By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Regardless of your views this seems to be a particularly venomous article. I'm no great flag waver for the monarchy,but found this almost offensive in it's tone.
No idea when I began here, was a very long time ago. Previously known as Spirit_of_81. Love cheese, hate the colour of it, this is why it requires some blue in it.
I suppose that's what edgy columnists do. He'll bang on about something else next week. I think a managed exit for the monarchy is probably inevitable, maybe not in my lifetime though.
1
Article about the British monarchy on 21:21 - Sep 15 with 2410 views
I'm more offended that the Late Queen illegally shut down our Parliament.
She was supposed to be the last of the Checks and Balances of our laughable "unwritten Constitution", but failed this basic test when we needed her to stand up for our Parliamentary Democracy.
Oh, and then there's the bailing out and sheltering of a wanted suspect in an international sexual abuse case.
And the friendship between His Kingship and Jimmy Savile.
And the inheritance tax situation.
And the failure to return Highland lands stolen in the Clearances, or Common Land stolen through the Enclosure Acts.
All of which are a lot more offensive, and say more about the country we live in, than an opinion piece that is just designed to cause a scene, get attention and drive Web traffic.
5
Article about the British monarchy on 22:23 - Sep 15 with 2357 views
There are many sticks to beat the monarchy with: wealth; privilege; tax; the whole contradiction of a symbolic head of state who also provides checks and balances; Andrew and other scandals; the empire; slavery; racism; sexism; our head of state also being head of a religion; the environment.
That article mentions none of them.
0
Article about the British monarchy on 23:09 - Sep 15 with 2299 views
Article about the British monarchy on 21:21 - Sep 15 by ArnoldMoorhen
I'm more offended that the Late Queen illegally shut down our Parliament.
She was supposed to be the last of the Checks and Balances of our laughable "unwritten Constitution", but failed this basic test when we needed her to stand up for our Parliamentary Democracy.
Oh, and then there's the bailing out and sheltering of a wanted suspect in an international sexual abuse case.
And the friendship between His Kingship and Jimmy Savile.
And the inheritance tax situation.
And the failure to return Highland lands stolen in the Clearances, or Common Land stolen through the Enclosure Acts.
All of which are a lot more offensive, and say more about the country we live in, than an opinion piece that is just designed to cause a scene, get attention and drive Web traffic.
Quite a lot of nonsense there.
Sheltering? In what way?
Bailing out? The woman wanted settlement money. What else are they going to do?
As for the insinuation about Charles and Saville. Just obnoxious and silly innuendo.
-1
Article about the British monarchy on 03:00 - Sep 16 with 2251 views
Article about the British monarchy on 23:09 - Sep 15 by redrickstuhaart
Quite a lot of nonsense there.
Sheltering? In what way?
Bailing out? The woman wanted settlement money. What else are they going to do?
As for the insinuation about Charles and Saville. Just obnoxious and silly innuendo.
Sheltering and Bailing out: the Late Queen provided the money for "Prince" Andrew's payments to Virginia Giuffre, enabling him to bring legal proceedings in the States to an end. She then continued to provide him with grace and favour accommodation, in spite of him not being a working royal. So "Bailing out" and "Sheltering" are correct, and not nonsense.
I said that Charles had a friendship with Jimmy Savile. This is a fact which is documented in letters and photographs. Andrew had a friendship with Epstein. Another documented fact. Both of those friendships undermine my confidence in the judgement of our King and his advisors. There is no innuendo in that.
So, everything I said is verifiable, and isn't nonsense. You don't like me pointing out those facts, or the conclusions I reach from them.
I notice you haven't engaged with the most serious matters: Our unelected Head of State illegally shutting down our elected Parliament, or the historic stealing of common, and in some cases tenant farmer owned, land by the British Aristocracy including the Royal Family, to enlarge their estates. A historic wrong which they have never apologised for.
