There is a theory that the accession is a three-step process, succession on death etc of previous occupant, proclamation, and anointing (at the coronation). However, statute law says that the new monarch succeeds the moment the previous one expires.
"The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy" - Terry Pratchett
It's clear that Charles let her down badly. She was a nice lady but not totally suitable for the job
<snip>
She was totally charming to all. This is what she did best.
Yeah, can't have anyone like that in a job that's primarily public relations.
The job includes not having boyfriends. Just because your husband, the heir to the throne has a mistress, it doesn't excuse her from having several boyfriends
So it was alright for Charles to have a mistress but not alright for Di' to have boyfriends?
She should have just put up and shut up because that was her duty?
Really, Telford.
Think that one through.
I despair sometimes. On the one hand I get the impression that some posters wouldn't be happy unless the royal family were all guillotined but not until they'd been incarcerated and forced to eat pig-swill for 45 years.
On the other it's as if Charles or William turned out to be leaders of a suicide cult or it emerged that the Duke of Edinburgh ate babies for breakfast or the Queen was running a crack cocaine racket on the side, then Telford would come on here defending and applauding them for doing so.
There is a theory that the accession is a three-step process, succession on death etc of previous occupant, proclamation, and anointing (at the coronation). However, statute law says that the new monarch succeeds the moment the previous one expires.
"The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy" - Terry Pratchett
It's clear that Charles let her down badly. She was a nice lady but not totally suitable for the job
<snip>
She was totally charming to all. This is what she did best.
Yeah, can't have anyone like that in a job that's primarily public relations.
The job includes not having boyfriends. Just because your husband, the heir to the throne has a mistress, it doesn't excuse her from having several boyfriends
So it was alright for Charles to have a mistress but not alright for Di' to have boyfriends?
She should have just put up and shut up because that was her duty?
Really, Telford.
Think that one through.
I despair sometimes. On the one hand I get the impression that some posters wouldn't be happy unless the royal family were all guillotined but not until they'd been incarcerated and forced to eat pig-swill for 45 years.
On the other it's as if Charles or William turned out to be leaders of a suicide cult or it emerged that the Duke of Edinburgh ate babies for breakfast or the Queen was running a crack cocaine racket on the side, then Telford would come on here defending and applauding them for doing so.
You really couldn't make it up.
Methinks thou dost exaggerate a little.
Only a little. Some of the anti-monarchists here would have the incarceration reduced to 25 years and Pot Noodles instead of pig-swill before the royal family faced Madame Guillotine.
Some of the ardent royalists would have Charles put away if he were an axe murderer but defend the Divine Right of Kings (or Princes in his case) for carrying on the time-honoured tradition of keeping a mistress and expecting his wife to comply with that on the grounds of tradition.
My serious point, of course is that for some people royalty can do no right and for others they can do no wrong.
That rather muddies the issue when it comes to a cold, clinical calculation as to whether the institution serves any useful purpose - which seems to be the nub of it.
But then, institutions of any kind are made up of people and people mess up. The issue then is either how to build in checks and balances to minimise the harm or whether the harm is on such a scale as to warrant dismantling the institution and starting all over again.
Or whether there is something intrinsic and systemic within the institution which brings about the harm in the first place.
Or a mixture of all these.
Would the Roman Catholic Church function better without the Papacy?
Some of the anti-monarchists here would have the incarceration reduced to 25 years and Pot Noodles instead of pig-swill before the royal family faced Madame Guillotine.
You can't cite anyone getting within a country mile of this position, and yet you continue to make this ridiculous point. Put up or shut up.
Some of the anti-monarchists here would have the incarceration reduced to 25 years and Pot Noodles instead of pig-swill before the royal family faced Madame Guillotine.
You can't cite anyone getting within a country mile of this position, and yet you continue to make this ridiculous point. Put up or shut up.
It's an exaggerated point, a hyperbolic one. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious. I no more expect you to sharpen the guillotine in readiness than I expect Telford to use his phone or car to set up an illicit liaison between a senior royal and their paramour even though the tone of his latest missive rather suggests that he is prepared to condone such behaviour on the side of one partner in a relationship and not another.
You conveniently ignore a jab at what appears to be an extreme royalist position in order to carp at what is quite obviously an hyperbolic and jokey jibe at what might be the equal and opposite tendency.
Ok. Yes, I was wrong to make light of it. There are serious issues here such as institutional racism and - from Telford's post - severe gender imbalance in terms of who is allowed to do what outside marriage and with whom.
I will desist from the sardonic posts and allow things to return to serious debate.
So it was alright for Charles to have a mistress but not alright for Di' to have boyfriends?
There's a lot of tradition behind that double standard, of course.
I think it's more to do with waiting until the "spare" is born before embarking on an extra-marital adventure. It doesn't do to have paternity questioned.
In Diana's case the press all fingered Hewitt, perhaps because of Harry's colouring, but they were chasing the wrong hare: her first affair was with Barry Mannakee and it began the year H was born.
