The Yorks 2 !

[jeffgoldblum]

Sorry missed end of thread !
had a slight hiccup.
anyway thread 2 ready for tomorrows new article. 😁

You can label yourself, that's fine. I just object to other posters labelling me with no evidence. It detracts from the discussion and is simplistic and inaccurate.

Yes, with knowledge.

But the Monarchy is omnipotent. They can't go against that

The monarchy is not omnipotent.

I'm shocked by this extract from the book and think it's a really spiteful accusation as they are both dead - what is to be gained by it?! It's certainly made me take the other extracts with a cellar full of salt.

Yes, those were my thoughts. Nothing to be gained at all.

I don’t really understand that- are you saying there can be no speculation about people who are no longer alive? So Diana is off limits?

The problem is that, without a public outcry too loud to ignore, the parliamentary bandwidth simply isn’t there.

Precisely. And if the matter of the outrageous skimming of the public and charities by the current royal 'workers' has sunk without trace I can't see A's behaviour heinous as it has been doing the trick.

On the plus side we now have very regular reports of atrocious behaviour from various parties coming to light and I think the drip-drip-drip effect of that is what will finally undermine the institution.

You think not?

How?

They cannot be questioned by the government sitting, how are they are not?

I know it is not omnipotent

This is because I understand the word "omnipotent". Also, the fact that since 1689, parliament has been sovereign. This has been said many times on here. I'm sure you don't want a history and politics lesson, but if you are unsure of what powers the monarch has, refer to the govt UK website.
Even King John wasn't omnipotent, thanks to Magna Carta!

They have unlimited power

They cannot be questioned. Ever

They are the absolute authority. Their power is used according to laws but if they can't be questioned?
Even their RF page says they have authority over the government

No, I don't want a history or politics lesson ta!

The royal prerogative is a body of customary authority, privilege, and immunity attached to the British monarch (or "sovereign"), recognised in the United Kingdom. The monarch is regarded internally as the absolute authority, or "sole prerogative", and the source of many of the executive powers of the British government.

@jumpingthehighjump
This is a very serious misunderstanding.
I do wonder why you think we have elections, or how laws are made.
If the King is omnipotent, like perhaps Henry VIII, why have we got parliament? Why elections? Why limits to the power of the monarch.
This is genuinely one of the wildest claims I've seen on MN, that the monarch is "omnipotent".
However. I can see it's pointless trying to dissuade you of this notion.

Plus, they’re as dull as dishwater. I just watched a fascinating video interview between Jeremy Corbyn and Melissa Benn- people who have truly lived engaged lives and come across as genuine and humble. Ordinary, kind-hearted people are worth a thousand of them. These revelations about the Yorks only confirm my maxim: there are always people happier and poorer than you; figure out how they achieve that, and you’ll discover the secret of happiness.

On one level, I do feel sorry for them—they all die like the rest of us, no matter how rich they may be. That must really hurt—knowing you can’t take it with youyet they live in palaces we can only dream of, waited on hand and foot, thinking they own the world.

Of course you do!

If you think the Monarchy is answerable to anyone, I am seriously wondering if you live in the UK

Please do tell me about limits to the Monarchy. I'm interested.
In my lifetime, and I'm old, never seen it.

Formally Parliament is supreme ( and they should be).but the soft power of the Monarch and the pressure and influence they have on Parliament, the courts and the press mean they are not held to account. It would be interesting to know how many times the government has refused requests by the Monarch for clauses and exemptions to be put into legislation for example, or how many times requests have been refused, and what has happened as a result. Of course we can't know because it cant be discussed. Formally they can say the Monarch has no power as much as they like but they have huge influence and a massive machine pressuring Parliament and Goverment institutions. Of course these people should tell them to sling their hook far more often. Why don't they?

Perhaps I could refer you to the A Level Politics textbooks I use when teaching. The students have to understand the Constitution. They have to explain the role of Parliament and the Prime Minister, and evaluate the electoral systems. They do very well. It's an interesting and popular subject.
There are many resources you can refer to, but I can pm you the names of the textbooks, Politics periodicals and Parliamentary dealings from Hansard.

