Yet another one ! Just to get the record straight - Kate has as much right to calve down as anyone else, and I do not wish any harm to either the result, or it's parents. But, paying a long term bill for Eton (boy), or Marlborough (girl), paying for all their ponies, security costs - a lifetime of private school fees, nannies, amazing travel costs, limos, the most expensive clothes, all this will be covered by, what is in fact, public spending. If we were talking about Tracey Sharon Smith from Luton having her third at the public expense then the blue nose Tories of this World would be snorting blue fury. This could go on and on with the size of the Royal Family ballooning in future - I mean they are quite a fertile lot (having the best feeding). Am I alone in being pissed off at times like this, with how so many, otherwise sensible people, start getting gooey eyed ?
I could not care less whether they have more or less babies. It will not affect me. From memory (would need to re-check) the Royal family swapped masses of land and property in exchange for the civil list a couple of hundred years ago. The civil list will not alter by one more or less royal so who cares?
Well actually I'm not really having a go at babies, as such Leo. But rather taking the opportunity to have a go at an institution which I would rather do away with. The main reason I don't like them having lots of babies is that it ensures that they will be with us for a lot longer, unless the discrepency between their institution and so called democracy becomes so wide that even the man on the Clapham Omnibus (Your favourite expression, I believe) wakes up and gets rid of them. Unfortunately Parliament can't do this, because of the oath they are all forced to take.
I realised it was the royal family rather than babies that got to you. Can't say I care. Their role in the constitution is minimal and mostly ceremonial. Our democracy has far greater flaws than the royals. If we had no royal family I would not start one. As we have one I regard it as a tourist attraction mostly and not a part of our day to day government. Nothing would induce me to be part of the royal family. Loathesome job - can you think of anyone you dislike enough to wish it on them?
Actually a bit of both Leo. I'm not really a 'babies' person and it never ceases to amaze me how some people get gooey eyed about baby photos. Though I am dimly aware that I was once one of their number (a baby), when I was too young to have been a 'real' anarchist. I am not so certain that you can say that the Monarchy only has symbolic power - all judges, MPs and higher ranking personnel in the police and the army take an oath of allegiance not just to her but to her successors. This means that the question of the continuance (or otherwise) of the Monarchy cannot be discussed within Parliament. But, like Corbyn, I believe it is a battle for another day. If she wants to call herself 'Queen', and 50% of the public are idiotic enough to do the same then that is their thing. I do not know what it would have been like to grow up in a 'real' republic Leo. By that I do not mean a country which removed it's monarchy by violent means, and replaced it with another, equally obnoxious hierarchy - but rather a country which almost grew into existence without it - eg. Switzerland. Is it any coincidence that Switzerland is now the most democratic country in the World ? The whole thing about the Monarchy in the UK. is their symbolic power - it is not even possible to sing the countries anthem without also singing about her. Which raises the question of whether it is possible to be a British patriot without also being a royalist. How different might it be to have grown up in a country where the idea of nationhood, or citizenship were divorced from this concept - would the people of such a country have less fixation with 'class', and engage more in the running of their country ? Be more active citizens, and less of the subject. Unfortunately the Monarchy is not just that, but rather the apex of an entire aristocratic, landed, system, which commutes into a class system. I am more than prepared to accept Elizabeth Windsor as a person, if she is prepared to do the same in return, which I doubt. The same goes for the others, and it is too fundamentalist of eg. the Greens to refuse to work with Charles on environment themes simply because they are anti monarchist.
I tend to agree with Leo.... I cant really be bothered with them... they are part of our history and heritage and they dont oppress us any more... I think they make me like the UK more than say France where they spend more on the president. If King Arthur was still alive I would like him more
I think that this is a large part of the problem Yorkie - people think that the Monarchy are our history and heritage. There is however another heritage which is largely ignored. We can count off history in terms of the activities of the 5% elite at the top - those who started the battles, or fought their dynastic claims. We can reel them off, but have to give them numbers eg. the seventh, or the eighth etc. or we might forget who did what. At least the Saxons gave them real names, indicative of their character, eg. 'The Unready', 'The Witless', 'The Confessor', and so on. The question is which part of 'history' is the more important - that some Duke beat some other Duke at the battle of Blenheim - where the large mass of the people were simply caught up in someone elses history. Or something like the Tolpuddle Martyrs, which was more the history of the people. I would choose the latter as being more a part of our heritage. I agree about the president of France Yorkie. Unfortunately some countries removed the Monarchy without removing the mindset that went along with it, and simply ended up with a replacement.
