Are the royals on the rocks?

13637383941

Comments

  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    So what made him promise ‘access for cash’?
  • The thought of acquiring more cash?
  • jay_emmjay_emm Shipmate
    jay_emm wrote: »
    In a slightly bizarre story
    https://theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/09/prince-michael-of-kent-accused-of-selling-access-to-kremlin[/url]
    You'd think his influence in this country would be more significant.

    In which country, UK or Russia?

    As the second son of the fourth son of the monarch who died six-and-a-half years before he was born he has zero influence in the UK.

    On the maternal side, I don't think that being the great-great-grandson, with two maternal descents, of a tsar who died in 1881 is likely to give him much traction in Russia. His appearance does cause comment in Russia (he bears an uncanny resemblance to Nicholas II) but he's actually less closely related to the last tsar than the late Duke if Edinburgh. And I'm sure none of us needs reminding that the Russians did away with their monarchy in 1918.

    Friend of Putin? I doubt it.

    He is (or Ld Reading is apparently able to quote on his behalf while simultaneous claiming to be just commenting) charging £10,000 a day for the Russian influence he allegedly has. Now granted I move in different circles but to me multiples of 10k pays for something non trivial.

    As you mentioned the obvious Russian influences are much more indirect than his English ones. Hence why I thought it notable that he's marketing his Russian connections over his English ones.
    After all my cousin's could easily have influence on me (it wouldn't lead to much, and I'd declare it if I noticed). But if one of my cousin's were to market on their ability to get my corporate equivalent (and non relations) in Manchester to decide something, I'd be puzzled.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    If he thinks he, or any other effete minor princeling, is going to be taken seriously by Putin or his apparatchiks he really does have shit for brains.
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    If he thinks he, or any other effete minor princeling, is going to be taken seriously by Putin or his apparatchiks he really does have shit for brains.

    She doesn’t - it was a sting undertaken by a team of undercover reporters from the Channel 4 programme Dispatches.

    Kent was promising introductions in Russia to Putin’s underlings.

  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    edited May 10
    As the second son of the fourth son of the monarch who died six-and-a-half years before he was born he has zero influence in the UK.

    Who is more likely to get a phone call answered/put through to a big company or government dept; TheOrganist, Mr Moon or Prince Michael of Kent?

    Who is more likely to able to influence the views of someone who gets to meet with the PM every week; TheOrganist, Mr Moon or Prince Michael of Kent?

    Who is more likely to know other people who can "make things happen", and yet others who when they leak "Buckingham Palace is of the view that..." or "The Royals would be displeased with..." that ministers/civil servants/Lords know that the leak did come from Buck house; TheOrganist, Mr Moon or Prince Michael of Kent?

    Who can accept gifts officially on behalf of the Queen when she is not available, resulting in the pretender to throne of Georgia stating that the Queen is a member of his Royal Order because her hapless cousin accepted the collar without fully realising what it meant; TheOrganist, Mr Moon or Prince Michael of Kent?

    To say he has zero influence in the UK is a mistake.

    Many, many people have influence in the UK who we know nothing about. Prince Michael of Kent is one who does have influence. The question is just how much.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Any "influence" he has in the UK is far more likely to be through freemasonry than royalty. Unlike the rest of the RF, the Kents have always been very active in the affairs of the Brotherhood.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    Going back to basics, we have a constitutional monarchy (instead of a president) because of our history and the evolution of the role of the monarchy.

    George the third was was more monarch that Elizabeth the second of England because he has been made responsible for the loss of our American colonies by placing a tax on tea to pay for the fighting between French and the British colonists living in the states.
    (The Boston tea party).

    George the first did not bother to learn English and preferred to live in Hanover, in what sense was he king?

    Edward the eighth was so uncommitted to his role of monarch that he abdicated because he found his relationship with Mrs Simpson more important to him than being king.
  • @Questor:

    Thanks for the history lesson, but what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

    George I became king because he was the nearest living Protestant relative to her late Majesty Queen Anne. The fact that he wasn't in England very often, and couldn't speak the language, at least meant a gradual transition to day-to-day rule by a Prime Minister (and Parliament, of course).

    Hmm...and look where that's got us...
    :disappointed:
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Questor wrote: »
    George the first did not bother to learn English and preferred to live in Hanover, in what sense was he king?
    George I became king because he was the nearest living Protestant relative to her late Majesty Queen Anne. The fact that he wasn't in England very often, and couldn't speak the language, . . .