The other issue is that there were concurrent, rather than consecutive, flings; there wers quite a few overlaps.
There is a theory that the accession is a three-step process, succession on death etc of previous occupant, proclamation, and anointing (at the coronation). However, statute law says that the new monarch succeeds the moment the previous one expires.
"The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy" - Terry Pratchett
It's clear that Charles let her down badly. She was a nice lady but not totally suitable for the job
<snip>
She was totally charming to all. This is what she did best.
Yeah, can't have anyone like that in a job that's primarily public relations.
The job includes not having boyfriends. Just because your husband, the heir to the throne has a mistress, it doesn't excuse her from having several boyfriends
So it was alright for Charles to have a mistress but not alright for Di' to have boyfriends?
She should have just put up and shut up because that was her duty?
Really, Telford.
Think that one through.
I despair sometimes. On the one hand I get the impression that some posters wouldn't be happy unless the royal family were all guillotined but not until they'd been incarcerated and forced to eat pig-swill for 45 years.
On the other it's as if Charles or William turned out to be leaders of a suicide cult or it emerged that the Duke of Edinburgh ate babies for breakfast or the Queen was running a crack cocaine racket on the side, then Telford would come on here defending and applauding them for doing so.
You really couldn't make it up.
Methinks thou dost exaggerate a little.
Hehe! IMO, he certainly does so far as this thread is concerned. But it's very entertaining, and just goes to prove you can actually make it up. Not that one needs to - reality is quite fascinating enough.
Ideally, neither partner - Charles or Diana - should've been having extra partners on the side. But it's a fact that royal men had their mistresses, if they wanted to. Open secret. And the little woman was entirely expected to like it or lump it. With Charles and Di, however, the Royal institutions had underestimated modern times. The world had moved on and it looks like the Monarchical institution was seriously unprepared for a Princess of Wales who genuinely expected hubby to be monogamous, and who in due course was not prepared to continue to live the life set out for her.
I suppose it could be argued that from that time to this - with Harry and Meghan - not a lot has changed, with regard to the latter point?
So it was alright for Charles to have a mistress but not alright for Di' to have boyfriends?
There's a lot of tradition behind that double standard, of course.
More than tradition.... Treason Acts passim, where the amour of a queen consort, or of a daughter of the sovereign, would have found themselves in dire straits.
Indeed, for many years the law was such that should the Princess Royal have engaged in any pre-marital shenanigans, the noose would have awaited the other party involved. I recall in my student years an issue of Private Eye with a cartoon strip featuring the Duke of Edinburgh enquiring if the law still applied.
Princes, however, were expected to dally and when they did not (as with the then Prince George of Wales, later George V), one was arranged for him as part of his education and to ensure that he did not form unseemly alliances.
George IV tried that with Caroline of Brunswick in 1820 and it got thrown out by Parliament on the grounds thst he had behaved abominably towards her
Weirdly (or at least it seems weird to me) my wee village in north east Scotland had a bonfire, illuminations and general rejoicing when Parliament threw out the case.
I write a "100 /200 years ago" snippet for our local newsletter and was astonished to discover, whilst trawling 1820 newspapers online, just how invested the average villager here was in the goings on of the Royal Family. It wasn't just my wee village, there were lots of reports of celebrations happening in the back end of nowhere.
There is a theory that the accession is a three-step process, succession on death etc of previous occupant, proclamation, and anointing (at the coronation). However, statute law says that the new monarch succeeds the moment the previous one expires.
"The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy" - Terry Pratchett
It's clear that Charles let her down badly. She was a nice lady but not totally suitable for the job
<snip>
She was totally charming to all. This is what she did best.
Yeah, can't have anyone like that in a job that's primarily public relations.
The job includes not having boyfriends. Just because your husband, the heir to the throne has a mistress, it doesn't excuse her from having several boyfriends
So it was alright for Charles to have a mistress but not alright for Di' to have boyfriends?
She should have just put up and shut up because that was her duty?
Really, Telford.
Think that one through.
You need to lighten up
I despair sometimes. On the one hand I get the impression that some posters wouldn't be happy unless the royal family were all guillotined but not until they'd been incarcerated and forced to eat pig-swill for 45 years.
On the other it's as if Charles or William turned out to be leaders of a suicide cult or it emerged that the Duke of Edinburgh ate babies for breakfast or the Queen was running a crack cocaine racket on the side, then Telford would come on here defending and applauding them for doing so.
There is a theory that the accession is a three-step process, succession on death etc of previous occupant, proclamation, and anointing (at the coronation). However, statute law says that the new monarch succeeds the moment the previous one expires.
"The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy" - Terry Pratchett
It's clear that Charles let her down badly. She was a nice lady but not totally suitable for the job
<snip>
She was totally charming to all. This is what she did best.
Yeah, can't have anyone like that in a job that's primarily public relations.
