Are the royals on the rocks?

1282931333442

Comments

  • Of course. The monarchy has always made a big deal of Scottish stuff since George IV donned some particularly ridiculous tartan as a PR stunt on a visit to Edinburgh.

    Queen Victoria went further Balmoral, John Brown...

    The 'Union of the Crowns' hasn't always been a balanced one. James VI of Scotland quickly lost interest in the place when he became James I of England. His son Charles I didn't 'get' Scotland at all, with baleful consequences.

    I have to say though, that we seem to be losing an essential point in this discussion, and that it's about the institutional aspects and how that impinges on personal choices and preferences.

    It's become a question of 'I I were going on a blind-date I'd ...'

    Or 'If I were starting a new job, I'd ...'

    None of us are Meghan, none of us are Harry, none of us are celebrities or aristocrats or people who scavenge for a living on a waste tip in Cairo.

    So I don't think 'Meghan should have known this ..' or 'couldn't possibly have known that' or 'why didn't the Palace...?' is going to get us very far.

    Nor is asking whether the Queen has a taste for shortbread, single malt and the Highland Games any more pertinent than to speculate whether she might have preferred Irish fiddle music, barm brack and the County Clare had the Irish Republic remained part of the UK.

    Or why she doesn't have a holiday home in Pembrokeshire.

    An American once asked me whether I 'minded' that the British royal family had German roots, clearly unaware that this also applies to all British people with Anglo-Saxon heritage.

    That doesn't mean I accuse all Americans of unconscious racial bias anymore than it stops me acknowledging racism within the British royal family.

    As far as Meghan's account goes, I am sure she received more preparation than she is letting on, but equally, probably nowhere near as much as she would have liked or deserved.

    Arguably, though, it's such a big ask that even if she'd served a 3, 5 or 15 year apprenticeship it wouldn't have been enough. Not because there's anything 'wrong' with her necessarily but because the dice were loaded against a smooth integration from the outset. Sadly.

    As for 'so much for the special relationship' - I thought that was supposed to be our line. ;)

    It's one we trot out whenever the US does something we don't like.

    The whole thing is a mess and very sad. Things will go on. I foresee a major ascession crisis after the Queen goes though and things unravelling to some extent but with it all bouncing along with William at the helm one day.

    The royals have been on the rocks before. They will be on the rocks again. I don't think they'll sink anytime soon. That's the nature of traditional institutions

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    edited March 12
    @Gamma Gamaliel said -
    The royals have been on the rocks before. They will be on the rocks again. I don't think they'll sink anytime soon. That's the nature of traditional institutions

    Yes, I agree, we are stuck with it and the accession will be a mess.

    Meanwhile the soap opera rumbles on. I think the US will build up Meghan to be their very own hard-done-by princess. There will then be a messy divorce somewhere along the line and more grist to the soap opera mill.

    Ho hum, get out the popcorn.

    Meanwhile the awful class, London centric system in the U.K. - held together by the monarchy (imo), rumbles on.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Gee D--

    Despite becoming older, she was **still trapped**. She tried to gradually work her way out--and look what happened.

    I stick with what I said - and as for that public carrying on at her death!
  • It's become a question of 'I I were going on a blind-date I'd ...'

    Or 'If I were starting a new job, I'd ...'

    Yes, it's all started to go in the 'blame the victim' direction.

    Is it possible that a group of people brought up with notions of purity bordering on eugenics may not have the best grasp on what constitutes racism ? Equally I suspect any such attitudes are manifested more explicitly by the circle of hangars on that surrounds the entire circus.

    You could go down the road of saying that someone should have been forewarned (ignoring for a moment that truth about the royals is heavily mediated both by their own circle and the press), with the implication that no one with any sense, with any sanity ...

    .. but then it sounds like @Dave W diagnosis was accurate earlier in the thread, even apart from republicanism it is a situation of familial abuse being given state support and subsidy.
  • I suspect we could pick-over the Sussexes, RF, etc, etc from now to eternity.

