Coronation

[Al Bundy]

19 minutes ago, Palomar said:

Above are 2 miniature portraits of you crying - boo hoo young people are politically engaged, boo hoo people care about things, boo hoo I'm no longer relevant

Cool story bro, dude.

 

Left, republican and young.

 

It all makes sense, you radical little tinker you..

 

✌️✌️

Edited April 19, 2023 by Al Bundy

[Magilla]

1 hour ago, Al Bundy said:

Cool story bro, dude.

Accurate too!

[Anna B]

Discussion on Jeremy Vine this morning, about whether super wealthy King Charles should pay for his own Coronation.

Interesting thought...

Personally, I think as it's a state occasion of course the nation should pay for it. It will be a spectacle, and hopefully a time of National pride. You just can't buy publicity like that, (and I don't want to see it spoilt by protesters, although I support their right to protest, I just hope the BBC manages to keep it off the telly.) 

 

However, 

 

I think Charles should pay a substantial amount of his personal wealth into developing a new Charity to commemorate his Coronation, similar to the 'Duke of Edinburgh Award; scheme, or the 'Prince's Trust.'

I believe he's a man of integrity who would honour such a gesture with his active support and leave behind him a real worthwhile legacy.

 

I expect I'll get a fair bit of flack for this, but what do you think?  

[m williamson]

39 minutes ago, Anna B said:

 

I believe he's a man of integrity 

 

 

Do you Anna?

You really believe that the man who took a wedding vow to be faithful to his first wife with absolutely no intention of keeping it as he said the words " You can't expect me to be the first Price of Wales not to have a mistress " is a man of integrity?

 

You believe that a man who involved himself in dodgy deals selling off diplomatic gifts and got his valet Michael Fawcett to take the blame has integrity?

 

Recieving suitcases full of cash from a person who's country has an appalling Human Rights record and excusing it because it was for ' charity ', ( which just happened to be a ' charity ' that he personally benefited from ) is the action of a man of integrity in your view?

 

 

[harvey19]

30 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Do you Anna?

You really believe that the man who took a wedding vow to be faithful to his first wife with absolutely no intention of keeping it as he said the words " You can't expect me to be the first Price of Wales not to have a mistress " is a man of integrity?

 

You believe that a man who involved himself in dodgy deals selling off diplomatic gifts and got his valet Michael Fawcett to take the blame has integrity?

 

Recieving suitcases full of cash from a person who's country has an appalling Human Rights record and excusing it because it was for ' charity ', ( which just happened to be a ' charity ' that he personally benefited from ) is the action of a man of integrity in your view?

 

 

There are many criticisms we can make of the past and present Royal Family.

But I support the Monarchy as an institution rather than individuals.

I realise many will think I am completely wrong in separating the two .

 I would  criticise some members strongly.

But as a non political head of state I consider it is worthwhile.

 

[Anna B]

37 minutes ago, m williamson said:

Do you Anna?

You really believe that the man who took a wedding vow to be faithful to his first wife with absolutely no intention of keeping it as he said the words " You can't expect me to be the first Price of Wales not to have a mistress " is a man of integrity?

 

You believe that a man who involved himself in dodgy deals selling off diplomatic gifts and got his valet Michael Fawcett to take the blame has integrity?

 

Recieving suitcases full of cash from a person who's country has an appalling Human Rights record and excusing it because it was for ' charity ', ( which just happened to be a ' charity ' that he personally benefited from ) is the action of a man of integrity in your view?

 

 

Well, he's certainly not perfect, nor is it realistic to expect him to be. He's human. He's made mistakes - some of them whoppers. 

 

But. Regarding the Diana marriage, I believe he was rather railroaded into it and there were faults on both sides. He was on the cusp of Royal marriages being 'diplomatic alliances' and not all about love. Diana was young and naive enough to think love would conquer all, she wanted the full fairy tail and I have great sympathy that she didn't get it. It's tragic what happened.

But had Camilla been officially regarded by the men in grey suits to be a 'suitable virgin,' He would have married her in the first place. They are soulmates and I believe she will make him a better, happier King.

 

The suitcases thing I don't really know about, but I do know the Royal family are big fans of Saudi Arabia and other countries with appalling human rights records. But so is the Government. And big businesses etc. It's whatever's expedient. I don't like it, but what do I know.

 

I think Michael Fawcett is a pretty unpleasant character, but you have a point,. Although I don't know the ins and outs of it. Was it Charles who sanctioned selling off the stuff, or Fawcett's idea? I can't argue the point because I haven't looked into it. Suffice it to say Fawcett is a millionaire in his own right so isn't complaining (presumably largely thanks to Charles,) and Royalty have always had their whipping boys. Not right but that's Royalty for you. 

 

Charles is victim of being stuck between the old world, and it's ridiculous deference for Royalty, and the new, with its all seeing eye of mass media etc. It's not an easy line to tread, so I give him some slack. I refer you back to my first paragraph. If our every deed, and every mistake were public knowledge we would all be found lacking.

 

I am somewhat conflicted, but I believe Charles has a strong sense of duty (like his mother,) has a genuine concern for his people and the world, (more than his mother,) and truly wants to be a good man and a good king, so I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. We can only know with hindsight whether he deserves it or not, and it's only my opinion 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by Anna B

[janie48]

17 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Well, he's certainly not perfect, nor is it realistic to expect him to be. He's human. He's made mistakes - some of them whoppers. 

 

But. Regarding the Diana marriage, I believe he was rather railroaded into it and there were faults on both sides. He was on the cusp of Royal marriages being 'diplomatic alliances' and not all about love. Diana was young and naive enough to think love would conquer all, she wanted the full fairy tail and I have great sympathy that she didn't get it. It's tragic what happened.

