advertisement


King Charles III

russel said:
The monarchy is a useful tool for cementing divisions in society, most US local TV stations are right wing and a hereditary monarchy is a pretty good way to annoy left wing/progressives.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. It annoys anyone who respects any concept of democracy and equality.

I’ve been reflecting about this over the past few hours and trying to put a whole lifetime of having been gaslit (even as an anti-royalist) in perspective. ‘The Queen’ has been a constant for the whole of my life. She was in post 11 years before I was born. I don’t respect the concept as I understand it to be deeply politically wrong and the history of UK monarchy is just so violent with centuries of crusades, imperialism, colonisation, enslavement and plundering of others property and resources. It is a hideous institution, but from my personal perspective ‘The Queen’ has been around as long as I’ve been aware of the sky, trees, the sea etc. A constant. Gaslit into a position of accepting the abnormal as normal. Accepting tradition for tradition’s sake, no matter how unhinged the underlying concept. Logically it all needs decommissioning and all loot returned to those from whom it was stolen. This being the UK that won’t happen, but I can see our monarchy’s influence declining further as time progresses. I’d not be surprised if it wasn’t scrapped after Charles. I sincerely hope so anyway. It has no place in this century.
 
The last coronation threw up some glorious music. Walton, Vaughan Williams et al.
Somewhere on a dusty LP, I've got a collection of specially written pieces by various composers, called "A Garland for a Queen".
I wonder what the next coronation will give us musically.

 
  • Like
Reactions: awl
Cesare said:
Not really, I was just making sure you weren't some xenophobe type with some inflated idea of your countries worth. It's flag waving times like this that tend to bring out the nationalistic tendencies in people.
Click to expand...
Not me. I'm patriotic, but with a heavy dose of realism.
 
eisenach said:
The last coronation threw up some glorious music. Walton, Vaughan Williams et al.
Somewhere on a dusty LP, I've got a collection of specially written pieces by various composers, called "A Garland for a Queen".
I wonder what the next coronation will give us musically.
Click to expand...

Hopefully not another reworking of Candle in the Wind!
 
I'm not overly interested in the UK monarchy but as for names;

Charles...as already said, one beheaded and one head-oop-bum.

George...preceded by a looney and a defector.

Arthur... not going to happen.

Philip...to my mind the only other sensible choice but would confuse due to pops.

Charles has been around way too long to choose a different name at this point.

I reckon the monarchy will continue happily under Carles III but he has the unenviable task of prepping it for the next generation. Most likely an impossible task and we may see it fade away then.
 
eisenach said:
The last coronation threw up some glorious music. Walton, Vaughan Williams et al.
Somewhere on a dusty LP, I've got a collection of specially written pieces by various composers, called "A Garland for a Queen".
I wonder what the next coronation will give us musically.
Click to expand...
'...ten partsongs of A Garland for the Queen, commissioned from leading British composers by the Arts Council of Great Britain to honour the new monarch. In addition to VW's contribution, A Garland for the Queen includes important settings by Bax, Berkeley, Bliss, Finzi, Howells, Ireland, Rawsthorne, Rubbra and Tippett.'

Some really excellent music there, as you say.
 
Tony L said:
Absolutely. It annoys anyone who respects any concept of democracy and equality.

I’ve been reflecting about this over the past few hours and trying to put a whole lifetime of having been gaslit (even as an anti-royalist) in perspective. ‘The Queen’ has been a constant for the whole of my life. She was in post 11 years before I was born. I don’t respect the concept as I understand it to be deeply politically wrong and the history of UK monarchy is just so violent with centuries of crusades, imperialism, colonisation, enslavement and plundering of others property and resources. It is a hideous institution, but from my personal perspective ‘The Queen’ has been around as long as I’ve been aware of the sky, trees, the sea etc. One is gaslit into a position of accepting the abnormal as normal. Accepting tradition for tradition’s sake, no matter how unhinged the underlying concept. Logically it all needs decommissioning and all loot returned to those from whom it was stolen. This being the UK that won’t happen, but I can see its influence declining further as time progresses. I’d not be surprised if it wasn’t scrapped after Charles. I sincerely hope so anyway. It has no place in this century.
Click to expand...
Same. I’ve gone from not thinking about the monarchy at all, except for sectarian bants, to being pretty angry about the whole thing. Would be great if that became the national mood.

