What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
That's a typo by YouGov.
I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.
The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.
FPT. Don’t know how much influence she really has - but even if it’s basically zero it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t call on Bangladesh govt to do the right thing.
This will surely be hugely damaging for her career - whereas if she got this guy released... I can’t see the Labour volunteers who support her liking this at all.
She has handled it badly, certainly.
Whether this will damage her career I'm not so sure. Labour seem willing to swallow a whole load of smelly camels. If anti-semitism, supping with terrorists, shilling for the Iranians etc etc doesn't harm you I don't see why this would. Though some who supported her may not like this, she now has a large majority so can probably afford not to worry about a loss of some support.
Getting him released or trying to would do her a power of good. She may not want to because then she could get inundated by lots of other similar requests. Bangladesh has a very poor human rights record. I can understand why she might want to concentrate on her work here rather than acting as a one-woman Amnesty (Bangladesh branch).
The other possibility is that she simply does not want to do anything which would involve criticising her family. Fair enough from a personal perspective - even if it is at odds with statements she has made in the past. Still, hypocrisy is pretty widespread and survivable.
The worst possibility from her perspective is that she agrees with what the Bangladesh government is doing and may even have tipped them off. That really ought to be career-ending. But I stress that there is no evidence of this. Just questions which Channel 4 raised and which have yet to be answered.
I think she's been badly damaged. She comes across as being implicated in the conduct of a repressive regime, as merely strategic in her support for human rights, and the way she responded to the questioning revealed her to be a deeply unpleasant individual. I'm usually a Labour voter, but for me she now joins Ken Livingstone as someone I could never countenance voting for.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
Yes, he is a Macron fan if ever there was one, a greater champion of the ideals of the French Republic and EUphilia you could not find than Our Eagles, even down to his snappy dress sense! His pretend Francophobia is all an act
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
If the job us merely ceremonial it doesn't matter much if it's restricted. As for the anthem, sure, although as an atheist I don't really note the literal meaning anyway, it's just a noise I make to express national fervour at sporting events.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
That's a typo by YouGov.
I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
That's a typo by YouGov.
I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
That's a typo by YouGov.
I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
Do you want to see other recent examples of your "fat thumbs"?
Oh, and I hadn't actually read the thread and seen it was a tweet. I'd just seen the typo at the beginning of the vanilla thread and assumed it was the often fat thumbed Frenchman in control of things tonight!
It is usually auto-correct that annoys me.
The morning thread talks about 'dildos', don't worry that's not a typo.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
I've long suspected that Les Aigles is a French spy. He does quite a good Yorkshireman in person, but his lack of command of the English language (always blamed on thin phones/fat thumbs; for very recent example see the header to this thread: "to be please by"), his grovelling support for his beloved EU (is anyone fooled by his claim that he wanted to leave, but later?), and his pathetic 'attacks' on the French to 'prove' his Britishness, all make me think he'd surrender to the first German on the horizon.
That's a typo by YouGov.
I didn't write that tweet, merely embedded it.
Thought you would have been at the Secret Screening
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
Not when played properly. It's a simple tune to sing compared with the US - over an octave and a half - for example.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
I would certainly have Jerusalem as the English anthem at sporting events where England is playing as it is at the Commonwealth Games.
I expect intervention from a British MP would also help. Which is rather the point the family are making. What is interesting is that, apparently, diplomats suggested the family approach the MP. Which, if true, does tend to suggest that they think - and may have reason to think - that the MP can do rather more than she claims.
The difficulty the MP is in is that it would involve her implicitly criticising her own family.
FPT. Don’t know how much influence she really has - but even if it’s basically zero it’s hard to see why she wouldn’t call on Bangladesh govt to do the right thing.
This will surely be hugely damaging for her career - whereas if she got this guy released... I can’t see the Labour volunteers who support her liking this at all.
She has handled it badly, certainly.
Whether this will damage her career I'm not so sure. Labour seem willing to swallow a whole load of smelly camels. If anti-semitism, supping with terrorists, shilling for the Iranians etc etc doesn't harm you I don't see why this would. Though some who supported her may not like this, she now has a large majority so can probably afford not to worry about a loss of some support.
