The Queen

[shull]

 

[shull]

King Danny Lennon

King Tom Hendrie

Traitor Ross

[DougJamie]

3 hours ago, JJ McG said:

Calling anyone King in this day and age is absolutely embarrassing.

Well they said that after Charles the 2nd...that worked out

[faraway saint]

3 hours ago, JJ McG said:

Calling anyone King in this day and age is absolutely embarrassing.

King Kong? 😜

[W6er]

I've never been particularly enamoured by Charles, or King Charles III as he is now, but I thought his speech was poignant and dignified. 

I have heard people on here suggest that they felt it bizarre that people mourn her. I consider that almost every day I handle coins on which is etched her portrait; I recall pledging allegiance to her aged about seven years' old as a cub scout and later during my very brief stint in the military; my father was born under her reign and she appointed Winston Churchill as her first prime minister; I watched her speech most years on Christmas Day; and of course I have seen her in the news and in the newspapers. It's the end of an era, and I won't pretend that doesn't sadden me a little.

I am a libertarian - I very strongly believe in freedom of speech. So those so inclined, you're perfectly entitled - as far as I am concerned, but this is a private forum belonging to @div, remember - to make crass remarks. To be fair, I don't think I have seen any on here, and I hope that remains the case. Of course, I understand that some folk are Republicans, and I respect your right to an opinion - how you think a president like Blair would be better than a Monarch, is beyond my understanding. Should a president be elected, you will have all the sleaze and politics that comes with it. You won't convince me that isn't a bad thing.

With me, I am more a fan of the Monarchy as an institution, as opposed to a personality. But as I said, Charles has worried me, and I am not necessarily a fan of his. However, there are signs he might change my mind.

It doesn't work as well when the Monarchs are different genders, but:

The Queen is dead; long live the King!

Edited September 9, 2022 by W6er

[Callum Gilhooley]

3 hours ago, JJ McG said:

Calling anyone King in this day and age is absolutely embarrassing.

Nope. Not havin that 😎😎😎

 

[Slarti]

I've never been particularly enamoured by Charles, or King Charles III as he is now, but I thought his speech was poignant and dignified. 
I have heard people on here suggest that they felt it bizarre that people mourn her. I consider that almost every day I handle coins on which is etched her portrait; I recall pledging allegiance to her aged about seven years' old as a cub scout and later during my very brief stint in the military; my father was born under her reign and she appointed Winston Churchill as her first prime minister; I watched her speech most years on Christmas Day; and of course I have seen her in the news and in the newspapers. It's the end of an era, and I won't pretend that doesn't sadden me a little.
I am a libertarian - I very strongly believe in freedom of speech. So those so inclined, you're perfectly entitled - as far as I am concerned, but this is a private forum belonging to [mention=2]div[/mention], remember - to make crass remarks. To be fair, I don't think I have seen any on here, and I hope that remains the case. Of course, I understand that some folk are Republicans, and I respect your right to an opinion - how you think a president like Blair would be better than a Monarch, is beyond my understanding. Should a president be elected, you will have all the sleaze and politics that comes with it. You won't convince me that isn't a bad thing.
With me, I am more a fan of the Monarchy as an institution, as opposed to a personality. But as I said, Charles has worried me, and I am not necessarily a fan of his. However, there are signs he might change my mind. [emoji4]
It doesn't work as well when the Monarchs are different genders, but:
The Queen is dead; long live the King!

You don't need an elected president, as such, you could have the same system as now, it would just cut out the step of having to have the monarch signing things off. Nothing else, in political terms, need really change. After all, they're really just a figurehead with no real power.

