Stom wrote:
Well, I for one liked Charles' 'spider letters' to Cameron's govt., telling them that they should really think about not fucking people over...
Speaking up against inhuman treatment of your subjects would be a good start.
So not politically neutral? Leaves her/them/it open to plenty of flak.
How about someone that could acknowledge their family's heavy investment in the slave trade and who could apologise to people around the globe who's culture has been irreparably damaged?
Or not using their influence to specifically exclude their family and land from inheritance tax, equality and anti-discrimination laws, traffic laws, climate change regulations, animal welfare laws, workers rights laws (including health and safety, pensions, and sex or racial discrimination - let's not forget that this doesn't just mean household staff - the royal family own 282 square miles of the UK, including 263,000 acres of farmland, most of Regents Street and St James' Park, 14 shopping districts and 3 shopping centres).
As with the trans debate this is one I try not to get into cos it’s highly emotive and it’s almost impossible to please anyone. Other than to say she has done plenty of good in her life (well beyond that which she needed to do) nobody is perfect (other than John Eales), it’s very easy to pick out what someone hasn’t done (try it, it works for literally everybody) and in the last few years under her rule she and her grandson have gone further than any other to apologise for the past.
All that said, I think perhaps she should have apologised beyond Prince William’s words but I’d imagine, given how British politics worked during that period and it’s the start on a road to £billions of reparations, it’s something she couldn’t feasibly do without agreement from U.K. govt. and that it should really come from the pm rather HM.
Last edited by Mellsblue on Wed Sep 14, 2022 3:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stom wrote:
Well, I for one liked Charles' 'spider letters' to Cameron's govt., telling them that they should really think about not fucking people over...
Speaking up against inhuman treatment of your subjects would be a good start.
So not politically neutral? Leaves her/them/it open to plenty of flak.
My idea of someone who we swear fealty to is someone who protects us in return. If a government are being actively inhuman, they should be called out by the head of state. There's no political neutrality that comes into it, it's basic humanity. The fact the current Tory party is far from humane kinda makes anything humane far from neutral. Asking ANYONE for political neutrality in the current climate is erroneous and wrong. It's the same card played by Tory MPs when people like Gary Lineker call them out.
I thought this would be your reply. In essence you want someone who agrees with you. Would you feel the same if the monarch interfered in politics but in ways you didn’t agree with? One persons inhuman is not another’s. If you have a political monarch you have an unelected politician as head of state… that ain’t a democracy.
Mellsblue wrote:
So not politically neutral? Leaves her/them/it open to plenty of flak.
How about someone that could acknowledge their family's heavy investment in the slave trade and who could apologise to people around the globe who's culture has been irreparably damaged?
Or not using their influence to specifically exclude their family and land from inheritance tax, equality and anti-discrimination laws, traffic laws, climate change regulations, animal welfare laws, workers rights laws (including health and safety, pensions, and sex or racial discrimination - let's not forget that this doesn't just mean household staff - the royal family own 282 square miles of the UK, including 263,000 acres of farmland, most of Regents Street and St James' Park, 14 shopping districts and 3 shopping centres).
Puja
Blimey she truly is all powerful. I suspect you know the answer/reasoning on the inheritance tax issue and the rest is a collection of true, false, historical, and the unspecific making it look worse than it actually is.
Mellsblue wrote:Forgot to quote. This is in reply to mp.
As with the trans debate this is one I try not to get into cos it’s highly emotive and it’s almost impossible to please anyone. Other than to say she has done plenty of good in her life (well beyond that which she needed to do) nobody is perfect (other than John Eales), it’s very easy to pick out what someone hasn’t done (try it, it works for literally everybody) and in the last few years under her rule she and her grandson have gone further than any other to apologise for the past.
All that said, I think perhaps she should have apologised beyond Prince William’s words but I’d imagine, given how British politics worked during that period and it’s the start on a road to £billions of reparations, it’s something she couldn’t feasibly do without agreement from U.K. govt. and that it should really come from the pm rather HM.
William's "apology" was weaker than Andrew's chin. Anyone displeased with critiquing slavery is a dick. It's not exactly a controversial stance.
Mellsblue wrote:Forgot to quote. This is in reply to mp.
As with the trans debate this is one I try not to get into cos it’s highly emotive and it’s almost impossible to please anyone. Other than to say she has done plenty of good in her life (well beyond that which she needed to do) nobody is perfect (other than John Eales), it’s very easy to pick out what someone hasn’t done (try it, it works for literally everybody) and in the last few years under her rule she and her grandson have gone further than any other to apologise for the past.
All that said, I think perhaps she should have apologised beyond Prince William’s words but I’d imagine, given how British politics worked during that period and it’s the start on a road to £billions of reparations, it’s something she couldn’t feasibly do without agreement from U.K. govt. and that it should really come from the pm rather HM.
William's "apology" was weaker than Andrew's chin. Anyone displeased with critiquing slavery is a dick. It's not exactly a controversial stance.
Not sure anybody is displeased with critiquing slavery - yet to see anyone in the royal family, or society at large, saying slavery was/is a bloody good idea. I am sure many believe an apology is just words and perhaps using charitable endeavours to, and this is just one example, start a fund to help future leaders around the Commonwealth says more. Unsure as to the solidity of Andrew’s chin so can’t comment on that.
