[Closed] Republicans ... miserable bunch arn't they?

Do people honestly believe that without a monarchy, Britain will suddenly became some sot of paradise, where everyone is equal and loves each other?

Oliver Cromwell tried it once, that went well 😆

Do people honestly believe that without a monarchy, Britain will suddenly became some sot of paradise, where everyone is equal and loves each other?

Nope.

god bless her.. the old girls 86 years old almost 20 years beyond even the latest retirement age and she turns out in all weathers to meet and greet.
she stood in the worlds glare for 6 hours yesterday. she didnt get a choice to be qe 2 it happened she bit the bullet and has given her whole life to one role.. i could nt do it. good effort.

I don't see having a big party in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in modern times as ruling wisely. In fact if she actually had any sense of duty to the people of the country she would have recognised the pain many are in and done something much more appropriate.

On the contrary I think Queenie got it spot on. In times of hardship its good to have something to celebrate ...anything. All I've seen is people having fun in the rain!

As usual the republicans just don't seem to get it. We all know that a hereditary royal family is wrong in a democratic society but we don't care. Why? ...because it really doesn't matter. They don't rule us they don't interfere with our lives. They do give us a reason to party and a day off!

[img] [/img]

😆

On the contrary I think Queenie got it spot on. In times of hardship its good to have something to celebrate ...anything. All I've seen is people having fun in the rain!

As usual the republicans just don't seem to get it. We all know that a hereditary royal family is wrong in a democratic society but we don't care. Why? ...because it really doesn't matter. They don't rule us they don't interfere with our lives. They do give us a reason to party and a day off!

And as usual the royalists don't get that they are being played like the Roman mob, ignorance is bliss!

It does amuse me the delusions. Bread a circuses it is indeed and at that it only attracts a small %he population. Many of us see it for the crass waste of money and symbol of servitude that it is

Its just a symbol of times gone by and servitude. Some of us have grown up beyond that hankering for the victorian era

"Keep you doped with religion and sex and TV
And you think you're so clever and classless and free
But you're still f*cking peasants as far as I can see"...

What's funny TJ is that you and others are talking about this like I and others don't get it? We do get it, ironically its you and others that do not. We understand what the Monarchy is and where it came from.

As for a crass waste of money, many would argue its a good investment. Its not a significant sum in the grand scheme of things anyway.

When the Royal family ever come to exceed their usefulness that will be the end of them, no I don't think anyone believes they are in servitude.

TandemJeremy - Member

It does amuse me the delusions. Bread a circuses it is indeed and at that it only attracts a small %he population. Many of us see it for the crass waste of money and symbol of servitude that it is

Its just a symbol of times gone by and servitude. Some of us have grown up beyond that hankering for the victorian era

Quite.

If 100s of 1000s of people want to stand and watch a Royal pageant (millions didn't and I saw a lot of people out and about who were obviously not watching it on TV) , then fair enough, but I'd prefer not to have my country represented and reigned-over as such.

It appears to be some sort of desire to be deferential and servile to a 'superior', paternal/maternal being, who are somehow [i]better[/i] than politicians by virtue of a system of eternal hereditary privilege. I wonder if there is any connection between monarchists and adherents of religion?

I do not see any logic in it all.

Voltaire et al were of their time. It may suit some people to hang on to quotes from 100s of years ago, but (some) things have moved on since then. You may not have noticed, but France is now a republic, and despite what some blinkered patriots like to think, France is fully-functioning country that is very popular with the British -especially the middle-classes who are probably the least likely group in the UK to be monarchists.

Germany also has no monarch, and aside from the fact that lots of British people still base their view of the country on WW2 propaganda, it also functions well -and I like the place a lot.

The Queen isn't the issue, or even really the royal family, although when we get that smug homeopathic tree-bothering-Diana-betraying nincompoop on the throne, I suspect a lot of residual affection for the royal family will disappear.