Getting him released or trying to would do her a power of good. She may not want to because then she could get inundated by lots of other similar requests. Bangladesh has a very poor human rights record. I can understand why she might want to concentrate on her work here rather than acting as a one-woman Amnesty (Bangladesh branch).
The other possibility is that she simply does not want to do anything which would involve criticising her family. Fair enough from a personal perspective - even if it is at odds with statements she has made in the past. Still, hypocrisy is pretty widespread and survivable.
The worst possibility from her perspective is that she agrees with what the Bangladesh government is doing and may even have tipped them off. That really ought to be career-ending. But I stress that there is no evidence of this. Just questions which Channel 4 raised and which have yet to be answered.
I think she's been badly damaged. She comes across as being implicated in the conduct of a repressive regime, as merely strategic in her support for human rights, and the way she responded to the questioning revealed her to be a deeply unpleasant individual. I'm usually a Labour voter, but for me she now joins Ken Livingstone as someone I could never countenance voting for.
Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.
Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.
Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.
I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.
Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.
Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.
I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
I think it was a cruel thing to do to both of them.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.
Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.
Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.
I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
How would anyone know that? And who takes their riding instructor on a fishing holiday? Charles may be dim, but even so...
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
Yeah but they're not there to gawp at the Élysée Palace.
Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.
Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.
Charles dined on fish, while she and Hewitt dined on each others' private parts.
I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
How would anyone know that? And who takes their riding instructor on a fishing holiday? Charles may be dim, but even so...
I heard it from someone who had spoken to the gillies. Charles was apparently completely indifferent and no doubt went home to Camilla. A different kind of marriage.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
And look at their Presidents. Pretty much all of them guilty of "inappropriate behaviour", adultery and, in some cases, downright corruption.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
And look at their Presidents. Pretty much all of them guilty of "inappropriate behaviour", adultery and, in some cases, downright corruption.
Not entirely confident that I know what "inappropriate behaviour" is for a French President.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
You may think it quaint and a nice historical linkage, I think it is offensive to anyone who believes in a meritocracy.
As for the attraction of tourists, London already attracts tourists. The UK already attracts tourists. Go to visit the UK and you can stand outside Buckingham Palace ... go to visit France and you can go inside the Palace of Versailles and other former royal palaces consistently.
I'd think opening up our all of our royal institutions so they can actually be visited by tourists consistently might just attract more tourists (and no a tiny period of the year doesn't count).
As for "saving us from President Blair" what did that achieve? Did it prevent Iraq? Did it prevent would-be President Brown from crashing our economy? Did it prevent would-be President Cameron from causing us to terminate our EU membership for someone opposed to that?
Our PM wielding Presidential powers without checks and balances but lacking the name is not something I find the slightest bit reassuring.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
And look at their Presidents. Pretty much all of them guilty of "inappropriate behaviour", adultery and, in some cases, downright corruption.
Not entirely confident that I know what "inappropriate behaviour" is for a French President.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
Yeah but they're not there to gawp at the Élysée Palace.
The Élysée Palace is equivalent to Downing Street.
The seat of the Ancien Regime was Versailles and yes tourists don't just stand and gawp at it. They go for tours in it all year round.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The .
You may think it quaint and a nice historical linkage, I think it is offensive to anyone who believes in a meritocracy.
As for the attraction of tourists, London already attracts tourists. The UK already attracts tourists. Go to visit the UK and you can stand outside Buckingham Palace ... go to visit France and you can go inside the Palace of Versailles and other former royal palaces consistently.
I'd think opening up our all of our royal institutions so they can actually be visited by tourists consistently might just attract more tourists (and no a tiny period of the year doesn't count).
As for "saving us from President Blair" what did that achieve? Did it prevent Iraq? Did it prevent would-be President Brown from crashing our economy? Did it prevent would-be President Cameron from causing us to terminate our EU membership for someone opposed to that?
Our PM wielding Presidential powers without checks and balances but lacking the name is not something I find the slightest bit reassuring.
