advertisement


Wot no Harry & Meghan thread?

Our Monarchy is symbolic, but symbolic of the immaturity of our democracy.

If democracy is rule of the people, why do we sing so passionately, so patriotically, about having a single entity reigning over us forever and a day?

Democracy is a left wing idea about distributing power to a wider society. Monarchy is a right wing idea about limiting power to a privileged few.
Although intellectually I'm a republican, I'm not sure it's that simple. We were one of the first, if not the first, European country to depose the monarchy and establish a republican commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. It was an interesting and radical period in term of political and religious thinking, but by most accounts, once Cromwell was dead, the populace couldn't wait to see a king back on the throne. With the benefit of several hundred years of hindsight it's arguable that the Restoration was a big mistake. Perhaps we reached peak republican too early.
 
Although intellectually I'm a republican, I'm not sure it's that simple. We were one of the first, if not the first, European country to depose the monarchy and establish a republican commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. It was an interesting and radical period in term of political and religious thinking, but by most accounts, once Cromwell was dead, the populace couldn't wait to see a king back on the throne. With the benefit of several hundred years of hindsight it's arguable that the Restoration was a big mistake. Perhaps we reached peak republican too early.
My post was a little tongue in cheek, so I’m not going to defend it to the hilt, but you raise an interesting point, so I’ll give it a go!

First of all it must be said that Cromwell was a long way from being left wing or a democrat. He was however a Puritan, and while puritanism itself had its more nutty elements, it was derived from the wider Reformation which was about removing agency from the pope and placing it within each individual. As such it could be argued that the Reformation was about the democratisation of the bible, which in turn spurred nascent political movements such as the Diggers and Levellers.

So it could be argued that momentous changes of the Reformation that led to the execution of a king, had democratic elements running through it.

Of course, once one king’s head was removed, there were call to replace it with another. Which is understandable given that rule without a king was unheard of at that point. Perhaps if the calls to make Cromwell King were heeded then the institutions of a constitutional monarchy, if not republicanism, would’ve been able to evolve more naturally, and we wouldn’t have had a Restoration and a Glorious Revolution. Perhaps not even an American War of Independence?
 
So the queen has agreed a way forward with H&M and it was all a storm in a teacup as usual... well until tomorrow morning when the pond life this country laughingly refers to as journalists get to write more unsubstantiated bollocks about the whole thing safe in the knowledge they will never be held accountable for whatever shite they peddle!
 
I listen to LBC at lot as I do a lot of driving but switched to talk sport and music channels today due to excess H & M. I'm not a Royalist or Republican but would swing the Republic view overall.
 
If I was as wealthy as her maj, I'd sue them into orbit whenever they printed something inaccurate about me.

Yes, you'd like to think so and people do of course... it takes forever, is massively time consuming for those involved and they get a small settlement (relative to the finances of said press organisations) and the whole cycle then repeats. What we need is an investigation into the press... you know, like an enquiry that could come up with some recommendations to make them more accountable etc. and a government with the spine to implement them.... oh hang on :(

As said I'm no royalist (but I have nothing against them either), but H&M are just two in a long line of people the press choose to attack and lie about hiding behind the veil of so called journalism and it being in the 'public interest'.
 
I know what you mean about the press being shite, but the royals are happy to use them when it suits. My take on the HarryMeg business is that they'd like to be ordinary people, but I'm not sure that's an option.
 
Meghan Markle is going to be the gift that keeps giving for The Sun, the DM, threatened white males like Piers Morgan. She’s the shady lady, the dusky temptress, the woman of heritage who’s chosen to attack the sanctity of the monarchy, led the young prince astray and disrespected Great Britain. The volume on the racist foghorn is going to be turned up. Headlines like Dirty Dacre’s “Straight outta Compton” will seem tame compared with what’s coming.

New York Times-

“From the very first headline about her being “(almost) straight outta Compton” and having “exotic” DNA, the racist treatment of Meghan has been impossible to ignore. Princess Michael of Kent wore an overtly racist brooch in the duchess’s company. A BBC host compared the couple’s newborn baby to a chimpanzee. Then there was the sublimely ludicrous suggestion that Meghan’s avocado consumption is responsible for mass murder, while her charity cookbook was portrayed as somehow helping terrorists”.
 
Meghan Markle is going to be the gift that keeps giving for The Sun, the DM, threatened white males like Piers Morgan. She’s the shady lady, the dusky temptress, the woman of heritage who’s chosen to attack the sanctity of the monarchy, led the young prince astray and disrespected Great Britain. The volume on the racist foghorn is going to be turned up. Headlines like Dirty Dacre’s “Straight outa Compton” will seem tame compared with what’s coming.

That is exactly why they are moving. Hopefully the UK gutter press will lose interest. Or, even better, go out of business.
 
That is exactly why they are moving. Hopefully the UK gutter press will lose interest.

are you sure about that? they are still going to be celebrities and now doing more permissible social stuff, possibly in places like new york, los angeles and toronto (home of the reigning NBA champions).
 

Aye crikey.

The princess, whose father served as a Nazi SS officerbefore and during World War II, has drawn criticism in the past for other statements.

In 2004, Princess Michael came under fire when she told a group of black patrons at a New York City restaurant to "go back to the colonies," the Guardian reported at the time.

She later attempted to defend herself when asked about the incident, telling ITV, "I even pretended years ago to be an African, a half-caste African, but because of my light eyes I did not get away with it, but I dyed my hair black."

According to The New York Times, another moment of controversy came in 2007, when two British scientists said their research indicated that female baboons' rank is hereditary.

“I always knew that when people who aren’t like us claim that hereditary rank is not part of human nature, they must be wrong. Now you’ve given me evolutionary proof!” she reportedly said

The royals loved the Nazis.

"Forty years after the war Buckingham Palace was rocked again last week by revelations that Prince Philip also has a little known Nazi in his past. Philip’s late brother-in-law, Prince Christoph of Hesse, was a Nazi who rose to the rank of colonel. Christoph married Philip’s favorite sister, Sophie, in 1930 and, like Princess Michael’s father, was judged fit by his SS superiors to participate in the lebensborn breeding program. He died in an air accident over Italy in 1943."

https://people.com/archive/the-sins...el-and-her-adopted-royal-family-vol-23-no-18/
 
Princess Michael (a.k.a., Marie Christine Anna Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz) is nuts. Maybe it was the burden of having too many middle names that made her that way.
 


advertisement


Back
Top