The issue is what it says about a society, and the way it is structured, the triumph of inherited privilege over merit, the assumptions about social mobility etc etc. The Monarchy by being at the symbolic top of this perhaps acts as one anchor which prevents this changing, and stops people saying... "hey,,, WTF ? "

But we English (I'd exempt the Celtic nations from this) are inert and lazy and reluctant to change, which has saved us (along with the English Channel) from lots of painful turmoil since 1688, and I cannot see the monarchy disappearing anytime soon.

What's funny TJ is that you and others are talking about this like I and others don't get it? We do get it, ironically its you and others that do not. We understand what the Monarchy is and where it came from.

Then the Republicans amongst us can only stand back in awe at your complete acceptance of servility.

All gains that have been made in this country to do with freedoms, civil and human rights and public entitlements have been made IN THE FACE OF royalty, not because of it.

"The Firm" (as Philip likes to refer to it) maintains itself through clever manipulation of the media by getting it's victims to concentrate on the personalities rather than think about the valueless institution that they represent.

If all the monarch is, is a figurehead with no power, why is she allowed to influence policy? Why does Charles continue to have access to government at the highest levels to lobby on behalf of his ridiculous obsessions? The latest insurance against change was the well-choreographed splicing of the next-but-one in line, to a "commoner" who has suddenly become "royal". How did she achieve this transformation? We are constantly being told that "Aaaaahhh - they're just an ordinary family like us". They're not, of course. They are the guarantor of the British Establishment.

Know your place. Wave your flag. Have your party. Accept, accept, accept.

deadlydarcy - Member
Misery
You can keep repeating it over and over, and I know you're pleased with yourself, but it won't be getting funny anytime soon. Sorry.

Apologies DD, give the title thread I felt a little humour would be an antidote to the normal bullying approach that tends to be associated with these kinds of threads. Obviously over-estimated the sense of humour of some Republicans 😉

deadlydarcy - Member
How any intelligent person can be in favour of a monarchy in the 21st century, is frankly staggering. But as STW reminds one, over and over again, enlightenment is a slow process.

It really is staggering - and frankly that IS the real question. How can this be? We have some attempts at answering this, mainly derogatory ones towards people who support the monarchy (inert, stupid, servile, delusional etc). But that is all a little trivial don't you think? So how can anyone defend on moral grounds, a notion that power, income or wealth should be distributed merely according to the random accident of birth. Surely, its blindingly obvious that this shouldn't happen. And yet, inconveniently, over time from the Ancient World, through the Middle Ages, the Enlightenment period and modern times, some of the most intellectually powerful members of society have reached the opposite conclusion to the one that seems so blatantly obvious (of course they have been contested in their views as well). And these are not stupid people and their contributions already have a legacy well beyond any of us who post on STW. So how can an idea that is (apparently) so obviously wrong and immoral sustain itself over centuries and, if current opinion polls are correct, remain a preferred option for our country. That is the challenge that the Republican lobby must ask itself without resorting to trivial insults. It is indeed an interesting question.

EDIT: I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into this, so can't be bothered really. Someone else can get into it.

some of the most intellectually powerful members of society have reached the opposite conclusion

And it's a relatively commonly held view, and possibly true, that a benevolent dictator provides the most stable form of government. Would you surrender your vote for a bit of that? I doubt it.

The issue is what it says about a society, and the way it is structured, the triumph of inherited privilege over merit, the assumptions about social mobility etc etc. The Monarchy by being at the symbolic top of this perhaps acts as one anchor which prevents this changing, and stops people saying... "hey,,, WTF ?

Top of the crooked tree. Chop it down.

So how can an idea that is (apparently) so obviously wrong and immoral sustain itself over centuries and, if current opinion polls are correct, remain a preferred option for our country. That is the challenge that the Republican lobby must ask itself without resorting to trivial insults. It is indeed an interesting question.

Could it be that we just don't want the politicians in charge? I don't believe that. We certainly wouldn't want a monarch interfering or as an absolute ruler again.

Fear of the unknown? It's not unknown, as mentioned before, other countries have remove their monarchies and operate the same if not better.

Identity. This is where it's at. Even though people mis-interpret what the "Great" in Great Britain means, there is this feeling of decline in this country. The Empire is gone, we won't be involved in the likes of those great victories like in the world wars, unless of course there's another world war(god help us), our industrial revolution is now just heritage. We have a proud history of what we gave to the world, but now we are just trading on past achievements.

