argument on my part.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Perhaps not to the institution of state, but very likely to their spouse.
Who knows what is going on, but if this was a physical illness would expect to have seen photos of her propped up in bed or sofa surrounded by doting family. We have seen nothing of that sort, at least until this dodgy photo.
She went to hospital for abdominal surgery and we know she will not be seen in public again until Easter
Yes, that's the official story, but a lot doesn't add up.
As a clinician, Foxy, can you give insight on how common it is for abdominal surgery on a mother to lead to realignment of the wrist of her daughter?
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
get you and your you have to destroy to rebuild schtick.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Both of those would be better at discharging the duties of a ceremonial head of state then the current inbred mob of the tumour-ridden, the fanny rat, the slightly mental, the absent-without-leave and whoever it is that's shit at Photoshop.
No they wouldn't half the nation would despise them which is precisely why we shouldn't have a politician president as head of state.
Though if we ever were a republic I would vote for the most rightwing nationalist, indeed near Fascist candidate possible or the candidate most Republicans would despise, the type who would arrest them for protesting too hard as the quickest way to restore the monarchy again
First Plaid, now a fascist.
Isn't it about time you abandoned your "I'm a Tory" facade?
I am a monarchist Tory, if we had no monarchy or established church then the Tory Party would have died with them. Instead we would have a rightwing largely looking like Farage
You're a fawning hypocrite, is what you are. You'll tug your forelock for any fucker with a title and a bit of plundered wealth.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
Ah, so you'd take the same route as those after the Kaiser ended in Germany. Good to know that all reactionaries end up in the same place.
Well within two decades of removing the Kaiser Germany got Hitler as head of state yes
So Tice's 'massive news' is that an MP suspended from the Tory Party for Islamophobia has defected to Reform which was probably his natural home anyway!
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
I think KCIII is not the boost for Republicanism many Republicans had hoped. He seems to understand what the role requires of him and seems willing to do what is required. His marriage to Camilla also seems to have made him happy in himself.
William though I am not sure. He seems to believe that he can be a Royal on his own terms. I'm not sure he's necessarily going to be willing to do what is required to retain support for the institution. It's laudable that he would rather put his family first, but that's not compatible with the role he was born to.
I am shocked that the Tory party's latest efforts to appease the populist right has only made them weaker and the latter stronger. Who could have predicted that, eh?
Yeah, because who's never digitally altered their children's cardigan with clone tool... eh?
Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
I don't understand why we would need to replace them with anything - or why a head of state needs political power. You could roll the speakership into a nominal head of state for all I care - or be like RoI which has a purely ceremonial figure. As long as we get shift of the sponging bastards who claim to be better than us all due to their special blood, or a dictat from God or whatever, I don't care.
The Irish President is himself an ex politician who was in the Dail, he has angered Israel with his Gaza comments and his wife angered Ukraine pushing for a peace deal with the Kremlin. He also brings in no real tourism, royal wedding, coronation or jubilee revenue and his successor is like to be Bertie Ahern, the Irish Blair and another ex politician
The whole "monarchy brings in tourist money" thing just isn't true. France has a huge number of tourists - even to the palaces that don't have living monarchs in them. London is a tourist magnet because it is arguably the cultural hub of the English speaking world - second possibly to NYC. It isn't dependent on the royals still existing. And hell, if Buckingham Palace was turned into a museum, I'm sure that would have a hell of a lot of tourists too. Lots of royal stuff that no longer functions as it does (the Tower of London, for example) is still of interest to tourists. A living, politically powerful, royal family is not necessary for that. And even if it was true - I don't care. It is morally abhorrent, I don't care if it makes money (although I don't believe it does).
I am shocked that the Tory party's latest efforts to appease the populist right has only made them weaker and the latter stronger. Who could have predicted that, eh?
They're talking right, but failing to legislate or act effectively, meaning we stay in a left-wing stasis whilst they also highlight the issue as a problem. Its politics 101; don't highlight issues you can't solve.
As some of us have pointed out for yonks, Sunak is not good at politics. So this isn't a massive surprise.