    The same could be said of Richard I, but no one today disputes his kinghood.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Left to his own devices Richard I would have been a rotten king: he left the job of running his lands in France to vassal lords and England to William Marshal with his mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine as overall regent. And Richard didn't speak English either.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    And he drained money out of the country. My head teacher in one assembly described his brother as our worst king - with no evidence, and I was muttering that Richard was pretty close.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    Oh, there's precious little to choose between the two of them. The only good things to come from John's reign were the reform of common law and Magna Carta.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited May 10
    The magna carta lasted about 3 seconds flat.
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    When the French were in the country, John called out the fyrd, and the common people turned up for him. Which is interesting for a hated man.
    I've seen a couple of reports of cases where John took the judge's places. One was of a murder where the townspeople had picked on someone who they didn't like as guilty. John was able to show that the accused could not have done it - physically incapable, I think. He was furious with the townspeople and told them never to do that again.
    In the other, the parents of a dead boy wanted the boy who had killed their son to be hanged. The death had been the result of a thrown stone, and John was able to show that a group of boys had been throwing stones, and it could have easily been their son who had been responsible for a death.
    So he had some good points.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    The magna carta lasted about 3 seconds flat.

    Yes, but it laid down an idea and went on to form the basis of the Treaty of Lambeth.
  • QuestorQuestor Shipmate
    It certainly gave us trial by jury.
    I believe the then pope, Innocent 3, argued that magna carta was null and void because king John entered it under duress.
  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    So the long-awaited (!) statue of the late Princess of Wales was unveiled by her sons yesterday.

    Kitsch? To my mind the sculptor has produced something that looks like actor George Hamilton in drag.

  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    Tasteful it ain’t
  • It's ghastly - Blessed Diana, The Protectress Of Children - but will be much improved by the inevitable bird poo...
    :disappointed:
  • I'm inclined to think that if it comforts her immediate family (and they seem happy with it) then that's 99% of what matter. It's not like the Royals are considered bastions of good taste and aesthetic sensibility, the Duke of Cambridge's starting an Art History degree not withstanding.
  • Twitter was thanking the Royals for commemorating Claire Balding yesterday, although someone else suggested that the statue was a great representation of an early David Bowie. Such an androgynous figure to represent one of the most celebrated female beauties of the last century does feel a bit odd.
  • AnselminaAnselmina Shipmate
    I hope it does bring some real comfort to her family and friends. I've read the blurb about what it's supposed to represent, but it still looks a bit '?' to me. But I was never a Diana-worshipper. The pictures that instantly enter my mind when I think of Di, are of the Bambi eyelashes during the Bashir interview, and her diving off the occasional millionaire's yacht in the South of France. However, it's obviously meant to be a tribute to her better influences, quite naturally. She did do charitable stuff with children, and said she wanted to be remembered for her charity activity. And she seemed to be well respected for that kind of work. I guess, if Britain decided to remember Nelson in statuary form, on top of a column looking handsome and naval, rather than sneaking about with Lady Hamilton, or being seasick, it's only fair for Diana to be captured looking friendly and kind and approachable by youngsters. I hope William and Harry found it a good occasion to be together.
  • SojournerSojourner Shipmate
    The inage looks neither kind nor friendly; more like the matron of the Greta Garbo Home for wayward boys and girls🙀
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    Very, very, weird. Well, it fits the royals.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Part of the problem is that the children depicted are the wrong kind of kids for their size comparative to the main figure. Children who are half the height of an adult are much less mature than these.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    There have apparently been 1400 posts on this thread since I last looked. Did I miss anything?

    The Royals appear to still be sufficiently intact, so the rocks weren't too close. And no, I don't much like the statue. It's not a good piece of art, but then these things aren't necessarily supposed to be.
  • Cathscats wrote: »
    Part of the problem is that the children depicted are the wrong kind of kids for their size comparative to the main figure. Children who are half the height of an adult are much less mature than these.

    I hadn't noticed that, but perhaps the sculptor meant to emphasise how much Larger Than Life Diana was (and is) perceived to be?
  • It’s a very odd statue, she looks like a badly dressed giantess.
  • It’s a very odd statue, she looks like a badly dressed giantess.

    ISWYM. The children look *normal*, but Diana does not. Creepy.

    (And IIRC she was never badly dressed, at least in public.)
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Shipmate
    It’s a very odd statue, she looks like a badly dressed giantess.

    Most statues are fairly odd.
  • Some are, certainly - did you have any particularly odd statue(s) in mind?

    In this case, if the sculptor was aiming for a fair degree of realism, he missed.
    😱😱
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    It’s a very odd statue, she looks like a badly dressed giantess.

    Most statues are fairly odd.

