Surely a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party would look forward to King Henry I?
I thought the convention was from Union of the Crowns/The Act of the Union we'd go for whatever the highest number the Regnal name had been used before by either Crown.
A more difficult question might be whether he would be Henry IX or Henry X. Just as Charles seeems to be dodging questions about being Charles III or Charles IV by saying he'll be George VII.
Perhaps Harry could honour his father and go for King James?
Wouldn't help - James III or James IV?
In fact though he would be James VIII or IX following that custom.
Perhaps it would be easier to be David III?
How about choosing a name that reflects the UK.
King Mohammed I.
It would meets with the approval of Prince Charles who wants to be Defender of Faith.
Surely a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party would look forward to King Henry I?
I thought the convention was from Union of the Crowns/The Act of the Union we'd go for whatever the highest number the Regnal name had been used before by either Crown.
A more difficult question might be whether he would be Henry IX or Henry X. Just as Charles seeems to be dodging questions about being Charles III or Charles IV by saying he'll be George VII.
Perhaps Harry could honour his father and go for King James?
Wouldn't help - James III or James IV?
In fact though he would be James VIII or IX following that custom.
Perhaps it would be easier to be David III?
How about choosing a name that reflects the UK.
King Mohammed I.
It would meets with the approval of Prince Charles who wants to be Defender of Faith.
In the interests of combining modern attitudes to gender and pure populism, Diana I?
Happy birthday @HYUFD I have to say I would never have thought you’d be a millennial (I thought you were older!)
Someone told me the other day that Millenials are still under 30 - between generation X and millenials are Z-enials, apparently.
Who knew.
Re millennials I think the years can vary - it generally starts at 1981, but it can end at 2000, and even as late as 2004! American demographers seem to end it around 1994-98, with 95-98 bring the most common. Here, in articles in our newspapers/media I always see generation z (generation after millennials) referred to as those born after 2000. I have never heard of z-enials, though so that’s new information!
Surely a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party would look forward to King Henry I?
I thought the convention was from Union of the Crowns/The Act of the Union we'd go for whatever the highest number the Regnal name had been used before by either Crown.
A more difficult question might be whether he would be Henry IX or Henry X. Just as Charles seeems to be dodging questions about being Charles III or Charles IV by saying he'll be George VII.
Perhaps Harry could honour his father and go for King James?
Wouldn't help - James III or James IV?
In fact though he would be James VIII or IX following that custom.
Perhaps it would be easier to be David III?
How about choosing a name that reflects the UK.
King Mohammed I.
It would meets with the approval of Prince Charles who wants to be Defender of Faith.
@SuffolkPolice: Police have responded to reports of a disturbance at RAF Mildenhall in #Suffolk and a man has been detained with cuts and bruises and taken into custody. No other people have been injured as a result of the incident.
Read more - ow.ly/ovkd30hiqeu pic.twitter.com/KTc7EcUTer
I wonder if he punched himself repeatedly in the face while falling down a flight of stairs?
I'd personally slice the great coalition that is the Conservative Party slightly differently. I'd identify four components:
- business friendly (Nigel Lawson) - socially conservative (TMay) - One Nation (Ken Clarke) - libertarian (Dan Hannan).
As with any coalition, successful leaders must straddle divides within the party, offering bribes to each, while disappointing them in equal measure. So Margaret offered:
- the business friendly trade union reform, etc. - the socially conservative clause 28 - the one Nationers the continuation of the welfare state - the libertarians market liberalisation (also a boon to the business friendly).
Indeed when a government has a tiny majority (Major in the 90s and TMay now), British political history comprises little else besides this balancing act.
Of course, one can identify components (sometimes parallel, sometimes opposite) amongst the Socialists.
Mrs May isn't a social conservative.
A social conservative wouldn't have championed same sex marriage.
I'd personally slice the great coalition that is the Conservative Party slightly differently. I'd identify four components:
- business friendly (Nigel Lawson) - socially conservative (TMay) - One Nation (Ken Clarke) - libertarian (Dan Hannan).