On topic, the Irish constitutional changes seem a bit like the Australian referendum for a Voice for aborigines in the constitution - pointless woke virtue-signalling by an insular and out-of-touch political class, irrelevant to the country's concerns and a reminder that public opinion is rarely how it appears on Twitter.
Yeah, because who's never digitally altered their children's cardigan with clone tool... eh?
Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C
Genuinely, I retouch all my photos. I'm not seeing what all the fuss is, and I'm no fan of the monarchy. If it is some AI attempt at hiding Kate's illness, then fair enough, but might it just be exactly what she says?
"Sources close to the Reform UK Party tell me that as many as nine Conservative MPs are in advanced talks to join the Reform UK party"
If this is true the Reform party could have more MPs than the Conservatives in the next parliament...
Not impossible, and not necessarily a development entirely to my liking (despite the obvious possibility of the Tory vote splitting neatly down the middle), both because we need a sensible right-of-centre party in Britain and because the turmoil could have unpredictable effects on what looked like a pretty solid done deal for Labour this year.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
So Tice's 'massive news' is that an MP suspended from the Tory Party for Islamophobia has defected to Reform which was probably his natural home anyway!
"Suspended"? Bloody odd way of putting it. He seemed to be getting on very well there.
Yeah, because who's never digitally altered their children's cardigan with clone tool... eh?
Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C
I like to think it's all perfectly innocent and that they just realised before publishing the picture that the daughter* was flipping the bird and hastily photoshopped in a more demure hand from another shot so she didn't look like a BBC journalist.
I am shocked that the Tory party's latest efforts to appease the populist right has only made them weaker and the latter stronger. Who could have predicted that, eh?
They're talking right, but failing to do legislate or act effectively, meaning we stay in a left-wing stasis whilst they also highlight the issue as a problem. Its politics 101; don't highlight issues you can't solve.
As some of us have pointed out for yonks, Sunak is not good at politics. So this isn't a massive surprise.
Question is how far back along the path did the Conservatives need to make a different choice?
Angry old men shaking their fists at the clouds have votes, and have always been part of the Conservative family. But at some point they became the dominant voice, demanding things that weren't going to happen.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
Delighted though many would be at President Johnson or President Farage, the monarchy will stay precisely as it is avoids a politician as head of state
Yes I think this is where we will be for the foreseeable future. But I think it may well be that the monarchy will perhaps as a result of or helped on by current circumstances, undergo a change.
You are right that the King had an affair but now we are in the full-on (social) media and critical social media pile on age.
I don't think that the royal family could legitimately hold up its head if a leading member (!) is focused upon because of extra-marital behaviour.
Half the monarchs in history including the current King have had affairs as have most French Presidents and half US Presidents, I doubt it makes much difference
Dunno. We shall see. Kate is as we know a saint and if William has been off shagging while she has been on her sickbed I'm not sure how much people will be prepared to tolerate it.
There is no suggestion he has, the only very dodgy rumour on social media related to Kate and the former tragically recently deceased husband of Lady Gabriella which I am sure is also rubbish
Spreading dodgy rumours while pretending to wring your hands?
I hadn't heard that, so you've certainly done your best to disseminate it.
"Sources close to the Reform UK Party tell me that as many as nine Conservative MPs are in advanced talks to join the Reform UK party"
If this is true the Reform party could have more MPs than the Conservatives in the next parliament...
Not impossible, and not necessarily a development entirely to my liking (despite the obvious possibility of the Tory vote splitting neatly down the middle), both because we need a sensible right-of-centre party in Britain and because the turmoil could have unpredictable effects on what looked like a pretty solid done deal for Labour this year.
I mean, I don't believe we do need a "sensible" right of centre party (nor do I really believe being centre right is "sensible")and even if I did we already have one; it's called Labour.
As for the effects on Labour - I would personally not prefer a Baathist level of Labour representation in Parliament. Whilst I think Reform UK are odious, I don't see them actually getting many seats in Parliament, FPTP will see to that. I wonder if we will see the likes of HYUFD be in favour of PR in the face of the death of the Tories... I really think we could get into a position where the LDs or SNP are going to be the official opposition...