    IMHO the rather more newsworthy/ important issues for the UK at the moment are the background to a 23 year old woman being snatched off the street and killed, why a serving police officer who'd been caught flashing wasn't dealt with promptly, what is to be done about the collapse of standard retail companies, the "hole" in the Arcadia pension pot, massive increase in domestic violence during lockdown, ...
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    I suspect we could pick-over the Sussexes, RF, etc, etc from now to eternity.

    IMHO the rather more newsworthy/ important issues for the UK at the moment are the background to a 23 year old woman being snatched off the street and killed, why a serving police officer who'd been caught flashing wasn't dealt with promptly, what is to be done about the collapse of standard retail companies, the "hole" in the Arcadia pension pot, massive increase in domestic violence during lockdown, ...


    You could of course start another thread
  • No one's suggesting republicanism as a panacea for all our ills, but that we find there is always something more urgent than constitutional reform shows that the machine is working exactly how it's supposed to - quietly, in the background, maintaining the status quo, allowing the wealthy to stay wealthy.

    Meghan and Harry's crime is not that the monarchy is dysfunctional and privileged, but that they've drawn attention to it.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    I note that the lawyer for one of Epstein's victims has complained that this whole affair is keeping Prince Andrew off the front pages. This thread has strayed onto Prince Andrew from time to time, but then strayed back.
  • Jane RJane R Shipmate
    The Royal Family: the ultimate dead cat.
  • As per chrisstiles, familial abuse given state support. I guess monarchists will dispute that it's an abusive family. There is the further point, that many people need to leave their family, abusive or not.
  • Forgot another bit, it's a joke in therapy that you can calculate family problems by how far away the kids move. I moved 200 miles away from my mother, but my cousin went to Oz. No mother! Its not always getting away from mum.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Sojourner wrote: »
    [snip]

    The British royal family is, for many, merely another part of celebrity culture. Rich and spoiled and believing than money means you know things and should be listened to because of their status and you can pay people to agree with you. I know people from the UK and some others think that they're "special", but they're not really. I do know that Diana died in a car crash and had a rich boyfriend at the time, that her husband was pretty stodgy and awkward when they married, that they had 2 kids, and the British tabloid press is mostly responsible for her death, that she cut herself and had an eating disorder which her husband and his family are responsible for creating the conditions for. I know next to nothing about the others. Shall I presume The Crown is accurate.


    [snip]
    The facts are that Diana and her boyfriend chose to travel in the rear of a car and did not wear seat belts. The drunken driver was allowed to drive at high speeds and he crashed the c ar

    The manner of Diana’s demise (no seatbelts, drunken chauffeur) does not let either the Royals or the British press off the hook
    Problems with the media were not on the death certificate

    Not a great argument! Lack of lifeboats on the Titanic wasn't on anyone's death certificate either. But we do know for a fact that many people died because of that.

    And not that it matters, but Diana was in the front seat, not wearing a seatbelt. It's been stated by a few forensic experts, she would've survived if she had been.
  • Jane R wrote: »
    The Royal Family: the ultimate dead cat.

    John Farman, in his not-entirely-humorous Very Bloody History of Britain, observed that British governments have in times of crisis come to rely on two things to distract the public: a royal wedding or starting a small war somewhere.
  • MooMoo Kerygmania Host
    Getting back to Diana, she had serious psychological baggage before she met Charles. Her mother left when she was a child, and this left a void in her life.

    I suspect she was not capable of a happy married life. This is not to excuse Charles; I'm not sure he was capable of a happy married life either. However it is unfair to blame the bad marriage entirely on Charles.

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    No one's suggesting republicanism as a panacea for all our ills, but that we find there is always something more urgent than constitutional reform shows that the machine is working exactly how it's supposed to

    Furthermore that machine fosters a particular view of the state which is not disconnected from the way in which the workings of the state are occluded from the general public, and issues are hidden and never systematically addressed.