As with any coalition, successful leaders must straddle divides within the party, offering bribes to each, while disappointing them in equal measure. So Margaret offered:
- the business friendly trade union reform, etc. - the socially conservative clause 28 - the one Nationers the continuation of the welfare state - the libertarians market liberalisation (also a boon to the business friendly).
Indeed when a government has a tiny majority (Major in the 90s and TMay now), British political history comprises little else besides this balancing act.
Of course, one can identify components (sometimes parallel, sometimes opposite) amongst the Socialists.
Mrs May isn't a social conservative.
A social conservative wouldn't have championed same sex marriage.
More correctly, she backed the LibDems in championing it. Certainly you can give her the benefit of the doubt and put it down to conviction. The alternative interpretation is that the Tories (May herself, or Cameron by instruction, take your pick) saw the dangers of letting the LibDems run with an issue on which the Tory opponents could never hope to carry the Commons. As ever with Mrs M, no-one ever knows what her convictions or.motivations really are. What is undoubtedly true is that she gave Featherstone full HO backing for the legislation.
I'd personally slice the great coalition that is the Conservative Party slightly differently. I'd identify four components:
- business friendly (Nigel Lawson) - socially conservative (TMay) - One Nation (Ken Clarke) - libertarian (Dan Hannan).
As with any coalition, successful leaders must straddle divides within the party, offering bribes to each, while disappointing them in equal measure. So Margaret offered:
- the business friendly trade union reform, etc. - the socially conservative clause 28 - the one Nationers the continuation of the welfare state - the libertarians market liberalisation (also a boon to the business friendly).
Indeed when a government has a tiny majority (Major in the 90s and TMay now), British political history comprises little else besides this balancing act.
Of course, one can identify components (sometimes parallel, sometimes opposite) amongst the Socialists.
Mrs May isn't a social conservative.
A social conservative wouldn't have championed same sex marriage.
I reckon Mrs Thatcher was a closet Republican too.
"The problem is, [Thatcher] lamented, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP.”
Actually she treated the Queen with reverence and always gave a deep curtsy to her.
The Queen Mother though was a staunch Thatcherite and anti EU.
So our Monarchy is deeply political.
It is meant to be apolitical.
Abolish it now.
The Queen is apolitical completely, the Queen Mother was never sovereign, your Republicanism of course tips you from being a Radical Tory to an Orange Book Liberal.
TINO.......
How many Tory MPs have you helped elect?
I've been pounding the pavements since the days of William Hague.
I dunno, these Johnny-Come-Lately's......
I was properly blooded in pavement-pounding at the Ashfied by-election in 1977. Where we got a Tory MP in a mining seat, on a swing of over 20%.
I wasn't even born in 1977.
I would have campaigned for the Tories in 1997 but I was doing my A-Levels then, I was under a lot of pressure and I don't think my Mum would have allowed it.
I was born 36 years ago today and attended my first Tory rally in 1992 for John Major and canvassed in Tonbridge for the Tories in 1997
It sounds like you're introducing yourself at a meeting of "Tories anonymous"!
I'd personally slice the great coalition that is the Conservative Party slightly differently. I'd identify four components:
- business friendly (Nigel Lawson) - socially conservative (TMay) - One Nation (Ken Clarke) - libertarian (Dan Hannan).
As with any coalition, successful leaders must straddle divides within the party, offering bribes to each, while disappointing them in equal measure. So Margaret offered:
- the business friendly trade union reform, etc. - the socially conservative clause 28 - the one Nationers the continuation of the welfare state - the libertarians market liberalisation (also a boon to the business friendly).
Indeed when a government has a tiny majority (Major in the 90s and TMay now), British political history comprises little else besides this balancing act.
Of course, one can identify components (sometimes parallel, sometimes opposite) amongst the Socialists.
Mrs May isn't a social conservative.
A social conservative wouldn't have championed same sex marriage.
Is it possible to be a "conservative socialist"?
Very many of them are. Liberal socialists, insofar as that isn't a contradiction to begin with, are very rare.