The job includes not having boyfriends. Just because your husband, the heir to the throne has a mistress, it doesn't excuse her from having several boyfriends
So it was alright for Charles to have a mistress but not alright for Di' to have boyfriends?
She should have just put up and shut up because that was her duty?
Really, Telford.
Think that one through.
I despair sometimes. On the one hand I get the impression that some posters wouldn't be happy unless the royal family were all guillotined but not until they'd been incarcerated and forced to eat pig-swill for 45 years.
On the other it's as if Charles or William turned out to be leaders of a suicide cult or it emerged that the Duke of Edinburgh ate babies for breakfast or the Queen was running a crack cocaine racket on the side, then Telford would come on here defending and applauding them for doing so.
You really couldn't make it up.
Methinks thou dost exaggerate a little.
Only a little. Some of the anti-monarchists here would have the incarceration reduced to 25 years and Pot Noodles instead of pig-swill before the royal family faced Madame Guillotine.
Some of the ardent royalists would have Charles put away if he were an axe murderer but defend the Divine Right of Kings (or Princes in his case) for carrying on the time-honoured tradition of keeping a mistress and expecting his wife to comply with that on the grounds of tradition.
My serious point, of course is that for some people royalty can do no right and for others they can do no wrong.
That rather muddies the issue when it comes to a cold, clinical calculation as to whether the institution serves any useful purpose - which seems to be the nub of it.
But then, institutions of any kind are made up of people and people mess up. The issue then is either how to build in checks and balances to minimise the harm or whether the harm is on such a scale as to warrant dismantling the institution and starting all over again.
Or whether there is something intrinsic and systemic within the institution which brings about the harm in the first place.
Or a mixture of all these.
Would the Roman Catholic Church function better without the Papacy?
Methinks the gentleman @Telford doth protest too much.
@Gamma Gamaliel was merely indulging in a quantity of hyperbole...but be of good cheer, O supporters of The Perfect Monarch, as republicanism is unlikely to be a real threat for some time.
I'm going to fly a small kite here and say that when the second Elizabethan age is no more we may be pleasantly surprised by the third Carolingian.
Many of the things that we find irksome or weird about the current court are those against which Charles has railed in the past. Yes, he's a bit of a dry stick but I think he's pretty aware of that. Plus, dare I say it, I think he'll have a far better chance of making a decent fist of it now than earlier not just because he's older but because his second wife makes him a happier and better person, more able to acknowledge his foibles. I also think the frustration he's felt in the past over the rigidity of his mother's court won't be forgotten and he'll work far more with his own heir.
I think it must be a terrible thing to be heir: you want the "top job" (to borrow Diana's twee words) but you don't look forward to the death of your parent. I think had Charles inherited when he was younger the baggage he was carrying to do with his relationship with his parents while growing up would have made accession insupportable. The much-improved state of affairs between them is likely to make his mother's demise more upsetting but also more bearable.
I'm going to fly a small kite here and say that when the second Elizabethan age is no more we may be pleasantly surprised by the third Carolingian.
Many of the things that we find irksome or weird about the current court are those against which Charles has railed in the past. Yes, he's a bit of a dry stick but I think he's pretty aware of that. Plus, dare I say it, I think he'll have a far better chance of making a decent fist of it now than earlier not just because he's older but because his second wife makes him a happier and better person, more able to acknowledge his foibles. I also think the frustration he's felt in the past over the rigidity of his mother's court won't be forgotten and he'll work far more with his own heir.
I think it must be a terrible thing to be heir: you want the "top job" (to borrow Diana's twee words) but you don't look forward to the death of your parent. I think had Charles inherited when he was younger the baggage he was carrying to do with his relationship with his parents while growing up would have made accession insupportable. The much-improved state of affairs between them is likely to make his mother's demise more upsetting but also more bearable.
Well, you may turn out to be right!
I guess Charles will indeed make a few (hopefully positive) changes...if he has time...
Of course @Telford can answer on their own behalf but for me her serial adulteries, while giving the world the impression she was sitting in KP alone with her knitting every night, made her at least no better than her husband.
obvious that Meghan was too independent and self-sufficient for life in the palace. She was attacked relentlessly by the racist British tabloid media...England... racism is outrageous...genteel white supremacy and loathing of people of colour. Many Brits act like they still have an empire...The British Empire and its colonialism were quite simply based on racism. How else could a nation rationalize taking over a country and forcing its religion and way of life on the original inhabitants?
This seemed nasty, but truthy:
"...all that is left is a soggy little island on the north side of Europe with limited prospects and a top-heavy upper-class structure."
obvious that Meghan was too independent and self-sufficient for life in the palace. She was attacked relentlessly by the racist British tabloid media...England... racism is outrageous...genteel white supremacy and loathing of people of colour. Many Brits act like they still have an empire...The British Empire and its colonialism were quite simply based on racism. How else could a nation rationalize taking over a country and forcing its religion and way of life on the original inhabitants?