    Ironically at the heart of all the issues he mentions in his 'look over there' post are various very British forms of corruption (some of which have been the subject of inquiries which either never revealed anything, or whose findings were buried).
  • Moo wrote: »
    Getting back to Diana, she had serious psychological baggage before she met Charles. Her mother left when she was a child, and this left a void in her life.

    I suspect she was not capable of a happy married life. This is not to excuse Charles; I'm not sure he was capable of a happy married life either. However it is unfair to blame the bad marriage entirely on Charles.

    With one party insisting on the right to carry on a relationship with his married mistress from the get-go, this is not a "both sides" thing.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think the US will build up Meghan to be their very own hard-done-by princess.

    The gossip magazines
    might try this, but I think it's more likely that they'll go with a "set free, making their own lives" narrative if the couple stay in the US.

    Why do you say the accession will be a mess? Doesn't Charles just take over when the Queen dies?
  • But Diana should have prepped for that. If she'd read a few books, she'd have realized that royal men spread the love.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think the US will build up Meghan to be their very own hard-done-by princess.

    The gossip magazines
    might try this, but I think it's more likely that they'll go with a "set free, making their own lives" narrative if the couple stay in the US.

    Why do you say the accession will be a mess? Doesn't Charles just take over when the Queen dies?

    IIRC, there was some speculation a while back that Charles may step aside to make way for William, when HM the Q dies.

    Perhaps he feels that, given his age (he's 73 this year), it's not worth the bother of being King for just a few years...

    Why such a decision would cause a mess, I can't say.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Boogie wrote: »
    I think the US will build up Meghan to be their very own hard-done-by princess.

    The gossip magazines
    might try this, but I think it's more likely that they'll go with a "set free, making their own lives" narrative if the couple stay in the US.

    Why do you say the accession will be a mess? Doesn't Charles just take over when the Queen dies?

    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. So Charles will take over unless he chooses not to, or a parade of tanks prevents it.

    A former Canadian deputy PM (John Manley) thought we could establish a republic by ignoring the new sovereign, but the lawyers took him down.
  • Serious question, Doc Tor, how wealthy would the wealthy be allowed to be in your ideal utopian state?

    A bit of a tangent, I know and yes, I appreciate that you don't see republicanism as a panacea for all societal ills.

    Are you thinking of putting a cap on personal wealth accumulation in your 'new republic'? If so, where do we draw the line? Three acres and a cow?

    I don't see any republics that I am aware of putting the brakes on the wealthy remaining wealthy. That's pretty much encouraged in a certain well known republic we all may have heard of across the Atlantic somewhere.

    Ok, we might argue that a hereditary monarchy and aristocracy embeds that tendency but it's not the only system to do so.

    Perhaps that's a theme for another and broader thread.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    'The King/Queen is dead, long live the King/Queen', is how it goes. The new monarch may be unpopular in some quarters, but he/she is still monarch. There is no was he/she can 'step aside' without abdicating. If he/she chooses, knowing what this means imposing on the heir.
    Two other points I might as well address: the 'bagpipes for breakfast thing, I understand, originated with Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, along with the ghastly tartan decorative scheme at Balmoral.
    And, yes, as was said upthread, it is the crown that hols the Union together. (But not The Crown, which is, in its details, fiction.
  • Boris said that queen unites the British people. In what way?
  • In the love of the British people for bread and circuses.

    BTW, I suspect that Boris may be angling for a knighthood, or a peerage, so even he probably doesn't understand what he means.
  • In the love of the British people for bread and circuses.

    BTW, I suspect that Boris may be angling for a knighthood, or a peerage, so even he probably doesn't understand what he means.

