The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

One of the suggested defences to the US case is that his accuser agreed a deal with Jeffrey Weinstein agreeing to drop all accusations against him and his chums. Apparently it's already been effective in a linked case involving another of JW's associates but it seems pretty threadbare and it would have no relevance to a criminal case in England - I don't know about the USA
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

thirdcrank wrote: 15 Sep 2021, 7:18pm One of the suggested defences to the US case is that his accuser agreed a deal with Jeffrey Weinstein agreeing to drop all accusations against him and his chums. Apparently it's already been effective in a linked case involving another of JW's associates but it seems pretty threadbare and it would have no relevance to a criminal case in England - I don't know about the USA
Yes. Watch out for "unsealing" the case.

But Giuffre's current case is civil, not criminal.

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

Sorry I wasn't clear. I know the current case in the US is a civil one but it involves criminal allegations. I know that such a deal cannot bind English criminal courts but I don't know about American courts.
User avatar
NATURAL ANKLING
Posts: 13780
Joined: 24 Oct 2012, 10:43pm
Location: English Riviera

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by NATURAL ANKLING »

Hi,
:?
Attachments
11FADC35-92E4-43C9-8FF3-0E6F17620D93.jpeg
NA Thinks Just End 2 End Return + Bivvy - Some day Soon I hope
You'll Still Find Me At The Top Of A Hill
Please forgive the poor Grammar I blame it on my mobile and phat thinkers.
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Tangled Metal »

Jdsk wrote: 15 Sep 2021, 4:41pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 15 Sep 2021, 4:36pm
Oldjohnw wrote: 11 Sep 2021, 12:59pm The reputational damage is done to both Andrew and the monarchy in general. What remains to be seen is: will Andrew be able to avoid the sort of sanction that Joe Public would have experienced? Is there one law for the monarchy and another for the rest of us?
Is Prince Andrew the monarch? You should say that it's one law for the monarch's son and one for the rest of us. Pedantic hat on.
The monarchy doesn't only mean the monarch. It describes a system with many trappings and involving a lot more than one individual.

For example, as the OED puts it:
The office of monarch. Also: the person, family, or ancestry of a monarch; the royal family. More recently in extended use: the high-ranking members of any group of people.

Jonathan
The Oxford dictionary online doesn't mention family only say " a system of government by a king or a queen". Similar for Cambridge dictionary. Similar for wiki too. The origins of the word is ancient Greek for one ruler. Not one ruler and hangers on.

He is simply too far down the Royal food chain to be even close to becoming a monarch. As such I still hold that the reputational damage is to the Prince not to the monarch or monarchy.

Sorry if I incorrectly called you a republican @Oldjohnw. I made an assumption based on your post. However republicans opposing the monarchy do like such issues with the monarch's progeny as a stick to beat their drums with.
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Tangled Metal wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 1:33pm
Jdsk wrote: 15 Sep 2021, 4:41pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 15 Sep 2021, 4:36pm

Is Prince Andrew the monarch? You should say that it's one law for the monarch's son and one for the rest of us. Pedantic hat on.
The monarchy doesn't only mean the monarch. It describes a system with many trappings and involving a lot more than one individual.

For example, as the OED puts it:
The office of monarch. Also: the person, family, or ancestry of a monarch; the royal family. More recently in extended use: the high-ranking members of any group of people.
The Oxford dictionary online doesn't mention family only say " a system of government by a king or a queen".
The OED does. As in my direct quote above, emboldening added. Screen dump below.

What version of "The Oxford dictionary online" are you using, please?

Thanks

Jonathan

Screenshot 2021-09-16 at 13.39.00.png
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Oldjohnw »

Tangled Metal wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 1:33pm


Sorry if I incorrectly called you a republican @Oldjohnw. I made an assumption based on your post. However republicans opposing the monarchy do like such issues with the monarch's progeny as a stick to beat their drums with.
To be fair, I'm not a monarchist either. I am inclined to support the Queen, but not uncritically. I have little time for hangers on and find the queen's preparedness to put the institution before truth and justice very wrong.

A real monarchist would, I imagine, support the Windsors right or wrong and a real republican would see nothing of virtue in the queen whatsoever.
John
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Oldjohnw wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:31pmA real monarchist would, I imagine, support the Windsors right or wrong and a real republican would see nothing of virtue in the queen whatsoever.
I don't see the need for that sort of polarisation. I'd like my country to become a republic, but I can imagine lots of ways that the Queen could have done worse.

Can I continue to wear my badge? : - )

Jonathan
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Oldjohnw »

Jdsk wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:38pm
Oldjohnw wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:31pmA real monarchist would, I imagine, support the Windsors right or wrong and a real republican would see nothing of virtue in the queen whatsoever.
I don't see the need for that sort of polarisation. I'd like my country to become a republic, but I can imagine lots of ways that the Queen could have done worse.