This seemed nasty, but truthy:
"...all that is left is a soggy little island on the north side of Europe with limited prospects and a top-heavy upper-class structure."
The British Empire and its colonialism were quite simply based on racism. How else could a nation rationalize taking over a country and forcing its religion and way of life on the original inhabitants?
Every Empire throughout history has managed it perfectly well: the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Mauryans, the Chinese, the Romans, the Ethiopians, the Arabs, the Franks, the Mongols, the Turks, the Mali, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Songhai, the Mughals, the Kongo, the Benin - those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
It's only the eighteenth and nineteenth century European powers that needed racism to justify the slave trade and empire.
Methinks the gentleman @Telford doth protest too much.
@Gamma Gamaliel was merely indulging in a quantity of hyperbole...but be of good cheer, O supporters of The Perfect Monarch, as republicanism is unlikely to be a real threat for some time.
NOprophet_NØprofit: Interesting. I heard Nigaan Sinclair on CBC pointing out the relationship that some First Nations people believe they have with the Crown, based on treaties.
I was thinking of First Nations peoples in a different context. Some nations, especially in BC, have hereditary chiefs. How different is that from a royal family? AIUI many years ago that the descendants of chiefs, learning that in English the sons of a king were called princes, adopted the surname "Prince" - such as Tommy Prince, WWII hero.
The British Empire and its colonialism were quite simply based on racism. How else could a nation rationalize taking over a country and forcing its religion and way of life on the original inhabitants?
Every Empire throughout history has managed it perfectly well: the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Mauryans, the Chinese, the Romans, the Ethiopians, the Arabs, the Franks, the Mongols, the Turks, the Mali, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Songhai, the Mughals, the Kongo, the Benin - those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
It's only the eighteenth and nineteenth century European powers that needed racism to justify the slave trade and empire.
I am not convinced the list of empires you name were not racist. Many of them certainly involved slavery in some way.
The British Empire and its colonialism were quite simply based on racism. How else could a nation rationalize taking over a country and forcing its religion and way of life on the original inhabitants?
Every Empire throughout history has managed it perfectly well: the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Mauryans, the Chinese, the Romans, the Ethiopians, the Arabs, the Franks, the Mongols, the Turks, the Mali, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Songhai, the Mughals, the Kongo, the Benin - those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
It's only the eighteenth and nineteenth century European powers that needed racism to justify the slave trade and empire.
Sure, but judging by the Assyrian bas-reliefs in the British Museum that particular empire wasn't particularly noted for its neighbourliness - plenty of cities razed to the ground and those who weren't flayed alive marched off as slaves ...
Interesting line in beards and hats though.
Genghiz Khan wasn't particularly noted for his liberal views either...
Not that any of that excuses 18th and 19th century colonialism.
On living on a soggy little island off the north west coast of Europe. Well, it's a soggy archipelago and I like living here. Doesn't mean I like everything about it nor wish to cease from mental strife nor let my sword sleep in my hand...
My point is that there is a long history of states with armies marching into their next door neighbours' territories, looting, taking slaves, imposing their religious and cultural opinions, and generally doing v bludthirsty things, without inventing spurious concepts of racial difference to justify it.
NOprophet_NØprofit: Interesting. I heard Nigaan Sinclair on CBC pointing out the relationship that some First Nations people believe they have with the Crown, based on treaties.
I was thinking of First Nations peoples in a different context. Some nations, especially in BC, have hereditary chiefs. How different is that from a royal family? AIUI many years ago that the descendants of chiefs, learning that in English the sons of a king were called princes, adopted the surname "Prince" - such as Tommy Prince, WWII hero.
Noting that First Nations are very diverse (local Cree and Dené are as different as English and Mandarin), mostly chiefs are required to reach consensus, having little actual control. A First Nations debate about something would require that everyone be heard, and there's no imposition of authority. It makes decision making very lengthy in some situations. That Canada has required its First Nations to operate more like English parliamentary gov't has influence for sure. The position of chief is inherited as a particular role for anything might run in a family. With someone else perhaps chief for war or for hunting. Noting also that some First Nations were in history egalitarian, adopting others' kids, not very sexist, while others were misogynistic, enslaved other groups kids and were very sexist.
More to the point: the principle of receiving a leadership position by virtue of birth into a specific family is true of both the British royal family and of some First Nations. What I am asking: Is this principle problematic or not? I struggle with it.
More to the point: the principle of receiving a leadership position by virtue of birth into a specific family is true of both the British royal family and of some First Nations. What I am asking: Is this principle problematic or not? I struggle with it.
While others were snoring during a presentation at the 2005 Learned Societies on the 1924 amendments to the Indian Act mandating elected band councils, I listened to the presenter remind us of the context-- there was a nigh-universal opposition among educated classes and leaders to hereditary status. Three imperial monarchies and dozens of subordinate ones had been abolished in the previous five years and the 1911 reforms to the House of Lords presaged its immediate abolition. If it were not for the vigorous and dashing Prince of Wales, the British monarchy would soon follow. Decision-makers in Ottawa felt that it was best for all that the anachronism of hereditary chiefs be ended.