We are members of the permanent security council at the UN, we punch above our weight, That is what Trident Nuclear submarines are for, not to be used as a weapon, but as a tool for access to the top table of World politics. But now other countries are overtaking us, we are slipping away.

It sounds negative, but it shouldn't be. We just need to find ourselves again and discover what we can give to the world.

The monarchy sits in this as a link to our past glories, a reluctance to let go of it, because we know who we were, but we don't know who we will be. There is no other logic to keeping something to which monarchists claim "does not interfere" with the running of the country, other than for sentimental reasons.

Starkey as the cheerleader for the monarchy - a nasty racist contrarian with well known royalist views? Well thats me persuaded 🙄

Well. Whatever your views on the current constitional position. I can't help thinking that the thread title has indeed proved itself to be justified.

imnotverygood - Member

Well. Whatever your views on the current constitional position. I can't help thinking that the thread title has indeed proved itself to be justified.

TBH neither side seems to be having much fun. "Obsessive arguers on the internet: miserable bunch aren't they?"

Bastille Day
[img] [/img]

St. Patrick's Day
[img] [/img]

Festa della Republica
[img] [/img]

Miserable bastards that have to live in republics, innit.

Oh, and...

EDIT: WUNUNDRED 😀

(that makes me happy today anyway...second one!)

THM why dont republic countries have massive public support for the return of a monarch?

My view is people conform and prefer the status quo/ dont care about politics much

JY - that is a very good question. To narrow the answers down a bit lets look at DD's last example of Spain and tie that in with one of the arguments that some monarchists put forward that the existence of constitutional monarchies can help to avoid the rise of political extremes. Was it not King Juan Carlos who oversaw the transition from dictatorship to a parliamentary monarchy?

Of course, that is an idea (among others) put forward by the likes of Starkey. So let's address TJ's sarcastic point above (gosh, he must have bit his lip with that one!):

TandemJeremy - Member
Starkey as the cheerleader for the monarchy - a nasty racist contrarian with well known royalist views? Well thats me persuaded

...and then lets link that with TJ's request in the helmet thread to maintain rigour and reliability in debate rather than 'intellectual dishonesty' and read what Starkey actually says:

And it did not come, he insists, from a craven support for monarchy for its own sake. He admits to being seduced by narrative, biography, colour, but sternly says he is "a rational monarchist", who is perfectly capable of envisioning the abolition of the royal family. "We would have to engage in a really radical rethinking of our constitution ... which in some ways, I think, might be a rather good thing...

Of course, we may not want to let fact get in the way of a good argument though!!! But perhaps reading what people actually say and alternative views would benefit us all. Still puzzling this enduring appeal though isn't it? 😉

THM - more laughable pish really. Is that the best you can do?

starkey is a very nasty racist. His views are unacceptable in modern society and anyone who is racist disqualifies themselves from being considered rational.

To use this contemptible man as the cheerleader for your position shows the poverty of your argument

TJ why do you claim that STarkey is racist, is this your personal view or do you have proof.

Plenty of evidence of him making racist statements. he may just be deliberately being controversial but he is a repeat offender on this.

DD's last example of Spain

Well, unless I'm very much mistaken, that's Italy. 😕

TJ - stick to the point otherwise you will be into bullying mode again! And we dont want to descend to those depths again. Leave those arguments on the helmet thread.

DD - I stand corrected! It is indeed Italy with an "elected" President which achieved the same thing.

Oh THM - that is the point. You choice of a bigot and racist as your champion shows the poverty of your argument.

Oh - and stop calling me a bully. Yes I know I have successfully got under you skin by showing the cant, humbug and hypocrisy you come out with. If you can't take it don't dish it out.

with that I am going back into ignore mode for you.

DD - I stand corrected! It is indeed Italy with an "elected" President which achieved the same thing.