"influential" is not the same as "omnipotent".

That is so interesting.

Their lives are so empty. No engaging with the population, the people they live amongst, just existing in this rich privileged bubble doing fuck all for the actual british people.

I have always been curious about their lack of interest in the arts, ballet, culture, music. None of them, maybe bar Charles, seem the slightest bit interested in what drives british people. There seems to be no interest in why arts and culture drives young people. Yeah, William loves his football, that's it. I just think the royal family are so deprived aand uninterested in what is important in this country. They're useless.

It's sad. Weird. It should stop.

Will it make me feel better?

Doubtful.

I have no idea how it will make you feel.

Grim reading.

The throwaway for me though was that this story has been circulating among the royal rota for a while yet (presumably) no-one's dared to air it until now.

I loathe the way the system whereby the royals get their tummies tickled and skellies hidden in cupboards by tame journos on pain of having access cut.

And before anyone says there's no proof, see the way E2 suppressed the day to day doc made in the 60's when she didn't like the final product (it's still available on YT BTW but exceedingly dull for the most part. You can thank me for your time saved later 😉) W 'demanding' the public service broadcaster interview with Diana never be shown again and getting it and the perpetual edit rights imposed on the media relating to E2's funeral and C's coronation.

The royals think transparency sucks.

I’m sorry - I’m repeating myself but I know exactly what Lifestooshort means. The Same feeling struck me when I read that bit. It’s incongruous and flippant - a serious allegation made as a throwaway remark.

i can’t explain it but it’s to do with the mismatch between the seriousness of the allegation and the ‘cheap’ way it’s used.

of course you can discuss deceased people but in this case Lownie should either have given it more weight and evidence or left it out.

Yes, at least Margaret loved the ballet and went often. I saw her once at the Royal Ballet back in the ’80s, and in her life she was surrounded by a salon of interesting, arty types. She was a real person - warts and all. The same goes for Lord Harewood at the ENO, who was a cousin of QE2 and did great things for the arts that I both know and love. Meanwhile, William is the patron of BAFTA but struggles to mention any film he’s actually seen.

If I had their position, I would engage with all the wonderful artists and cultural icons this great country has producedwith a genuine sense of awe and wonder - rather than just grinding through the gears, waiting for the car home. And I’d be having a magnificent time. I don’t have to be talented myself—I’m not—but I bow down to those who are. These are the true nobility worth celebrating.

It’s a shame that Meghan couldn’t stay in the UK cultural scene. She was made a Patron of the National Theatre, and I’m sure her love of acting would have made a real impact. She would have truly appreciated the cultural delights on offer.

In this still great country we live in, if we truly had a monarch of the Enlightenment someone who genuinely engaged with the people and was popular with everyone at very level then maybe I could get behind them. But if “Netflix and chill” is the height of your ambitions, then sorry, I’m just not buying it.

You’re right, Charles has many elements of a King of the Enlightenment. William? Nah. Shouting at football matches and scoring freebies from Taylor Swift is definitely not where I’m at.

Yes @vera99

I find it really weird that the heir to the throne and his wife seem totally disinterested in what makes this country... apart from Aston Villa and Wimbledon, of course. We all love football and tennis but....
Charles tries.

Why aren't W&K trumpeting what we have to offer in this country? Historical sites, literature, royal ballet, our thriving music scene, our massive art contribution to the world

It’s a shame that Meghan couldn’t stay in the UK cultural scene. She was made a Patron of the National Theatre, and I’m sure her love of acting would have made a real impact. She would have truly appreciated the cultural delights on offer.

You have really jumped the shark now! I do sometimes think you are on a complete wind up on these threads and throw these silly comments in for the shits and giggles, I just can’t take you seriously 😂.

Danny Boyle’s opening ceremony for the 2012 Olympics was one of the most inspiring spectacles I’ve ever seen, brilliantly capturing our great story in all its glorious and sometimes inglorious history. Since then, it feels like we’ve been on a downward slope; that moment was the pinnacle of GREAT Britain, and I miss it terribly. I feel a deep sadness for future generations who may never understand how good life once was—built on the backs of my parents’ generations, who made immense sacrifices to create it.