| The audacity of speaking out 06:55 - Mar 9 with 6803 views | bluelagos |
The misogyny of many monarchists is coming through in spades. Seems to some that Megan should know her place in life, and it clearly isn't in highlighting to the world the failings of the Monarchy.
Sorry Megan, it's not as simple as you're kids are a little bit too dark, it's also that you have an opinion and are willing to share it...
Fck that nonsense. Team Meg for me :-) [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 6:56]
|  |
| |  |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:07 - Mar 9 with 1449 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 10:31 - Mar 9 by footers |
The majority of the general public are idiots. |
Only just though in fairness - about 52%  |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:08 - Mar 9 with 1451 views | BlueNomad |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:22 - Mar 9 by bluelagos |
Why retain a monarchy at all? If you believe in a meritocratic society, rather than one based on class, how can you support a head of state that is hereditary?
People saying let Lizzie be the last monarch are missing the point. It's not about whether she or Charles is a good person, it is about what they represent. They represent the ultimate "Know your place" and frankly one that is based on your class rather than your ability.
It's a no thanks for me. |
For many years I was a republican but in view of the way politics has degenerated to the extent that it has I have swung round to believing we should retain the monarchy. Just look at the quality of our politicians, their motives and, put bluntly, corruption.
The only way we could do it is to have a president who sits above the fray, the German model for example, but I'm not sure that we have anyone of that quality to be honest now that the Clarkes and Heseltines are getting so old. (I quote them because they are decent, balanced people even though they are old-school Tories). |  | | |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:13 - Mar 9 with 1432 views | eireblue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:08 - Mar 9 by BlueNomad |
For many years I was a republican but in view of the way politics has degenerated to the extent that it has I have swung round to believing we should retain the monarchy. Just look at the quality of our politicians, their motives and, put bluntly, corruption.
The only way we could do it is to have a president who sits above the fray, the German model for example, but I'm not sure that we have anyone of that quality to be honest now that the Clarkes and Heseltines are getting so old. (I quote them because they are decent, balanced people even though they are old-school Tories). |
The degeneration of politics that you mentioned has happened within the existing monarchy. |  | | |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:14 - Mar 9 with 1430 views | Swansea_Blue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:00 - Mar 9 by Radlett_blue |
The problem isn't the personalities involved, it's the perpetuation of the anachronistic, deferential, class-ridden institution called the monarchy itself.
The Queen is, rather like the Pope, above criticism but she has actually been a big part of the problem by reusing to accept any modernising of the institution or slimming down of the bloated "royal family". She has also continued to pin medals & bestow titles on her family with impunity. We used to laugh at Idi Amin for doing the same thing! |
I've come to the conclusion the Queen is utterly pointless. Sure we have Royal Assent and all that guff, but she only rubber stamps and won't challenge. She literally gave approval to a government that illegally closed down parliament. What would it take for her to question and oppose? She waved through the Lords appointments, despite one being the centre of a cash for access scandal. Again, what would it take for her to intervene to ensure integrity of the system?
She's not a check nor a balance. If she's not those, what's the point of her? The only useful thing about her as far as I can see is she fills up some space on our notes and coins. | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:19 - Mar 9 with 1421 views | WeWereZombies |
| The audacity of speaking out on 10:59 - Mar 9 by StokieBlue |
Can you expand on how a 15th century philosophers thoughts on monarchies are valid in the 21st century? I genuinely don't know and it's been an awful long time since I read The Prince. Also stability is obviously possible without a monarchy given that is the state of many other countries.
As for the UK itself, that might also be on it's last legs depending on how things pan out in Scotland.
SB |
Hobbes is the more relevant of the two really, Machiavelli's works is to a large extent timeless in its harsh exposure of human nature but is more important in the lessons about the conduct necessary from a Prince. Not that Cesare Borgia always followed Machiavelli's advice, and there is an argument that the Pope had the overarching power and the financial clout to be regarded as the sovereign anyway.
When I started to study Hobbes I had a derisory view that he was a timid writer, what we may nowadays see as a YouTube influencer, who ran away to Paris to escape being strung up during the English Civil War. I have come to recognise that he needed to be in a detached position to analyse what was going on and then come back with the ideas about the sovereign as the national embodiment of all the people but similarly detached so as to have an independent viewpoint that stretches beyond fixed terms.
During my undergraduate course the advice was to just read the first two books of 'Leviathan' and forget the last two because that was just religious 'stuff' but it has been an aim of mine to go back and re-red what I studied and to go on and complete the whole book. Far too much in my 'to read' bookcases but every so often I have occasion to move something onto the top shelf (or imminent to use the bon mot), like 'The Prince' or 'Republic', 'Leviathan' has a timeless quality and probably deserves my attention sooner rather than later. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:29 - Mar 9 with 1401 views | BlueNomad |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:19 - Mar 9 by WeWereZombies |
Hobbes is the more relevant of the two really, Machiavelli's works is to a large extent timeless in its harsh exposure of human nature but is more important in the lessons about the conduct necessary from a Prince. Not that Cesare Borgia always followed Machiavelli's advice, and there is an argument that the Pope had the overarching power and the financial clout to be regarded as the sovereign anyway.
When I started to study Hobbes I had a derisory view that he was a timid writer, what we may nowadays see as a YouTube influencer, who ran away to Paris to escape being strung up during the English Civil War. I have come to recognise that he needed to be in a detached position to analyse what was going on and then come back with the ideas about the sovereign as the national embodiment of all the people but similarly detached so as to have an independent viewpoint that stretches beyond fixed terms.
