‘God save the King!’ Smiling Charles greets crowd at palace

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/11/2022 at 11:53 AM, Chomper Higgot said:

Nonsense.

 

He knows what it’s like to wait his turn, that’s the deal, the crown is inherited.

 

Let William learn that lesson too.

 

Welcome to the ignore function.

[placeholder]

The best justification I read for the continuation and subsidies of the royal family is that it distracts attention from the personal lives of elected representatives and draws it to an unimportant destination. As we can see from the current posts about Meghan Markle it's highly effective.

The second best reason is that it does bring in a fair amount of income via tourism.

Maybe the priority for the above 2 should be switched?

[RayC]

On 9/11/2022 at 5:31 AM, ballpoint said:

That little fellow in the bottom left corner of the photo below has been educated in diplomacy and protocol his entire life.  In our current world, full of self serving, mediocre (or worse) politicians, he has been meeting, and learning from, giants (his mother included) since the day he was born. For the position of a purely ceremonial head of state, I would argue that trumps some jaded movie or sports star being voted to represent the essence of his country by the clueless, self interested, population.  Imagine if the towering achievements of a country's culture and architecture were voted on by the general populace?  I'd wager there would be no great museums, cathedrals, opera houses, universities, or other major stand-outs from dreary every day life, dotted with football stadiums, Wetherspoon branches and greyhound tracks.  The position of king or queen is far greater than the person who is currently performing that role - just as the position of President should, but often sadly isn't. 

 

Stephen Fry once said that the fact that a political leader must meet with the figurehead of their country once a week to discuss how things are going is of great benefit to that country, and in his opinion, the USA would be a better place if the president had to meet with a real Uncle Sam once a week to tell him what he was up to, and ask his advice and opinion.  I happen to agree with him.  I suspect most people's hatred of the monarchy rises from envy.  They see a life of wealth and privilege, without considering that someone would be living that life whether elected to it or born to it - indeed, the cost of maintaining former presidents, let alone the current one, far outweighs the costs of maintaining a royal family.  While I wouldn't argue with a system where those who fail to meet the standards of their country are stripped of their title and role (yes, Mr Andrew Windsor, the brick layer formerly known as Prince, I'm looking at you and your ilk), I would not change that system as a whole - though I certainly wouldn't want to be the one born into that role, as I don't envy them at all.

 

To end my little Sunday morning rant, a quote from Richard Dawkins, on the reality of a republic with an elected head of state. Spoken as a political commentator should that eventuate: "And we watch as President Becks, and First Lady Posh, board the presidential yacht, Boaty McBoatface on their trip to meet President Kanye West of the US" (Ok, I added the US bit).

 

You seem very contemptuous of the general public ("clueless, self-interested population") and their cultural pursuits (opera trumps football?): This might be taken as an argument for disenfranchising the masses and returning to a system of absolute monarchy.

 

(Wouldn't like to be in Dawkins' position if God exists and he/she/it is vengeful and a republican ????)

[ballpoint]

2 hours ago, RayC said:

You seem very contemptuous of the general public ("clueless, self-interested population") and their cultural pursuits (opera trumps football?): This might be taken as an argument for disenfranchising the masses and returning to a system of absolute monarchy.

 

(Wouldn't like to be in Dawkins' position if God exists and he/she/it is vengeful and a republican ????)

If you'd read my post I said "for the position of a purely ceremonial head of state", not political leader, and reinforced that with the Stephen Fry quote - how it benefits a country to have the political leader discuss how things are going with an experienced figurehead.  If you interpret that to mean I'm in favour of an absolute monarchy, then that's your problem, not mine.  In fact, I'd go as far to say that putting all the power in the hands of an absolute monarch is as unsavoury a proposition as putting all the power in a combined political leader and head of state - make of that what you will Americans, French and other relevant nations.

 

I have seen no behaviour from the general public that causes me to change my mind regarding how they would vote if it came to a choice between culture and populism, or even the good of the country vs the good of themselves.  After all, half of them are below average IQ, and the other half have few redeeming qualities.