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
You may think it quaint and a nice historical linkage, I think it is offensive to anyone who believes in a meritocracy.
As for the attraction of tourists, London already attracts tourists. The UK already attracts tourists. Go to visit the UK and you can stand outside Buckingham Palace ... go to visit France and you can go inside the Palace of Versailles and other former royal palaces consistently.
I'd think opening up our all of our royal institutions so they can actually be visited by tourists consistently might just attract more tourists (and no a tiny period of the year doesn't count).
As for "saving us from President Blair" what did that achieve? Did it prevent Iraq? Did it prevent would-be President Brown from crashing our economy? Did it prevent would-be President Cameron from causing us to terminate our EU membership for someone opposed to that?
Our PM wielding Presidential powers without checks and balances but lacking the name is not something I find the slightest bit reassuring.
Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
France is a republic and Paris gets more tourists than London.
Yeah but they're not there to gawp at the Élysée Palace.
The Élysée Palace is equivalent to Downing Street.
The seat of the Ancien Regime was Versailles and yes tourists don't just stand and gawp at it. They go for tours in it all year round.
France effectively has a monarchical Presidency anyway, they don't call Macron 'the second Sun King' for nothing
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Her Majesty was born to reign over us. It's a simple statement of fact, and rather quaint, with a nice historical lineage.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
You may think it slightest bit reassuring.
Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
What is 'meritocracy' anyway? If you had wealthy and educated parents, went to a private or top state school, were born without a disability etc you automatically started with an advantage over many of your peers before you even reached adulthood.
Those who go from rags to riches are only a tiny minority of our society even today.
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
Headline article: The headline to it is nonsense. The republican movement are singular failures who are no closer to achieving their objectives as I am of winning the Ballon D'Or and an Oscar. A poll on the fluff of a Royal wedding isn't worth a fart as regards the wider issue of having a monarch as Head of State,
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Avast, and belay your puking, it doesn't say that. It's “Long to reign over us“.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Avast, and belay your puking, it doesn't say that. It's “Long to reign over us“.
Let me just move my quotation mark three characters along: Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone born "to reign over us"
Hmm... re Diana, heard a good story about her turning up with Charles for fishing on a Scottish river. He went looking for fish and she went looking for parts of Hewitt's anatomy behind a screen on the river bank Don't know how Charles got on with the fish but Diana did fine.
Royal marriages are different which is why you would not want even someone you dislike to marry a prince. But if they were you could do worse than Harry. Sooner or later someone is going to give credit to Charles for having 2 sons who are relatively normal. It may be his greatest achievement.
Who is the second son?
Whoever the genetic father is there is only one real father, the one who brought him up after his mother died.
Harry is clearly a Windsor. He has some of Prince Philip in his younger days about him.
I am not convinced he is related to the Royal Family at all. But he does seem to be a decent guy
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.
Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.
Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
Avast, and belay your puking, it doesn't say that. It's “Long to reign over us“.
Let me just move my quotation mark three characters along: Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone born "to reign over us"
Happy now? Does that make it better?
But it doesn't say anything about birth; the singer might think the monarch is so fine and dandy that you'd want to be reigned over by them anyway, irrespective of how they got the gig in the first place.
Advance Australia Fair is pretty rubbish too btw. Look at us, we stole an entire continent from the Abos.
Most of us believe that families should hand down land, businesses, cash to their descendants, rather than to people chosen on the basis of merit, howsoever defined.
That's fine for their land, cash etc subject to proper inheritance taxes etc if applicable.
Not to state land which is what the Crown Estates essentially are. And certainly not for the country, if May were to die today I wouldn't expect the next PM to be her next of kin.
The French royals lost their heads, no republican proposes that for the Windsors. They should be given a generous pension, retirement [especially for the older ones] and some land to call their own. Anything belonging to the Crown should become the countries which it essentially is already.
It seems to me that the best system is that in the Commonwealth Realms, where the Governor-General serves only five years or so and is usually some non-partisan member of the Great and Good of the country. Gives you all the advantages of a non-partisan monarchy without the risk of genetics throwing up a numpty or reincarnation of Henry VIII. No-one stays in too long, and you don't get superannuated politicians who are sure to be unpopular with some part of the electorate as ceremonial president either. (And no, do not even go near an American separation-of-powers system: seven years in the US has convinced me Parliamentarianism is far superior.)