Surely a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party would look forward to King Henry I?
I thought the convention was from Union of the Crowns/The Act of the Union we'd go for whatever the highest number the Regnal name had been used before by either Crown.
A more difficult question might be whether he would be Henry IX or Henry X. Just as Charles seeems to be dodging questions about being Charles III or Charles IV by saying he'll be George VII.
Perhaps Harry could honour his father and go for King James?
Wouldn't help - James III or James IV?
In fact though he would be James VIII or IX following that custom.
Surely a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party would look forward to King Henry I?
I thought the convention was from Union of the Crowns/The Act of the Union we'd go for whatever the highest number the Regnal name had been used before by either Crown.
A more difficult question might be whether he would be Henry IX or Henry X. Just as Charles seeems to be dodging questions about being Charles III or Charles IV by saying he'll be George VII.
Perhaps Harry could honour his father and go for King James?
Surely a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party would look forward to King Henry I?
I thought the convention was from Union of the Crowns/The Act of the Union we'd go for whatever the highest number the Regnal name had been used before by either Crown.
A more difficult question might be whether he would be Henry IX or Henry X. Just as Charles seeems to be dodging questions about being Charles III or Charles IV by saying he'll be George VII.
Perhaps Harry could honour his father and go for King James?
Wouldn't help - James III or James IV?
James III.
William III and Mary II succeeded James II.
That is the point - whether or not the ex post facto ratification of William's usurpation was legal. A school of thought (not including me) maintains it wasn't. Therefore, James' son and grandsons could in theory bugger up regnal numbers still.
I hope this might stop Tories on here telling other Tories (or potential voters) that they aren't Tories...
Apparently Wellington isn't a Tory...
You can't get more Tory than giving the French a good shoeing.
Yet you want us to be in political union with the French!
As Sir Humphrey correctly observed, we previously tried to break it [the then EEC] up from the outside but that wouldn’t work. Brexiters are surrendering the opportunity to be within good shoeing range.
I reckon Mrs Thatcher was a closet Republican too.
"The problem is, [Thatcher] lamented, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP.”
Actually she treated the Queen with reverence and always gave a deep curtsy to her.
The Queen Mother though was a staunch Thatcherite and anti EU.
So our Monarchy is deeply political.
It is meant to be apolitical.
Abolish it now.
The Queen is apolitical completely, the Queen Mother was never sovereign, your Republicanism of course tips you from being a Radical Tory to an Orange Book Liberal.
TINO.......
How many Tory MPs have you helped elect?
I've been pounding the pavements since the days of William Hague.
I dunno, these Johnny-Come-Lately's......
I was properly blooded in pavement-pounding at the Ashfied by-election in 1977. Where we got a Tory MP in a mining seat, on a swing of over 20%.
I wasn't even born in 1977.
I would have campaigned for the Tories in 1997 but I was doing my A-Levels then, I was under a lot of pressure and I don't think my Mum would have allowed it.
I was born 36 years ago today and attended my first Tory rally in 1992 for John Major and canvassed in Tonbridge for the Tories in 1997
It sounds like you're introducing yourself at a meeting of "Tories anonymous"!
I reckon Mrs Thatcher was a closet Republican too.
"The problem is, [Thatcher] lamented, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP.”
Actually she treated the Queen with reverence and always gave a deep curtsy to her.
The Queen Mother though was a staunch Thatcherite and anti EU.
So our Monarchy is deeply political.
It is meant to be apolitical.
Abolish it now.
The Queen is apolitical completely, the Queen Mother was never sovereign, your Republicanism of course tips you from being a Radical Tory to an Orange Book Liberal.
TINO.......
How many Tory MPs have you helped elect?
I've been pounding the pavements since the days of William Hague.
I dunno, these Johnny-Come-Lately's......
I was properly blooded in pavement-pounding at the Ashfied by-election in 1977. Where we got a Tory MP in a mining seat, on a swing of over 20%.
I wasn't even born in 1977.
I would have campaigned for the Tories in 1997 but I was doing my A-Levels then, I was under a lot of pressure and I don't think my Mum would have allowed it.
