Off Topic The Coronation Countdown Calendar, cut out and keep souvenir edition

It is possible that Anfield and Old Trafford get as many if not more visitors than the royal.palaces for their stadium.tours alone. Talking of stadium.tours, I brought a group.of Kosovan children for a stadium tour of St Mary's soon after SFC were promoted to the Championship, so even I have tried my best to.promote the club!

 

We need to summon up the spirits of Wat Tyler, The Diggers and The Tolpuddle Martyrs.

 

Now there's a topic for an "off topic'" thread to run during the summer. "Places of special.interest"

 

Bad eggs in every barrel!

 

More old fossils in Buckingham Palace than the Natural History Museum tbh

 

I really do feel Carlos el tercero missed a golden opportunity to.connect with the people of the UK. What I saw, was the Abbey stuffed with royals, high ranking people and the usual.suspects. If I had been the monarch.I would have invited people from.Hackney, Tottenham, Brixton, Toxteth, Handsworth, Haringey to.fill.the Abbey. And arrived there on a Routemaster bus!! All.yesterday did for me was reinforce a thousand year old social.structure which is very hard to like.

 

Even more in the Tory party!!

 

I have been having a think about this figure, the Royals don't get any of it, it is used to run the event in a way that impresses the World and everyone else in the UK. It succeeded. The bulk of the money will be recycled in to the economy through wages and subsequent commerce. "No money for nurses" is a political crime, as is Junior Doctors asking for more than they are worth.

 

This is complete rubbish, though. There has not been 1000 years of social structure. The monarchy is a constitutional monarchy and I would reiterate it's origins probably only go back as far as William III which is about 330 years. What little I saw of the coronation yesterday did include peoples of all colours and religious beliefs. I think the service bent over backwards to be more inclusive and I feel that Charles' reign will increase this. It will be a modernizing reign.

The arguments in favour of a republic in this thread have not really been properly made out and have bee poorly presented. Some of the statements coming from people who present well-balanced and thought out arguments when discussing football are really ill-thought out and have bordered on the childish, to be honest. No one has really picked up the difference between the office of state and the personality nor regcognised that there have been good and bad monarchs in the UK just as there have been with Prime Ministers. Some have discharged their functions well and the role of King / Queen has served the nation well in times of difficulty. The first Queen Elizabeth immediately springs to mind and I think England would be a very different place without Alfred. Times have changed and the monarch has effectively been of increasingly less important in the role of government. They have little impact other than granting Royal Ascent.

The point I find the least satisfying in this argument is that the role of the king of the Church of England and the associated ceremonies regarding defending the prostastant faith have been criticised. I do not disagree with these comments albeit I would repeat that Charles endeavoured to make the coronation a ceremony for all religions. By the same token, I was wondering if the same people criticising the king in this respect would feel equally vocal when it came to criticising the pope? In my opinion, I feel that the pope is almost impossible to defend and just feel that the Catholic church is absolutely reprehensible. I am not sure how the catholic church is still relevant and it's history is soaked in bloodshed let alone the scandals which have rocked in since the last 20t century. In criticising the British monarchy, lets not forget the catholic chuch's involvedment in the crusades, against both muslims and cathars, in the medieval period as well as direct involvement in much of the conflict in Europe during this time. The role of the catholic church in colonisation from the 16th century onwards was built on genocide and in places like the Ireland, South America Philippines and even France, still had a serious, negative impact upon politics and society at the turn of the 20th century century when the modern world had already made it's first steps. For me, the catholic church remains deeply problematical and far more rooted in the past than our monarchy. It's attitudes still owe a lot to earlier centuries and it has never managed to escape it's reputation for repression. I would suggest that there have been fewer "institutions" in world history which have been more corrupt, devious and repressive than the catholic church. In the past it has reached the depths of the Islamic State in stifling dissent and it's priests could still be witnessed as being active in the crushing of alternative opinions as late at 1898 such as their involvement in the sentencing of the execution of writer Jose Rizal whose novels were critical of Spanish rule and the catholic church's part in it. (13 years after Saints were founded!) Regardless of how you feel about religion (I am not a believer and sceptical as a whole about christianity although I feel that all religions have something to offer with regard to how people may wish to conduct their lives) , I would suggest that no religious body in history as been as pernicious as the catholic church and I personally feel that they are not and have never been a force for good. I find the iconography to be represensible and it leaves me feeling extremely incomfortable. It is 100% different to something like sufism which is far more in keeping with what a religion should be in my opinion.

I was wondering if the people who have been hostile to the coronation would be equally critical for the sake iof balance when the current pope pops his clogs ?

 

The loyal people of Hackney, Tottenham, Brixton, Toxteth, Handsworth, Haringey were lining The Mall in the pouring rain and not complaining, they know their place.

 

Sorry mate, could you write that again...I think I snoozed off half-way through....

 

Just to clarify Ian, does your first sentence refer to the post you're quoting, or to the rambling novel that followed it? One minute the monarchy is only 330 years old, next minute you're talking about Alfred and Liz 1st. I was half expecting the Romans to be mentioned

And wtf are you going on about Catholicism for? I know its an OT thread, but it's sort of about the coronation and the monarchy and not much to do with the pope. The expressions of distaste about the mention of Protestantism are more about disliking the link between church and state, not that the flavour of Christianity was the problem.

 

Sorry you are challenged.

Best stick to the dog whistle stuff, eh ?

 

The difference is, like me, an old fossil but still very much alive.

 

SC

In sound byte form for you...

1. Constitutional monarachy is dated from about 1688. (i,e, Not an absolute monarchy.)

2. There have been kings / queens who have played a pivitol role in the history of this country including governance,law and constitution.

3. The King /Queen is the head of the Church of England, The role indefending protestantism / C of E was picked up in an earlier post where it was dismissed as archane. My argument was that the pope as head of the catholic church is far more deserving of critisicm. For the sakeof balance, I hope there is a similar thread to this when a new pope is elected.

4. Fair point about the link between the CoE and the state although I did express that this was a very inclusive coronation. (Albeit not inclusive enough for our work-shy, hub-cap stealing friends in the NW.)

 

Well said!

 

Such as the right to bear arms in the US thanks to the 2nd amendment. That’s a tradition and legacy that should definitely be changed.

 

Some people just want a reason to celebrate their country and have a piss up. The Irish have St. Paddy's. The Americans have July 4th. The English have all these weird coronations and royal weddings. It's all just the same f*cking thing really. But people love it, so let them do it.

Imagine saying to the Americans, "Erm, those July 4th fireworks cost the taxpayer millions of dollars, so it's better if you just cancel it".

 

That’s not down to interest but limitations in accommodating so many people

 

For someone who is normally a proficient writer, your opening sentence lets the rest of your argument down!! I would have said, "while I respect your opinión, I have to disagree for the following reasons .."