Something I read earlier today that I don't know where to put

Charles has waited a LONG time. I hope he gets to enjoy it for a few years
 
But the Queen held it all together. No-one else can be what she was. It may just start to all unravel, without her
 
RJM said:
The monarchy is a huge asset to Britain, imo. It's probably Britain's greatest tourist attraction, apart from the gravitas of history. Without it, what would England be? The ceremonials are so grand, without the American glitz of showmanship.
Click to expand...
I read an article which quite effectively knocked that argument.

In France, Versailles draws about as much tourist income as the Royal Family – and there's no royal family.

People come to look at palaces, castles, etc. Not necessarily the family.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
RJM said:
But the Queen held it all together. No-one else can be what she was. It may just start to all unravel, without her
Click to expand...
I agree.

But what actually did she hold together? Not the empire, that went. Not the Anglican Church, that's in turmoil. Not the family. and she's powerless in the face of parliamentary shenanigans. Boris lied to her, and she probably knew it, and was powerless to do anything about it.

I think the longevity of the RF rests on the fact that it's effectively powerless. It's a figurehead, it has a historical meaning, but increasing lacking relevance, and I don't think Charles III will be accorded the same respect as the late Queen ... and William even less.

The Commonwealth is already signalling that countries will be withdrawing – NZ, Australia and others ...

So in the end, a tourist attraction at best ...
 
Is that the Irish in you talking? The last English Republic wasn't too pretty for Ireland?
 
But I am conflicted ... I do respond to it all, tears looming at times over the weekend.

Sheesh, I choked up when I first heard the news ...
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Thomas said:
But I am conflicted ... I do respond to it all, tears looming at times over the weekend.

Sheesh, I choked up when I first heard the news ...
Click to expand...
Nobody can replace her. She is an icon along with Nelson Mandela and Churchill -- a few others. The great people.* Harry and Meg don't cut it quite the same ...

* Great world figures ... there are many great people living ordinary lives, who are not public figures
 
Last edited:
But I like Wills and Kate for the new generation. They are sensible and dignified
 
muhammad_isa said:
think we'll all have to wait until we die for that ! ;)
Click to expand...
Or I can choose to walk away from material attachments, never mind whatever others choose to do with their lives?
muhammad_isa said:
Bees have a queen. They feed her "Royal jelly". :D
Click to expand...
She gives birth to them all. Her existence sustains the hive. Without her there wouldn't be any bees. And bees sustain nature ...
 
muhammad_isa said:
Do you know of any nation without leaders?
Click to expand...
Tribes elect leaders for war, then the leaders get dug in and basically live off the proceeds, until they get chucked out or die. But the Queen is something else. The King is something else. The King is more than a leader. He is the heart of the people? He is annointed of God. By God. Arthurian legend: If the King prospers, the people and the land prosper?

Reverse too: when the King languishes, so do the people.
 
Last edited:
Kings aren't elected or chosen -- unless there's dispute -- kings are divinely ordained (by birth)?
 
I'm not a Royalist.
..but I respect authority, unless it is clear that they oppose righteousness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Alexander the Great was a born King, as was Darius and the other kings he conquered. Xerxes and Leonidas were both born kings. Kings have held authority through history. The people held to their king. It was the heart of their national identity. With all the royal intrigues involved, of course. Democratic elections are quite new.
 
Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine said:
At least there isn't/wasn't Tangerine Palpatine to make it all about himself! (I apologize for inserting American politics here.)

Phyllis Sidhe_Uaine
Click to expand...
I hope he fails. I hope if America decided to have a king, it wouldn't be him ...
 
muhammad_isa said:
I'm not a Royalist.
..but I respect authority, unless it is clear that they oppose righteousness.
Click to expand...
That's why I'm a republican ... or rather, the Royal Family has had its day.

Self-righteous, yes, but righteousness, defenders they were not.

+++

Here's a thing:
If you go to a popular exhibit at a gallery, a museum, whatever, you arrive, they issue you an armband and a time-slot, and you go away, and come back when it's your time.

This could have been done for the crowds coming to view the lying-in-state. But it wasn't. Why?

Because queuing, apart from one of those things we do really, really well, also bonds the people in the queue, and subtly reinforces the structures of authority. It's a message to those in the queue, and it's a message to us who followed it.

It wasn't about getting people into Westminster Hall. Had they done a modern queue system, a lot more people, the old and infirm, those with kids, dependents or jobs, or whatever, would have been able to go and visit, but it would have been less of a public spectacle.

+++

That the whole public thing 'is for the benefit of the public' is a nonsense. Nothing the RF does is public domain unless it serves an end. The RF is intensely private. The usage and subsequent management and mistreatment of a naive 16-year-old Diana is a matter of public record. She was the fairy-tale princess required for a public wedding. Camilla, the woman he actually loved, wouldn't fit the bill. The whole thing was a populist balloon-on-a-stick.

The covering of Andrew is an example of the misuse of authority.

Diana's death and funeral was never meant to be a public event, the Queen didn't want it, and tried to resist it.

+++

Royal births, weddings, funerals, etc., were never public spectacles until Queen Victoria's day.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top