Perhaps we should redefine the UK as consisting of Windsor Castle, Buck House, Balmoral and Sandringham and declare the rest to be the Dominion of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I nominate David Attenborough for first Governor-General.
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
Less likely here than in the US simply due to numbers, AA is ~ 14%; black population here is ~ 3%.
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.
Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.
Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
The eldest child of either sex would succeed. You are out of date.
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.
Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.
Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
Whether its a constitutional or absolute monarchy is neither here nor there, for as long as it is hereditary it is still someone born to be head of state and thus voiding the chances of anyone else to be so. In America theoretically at least anyone, even now we know a black boy from Hawaii, can grow up to be Head of State. That's simply better than what we have.
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.
Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.
Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
The eldest child of either sex would succeed. You are out of date.
Apologies, forgot the 2011 change but that does not really change the point
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.
Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.
Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
Whether its a constitutional or absolute monarchy is neither here nor there, for as long as it is hereditary it is still someone born to be head of state and thus voiding the chances of anyone else to be so. In America theoretically at least anyone, even now we know a black boy from Hawaii, can grow up to be Head of State. That's simply better than what we have.
I am not so sure. A head of State chosen by accident of birth is more random than an ambitious politician from anywhere.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
That is an argument for an elected second chamber not a Republic.
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Many of those nations largely have the monarchy in name only now but I'd still be a Republican.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
So do we, we have a constitutional monarchy not an absolute monarchy by divine right and that has been the case since the 17th century.
Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.
Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
Whether its a constitutional or absolute monarchy is neither here nor there, for as long as it is hereditary it is still someone born to be head of state and thus voiding the chances of anyone else to be so. In America theoretically at least anyone, even now we know a black boy from Hawaii, can grow up to be Head of State. That's simply better than what we have.
Why? What remote difference to the average American does the fact that 1 person, highly likely to be from a middle class if not privately and Ivy League educated background, in 300 million gets to be President every 8 years rather than having a hereditary constitutional monarch as their Head of State instead? They still have to get all their domestic policies and Treaties through Congress anyway much as Parliament ultimately makes our laws now.
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
You really do have to be a very specially nutty kind of extreme Brexiteer to want to punish the EU by paying them loads of reparations dosh upfront rather than putting it on the never-never.
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
Remainers be happy - we get to keep some of the aspects of EU membership - handing over our cash.
Yep, it’s good news. No Deal is sailing into the sunset. The grown-ups have slapped down the children and will now, hopefully, make the best of a bad job.
From that Guardian article though it seems Mogg will join the likes of Peter Bone and vote against the payment for a deal with the EU. It should still get thorough anyway but will cement JRM as champion of the diehard Brexiteers in any future Tory leadership contest
What a load of rubbish from the radical liberal republican and increasingly unTory TSE.
80%+ have a positive opinion of the Queen, Harry and William, Meghan Markle has a net positive rating of +35% and even Prince Charles now has a small net positive rating.
If we didn't have a monarchy, would you seek to introduce one?
Why not? Why is someone brought up to perform a ceremonial and non-political constitutional role inherently worse than someone who chose it as a career?
1: What it says about the country that there are some jobs people are born to do.
2: Our national anthem.
Compare and contrast other national anthems like Advance Australia Fair that seek to portray positives about the people of that country, to ours singing about someone "born to reign over us".
I have no respect for anyone "born to reign over" me *puke*
1. Farmers, shop and family business owners also often inherit their jobs
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
'God save our Queen' is a spirit-sapping dirge. Because of it, in big football matches, England already wear a defeated aspect before a ball is even kicked.
Jerusalem is such a beautiful hymn. It would be my preferred national anthem.
Maybe. But it is a poem by a radical proto-anarchist (albeit one with a spiritual bent).
Comments
Walked out after 10 mins
Edit, and maybe the Muppets Christmas Carol.
The morning thread talks about 'dildos', don't worry that's not a typo.