    But I was thinking, I don't feel closer to my neighbours or my friends because of the queen. I suppose some people do.
  • It's easy to see now how all this mess (Diana and then Harry) could have been avoided by allowing Charles to marry the woman he really loved. But because Camilla was regarded as "not from the right stock" Charles had to look elsewhere. That led to the fiasco of marriage to Diana. The aftermath of this was that The Firm agreed that "senior" royals (ie, those who could conceivably become monarch), could marry "for love" instead of the age old practice of semi-arranged marriages to people from acceptable families who would know and accept the traditions and customs of royalty. So William could marry Kate, who, it appears, was happy to learn the ropes and adapt. But it was kinda inevitable that sooner or later someone would marry a person who didn't understand and wouldn't adapt.

    Although it seems very alien to us these days, the old practice of royals marrying royals/nobility actually makes some sense. At least they'll know what the expectations will be. And the thing we need to remember about life in The Firm is that it comprises of hundreds of years of traditions, assumptions and expectations which no-one, with the best will in the world, is going to overturn quickly.
  • In the love of the British people for bread and circuses.

    BTW, I suspect that Boris may be angling for a knighthood, or a peerage, so even he probably doesn't understand what he means.

    But I was thinking, I don't feel closer to my neighbours or my friends because of the queen. I suppose some people do.

    As you say, though I can't think why they would...
  • Also, the right wing are on the war-path generally, how dare anyone say the royal family is racist, Harry has betrayed us, Meghan is a harridan, blah blah. There's certainly a confluence around royalty, race, imperial nostalgia, etc. Remember we used to rule all these dark races. Trouble is, it becomes hysterical and melodramatic and tedious. Part of the culture wars, I guess.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Serious question, Doc Tor, how wealthy would the wealthy be allowed to be in your ideal utopian state?

    Perhaps that's a theme for another and broader thread.
    There is a thread on socialism currently active. Short answer: you'd stick a higher top rate of tax on some multiple of the median income. Somewhere from five times the median income to ten times the median income maybe. Get economists and social scientists to advise what is a good level.
    More important is probably to prevent short-term wealth extraction that isn't sustainable: one wants to tax capital gains over a certain multiple of the rate of inflation, since they're probably down to asset stripping or undercutting prices to set up monopolies or something else that isn't actually economically productive.
  • Serious question, Doc Tor, how wealthy would the wealthy be allowed to be in your ideal utopian state?

    A bit of a tangent, I know and yes, I appreciate that you don't see republicanism as a panacea for all societal ills.

    Are you thinking of putting a cap on personal wealth accumulation in your 'new republic'? If so, where do we draw the line? Three acres and a cow?

    I don't see any republics that I am aware of putting the brakes on the wealthy remaining wealthy. That's pretty much encouraged in a certain well known republic we all may have heard of across the Atlantic somewhere.

    Ok, we might argue that a hereditary monarchy and aristocracy embeds that tendency but it's not the only system to do so.

    Perhaps that's a theme for another and broader thread.

    Yes, it's a tangent, and I won't be pursing it here.

    What's important is the machine. When it's working properly, it's not that you don't notice it, it's that you're not allowed to notice it. XR, for all their many faults, are trying to draw our attention to the machine. Repair cafes are trying to draw our attention to the machine. Projects like the Bristol Pound are trying to draw our attention to the machine. Guerilla rewilding is trying to draw our attention to the machine.

    Drawing attention to the machine makes a lot of people very angry. Either because they profit off the machine, or because they're so heavily invested in it that they can't see that the machine is consuming them.

    Meghan has accidentally pointed at the machine and naively asked "What is this here for?" Everyone suddenly remembers how Charles treated Diana, how Andrew behaved, how Philip got to make racist remarks and drive his car into people, how the Queen owns a palace, a castle, two country estates and a whole stack of other land, how the Duchy of Cornwall is actually run, and so on. All that's come up in this thread.

    One answer is clearly, "This is not here for our benefit, but our oppression", but that's going to be forgotten in a few months time when the machine gets back up to speed again. Until then, just look at it while it's visible, and try and remember some of the anger you felt when you could see it.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Boris said that queen unites the British people. In what way?
    In the love of the British people for bread and circuses.