Not sure republicans will get a better shot: unpopular figure being crowned during a cost of living crisis, his nonce brother there by his side, gaffe prone PM presiding over events…
 
Since we’ve been asked to post in this thread rather than the other, @gavreid referred to the current industrial action being suspended. That’ll be the monarch’s “stabilising influence on the nation.” Never have we had the piss ripped out of us so blatantly by such a venal and corrupt government. What was starting to shape up as a generalised fightback against corporate greed, political corruption and OAP’s dying of malnutrition and hypothermia has now been derailed in the name of “national unity” and “respect.” Will Liz Truss and the Tories suspend their war on the poor out of a sense of ‘respect’? Will the energy companies desist ramping up prices beyond what is affordable for most people out of a sense of “national unity”?

Those questions are of course rhetorical. When we hear the phrase “stabilising influence on the nation” we are being asked to identify with a figure, an institution and a concept that acts to bolster the most backward, reactionary and superstitious ideas in society- we are supposed to accept that the monarch is personally ordained by god “O God the Crown of the faithful: Bless we beseech thee this Crown, and so sanctify thy servant upon whose head this day thou dost place it for a sign of royal majesty.”

We are asked to identify on an emotional level with a family whom we’ve never met, whose wealth we cannot comprehend and whose life has nothing in common with the vast majority of the population. We are now being subjected to North Korean levels of obsequiousness for the next ten days, and any and all who refuse participation will be demonised. Mick Lynch claims James Connolly as his political hero. Doesn’t sound to me like he has ever actually read a word Connolly wrote.
 
Finnegan said:
Since we’ve been asked to post in this thread rather than the other, @gavreid referred to the current industrial action being suspended.
Click to expand...

Yes, I ended up deleting those posts to clean up that thread, I should have moved them, I just couldn’t decide where too! Valid point and I was surprised to see industrial action has been cancelled. I don’t understand that at all.
 
Finnegan said:
Well yes, if my mum died as the wealthiest woman in the world, and of whom every fawning sycophant who opens their mouth, gushes about her selfless devotion to the nation, then it might not be unreasonable to expect her to apportion a share of her vast personal wealth to her subjects to prevent them from freezing to death this winter after returning from the food bank. If her life was, as many here suggest, one of extraordinarily tireless benefit to her subjects, then in death as in life, surely she would want pensioners to be able to heat their homes.
Click to expand...

She was worth circa $500M. If she gave all her wealth away to just the UK population of 67M (excluding the Commonwealth), that’s about £6.50 each. Even if she gave it all to the bottom 10% (which would exclude many in fuel poverty) that’s £65 each. Doesn’t go very far does it.
 
As an American in the UK (9 years now) this is all a bit distant for me and I would generally desist from any meaningful discussion on the topic. However I will point out one thing that baffles me: referring to the Queen's "service" to her country. This is a constitutional monarchy, so the country can be considered to be one or both of: the monarch and her subjects. It's nonsensical to say that one serves one's own subjects. So we are applauding her service to herself and the royal family?

I'm asking this genuinely and without maliciousness. As I said, it's all distant for me despite living here. I'm happy to be corrected with some missing perspective.
 
Ponty said:
She was worth circa $500M. If she gave all her wealth away to just the UK population of 67M (excluding the Commonwealth), that’s about £6.50 each. Even if she gave it all to the bottom 10% (which would exclude many in fuel poverty) that’s £65 each. Doesn’t go very far does it.
Click to expand...

I really don’t want this thread to be political, but that is simply wrong. The institution of monarchy “owns” staggering wealth; vast swathes of land, castles, palaces, much of the coastline plus all the gold, jewels, trinkets and art obtained over the centuries. £500m is creative accounting in the extreme. The reality will be countless £bns, a fair percentage of the UK fixed asset wealth. This won’t be limited to the UK either, there will be holdings all across the globe.
 
I cancelled my TV license earlier this year as I just don't watch TV, not even catch-up TV, and thank goodness - I can only imagine how all-consuming the media behemoth is just now. I appreciate some people have lost a family relative and that sucks for sure. But I'm just not a fan of how the whole country is obliged to wear black, even if it's just metaphorical. But when you've not got a TV license, you're not quite as exposed to the behemoth as most folks so thank goodness I cancelled :)
 
Tony L said:
I really don’t want this thread to be political, but that is simply wrong. The institution of monarchy “owns” staggering wealth; vast swathes of land, castles, palaces, much of the coastline plus all the gold, jewels, trinkets and art obtained over the centuries. £500m is creative accounting in the extreme. The reality will be countless £bns, a fair percentage of the UK fixed asset wealth. This won’t be limited to the UK either, there will be holdings all across the globe.
Click to expand...

$500M is her estimated personal wealth. Who is the Crown land, castles, palaces etc going to be sold to to give people a few quid for their gas bill? Putin maybe? It’s all moot anyway because fortunately it ain’t happening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top