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Nope - it’s like democracy - potentially not the best idea but better than the other alternatives.
Although I would prefer our Royal Family to follow the Danish model rather than the current one and not “Lord” it quite so much
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Trouble is even the Tories on PB are talking about controlling who succeeds. Even HYUFD doesn't want certain Royals to succeed,which the law requires if a certain succession (no pun intended) of events happens.
It's all nonsense anyway. One moment James VII and II was King, divine right, all the dressings and garnishes. Next thing, it's all evaporated and someone else is It.
Back after an awful week. Apparently I still can't manage significant physical exertion and an exercise assessment a few days before a walking tour put me out for a week with fatigue, where I had to have a lie in and afternoon nap each day just to manage. Long covid is a bitch. (For those wondering why sickness has increased amongst workers, I would say look no further).
Having been away for a week (which is a long time in politics) I just have to say - WTF is going on with these Kate pictures?
Welcome back and it's good to see an anarcho-syndicalist focusing on the critical issue facing the workers today.
Hey, any weakness in the royals is an opportunity to get rid of them, and I think that is important - especially since material change isn't happening anytime soon with the SKSs Labour party essentially talking the space left by David Cameron's Tory Party.
For the first time I do believe that the Royals seem (not only physiologically) creaky.
King down, Harry out, Kate who knows, William a cad.
George is no Richard II.
I think we should be prepping ourselves for King Harry and Queen Meghan.
Or Harry as Regent at least.
Not happening, there is no suggestion of any problem with William so he will still be next King.
Even if there was as you say it would be King George not King Harry with Harry at most regent for a few years.
Don't forget William is about 20 years older than his grandmother was when she became monarch after her father died
I wouldn’t be so sure about that. There would be no appetite in the country for Harry to be either monarch or regent, as reflected in the 2022 counsellors of state bill, which restored Anne and Edward back to their prior role.
Depending on the circumstances of William not taking the job, he or his wife may decide they dont want that life for his kids either and so parliament removes them from the line of succession too (see the brief parliamentary instrument removing Edward and future heirs from succession).
So if not William nor kids, nor Harry (nor kids), it’s Andrew. Obvs that doesn’t work either. By now we’re abandoning primogeniture and picking who we want. Next in line Andy’s kids. Fergie as queen mother. Really?? You can’t easily skip past them for the obvious candidates of Edward/Sophie without unravelling the whole thing.
Potentially it’s a very very big mess.
In such circumstances parliament would likely legislate to give it to Edward or Anne before the Accession Council with the throne continuing down their line.
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
And in such a circumstance I think the "magic" of monarchy dies. The monarchy barely survived the abdication crisis of the 1900's; they wouldn't be able to survive in the modern era doing something similar. People would, correctly, suggest that such a system of privilege for people based purely on their bloodline is absolutely ridiculous, as is the idea that they somehow unify the country or uphold stability - because the very crisis itself would disprove both those things.
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Even Charles is far more popular than any politician would be and William massively more so.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
I don't understand why we would need to replace them with anything - or why a head of state needs political power. You could roll the speakership into a nominal head of state for all I care - or be like RoI which has a purely ceremonial figure. As long as we get shift of the sponging bastards who claim to be better than us all due to their special blood, or a dictat from God or whatever, I don't care.
The Irish President is himself an ex politician who was in the Dail, he has angered Israel with his Gaza comments and his wife angered Ukraine pushing for a peace deal with the Kremlin. He also brings in no real tourism, royal wedding, coronation or jubilee revenue and his successor is like to be Bertie Ahern, the Irish Blair and another ex politician
Bertie Ahern would like the job, but the point is that the voters get to choose.
On the monarchy - it’s hard to work out which is funnier :
1) the over the top pro monarchists 2) the republicans who were promising each other that King Charles would implode within 10 min and now seem like 6 year olds at a birthday when the clown doesn’t show up.
BREAKING - Kate says she experimented with editing her amateur photo
Thought it as Will's photo? They need to get the story straight.
I don't know what's behind this (and hope nothing serious) but the sheer ineptitude in the handling of this is quite hilarious. It's like the Thick of It mixed with Alan Partridge.