During my undergraduate course the advice was to just read the first two books of 'Leviathan' and forget the last two because that was just religious 'stuff' but it has been an aim of mine to go back and re-red what I studied and to go on and complete the whole book. Far too much in my 'to read' bookcases but every so often I have occasion to move something onto the top shelf (or imminent to use the bon mot), like 'The Prince' or 'Republic', 'Leviathan' has a timeless quality and probably deserves my attention sooner rather than later. |
Leviathan is a good read once you have deciphered it. | | | |
| The audacity of speaking out on 13:11 - Mar 9 with 1351 views | Illinoisblue |
|  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 14:10 - Mar 9 with 1304 views | WeWereZombies |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:29 - Mar 9 by BlueNomad |
Leviathan is a good read once you have deciphered it. |
There is a 2014 film directed and co-written by Andrey Zvyagintsev (don't ask me to pronounce the surname) called 'Leviathan' set in a fictional town in the Murmansk oblast, great cinema and piercing social commentary on Putin's Russia as well as the wider World. In the interviews which accompany the DVD Zvyagintsev is questioned about Hobbes and confesses to having been completely unaware of him until after the film (being a modern day retelling of part of the Book of Job the Biblical aspect is what he based his workon). This fascinated the interviewer because he was unaware of the Bible reference and only knew the word Leviathan from Hobbes.
I'm the same and when I mentioned this to the film club secretary that I borrowed the DVD from I found out that he was unaware of Hobbes and only knew Leviathan from the Bible.
One thing that has not come out in all these discussions on monarchy, but that Humanists get hot under the collar about, are the twenty six unelected Church of England bishops that sit in the House of Lords. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| The audacity of speaking out on 14:34 - Mar 9 with 1285 views | lightuser |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:19 - Mar 9 by WeWereZombies |
Hobbes is the more relevant of the two really, Machiavelli's works is to a large extent timeless in its harsh exposure of human nature but is more important in the lessons about the conduct necessary from a Prince. Not that Cesare Borgia always followed Machiavelli's advice, and there is an argument that the Pope had the overarching power and the financial clout to be regarded as the sovereign anyway.
When I started to study Hobbes I had a derisory view that he was a timid writer, what we may nowadays see as a YouTube influencer, who ran away to Paris to escape being strung up during the English Civil War. I have come to recognise that he needed to be in a detached position to analyse what was going on and then come back with the ideas about the sovereign as the national embodiment of all the people but similarly detached so as to have an independent viewpoint that stretches beyond fixed terms.
During my undergraduate course the advice was to just read the first two books of 'Leviathan' and forget the last two because that was just religious 'stuff' but it has been an aim of mine to go back and re-red what I studied and to go on and complete the whole book. Far too much in my 'to read' bookcases but every so often I have occasion to move something onto the top shelf (or imminent to use the bon mot), like 'The Prince' or 'Republic', 'Leviathan' has a timeless quality and probably deserves my attention sooner rather than later. |
Maybe we are looking at this too deeply compared to the op. Perhaps Titus Groan and Gormengaust are more relevant? The pomposity of Monarchy in general rather than the broader issues of their relevance/place in the state.
I'm not sure that the op was expecting to have to read up on hobbes and machievelli when he put forward his op?
Experts taking over his thread. Tsk... [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 14:45]
|  | | |
| The audacity of speaking out on 14:55 - Mar 9 with 1250 views | WeWereZombies |
| The audacity of speaking out on 14:34 - Mar 9 by lightuser |
Maybe we are looking at this too deeply compared to the op. Perhaps Titus Groan and Gormengaust are more relevant? The pomposity of Monarchy in general rather than the broader issues of their relevance/place in the state.
I'm not sure that the op was expecting to have to read up on hobbes and machievelli when he put forward his op?
Experts taking over his thread. Tsk... [Post edited 9 Mar 2021 14:45]
|
Is it possible to look into how we are governed too deeply? | |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 16:15 - Mar 9 with 1186 views | Radlett_blue |
| The audacity of speaking out on 11:08 - Mar 9 by BlueNomad |
For many years I was a republican but in view of the way politics has degenerated to the extent that it has I have swung round to believing we should retain the monarchy. Just look at the quality of our politicians, their motives and, put bluntly, corruption.
The only way we could do it is to have a president who sits above the fray, the German model for example, but I'm not sure that we have anyone of that quality to be honest now that the Clarkes and Heseltines are getting so old. (I quote them because they are decent, balanced people even though they are old-school Tories). |
A President doesn't have to be a former politician. The role of a Head of State can be largely ceremonial e.g. Ireland, where it seems to work well.
If we become a republic, I would make it a rule that the President cannot be a former member of the Lords or Commons. And yes, we might end up with Boaty Mcboatface. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 16:48 - Mar 9 with 1158 views | jaykay |
| The audacity of speaking out on 08:35 - Mar 9 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Glad you clarified that because I was just thinking what a load of bollox that would be in the manner GB has repeatedly portrayed it! |
strange he missed the last part of the quote, then added it on on as if that was his thinking |  |
| forensic experts say footers and spruces fingerprints were not found at the scene after the weekends rows |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 17:54 - Mar 9 with 1128 views | noggin |
"While some recollections may vary" is the important bit. |  |
| |
| The audacity of speaking out on 17:58 - Mar 9 with 1113 views | bluelagos |
| The audacity of speaking out on 17:54 - Mar 9 by noggin |
"While some recollections may vary" is the important bit. |
Which is a fair comment. They are not calling Harry or Megan liars which I think would be bang out of order.
(and those who have done are bang out of order imho) | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
