William seems to me to be a bit of a prick. I quite like Charles, but once he's done they should just wrap it all up. Having said that, if William were to croak, King Harry and Queen Meghan would be great fun.
[QUOTE="Stroller, post: 16136576, member: 1025402 "William seems to me to be a bit of a prick......................"[/QUOTE] Based on what?
Very little, just my impression. His wife seems nice.[/QUOTE] There’s only one prick on here & it’s not William!
Charles was brought up according to the iron rule which his mother believed ie. that the job is for life. Bearing in mind that his father lived to be 99 and his mother to 96 he could be around for quite some considerable time yet. I like Charles as well and believe he can perform this role well if given the chance. To be honest I've always been a bit of a republican but I'm no longer sure of that. The present monarchy has very largely transcended the role of being the apex of the aristocratic pyramid and so the fact that about 50% of the land in the UK is owned by either the aristocracy or the landed gentry (ie. the descendents of a massive land grab nearly 1,000 years ago) and so the present royals cannot be held to account for this. It is true that over half of England is owned by less than 1% of the population and that the same families have owned much of this for nearly a thousand years. The actual distribution of land in the UK is more unequal than any other country apart from Brazil. The aristocracy and landed gentry own 30%, corporatiions 18%, oligarchs and city bankers 17%, 17% is unaccounted for (meaning that it has never been bought or sold and so presumably has been in the hands of the same families for centuries). Only 8.5% belongs to the public sector, 5% to house owners, 2% to conservation charities, 1.4% directly to the crown and royal family and, finally 0.5% to the church of England. What is most needed in the UK is massive land reform. It was interesting to know that Elizabeth the second had been in regular meetings with so many Prime Ministers and appears to have been on the best terms with Harold Wilson in as much as that their meetings took longer, very often going well over time and extending to drinks afterwards - it was Harold Wilson who had to explain to her what trade unions where and why they where needed. In contrast she always allowed Thatcher to wait outside for the full 15 minutes until the exact appointment time But the fact that she had never heard of trade unions until Wilson told her about them tells us millions about the secluded life the Royals had lived up to that point.
“Reverence of the kind we increasingly give to politicians should be reserved for the Head of State, who is like the king on the chessboard, mainly important because he prevents anyone else from occupying his space.” Sums it up for me. To paraphrase (I think it was) Mark Twain: Anyone wanting to run for public office should be disqualified for that reason alone. https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.c...nday-column-on-the-death-of-her-majesty-.html
Modern Britain for you. People clapping and cheering the arrival of the hearse into Edinburgh like the Queen’s just completed a triathlon. Didn’t we once simply bow our heads in silent respect?
I suspect her Maj knew about trade unions - she was not poorly educated. She had probably been given a very one sided view though, which Wilson took it upon himself to correct. There have been land reforms during C20th through tax which resulted in the falling into disrepair and ultimately destruction of many country houses on estates. It probably pays the country if estates are well run, but there should be greater rights to roam imo