2
Article about the British monarchy on 10:49 - Sep 16 with 2111 views
Article about the British monarchy on 03:00 - Sep 16 by ArnoldMoorhen
Sheltering and Bailing out: the Late Queen provided the money for "Prince" Andrew's payments to Virginia Giuffre, enabling him to bring legal proceedings in the States to an end. She then continued to provide him with grace and favour accommodation, in spite of him not being a working royal. So "Bailing out" and "Sheltering" are correct, and not nonsense.
I said that Charles had a friendship with Jimmy Savile. This is a fact which is documented in letters and photographs. Andrew had a friendship with Epstein. Another documented fact. Both of those friendships undermine my confidence in the judgement of our King and his advisors. There is no innuendo in that.
So, everything I said is verifiable, and isn't nonsense. You don't like me pointing out those facts, or the conclusions I reach from them.
I notice you haven't engaged with the most serious matters: Our unelected Head of State illegally shutting down our elected Parliament, or the historic stealing of common, and in some cases tenant farmer owned, land by the British Aristocracy including the Royal Family, to enlarge their estates. A historic wrong which they have never apologised for.
Dribbling nonsense.
-1
Article about the British monarchy on 10:50 - Sep 16 with 2108 views
Article about the British monarchy on 03:00 - Sep 16 by ArnoldMoorhen
Sheltering and Bailing out: the Late Queen provided the money for "Prince" Andrew's payments to Virginia Giuffre, enabling him to bring legal proceedings in the States to an end. She then continued to provide him with grace and favour accommodation, in spite of him not being a working royal. So "Bailing out" and "Sheltering" are correct, and not nonsense.
I said that Charles had a friendship with Jimmy Savile. This is a fact which is documented in letters and photographs. Andrew had a friendship with Epstein. Another documented fact. Both of those friendships undermine my confidence in the judgement of our King and his advisors. There is no innuendo in that.
So, everything I said is verifiable, and isn't nonsense. You don't like me pointing out those facts, or the conclusions I reach from them.
I notice you haven't engaged with the most serious matters: Our unelected Head of State illegally shutting down our elected Parliament, or the historic stealing of common, and in some cases tenant farmer owned, land by the British Aristocracy including the Royal Family, to enlarge their estates. A historic wrong which they have never apologised for.
For those not aware that the links between Charles and Savile were significantly deeper than appearing at a couple of the same events and being photographed together, some of the detail is discussed here:
I haven't really got into the way in which all legal authority and property rights eminate from the Sovereign under our Unwritten "Constitution", which enable extraordinary decisions to be made in secret and above and beyond Parliamentary scrutiny.
The Chagos Islanders being one particularly distressing case of genocide by suicide as a result of an Order in Council to seize their islands and dump them thousands of miles away:
Most British people don't know this happened, 20 years after the documentary, and more than 50 years after the clearances of the Chagos Islands.
But once you do know about it, and get a glimpse of the secret state which derives all of its authority from the monarchy, the Queen's matching pastel handbags and tourists making Changing of the Guard Tik Toks don't feel like a fair exchange for the fact that, ultimately, we live under a Feudal Monarchy.
Article about the British monarchy on 11:14 - Sep 16 by ArnoldMoorhen
For those not aware that the links between Charles and Savile were significantly deeper than appearing at a couple of the same events and being photographed together, some of the detail is discussed here:
I haven't really got into the way in which all legal authority and property rights eminate from the Sovereign under our Unwritten "Constitution", which enable extraordinary decisions to be made in secret and above and beyond Parliamentary scrutiny.
The Chagos Islanders being one particularly distressing case of genocide by suicide as a result of an Order in Council to seize their islands and dump them thousands of miles away:
Most British people don't know this happened, 20 years after the documentary, and more than 50 years after the clearances of the Chagos Islands.
But once you do know about it, and get a glimpse of the secret state which derives all of its authority from the monarchy, the Queen's matching pastel handbags and tourists making Changing of the Guard Tik Toks don't feel like a fair exchange for the fact that, ultimately, we live under a Feudal Monarchy.
