Royal row between King Charles and Earl Spencer 3

[Viviennemary]

A new thread and book not even published till Tuesday. I checked on Amazon and its only 12th on the non fiction bestseller list. Doesn't show Earl Spencer in a very good light imho.

Well done .
Got there in the end .

You do realise that Charles Windsor has nothing to do with the legislature of those countries?
I’d like to see him try his royal assent and royal consent scam there!
So your point is totally irrelevant .

And the revolution and chucking out the monarchy worked out so well for France between 1789 and the 1860s, didn't it? revolution, first consul, emperor, king, king, revolution, republic, president, emperor....I wonder what they'd have given for a bit of continuity under a monarch like Britain had.

Waffle

So it's not having a monarchy that upsets you, it's not having a PR voting system? So why are you expending so much of your time criticising something that's completely irrelevant?

I was right. It is a waste of everyone's time engaging.

@Noodledog

I’m not . I was replying to poster who had dragged out the old PR line that the Nordic monarchies are somehow the defining feature of their successful societies .
I was explaining how the monarchies themselves are irrelevant and countries with and without monarchies will score highly based on other measures .

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain

You are trying to apply events from 250 years ago in France to bolster the tattered defence of the Windsors.

You are 100 years closer to the present than the usual ‘we got rid of a king nearly 400 years ago and that didn’t go well’ . I’ll give you that
But still .

tenuous to say the least

Not quite accurate according to this. The king CAN veto laws in Australia within one year of the Governor General giving assent, but no monarch ever has. Bills are approved by Governor General in the monarch's name, so you could argue the king has a representative not an actual role

https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/parliament-and-its-people/people-in-parliament/the-monarch

As a history graduate I have to agree with you.

And as I've said before, I don't think the stats on support for the monarchy tell the whole story. Why should a 20-something be a fan of the monarchy? But that 20yo will one day be a 60yo. We become more conservative and traditionalist as we age.

I mean, history is one of my favourites subjects, but I'm not at all a fan of our current history and very much don't want a switch to a republic when Russia can buy a Brexit or a Trump through the modern democratic system.

What did this revamp consist of? A quick google tells me the differences were Charles had a new coronet because Edward had kept his, and he gave some of his speech in Welsh.

Yes and another reason that older people tend to be happier with a monarchy is that appreciation of continuity. I don’t expect young people to understand that. My son has just turned 30 and I’ve been amused to hear a few comments from him about things “not being as good as they us they used to be when I was young “

I remember watching all kinds of royal events and I’ve grown older along with them. Sentimental stuff, but I’ve also learned to appreciate our system of government in an increasingly volatile world. I like that it’s occasionally quaint with all the symbolism which reminds us of our history- especially at the State Opening of Parliament.

Er…you’re at it again - misrepresenting me. Read more carefully,

What I said was that, contrary to your position, some countries which on here are frequently cited as ideal, still retain monarchy. I made no direct causal link between their being monarchies and being well-regarded societies.

But never mind - who cares accuracy?

Would it be possible for the posters who want to get rid of the royal family to start their own thread on the subject instead of constantly derailing the other royal threads?

There was an attempt at that last month.

It didn't work, because it wasn't really done in good faith. Some people prefer to create disruption.

Nonsense. Both legislatures require the head of state’s consent just as Westminster does (hint: it’s a key part of the constitution that a constitutional monarchy operates within). In each jurisdiction a Governor-General is appointed to represent the monarch in carrying out those constitutional functions. It’s still called Royal Assent.

https://www3.parliament.nz/mi/get-involved/features/royal-assent/

I’ve tried it twice now but there’s no real interest in an actual discussion or any positive suggestions for moving things forward.

I find it hilarious that these Tooting Popular Front pps spend so much energy preaching on MN about a system they detest. Well, get out there and do something then. Lobby your MP, organise a march, ask Andy Burnham to prioritise the abolition of the monarchy- whatever. But what is the point of posting inaccurate ‘ facts’ and misunderstanding posts - it’s not very convincing!

Some of them have a very dodgy grasp of history.

@CoffeeCantata Proper laughing at Tooting Popular Front 😁

Seems you are gaslit by the U.K.

Anyway, to return to the topic of the thread (😄), I’m wondering whether after this book there’ll ever be anything else to say about Diana. I suppose, being realistic, the real question is: will there still be money to be made out of her?

I think that if H was planning an attack on his father and Camilla in a memoir of his own - either in print or documentary form- then Spencer has stolen his thunder. But also realistically, what could a pre-teenaged boy really know about what was going on in adults’ love lives ? William would have had a far better understanding.

Someone might write about the relationship between the Spencers and the Windsors, though, from the time of Johnny’s youth, through the royal marriage and on including Earl Spencer’s own ‘affairs’ and his vendetta with KC. That would be interesting, if written by someone with no axe to grind but access to the information. I might buy that!

Some of them have a very dodgy grasp of history.

I can live with a dodgy grasp of history because they generally are OK to be corrected by the more knowledgeable. What gets up my nose is the ones who drone on in staccato posts like Marvin the Paranoid Android* and affect an air of superiority over us peasants who quite like the monarchy. It wouldn't be so bad if they had a coherent and even vaguely thought out philosophy about what they WOULD like to replace monarchy, but they don't. They just waffle.

And as Serenster has shown in the latest post, they aren't even that knowledgeable about the function of the institution they want to get rid of.

Douglas Adams reference for those who weren't around in the early 80s :)

In the 1960s a young woman told me that she belonged to the Lewisham Anarchists. Do/did they have links to the Tooting Popular Front?

F… off, they’re linked to the Popular Tooting Front 🤣