advertisement


Prince Charles

Kirk said:
Safe to say that none us know how much the Monarchy makes or loses (a strangely capitalist take by some on the left here btw). Only a few Royals, government officials and intermediaries have access to the accounts. That aside, the Monarchy does play a pivotal and positive role in the nation’s psyche (Diana being a good example) - it not only binds the nation together (quite useful these days), it also ensures Britons sleep more soundly at night. Comments promoting its abolition only play into the hands of Putin. They also display a fundamental lack of understanding of what the majority of the country wants and what it means to be British (Labour take note). Even the Republic-loving Aussies are on-board.
Click to expand...

Play into the hands of Putin…


Priceless!
Laughed like a drain.
 
Royalty at Stamford Bridge last night, which counts as working hard and judging by the numbers of men with stern faces surrounding him, costing a small fortune.
 
Kirk said:
I was referring to her connection with the people and the nation's psyche.

The Royals confer a sense a stability and order - i.e. less chaos. Helps people sleep at night.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware most of the UK now think Diana was an utter fruitloop, thick as mince tart.
 
51508003783_72e7c9a52b_c.jpg


Royalty conferring a sense of stability and order on the UK
 
ks.234 said:
51508003783_72e7c9a52b_c.jpg


Royalty conferring a sense of stability and order on the UK
Click to expand...
Although King Billy did later acquire a white horse (which became his favourite mount), the horse he rode at the Boyne was dark. Moreover, he was never actually involved in such a skirmish (his second-in-command, the Duke of Schomberg, was killed when the Williamite forces crossed the river and were attacked by Jacobite cavalry). For all the fuss made of it on the Twelfth in Norn Iron, it was a bit of a damp squib, the decider actually coming on 12th July 1691 at Aughrim in Galway, thought to be the bloodiest battle ever fought in the British Isles.
 
tones said:
Although King Billy did later acquire a white horse (which became his favourite mount), the horse he rode at the Boyne was dark. Moreover, he was never actually involved in such a skirmish (his second-in-command, the Duke of Schomberg, was killed when the Williamite forces crossed the river and were attacked by Jacobite cavalry). For all the fuss made of it on the Twelfth in Norn Iron, it was a bit of a damp squib, the decider actually coming on 12th July 1691 at Aughrim in Galway, thought to be the bloodiest battle ever fought in the British Isles.
Click to expand...
Yes, Kings painting themselves heroic is not new. Also, no one with any sense would ride into battle on a white horse, a bit of an easy target. Fairy tales are the very stuff royal history
 
ks.234 said:
Yes, Kings painting themselves heroic is not new. Also, no one with any sense would ride into battle on a white horse, a bit of an easy target. Fairy tales are the very stuff royal history
Click to expand...
Even for kings, disease was a high risk and lifespans were short in those days, so the risk of personal appearance at the (probably at the rear) battle was not as extreme as we would see it today. It was the improvement in long range firearm accuracy that scared the kings away from the battlefield
 
davidsrsb said:
Even for kings, disease was a high risk and lifespans were short in those days, so the risk of personal appearance at the (probably at the rear) battle was not as extreme as we would see it today. It was the improvement in long range firearm accuracy that scared the kings away from the battlefield
Click to expand...
Yes, though while average lifespans were shorter, the gap between the health and respective lifespans of rich and poor were still there then as now, and kings and queens were treated much better. Henry V had an arrow removed from his face in a complicated and ingenious procedure that would not be been available to common soldiers

Richard III was the last king to die in battle, suggesting kings were scared off the battle field even before the gunpowder era really got going in the 16th C
 
Kirk said:
Helps people sleep at night.
Click to expand...
It's a wonder that the people of France, Austria, Germany etc. are not rattling the gates of their presidential seats, demanding relief from restive nights. "Please", they implore, "free us from this sleep-stealing uncertainty."

No, the argument that a monarchy is required to help people sleep at night or prevent chaos is pure propaganda. As demonstrated by countries with other constitutional arrangements, it has no basis in fact.

That said, I am a democrat, and the fact remains that the British people are not in favour of abolishing the monarchy. Which is why my position is that it should be put on a less feudal footing by being:

- reduced in headcount,
- made accountable (by being open to Freedom of Information Act, etc),
- and equalised in law with the general populace (no sealing of wills, no exemptions from Inheritance Tax, no freedom from prosecution/testifying in a court of law, etc).

They are our servants and, on that basis, should be accountable to us.
 
ks.234 said:
Richard III was the last king to die in battle, suggesting kings were scared off the battle field even before the gunpowder era really got going in the 16th C
Click to expand...
In the Middle Ages kings wore top quality armour, so largely proof against ranged weapons until guns got sorted.
They were worth a lot of money alive for ransom, a frequent occurrence.
Richard had a puncture wound consistent with being stabbed in the head with a stiletto knife, the standard way of executing a knight without opening their armour, Henry VII did not want a stronger claimant alive
 
davidsrsb said:
Even for kings, disease was a high risk and lifespans were short in those days, so the risk of personal appearance at the (probably at the rear) battle was not as extreme as we would see it today. It was the improvement in long range firearm accuracy that scared the kings away from the battlefield
Click to expand...
From memory, the last British king to participate in a battle was George II at Dettingen. Handel wrote a Te Deum for it - typically splendid Handel:

 
davidsrsb said:
Richard had a puncture wound consistent with being stabbed in the head with a stiletto knife, the standard way of executing a knight without opening their armour, Henry VII did not want a stronger claimant alive
Click to expand...

It would be a pretty beefy chap who could drive a knife through a steel helm. By all accounts he was more likely killed in combat with a bill or halberd. However, as you say, Henry's wishes would be well known by his troops, so no quarter would have been given.
 
ks.234 said:
Richard III was the last king to die in battle, suggesting kings were scared off the battle field even before the gunpowder era really got going in the 16th C
Click to expand...
King Karl XII of Sweden died in battle in 1718. Some reckon he was probably shot by one of his own men who'd had enough of the war.
 
mansr said:
King Karl XII of Sweden died in battle in 1718. Some reckon he was probably shot by one of his own men who'd had enough of the war.
Click to expand...
Yes. I should’ve said ‘last English King’. I’ve heard tales of the more ridiculously suicidal officers in WW1 meeting a similar end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top