[Post edited 16 Sep 2023 11:18]
You seek to make the insinuation that having dealings with Saville somehow taints Charles. With no basis whatsoever.
1
Article about the British monarchy on 11:48 - Sep 16 with 2023 views
Article about the British monarchy on 11:41 - Sep 16 by redrickstuhaart
You seek to make the insinuation that having dealings with Saville somehow taints Charles. With no basis whatsoever.
Lol. No, I say that it calls into question his judgement, and that of his advisors. Read the article. Was there any reason to give a Radio 1 DJ this much influence over Buckingham Palace policy, other than that Charles trusted him? Which shows that he had very bad judgement, in hindsight. And placed alongside Andrew's friendship with Epstein demonstrates a pattern of bad judgement from senior Royals and their advisors.
And how about the other stuff? You know, the stuff you called nonsense? The factually correct stuff?
-1
Article about the British monarchy on 12:18 - Sep 16 with 1982 views
Article about the British monarchy on 11:48 - Sep 16 by ArnoldMoorhen
Lol. No, I say that it calls into question his judgement, and that of his advisors. Read the article. Was there any reason to give a Radio 1 DJ this much influence over Buckingham Palace policy, other than that Charles trusted him? Which shows that he had very bad judgement, in hindsight. And placed alongside Andrew's friendship with Epstein demonstrates a pattern of bad judgement from senior Royals and their advisors.
And how about the other stuff? You know, the stuff you called nonsense? The factually correct stuff?
This is disingenuous.
1
Article about the British monarchy on 12:26 - Sep 16 with 1962 views
Article about the British monarchy on 10:49 - Sep 16 by brazil1982
Dribbling nonsense.
Just because you find it difficult to be presented with facts doesn't in any way make it dribbling nonsense. It means you have your head in the sand, your fingers in your ears and probably screaming at the top of your voice.
0
Article about the British monarchy on 13:34 - Sep 16 with 1890 views
Article about the British monarchy on 12:18 - Sep 16 by redrickstuhaart
This is disingenuous.
No, calling something nonsense and then not backing up why is disingenuous.
You haven't properly engaged with a single thing I have said.
The whole point about Savile is that he was a manipulative person who gained access where he shouldn't. Charles allowed himself to be manipulated by him, and their friendship added to Savile's status. This shows poor judgement on his part, and terrible judgement on the part of his unelected advisors.
If we truly had a figurehead monarchy, with no power to influence things then that might just be an embarassment. As I have demonstrated, our King does have very real powers, beyond Parliamentary scrutiny, and the demonstrable fact that he has allowed an abuser to gain influence in the Palace should concern anyone.
That Andrew was, at the very least, manipulated into a friendship with Epstein shows that no lessons had been learned by the unelected Buckingham Palace advisors.
The Late Queen paying money so that Andrew could avoid an appearance in Court is precisely the opposite of what organisations are supposed to do when abuse is alleged. Paying off to protect the reputation of the institution protects abusers within it, and doesn't hold those who have actively or passively enabled them to account. This perpetuates a toxic culture. The light has to shine in difficult places or cycles of abuse are perpetuated.
But keep on bowing and saying "Ma'am rhymes with ham!"
1
Article about the British monarchy on 07:51 - Sep 18 with 1695 views
I've finally devoted ten minutes to reading that article properly and have to say that I find it too shallow to be offensive, but Al-Jazeera opinion pieces are quite often like that (in stark contrast to their much better researched news, which is often delivered in a more timely fashion than the BBC and with more aplomb.) As another poster has alluded to, it sounds like a junior journalist showboating in the hope of causing a splash but in reality resembling a comedy turn.
However, there is a lead article on the BBC website at the moment that does appear to show a failing of the monarch in bringing Parliament to account for the benefit of her subjects:
It should be borne in mind that we were expecting a great deal of effort from a nonagenarian (at a time in their lives when the vast majority of her subjects would be doing little more than watching daytime TV, sleeping and snacking) and that the BBC piece is about trailing one of their programmes as much as it is about the misuse of our unwritten constitution.