But, not a monarchy...you go on ahead and take my images to prove people who live in republics can be cheery to support your arguments though. 😆

Well TJ -if you resort to language like

THM - more laughable pish really. Is that the best you can do?... the poverty of your argument

then you are not debating like others do, merely playing the playground bully here, as on the helmet thread (ruining another thread again!). I note that you chose not to look specifically at Starkey's comments on the monarchy but rather label him as a "royalist" despite his comments to the contrary ["who is perfectly capable of envisioning the abolition of the royal family."]

But that is no surprise. How about the other people quoted - far brighter than you or I, are they all to be dismissed with the same bullying contempt? There are plenty of rational reasons for rejecting the concept of monarchy (DD gives an example above) - you don't have to resort to abusive nonsense. You don't get under my skin. You are simply tiresome as you make no pretence of rationale debate but hide behind personal abuse - that's bullying in my book.

DD - I made a mistake on Italy and admitted it. The argument re Spain is still valid as is the fact that Italy has achieved the same result with an elected President.

TBH I'm not sure why the fact that David Starkey's a racist is all that relevant here.

I can understand them being miserable ....

After all wouldn't you be when you realised you just picked Mitt Romney as your candidate

[img] [/img]

Northwind - Member

TBH I'm not sure why the fact that David Starkey's a racist is all that relevant here.

To call anyone intellectual and to give any weight to their views when they are a racist and a bigot and seems odd to me. To my view it pretty well excludes them from serious consideration. Beneath contempt

TJ have you got any facts to back up your claim that Starkey is a rascist.

Youtube is full of starkeys rubbish, knock yourself out.

Kendal Grammar School, scholarship to Fitzwilliam Cambridge, first class degree, PHD and fellowship....and you dispute his intellectual capabilities? A bit like you dont have to be clever to get into Eton, just have a rich Dad. What was it about paucity of arguments? Again plenty of reasons to criticise Starkey without the playground bully approach of pretending that his historical work is beyond serious consideration. Rigorous and reliable debate!?!?

Yup

Dr Starkey was taking part in a discussion with the author Owen Jones, who wrote the book Chavs: The Demonisation of the Working Classes which explored issues around the class snobbery and prejudice faced by the working classes in the UK.

Addressing himself to Mr Jones, Mr Starkey said: "What has happened is that the substantial section of the 'chavs' that you wrote about have become black. The whites have become black. A particular sort of violent, destructive, nihilistic gangster culture has become the fashion.

"Black and white, boy and girl operate in this language together. This language, which is wholly false, which is this Jamaican patois that has intruded in England. This is why so many of us have this sense of literally a foreign country."

Dr Starkey went on to add the Tottenham MP David Lammy, whose parents are from Guyana, sounded white. "If you turn the screen off, so you were listening to him on radio, you would think he was white."

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/872321-david-starkey-s-racist-remarks-spark-online-petition-for-public-apology

http://postdesk.com/david-starkey-newsnight-racist-analysis

and he has plenty of other incidents for example

http://www.tcs.cam.ac.uk/issue/news/dr-david-starkey-in-another-racism-row/

More than 100 historians have signed an open letter expressing their dismay at Starkey's controversial comments on the riots during an appearance on the BBC's Newsnight programme.

They asked the BBC to stop referring to Starkey as a "historian" on anything but his specialist subject, the Tudors, claiming that he is "ill-fitted" to hold forth on other topics.

Signatories to the letter include academics from Cambridge and the London School of Economics, institutions at which Starkey once taught

Teamhurtmore I had a nerc fellowship to do my MRes, I also have a phd, did research funded by numerous bodies and and have quite a few peer reviewed publications and I am as thick as mince.

Go on Brian!

I am as thick as mince

Tru dat.

And, you're a teacher as well. Jeezus.

😆

😉 etc.

Thats the first time you've ever agreed with me dd, I'm touched.

starkey is a particularly loathsome individual................

