754 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 1, 2023 12:25:17 GMT
I think the monarchy are being advised very badly.
Air conditioned coach? Really?
Bringing down magic stupid stone? Really?
Let’s change the swearing of loyalty to everyone rather than just the important lords etc? Really?
What they ACTUALLY needed was a jolly procession a la Olympic opening ceremony, perhaps mixed up with Notting Hill festival (I’d like some Drag Queens too, just to show how inclusive we are and annoy all the right people!), followed by a trimmed down ceremony. Multi faith (I don’t care that he’s head of C of E, he can just decide to do it, after all Henry just made up his own church!)
Personally I think we should have a president elected by the people (non political, just like Ireland)and just keep a bit of ceremonial marching and open the palaces for the tourists etc.
But you do have to ask, do the current “advisors” want to see the back of the Monarchy, as their current decisions seem out of touch at best!
|
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 1, 2023 12:52:59 GMT
Are you swearing the oath? Nope, I’m not anti monarchy, but I’m not sitting in my living room swearing an oath to a TV 🤣 He he |
|
8,160 posts
|
Post by alece10 on May 1, 2023 13:16:27 GMT
Watching Nicky Cambell on BBC2 this morning a woman phoned in and said that she was going to put up a big picture of "Di" and then called Camilla a "slut!".
At that point I changed channels and ended up with Alison Hammond and Dermot wotsit so just turned the TV off completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by marob on May 1, 2023 14:30:33 GMT
I’ve never been a monarchist.I was a kid when Diana died and I remember thinking even then that the public orgy of performative grief that followed was just so bizarre. I’m sure as I type this there’s people preparing to camp out on the streets, if they’re not there already. I just don’t get it.
I think the institution should have ended when the Queen died, not that was ever going to happen of course. But it has surprised me how much ill-feeling there is towards the royal family in general nowadays, on social media at any rate. Beginning of a very long, drawn-out end?
I’m sure I’ll have a look at some bits of the coronation out of curiosity but certainly not the whole thing.
And I definitely won’t be pledging allegiance. This is not America.
|
|
916 posts
|
Post by karloscar on May 1, 2023 20:27:31 GMT
My favourite piece of coronation music thus far is the sound of thousands of Celtic fans telling Chaz where he can stick his coronation to the tune of You Cannae Shove Yer Granny Off a Bus. I doubt Lord Lloyd Webber will come up with anything as memorable.
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 1, 2023 23:21:56 GMT
There's talk of playing God Save the King at next weekend's football fixtures. Quite why they feel the need to unnecessarily impose politics on a football game like that, I don't know. I am sure I shall be in the overwhelming majority of the crowd at Anfield next Saturday by roundly booing it if they decide to go ahead with that deeply offensive nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 2, 2023 7:39:21 GMT
I think it's common knowledge that the child of Elizabeth who best represents her values and hard work is Anne.
What she actually said today was "You know, he is committed to his own level of service, and that will remain true."
Wise old bird.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 2, 2023 8:07:36 GMT
There's talk of playing God Save the King at next weekend's football fixtures. Quite why they feel the need to unnecessarily impose politics on a football game like that, I don't know. I am sure I shall be in the overwhelming majority of the crowd at Anfield next Saturday by roundly booing it if they decide to go ahead with that deeply offensive nonsense. The appropriate National Anthem is regularly played at major sporting fixtures all round the globe. From the World Cup of various sports to medal ceremonies, it is part of sporting culture. It is not imposing politics to consider this. You might not support the monarchy or even like the lyrics but it is hyperbolic to describe the National Anthem as deeply offensive. The overwhelming majority of nations have such a song that is part of their cultural traditions. It is not that far back that theatre and even some cinema performances in the UK featured the Anthem at some point. No one is forcing anyone to participate in singing or even standing for it. Just be glad you aren't in the US where the Pledge of Allegiance is enforced in many schools and the Anthem seems to be on endless loop. |
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 2, 2023 8:24:35 GMT
There's talk of playing God Save the King at next weekend's football fixtures. Quite why they feel the need to unnecessarily impose politics on a football game like that, I don't know. I am sure I shall be in the overwhelming majority of the crowd at Anfield next Saturday by roundly booing it if they decide to go ahead with that deeply offensive nonsense. The appropriate National Anthem is regularly played at major sporting fixtures all round the globe. From the World Cup of various sports to medal ceremonies, it is part of sporting culture. It is not imposing politics to consider this. You might not support the monarchy or even like the lyrics but it is hyperbolic to describe the National Anthem as deeply offensive. The overwhelming majority of nations have such a song that is part of their cultural traditions. It is not that far back that theatre and even some cinema performances in the UK featured the Anthem at some point. No one is forcing anyone to participate in singing or even standing for it. Just be glad you aren't in the US where the Pledge of Allegiance is enforced in many schools and the Anthem seems to be on endless loop. "God save our gracious king" is offensive on so many levels -- no hyperbole involved -- that, if you can't see that, I fear I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it. Culture and tradition are no justification for continuance when something is wrong. Our National Anthem is long overdue for change. |