ETA: Also, this scandal needs a name. Hand-job-gate?
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
On the monarchy - it’s hard to work out which is funnier :
1) the over the top pro monarchists 2) the republicans who were promising each other that King Charles would implode within 10 min and now seem like 6 year olds at a birthday when the clown doesn’t show up.
He's hardly been in post for a year and, whilst people don't necessarily seem dissatisfied with him, the monarchy is looking weaker and weaker. I agree that most people probably don't care about the monarchy - and that's reasonable enough. I just think if another coronation happens soon (because Chaz dies) or the monarchy start stinking too much or reality, people will automatically fall out of favour with them.
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Again, why do we need a head of state separate from the PM? They already do most things a head of state is supposed to do? And if you do want them to be separate from the PM - just give it to the Speaker; that would keep them busy with hosting people and is already a political role that is supposed to be non-partisan. If the Speaker has to host some fancy dinners and occasionally give a speech, that's fine by me - it's still more democratic than people ruling based on their bloodline.
The weekly audience between PM and head of state would be fun if they were the same person!
End of the day does anyone trust any UK politician to implement an elected head of state sensibly? They'd beeline for the yank system and we'd end up paying similar for a puffed up useless ego who'd tear to shreds the current structure of UK politics.
Nope - it’s like democracy - potentially not the best idea but better than the other alternatives.
Although I would prefer our Royal Family to follow the Danish model rather than the current one and not “Lord” it quite so much
There is an alternative. And he is right there, in Wales.
Comments
However William is almost certainly going to be King followed by George so it will not be an issue
Isn't it about time you abandoned your "I'm a Tory" facade?
But none of that takes away from the fact that excessive hurdles to ratification stalled a bipartisan amendment, which had supermajority support, for the next half century.
One of the things which has enabled the current toxic state of US politics is a system which grants political minorities complete vetoes on reform.
It's not inevitable that Supreme Courts will become political but it's certainly a risk - and the risk increases the harder it is to amend the constitution (and hence the greater the power of the court to determine political questions in a lasting way).
1. Perhaps this case is an argument for one, not against one. In Ireland, any change to the constitution must be agreed by a referendum. The political put forward an idea, put it to the people, who rejected it. From one point of view that's very democratic.
2. ...but having said that, I think we're getting democracy a bit wrong. A political class has become distanced from the people and in order to retain power it needs to know what the people want. So focus group, citizens jurys, citizen's assemblies, NGOs, etc. These are ways whereby a political class can theoretically remain in power indefinitely by ensuring the people get the correct bread and circuses. But the point of democracy is not just to get consent from the governed, it's to ensure the government comes from the governed: by the people, not just for the people.
Having created his literary Three Laws, Asimov then spent a lifetime on what happens when the laws are changed or ignored. We have developed a political class distanced from the people and overlooked the "by the people" clause. Hence the kerfuffle.
https://twitter.com/SamCoatesSky/status/1767129543410606221
Re the president I agree with your comment, but we don't have to have one. I know in the past when we have had this discussion you have pointed out the head of state roles we have, but that can be changed such there is not a need for both a president/prime minister.
Personally I guess I am in principle a republican BUT we are a monarchy and I have no desire to change that as I don't think a change would bring any benefits and I rather like the pomp and ceremony. My wife on the other hand.....
David Attenborough
Stephen Fry
David Dimbleby
Helen Mirren
John Humphries
Ian McKellan
Alan Bennett
Joanna Lumley
Alan Sugar
Melvyn Bragg
The monarchy lucked out with Lizzie - we got a Queen at a time of progress so we wouldn't have to confront a King during the fight for women's rights and such, she had seen the abdication crisis first hand so didn't want to do anything that could lead to that happening again, and she was so young when she got the throne that she was rooted in the heads of three generations of people as The Queen. She messed up the whole Diana thing, which could have been a proper turning point against the royals, but other than that a relatively good run. Now we have her unloved son as King and his broken sons.
Who knows what is going on, but if this was a physical illness would expect to have seen photos of her propped up in bed or sofa surrounded by doting family. We have seen nothing of that sort, at least until this dodgy photo.