It didn't get the agreement or assent of First Nations (nobody was going to ask them anyway), and the hereditary chiefs continued along shadowing elected councils. In Akwesasne, near where I was raised, they jostled along together, but we have recently seen in Wet'suwet'en how the hereditaries continue in opposition to the elected council. Some of Judy Raybould-Wilson's influence has been ascribed to her membership in a chiefly line.
Is the principle problematic? Perhaps, but it continues and there might be a broad cultural affinity for it. South of the border, anyone born into the Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, or Trump families is viewed for their leadership prospects and expected on the basis of genetic makeup to be capable of exercising power and influence. At least the Windsors are only expected to open buildings.
I'm not all that sure it's horrible, since chance plays a pretty large role in it, and if you've got semi-decent norms around their behavior, you might do better than if your leadership is wholly elected. Says she whose country just finished suffering (please God) under an elected horror. We would have done better with a random citizen plucked off the street--no, a random squirrel.
More to the point: the principle of receiving a leadership position by virtue of birth into a specific family is true of both the British royal family and of some First Nations. What I am asking: Is this principle problematic or not? I struggle with it.
I was thinking that it depends. The UK royals seen to be on the other side of the mountain. First Nations on this side but climbing. Inherited positions of any kind is what I think of with this. Elections certainly don't get us the best people either. Perhaps the question is one of what's worse?
Says she whose country just finished suffering (please God) under an elected horror. We would have done better with a random citizen plucked off the street--no, a random squirrel.
I was thinking skunk, which insults skunks. Perhaps a beetle?
Maybe Rocky, from the original "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoon show.
Or a dog--Mr. Peabody, the intellectual, witty, and knowledgeable canine part of the original "Mr. Peabody & his boy Sherman". (Part of the above R & W show.)
My point is that there is a long history of states with armies marching into their next door neighbours' territories, looting, taking slaves, imposing their religious and cultural opinions, and generally doing v bludthirsty things, without inventing spurious concepts of racial difference to justify it.
Errr...how in the world does that add up to not racist?
--Egypt going after the Hebrews. God supposedly telling the Hebrews to kill whole groups of people and take their land. (This verse may not be from that occasion, but God and the Hebrews were supposed to "thrust out the enemy from before thee, and destroy them".)
--The whole thing with Noah's alleged curse on his son, Ham, who then vamoosed, and had kids who were the forebears of people the Hebrews hated. Many people applied that to Africans, which led to horrors.
--Lot and his daughters fled the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot slept or got drunk or something. The girls allegedly decided, "Oh, woe is us, with all the men in the world being destroyed"--and raped their father while he slept, and they became pregnant. *Their* kids also became the forebears of people the Hebrews hated.
My point is that there is a long history of states with armies marching into their next door neighbours' territories, looting, taking slaves, imposing their religious and cultural opinions, and generally doing v bludthirsty things, without inventing spurious concepts of racial difference to justify it.
Errr...how in the world does that add up to not racist?
Because whatever differences there were, their right-to-conquest wasn't based on skin colour.
If racism is based solely on skin colour aren't some Italians and Spaniards darker than the average Briton ?. Was the Italian invasion of Ethiopia a conquest without any supposition that the Ethiopians were 'racially' inferior to the Italians ?.
I would say that 'racism' is about more than skin colour.
Can the English conquest of Ireland many centuries ago be justified by the fact that the Irish were more or less the same 'race'
I think most empires were based on the idea that the colonisers were better than everybody else and therefore entitled to take what they wanted. That it wasn’t called “race” doesn’t really change the fundamental point that those doing the taking thought others inferior to them.
By right of conquest is basically saying, cos we are stronger, braver, better than you we can take - what is that if not an assertion of superiority ?
The British Empire and its colonialism were quite simply based on racism. How else could a nation rationalize taking over a country and forcing its religion and way of life on the original inhabitants?
Every Empire throughout history has managed it perfectly well: the Egyptians, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Macedonians, the Mauryans, the Chinese, the Romans, the Ethiopians, the Arabs, the Franks, the Mongols, the Turks, the Mali, the Incas, the Aztecs, the Songhai, the Mughals, the Kongo, the Benin - those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
It's only the eighteenth and nineteenth century European powers that needed racism to justify the slave trade and empire.
Seriously? The ruling powers of the nations you name didn't have definably racist views of the peoples they enslaved and conquered? The general point of invading and enslaving and murdering your neighbour for his land is because you consider yourself superior to him and more worthy of his possessions than he is himself. I mean, you're going to pick the neighbour you think is the weakest and less able, and therefore less equal, aren't you? They may not have called it racism. 'Bringing civilization', 'establishing the Pax Romana', 'enriching the home nation', 'Lebensraum' - it's all the same. Even within some of the civilizations you mention were the most hierarchical systems of caste and race division - eg, Chinese, Romans, Franks etc. They just didn't describe it in the same terms we identify today.