The core of history is narrative and biography. And the way history has been presented in the curriculum for the last 25 years is very different. The importance of knowledge has been downgraded. Instead the argument has been that it's all about skills. Supposedly, what you are trying to do with children is inculcate them with the analytical skills of the historian. Now this seems to me to be the most goddamn awful way to approach any subject, and also the most dangerous

actually i've been led to believe that the core of history is the analysis of sources and debate regarding the historiography. obviously this forms personal opinions of history which is an obviously dangerous outcome to this odious little man who quite obviously thinks that historical narrative is all that young people need. If that's not downgrading knowledge then I don't know what is, particularly if that narrative comes from anyone as narrow minded as him.

Can anyone be a racist and be considered an intellectual? To me racism is mainly about ignorance with a dash of fear.

triumph of inherited privilege over merit,

It sounds negative, but it shouldn't be. We just need to find ourselves again and discover what we can give to the world.

The monarchy sits in this as a link to our past glories, a reluctance to let go of it, because we know who we were, but we don't know who we will be. There is no other logic to keeping something to which monarchists claim "does not interfere" with the running of the country, other than for sentimental reasons.

+ a million

I get the sense that the monarchists for some reason think that being a Republican means you are not patriotic or want your country to succeed. On the contrary as the above quotes suggest we want this country to be more meritocratic and rediscover the invention, entrepreneurial flair, audacity, confidence and enterprise that changed the world. The Royal Family is part of the inertia that prevents us moving forward as a country. Its the lynch pin of inherited privilege and the class system and there is no good reason for its continued existence

with that I am going back into ignore mode for you.

Can anyone be a racist and be considered an intellectual?

THM a figure of national unity no doubt did help but I am not sure it needed to be monarch and in top trumps mode I play this card
[img] [/img]
Hand over your card 😉
I was going to be controversial and go for Ghandi but thought better of it...imagine if religion got dragged into this.

On the contrary as the above quotes suggest we want this country to be more meritocratic and rediscover the invention, entrepreneurial flair, audacity, confidence and enterprise that changed the world. The Royal Family is part of the inertia that prevents us moving forward as a country. Its the lynch pin of inherited privilege and the class system and there is no good reason for its continued existence

Because that was then and this is now. We need to remove the safety blanket of tradition and past glories, increase social mobility and meritocratic progression. Dumping the Saxe Coburgs or at the very least not fawning over them is obviously not the whole solution but its a start. You can continue to tug the forelock as a loyal subject if you want I prefer to have my admiration and respect earned and not assumed as a birthright.

monarch and in top trumps mode I play this card

Hang on - your top trump against monarchy is a convicted terrorist?

You might as well have played Gerry Adams 🙄

**** me zulu you are a classy idiot arent you.

Hang on - your top trump against monarchy is a convicted terrorist?

😀 You always deliver Z-11.

Well done fella.....you never let the side down !

uponthedowns, I don't tug a forelock to anyone, and I give my respect to those who do deserve it, which is why I fully respect the Queen and how she's given her life to being the best representative for this country, but have zero respect for Princess Tony, his grinning Gargoyle of a wife, Gordon Broon, Prince Andrew, Peter ******* Mandelson, and all the politicians we have who seem to think that a position in government comes with a cast-iron sense of entitlement just as offensive as some on here find the so-called 'Toffs', seeing as how the allegedly Left-leaning ones have just as posh backgrounds, and educations, as the right-of-centre.

😈

his grinning Gargoyle of a wife

Powerful stuff. I feel I'm shifting my position based on that description of a former PM's wife.

The reference to "Gordon Broon" also challenged my previously held opinions.

Although "Peter ******* Mandelson" felt weak, any chance of upping the insult ? I feel it wouldn't take much more to be won over completely, if you managed to do that.

"Princess Tony" also lacked an edge to it btw.

so zero you like the queen and hate anyone Labour for being posh

Nice polemic well thought through. However some random caps, more swearing and some garbled stuff in the middle would really have helped your score
Its a 2/10 from me.

My view that the concept of monarchy has no place in our country in 2012 is my own.

I don't require any sort of celebrity endorsement of this view.

JY - so Madiba, what an excellent choice for so many reasons. Indeed a multi-top trump card. How ironic that Madiba himself plays the role sometimes played by the monarchy. In addition to the figure of national unity he is the figure who protects the interests of the minority against all the odds and the legacy of his detention.