But, maybe this is the future of the monarchy. We keep the line of succession, but future royal matches are decided in a love island style format (or some other dating show) so we don't get to choose the future monarch, but we do get to choose 50% of their genes (1st generation) rising asymptotically -> 100% (50%, 75%, 87.5%, 93.75%...) over time.
Naval backstory; casual contempt for the rules of the road; salty language as the occasion requires...
I'd definitely vote for you over bloody Alan Sugar.
It's a mistake to view the vote as simply a binary choice between two sets of words. Voters implicitly hold new wording to a higher standard. That the constitution still talks about a mother's duty in the home means that there is likely to be another attempt to change the wording in the future - hopefully with a better amendment.
If we ever were a republic as I said I would vote for the most far right candidate possible, if Republicans want to end constitutional monarchy I will push for the most divisive hard right head of state possible instead
"According to the report, his wife had just given birth to one-month-old twin babies"
That must be a first. Babies tend to be newborn when you've just given birth, not one-month-old!
"Sources close to the Reform
UK Party tell me that as many as nine Conservative MPs are in advanced talks to join the Reform UK party"
To be honest, I’ve got little doubt that she’s had an operation. It is however possible it was all a little more serious than they were letting on, or plausibly that they’ve built in more recovery time because she’s not enjoyed her time in the public eye recently, or similar. The danger of being caught out in such a big lie to protect against some huge scandal doesn’t seem to me to be worth the cover up.
I will go and warm the popcorn.
He’s as loyal as King Charles III was to his first wife.
That May election is dead and done. Tories need time to pass a "Bring Back Hanging" law. And a referendum on sending all foreigners and people with funny names back where they came from.
PS I've just realised I am arguing with you on whether there should be a president or not in a republic when I have no desire to get rid of the royalty in the first place. Talk about a pointless argument on my part.
William though I am not sure. He seems to believe that he can be a Royal on his own terms. I'm not sure he's necessarily going to be willing to do what is required to retain support for the institution. It's laudable that he would rather put his family first, but that's not compatible with the role he was born to.
Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C
https://x.com/kensingtonroyal/status/1767135566645092616?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
https://x.com/jakubkrupa/status/1767137347265597792?s=61&t=c6bcp0cjChLfQN5Tc8A_6g
Scenes.
They're talking right, but failing to legislate or act effectively, meaning we stay in a left-wing stasis whilst they also highlight the issue as a problem. Its politics 101; don't highlight issues you can't solve.
As some of us have pointed out for yonks, Sunak is not good at politics. So this isn't a massive surprise.
*sorry, don't remember names
Angry old men shaking their fists at the clouds have votes, and have always been part of the Conservative family. But at some point they became the dominant voice, demanding things that weren't going to happen.
Then, they became the only voice.
I hadn't heard that, so you've certainly done your best to disseminate it.
As for the effects on Labour - I would personally not prefer a Baathist level of Labour representation in Parliament. Whilst I think Reform UK are odious, I don't see them actually getting many seats in Parliament, FPTP will see to that. I wonder if we will see the likes of HYUFD be in favour of PR in the face of the death of the Tories... I really think we could get into a position where the LDs or SNP are going to be the official opposition...
Or face a summer of bloodletting.
Although I would prefer our Royal Family to follow the Danish model rather than the current one and not “Lord” it quite so much
It's all nonsense anyway. One moment James VII and II was King, divine right, all the dressings and garnishes. Next thing, it's all evaporated and someone else is It.
1) the over the top pro monarchists
2) the republicans who were promising each other that King Charles would implode within 10 min and now seem like 6 year olds at a birthday when the clown doesn’t show up.
I don't know what's behind this (and hope nothing serious) but the sheer ineptitude in the handling of this is quite hilarious. It's like the Thick of It mixed with Alan Partridge.
ETA: Also, this scandal needs a name. Hand-job-gate?
@JasonGroves1
·
8m
Lee Anderson says his mum and dad told him they wouldn't vote for him unless he defected to Reform
Step forward President Drake. The people’s king.