My point is that there is a long history of states with armies marching into their next door neighbours' territories, looting, taking slaves, imposing their religious and cultural opinions, and generally doing v bludthirsty things, without inventing spurious concepts of racial difference to justify it.
Errr...how in the world does that add up to not racist?
They didn't invent spurious concepts of racial difference to justify it. If you want to define racism so widely that any form of negative attitude from one community to another counts as racism then you're draining the word of all meaning.
Athens conquered the city of Melos, killed the adult men, and kidnapped the women and children, even though they were all Greeks.
Egypt going after the Hebrews.
To the Egyptians the Hebrews were just one more subject people that they conquered.
Egypt was an Empire strung along the Nile. One end of the Nile empties into the Mediterranean and has easy land access to the Middle East. The other leads into sub-Saharan Africa. People traded and mingled up and down the river throughout prehistory. (The Fayun mummy portraits from roughly the NT period show a decidedly mixed race population.) The Upper Kingdom was probably darker skin than the Lower Kingdom, but there's no suggestion that this mattered in the sources. After the Upper Kingdom conquered the Lower Kingdom they may have all thought of themselves as Egyptian, but the boundaries between say Egypt and Nubia were not based on the fact that the Nubians had even darker skin, but were simply based on wherever the political boundary happened to be at any given point in history.
Many people applied that to Africans, which led to horrors.
Later racist interpretations are eisegesis: reading into the text what the interpreter wants to find there.
The curses in the Torah on Israel's neighbours, on the descendants of Ishmael and Lot and Esau are based not on different biological inheritance, but on common descent from Abraham.
Anyway, this is a tangent: I'm not disputing that the eighteenth and nineteenth century Western European Empires were racist; nor that it is highly implausible that the modern British Royal family and its staff are devoid of racist attitudes. We know Harry himself was at best insensitive to racial issues when he was younger.
sly? The general point of invading and enslaving and murdering your neighbour for his land is because you consider yourself superior to him and more worthy of his possessions than he is himself. I mean, you're going to pick the neighbour you think is the weakest and less able, and therefore less equal, aren't you? They may not have called it racism.
I don't think you need to assume that groups that invaded and despoiled their neighbors were motivated by assumptions of superiority, except the idea that the neighbor was weaker and couldn't defend himself. I think the motive was ordinary human greed--the same reason that some schoolchildren beat up their classmates and taske their lunch money.
Comments
Methinks thou dost exaggerate a little.
And the full force of the law, given that adultery with the wife of the heir to the throne was (is?) technically treason.
Only a little. Some of the anti-monarchists here would have the incarceration reduced to 25 years and Pot Noodles instead of pig-swill before the royal family faced Madame Guillotine.
Some of the ardent royalists would have Charles put away if he were an axe murderer but defend the Divine Right of Kings (or Princes in his case) for carrying on the time-honoured tradition of keeping a mistress and expecting his wife to comply with that on the grounds of tradition.
My serious point, of course is that for some people royalty can do no right and for others they can do no wrong.
That rather muddies the issue when it comes to a cold, clinical calculation as to whether the institution serves any useful purpose - which seems to be the nub of it.
But then, institutions of any kind are made up of people and people mess up. The issue then is either how to build in checks and balances to minimise the harm or whether the harm is on such a scale as to warrant dismantling the institution and starting all over again.
Or whether there is something intrinsic and systemic within the institution which brings about the harm in the first place.
Or a mixture of all these.
Would the Roman Catholic Church function better without the Papacy?
Should the Politburo be reformed and if so, how?
We could go on.
You can't cite anyone getting within a country mile of this position, and yet you continue to make this ridiculous point. Put up or shut up.
It's an exaggerated point, a hyperbolic one. I'd have thought that was pretty obvious. I no more expect you to sharpen the guillotine in readiness than I expect Telford to use his phone or car to set up an illicit liaison between a senior royal and their paramour even though the tone of his latest missive rather suggests that he is prepared to condone such behaviour on the side of one partner in a relationship and not another.
You conveniently ignore a jab at what appears to be an extreme royalist position in order to carp at what is quite obviously an hyperbolic and jokey jibe at what might be the equal and opposite tendency.
It's not all about you, you know.
I know it's not about me. It's definitely not about you, either, despite your best efforts.
I will desist from the sardonic posts and allow things to return to serious debate.
I think it's more to do with waiting until the "spare" is born before embarking on an extra-marital adventure. It doesn't do to have paternity questioned.
In Diana's case the press all fingered Hewitt, perhaps because of Harry's colouring, but they were chasing the wrong hare: her first affair was with Barry Mannakee and it began the year H was born.
The other issue is that there were concurrent, rather than consecutive, flings; there wers quite a few overlaps.
Hehe! IMO, he certainly does so far as this thread is concerned. But it's very entertaining, and just goes to prove you can actually make it up. Not that one needs to - reality is quite fascinating enough.