Article about the British monarchy on 13:34 - Sep 16 by ArnoldMoorhen
No, calling something nonsense and then not backing up why is disingenuous.
You haven't properly engaged with a single thing I have said.
The whole point about Savile is that he was a manipulative person who gained access where he shouldn't. Charles allowed himself to be manipulated by him, and their friendship added to Savile's status. This shows poor judgement on his part, and terrible judgement on the part of his unelected advisors.
If we truly had a figurehead monarchy, with no power to influence things then that might just be an embarassment. As I have demonstrated, our King does have very real powers, beyond Parliamentary scrutiny, and the demonstrable fact that he has allowed an abuser to gain influence in the Palace should concern anyone.
That Andrew was, at the very least, manipulated into a friendship with Epstein shows that no lessons had been learned by the unelected Buckingham Palace advisors.
The Late Queen paying money so that Andrew could avoid an appearance in Court is precisely the opposite of what organisations are supposed to do when abuse is alleged. Paying off to protect the reputation of the institution protects abusers within it, and doesn't hold those who have actively or passively enabled them to account. This perpetuates a toxic culture. The light has to shine in difficult places or cycles of abuse are perpetuated.
But keep on bowing and saying "Ma'am rhymes with ham!"
It was disingenuous. The initial post sought to connect saville and charles with a nudge and a wink. You have now shifted to it being about access, though at the time, of course, a man known for charity work havingn engagement with the head of lots of charities is hardly surprising.
As for Andrew, it was a civil claim for money. It is normal to settle such claims. The alternative is you go to court, and potentially lose, and then have to pay the same or more. Why would anyone do that?
This is not paying off a criminal charge. You cant do that. The proceedings were brought as a claim for money. So money is how they are resolved.
Your last line just sums up the dishonest nature of your post. You don't even know my views on the monarchy more broadly and look to label anyone who calls you out for over reaching.
0
Article about the British monarchy on 08:35 - Sep 18 with 1635 views
And whilst the British media have pulled out all the stops to shore up the monarchy in the last year or so, it is clear that in the Commonwealth (and particularly with the death of the Queen) there is dwindling support for the monarchy, as shown by the rather disastrous trip by William and Kate to Jamaica.
[Post edited 18 Sep 2023 8:39]
0
Article about the British monarchy on 08:56 - Sep 18 with 1593 views
Nothing triggers people like criticism of the Royals, I just don’t get it.
The newspapers have groomed a nation into thinking it’s perfectly reasonable to subsidise multi-billionaire tax dodgers. Nobody should be anywhere near power on a hereditary basis (and I include the HoL in that) - that line of thinking belongs in the Middle Ages.
2
Article about the British monarchy on 10:46 - Sep 18 with 1523 views
Article about the British monarchy on 08:05 - Sep 18 by redrickstuhaart
It was disingenuous. The initial post sought to connect saville and charles with a nudge and a wink. You have now shifted to it being about access, though at the time, of course, a man known for charity work havingn engagement with the head of lots of charities is hardly surprising.
As for Andrew, it was a civil claim for money. It is normal to settle such claims. The alternative is you go to court, and potentially lose, and then have to pay the same or more. Why would anyone do that?
This is not paying off a criminal charge. You cant do that. The proceedings were brought as a claim for money. So money is how they are resolved.
Your last line just sums up the dishonest nature of your post. You don't even know my views on the monarchy more broadly and look to label anyone who calls you out for over reaching.
You're having a shocker. So much projection! You read things into what I wrote and then magnify it with each post.
I "sought to connect Savile and Charles"?
No, I said that they had a friendship.
They were connected. It is a historical fact. If you read the article then you would see that it goes beyond the "happened to be at the same Charity Reception and were photographed next to each other" that you want to pass it off as.