Agreed on heritage too.... and the glorification of royal wars I have no time for...... or riches and dukedoms bestowed on those who have oppressed etc.....
I think your dislike of the institution of monarchy leads you to overplay their importance. Do you really think that taking an oath of allegiance is anything more than ceremonial? I think in court most people swear on a bible whether or not they see themselves as Christian. It is part of the ceremony. If there were a real revolutionary anti -monarchy movement in this country I doubt anyone would think "oh, I swore allegiance so I had better not oppose them" They are unimportant. I do not think I have lost a minute of sleep about the royal family in my entire life. I do not disparage your 50% any more than I do the people who believe in a god. At least the royal family exist. Calling them idiots is a bit far for me. There are no "real" republics. Siwtzerland can get away with its daft system of referenda only because it is small and relatively unimportant. It is neutral so is "safe" Who gives a t*ss about the National Anthem. It is crap but most of us think so. It is also confusing as it is England's and the UK's. Daft. Yes - class - another day- another debate. History is about events, dates and battles. Kings and Prime Ministers just give context to dates - for centuries at least since Kings conducted wars. Nope - still can't get excited about the monarchy. Pluses and minuses probably balance.
Lets send him a " Harry the Hornet " cuddly toy and see if we can make him a Watford fan. Dad supports the Villa so perhaps the wee lad needs some guidence?
Apparently Switzerland is so 'unimportant' that so many international organizations have their headquarters there. They also have the highest living standards in Europe, and that is not solely down to their banks. They also have a coalition government which has consisted of 5 parties, which has stood the test of time very well. Possibly the reason for this success is their decentralization, plus also the fact that the population are very politically active, in comparison to the British. Basically it is a country which works - and also without such vast disparities in wealth which Britain has - so daft ? I think not. They have also not endured Monarchy, or hereditary aristocracy for over 600 years, which is probably one of the reasons for this. Where did the American Revolutionaries get their ideas from ?
Not so sure though that the so-called neutrality of Switzerland is as pristine white as its snowy mountains// plus of course money laundering..... when there is so much wealth that everyone can be comfortable life and politics are probably easier.... Mind you i would rather have been born there than in the UK which for me is riddled with paradox, including class. hegemony and a ridiculous work ethic. The British people have been totally conned by the establishment....
Switzerland is as important as many other tax havens. International organizations base themselves there due to their neutrality not because they are any sort of model democracy. Of course they are rich. Neutral countries benefit in times of war and 1939 to 1945 did them no harm. How many political parties they have is irrelevant..I am sure they are all very rich - surprised you equate those things with importance.
Anything to do with the Royal family gets front page headlines in France. A country that disposed of theirs, but wishes they still had one according to the polls every time an elected head turns out to be a duff.
I'm sorry Leo but for a British person to be pointing the finger at Switzerland on account of their banking is like the pot calling the kettle black. There is more money laundered in London than you will find in Zurich. As for their War time role, this is a double sided thing - yes their banks did profit from neutrality, but many others also profitted from that same neutrality - namely nearly all of those Jews who managed to leave Nazi Germany did so via Switzerland, as did most escaped British prisoners of war. I am not claiming Switzerland to be any more important than any other country - I do not think of countries arranged in any sort of hierarchy of more, or less, importance. You were the one who expressed it in those terms, and so I reacted. Switzerland's role in World history has nothing to do with their banking, but in their 700 year old idea of the Eidgenossenschaft - something which was based upon the idea of equality and democracy, arising at a time when the rest of Europe knew only dynastic hierarchy or serfdom. It was those ideas which gave rise to the 'Social Contract' written by Rousseau - a work which could only have had a Genevan connection. The idea of Swiss Democracy became a beacon of light for those French Revolutionaries, whose ideas, in turn so influenced America. You can call the system in Switzerland daft - because the British experience of referendums is not a good one, but the Swiss grew up with it. Their way of thinking is different to the Germans or the British. If ten British people take a vote then the only thing which matters is the result (the majority) 6-4 equals a win, end of story. If ten Swiss do the same and the result is 9-1 then the 9 will try to find a solution which is acceptable for the one who is outstanding. So, on the larger scale - it would be impossible for some areas of the country to impose a judgement on the other areas (as England and Wales did with Scotland, N.Ireland, London etc. This is the reason why Switzerland stays together as a country (and the UK. may not), despite being home to 4 different languages. A small country needs everyone, and cannot afford to ignore the wishes of any one individual, if the result would be that he becomes estranged from the whole. This is the maturity of a country which has had little experience of hierarchy through its history - no monarchy, no aristocracy and very little in the way of landed gentry (very difficult to become a large land owner in the mountains). And so, serves as a perfect counterpoint to the UK. Live under a monarchy (with either real, or symbolic power) for long enough and the idea of hierarchy itself becomes acceptable, and normal. This is why even those countries which have removed Monarchs from power still retained the need to have someone else taking over that role - call him President, whatever, and very quickly replaced one hierarchy with another - anything to avoid the requirement of the people taking over full responsibility for their own land.