[W6er]

15 minutes ago, Slarti said:

1 hour ago, W6er said:

I've never been particularly enamoured by Charles, or King Charles III as he is now, but I thought his speech was poignant and dignified. 
I have heard people on here suggest that they felt it bizarre that people mourn her. I consider that almost every day I handle coins on which is etched her portrait; I recall pledging allegiance to her aged about seven years' old as a cub scout and later during my very brief stint in the military; my father was born under her reign and she appointed Winston Churchill as her first prime minister; I watched her speech most years on Christmas Day; and of course I have seen her in the news and in the newspapers. It's the end of an era, and I won't pretend that doesn't sadden me a little.
I am a libertarian - I very strongly believe in freedom of speech. So those so inclined, you're perfectly entitled - as far as I am concerned, but this is a private forum belonging to [mention=2]div[/mention], remember - to make crass remarks. To be fair, I don't think I have seen any on here, and I hope that remains the case. Of course, I understand that some folk are Republicans, and I respect your right to an opinion - how you think a president like Blair would be better than a Monarch, is beyond my understanding. Should a president be elected, you will have all the sleaze and politics that comes with it. You won't convince me that isn't a bad thing.
With me, I am more a fan of the Monarchy as an institution, as opposed to a personality. But as I said, Charles has worried me, and I am not necessarily a fan of his. However, there are signs he might change my mind.
It doesn't work as well when the Monarchs are different genders, but:
The Queen is dead; long live the King!

You don't need an elected president, as such, you could have the same system as now, it would just cut out the step of having to have the monarch signing things off. Nothing else, in political terms, need really change. After all, they're really just a figurehead with no real power.

But isn't it better to have a ceremonial head of state who would entertain the likes of Donald Trump, Putin or a future Mme Le Pen, when our own prime minister might be opposed to that person for political reasons? Isn't that the point? You have a staunch Labour prime minister like Corbyn and a figure like Netanyahu and a politically neutral figurehead is essential.

[W6er]

Tucker nails it (watch until the end):

 

 

[StanleySaint]

7 hours ago, W6er said:

I've never been particularly enamoured by Charles, or King Charles III as he is now, but I thought his speech was poignant and dignified. 

I have heard people on here suggest that they felt it bizarre that people mourn her. I consider that almost every day I handle coins on which is etched her portrait; I recall pledging allegiance to her aged about seven years' old as a cub scout and later during my very brief stint in the military; my father was born under her reign and she appointed Winston Churchill as her first prime minister; I watched her speech most years on Christmas Day; and of course I have seen her in the news and in the newspapers. It's the end of an era, and I won't pretend that doesn't sadden me a little.

I am a libertarian - I very strongly believe in freedom of speech. So those so inclined, you're perfectly entitled - as far as I am concerned, but this is a private forum belonging to @div, remember - to make crass remarks. To be fair, I don't think I have seen any on here, and I hope that remains the case. Of course, I understand that some folk are Republicans, and I respect your right to an opinion - how you think a president like Blair would be better than a Monarch, is beyond my understanding. Should a president be elected, you will have all the sleaze and politics that comes with it. You won't convince me that isn't a bad thing.

With me, I am more a fan of the Monarchy as an institution, as opposed to a personality. But as I said, Charles has worried me, and I am not necessarily a fan of his. However, there are signs he might change my mind.

It doesn't work as well when the Monarchs are different genders, but:

The Queen is dead; long live the King!

Decent post @W6er with much I agree with, Charles was always able to launch into controversial subjects as a prince but now as King he needs to set the right tone for the monarchy an he's made a good start, I can't help thinking that William has had an impact on his father's approach and I'd expect that to continue. On a different note my Mrs said that given Charles' age we might see out two monarchs in our lifetime and that that was unusual to which I pointed out my grandfather had seen 4, Victoria, Edward VII, George V and George VI, I'm certain there are others out there with relatives in the same group.

[shull]

 

[antrin]

W6er…?

I watched the end bit (as you suggested) and Carlson (sp?) nails NOTHING.  

1.  The Bristol statue was of someone who had enriched himself with huge slave-ownership, transportation and exploitation.  The local Bristol (predominantly black) population had, for a long time, been negotiating with the Council. for at least some attempt to redress the imbalance in how the slave owner was represented: as a “benign force for good”.  The council had been stonewalling for years.  Their action was reasonable and proportionate.

2.   Churchill WAS a racist.  He expressed that without shame.

so the people that took those actions were NOT trying to change history, as he avers…

They were trying to retrieve truth and balance in the UK’s presentation of history.

MAGA liars just… lie.

 

[shull]

 

[W6er]

19 minutes ago, antrin said:

W6er…?