I provided a link to an article in which documents are quoted demonstrating that Savile was one of Charles' trusted unelected advisors.
"Sought to connect them"? They are connected, and their friendship was part of Savile's cover.
"A nudge and a wink"? Nope. Just a very plain statement initially, with links provided straight away when you challenged it.
Are you saying that because Savile was a terrible man who should have been nowhere near positions of power and influence that it is therefore unfair to comment on the judgement of the man who gave him that access to power and influence?
Savile is so bad, it was such a bad error of judgement, that it can't be mentioned?
Your posts about Andrew are genuinely concerning. You are stating that it is justifiable behaviour to pay millions of pounds to silence a victim of sexual abuse. Every sexual abuse charity will tell you that it isn't OK to prioritise reputational damage over the needs of the survivor of abuse for justice. Prioritising the reputation of the institution protects abusers and those who have enabled them. It prevents cultural change in the institution. It gives the message that abuse will be tolerated and abusers protected. The only correct course of action is to open the windows and doors to the light.
The writ for damages which he paid off alleged sexual abuse and intentionally inflicting emotional distress.
On the criminal front, Andrew was a "person of interest" in the investigation into Epstein's co-conspirators:
A "Person of interest" who the survivor of the abuse had named as sexually and emotionally abusing her may not precisely be the same wording as "suspect", as different law enforcement agencies use different terminology, but that doesn't alter the reason why Andrew's behaviour, and the reflex action to pay to prevent further reputational damage, make me lose faith in the Royal Family further.
Although Andrew was sheltered by the Late Queen (and later bailed out by her to pay off his accuser) and didn't cooperate with the investigation, we should remember that it was proved beyond reasonable doubt, in a Criminal Court, that Epstein had trafficked women for sex parties.
The reason the civil case was brought was because Andrew didn't cooperate with the criminal investigation, and was beyond the reach of US authorities. But his financial interests were not.
The Late Queen protected Andrew from being interviewed as a Person of Interest in a very serious sexual abuse conspiracy case, and paid off his accuser so that no questions would have to be answered in open court.
I don't know all your views about the Monarchy, of course. But I do know that you rush to defend them from reasonable criticism.
And I also know that you have no sense of humour and can't take the flippant ribbing at the end of some of those posts
It's all there for others to read, and I am content to stand by what I have posted in this thread.
I would rather not be the one having to defend the King with terrible judgement, the Late Queen who bailed out and sheltered an alleged sexual abuser, her son who is an alleged participant in a sexual abuse conspiracy, and the institution that prioritises its reputation over justice for survivors of sexual abuse, but you do you.
Now, about the genocide by suicide of the Chagos Islanders.
Or the theft of common land across the UK by the Hereditary Nobility.
Or our unelected Sovereign illegally shutting down our elected Parliament.
0
Article about the British monarchy on 11:00 - Sep 18 with 1495 views
Article about the British monarchy on 07:51 - Sep 18 by WeWereZombies
I've finally devoted ten minutes to reading that article properly and have to say that I find it too shallow to be offensive, but Al-Jazeera opinion pieces are quite often like that (in stark contrast to their much better researched news, which is often delivered in a more timely fashion than the BBC and with more aplomb.) As another poster has alluded to, it sounds like a junior journalist showboating in the hope of causing a splash but in reality resembling a comedy turn.
However, there is a lead article on the BBC website at the moment that does appear to show a failing of the monarch in bringing Parliament to account for the benefit of her subjects:
It should be borne in mind that we were expecting a great deal of effort from a nonagenarian (at a time in their lives when the vast majority of her subjects would be doing little more than watching daytime TV, sleeping and snacking) and that the BBC piece is about trailing one of their programmes as much as it is about the misuse of our unwritten constitution.
"It should be borne in mind that we were expecting a great deal of effort from a nonagenarian (at a time in their lives when the vast majority of her subjects would be doing little more than watching daytime TV, sleeping and snacking) "
That is the whole point.