Ideally, neither partner - Charles or Diana - should've been having extra partners on the side. But it's a fact that royal men had their mistresses, if they wanted to. Open secret. And the little woman was entirely expected to like it or lump it. With Charles and Di, however, the Royal institutions had underestimated modern times. The world had moved on and it looks like the Monarchical institution was seriously unprepared for a Princess of Wales who genuinely expected hubby to be monogamous, and who in due course was not prepared to continue to live the life set out for her.
I suppose it could be argued that from that time to this - with Harry and Meghan - not a lot has changed, with regard to the latter point?
More than tradition.... Treason Acts passim, where the amour of a queen consort, or of a daughter of the sovereign, would have found themselves in dire straits.
Indeed, for many years the law was such that should the Princess Royal have engaged in any pre-marital shenanigans, the noose would have awaited the other party involved. I recall in my student years an issue of Private Eye with a cartoon strip featuring the Duke of Edinburgh enquiring if the law still applied.
Princes, however, were expected to dally and when they did not (as with the then Prince George of Wales, later George V), one was arranged for him as part of his education and to ensure that he did not form unseemly alliances.
Weirdly (or at least it seems weird to me) my wee village in north east Scotland had a bonfire, illuminations and general rejoicing when Parliament threw out the case.
I write a "100 /200 years ago" snippet for our local newsletter and was astonished to discover, whilst trawling 1820 newspapers online, just how invested the average villager here was in the goings on of the Royal Family. It wasn't just my wee village, there were lots of reports of celebrations happening in the back end of nowhere.
Nothing new under the sun, eh?
Exactly. I never said I approved of it
Please don't
@Gamma Gamaliel was merely indulging in a quantity of hyperbole...but be of good cheer, O supporters of The Perfect Monarch, as republicanism is unlikely to be a real threat for some time.
A thoughtful opinion piece in today's Guardian:
https://theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/12/meghan-harry-monarchy-end-republicans-royals
Many of the things that we find irksome or weird about the current court are those against which Charles has railed in the past. Yes, he's a bit of a dry stick but I think he's pretty aware of that. Plus, dare I say it, I think he'll have a far better chance of making a decent fist of it now than earlier not just because he's older but because his second wife makes him a happier and better person, more able to acknowledge his foibles. I also think the frustration he's felt in the past over the rigidity of his mother's court won't be forgotten and he'll work far more with his own heir.
I think it must be a terrible thing to be heir: you want the "top job" (to borrow Diana's twee words) but you don't look forward to the death of your parent. I think had Charles inherited when he was younger the baggage he was carrying to do with his relationship with his parents while growing up would have made accession insupportable. The much-improved state of affairs between them is likely to make his mother's demise more upsetting but also more bearable.
Well, you may turn out to be right!
I guess Charles will indeed make a few (hopefully positive) changes...if he has time...
I doubt if I was the only one to notice that - irrespective of how irritating people found my hyperbolic posts.
At least I was trying to apply my hyperbole equally among royalists and non-monarchists alike.
https://welovecycling.com/wide/2020/12/11/dutch-royal-family-cycling-in-the-netherlands/
I know, I know - it couldn't happen here...
This seemed nasty, but truthy:
"...all that is left is a soggy little island on the north side of Europe with limited prospects and a top-heavy upper-class structure."
May we here be pleasantly enjoying a republic.
Not nasty IMHO, but certainly truthy...
It's only the eighteenth and nineteenth century European powers that needed racism to justify the slave trade and empire.
Are you sure about that? Seems like another memory lapse occured during the hatchet job interview.
Current polls show about two thirds in favour of Her Majesty and her team. However, it's the one third that makes all the noise
Of course, polls are noted for their accuracy, aren't they?
I was thinking of First Nations peoples in a different context. Some nations, especially in BC, have hereditary chiefs. How different is that from a royal family? AIUI many years ago that the descendants of chiefs, learning that in English the sons of a king were called princes, adopted the surname "Prince" - such as Tommy Prince, WWII hero.
I am not convinced the list of empires you name were not racist. Many of them certainly involved slavery in some way.
Sure, but judging by the Assyrian bas-reliefs in the British Museum that particular empire wasn't particularly noted for its neighbourliness - plenty of cities razed to the ground and those who weren't flayed alive marched off as slaves ...
Interesting line in beards and hats though.
Genghiz Khan wasn't particularly noted for his liberal views either...
Not that any of that excuses 18th and 19th century colonialism.
On living on a soggy little island off the north west coast of Europe. Well, it's a soggy archipelago and I like living here. Doesn't mean I like everything about it nor wish to cease from mental strife nor let my sword sleep in my hand...
You occasionally get rogue polls.
