advertisement


Monarchy and Royalty

OMG someone's just posted on the other thread
Phil had to suffer "being reviled as a hun."
The Royals are" huns".lol.
 
Dogberry said:
Patrons and protectors of wildlife.







Click to expand...

Here's a good tribute to Phil https://www.fieldsportschannel.tv/princephilip/

Probably he'd have much preferred that to all the hush-toned, OTT TV stuff.

A very different world to the one the average PFMer will inhabit. Heck, him and the Queen were third cousins.

But we must remember they are brought up in the world from birth and that is really all they know. He just did what (very) posh people from his generation were meant to do. Albeit he won life's posh lottery by marrying Her Majesty. I'm sure it's a lot of fun being that privileged.
 
notaclue said:
Here's a good tribute to Phil https://www.fieldsportschannel.tv/princephilip/

Probably he'd have much preferred that to all the hush-toned, OTT TV stuff.

A very different world to the one the average PFMer will inhabit. Heck, him and the Queen were third cousins.

But we must remember they are brought up in the world from birth and that is really all they know. He just did what (very) posh people from his generation were meant to do. Albeit he won life's posh lottery by marrying Her Majesty. I'm sure it's a lot of fun being that privileged.
Click to expand...
Elizabeth and Phil always had the very best sunglasses. Most glamorous.
 
I've a tongue in cheek solution. Privatise them. Have a rolling tender thing like the trains.

I reckon it'd be a proper money spinner; Brenda standing on the Balcony at the Palace with the name of the Company that runs them written large behind the family!

You've seen this idea here first. I deserve recognition for this winning idea.

:D
 
notaclue said:
Here's a good tribute to Phil https://www.fieldsportschannel.tv/princephilip/

Probably he'd have much preferred that to all the hush-toned, OTT TV stuff.

A very different world to the one the average PFMer will inhabit. Heck, him and the Queen were third cousins.

But we must remember they are brought up in the world from birth and that is really all they know. He just did what (very) posh people from his generation were meant to do. Albeit he won life's posh lottery by marrying Her Majesty. I'm sure it's a lot of fun being that privileged.
Click to expand...
Rather struck by the headline about mourning a great countryman next to a photo of Philip with shotgun and hunting dog. Is the measure of a great countryman the extent that he blasts as much fauna from the countryside as possible?
 
W: Legium pro Britannia.
M: How right you are, how right you are. We live in a kingdom of reigns (rains) where royalty comes in gangs.

I'm dead against an elected President.
We'd get Farage.
Or President McBoatface.
 
Of course, without a doubt, if you were starting from a clean sheet in today’s world, you would not create or invent a Royal head of state. But we have inherited one. And to be honest being born and expected to become King would be a pretty shit deal. Yes there are some nice aspects to the life, but the ‘job’ of endless government briefings, establishment appearances, diplomatic handshaking and head shaking, award ceremonies, state dinners and so on.... not something I would choose...and no retirement!

Imagine, for a moment, the alternatives. Presidents of any description would have a wilful need to leave a ‘legacy’ in their name...so vanity projects and the like would abound. One distinct advantage of a job done for life is that you can set up things over very long timeframes, such as the Duke of Edinburgh award or the Princes Trust.

Any President choice that was previously a politician would be immediately regarded with suspicion. President Blair anyone? Or you go completely anonymous and then almost pointless... how many here even know the name of the German Head of State? Or anything about him (it is a him)
 
Mullardman said:
Those individuals who are deemed 'royal' by dint of their family history and descent, are essentially the descendents of people who acquired and maintained power and ascendency through military force, skulduggery, murder, intrigue, incest, and worse. There is no 'direct' line of 'royal' descent..and several times throughout our history.. different people/families have gained ascendency through conflict, convenient marriages, murder...or even invitation... etc...

[...]

Royalty is a sham. Discuss.
Click to expand...

As any educated person knows. Indeed, the only people who don't think royalty is a sham are either mentally deficient in some way, or have a vested interest in not tearing the veil aside and revealing the mere mortals beneath the regalia. But then, isn't society built around shams, around artificial codes of behaviour and so forth? To quote Bertie Wooster:

'It may be a purely artificial code that keeps a father from hoofing his daughter's kisser when they are fellow guests at a house, but at this moment I felt that I could do with all the artificial codes that were going'.

I am interested in history, and find the various dynastic changes in this country and others fascinating. But I have no strong feelings for or against the current UK Royal Family. (I know you dislike the bloke who plays Jim Royle in The Royle Family, but he makes me laugh).
 
On a side note- anyone viewed the Anthony Van Dyck family portraits for Charles I at Windsor? Worth the admission price just to see them.
 
JensenHealey said:
Of course, without a doubt, if you were starting from a clean sheet in today’s world, you would not create or invent a Royal head of state. But we have inherited one. And to be honest being born and expected to become King would be a pretty shit deal. Yes there are some nice aspects to the life, but the ‘job’ of endless government briefings, establishment appearances, diplomatic handshaking and head shaking, award ceremonies, state dinners and so on.... not something I would choose...and no retirement!
Click to expand...

I dunno; I'd have given it a go. I'm quite good at handshaking. But I'm common as muck on both sides of the family, born (much) too late to marry Elizabeth, and now Charles and his offspring have their mitts on the job for the next century or so.
 
I think there’ll be some big changes after Liz, she’s kept the whole thing going and I don’t think the youngsters are made of the same stuff.
 
Why does President Blair always come up as a justification for our monarchy?

If we can’t come up with a better alternative to a system that is out moded, elitist, racist, and ridiculously expensive than Tony bloody Blair we really are a backward looking and weak minded nation
 
The job of President would almost certainly go on political party lines, so it wouldn't be President Blair. We could have our very own President Johnson instead!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top