Bbc headline Princess Kate passes PADI In Mustique is not news

[elizadolittlechoc]

Or is it that I am so proud of my own daughter for working lots of shifts in student bars whilst studying for end of year exams, to pay for her PADI in UK waters, as well as passing the theory, supporting small Britsh businesses, seems slightly worthier? There is bigger news in the world this weekend.

Too much is done supposedly under a "democratic mandate" when there was nothing of the sort. When people vote, they are not saying they agree with everything the person or party they are voting for stands for and in any event, they then have to watch all sorts of thing that were never discussed being done in their name. There is probably a lack of antipathy towards the monarchy because they are just expensive figureheads and not even pretending to be democratic. Sadly.

When I think of the !monarchy, I am reminded of Tony Benn's questions to ask the powerful:
WHAT POWER HAVE YOU GOT?
WHERE DID YOU GET IT FROM?
IN WHOSE INTERESTS DO YOU EXERCISE IT?
TO WHOM ARE YOU ACCOUNTABLE?
HOW CAN WE GET RID OF YOU?

Well, there you have your answer, then. For the monarchy, the last response would be, "Off with their heads!" For elected politicians it would be, "your friends decide to stab you in the back and the media opts to turn on you." I don't think the electorate usually gets to vote them out unless and until they call an election, and then there isn't a palatable alternative, anyway, because most people want to vote, not stand for election and most people who vote are scared of the potential consequences of big changes, so they don't vote for big change. And so it takes world wars and massive upheaval to change a mindset, because then you've already lost what you are scared to lose.

To which the answers are

1. We don't know
2. because the current head of state's father and grandfather were the head of state.
3. We don't know
4. No one directly
5. we can't

An example of Clarence House misuse of power. On a recent trip to Cornwall, mobile phone signals were blocked in the local area 'in case of terrorism'. So hundreds of thousands of people had to go incommunicado as a consequence of Royal paranoia. Remember, that will include people without ready access to landlines, and also prevent calls to emergency services made by royal subjects.

Note also that the Duchy of Cornwall receives the proceeds of any estate where the owner has died intestate. Prince Charles can then do with it what he wants, after donating pretend tax of 25% on the proceeds. His use of this money has included donations to Gordonstoun, a school in Scotland he attended as a teenager. Meanwhile Cornish education is one of the most underfunded services in the UK.

These are just two tiny, everyday examples of the misuse of power that Clarence House deploys on a daily basis. We are, frankly, idiots to condone it as this is the sort of thing that undermines confidence in democracy and indeed, in the medium term, the monarchy.

The reason people condone it is because they live in hope of a royal honour, invitation to a garden party, membership of 'The Establishment' or general brushing up against royalty. But these things are eked out to keep the population hopeful but hungry.

An organisation called the Monarchist League works discreetly behind the scenes to keep royals in power around the world (headed up by a Tolstoy descendant, interestingly). Paths are smoothed, doors opened, etc

The Windsors are NOT the people you see presented in the press. The reality is darker and nastier, pretty self-serving, and carefully disguised by an intensive PR machine. You see a carefully manufactured image.

We would all do well to remember that. Think on it next time you see someone pushing a photogenic inherited Silver Cross coach built pram with a baby in a familiar smocked top or recreated christening gown for the papers. PR machine at work.Backed by organisations like the Monarchist League.

Well, there you go, then. Off with their heads (and hope something similar doesn't fill the void, as monarchs aren't the only people not averse to living in palaces, excusing their excesses, organising themselves secret tax breaks and being paranoid - it's the norm for the most rich and powerful). Live in a society that condones massive inequality and that's what you get. Live in a society that proclaims everyone is equal and you also tend to find that some people are more equal than others. I doubt our elected politicians would put the money into Cornish state schools, either, sadly.

And people aren't disgusted by it, because they aren't disgusted by excess, they enjoy watching it and imagining being princes and princesses, or pop stars who can pay £100,000 for a pair of shoes. Those that are turned off by it don't tend to seek positions of power in great numbers, and a fair number of those who do are frightening fanatics, who take over from the more moderate voice. It takes a fanatic to break through the stranglehold. They then become paranoid and control the press, too. It's all a bit Animal Farm, really....

Hey, I am not suggesting we chop if anyone's heads and I am one of those moderates. I think Clarence House need reigning in and telling to behave. Excuse the pun.

Off

Written constitutions ain't necessarily that great. Mass shootings in America show one of the downsides of an inflexible written constitution.

An as for dismissing getting rid of them as 'we can't'. Well yes, we can. We could vote for a political party which had abolishing the royal family as a policy an give them a mandate to do it.