You cannot have a go at me for British or any other country's banking. You are one of the main complainants of tax havens yet you shelve your views whenever it suits you. It is to do with your views not mine. How can you suggest Jews profited from being forced out of Nazi Germany? Outrageous. You slagged off British democracy and held up Switzerland to be "the most democratic country in the world". Your words.-Is it any coincidence that Switzerland is now the most democratic country in the World ? yet now write: I do not think of countries arranged in any sort of hierarchy of more, or less, importance. You were the one who expressed it in those terms, and so I reacted. So the hierarchy was entirely your choice putting Switzerland as number one. Cologne - this thread was about royalty but as usual it has turned into your usual criticism of your home country - makes a change from the US I guess. You claim not to see "countries" but do nothing but extol the virtues of some and the vices of others. I am not going to play this game. I like my country and while I agree it is not perfect I think it's democracy is first class even with your hated royal family. I certainly do not agree with Yorkie who it seems would prefer to have been born In Switzerland. Interesting you seem to think referenda prevents the ignoring of the wishes of any one individual. Really - have you ever debated the EU referendum? Referenda are totally flawed and a terrible form of democracy. In this country one example is it would lead us to bring back capital punishment. Sometimes the people need to be saved from themselves - which is why representative democracy works. Still you are entitled to your views. I just happen to like Britian and its institutions and ways of doing things - even if I sometimes do not like everything that is done. I wouldnot want to have been born anywhere else.
Why do you bloody twist every think that I say Leo ? - I said that it was good that the Jews had a refuge possibility in Switzerland, which was to their benefit - would it have been better if they had stayed in Nazi Germany ?
I too would rather bring the subject back to Britain and the Monarchy. Just one parting note on Switzerland - they are used to referendums. As long as a directly democratic system can operate within a clearly defined set of parameters in which the rights of the minority are not held to ransom by a disaffected and unhappy majority, then it is one of the best forms of government. Such a scenario as the Brexit referendum would not have happened there because there would have had to be a double majority ie. both of the entire electorate (including non voters) and of the individual Cantons for it to have passed. Naturally the 'popular will' can be stupid at times but the Swiss Constitution incorporated large parts of the American one in the late 19th Century in order to protect minority groups from this - actual constitutional change can only be done if all Cantons support it, and individual Cantons, and even Municipalities have their own constitutions extra to this. I am now quite happy to leave the subject of Switzerland and return to Britain's shores. The reason why I am often critical about britain on here is because Britain is at the centre of our debates - my being critical of Germany (or any other country) would be irrelevant, and, mostly, not interesting. By the way, I spend my political life trying to correct the ills of Germany and I'm not doing it here as well.
As a staunch atheist the "divine right of kings" notion is quite ridiculous. However I think the status quo, the situation of the monarchy and the HoL at present, is infinitely preferable to becoming a republic and another tier of elected, self serving, contemptibles. The birth of the 4th(?) in line to the throne is a newsworthy event. Is it worthy of 24/7 modern day pap coverage? No. However left leaning my social politics are I remain a monarchist in its current form and I accept the cognitive dissonance of that view. Healthy baby, happy days... bored now, moving on...