 

Finally, Pascal's wager is not one I'd even consider taking.  Betting on the existence of a god by tenuously believing in him/it in the hope that he/it is fooled after you die speaks volumes about how one regards the intelligence of that god.  Frankly, any vain, vengeful god fooled into rewarding you for belief in him/it based on an internal bet isn't worth worshipping in the first place, and the controlling, domineering personality of such a being would make life in heaven akin to living in North Korea.  Besides which, god doesn't exist.

[RayC]

1 hour ago, ballpoint said:

If you'd read my post I said "for the position of a purely ceremonial head of state", not political leader, and reinforced that with the Stephen Fry quote - how it benefits a country to have the political leader discuss how things are going with an experienced figurehead.  If you interpret that to mean I'm in favour of an absolute monarchy, then that's your problem, not mine.  In fact, I'd go as far to say that putting all the power in the hands of an absolute monarch is as unsavoury a proposition as putting all the power in a combined political leader and head of state - make of that what you will Americans, French and other relevant nations.

 

I have seen no behaviour from the general public that causes me to change my mind regarding how they would vote if it came to a choice between culture and populism, or even the good of the country vs the good of themselves.  After all, half of them are below average IQ, and the other half have few redeeming qualities.

 

Finally, Pascal's wager is not one I'd even consider taking.  Betting on the existence of a god by tenuously believing in him/it in the hope that he/it is fooled after you die speaks volumes about how one regards the intelligence of that god.  Frankly, any vain, vengeful god fooled into rewarding you for belief in him/it based on an internal bet isn't worth worshipping in the first place, and the controlling, domineering personality of such a being would make life in heaven akin to living in North Korea.  Besides which, god doesn't exist.

As you say I am making assumptions, but given that you imply that the public are unfit to decide upon a head of state whose role is purely ceremonial, surely it is not unreasonable to assume that you wouldn't entrust them with the more important decision to elect the political leader(ship)? If this is the case, the alternative is totalitarianism (effectively either an absolute monarchy or some other autocrat).

 

I've yet to see a convincing argument for separating the roles of head of state and head of government. In any event imo - if it is deemed necessary - the individual should be elected. This arrangement seems to work pretty well in the RoI.

 

It's unclear to me why a political leader should necessarily benefit from a weekly meeting with an individual who - because of their upbringing - has led a somewhat cloistered existence and who may not possess expertise in any particular field. Imo a political leader benefits more from seeking advice - where necessary - from individuals skilled in the issue(s) under consideration.

 

However, I do agree with you re God and Pascal's wager. I was simply making a light-hearted comment about Dawkins (hence the ????).

[ballpoint]

3 hours ago, RayC said:

As you say I am making assumptions, but given that you imply that the public are unfit to decide upon a head of state whose role is purely ceremonial, surely it is not unreasonable to assume that you wouldn't entrust them with the more important decision to elect the political leader(ship)? If this is the case, the alternative is totalitarianism (effectively either an absolute monarchy or some other autocrat).

 

I've yet to see a convincing argument for separating the roles of head of state and head of government. In any event imo - if it is deemed necessary - the individual should be elected. This arrangement seems to work pretty well in the RoI.

 

It's unclear to me why a political leader should necessarily benefit from a weekly meeting with an individual who - because of their upbringing - has led a somewhat cloistered existence and who may not possess expertise in any particular field. Imo a political leader benefits more from seeking advice - where necessary - from individuals skilled in the issue(s) under consideration.

 

However, I do agree with you re God and Pascal's wager. I was simply making a light-hearted comment about Dawkins (hence the ????).

