Monarchy debate/discussion

[Antlion]

6 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

Where are you getting an 1100 year line of succession from?

I was wondering about that - and their longevity is far from unique too.

ETA: Aye, the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty are relative parvenus. The Yamatos of Japan have managed 1500 years, where the British crowns have relied on intermarriage to bring in other dynasties, and revolutions and parliamentary Acts have brought in still others. There’s not some remarkable 1100 years of uninterrupted magical blood there (which wouldn’t be much to celebrate, as there’s no such thing as magical blood) - political circumstances, accidents of birth, and lack of direct heirs have meant that the throne has been warmed by people loosely related to one another rather than a direct line of parents and children.

Edited June 3, 2022 by Antlion

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Pretty bizarre point. Why were people up in arms about MPs fleecing the taxpayers over dodgy expenses claims when the sums involved are a drop in the ocean compared to the wastage of money on worthless PPE, and when tourists flood the Palace of Westminster and Big Ben? Why were people up in arms about the various cash for questions scandals when the sums the MPs earned were minuscule compared to the billions lost when the government wrote off fraud?
Pointing out how one waste of money differs from another waste of money doesn’t make either look better. It just makes the UK look even worse. 

It's almost as if he doesn't like people of a different skin colour receiving financial assistance. A truly remarkable development.

[Aim Here]

2 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said:

2 hours ago, Antlion said:

Pretty bizarre point. Why were people up in arms about MPs fleecing the taxpayers over dodgy expenses claims when the sums involved are a drop in the ocean compared to the wastage of money on worthless PPE, and when tourists flood the Palace of Westminster and Big Ben? Why were people up in arms about the various cash for questions scandals when the sums the MPs earned were minuscule compared to the billions lost when the government wrote off fraud?
Pointing out how one waste of money differs from another waste of money doesn’t make either look better. It just makes the UK look even worse. 

It's almost as if he doesn't like people of a different skin colour receiving financial assistance. A truly remarkable development.

Government development aid isn't 'financial assistance' to foreigners. The aid is 'in kind', and whatever that stuff is is provided by British companies. Foreign aid is a big subsidy to British corporations who supply whatever the recipients need.

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

1 minute ago, Aim Here said:

Government development aid isn't 'financial assistance' to foreigners. The aid is 'in kind', and whatever that stuff is is provided by British companies. Foreign aid is a big subsidy to British corporations who supply whatever the recipients need.

It’s a modern day brown envelope, or big sack of cash with a pound sign on it, if you will.

[Clockwork]

Where are you getting an 1100 year line of succession from?

Poor turn of phrase perhaps, unsure how else to term it. The line dating from Aethlestan 920’s AD? Line of ascension to the throne maybe?

[Antlion]

5 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

Poor turn of phrase perhaps, unsure how else to term it. The line dating from AEthelstan 920’s AD? Line of ascension to the throne maybe?

It’s not really a line - more a massively tangled collection of lines. The British monarchical line of descent has become so convoluted thanks to dynastic dead ends and political and religious shifts (and resultant bars on direct heirs) that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas are far from a direct line from the medieval warlords. Only, as far as I can tell from hasty googling, the Japanese have maintained a direct line, and for even longer. Suggesting that Liz Windsor is a direct descendant of, say, Elizabeth I, is just wrong - more like an extremely distant great-great x1000 twentieth cousin sixty times removed. As far as magic-blood, direct-line monarchies go, Britain has pretty much made it up as it went along, so that we can’t really boast much.

Didn’t Tony Robinson do a documentary about who really should be king or queen if it the rules of succession hadn’t been trampled on so often?

[Clockwork]

It’s not really a line - more a massively tangled collection of lines. The British monarchical line of descent has become so convoluted thanks to dynastic dead ends and political and religious shifts (and resultant bars on direct heirs) that the Saxe-Coburg-Gothas are far from a direct line from the medieval warlords. Only, as far as I can tell from hasty googling, the Japanese have maintained a direct line, and for even longer. Suggesting that Liz Windsor is a direct descendant of, say, Elizabeth I, is just wrong - more like an extremely distant great-great x1000 twentieth cousin sixty times removed. As far as magic-blood, direct-line monarchies go, Britain has pretty much made it up as it went along, so that we can’t really boast much.
Didn’t Tony Robinson do a documentary about who really should be king or queen if it the rules of succession hadn’t been trampled on so often?