|
4,991 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on May 2, 2023 9:27:54 GMT
I totally agree, a national anthem should not be about religion or some guy who believes in hereditary birth rights
Regarding religion, you only have to view the highlights of the last census to how non religious we now are.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 2, 2023 9:55:27 GMT
Even as a devout atheist, I am more comfortable with our national anthem than the French in terms of lyrical content
Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
Against us, tyranny's
Bloody standard is raised,
Do you hear, in the countryside,
The roar of those ferocious soldiers?
They're coming right into your arms
To cut the throats of your sons, your women!
Refrain:
To arms, citizens,
Form your battalions,
March, march!
Let an impure blood
Water our furrows!
There are things in all these traditions round the world that no longer feel appropriate to some.
But I would rather have an archaic view of monarchy enshrined in a song than a call to arms that celebrates shedding blood
(And yes, I know there are extra verses to our anthem that head in a more aggressive direction but those are never performed today and are unknown to the vast majority of the population)
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2023 13:37:46 GMT
I’ve never been a monarchist.I was a kid when Diana died and I remember thinking even then that the public orgy of performative grief that followed was just so bizarre. I’m sure as I type this there’s people preparing to camp out on the streets, if they’re not there already. I just don’t get it. I think the institution should have ended when the Queen died, not that was ever going to happen of course. But it has surprised me how much ill-feeling there is towards the royal family in general nowadays, on social media at any rate. Beginning of a very long, drawn-out end? I’m sure I’ll have a look at some bits of the coronation out of curiosity but certainly not the whole thing. And I definitely won’t be pledging allegiance. This is not America. The Referendum in 2016 and the General Election in 2019 - when we were told there had occurred a 'Youth Quake' which had swept Labour to Power - should have been the moments where everyone stopped considering Social Media as anything but a huge echo chamber to be fair... The Monarchy isn't going anywhere because most people support the concept and history shows that a sizable amount of those youngsters who currently don't want it will shift their opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2023 13:49:44 GMT
The appropriate National Anthem is regularly played at major sporting fixtures all round the globe. From the World Cup of various sports to medal ceremonies, it is part of sporting culture. It is not imposing politics to consider this. You might not support the monarchy or even like the lyrics but it is hyperbolic to describe the National Anthem as deeply offensive. The overwhelming majority of nations have such a song that is part of their cultural traditions. It is not that far back that theatre and even some cinema performances in the UK featured the Anthem at some point. No one is forcing anyone to participate in singing or even standing for it. Just be glad you aren't in the US where the Pledge of Allegiance is enforced in many schools and the Anthem seems to be on endless loop. "God save our gracious king" is offensive on so many levels -- no hyperbole involved -- that, if you can't see that, I fear I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it. Culture and tradition are no justification for continuance when something is wrong. Our National Anthem is long overdue for change. Booing it is just as offensive to many more people... You don't like it? Vote for the party or parties advocating changing it or abolishing the Monarchy and/or don't sing/stand when it is being played. It really is that straight forward. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 3, 2023 17:33:35 GMT
"God save our gracious king" is offensive on so many levels -- no hyperbole involved -- that, if you can't see that, I fear I'd be wasting my time trying to explain it. Culture and tradition are no justification for continuance when something is wrong. Our National Anthem is long overdue for change. Booing it is just as offensive to many more people... You don't like it? Vote for the party or parties advocating changing it or abolishing the Monarchy and/or don't sing/stand when it is being played. It really is that straight forward. No it isn't |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 3, 2023 17:53:24 GMT
tbh, 'Head of State' is always a bit awkward in Parliamentary democracies because it involves so much symbolic 'power'.