I was born 36 years ago today and attended my first Tory rally in 1992 for John Major and canvassed in Tonbridge for the Tories in 1997
I reckon Mrs Thatcher was a closet Republican too.
"The problem is, [Thatcher] lamented, the Queen is the kind of woman who could vote SDP.”
Actually she treated the Queen with reverence and always gave a deep curtsy to her.
The Queen Mother though was a staunch Thatcherite and anti EU.
So our Monarchy is deeply political.
It is meant to be apolitical.
Abolish it now.
The Queen is apolitical completely, the Queen Mother was never sovereign, your Republicanism of course tips you from being a Radical Tory to an Orange Book Liberal.
TINO.......
How many Tory MPs have you helped elect?
I've been pounding the pavements since the days of William Hague.
I dunno, these Johnny-Come-Lately's......
I was properly blooded in pavement-pounding at the Ashfied by-election in 1977. Where we got a Tory MP in a mining seat, on a swing of over 20%.
I wasn't even born in 1977.
I would have campaigned for the Tories in 1997 but I was doing my A-Levels then, I was under a lot of pressure and I don't think my Mum would have allowed it.
I was born 36 years ago today and attended my first Tory rally in 1992 for John Major and canvassed in Tonbridge for the Tories in 1997
"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was Randolph Churchill, not Carson. Carson was a far more sophisticated man than Churchill - and hated the dismemberment of his beloved homeland. For him Ulster was just a tool to try and prevent the dissolution of the Union - but he was then betrayed by James Craig.
Wellington was not an Ultra (he pushed Catholic Emancipation through Parliament) and nor was Bonar Law - he was a bridge between Walter Long and the protectionists and Austen Chamberlain. IDS is more of a Radical than anything else: just look at his reforms to the welfare state.
Apologies, it was Churchill but Carson did certainly organise the 'Solemn League and Covenant' of half a million to use all means necessary to resist Home Rule.
Wellington opposed the Great Reform Act of 1832 and the expansion of the franchise which would suggest he was an Ultra. IDS voted against gay marriage and withdrew the whip from those who supported gay adoption and is a hard Brexiteer.
For what it's worth, I wrote my thesis on Carson... The Covenant was simply political theatre in the tradition of the Ulstermen. As with Larne and Curragh, Carson never intended the UVF to actually fight (he was a former Solicitor General, Cabinet member, lawyer, politician and a member of one of the most prominent Ascendancy families). If he had really taken "the high road to treason and despair" do you think he would have been given a UK state funeral?
As for Wellington:
the Ultra-Tories were united in their antipathy towards the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel for what they saw as a betrayal of Tory political and religious principle on the issue of Catholic Emancipation
Carson represented much of Tory opinion at the time and indeed that in the country which was why Bonar Law almost won the 1910 elections on an anti Home Rule ticket.
Peel was a Radical not an Ultra no but Wellington led Ultra resistance to the Great Reform Act
At risk of sounding like Justin, Bonar Law was not Unionist leader until 1911 and Home Rule was not an issue in either election of 1910. The first was primarily about the budget, the second about the constitution. Secondary issues included tariffs and education, rather than Ireland.
Afterwards, because the Liberals had no overall majority and swiftly became the second largest party due to by-election losses leaving them once again dependent on Irish support, it became an issue. It was also, helpfully, an issue on which the entire Unionist party was united while the Liberals were quite badly split.
An excellent thread from Mr @Charles. The next Conservative leader market is a right mess, with Mrs May looking set until at least 2019 there’s a pretty good chance it’s none of the above.
Comments
Who knew.
King Mohammed I.
It would meets with the approval of Prince Charles who wants to be Defender of Faith.
Read more - ow.ly/ovkd30hiqeu pic.twitter.com/KTc7EcUTer
I wonder if he punched himself repeatedly in the face while falling down a flight of stairs?
William III and Mary II succeeded James II.
I have to go. Have a good afternoon.
Nou Fil
NEW THREAD