I watched the end bit (as you suggested) and Carlson (sp?) nails NOTHING.  

1.  The Bristol statue was of someone who had enriched himself with huge slave-ownership, transportation and exploitation.  The local Bristol (predominantly black) population had, for a long time, been negotiating with the Council. for at least some attempt to redress the imbalance in how the slave owner was represented: as a “benign force for good”.  The council had been stonewalling for years.  Their action was reasonable and proportionate.

2.   Churchill WAS a racist.  He expressed that without shame.

so the people that took those actions were NOT trying to change history, as he avers…

They were trying to retrieve truth and balance in the UK’s presentation of history.

MAGA liars just… lie.

 

1) Have you any evidence to substantiate your claim that the local Bristol population was 'predominantly black'? In law one who asserts must prove. Even if that is the case, which I doubt, I suspect the vast majority of the black population moved to Bristol after WWII, in which case it was well over 100+ years since the abolition of slavery (abolished in 1833; nearly 200 years ago). To voluntarily move to another country, presumably for a better life, and tear down its statues is an act of vandalism - though I do not accept it was black people who were responsible.

2) Churchill had racist views, as did many people during that time - "keep England white". He also was premier during WWII, when he saw us defeat the Nazis. If that doesn't deserve a statue in his honour then I don't know what does.

I understand the UK threatened to go to war with Brazil over the issue of slavery - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-Brazilian_Treaty_of_1826 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by W6er

[antrin]

50 minutes ago, W6er said:

1) Have you any evidence to substantiate your claim that the local Bristol population was 'predominantly black'? In law one who asserts must prove. Even if that is the case, which I doubt, I suspect the vast majority of the black population moved to Bristol after WWII, in which case it was well over 100+ years since the abolition of slavery (abolished in 1833; nearly 200 years ago). To voluntarily move to another country, presumably for a better life, and tear down its statues is an act of vandalism - though I do not accept it was black people who were responsible.

2) Churchill had racist views, as did many people during that time - "keep England white". He also was premier during WWII, when he saw us defeat the Nazis. If that doesn't deserve a statue in his honour then I don't know what does.

I understand the UK threatened to go to war with Brazil over the issue of slavery - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-Brazilian_Treaty_of_1826 

 

 

1) You’re surprisingly not great at reading (though I realised my phrasing would possibly prompt an erroneous response).  Mea culpa…?

I never stated that population of Bristol was predominantly black.  I wrote that that was the section of a society(mostly) which had been trying for some time (years!) to get the council to do something about the statue.

And - you may not have noticed - that black people have lived in Bristol for way longer longer than you suggest AND that , like non-black people they actually breed!  Gasp.  Who knew?  I suggest that black activists in the riots were local English people who (like their parents, who came to UK cos they were asked in by us!) have no need to be “grateful” for being alive and seeking respect and dignity!

“ To voluntarily move to another country, presumably for a better life”

Jeezo!! - condescend, why don’t you?!

As an economic migrant Scot who similarly moved to England for my idea of improving myself, I tug the forelock to no one.

Have YOU always worked within a 5k radius of your place of birth?

(I’m starting to understand your support for Churchill…)

 

2.  I think I’ve actually heard about WWII….  And I do know history…

…which is why I know Churchill was a racist - and that is the accurate and honest comment that had been added to the plinth on which his statue stands. Carlson was lying. That addition was not “trying to change history” - it was bringing the truth out into the sunshine!

Finally, what possible relevance a random Wikipedia quote from 1826 bears to my post, is far beyond me.

But if you want to play salient wiki-quotes, I’m your man!

Racist Churchill…

During WWII, there was this…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Winston_Churchill#Bengal_famine

Then… 

”Churchill's comments on Indians – as well as his views on race as a whole – were judged by his contemporaries within the Conservative Party to be extreme.”  in the 1930s.

There's a whole litany about his undeniable racism. He was out of time…

 

 

Edited September 10, 2022 by antrin

[Sue Denim]

21 hours ago, faraway saint said:

Aye, a cheap shot, been thrown at me plenty, says more about them than me. 