As I said, it’s an interesting timeline that chronicles the modern history of this country that we live in (the notion of a direct blood line, not so much). The Tony Robinson documentary looks a worthwhile search though!

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

Personally, I’m glad I picked Springfield.

[Antlion]

11 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

As I said, it’s an interesting timeline that chronicles the modern history of this country that we live in (the notion of a direct blood line, not so much). The Tony Robinson documentary looks a worthwhile search though!

I tend to feel that the monarchy pretty much stopped chronicling the zeitgeist on Edward VII’s death. He was the last one to give a name to an era: when you hear “Edwardian”, you think posh folk, big hats, and grand country houses with shooting parties and servants. The current monarchy seems pretty much caught in that long-gone age, albeit an antiquated holdout. The Edwardian period was the last one where the monarch set the tone of British society - or at least the top of it. Since then, we’ve become far more diverse, less beholden to the upper classes as our celebrities de jour, and basically completely cut off from the aristocracy (which pretty much fell into abeyance as societal leaders when their “big houses” started breaking up).

Today, we tend to think of eras as linked to political figures who direct our lives - the Thatcher era; the Blair era. No one genuinely thinks of any of us as Elizabethans (and we think of the 20s and 30s as the Jazz Age and the pre-war years rather than Georgian). My only guess as to why, is that, again, the current Elizabeth, George V, and George VI (I had to look them up to see who the kings even were after Edward VII) just don’t and didn’t dominate or direct society.

The Tony Robinson doc is on YouTube btw: 

 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

I still pine for the Jazz Mag age.

[Mark Connolly]

4 hours ago, Melanius Mullarkay said:

Let’s face it. Even I work harder than the wizened old hag.

[Antlion]

El Barto strikes again. And he’s not wrong.

[Clockwork]

I tend to feel that the monarchy pretty much stopped chronicling the zeitgeist on Edward VII’s death. He was the last one to give a name to an era: when you hear “Edwardian”, you think posh folk, big hats, and grand country houses with shooting parties and servants. The current monarchy seems pretty much caught in that long-gone age, albeit an antiquated holdout. The Edwardian period was the last one where the monarch set the tone of British society - or at least the top of it. Since then, we’ve become far more diverse, less beholden to the upper classes as our celebrities de jour, and basically completely cut off from the aristocracy (which pretty much fell into abeyance as societal leaders when their “big houses” started breaking up).
Today, we tend to think of eras as linked to political figures who direct our lives - the Thatcher era; the Blair era. No one genuinely thinks of any of us as Elizabethans (and we think of the 20s and 30s as the Jazz Age and the pre-war years rather than Georgian). My only guess as to why, is that, again, the current Elizabeth, George V, and George VI (I had to look them up to see who the kings even were after Edward VII) just don’t and didn’t dominate or direct society.
The Tony Robinson doc is on YouTube btw: 
 

That’s great, Cheers[emoji106]

[Antlion]

2 minutes ago, Clockwork said:

That’s great, Cheers

Nae worries!

[Clown Job]

6 hours ago, beefybake said:

Thank you, I remember that investigation. As I recall, not a single other paper, or broadcast media chose to pick up

that story, or run it.  The so-called royals are the relics of the days of the robber barons. The finery, titles,  patronages just

put a gloss on it. They should all be swept away.

Don’t forget she was also named in 

The Panama papers

Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund as part of an offshore portfolio that has never before been disclosed, according to documents revealed in an investigation into offshore tax havens.

Files from a substantial leak show for the first time how the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, has held and still holds investments via funds that have put money into an array of businesses, including the off-licence chain Threshers, and the retailer BrightHouse, which has been criticised for exploiting thousands of poor families and vulnerable people.

[Antlion]

5 minutes ago, Clown Job said:

Don’t forget she was also named in 

The Panama papers

Millions of pounds from the Queen’s private estate has been invested in a Cayman Islands fund as part of an offshore portfolio that has never before been disclosed, according to documents revealed in an investigation into offshore tax havens.

Files from a substantial leak show for the first time how the Queen, through the Duchy of Lancaster, has held and still holds investments via funds that have put money into an array of businesses, including the off-licence chain Threshers, and the retailer BrightHouse, which has been criticised for exploiting thousands of poor families and vulnerable people.