But had Camilla been officially regarded by the men in grey suits to be a 'suitable virgin,' He would have married her in the first place. They are soulmates and I believe she will make him a better, happier King.

 

The suitcases thing I don't really know about, but I do know the Royal family are big fans of Saudi Arabia and other countries with appalling human rights records. But so is the Government. And big businesses etc. It's whatever's expedient. I don't like it, but what do I know.

 

I think Michael Fawcett is a pretty unpleasant character, but you have a point,. Although I don't know the ins and outs of it. Was it Charles who sanctioned selling off the stuff, or Fawcett's idea? I can't argue the point because I haven't looked into it. Suffice it to say Fawcett is a millionaire in his own right so isn't complaining (presumably largely thanks to Charles,) and Royalty have always had their whipping boys. Not right but that's Royalty for you. 

 

Charles is victim of being stuck between the old world, and it's ridiculous deference for Royalty, and the new, with its all seeing eye of mass media etc. It's not an easy line to tread, so I give him some slack. I refer you back to my first paragraph. If our every deed, and every mistake were public knowledge we would all be found lacking.

 

I am somewhat conflicted, but I believe Charles has a strong sense of duty (like his mother,) has a genuine concern for his people and the world, (more than his mother,) and truly wants to be a good man and a good king, so I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. We can only know with hindsight whether he deserves it or not, and it's only my opinion 

 

 

I share your opinion  Anna.

[m williamson]

9 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

There are many criticisms we can make of the past and present Royal Family.

But I support the Monarchy as an institution rather than individuals.

I realise many will think I am completely wrong in separating the two .

 I would  criticise some members strongly.

But as a non political head of state I consider it is worthwhile.

 

It is the institute that I object to. It is divisive, anachronistic and completely undemocratic.

 

Divisive because it prevents anyone with actual integrity who believes in honouring any oath they take from taking part in a number of activities in this country. Unless you are prepared to swear an oath to the monarch you can not join the military or the police, become a magistrate, be employed in the judiciary or become an MP, among other things.

 

Anachronistic in that it makes the country look like Ruritania and provides amusement to others in the same way that the Kardashians do.

 

Undemocratic because the Head of State is decided by birth and the monarch interferes with government policy, despite that being denied.

The Prime Minister is required to take the time to visit the monarch every week while parliament is in session in order for the monarch to         ' advise ' the PM about policy. The monarch influences policy, that is totally undemocratic.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/07/revealed-queen-lobbied-for-change-in-law-to-hide-her-private-wealth

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/feb/08/queen-power-british-law-queens-consent

 

Incidentally I don't read the Guardian, but as it's the only paper which isn't apparently completely pro royal it's the one with the examples.

Anyone wanting to disagree with these links attack the message not the messenger. Are they false? If so provide proof.

 

 

[trastrick]

Just now, harvey19 said:

There are many criticisms we can make of the past and present Royal Family.

But I support the Monarchy as an institution rather than individuals.

I realise many will think I am completely wrong in separating the two .

 I would  criticise some members strongly.

But as a non political head of state I consider it is worthwhile.

 

He's a useless tit in my opinion, but he has not beheaded a wife, or killed off a rival yet.

 

I give him a "B" for that!

 

His mother managed the transition of the monarchy through this modern era, and she'll always have my ultimate respect.

 

She did her duty!

 

 

Edited April 20, 2023 by trastrick

[m williamson]

29 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Well, he's certainly not perfect, nor is it realistic to expect him to be. He's human. He's made mistakes - some of them whoppers. 

 

But. Regarding the Diana marriage, I believe he was rather railroaded into it and there were faults on both sides. He was on the cusp of Royal marriages being 'diplomatic alliances' and not all about love. Diana was young and naive enough to think love would conquer all, she wanted the full fairy tail and I have great sympathy that she didn't get it. It's tragic what happened.

But had Camilla been officially regarded by the men in grey suits to be a 'suitable virgin,' He would have married her in the first place. They are soulmates and I believe she will make him a better, happier King.

 

The suitcases thing I don't really know about, but I do know the Royal family are big fans of Saudi Arabia and other countries with appalling human rights records. But so is the Government. And big businesses etc. It's whatever's expedient. I don't like it, but what do I know.

 

I think Michael Fawcett is a pretty unpleasant character, but you have a point,. Although I don't know the ins and outs of it. Was it Charles who sanctioned selling off the stuff, or Fawcett's idea? I can't argue the point because I haven't looked into it. Suffice it to say Fawcett is a millionaire in his own right so isn't complaining (presumably largely thanks to Charles,) and Royalty have always had their whipping boys. Not right but that's Royalty for you. 

 

Charles is victim of being stuck between the old world, and it's ridiculous deference for Royalty, and the new, with its all seeing eye of mass media etc. It's not an easy line to tread, so I give him some slack. I refer you back to my first paragraph. If our every deed, and every mistake were public knowledge we would all be found lacking.

 

I am somewhat conflicted, but I believe Charles has a strong sense of duty (like his mother,) has a genuine concern for his people and the world, (more than his mother,) and truly wants to be a good man and a good king, so I'm prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. We can only know with hindsight whether he deserves it or not, and it's only my opinion 

 

 

Please see my reply to Harvey 19 for some of my reasons for not being a monarchist.

 

You say that you think Fawcett is an unpleasant character. Fawcett did what he was instructed to do by Charles and then took a bullet for him. The proof of that is that he was reemployed by Charles in another capacity after his ' resignation ', had he been to blame that wouldn'r have happened would it?

https://guernseypress.com/news/uk-news/2021/11/12/charles-damaged-by-aides-resignation-over-alleged-cash-for-honours-scandal/