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.

✊ Power to the Prople!

@Mrs Danvers

Quite. I did invite gaslit to suggest how they might replace the monarchy and in what ways we might notice an improvement in our daily lives, but they just went away for a while and ignored this question. They always do that.

I remember years ago Jeremy Paxman (before he got Parkinson's) interviewed the vile Russell Brand. This was before Brand was outed as a sex offender and while he was posing as some kind of credible political theorist. (I know...😁.I think he'd read one book, basically, and was chirping away spouting rubbish). Paxman challenged him in the same way: what changes would you make and how etc. He said to Brand "All you people want to do is smash the system and sit amongst the ruins smoking dope!"

I thought that was a brilliant summary of so many hard-left amateur politicos. They need to go and 'be the change they want to see' and give the preaching a rest.

No this concept - that people change as they get older and become more in line with the establishment- is wrong.

It is out of date thinking

Yes during the 20th century esp post ww2 this was the case . It is no longer true .

You will find that people no longer change their fundamental views on the monarchy .
There are many reasons for this - younger generations are not gaining the wealth and foothold in society that was the case before but I believe it’s also because we have more information on the royals than we have ever had .

Most people have visceral responses to hearing about abusers and lies . That does not fade wth age.

No this concept - that people change as they get older and become more in line with the establishment- is wrong.

It is out of date thinking

Yes during the 20th century esp post ww2 this was the case . It is no longer true .

You will find that people no longer change their fundamental views on the monarchy .
There are many reasons for this - younger generations are not gaining the wealth and foothold in society that was the case before but I believe it’s also because we have more information on the royals than we have ever had .

Most people have visceral responses to hearing about abusers and lies . That does not fade wth age.

@CoffeeCantata

I am well aware of the ridiculousness of asking a poster here to set out in detail their plan for post monarchy constitution.

There is term for this questioning on forums - imagine a sea creature with a ball on its nose - (that will keep you wondering and mocking I’m sure )
I’m not suggesting you are trying that - perish the thought .

Another thing...even Labour now don't make much mention of moving towards a republic. I think this is for a number of reasons😀

• there are other priorities just now....(understatement of the century)
• some of them, despite their political views, realise that the system works pretty well actually (KC's soft diplomacy has been useful recently)
• they know that any change would be nightmarishly long-drawn-out, and the electorate seem to have a decreasing concentrations span or interest in constitutional matters anyway. The Brexiteers thought we could leave the EU overnight but look how that turned out - years of slog, and expensive slog. Similarly it would take years of consultation, public information campaigns, committees, acts of parliament....aaarrrggghhh. And frankly, few people have the stomach for it.
• So what will happen is that the monarchy will gradually withdraw and shrink. BP won't be lived in again - it'll become a venue for state occasions. There'll be fewer working royals - I don't see the balcony filling up in the future. Things will move towards a Scandinavian model, I think, and that's a good half-way house which is likely to please most people.

Most people would be happy with stopping the flow of money to the Windsors, removing royal assent and consent and placing them all properly under the law - yes tax law too .

Let’s see the duty then .

But it's the crux of the matter! If you go on about how we need to end the monarchy - then how do you propose to do it?

It would be a huge, complicated, decade-long nightmare, all to improve things for us...how? How?

I honestly want to hear how I would notice my life being better without the RF.

Because I suspect all you've got on that is - "well, you wouldn't have the Windsors...and you could have your fiver back for a flat white, maybe".

I'll take the status quo, thanks.

Yes Andrew and Epstein enjoyed that status quo too

I have to go out now, but I can't let that sloppy statement go.

A huge part of the SG will go on staff. The RF employ thousands of people. The RF, the monarchy, is a kind of British industry, and if you pull the funding the main result will not hurt KC - he's got private income - it will make thousands of people (some in remote areas without other employment options) redundant.

Good luck with that.

And thousands more will be employed in other areas
The Windsors are notorious for being very mean employers - who knows they may well be better off !

Quite. I did invite gaslit to suggest how they might replace the monarchy and in what ways we might notice an improvement in our daily lives, but they just went away for a while and ignored this question. They always do that.

I have noticed that when you tell gaslit they are wrong and here's a link explaining why, it all goes quiet.

Most people would be happy with stopping the flow of money to the Windsors, removing royal assent and consent and placing them all properly under the law - yes tax law too .

Source for that assertion?

Well interestingly when the first book extract came out, and Kemi Badenoch was asked about it on Newsnight, she wouldn’t comment and protested, “the king is my boss”

😳😳

And when the political editor of the New Statesman, who was representing the left in that episode, was asked how Andy Burnham would react, she half joked “he wouldn’t want to upset the palace”

But no the monarch has no influence over our politicians at all apparently!

Not cool to talk about one poster to each other I’m afraid.

People do have to work you know or attend to other things in their lives separate to the royal family boards.

I am sure UKisgaslight will be back to answer once she is available to do so.

Edited: sorry, just managed to miss an entire page of the thread on this device and see that UKisgaslight is very much back already!

@CoffeeCantata

The widest possible net to capture employees of Windsor Inc - 4000-7000

Many would be re employed in same area ( and with full protection of the law which is not the case now )

Hardly a catastrophic blow to the economy

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain

So others can come and go as they please but I must be here at your beck and call all day ?
Sure .

Deflection

Im sure the facts are very uncomfortable for the remaining Windsor fans

Please see my edited post.

I still don’t think it’s cool to discuss one poster between yourselves.

Much better and more polite to address posters directly.

I agree. The anti-RF sentiment of some posters here is matched exactly by their complete ignorance of the British Constitution. And they seem to think that the HoS developed the system under which he came by his role, responsibilities and privileges was invented by him just yesterday.

What would you replace royal assert with?

Who would the militia pledge loyalty to?

Criminal cases are tried in.the name of yhe Crown. Who would be doing the prosecuting if the HoS is sunject to the same law as everyone else?

All gas and very little light.

I see the usual personal attacks are increasing .
We can assume that the Windsor fans are at a loss in that case

Not that you deserve any particular response from me after your personal attacks but I’d suggest you look to all the other democracies not burdened by a monarchy .
What do you think they do ?
And no before that tiresome Putin/ Trump rubbish starts I do not mean countries with an executive president .
No one who advocates for reform of the UK wants that .

They have rubber stamp systems after a law is passed by the legislature.
It could be a figurehead president ( with no advance exemptions for themselves as is currently the case with the Windsors )
It could be the head of civil service.
It’s not particularly complicated

Btw none of these changes are particularly complicated - the practice of allowing Charles a first look at laws in order to exclude himself is a custom and practice . It could be stopped tomorrow.

Where did I say that ?

Where did anyone say that ?

But it is true that even Victoria had more scrutiny and accountability than Elizabeth and co.
As mass media has increased so has secrecy
Got to keep those taxpayers gaslit somehow