I am very much in favour of complete separation between the head of state and politics.  The head of state should be like the best china, handed down from generation to generation and brought out to impress visitors, or a family heirloom, something dignified, respected and cherished by anyone of any persuasion.  The political leader should be more like the family car, and regularly traded in for a newer model - or, if you like, changed frequently for the same reason a baby is.  The political leader should reflect the will of the people - however misguided I made that out to be, because it is they who must live with his / her decisions.  The head of state must represent the nation as a figurehead - in effect, be the living embodiment of the nation.  In my opinion, they should not be regularly replaced, but rather left to gain experience, ideally becoming a steadying influence - but without having any real power to make policy.  The advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that there is that chance to gain that experience, from a very young age, as well as a seamless transition between the old and the new.  There is no way to achieve the former with an elected head of state, and the only way you could achieve the latter would be overlapping, extended terms. 

 

Another reason I don't mind a voted for political leader, and continuing with the car analogy, is that, just as you don't want a car that always goes to the left, or always to the right, you need variation in the policies of the political leader.  Voting for the leader has proven to do this, as it is very rare for a party on either side to hang on to power for any length of time, and alternate lurches to the left and right tend to cancel each other out in the end.  However, the cynic in me says it's all meaningless anyway.  The idea of democracy is really a myth.  We vote for someone that a few people in the upper echelons of each party have decided that we are allowed to vote for.  Going with the last two US presidential elections, out of well over 100 million possibilities in the population, the choices have been between Trump or Clinton and Trump or Biden.  The fact that they are vying to be the head of state as well as the political leader only makes it worse.  Rather than the highly prized fine set of china, and the latest model high performance car that true separation of state and democratic (in its true meaning, not its Democrat Party one) politics would bring, you get to choose between two jalopies loaded with disposable paper plates.

 

(Edit: For some reason the forum software has chosen to format my second paragraph, and this edit note, in bold characters.  Perhaps it likes what I am saying? ????  This is not my doing.  Given I'm going off topic, this is also all I'm going to say in this thread).

[RayC]

15 hours ago, ballpoint said:

I am very much in favour of complete separation between the head of state and politics.  The head of state should be like the best china, handed down from generation to generation and brought out to impress visitors, or a family heirloom, something dignified, respected and cherished by anyone of any persuasion.  The political leader should be more like the family car, and regularly traded in for a newer model - or, if you like, changed frequently for the same reason a baby is.  The political leader should reflect the will of the people - however misguided I made that out to be, because it is they who must live with his / her decisions.  The head of state must represent the nation as a figurehead - in effect, be the living embodiment of the nation.  In my opinion, they should not be regularly replaced, but rather left to gain experience, ideally becoming a steadying influence - but without having any real power to make policy.  The advantage of a constitutional monarchy is that there is that chance to gain that experience, from a very young age, as well as a seamless transition between the old and the new.  There is no way to achieve the former with an elected head of state, and the only way you could achieve the latter would be overlapping, extended terms. 

 

Another reason I don't mind a voted for political leader, and continuing with the car analogy, is that, just as you don't want a car that always goes to the left, or always to the right, you need variation in the policies of the political leader.  Voting for the leader has proven to do this, as it is very rare for a party on either side to hang on to power for any length of time, and alternate lurches to the left and right tend to cancel each other out in the end.  However, the cynic in me says it's all meaningless anyway.  The idea of democracy is really a myth.  We vote for someone that a few people in the upper echelons of each party have decided that we are allowed to vote for.  Going with the last two US presidential elections, out of well over 100 million possibilities in the population, the choices have been between Trump or Clinton and Trump or Biden.  The fact that they are vying to be the head of state as well as the political leader only makes it worse.  Rather than the highly prized fine set of china, and the latest model high performance car that true separation of state and democratic (in its true meaning, not its Democrat Party one) politics would bring, you get to choose between two jalopies loaded with disposable paper plates.

 

(Edit: For some reason the forum software has chosen to format my second paragraph, and this edit note, in bold characters.  Perhaps it likes what I am saying? ????  This is not my doing.  Given I'm going off topic, this is also all I'm going to say in this thread).

It's an interesting debate but, as you imply, probably best discussed elsewhere.

