Public asked to ‘cry out and swear allegiance to Charles’ during coronation
During the ceremony, Archbishop Justin Welby will call upon ‘all persons of goodwill in The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of the other Realms and the Territories to make their homage, in heart and voice, to their undoubted King, defender of all’.
Good luck with that Welby!
"Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people." - Giordano Bruno
Charlie does good charitable works and is tireless in his engagements. It's not bad for folk in their 70s, he could drastically cut down on it and sack off a huge percentage to the royal yoofs, or be a bit more selective with all the factories and village halls he's invited to. Yes I know royal engagements aren't really the same as those of us with real jobs, going up chimneys all day, living our best lives, using our street smarts etc.
It might be nice if there was at least a minor threat that he could be sacked, lose his position if his quarterly review shows he's not pulling his weight, and be forced to look around the small ads for a similar position as be head of another foreign land. Just so he can understand what it feels like to be the rest of us.
Said it loads of times, but despite all the massive gaffs, fancy cars and dudes in giant hats following you around, I wouldn't swap with the Royals if you paid me. Which I suppose you would, were I a Royal.
Potter wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 8:28 am
I wouldn't be a royal for all the tea in China...
I wouldn't be anything for all the tea in China. It's horrible stuff. All the tea in India? Well, now you're talking.
Potter wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 8:28 amPeople only think it must be good because he has money, but money isn't important in life...
Money only becomes unimportant in life once you've got enough of it. If you haven't got enough of it, it's one of the most important things in life. The amount of money that is enough varies from person to person but trust me, if you haven't got what you consider to be enough money it's very important.
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 9:20 am
Money only becomes unimportant in life once you've got enough of it. If you haven't got enough of it, it's one of the most important things in life. The amount of money that is enough varies from person to person but trust me, if you haven't got what you consider to be enough money it's very important.
I know some very wealthy people who are insatiably obsessed with money and making more of it. They are the type where the chase and acquisition of funds are the reason they breathe,spending any is only viable if it's seen as an investment. They'll never have enough.
I take your point on those others having enough to be comfortable.
Potter wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:07 am
I'm interested in those who would wish to do away with the royals, what they would put in place, if anything?
I know "it's not a scholarly forum" but you can't just wipe them out, there is a whole load of law and historical procedure type stuff that would need to be drawn up and agreed upon, so you at least need some sort of rational plan to fill the hole.
That’s the issue for me. I’m pretty ambivalent towards the royals, but what is the alternative? President Boris anyone? (As Irie said up there).
Potter wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 10:07 am
so you at least need some sort of rational plan to fill the hole.
I'm not sure you need to have all the answers beforehand to plunge ahead with your master plan. All you need is for the status quo to be unbearable, a small majority to agree with you and some vague notion that whatever the outcomes you don't really want to think about, it might be ok in a few decades, some bollocks about your grandchildren. I think there's a precedent here, can't quite put my finger on it.
Kick the monarchy out, sell all their stuff that they nicked - how many hospitals would that build?
Other scholarly answers are available. Please show your (proper, when it was good) university credentials before flapping the chin-music, mind.
Rockburner wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 12:13 am
The British royals have been nothing but a figurehead for more than 100 years, politically all they can do is hint at the vague idea of making a suggestive comment, possibly.
Rockburner wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 12:13 am
The British royals have been nothing but a figurehead for more than 100 years, politically all they can do is hint at the vague idea of making a suggestive comment, possibly.
Rockburner wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 12:13 am
The British royals have been nothing but a figurehead for more than 100 years, politically all they can do is hint at the vague idea of making a suggestive comment, possibly.
Yes, bit it's pretty much just rubber-stamping stuff. Yes the article says she tried to affect stuff, but i notice it's thin on the details of what changes were actually made on her behest. Hiding details of her finances from the public is hardly surprising.
Rockburner wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 12:13 am
The British royals have been nothing but a figurehead for more than 100 years, politically all they can do is hint at the vague idea of making a suggestive comment, possibly.
Yes, bit it's pretty much just rubber-stamping stuff. Yes the article says she tried to affect stuff, but i notice it's thin on the details of what changes were actually made on her behest. Hiding details of her finances from the public is hardly surprising.
You claimed the Royal Family are nothing more than figureheads, they are much more than that. I've no idea how much meddling with Parliament goes on, but if it can in any affect them then the Royals will have poked their noses in somewhere.
Every PM meets her/his maj once a week for a private, off the record one-to-one*. Nominally no-one knows what's discussed and no-one ever will. On paper it's the King's government after all.
I've seen comments from several ex PMs who say it's one of the most useful meetings they have all week. A chance to speak to someone who definitely doesn't want their job, who won't ever leak what was said and who understands international diplomacy to a high degree.