Can I continue to wear my badge? : - )

Jonathan
I'm inclined to agree and I don't like to be precisely pigeonholed. Which is why I said this but clearly my meaning was not conveyed very well.
John
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Mike Sales »

Oldjohnw wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:31pm
A real monarchist would, I imagine, support the Windsors right or wrong and a real republican would see nothing of virtue in the queen whatsoever.
I don't think that republicanism is based on the excellence or otherwise of a particular monarch, but on the idea that choosing a ruler at random is a foolish way to proceed.
Andrew, whether or not he is next in line, is an excellent illustration of how absurd the general principle is Poor Charlie is not a good example of the archaic rules of sucession working well either.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Jdsk
Posts: 24639
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

Oldjohnw wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:41pm... and I don't like to be precisely pigeonholed.
"HM The Queen is patron of a number of pigeon racing societies in recognition of her interest in the sport, most notably the Royal Pigeon Racing Association and the National Flying Club."
https://www.rpra.org/pigeon-history/the ... onnection/

Jonathan

Screenshot 2021-09-16 at 14.47.44.png
Oldjohnw
Posts: 7764
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 4:23am
Location: South Warwickshire

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Oldjohnw »

Mike Sales wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:43pm
Oldjohnw wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:31pm
A real monarchist would, I imagine, support the Windsors right or wrong and a real republican would see nothing of virtue in the queen whatsoever.
I don't think that republicanism is based on the excellence or otherwise of a particular monarch, but on the idea that choosing a ruler at random is a foolish way to proceed.
Andrew, whether or not he is next in line, is an excellent illustration of how absurd the general principle is Poor Charlie is not a good example of the archaic rules of sucession working well either.
I wasn’t defining Republicanism or Monarchy. Just saying it was possible to criticise aspects of monarchy, include the monarch, without being an actual republican. I am on a spectrum and moving a certain way the older I get.
John
Mike Sales
Posts: 7883
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Mike Sales »

Oldjohnw wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 3:42pm
Mike Sales wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:43pm
Oldjohnw wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 2:31pm
A real monarchist would, I imagine, support the Windsors right or wrong and a real republican would see nothing of virtue in the queen whatsoever.
I don't think that republicanism is based on the excellence or otherwise of a particular monarch, but on the idea that choosing a ruler at random is a foolish way to proceed.
Andrew, whether or not he is next in line, is an excellent illustration of how absurd the general principle is Poor Charlie is not a good example of the archaic rules of sucession working well either.
I wasn’t defining Republicanism or Monarchy. Just saying it was possible to criticise aspects of monarchy, include the monarch, without being an actual republican. I am on a spectrum and moving a certain way the older I get.
I am a republican, I think a real one, and I have no problem agreeing that Lizzie II has her virtues. She does a riduculous job very well. If she did not carry it off so regally it would be easier to argue against the whole institution. Various of her progeny look as if they would make much more of a mess.
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by merseymouth »

Hi all, Who was it said -"You can say what you like about me as long as you spell my name right!". So Thirdcrank don't get Weinstein & Epstein mixed up.
But with so long a list of right to the throne, Randy Andy well down, maybe the Hollywood branch of the family will do a remake of "Kind Hearts and Coronets"? Bump of those higher up the hereditary pole! TTFN MM
Tangled Metal
Posts: 9505
Joined: 13 Feb 2015, 8:32pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Tangled Metal »

Jdsk wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 1:41pm
Tangled Metal wrote: 16 Sep 2021, 1:33pm
Jdsk wrote: 15 Sep 2021, 4:41pm
The monarchy doesn't only mean the monarch. It describes a system with many trappings and involving a lot more than one individual.

For example, as the OED puts it:
The office of monarch. Also: the person, family, or ancestry of a monarch; the royal family. More recently in extended use: the high-ranking members of any group of people.
The Oxford dictionary online doesn't mention family only say " a system of government by a king or a queen".
The OED does. As in my direct quote above, emboldening added. Screen dump below.

What version of "The Oxford dictionary online" are you using, please?

Thanks

Jonathan


Screenshot 2021-09-16 at 13.39.00.png
It was not OED but then that didn't come up anyway. Cambridge did, Wikipedia, politics dot co dot UK, etc all defined monarchy as system with a monarch with no mention of offspring or hangers on. I think OED is confusing Royal Family with monarchy. Monarchy is a system of governance with a monarch or single ruler. Prince Edward has no official and for some time no role at all in the monarchy, political / government/ambassadorial or other public function. It's not often one dictionary seems to define something at odds with other dictionaries and sources.

Out of curiosity, the words I responded to was monarchy n not office of the monarch, what OED give for the word monarchy?

I still maintain his reputation also damage does not affect the queen's standing around the world. IIRC she's got pretty high approval ratings and widely respected as a head of state with an unrivalled experience. I do think she'll end up being the last full term monarch, or perhaps not if she keeps on going and Charlie boy died early.
Post Reply