hash tag
Reaching out
Too much royal stuff all over the place. I don't want to keep sifting through it. It would be nice if it were tidily tucked away from everything else.
BBC reluctance to criticise the royals
- Thread starter nightowl
- Start date
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Only this thread and the merged "prince harry" thread are currently busy/active though. It is not as though "new posts" is currently full of them. You can of course ignore any thread on here if it annoys or doesn't interest you.
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
Not sure we have the same reach though
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't think the details of what these fuckknuckles do are at all relevant. If I discuss the monarchy, I try to avoid mentioning individuals at all, aside from pointing out that they will act in their own interests. The whole point is that what they're like as individuals is beside the point.
That said, the period after the queen's death was always going to be a potentially interesting time in which there would be a window of opportunity to damage the institution and see its popularity plummet. So the soap opera is all good stuff in that regard. I still don't quite see what wider insight I gain by knowing the details of its plot, though.
Are we not part of the health-and-safety, PC wokerati Gestapo who run the country?Not sure we have the same reach though
Last edited:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Oh right, so you'd say eg the royal family are racist without giving any actual examples, that they benefit from the way in which they can get laws changed to their advantage: without any actual examples, that they're far away on the right, again with no actual examples. You can of course say that the existence of any royal family is an affront to democracy, deal with it on some abstract plane, make a constitutional case. But you're not going to be changing many people's minds like that - showing the corruption at the heart of the royal family's existence with definite examples is more likely to change people's views than your rarefied refusal to name names and damn their deeds
moochedit
I'm not feeding seagulls
There's every probability we have; it's just no one, here or elsewhere else, witnessed it.I don't know. Have we been name checked on gb news yet?
WhyLikeThis
Something, something, something
Yep, pretty fucking shocking.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
They've never not done royal stuff. It's in their DNA. Plus it delivers the clickthroughs because vast swathes of Britain, America and loads of the rest of the world are obsessed with the royals. I just tune it out.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
It's all about camilla you roundhead rascal
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Not really. I support the principle of monarchy, because I prefer an apolitical head of state, but individual members of the royal family, not so much.
At present, the mood of the country is pro-monarchy, this may well, in fact probably will, change over time.
Interesting though that in the only recent change in style of head of state, the country became a monarchy.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I would laugh like the proverbial drain if the US revoke his visa, due to his well self publicised drug use.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
There's nothing apolitical about the monarchy. Establishment, authoritarian, hierarchical, militaristic, religious, property-owning, misogynistic, arbitrary, deference, - just rearrange these words and you get a description of the monarchy. All very political.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
I don't see it as such, but to each their own.
How do you see their interference in the laws of the country and exemption from provisions in those laws then?
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
You have your view, I am not wasting my time arguing this.
Do you see interfering in the content of laws as political?
A yes or no will suffice. Its about what you think not about changing your mind.
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
No, it is about you embarking on an anti-monarchy rant, followed by personal abuse towards me.
I've seen it all before, so just stroll on.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
to be fair, it's not really interfering. it is a tradition that the government consults the crown about these things. the government is after all his majesty's government, not the government of the people. but you've had your fun, you've upped your postcount and you've shown an abject understanding of the subject.
I don't have an issue with the monarchy.
But I have seen it all if you want to say they aren't political while accepting they interfere and gain exemptions from the laws of the country.
Do you think its political to interfere and gain exemption from the laws of the country?
I don't even know what you will say, it could be yes or no. Presumably you expect abuse either way.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
The royals are deliberately not party political, but their very existence is a political fact. In their current form their purpose is to shore up existing establishment structures, the judiciary, the C of E, the armed forces, police, universities, Boy Scouts, you name it. And hereditary entitlement, privilege and power in particular.
RedRedRose
Well-Known Member
Revealed: how Prince Charles pressured ministers to change law to benefit his estate
Newly discovered documents show government yielded to heir’s demands amid fears of a constitutional crisiswww.theguardian.com
Apolitical?
Revealed: Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth
Monarch dispatched private solicitor to secure exemption from transparency law
SpookyFrank
A cheap source of teeth for aquarium gravel
If only there was some way for the people to decide who the head of state was, instead of giving the gig to whoever wins first prize in a cousing-fucking contest.
Similar threads