Interesting also that Jonathan Wolff, the Prof or Philosophy at UCL agues in "An introduction to Political Philosophy", that "Black South Africans were enfranchised for the first time...the mere fact that they now had the vote was a way of recording that black South Africans were at last treated as worthy of respect....Having a vote, then, seems to be important irrespective of what people do with it."

And what did happen with it - by 2011 what had become of the valued treasure of democracy? Was it the rule of the people or the rule of the mob? Jacob Zuma announced that, “When you vote for the ANC (African National Congress), you are choosing to go to heaven. When you don’t vote for the ANC, you should know that you are choosing that man who carries a fork…who cooks people.” I wonder how the atheists feel about that - the tyranny of the ANC/Christians over the rest of the population. *

The perfect example of why democracy was for most of human history barring the Ancient Greece and recent modern society was a universally detested political system (Wolff page 63). The first great (potential) flaw of democracy - the tyranny of the majority over the minority. Small wonder then that by 2011, only 10% of South Africans thought that voters should hold MPs to account, whereas as many as four out of ten believed that presidents should be able to “decide everything”. So how bizarre is that?

Hence we come back to the first important role of the constitutional monarch - the person with a social contract to protect against the tyranny of the majority and to respect the rights of the minority. Madiba arguably plays that role in SA as does ERII in the UK, a fact recognised by PMs of all parties who recognise this important role. Wasn't it Cherie Blair who was shocked at the transformation of Tony Blair when he realised how she played this role. It is this that lies at the heart of Starkey's point (I think) that the monarchy plays a very valuable role in restricting political extremes and protecting the interest of the minority.

*I was going to be controversial and go for Ghandi but thought better of it...i[b]magine if religion got dragged into this[/b].

Sorry couldn't be avoided ! 😉

Teamhurtmore any chance you could write about something relating to Britain? SA politics is about as far removed a democracy from Britain as its possible to get. I fail to see how any point you can make can be relevant.

A-A, of course but if JY lays down his top trump and asks for my card it would be rude not to respond!

You obviously missed the bit about the monarchy playing a balancing role that protects against political extremes and the tyranny of the majority a fact that PMs seem to recognise without political favour. Sorry if that message was so hidden!?! 😕

But the fact that democracy is a relatively modern concept in itself and that until recently was a detested rather than a lauded system of government is easy to forget.

That's funny, there was me thinking that the most vibrant, inventive and forward-striving period in our recent history was when Queen Victoria was on the throne, we had engineers like Brunel and a global Empire and Commonwealth run by a few hundred people in London. So why, exactly, is the Monarchy now an impediment when it wasn't then? Enquiring minds want to know.

Comes as no surprise that someone who supports the Monarchy can only link to past achievements and not base an argument on their relevance today, while at the same time promoting some sort of romanticism for the days of Empire.

Have you been away all weekend El-bent?

fatboyslo - Member
I can understand them being miserable ....

After all wouldn't you be when you realised you just picked Mitt Romney as your candidate

but have zero respect for Princess Tony, his grinning Gargoyle of a wife, Gordon Broon, Prince Andrew, Peter ******* Mandelson, and all the politicians we have who seem to think that a position in government comes with a cast-iron sense of entitlement just as offensive as some on here find the so-called 'Toffs', seeing as how the allegedly Left-leaning ones have just as posh backgrounds, and educations, as the right-of-centre.

Whoosh. Where did that come from?

You don't have to be a lefty to be a Republican. My political leanings are centre right. You can have as much or as little respect for politicians of any persuasion as you like but they are only in power because someone voted for them and not because they were born into the position.

You obviously missed the bit about the monarchy playing a balancing role that protects against political extremes and the tyranny of the majority a fact that PMs seem to recognise without political favour. Sorry if that message was so hidden!?! 

so to miss quote that film what has the queen done for us in terms of preventing the tryany f the majority?

You obviously missed the bit about the monarchy playing a balancing role that protects against political extremes

Really? when?

Well Gentleman perhaps your are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Perhaps just to continue an argument?

Either way I hope that it is just feigning..... 😕

Perhaps to end the argument you could provide an example where the queen has 'played a balancing role that protects against political extremes'?