If the Late Queen couldn't do all of the job then she should have either abdicated, or appointed Charles as Prince Regent, and handed over the powers of the Sovereign to him.
Or, and this is a radical suggestion, maybe we shouldn't have an unelected Head of State as the final check and balance on abuse by the Executive, and give them absolute say over whether they are competent to carry out all of their duties? Including having the power to close our democratically elected Parliament.
0
Article about the British monarchy on 11:17 - Sep 18 with 1481 views
Article about the British monarchy on 08:56 - Sep 18 by SuperKieranMcKenna
Nothing triggers people like criticism of the Royals, I just don’t get it.
The newspapers have groomed a nation into thinking it’s perfectly reasonable to subsidise multi-billionaire tax dodgers. Nobody should be anywhere near power on a hereditary basis (and I include the HoL in that) - that line of thinking belongs in the Middle Ages.
Lots of people have a respect for many of our institutions and are deeply uncomfortable with criticism of them.
We had a poster the other day stating that those who criticise the police are responsible for falling morale in the police.
The mindset is simple, the organisation's should be beyond criticism. Individuals who just can't cope with the idea that the organisation they have invested years into, that they blindly support might actually have major failings running though them.
Far easier to deny what is staring you in the face and to attack those who highlight their failings rather than.actaully engage with their points
Same (bizarrely) in those now defending R.B.rather than considering what his accusers are saying. To accept RB is a wrongun means all the beliefs they have held about him are questionable
Those blindly defending the indefensible will always be there, if they can't actually engage with the criticism in any way it tends to spell a picture of someone who is in denial and deeply uneasy at what it means for their own previous beliefs/arguments.
Article about the British monarchy on 11:00 - Sep 18 by ArnoldMoorhen
"It should be borne in mind that we were expecting a great deal of effort from a nonagenarian (at a time in their lives when the vast majority of her subjects would be doing little more than watching daytime TV, sleeping and snacking) "
That is the whole point.
If the Late Queen couldn't do all of the job then she should have either abdicated, or appointed Charles as Prince Regent, and handed over the powers of the Sovereign to him.
Or, and this is a radical suggestion, maybe we shouldn't have an unelected Head of State as the final check and balance on abuse by the Executive, and give them absolute say over whether they are competent to carry out all of their duties? Including having the power to close our democratically elected Parliament.
As a 'small m' monarchist (i.e. better to have a hereditary head of state who is virtually powerless than an elected President who is a megalomaniac) my preference is for the politicians who acted unlawfully to be brought to justice and to feel the full weight of the Law.
Article about the British monarchy on 11:17 - Sep 18 by WeWereZombies
As a 'small m' monarchist (i.e. better to have a hereditary head of state who is virtually powerless than an elected President who is a megalomaniac) my preference is for the politicians who acted unlawfully to be brought to justice and to feel the full weight of the Law.
If we were to abolish the monarchy, we would become a Parliamentary republic and would be best to follow the approach of many such republics where the head of state is elected by Parliament, sometimes with a 2/3rds majority. That would ensure no possibility of a Farage, Johnson or Truss, but instead a respected elder statesman, as head of state.
[Post edited 18 Sep 2023 11:25]
1
Article about the British monarchy on 11:49 - Sep 18 with 1411 views
Article about the British monarchy on 11:24 - Sep 18 by DJR
If we were to abolish the monarchy, we would become a Parliamentary republic and would be best to follow the approach of many such republics where the head of state is elected by Parliament, sometimes with a 2/3rds majority. That would ensure no possibility of a Farage, Johnson or Truss, but instead a respected elder statesman, as head of state.
[Post edited 18 Sep 2023 11:25]
I would be very happy with this, as long as it is on a fixed term contract, and subject to a very strong code of conduct with the possibility of Recall by Parliament in the case of serious breaches.
0
Article about the British monarchy on 12:33 - Sep 18 with 1360 views
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