 

(I'm also curious why certain, seemingly random sentences/ paragraphs end up in bold?????)

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/12/2022 at 12:45 AM, Mac Mickmanus said:

Waiting to be crowned King , 70 years of suffering and pain ?

All those years living in a Castle without a crown , how did he get through such a difficult time ?

Try talking about something you know about.

He had a hard childhood for many reasons there are no need to expand on here, but getting his head pushed into toilets at school, simply because he was a prince, is not a good way to start life.

 

How would you like to go through life being constantly mocked for almost anything the press could dream up? I doubt you'd trade places with him, for all the palaces in Britain- I certainly wouldn't.

 

Even being denied the choice of a woman he actually loved to marry because of "protocol" does not make for a happy life, as is proven by the disaster that was his first marriage.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/12/2022 at 10:25 PM, ballpoint said:

If you'd read my post I said "for the position of a purely ceremonial head of state", not political leader, and reinforced that with the Stephen Fry quote - how it benefits a country to have the political leader discuss how things are going with an experienced figurehead.  If you interpret that to mean I'm in favour of an absolute monarchy, then that's your problem, not mine.  In fact, I'd go as far to say that putting all the power in the hands of an absolute monarch is as unsavoury a proposition as putting all the power in a combined political leader and head of state - make of that what you will Americans, French and other relevant nations.

 

I have seen no behaviour from the general public that causes me to change my mind regarding how they would vote if it came to a choice between culture and populism, or even the good of the country vs the good of themselves.  After all, half of them are below average IQ, and the other half have few redeeming qualities.

 

Finally, Pascal's wager is not one I'd even consider taking.  Betting on the existence of a god by tenuously believing in him/it in the hope that he/it is fooled after you die speaks volumes about how one regards the intelligence of that god.  Frankly, any vain, vengeful god fooled into rewarding you for belief in him/it based on an internal bet isn't worth worshipping in the first place, and the controlling, domineering personality of such a being would make life in heaven akin to living in North Korea.  Besides which, god doesn't exist.

I'd have given the first two paragraphs a like, but can't agree with your somewhat off topic anti God rant in the last, so sorry, no like given.

[Mac Mickmanus]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Try talking about something you know about.

He had a hard childhood for many reasons there are no need to expand on here, but getting his head pushed into toilets at school, simply because he was a prince, is not a good way to start life.

 

How would you like to go through life being constantly mocked for almost anything the press could dream up? I doubt you'd trade places with him, for all the palaces in Britain- I certainly wouldn't.

 

Even being denied the choice of a woman he actually loved to marry because of "protocol" does not make for a happy life, as is proven by the disaster that was his first marriage.

Wasn't it that the Woman he loved was already married and thats is the reason why he couldn't marry her ?

  And poor Charles had an affair with the woman , when both he are her were married to other people ?

  (And you suggested that I should talk about things I know about!!!!)

[thaibeachlovers]

On 9/13/2022 at 12:38 AM, RayC said:

As you say I am making assumptions, but given that you imply that the public are unfit to decide upon a head of state whose role is purely ceremonial, surely it is not unreasonable to assume that you wouldn't entrust them with the more important decision to elect the political leader(ship)? If this is the case, the alternative is totalitarianism (effectively either an absolute monarchy or some other autocrat).

 

I've yet to see a convincing argument for separating the roles of head of state and head of government. In any event imo - if it is deemed necessary - the individual should be elected. This arrangement seems to work pretty well in the RoI.

 

It's unclear to me why a political leader should necessarily benefit from a weekly meeting with an individual who - because of their upbringing - has led a somewhat cloistered existence and who may not possess expertise in any particular field. Imo a political leader benefits more from seeking advice - where necessary - from individuals skilled in the issue(s) under consideration.

 

However, I do agree with you re God and Pascal's wager. I was simply making a light-hearted comment about Dawkins (hence the ????).

While it would be off topic to discuss the points you raise, Ireland has a purely ceremonial figure head with apparently no political power, and I'm not aware of any complaints about that from the populace.

