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 wouldn't be so sure about that...

The agencies never said what was wrong with it. There is no evidence as to what their issue was (plenty of opinions online from others, just not the agencies that "killed" the photo). The idea that these agencies have never published a photoshopped photograph is risable. They may have had reason to kill it, but they shot themselves in the foot, (imo, cynically bandwagoning the "Where's Kate" furore started by the vile Sussex Squad), and they are no longer sent photos, which must have cost them a bit in distribution fees. I think KP are having the last laugh.

Then why keep bringing it up?!

But you are the one claiming that the "many, many" would have prevented him from running for a presidency. When we know the "many, many" did fuck all and let him carry on raping children. So what makes you think he wouldn't have been able to run for president?

Well seeing as the then Prince Charles wouldn’t have been a Prince as we are a republic in my Black Mirror scenario it’s a moot point, Prince who?

He was seen as a heroic, charitable figure. I'm old enough to remember. He would absolutely have been the type of person to be put forward.

I always found him creepy, even as a child I couldn't stand him. But very many people thought he was the dog's bollocks!

Yes, quite @BigWillyLittleTodger , presumably the dear republican leadervwould have Charles et al locked up in the Tower or exiled to a small island in the pacific by that stage (an assumption I'll make, since none of them have bothered to answer the question of how they are selling this regime change to the unwilling masses, such that there's peaceful transition and not a bloody revolution).

This really isnt about ‘KP having the last laugh.’

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

On the plus side a President Savile or a presidential tattooed ape could be voted out after a set number of years. Even after a vote of confidence.

Had birth order gifted us Good King Andrew or King In Waiting Harold, not so much.

Nothing to worry about then! we would only have had to have President Saville for a 4 year term, maybe 8 years if we follow the American model of a two term president, what possible harm could President Saville do in so little time I wonder?

What is "this"?

Details, mere details! 😂

Well, it didn't. Fortunately.

Maybe because the next in line to the throne is 'trained' for the role?

A lot would depend on the Republican model. A model that includes a president who elected by the people for a designated term is different from a model that sees the president selected and appointed and dismissed by the government.

The debate on here seems to be centred around the American model.

Well I have repeatedly asked the republicans on here to set out their model. So please knock yourself out @Jacquette . What model of governance is Graham proposing for the UK, how is he persuading those of us who are not impressed by envy, and how is he bringing this about peacefully?

What is "this"?

@bitteroldseetrouts

‘This’ is the topic of whether it is okay to send an a photoshopped image to the wire services, that is received by the wires services as being an image from a trusted source (that knows not to photoshop without acknowledging that the image is photoshopped).

I can see that some posters are always going to see this as a ‘win’ for KP. I don’t agree as I don’t think the idea of ‘winning’ or competing to win against a wire service makes any sense. I don’t think that was ever KP’s intention.

I’m leaving this conversation. Thank you.

I’m leaving this conversation too. What a shitty sounding post.

I would like to know this too.
I have asked on here many times and I have looked on Graham’s website but nada, zilch, big fat nothing. It’s really not selling it.

I wonder if Graham’s heart is really in it, maybe he is just attention seeking? 🤷‍♀️

There was nothing shitty about my post @Jacquette , and you should apologise for that remark. If you can't cope with robust - but really basic - questioning about a proposed massive change in the make up of this country's governance , then don't come onto these threads extolling the virtues of a republic you can't describe. I'm sorry you don't have any answers to perfectly reasonable questions about what we are being sold as a better form of government. I am sorry you can't provide civilised answers that counteract the endless remarks about forelock tugging and billionaires in tiaras leeching off the taxpayer. Unfortunately, this lack of clarity or an attractive alternative message is why I don't think the republic is going to happen any time soon.

Well posters choosing to remove themselves from the post clearly don't have a point to make.

There is a thread I’ve bumped about Britain becoming a republic. This is a thread about a photo so maybe take the republican comments to that thread.

"
Well posters choosing to remove themselves from the post clearly don't have a point to make."

That's so true !

I'm confused 😕, there hasn't been a picture of Harry ( his hair ) that hasn't been photoshopped to the horizon!
So much so that it comes as a huge shock when we see video and untouched footage!
Why is that acceptable?

Uricon2 · Yesterday 19:02
I apologise because I've fallen into the trap and should know better, it's the same old recycled arguments from those who don't really have a clue about who they would really want as HoS or any idea how it would work.

Me too, Uricon. But it's understandable! When some posters feel they are losing the argument they knee-jerk back to generalised anti-monarchist jibes - usually cliched ones, too.

Just one more post off-topic and then I will try to leave the subject alone.

The problem would be: how do we choose a President? If by popular vote, we run the risk of getting a dangerous maverick/extremist/demagogue type like Trump or Farage or possibly worse. After Trump's success, and Brexit, I'm afraid I don't trust the electorate in the way you're theoretically supposed to any more. Call me elitist!

If the President was chosen by the government I don't see how they could not be politically biased? And how else would they be chosen?

If they're somehow meant to put themselves forward then It's the old objection of 'those who seek power are sometimes the least suitable to hold it'. But any President would inevitably be a far more divisive figure than members of the RF, particularly if an election was involved. The only sort of President I would like would be a very boring, serious and highly-regarded judge or academic and they would be unlikely to want the job or to garner popular support.

But for me the biggest argument against making this fundamental change is...it's just unnecessary and would be highly de-stablising at a dangerous and insecure point in our, and world, history. So what if KC has a few nice castles and palaces? I honestly couldn't give a monkey's! Good for him, and I wouldn't swap my life with his for all the tea in China.

I'll try to leave it there, with apologies. But threads are organic things and sometimes they go off on quite reasonable tangents...