    BTW, I suspect that Boris may be angling for a knighthood, or a peerage, so even he probably doesn't understand what he means.

    But I was thinking, I don't feel closer to my neighbours or my friends because of the queen. I suppose some people do.
    I would’ve assumed he meant unites the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish (and the Cornish and others, if you will) into one nation, that what unites someone in Folkstone to someone in Kirkwall or Swansea is the Crown.

    No comment from me on whether, if that’s what he meant, he’s accurate.
  • Also, the people who run the machine and profit from it, get angry, because they don't want daylight thrown on it. It works best for them, shrouded in darkness. Hence, the attack on wokeness, we don't need to be conscious of oppression, go back to sleep.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Boris said that queen unites the British people. In what way?
    In the love of the British people for bread and circuses.

    BTW, I suspect that Boris may be angling for a knighthood, or a peerage, so even he probably doesn't understand what he means.

    But I was thinking, I don't feel closer to my neighbours or my friends because of the queen. I suppose some people do.
    I would’ve assumed he meant unites the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish (and the Cornish and others, if you will) into one nation, that what unites someone in Folkstone to someone in Kirkwall or Swansea is the Crown.

    No comment from me on whether, if that’s what he meant, he’s accurate.

    That seems like a paraphrase to me. How am I united to someone in Swansea by the Crown? Is it like football, so all the Arsenal fans are united by a common interest?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited March 12
    You're not. It's the wool they try to pull over your eyes. If anything you're united to someone in Swansea by being expected to kowtow to the same people that they are.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Boris said that queen unites the British people. In what way?
    In the love of the British people for bread and circuses.

    BTW, I suspect that Boris may be angling for a knighthood, or a peerage, so even he probably doesn't understand what he means.

    But I was thinking, I don't feel closer to my neighbours or my friends because of the queen. I suppose some people do.
    I would’ve assumed he meant unites the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish (and the Cornish and others, if you will) into one nation, that what unites someone in Folkstone to someone in Kirkwall or Swansea is the Crown.

    No comment from me on whether, if that’s what he meant, he’s accurate.

    That seems like a paraphrase to me. How am I united to someone in Swansea by the Crown? Is it like football, so all the Arsenal fans are united by a common interest?
    Maybe I’m hearing it as an American, as essentially what puts the “United” in “United Kingdom,” not as what unites me to the person down the street. I hear it as collectively united, not individually united.

    And maybe I’m way off, too.

  • KarlLB wrote: »
    You're not. It's the wool they try to pull over your eyes. If anything you're united to someone in Swansea by being expected to kowtow to the same people that they are.

    It's one of those weird meta-games, we're united by the queen because we say we are.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Boris said that queen unites the British people. In what way?
    In the love of the British people for bread and circuses.

    BTW, I suspect that Boris may be angling for a knighthood, or a peerage, so even he probably doesn't understand what he means.

    But I was thinking, I don't feel closer to my neighbours or my friends because of the queen. I suppose some people do.
    I would’ve assumed he meant unites the English, the Scots, the Welsh and the Northern Irish (and the Cornish and others, if you will) into one nation, that what unites someone in Folkstone to someone in Kirkwall or Swansea is the Crown.

    No comment from me on whether, if that’s what he meant, he’s accurate.

    That seems like a paraphrase to me. How am I united to someone in Swansea by the Crown? Is it like football, so all the Arsenal fans are united by a common interest?
    Maybe I’m hearing it as an American, as essentially what puts the “United” in “United Kingdom,” not as what unites me to the person down the street. I hear it as collectively united, not individually united.

    And maybe I’m way off, too.

    Surely the Crown puts the "Kingdom" bit in? The united bit is about us all being subject to the parliament in Westminster, with our national parliaments able to be abolished at the stroke of a pen if the tories think they can get away with it.
  • Nick TamenNick Tamen Shipmate
    Fair enough, all. As I said, I get that my American ears may not hear it the way British ears would hear it and British tongues would mean it.