(He means fudge).
Edit: and it is still good for 26.25 hours anyway.
2. Australia still has the Queen as Head of State. No reason we cannot keep 'God Save the Queen' as the royal anthem played in the presence of the monarch or a member of the royal family and have a new anthem composed as the UK anthem.
The monarchy attracts the tourists, and spawns a great industry of tat and gossip. It saves us from President Tony Blair and similar horrors. It gives us a non-partisan symbolic institution around which the country can unite at difficult times. Like many things about Britain, it doesn't work in theory, but it works in practice - most countries go for the other way round.
So I'm all in favour. That doesn't mean that I have the slightest interest in the tat and gossip.
I take the view that Charles and Diana pretty much deserved each other.
1 Bangkok
2 London
3 Paris
https://www.cntraveler.com/galleries/2015-06-03/the-10-most-visited-cities-of-2015-london-bangkok-new-york
The top 2 have monarchies.
As for the attraction of tourists, London already attracts tourists. The UK already attracts tourists. Go to visit the UK and you can stand outside Buckingham Palace ... go to visit France and you can go inside the Palace of Versailles and other former royal palaces consistently.
I'd think opening up our all of our royal institutions so they can actually be visited by tourists consistently might just attract more tourists (and no a tiny period of the year doesn't count).
As for "saving us from President Blair" what did that achieve? Did it prevent Iraq? Did it prevent would-be President Brown from crashing our economy? Did it prevent would-be President Cameron from causing us to terminate our EU membership for someone opposed to that?
Our PM wielding Presidential powers without checks and balances but lacking the name is not something I find the slightest bit reassuring.
The seat of the Ancien Regime was Versailles and yes tourists don't just stand and gawp at it. They go for tours in it all year round.
http://gawker.com/french-president-rolls-up-to-his-mistresss-flat-on-bac-1499300883
The shame of it! A moped, for heaven's sake!
Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada all do perfectly well with monarchies.
As for 'meritocracy' what makes George W Bush or Donald Trump so meritorious in their acquisition of the US Presidency? Elections are not triumphs of meritocracy just managing to persuade enough voters to vote for you. Most voters happen to still back the monarchy, which is fine by me.
Those who go from rags to riches are only a tiny minority of our society even today.
You may laugh at the idea of George W Bush or Donald Trump but we should not take for granted other Presidents like Obama. Obama represented an incredible moment for meritocracy where America had gone from being a nation in living memory where segregation and pre-civil rights era restrictions had occured ... where a black man was a second class citizen still ... to being a nation where the Head of State was a black man.
Do you think in our living memory we could see a black man become our Head of State?
Trumpton
THESE TWEETS ARE A BIG LOUD DISTRACTION TACTIC
See that? Easy, isn't it.
Happy now? Does that make it better?
Even Obama's father had a Harvard MA and was from a top Kenyan tribe and he went to one of the top private schools in America (albeit with a scholarship), he was hardly born to 2 parents without a high school diploma and sent to a sink inner city school.
Meghan Markle is of course mixed race, if, heaven forfend, a fatal accident hit Prince William and Kate and his family, the eldest son (or if no sons the eldest daughter) of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry would be a future monarch and of mixed race like Obama.
Advance Australia Fair is pretty rubbish too btw. Look at us, we stole an entire continent from the Abos.
Not to state land which is what the Crown Estates essentially are. And certainly not for the country, if May were to die today I wouldn't expect the next PM to be her next of kin.
The French royals lost their heads, no republican proposes that for the Windsors. They should be given a generous pension, retirement [especially for the older ones] and some land to call their own. Anything belonging to the Crown should become the countries which it essentially is already.
Perhaps we should redefine the UK as consisting of Windsor Castle, Buck House, Balmoral and Sandringham and declare the rest to be the Dominion of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I nominate David Attenborough for first Governor-General.
https://twitter.com/thetimesie/status/936000986652577792
https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/-em-love-actually-em-is-the-least-romantic-film-of-all-time/282091/
She really knows how to negotiate badly.
Soon she will concede on Freedom of Movement.