If I recall correctly, this was quickly hidden and those media outlets that did report it accompanied it with deferential PR quotes from “the Palace” which blamed her financial advisers and implied she knew nothing about her own finances (this, the greediest old b*****d in a line of people whose existence is predicated on exploiting those beneath them for personal gain).

[DA Baracus]

She has an utterly abysmal fashion sense. Her outfits are utterly abhorrent.

Also, corgis are shite dogs.

[Fullerene]

3 hours ago, DA Baracus said:

HEFTIL?

How dare you denigrate her majesty like that! God will save her but will damn you!

Oops.  I didn't mean to be disrespectful.  I think she is doing a splendid job.

Oh and while I am at it, I think Kim Jong Un is doing a splendid job as well.

Hope you happy now.

[tamthebam]

This is for my fellow traitorous scum on here

I had a look into this whole Jubilee thing. A popular on-line encyclopedia has this to say (you may have a wry grin that it's all about ownership of land and slaves):

The Jubilee (Hebrew: יובל yōḇel; Yiddish: yoyvl) is the year at the end of seven cycles of shmita (Sabbatical years) and, according to biblical regulations, had a special impact on the ownership and management of land in the Land of Israel. According to the Book of Leviticus, Hebrew slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven, and the mercies of Yahweh would be particularly manifest. 

Many years ago I recall being taught that a skint Pope declared 1300 a Jubilee Year where Pilgrims coming to Rome would be granted an indulgence, or time off Purgatory for sins. It was basically a money making exercise. The Jubilee Year was so popular later Popes declared them all the time and the staunch amongst us may be interested to know the idea of the modern Jubilee was to raise cash for the RC Church. 

The first Royal Jubilee in Britain only happened in 1809 for that not particularly popular monarch George III. This celebrated his 50th year as King. As it was a time of severe suppression of radicals I suspect it was arranged as a publicity stunt to boost the popularity of the regime at the time. Plus ca meme chose and all that. 

Military deserters and prisoners of war were pardoned and debtors were discharged, excluding those who were of French origin due to the ongoing Napoleonic War

Interesting that debtors were discharged. Nowadays in the midst of severe economic crisis we just spunk money on a big party. When the US President leaves office he or she can issue Presidential pardons. Would it not have been fitting for Her Majesty to pardon a few non-dangerous prisoners, nominally detained at Her Pleasure after all. The sort of folk like single mothers banged up for shoplifting. Or maybe cancel the debt owed by some of those Commonwealth countries that are so precious to her. That's what happened in the Biblical Jubilee detailed above. 

 

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

2 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

This is for my fellow traitorous scum on here

I had a look into this whole Jubilee thing. A popular on-line encyclopedia has this to say (you may have a wry grin that it's all about ownership of land and slaves):

The Jubilee (Hebrew: יובל yōḇel; Yiddish: yoyvl) is the year at the end of seven cycles of shmita (Sabbatical years) and, according to biblical regulations, had a special impact on the ownership and management of land in the Land of Israel. According to the Book of Leviticus, Hebrew slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven, and the mercies of Yahweh would be particularly manifest. 

Many years ago I recall being taught that a skint Pope declared 1300 a Jubilee Year where Pilgrims coming to Rome would be granted an indulgence, or time off Purgatory for sins. It was basically a money making exercise. The Jubilee Year was so popular later Popes declared them all the time and the staunch amongst us may be interested to know the idea of the modern Jubilee was to raise cash for the RC Church. 

The first Royal Jubilee in Britain only happened in 1809 for that not particularly popular monarch George III. This celebrated his 50th year as King. As it was a time of severe suppression of radicals I suspect it was arranged as a publicity stunt to boost the popularity of the regime at the time. Plus ca meme chose and all that. 

Military deserters and prisoners of war were pardoned and debtors were discharged, excluding those who were of French origin due to the ongoing Napoleonic War

Interesting that debtors were discharged. Nowadays in the midst of severe economic crisis we just spunk money on a big party. When the US President leaves office he or she can issue Presidential pardons. Would it not have been fitting for Her Majesty to pardon a few non-dangerous prisoners, nominally detained at Her Pleasure after all. The sort of folk like single mothers banged up for shoplifting. Or maybe cancel the debt owed by some of those Commonwealth countries that are so precious to her. That's what happened in the Biblical Jubilee detailed above. 
 

It’s also a term for a frozen Kwenchy Kup.

 

FTFY