    Yes, I don't think they work. Things like horses and clothes look OK, but faces usually resemble gargoyles. I suppose the giant Churchill and the head of Marx look OK. As somebody said, pull them all down. Well, the Crystal Palace dinosaurs are OK.
  • I see that statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been pulled down in Canada, much to the disgust, of course, of that peculiar entity known as Number Ten.

    Some commentators have wondered how long it'll be before the statue of Diana becomes a Shrine, with candles, flowers, stuffed toys, plastic windmills etc., placed there by devotees and worshippers.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Its just plain naff.
    Belongs in the same room as dralon sofas, plaster ducks on the wall and knitted covers for toilet rolls.
  • Alan29 wrote: »
    Its just plain naff.
    Belongs in the same room as dralon sofas, plaster ducks on the wall and knitted covers for toilet rolls.

    O I say - don't give the worshippers ideas, or the Shrine will be littered with such dross...

    (Actually, come to think of it, I still have a dralon sofa. It is a pleasant grey-green colour, and is very comfy).
    :wink:
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    So the long-awaited (!) statue of the late Princess of Wales was unveiled by her sons yesterday.

    Kitsch? To my mind the sculptor has produced something that looks like actor George Hamilton in drag.

    I thought that it looked Princess Diana as she might have looked when 60 years old
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    I see that statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been pulled down in Canada, much to the disgust, of course, of that peculiar entity known as Number Ten.
    The Canadian Police should lock them up.



  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    Why?
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I see that statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been pulled down in Canada, much to the disgust, of course, of that peculiar entity known as Number Ten.
    The Canadian Police should lock them up.



    They should be finding and locking up the people who let all those kids die and end up in unmarked graves first.
  • Merry VoleMerry Vole Shipmate
    Once you've chosen Ian Rank-Broadley (who did the image of the Queen on coins) to do the sculpture, with cast bronze as the medium, it's going to be dull.
    The 3 children are the most interesting part. Presumably the children meant the sculptor could charge 4 times as much as if he'd done Diana alone.
    I've seen tree trunks carved by artists with chain-saws that look more inspiring.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I see that statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been pulled down in Canada, much to the disgust, of course, of that peculiar entity known as Number Ten.
    The Canadian Police should lock them up.



    They should be finding and locking up the people who let all those kids die and end up in unmarked graves first.

    There isn't a queue system.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I see that statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been pulled down in Canada, much to the disgust, of course, of that peculiar entity known as Number Ten.
    The Canadian Police should lock them up.



    They should be finding and locking up the people who let all those kids die and end up in unmarked graves first.

    There isn't a queue system.

    No, but there is an ordering of priorities both in time and in resource allocation, and a choice about whether prosecutions are in the public interest.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited July 3
    orfeo wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I see that statues of Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth II have been pulled down in Canada, much to the disgust, of course, of that peculiar entity known as Number Ten.
    The Canadian Police should lock them up.

    They should be finding and locking up the people who let all those kids die and end up in unmarked graves first.

    There isn't a queue system.

    No, but there is an ordering of priorities both in time and in resource allocation, and a choice about whether prosecutions are in the public interest.

    Agreed. The chief problem being that Karl or anyone else isn't necessarily in a position to identity who exactly are "the people" he wants to lock up. That's the difference between abstract statements and actual prosecutions. "They" are responsible for any number of things and yet it's remarkably hard to bring "them" to trial. Figuring out who "they" are to the level of being able to make a court hearing worthwhile takes some time.

    Whereas I imagine figuring out who has been pulling down statutes would be a lot quicker and easier. For one thing they're probably on camera, quite possibly by choice.
  • It was @Telford who first mentioned locking up those Wicked Malefactors who dared - dared, I say! - to insult their Majesties by pulling down the statues.

    Perhaps the Malefactors should be flogged as well, just to drive home the heinousness of their Awful Wickedness?
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Oh look, I'm not especially interested in who the statues were of, and I doubt Canadian law is either. But I would expect Canadian law to have some sort of provision that says you ought not to go around destroying public property. Regardless of what you're mad about.
  • quetzalcoatlquetzalcoatl Shipmate
    The first malefactors were presumably British, who had the bright idea of "take the Indian out of the child, and the child out of their family". Ah, British values, you see.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Quite.

    Bit hard to lock those first malefactors up, though.
  • Back to the image statue of Diana - how was it paid for?

    I suppose that if Harry and William are pleased with it, that's all that really matters.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I doubt if Victoria or Elizabeth had any invovement with the 'schools' in question.
Sign In or Register to comment.