Which is a position I despise in a modern so called "democracy"
FWIW as a person with such a job forced on her I admire the queen as a person.
The office of monarch and the term "royal" is an afront to my freedom.
Which is a position I despise in a modern so called "democracy"
No comment.
As you say he's a creep,without doubt.But not Andrew. We know for a fact that he continued his friendship with Epstein and Maxwell after Epstein first ended up in court, which is pretty hard to explain even if you are inclined to give him the benefit of any doubt. Okay, his Mum wants to believe in him, and that's what Mums are for, so I feel sorry for her in that regard.
What assurances (or promises) have been broken in the photo you quote?Psamathe wrote: ↑29 Mar 2022, 9:41pmJust like Royal assurances Camilla would never be a Queen; assurances made when it suited the Royal Family when Charles was discarding Diana and public sympathy was with Diana. Promises they just discard when it suits them.
But we need to remember we are their subjects, subject to their rule, their wishes (and without any say who "they" are or if we wish to accept their rule).
Ian
Search it out yourself (as I'm tired of your having a go at me on this thread and I'm not your personal search engine). It was years ago when Charles and Camila 1st started and were getting married.mattheus wrote: ↑30 Mar 2022, 9:47amWhat assurances (or promises) have been broken in the photo you quote?Psamathe wrote: ↑29 Mar 2022, 9:41pmJust like Royal assurances Camilla would never be a Queen; assurances made when it suited the Royal Family when Charles was discarding Diana and public sympathy was with Diana. Promises they just discard when it suits them.
But we need to remember we are their subjects, subject to their rule, their wishes (and without any say who "they" are or if we wish to accept their rule).
Ian
I'd be interested in an an answer to the question too, not as an attack on you personally, but at the very least, if somebody makes insinuations like those, it seems reasonable that they should be prepared to spell it out when asked.Psamathe wrote: ↑30 Mar 2022, 9:52amSearch it out yourself (as I'm tired of your having a go at me on this thread and I'm not your personal search engine). It was years ago when Charles and Camila 1st started and were getting married.mattheus wrote: ↑30 Mar 2022, 9:47amWhat assurances (or promises) have been broken in the photo you quote?Psamathe wrote: ↑29 Mar 2022, 9:41pm
Just like Royal assurances Camilla would never be a Queen; assurances made when it suited the Royal Family when Charles was discarding Diana and public sympathy was with Diana. Promises they just discard when it suits them.
But we need to remember we are their subjects, subject to their rule, their wishes (and without any say who "they" are or if we wish to accept their rule).
Ian
Ian
When Charles and Camilla were getting engaged there was a lot of ill feeling after the way people thought Charles treated Diana. So it was decided by the palace that when Charles ascended the throne Camilla would take the title "Princess Consort".thirdcrank wrote: ↑30 Mar 2022, 9:55amI'd be interested in an an answer to the question too, not as an attack on you personally, but at the very least, if somebody makes insinuations like those, it seems reasonable that they should be prepared to spell it out when asked.
Yesterday made it crystal clear. The royal PR department made the first move in the child-molester's rehabilitation - unless the Queen over-ruled their advice and insisted in his central role at the event (which I think is extremely unlikely).
Discussion has moved on and my raising Camilla was in the context of how Royal's say one thing then just do whatever they want changing their minds after having done the PR to gain some public acceptance.thirdcrank wrote: ↑30 Mar 2022, 10:43am @Psamathe
My personal advice would be "if you can't take it don't dish it out." In this context, I mean taking swipes at the royal family - a subject on which many people have strong feelings. FWIW, the picture being discussed - among several of this event - only the the queen and Duke of York are seen, so Camilla etc seems irrelevant here. I get the impression that you expect to post what you like and regard any reply you don't like as a personal attack.
I really thought that the assurances you were referring to had been made by the queen herself. IIRC it's been said that the Duke of York is stepping back from public life, but it seems a bit harsh to expect him to stay at home in circumstances when his mother might welcome family support, both moral and physical. It's all too easy to believe the stuff peddled by royal correspondents.
I get the impression that the Duke of York still believes he has been wrongly accused and has been badly treated and it seems reasonable to disabuse him of that view.
I didn't watch it so can't comment on whether his role was central or not,but paedophile or not,it was his father's memorial service so I'm not going to make a judgement on him attending.
Agreed - to all 3 paragraphs.thirdcrank wrote: ↑30 Mar 2022, 10:43am @Psamathe
My personal advice would be "if you can't take it don't dish it out." In this context, I mean taking swipes at the royal family - a subject on which many people have strong feelings. FWIW, the picture being discussed - among several of this event - only the the queen and Duke of York are seen, so Camilla etc seems irrelevant here. I get the impression that you expect to post what you like and regard any reply you don't like as a personal attack.
I really thought that the assurances you were referring to had been made by the queen herself. IIRC it's been said that the Duke of York is stepping back from public life, but it seems a bit harsh to expect him to stay at home in circumstances when his mother might welcome family support, both moral and physical. It's all too easy to believe the stuff peddled by royal correspondents.
I get the impression that the Duke of York still believes he has been wrongly accused and has been badly treated and it seems reasonable to disabuse him of that view.
Why not? Family who want to attend these rites of passage doing so is generally a good thing.
The country seems to have a lot of humbugs.Jdsk wrote: ↑25 Mar 2022, 10:08amI have been involved in discussions of precisely that sort, including the names of organisations and whether they should make nominations for honours. And there's another on its way.thirdcrank wrote: ↑25 Mar 2022, 9:41am Hands up everybody who is, say, a republican Queen's Counsel, who has campaigned to have the letters changed to something like TLF? (Top Learned Friend)
Republican members of a charity with "Royal" in the title or a royal patron?
Members of a trade union or association eg "Royal College" who have campaigned for a name change?
I suppose we'll never know how many people decline a gong etc on republican grounds without making a fuss about doing so.
As a general summary the promotional advantages of royal association have consistently outweighed all other factors. Sometimes accompanied by statements that people don't like the system but that's the way it is.
Jonathan