But the fact is that republicanism is electoral poison in Britain because the majority of people don't want a Republic.

So it's not a case of 'we can't get rid of them'. Not being able to do something because a minority can't force their wishes onto an unwilling majority is very different from something being an impossibility.

They aren't actually the only group with special rights. The most important members of the Church of England also do. Obviously, getting rid of the monarchy would have to go hand in hand with getting rid of the House of Lords.

I am all for getting ridding of the privileges of the CofE, and axing the HofL. However, none of these things are intrinsically connected. For example, Canada has an unelected senate, but no established church, with a figurehead head of state.

AFAIK, no one in the CofE has special privileges. offices, like the Prime Minister, have special privileges, but those privileges belong to the office, not the person.

There would still be people with official or unofficial special rights, exemptions and duties and the overwhelming majority of people would never stand a cat's chance in hell of obtaining one of those positions, so the majority are unlikely to perceive the potential benefits of widening the microscopic pool to a microscopically larger group of very similar people.

Rights and privileges would come with positions. That's normal and unavoidable. The prime minister is going to require way more security than I will. The problem with the RF is that the people have special rights. The rights don't belong to the "office of the Queen", they belong to the person Elizabeth II and no one else but her descendants have access to the same office. That's the difference.

Written constitutions ain't necessarily that great. Mass shootings in America show one of the downsides of an inflexible written constitution.

First you a making a causal link between the second amendment and mass shootings, which isn't actually fact. Even in the US there is room for a lot more sensible gun regulation without changing the second amendment.

But that's not a property of written constitutions. The support for gun control in the US is very low, no matter what the constitution says. the US constitution has been amended many times, and amendments have been repealed (once entirely repealed. prohibition of liquor was enacted and repealed in two amendments).

When you reduce it to that - it's OK for unelected Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, because it's their office sitting there, not the person - then tbh it makes the fact that the Queen can only be one person sound fairly irrelevant. So what? It means as often as not it's someone that doesn't want the position as someone who does, which just makes it all the more interesting. Power is still only going to those people already in power are happy for it to go to. That's why we still have a monarchy - not because the monarchy is controlling us all, but because those in power are happy to have it there.

But it isn't OK for the bishops to sit in the House of Lords. It perpetuates the privilege of the Church of England which pervades our society.

Which political parties have expressed an intention to get rid of the monarchy? And is that their most important policy? We don't get to pick and choose different policies from different parties when we vote - we have to pick one party, lock stock and barrel. We don't even get PR, as apparently we want "strong" leadership more than fair representation of everyone's voice.

The uncomfortable fact is that this country's wealth was largely built on piracy, Empire and slavery, not fair play.

When you reduce it to that - it's OK for unelected Bishops to sit in the House of Lords, because it's their office sitting there, not the person - then tbh it makes the fact that the Queen can only be one person sound fairly irrelevant.

No, that's not what I said. Of course, not every position open to all is a good position, the Lords (and many others) are good examples. But certainly the mark of a bad one is one where birthright is the only means of attaining it.

My point was about distinguishing privileges belonging to a particular person and special privileges belonging to a particular position. The latter is fine, but doesn't justify the existence of such positions.

? Not sure I understand how that's fine, tbh. All privileges belong to a particular person, because particular people take up particular positions. I don't necessarily agree with the existence of all elected positions. I might, personally, be happier with the existence of some unelected positions, as elected people are political people, and political people don't stick by their principles.

We expect judges to be non-political and unelected.

We pretend there is a division between the executive, the administrative and the judiciary. And then there's the CofE - and other religious leaders. And community figureheads, monarchical and otherwise.

And people running banks and other institutions that are "too big to fail."

Not sure I understand how that's fine, tbh. All privileges belong to a particular person, because particular people take up particular positions. I don't necessarily agree with the existence of all elected positions.

different positions require different privileges. The head of a bank requires access to information of that bank that I don't need. it's inherent in all positions. I have access to information that others don't.

The privileges don't belong to a person, they belong to a position. DC's privileges entirely stem from the office he holds. He does not have any of those privileges outside of that office. Before he attained the office (a position open to all), he didn't have those privileges, and he will lose them when he leaves the office. The privileges don't belong to DC, they belong to the Prime Minister, whoever that is.

By contrast, the Queen's privilege was attained at birth, and was attained by coming out of the right womb. That's it. That's her qualification.

We expect judges to be non-political and unelected.

yup. Judges are appointed based on qualifications.

Sorry, I don't have a problem with the Queen being born to her position. I don't see why that is intrinsically evil in a way that a ruthless, unpleasant person getting themselves into a privileged position isn't.