Prince Louis the photographer

[PrettyFlyforaMaiTai]

Kensington Palace have released a photo of the Princess of Wales photographed by her youngest son, Prince Louis. It is to mark World Cancer Day, which is tomorrow.

How cute!

I love the king who brought back partying.

Ahem. Republicans v Monarchists

😮

She said she would never change her username 😧

Maybe it's just similar posting styles? I'd be delighted if she was back but she did say she would never change her name.

Hi folks

Can we keep things civil and on topic? Discussing a poster and potential name changes in this way, isn't really on.

Is it not ok to say that someone who was fondly remembered might be around?

Just to point out the far right have the same group. They used to be called ‘reactionaries’ - a label I’ve not heard for a long time. There have always been extremists sitting on the edges of both sides of the political continuum. On the far fight we have names for them though - neo nazis is one group. I think they are ‘nastiest’ too.

Some people aren’t the stoic types. It doesn’t mean they are not ‘doing it right’

I suspect Kate is possibly on a bit of a joyous high, understandable having survived this cancer and being given the green light. At this point in her life, after months of uncertainty, she can be pretty confident that she’s going to be there to guide her children as they are grow up and thet they won’t experience the grief of losing their mother, and she can celebrate the fact that she’s well and healthy with more living ahead of her. Hence standing on a log, hands outstretched embracing it all while grinning feeling in concert with the world, I think. I’d be full of joy at this time if I was Kate, and I rather think she is.

😂Well, QED!

I think you've just demonstrated exactly what I mean.
After all, no-one ever changes their views over a lifetime, do they?

The extremists on right and left definitely have more in common than those of a moderate persuasion, I agree. The Nazis were meant to be a socialist party (ha ha) - National Socialist Workers' Party.

They are implacable and hide behind 'principle'. I'm a total pragmatist - do what works in the particular situation, don't be hide-bound by rigid dogma. I find people of the far left particularly fond of dogma at the expense of their humanity.

It was dogma that led to Stalin's extermination of the farmers in Ukraine in the 30s, for eg. 12 million were deliberately starved to death because they resisted the brutal collectivisation which he was rushing through.

An irrelevant digression - apologies - but I'm just making the point that I've always found the hard left to be anything but humanitarian, kind, empathetic etc etc. I give these people a massively wide berth nowadays and cannot take them seriously. I think they have personal issues which they project into their political views.

End of rant!

When I was much younger I was very left wing, practically socialist. Now I'm much older I'd say I'm more centre left.

I really don't understand why some find that hard to believe? I know some people that have gone from RW to more left, some that have gone much further RW. It's be very odd to not develop in your political and social views as you mature.

I'm a Constitutional Monarchist because I've come to appreciate the stability and general safety of our type of Govt - especially when I can clearly see how other Republican systems have coped over the years. I'm not averse to a Republic - I'm just not impressed by the arguments for it at the moment.

I’ve always found kindness in the middle ground. Unfortunately Harry and Meghan don’t occupy that space and it leads to extreme positions being taken.

Good post

Autocorrect! Something to do with the computer!

I'm a socialist and in my youth was probably a Republican, in so far as I gave it thought.

As I've got older, I've come to think that the reinvention of the wheel in replacing constitutional monarchy with something untried (drawing a veil over Olly C and his mates) is unnecessary, unless there is some compelling, overarching argument as to the benefits.We know its limitations and I don't think the monarch/RF are in any way objectively superior to us or innately special as human beings. The monarch especially is a national figurehead and we need that. The current system gives stability and continuity in a way elected presidency doesn't. I know the comparisons with France but really, it's probably down to military bad luck and Napoleon II dying very young that we don't have an Emperor Bonaparte coming on state visits now, and that was after a full scale revolution to get rid of the previous ruling house.

I also love history and the journey that has taken us from William the Conqueror harrying (pun unintentional) the North to Prince William jumping off sand dunes at Holkham. It's a fascinating metamorphosis and there will be furthr change.

@Uricon2 Good point. The constant "forelock tugging" remarks assume that accepting a constitution monarchy entails deference and subjugation. I don't and wouldn't feel inferior to the current crop of royals in a million years. I would respect their customs as a sign of respect for the offices they hold and their service, but in no way feel they were my superiors (not morally, socially or educationally) in anything other than the offices that they hold, which are leadership roles and therefore inherently hold gravitas. Their money and possessions don't make me feel inferior or hard done by.

When the US president walks into a room, people stand. When a judge walks into court, everyone stands. These people aren't accused of being forelock tuggers for doing so. They are respecting the office, if not the individual holding it.

I'm afraid all the republican talk on this board that hones in on individual personalities, sexual peccadillos, what money these people have that others don't; and anything other than the presentation of an alternative model of government that can be achieved through a peaceful transition, and that attempts to defy the problems that have beset every single republican regime, makes me think the people saying this stuff are nothing but envious Napoleons wanting to run the farm.

@Uricon2

I'm completely with you!

I think social democracy is the way to go. It may not be perfect, but nothing can be in human society. And I don't see why it should be incompatible with a constitutional monarchy.

I think our monarchy is benign (except for Prince Andrew, naturally) and frankly, having seen what they've been doing over the past couple of weeks, it strikes me as a good way to manage things. The PM and his/her ministers just don't have time for some of the soft diplomacy and commemorative/respectful visits which we've seen the King and others doing recently. Who would do all that if we didn't have the RF? OK, I'm sure the PM or a minister would have gone to Auschwitz, but who'd cut ribbons in Rotherham (no offence!). And (despite what some would have us believe) I think both home and overseas hosts actually like to be visited by a royal. It costs a bob or two, but if that's the only objection - how much do republicans think a President, and regular presidential elections etc would cost?

The lesson of Cromwell is there for all to see! Look how that ended...with Oliver basically passing the role to his son...hmmm. And what a rotten time it must have been. No wonder they welcomed Charles II back!

Yes quite re dynastic republics. Look at the Kennedys, the Bush family, the Clinton family and the attempts to get Michelle Obama to throw her hat in the ring. They are not picking the brightest and the best society has to offer, they are just crowning (or attempting to crown) a familial successor.

Both excellent posts from @CoffeeCantata and @bitteroldseetrouts

Good point @bitteroldseetrouts and a future president will probably be Barron Trump!

You beat me to it, BigWilly. Yes - the blatant, shameless lining up of Barron is very concerning and rather sinister.

I remember Andy Hamilton's brilliant R4 comedy drama about the American War of Independence (at the time of George Dubya's presidency). A soldier was explaining to another just why they were fighting for independence from Britain. He said 'You see, we don't see why we should be ruled by someoned called George just because he happens to be the son of the previous George....oh wait...!'

Mind you, the days of the Bushes, pere et fils, and even Ronald Reagan, seem preferable to the current administration.

Even if we had an elected non political presidency with absolutely no capacity to hand it on to your sprogs, you can guarantee that a vast number of people will be unhappy with the winner. An equally vast number of people wouldn't vote and then grumble about the outcome anyway.

I'm also not sure how they would select such paragons anyway (no ex politicians, see above) I'm racking my brains and have come up with Joanna Lumley and Sir David Attenborough as possible candidates who might have broad general appeal. I very much doubt either of them would want it!