I can quite understand why other - what are now pretty mature democracies like Canada and Australia - are still in no great hurry to establish alternatives. Outsourcing symbolic power is not a bad option, and solves a bunch of headaches. And yes, there are Republican voices and sometimes even movements, yet we are where we are even after QEII.
As long as the Windsor's keep their noses pretty clean, I just let it go. I'll let others worry about symbolic power after I'm gone.
The focus for now is 100% The House of Lords.
|
|
1,485 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 3, 2023 17:55:57 GMT
The Monarchy isn't going anywhere because most people support the concept and history shows that a sizable amount of those youngsters who currently don't want it will shift their opinion. There's a strong correlation between the views that the majority claim to hold and the opinions espoused by the mainstream media. While the media -- even the Daily Mirror -- continue to idolise, lionise and monetise the monarchy, you're right it isn't going anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2023 18:56:26 GMT
Booing it is just as offensive to many more people... You don't like it? Vote for the party or parties advocating changing it or abolishing the Monarchy and/or don't sing/stand when it is being played. It really is that straight forward. No it isn't Yes it is. If you're against causing offence then don't purposely set out to offend, there's nothing complicated to that. Also, if you find that none of the major parties have plans to replace the National Anthem or abolish the Monarchy then that suggests that they know what most people think. Nothing resembling rocket science here. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2023 18:57:11 GMT
The Monarchy isn't going anywhere because most people support the concept and history shows that a sizable amount of those youngsters who currently don't want it will shift their opinion. There's a strong correlation between the views that the majority claim to hold and the opinions espoused by the mainstream media. While the media -- even the Daily Mirror -- continue to idolise, lionise and monetise the monarchy, you're right it isn't going anywhere. Its the voters we need to replace. (Copyright Momentum 2019) |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2023 19:06:03 GMT
tbh, 'Head of State' is always a bit awkward in Parliamentary democracies because it involves so much symbolic 'power'. I can quite understand why other - what are now pretty mature democracies like Canada and Australia - are still in no great hurry to establish alternatives. Outsourcing symbolic power is not a bad option, and solves a bunch of headaches. And yes, there are Republican voices and sometimes even movements, yet we are where we are even after QEII. As long as the Windsor's keep their noses pretty clean, I just let it go. I'll let others worry about symbolic power after I'm gone. The focus for now is 100% The House of Lords. Those most passionate about abolishing the Monarchy would be the first ones moaning that the electorate voted in Nigel Farrage as President... As a country we do not need another level of political division. |
|
2,339 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 3, 2023 21:37:12 GMT
Yes it is. If you're against causing offence then don't purposely set out to offend, there's nothing complicated to that. Also, if you find that none of the major parties have plans to replace the National Anthem or abolish the Monarchy then that suggests that they know what most people think. Nothing resembling rocket science here. Sorry wasn’t clear my no it isn’t was about protest, right to protest and ways of protesting not that it may offend someone |
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 4, 2023 4:08:11 GMT
tbh, 'Head of State' is always a bit awkward in Parliamentary democracies because it involves so much symbolic 'power'. I can quite understand why other - what are now pretty mature democracies like Canada and Australia - are still in no great hurry to establish alternatives. Outsourcing symbolic power is not a bad option, and solves a bunch of headaches. And yes, there are Republican voices and sometimes even movements, yet we are where we are even after QEII. As long as the Windsor's keep their noses pretty clean, I just let it go. I'll let others worry about symbolic power after I'm gone. The focus for now is 100% The House of Lords. Read Moneyland by Oliver Bulough. Paraphrasing: a major way for owners of corrupt money to become legit in Britain today, is by enlisting a minor royal to head up your 'Charity'. The minor royal introduces you to Lords, Senior Royals, and eventually cabinet ministers and the close 'family'. ALL receive 'donations' or sinecures and you become too valuable to have a difficult life. He writes there are a surprising no of 'impoverished' royals, many of whom are Lords. I agree re the need to reform the Lords, but the evidence is there; the Royal Family all the way to the very top man, are enablers for what is becoming an increasingly corrupt country. Matthew Syed in this week's Sunday Times wrote that one reason why the Government was so slow to act strongly against Putin is that for years the Tories have been funded by Russian donations via oligarchs. Cabinet Ministers were told to keep hands off. The consequences are here to see. I can't see this coronation as anything but a massive distraction. Spending our money to distract us from a world where we have huge problems to face. How will Charles help? |