How many fleas does the monarch drop in the PM's ear though? Who knows.
I'm not even against the idea of an unelected but interested (and informed) party holding some sway if I'm honest. Might actually lead to some >5 year thinking!
*It's how Liz Truss delivered the poison after all
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 9:20 am
Money only becomes unimportant in life once you've got enough of it. If you haven't got enough of it, it's one of the most important things in life. The amount of money that is enough varies from person to person but trust me, if you haven't got what you consider to be enough money it's very important.
I know some very wealthy people who are insatiably obsessed with money and making more of it. They are the type where the chase and acquisition of funds are the reason they breathe,spending any is only viable if it's seen as an investment. They'll never have enough.
I take your point on those others having enough to be comfortable.
No. That isn't the point. Money becomes unimportant when you have enough. Not enough to be comfortable or enough that I or you would be comfortable with, enough to satisfy the individual's idea of what "enough" means. That's it.
Yorick wrote: ↑Sat Apr 29, 2023 7:57 pm
Every single person on here was born when the Queen was on the throne.
She was a nice lady. Well liked.
She was there everyday of our lives.
Like a nice grandma.
Folk just liked her. Didn't really think about the family.
It changed recently. Doubt it will be the same again.
She was an amazing person and the UK was lucky to have such a well respected monarch representing our values worldwide.
King Charles: not so much...
He is, let's be honest, a bit of a twat. He's making noises about reparations for fucks sake. Last thing we need is a woke head of state.
Should have given the job to Wills and Kate.
“No one is more hated than he who speaks the truth.”
Plato
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 11:23 pm
No. That isn't the point. Money becomes unimportant when you have enough. Not enough to be comfortable or enough that I or you would be comfortable with, enough to satisfy the individual's idea of what "enough" means. That's it.
In the UK the majority of people put the absolute minimum effort in to get money, whereas if it was actually as important to everyone as you say it is, then they'd try harder to get more of it. Most grab barely enough (or even less than enough) for that month and then go off to do something else more important to them.
I may be wrong but I think that's exactly what SL is saying. People might moan about not having enough but they don't actually need more enough to bother trying to get it. Ergo, they clearly do have enough and more is not that important.
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Saga Lout wrote: ↑Mon May 01, 2023 11:23 pm
No. That isn't the point. Money becomes unimportant when you have enough. Not enough to be comfortable or enough that I or you would be comfortable with, enough to satisfy the individual's idea of what "enough" means. That's it.
In the UK the majority of people put the absolute minimum effort in to get money, whereas if it was actually as important to everyone as you say it is, then they'd try harder to get more of it. Most grab barely enough (or even less than enough) for that month and then go off to do something else more important to them.
I may be wrong but I think that's exactly what SL is saying. People might moan about not having enough but they don't actually need more enough to bother trying to get it. Ergo, they clearly do have enough and more is not that important.
Yes. you've got it.
It's usually rich people with more than enough money who tell the poor that money isn't important. You know, those who say "It's better to be poor and happy than rich and unhappy". Which is true, but those aren't the only options. E.g. I'd rather be rich and happy than poor and unhappy.
Count Steer wrote: ↑Tue May 02, 2023 7:58 am
I may be wrong but I think that's exactly what SL is saying. People might moan about not having enough but they don't actually need more enough to bother trying to get it. Ergo, they clearly do have enough and more is not that important.
Yes. you've got it.
It's usually rich people with more than enough money who tell the poor that money isn't important. You know, those who say "It's better to be poor and happy than rich and unhappy". Which is true, but those aren't the only options. E.g. I'd rather be rich and happy than poor and unhappy.
I guess Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is still relevant. One of the times I look back on fondly was a time I had least £ (after age 17). Student. I had food, beer, time, health etc a bed and a roof overhead- it all made up for the lack of funds. Start work, get more money, less time etc. The money only partly made up for the loss of the 'freedom/lack of responsibility/stimulation' etc. I think people can end up chasing money thinking they can buy those things back. It doesn't work!
Doubt is not a pleasant condition.
But certainty is an absurd one.
Voltaire
Yes, bit it's pretty much just rubber-stamping stuff. Yes the article says she tried to affect stuff, but i notice it's thin on the details of what changes were actually made on her behest. Hiding details of her finances from the public is hardly surprising.
You claimed the Royal Family are nothing more than figureheads, they are much more than that. I've no idea how much meddling with Parliament goes on, but if it can in any affect them then the Royals will have poked their noses in somewhere.
I was more trying to make the point to Greenie that his affairs are so far away from what they're concerned (their own affairs, which that article seems to state) that to call them 'tryants' is simply wrong.
I agree with Dazzle that a long-term viewpoint is highly recommended though and that's a useful purpose to serve.