I think THM means when Her Majesty told Thatcher "You can cut out all that extremist bollox love, I'm not having my kingdom ruined by those divisive policies" or words to that effect. Unfortunately Thatcher just ignored her and continued undeterred with her political extremism. Still, Her Majesty tried her best - so not really her fault.

One of the few times I can think of of the royals getting involved in extremist politics was the duke of windsor as a nazi sympathiser in WW2

teamhurtmore - I don't think they are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Put them right and tell them, won't you ?

I'm certainly not pretending. All i can think of them doing is chatting up the nazi's but that was before queenie.

They did also change their name to counter extremism. Gaw' bless 'em.

😆

Have you been away all weekend El-bent?

What has one's location got to do with this? Is this laffer curve related?

Thankfully the wall-to-wall sycophantic nonsense from almost all media outlets is almost all over and I've managed to avoid most of it.

This morning I was listening to the Today programme on the way to biking and there was a piece about the Queen's love of horse racing:

She is apparently an expert on horse racing, which is fair enough, and owns horses. Were she not 'regal', it was suggested that she may well have worked in horse breeding.

It was said that her ambition was,

"to breed a horse that was, "

wait for it....

"faster than everybody else's"

-Profound stuff indeed.

I got the impression that Evan Davis was as amused as I was 😉

ernie_lynch - Member
teamhurtmore - I don't think they are feigning ignorance of modern British history and politics for effect. Put them right and tell them, won't you ?

Ernie, one only has to compare the political and social stability in the UK throughout the twentieth century and possibly the 21st with the experiences in countries that abolished the monarchy. It doesn't take much thought or effort to find examples that lurched to the extreme left and others to the extreme right. Consider also those European countries who re-instated monarchies having endured extreme political regimes. It really isn't that hard.

The political landscape in the UK, in contrast has been remarkably stable to the extent that we/the media and the politically ignorant have to largely "invent" extremes as STW shows only too well even in the quotes above 😉

El-bent, nice try but remember who it is that goes on about Laffer Curves (hint, he has posted here but probably cant find the real economic framework that the gov is using to determine tax policy on Wiki so bores everyone about LCs instead).

Aristotle - so the answer from a RACE horse breeder to the question should presumably be to breed horses that are slower than everyone else's? Imagine the response to that

Thanks goodness I had a 5 hour ride instead!

Nice of the Red Arrows to give me a fly-past over the house on their way home from That London.

Watched (selectively) the show on iPlayer. Actually thought most of it was pretty good. Avoided Cliff Pilchard and Robbie Clunker Williams. Macca's voice is getting a bit past it, mind.

Heeeeeere's..... Grace!

Teamhurtmore you dont seem to realise that different countries have different politics. What has the queen actually done as unless we can see some way she's been responsible for stability how can we say she's been the cause?

I'm not sure that the monarchy can claim to be responsible for preventing a revolution in Britain. Monarchs didn't do much to prevent them in neighbouring countries. We Brits are a complex bunch who moan a lot, but don't often act upon it. The weather is poor all year-round too. Even when we go out and loot JD Sports en masse in our cities, we stop when it rains.

Of course a race horse breeder is trying to be faster than others. It goes without saying.... It is just another example of the [i]heart-warming, wonderful[/i] non-stories being spouted about the queen at the moment.

A-A, on the contrary I have accepted earlier that some of the benefits that can be attributed to a constitutional monarchy can be achieved elsewhere (in fact done that twice in this thread). I do not believe that the monarchy is perfect nor that it is the only system. However, I do believe that in general it does a pretty good job in the UK and, as its Head, the Queen has made an important contribution to our society that has been worth celebrating this weekend. I have also indicated where the opposite reaction has happened and that the modern invention of democracy is itself not without faults. Its almost incredible (in the true sense of the word) that after the struggle against apartheid for example that many SA have rejected the benefits of democracy so quickly.

Aristotle - Member
It is just another example of the heart-warming, wonderful non-stories being spouted about the queen at the moment.

It must have been a grueling weekend indeed. 😉