  • It's easy to see now how all this mess (Diana and then Harry) could have been avoided by allowing Charles to marry the woman he really loved.

    AFAICT That was largely something Charles inflicted on himself.
  • NenyaNenya Shipmate
    Boris said that queen unites the British people. In what way?
    It's arguable that the British are united - our very own British thread here is aptly named "The Untied Kingdom". It may be that Boris was at least in part referring to the way that a lot of people (in my experience at least) may have little time for the monarchy as an institution and the failings, scandals and shenanigans related thereto, but the queen is and has been perceived as serving faithfully (as she promised when she took the throne) and working hard at a job she didn't want and didn't expect to have, as her father did.

    There's a strong feeling that things will change when she dies, many people say for the better; and of course there are also people who have no time for the monarchy including the queen.

    I can't see Charles stepping aside for William; he's been a king-in-waiting all his life.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Telford--

    If you had a street gang out to destroy you for their own pleasure and profit,

    --who stalked you 24/7/365 (i.e., all the time),

    --who photographed you as they please and published the photos to the world,

    --who published twisted or fake stories about you,

    --who were literally making you ill,

    and all of that happened non-stop for YEARS, while

    --you were dealing with your husband's relationship with his long-time love ("there were always three of us in this marriage"),

    --you were dealing with the...difficult situation with the in-laws,

    --you were giving birth two and raising two kids, one likely a future king,

    --you were impossibly entangled with the somewhat... cultish... fascination people have with all of them and with you...

    and that gang was still after you...

    How would you handle it? And how well?

    For starters, I would never be able to give birth. The rest of your list is just an exaggeration.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    But Diana should have prepped for that. If she'd read a few books, she'd have realized that royal men spread the love.
    It's clear that Charles let her down badly. She was a nice lady but not totally suitable for the job

    In July 1992 she came to Wolverhampton city centre to open the new Police Station. After a tour of the station she heard a couple of short speeches. met the most important dignatories and unveiled a plaque.

    She then paid a visit to the station carpark full of invited children and then did a tour of the streets surrounding the station where many thousands were gathered. She spent more time on the streets than in the station. She was totally charming to all. This is what she did best.

  • Ex_OrganistEx_Organist Shipmate
    edited March 12
    Telford wrote: »

    In July 1992 she came to Wolverhampton city centre to open the new Police Station.

    In December 1988 Diana, Princess of Wales, came to Wolverhampton to open a new centre for Relate. I was teaching a class in a room directly opposite the centre. She spent so long inside that some of my students were speculating on whether her visit included a counselling session.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    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

    Monarchy is spooky action at a distance.
    Telford wrote: »
    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.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Fair enough, all. As I said, I get that my American ears may not hear it the way British ears would hear it and British tongues would mean it.

    No, I think you were on the money as to how the Crown is supposed to unite the nations / territories that make up the United Kingdom.

    The clue is in the title. The United Kingdom is supposed to be one which is united under a single monarch. That monarch is King or Queen or England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland - and other, but not all, countries that form part of the Commonwealth.

    The unifying factor, whether it's Belfast, Bedwellty, Bedford or Braemar is that the British monarch is titular head of state, rather than there being a separate King or Queen of Scots or a native Prince of Wales.

    Whether individuals in Coleraine, Conwy, Coventry or Cumbernauld see or feel that to be the case is a different issue.



  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    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

    Monarchy is spooky action at a distance.
    Telford wrote: »
    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

  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    At least in series rather than parallel

    And why not? Sauce for the goose and all that
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Just as an aside, this evening CBS is reporting that the style of wicker outside furniture that H. M. and O. were sitting in has sold out of stock from all outlets. Even the Walmart knock-off is all but sold out. https://youtu.be/_b8PJrHnwAU
  • Telford wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    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

    Monarchy is spooky action at a distance.
    Telford wrote: »
    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.
  • 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.


Sign In or Register to comment.