On a lighter note, Google the Center Parcs debacle if you want to see how not to handle this coming Monday. It’s not quite the nhs cancelling elective surgery stupid but it’s close.
Mellsblue wrote:On a lighter note, Google the Center Parcs debacle if you want to see how not to handle this coming Monday. It’s not quite the nhs cancelling elective surgery stupid but it’s close.
Go home on Sunday and return on Tuesday. Genius.
I would say that was the peak of perfomative mourning overriding common sense, but the British Cycling Association has just had to withdraw a recommendation that no-one goes cycling during the funeral hours, so there are some high bars being set.
Mellsblue wrote:Forgot to quote. This is in reply to mp.
As with the trans debate this is one I try not to get into cos it’s highly emotive and it’s almost impossible to please anyone. Other than to say she has done plenty of good in her life (well beyond that which she needed to do) nobody is perfect (other than John Eales), it’s very easy to pick out what someone hasn’t done (try it, it works for literally everybody) and in the last few years under her rule she and her grandson have gone further than any other to apologise for the past.
All that said, I think perhaps she should have apologised beyond Prince William’s words but I’d imagine, given how British politics worked during that period and it’s the start on a road to £billions of reparations, it’s something she couldn’t feasibly do without agreement from U.K. govt. and that it should really come from the pm rather HM.
William's "apology" was weaker than Andrew's chin. Anyone displeased with critiquing slavery is a dick. It's not exactly a controversial stance.
Not sure anybody is displeased with critiquing slavery - yet to see anyone in the royal family, or society at large, saying slavery was/is a bloody good idea. I am sure many believe an apology is just words and perhaps using charitable endeavours to, and this is just one example, start a fund to help future leaders around the Commonwealth says more. Unsure as to the solidity of Andrew’s chin so can’t comment on that.
Mellsblue wrote:On a lighter note, Google the Center Parcs debacle if you want to see how not to handle this coming Monday. It’s not quite the nhs cancelling elective surgery stupid but it’s close.
Go home on Sunday and return on Tuesday. Genius.
I would say that was the peak of perfomative mourning overriding common sense, but the British Cycling Association has just had to withdraw a recommendation that no-one goes cycling during the funeral hours, so there are some high bars being set.
Oh, and it's got worse:
capture2.jpg
Puja
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Mellsblue wrote:On a lighter note, Google the Center Parcs debacle if you want to see how not to handle this coming Monday. It’s not quite the nhs cancelling elective surgery stupid but it’s close.
Go home on Sunday and return on Tuesday. Genius.
I would say that was the peak of perfomative mourning overriding common sense, but the British Cycling Association has just had to withdraw a recommendation that no-one goes cycling during the funeral hours, so there are some high bars being set.
Oh, and it's got worse:
capture2.jpg
Puja
That’s not true but was taken from a badly worded response on twatter stating that the parks are closed on Monday which was later clarified as the restaurants, sports facilities etc but people were free to walk around outside! Monumental PR f**k up whichever way you look at it.
morepork wrote:
William's "apology" was weaker than Andrew's chin. Anyone displeased with critiquing slavery is a dick. It's not exactly a controversial stance.
Not sure anybody is displeased with critiquing slavery - yet to see anyone in the royal family, or society at large, saying slavery was/is a bloody good idea. I am sure many believe an apology is just words and perhaps using charitable endeavours to, and this is just one example, start a fund to help future leaders around the Commonwealth says more. Unsure as to the solidity of Andrew’s chin so can’t comment on that.
Mellsblue wrote:
Not sure anybody is displeased with critiquing slavery - yet to see anyone in the royal family, or society at large, saying slavery was/is a bloody good idea. I am sure many believe an apology is just words and perhaps using charitable endeavours to, and this is just one example, start a fund to help future leaders around the Commonwealth says more. Unsure as to the solidity of Andrew’s chin so can’t comment on that.
I spent as many nights pleasing myself over a picture of Liz as the next guy, but now she's gone, can we get the fck over this stupidity? I mean seriously, what is a royal? What are we "debating"? OK, no one has actually been brave enough to come out of the closet as pro royal, but, the very idea is so outdated, why the fck do they still have any status in a modern world?
I am in a kind of bubble because I'm not in the UK, so it's really hard to get worked up over anything here.
Hungarians in general and Transylvanians in particular love Charles, though. He's spent a lot of time in Transylvania, drinking palinka - homemade fruit brandy - with the locals, and his land is next to some family land my MiL owns. So judgement is clouded over here by a love of Charles.
And, to be fair, he does seem like a nice enough person. Just...I wonder if he has the balls to actually go through with radical modernization of the monarchy? And whether William after him doesn't just undo it all once he's gone.
Are people really just taking several days off to torture themselves standing in line, going without sleep or proper nourishment, to gawp at a dead stranger?
Eddie Butler (RIP - some top contributions over the years) had a point -
Now the Prince of Wales is King, and William is to take on his old title, surely it won't harm adding a bit of Wales to the Union flag, and arrange for Eng/Sco to give up one of their 2 quarters of the Standard to even things up a bit ?
Ireland still has a piece on both, after all.
Mikey Brown wrote:Are people really just taking several days off to torture themselves standing in line, going without sleep or proper nourishment, to gawp at a dead stranger?
*gawp at a closed coffin that one presumes actually has a dead stramger inside.