|
594 posts
|
Post by og on May 4, 2023 7:17:30 GMT
I’ve never been a monarchist.I was a kid when Diana died and I remember thinking even then that the public orgy of performative grief that followed was just so bizarre. I’m sure as I type this there’s people preparing to camp out on the streets, if they’re not there already. I just don’t get it. I think the institution should have ended when the Queen died, not that was ever going to happen of course. But it has surprised me how much ill-feeling there is towards the royal family in general nowadays, on social media at any rate. Beginning of a very long, drawn-out end? I’m sure I’ll have a look at some bits of the coronation out of curiosity but certainly not the whole thing. And I definitely won’t be pledging allegiance. This is not America. The Referendum in 2016 and the General Election in 2019 - when we were told there had occurred a 'Youth Quake' which had swept Labour to Power - should have been the moments where everyone stopped considering Social Media as anything but a huge echo chamber to be fair... The Monarchy isn't going anywhere because most people support the concept and history shows that a sizable amount of those youngsters who currently don't want it will shift their opinion. Can you source this view? These days, I'd say the actual majority are just indifferent, and unable to source an alternative could give much of an eff either way. Thats the overriding view within my echo chamber atleast. |
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 4, 2023 10:49:02 GMT
tbh, 'Head of State' is always a bit awkward in Parliamentary democracies because it involves so much symbolic 'power'. I can quite understand why other - what are now pretty mature democracies like Canada and Australia - are still in no great hurry to establish alternatives. Outsourcing symbolic power is not a bad option, and solves a bunch of headaches. And yes, there are Republican voices and sometimes even movements, yet we are where we are even after QEII. As long as the Windsor's keep their noses pretty clean, I just let it go. I'll let others worry about symbolic power after I'm gone. The focus for now is 100% The House of Lords. Read Moneyland by Oliver Bulough. Paraphrasing: a major way for owners of corrupt money to become legit in Britain today, is by enlisting a minor royal to head up your 'Charity'. The minor royal introduces you to Lords, Senior Royals, and eventually cabinet ministers and the close 'family'. ALL receive 'donations' or sinecures and you become too valuable to have a difficult life. He writes there are a surprising no of 'impoverished' royals, many of whom are Lords. I agree re the need to reform the Lords, but the evidence is there; the Royal Family all the way to the very top man, are enablers for what is becoming an increasingly corrupt country. Matthew Syed in this week's Sunday Times wrote that one reason why the Government was so slow to act strongly against Putin is that for years the Tories have been funded by Russian donations via oligarchs. Cabinet Ministers were told to keep hands off. The consequences are here to see. I can't see this coronation as anything but a massive distraction. Spending our money to distract us from a world where we have huge problems to face. How will Charles help? I don't disagree with you. One person's 'influence' is another's corruption. Not that either are desirable.
The one thing the public has over the Royal's is the ability to withdraw consent. And so we have a family holding the symbolic powers who are vulnerable to proof of corruption (as opposed to an elected Head of State on a fixed term, so why not fill your boots anyway).
Trump is obv. an extreme example but one thing about the USA we don't seem to see in mainstream media is what Trump did in his final weeks as Head of State - over 100 presidential pardons (clemency) were granted for convictions for serious fraud and corruption crimes, sold at $1 million a pop: just fill in the form, donate the fee and job done:
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 4, 2023 15:03:34 GMT
I don't think the POTUS is a relevant comparison. That power is not even "officially" given to the king.
As the article states Trump gave less pardons than any modern President, proving once again how inefficient he was.😉
|
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on May 4, 2023 15:11:51 GMT
I will not be watching a single second of this obscene spectacle, flaunting of inherited wealth and privilege during a cost of living crisis is beyond vile.
The monarchy ought to have been abolished centuries ago, they are archaic and, frankly, completely pointless.
|
|