Who is your big team though?

St Mirren or Arbroath? 

[faraway saint]

1 minute ago, Sue Denim said:

Who is your big team though?

St Mirren or Arbroath? 

Depends. 🤪

[Slarti]

But isn't it better to have a ceremonial head of state who would entertain the likes of Donald Trump, Putin or a future Mme Le Pen, when our own prime minister might be opposed to that person for political reasons? Isn't that the point? You have a staunch Labour prime minister like Corbyn and a figure like Netanyahu and a politically neutral figurehead is essential.

No.

[Slarti]

Tucker nails it (watch until the end):
 
 

Tucker Carkson, FFS, the guy is either 1. a complete idiot or 2. a liar who panders to complete idiots for financial gain. I would guess the latter, and he's made himself very rich off of it.

[faraway saint]

7 minutes ago, Slarti said:

Tucker Carkson,

Wasn't he in Grange Hill? 

Edited September 10, 2022 by faraway saint

[antrin]

11 hours ago, W6er said:

But isn't it better to have a ceremonial head of state who would entertain the likes of Donald Trump, Putin or a future Mme Le Pen, when our own prime minister might be opposed to that person for political reasons? Isn't that the point? You have a staunch Labour prime minister like Corbyn and a figure like Netanyahu and a politically neutral figurehead is essential.

It's ludicrous to suggest that a centuries-old, establishment, land-owning, billionaire Royal Family is anything f**kin like “neutral”!

it never has been.

[Callum Gilhooley]

What the actual f**k is going on ?

Yes, Queens deid , I get it - lotsa people are sad.

All football has been called off today as a mark of respect ( Waaaay over the top IMO ) Yet Cricket goes ahead at international level in Engerlund , Rugby Union down south goes ahead , Rugby League goes ahead and is even shown LIVE on Telly today !!

😡😡😡

[Rascal]

41 minutes ago, antrin said:

It's ludicrous to suggest that a centuries-old, establishment, land-owning, billionaire Royal Family is anything f**kin like “neutral”!

it never has been.

I’m not drawn towards having a monarchy. It’s existence depends upon the establishment and it’s preservation. Has done since time began.

[saint in exile]

Sorry, W6er, but as soon as you bring in f**ker Carlson to support your argument, you've lost. The guy is a lying imbecile of the highest order.

[Rascal]

14 hours ago, Slarti said:

15 hours ago, W6er said:

I've never been particularly enamoured by Charles, or King Charles III as he is now, but I thought his speech was poignant and dignified. 
I have heard people on here suggest that they felt it bizarre that people mourn her. I consider that almost every day I handle coins on which is etched her portrait; I recall pledging allegiance to her aged about seven years' old as a cub scout and later during my very brief stint in the military; my father was born under her reign and she appointed Winston Churchill as her first prime minister; I watched her speech most years on Christmas Day; and of course I have seen her in the news and in the newspapers. It's the end of an era, and I won't pretend that doesn't sadden me a little.
I am a libertarian - I very strongly believe in freedom of speech. So those so inclined, you're perfectly entitled - as far as I am concerned, but this is a private forum belonging to [mention=2]div[/mention], remember - to make crass remarks. To be fair, I don't think I have seen any on here, and I hope that remains the case. Of course, I understand that some folk are Republicans, and I respect your right to an opinion - how you think a president like Blair would be better than a Monarch, is beyond my understanding. Should a president be elected, you will have all the sleaze and politics that comes with it. You won't convince me that isn't a bad thing.
With me, I am more a fan of the Monarchy as an institution, as opposed to a personality. But as I said, Charles has worried me, and I am not necessarily a fan of his. However, there are signs he might change my mind.
It doesn't work as well when the Monarchs are different genders, but:
The Queen is dead; long live the King!

You don't need an elected president, as such, you could have the same system as now, it would just cut out the step of having to have the monarch signing things off. Nothing else, in political terms, need really change. After all, they're really just a figurehead with no real power.

Kerry put it well when he pointed out that the power of the monarch(y) is to be able to convene. But. I see your point. Slim it down, keep the touristy bits if that brings in money. Ceremonial would do.