While others were snoring during a presentation at the 2005 Learned Societies on the 1924 amendments to the Indian Act mandating elected band councils, I listened to the presenter remind us of the context-- there was a nigh-universal opposition among educated classes and leaders to hereditary status. Three imperial monarchies and dozens of subordinate ones had been abolished in the previous five years and the 1911 reforms to the House of Lords presaged its immediate abolition. If it were not for the vigorous and dashing Prince of Wales, the British monarchy would soon follow. Decision-makers in Ottawa felt that it was best for all that the anachronism of hereditary chiefs be ended.
It didn't get the agreement or assent of First Nations (nobody was going to ask them anyway), and the hereditary chiefs continued along shadowing elected councils. In Akwesasne, near where I was raised, they jostled along together, but we have recently seen in Wet'suwet'en how the hereditaries continue in opposition to the elected council. Some of Judy Raybould-Wilson's influence has been ascribed to her membership in a chiefly line.
Is the principle problematic? Perhaps, but it continues and there might be a broad cultural affinity for it. South of the border, anyone born into the Roosevelt, Kennedy, Bush, or Trump families is viewed for their leadership prospects and expected on the basis of genetic makeup to be capable of exercising power and influence. At least the Windsors are only expected to open buildings.
I was thinking that it depends. The UK royals seen to be on the other side of the mountain. First Nations on this side but climbing. Inherited positions of any kind is what I think of with this. Elections certainly don't get us the best people either. Perhaps the question is one of what's worse?
I was thinking skunk, which insults skunks. Perhaps a beetle?
Maybe Rocky, from the original "Rocky and Bullwinkle" cartoon show.
Or a dog--Mr. Peabody, the intellectual, witty, and knowledgeable canine part of the original "Mr. Peabody & his boy Sherman". (Part of the above R & W show.)
Errr...how in the world does that add up to not racist?
--Egypt going after the Hebrews. God supposedly telling the Hebrews to kill whole groups of people and take their land. (This verse may not be from that occasion, but God and the Hebrews were supposed to "thrust out the enemy from before thee, and destroy them".)
--The whole thing with Noah's alleged curse on his son, Ham, who then vamoosed, and had kids who were the forebears of people the Hebrews hated. Many people applied that to Africans, which led to horrors.
--Lot and his daughters fled the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Lot slept or got drunk or something. The girls allegedly decided, "Oh, woe is us, with all the men in the world being destroyed"--and raped their father while he slept, and they became pregnant. *Their* kids also became the forebears of people the Hebrews hated.
And those are just a few *Biblical* examples.
But she does make a good chocolate cake.
Because whatever differences there were, their right-to-conquest wasn't based on skin colour.
I would say that 'racism' is about more than skin colour.
Can the English conquest of Ireland many centuries ago be justified by the fact that the Irish were more or less the same 'race'
By right of conquest is basically saying, cos we are stronger, braver, better than you we can take - what is that if not an assertion of superiority ?
Seriously? The ruling powers of the nations you name didn't have definably racist views of the peoples they enslaved and conquered? The general point of invading and enslaving and murdering your neighbour for his land is because you consider yourself superior to him and more worthy of his possessions than he is himself. I mean, you're going to pick the neighbour you think is the weakest and less able, and therefore less equal, aren't you? They may not have called it racism. 'Bringing civilization', 'establishing the Pax Romana', 'enriching the home nation', 'Lebensraum' - it's all the same. Even within some of the civilizations you mention were the most hierarchical systems of caste and race division - eg, Chinese, Romans, Franks etc. They just didn't describe it in the same terms we identify today.
Athens conquered the city of Melos, killed the adult men, and kidnapped the women and children, even though they were all Greeks.
To the Egyptians the Hebrews were just one more subject people that they conquered.
Egypt was an Empire strung along the Nile. One end of the Nile empties into the Mediterranean and has easy land access to the Middle East. The other leads into sub-Saharan Africa. People traded and mingled up and down the river throughout prehistory. (The Fayun mummy portraits from roughly the NT period show a decidedly mixed race population.) The Upper Kingdom was probably darker skin than the Lower Kingdom, but there's no suggestion that this mattered in the sources. After the Upper Kingdom conquered the Lower Kingdom they may have all thought of themselves as Egyptian, but the boundaries between say Egypt and Nubia were not based on the fact that the Nubians had even darker skin, but were simply based on wherever the political boundary happened to be at any given point in history.
Later racist interpretations are eisegesis: reading into the text what the interpreter wants to find there.
The curses in the Torah on Israel's neighbours, on the descendants of Ishmael and Lot and Esau are based not on different biological inheritance, but on common descent from Abraham.
Anyway, this is a tangent: I'm not disputing that the eighteenth and nineteenth century Western European Empires were racist; nor that it is highly implausible that the modern British Royal family and its staff are devoid of racist attitudes. We know Harry himself was at best insensitive to racial issues when he was younger.
I don't think you need to assume that groups that invaded and despoiled their neighbors were motivated by assumptions of superiority, except the idea that the neighbor was weaker and couldn't defend himself. I think the motive was ordinary human greed--the same reason that some schoolchildren beat up their classmates and taske their lunch money.