I just don't want the poor taxpayers to be paying even more to elect another politician. The present system works for us, so don't change it if it isn't broken.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Wasn't it that the Woman he loved was already married and thats is the reason why he couldn't marry her ?

  And poor Charles had an affair with the woman , when both he are her were married to other people ?

  (And you suggested that I should talk about things I know about!!!!)

As I said before, try talking about something you know about.

 

https://www.rd.com/article/why-charles-didnt-marry-camilla-first/

The question was tackled in Sally Bedell Smith’s biography, Prince Charles: The Passions and Paradoxes of an Improbable Life. According to Bedell Smith, right from the start Charles adored the then-Camilla Shand, who’s close in age to Charles (Diana was 13 years younger) and has always treated him as an equal rather than as someone she idolized. However, the royal family wasn’t interested in having Camilla as its princess. For one thing, she was perceived as an “experienced” woman, which was a nonstarter for the royal family back then in terms of a suitable spouse for Prince Charles. For another, she wasn’t perceived as “aristocratic” enough to be a princess, according to The Duchess: Camilla Parker Bowles and the Love Affair That Rocked the Crown by Penny Junor.

[Mac Mickmanus]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

For another, she wasn’t perceived as “aristocratic” enough to be a princess, according to The Duchess: Camilla Parker Bowles and the Love Affair That Rocked the Crown by Penny Junor.

Yes, so marry Dianna instead who wasn't "aristocratic" either .

If it was such a tough life being a Prince , why didnt Charles resign from the job and marry Camilla ?

   He could have walked away any time he liked , but he choose riches over his live for Camilla and still kept banging her after she married someone else 

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, so marry Dianna instead who wasn't "aristocratic" either .

If it was such a tough life being a Prince , why didnt Charles resign from the job and marry Camilla ?

   He could have walked away any time he liked , but he choose riches over his live for Camilla and still kept banging her after she married someone else 

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

????

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Yes, so marry Dianna instead who wasn't "aristocratic" either .

If it was such a tough life being a Prince , why didnt Charles resign from the job and marry Camilla ?

   He could have walked away any time he liked , but he choose riches over his live for Camilla and still kept banging her after she married someone else 

LOL.

 

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/royals/princess-diana-prince-charles-royal-27821844

 

Princess Diana was 'more royal' than Prince Charles thanks to historic family

 

Princess Diana was a member of the aristocratic Spencer family and could trace her family's heritage directly back to King Charles II - but what about Prince Charles?

 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

While it would be off topic to discuss the points you raise, Ireland has a purely ceremonial figure head with apparently no political power, and I'm not aware of any complaints about that from the populace.

I agree. I thought that could be inferred from my original point?

 

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I just don't want the poor taxpayers to be paying even more to elect another politician. The present system works for us, so don't change it if it isn't broken.

As I said previously, I don't see the benefit or need to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. However, if it is deemed necessary, imo the public should have a say in matters rather than having someone foisted upon them. As you say, they are paying for him/her.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

I agree. I thought that could be inferred from my original point?

 

As I said previously, I don't see the benefit or need to separate the roles of head of state and head of government. However, if it is deemed necessary, imo the public should have a say in matters rather than having someone foisted upon them. As you say, they are paying for him/her.

The idea that the PM would also be the head of state where I lives fills me with horror.

That she can be removed if she goes too far is a comfort.

[John Drake]

On 9/10/2022 at 12:11 PM, Tarteso said:

His wife won't let him do it..????

She looks like she's had hard times. She has aged more harshly than Elizabeth had at the day of her death.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

The idea that the PM would also be the head of state where I lives fills me with horror.

That she can be removed if she goes too far is a comfort.

It appears that we are going to have to agree to disagree on this issue.

 

The idea that the existence of an independent head of state could prevent a coup d'etat by the incumbent government isn't supported by historical events. Indeed, in many cases an unelected head of state has been the instigator of a coup against the elected government.