RugbyRebels

Digby wrote:

Stom wrote:

Digby wrote:polo shirts sure. polo, well I don't dislike it, but it wouldn't ever occur to me to take any interest in it, I don't really like any of the horse events.

and tax payers are likely to fund a head of state whatever the guise. I wouldn't have started with the idea of a royal family, and like many I think it needs some significant pruning now we do have it, but we do have it, and it does boost our soft power in some manner, and it certainly draws in tourists. it might even be quite an efficient system for a head of state in the round

Would I rather have a royal family in charge or the man we call "moustache shit" as "President". Or to give him another name, Chief PM bootlicker supreme with the shittiest moustache you've ever seen.

Yeah, I know what I'd rather spend the money on...

Even with the scandals.

Well we don't have a royal family in charge. Though we do have, as we've seen with Charles, one who at times would like to influence ministers without their thoughts becoming a matter of public record, and that's inappropriate.

Ideally I'd have the Irish system, a professional head of state to handle some of the guff that's a distraction to the political leader. Although as we've seen with one recent fat orange leader some prefer the pomp and circumstance to the distraction of the politics

Agreed about the Irish system. Keep the pomp separate from the politics. Someone has to cut all those ribbons (apparently).

Our system is a good one, we've had some good presidents who have used the role well, Mary Robinson and Mary mcalese etc, they can also express their own opinions which do not have to bend to real politic and exercise this carefully

While we are having a whinge, why do we have a govenor general in NZ? Bad optics and as useful as tits on a bull. We are all growed up and have our own supreme court and everything. Why should we pay for some colonial relic to get a knighthood and kick back drinking sherry with visiting dignitaries, making us all look bad.

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Not sure his supporting a female head is a major claim. Did he have a choice? Did being married to the PM make Denis Thatcher a driver of feminism?

And I wouldn't thank him for encouraging the media obsession with the Royals.

I'm not saying he was a bad guy (considering his background, his position) but this storm of sycophancy in the media is pretty sickening for a free country.

So ignore the coverage on him, there's no reason he should be any more relevant than say Eastenders or Love Island, it is a free country.

It was pretty difficult to avoid the coverage on Friday!

But that was an aside. My point is that the most remarkable thing about this guy was his position. There's no reason to say he did remarkable things with it.

I find they're really easy to ignore. Unless in a pub quiz someone asks a question say about the name of William's kids, then I have something of a problem.

And yes it's more their position, but they do hold that position, and it is a thing.

morepork wrote:While we are having a whinge, why do we have a govenor general in NZ? Bad optics and as useful as tits on a bull. We are all growed up and have our own supreme court and everything. Why should we pay for some colonial relic to get a knighthood and kick back drinking sherry with visiting dignitaries, making us all look bad.

Do you have to drink sherry, or is it at lest very dry and very chilled? And how does one get this job?

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote: Not sure his supporting a female head is a major claim. Did he have a choice? Did being married to the PM make Denis Thatcher a driver of feminism?

And I wouldn't thank him for encouraging the media obsession with the Royals.

I'm not saying he was a bad guy (considering his background, his position) but this storm of sycophancy in the media is pretty sickening for a free country.

So ignore the coverage on him, there's no reason he should be any more relevant than say Eastenders or Love Island, it is a free country.

It was pretty difficult to avoid the coverage on Friday!

But that was an aside. My point is that the most remarkable thing about this guy was his position. There's no reason to say he did remarkable things with it.

Except he did. He could have done nothing over the past 70 odd years and just relaxed. He did set up a number of initiatives that benefitted hugely from royal patronage. Moaning that he had it easy because he married into the British monarchy as a dislike of monarchy in general is one thing. But it seems churlish not to acknowledge the work he did. I look at Andrew for example and think what the hell has he done of use? Phillips position was akin to being a first spouse of the US. Some do good things using their husbands influence. Others pose for the camera.

Zhivago wrote:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 32156.html

That's insane.

Sandydragon wrote:

Son of Mathonwy wrote:

Digby wrote: So ignore the coverage on him, there's no reason he should be any more relevant than say Eastenders or Love Island, it is a free country.

It was pretty difficult to avoid the coverage on Friday!

But that was an aside. My point is that the most remarkable thing about this guy was his position. There's no reason to say he did remarkable things with it.

Except he did. He could have done nothing over the past 70 odd years and just relaxed. He did set up a number of initiatives that benefitted hugely from royal patronage. Moaning that he had it easy because he married into the British monarchy as a dislike of monarchy in general is one thing. But it seems churlish not to acknowledge the work he did. I look at Andrew for example and think what the hell has he done of use? Phillips position was akin to being a first spouse of the US. Some do good things using their husbands influence. Others pose for the camera.

Remarkable things?