The "Royals" Thread

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by reohn2 »

Psamathe wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 9:41pm ......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
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
pwa
Posts: 17368
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by pwa »

I have always thought the distaste for Camilla in some circles, on the grounds that she is not Diana, is unfair and hateful, so I have some sympathy for that particular Royal. 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.
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by reohn2 »

pwa wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 6:26am I have always thought the distaste for Camilla in some circles, on the grounds that she is not Diana, is unfair and hateful, so I have some sympathy for that particular Royal.
No comment.
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.
As you say he's a creep,without doubt.
We've no idea what the queen's feelings are about him or his sordid lifestyle and associations,she has to keep her own council about it other than him being stripped of some "honours".
But after all's said and done he's an heir to the throne and therefore there's an outside chance we could become his "subjects" :?
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

Psamathe wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 9:41pm
Jdsk wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 9:33pm
pwa wrote: 16 Feb 2022, 7:43amAndrew looks like a creep with a taste for sex-trafficked teenage girls and I rejoice that he will now spend the rest of his life hidden from view, knowing that he is despised by the public.
Image

Jonathan
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
What assurances (or promises) have been broken in the photo you quote?
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

mattheus wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 9:47am
Psamathe wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 9:41pm
Jdsk wrote: 29 Mar 2022, 9:33pm
Image

Jonathan
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
What assurances (or promises) have been broken in the photo you quote?
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.

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

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

Psamathe wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 9:52am
mattheus wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 9:47am
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
What assurances (or promises) have been broken in the photo you quote?
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.

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
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

thirdcrank wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 9:55am
Psamathe wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 9:52am
mattheus wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 9:47am
What assurances (or promises) have been broken in the photo you quote?
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.

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.
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".

(I've recently had a load af "attacks to person" in this thread from the above poster - required moderator to delete a load of posts viewtopic.php?p=1682724#p1682724)

Ian
toontra
Posts: 1190
Joined: 21 Dec 2007, 11:01am
Location: London

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by toontra »

reohn2 wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 8:47amWe've no idea what the queen's feelings are about him or his sordid lifestyle and associations,she has to keep her own council about it other than him being stripped of some "honours".
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).
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

@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.
Psamathe
Posts: 17650
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Psamathe »

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.
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.

In the context of the pictures the deleted posts were in relation to Bill & Kate and their Royal holiday and I was only passing on reports from the mainstream press, not "dishing out" anything. They were not "personal attacks" but were arguing the person not the issue and it was noted that despite others posting the save views as I'd been posting it was only at me where counters were directed (I didn't report anything).

Ian
reohn2
Posts: 45158
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by reohn2 »

toontra wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 10:19am
reohn2 wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 8:47amWe've no idea what the queen's feelings are about him or his sordid lifestyle and associations,she has to keep her own council about it other than him being stripped of some "honours".
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).
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.
Last edited by reohn2 on 30 Mar 2022, 11:02am, edited 1 time in total.
-----------------------------------------------------------
"All we are not stares back at what we are"
W H Auden
mattheus
Posts: 5044
Joined: 29 Dec 2008, 12:57pm
Location: Western Europe

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by mattheus »

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.
Agreed - to all 3 paragraphs.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

@ Psamathe

As I said it was personal advice, ie on a take it or leave it basis. In spite of several breaks from the forum, I have an embarrassingly high post count and it's inevitable, therefore, that some of my output attracts dissent. ie It goes with the territory. (Insert any cliché you like.) I try to reflect to see if there's something to learn and/ or respond with clarification. If I get "tired" of another poster I just switch them off. When I occasionally review my absurdly named "foes" list I find most have moved on. I've never switched somebody off because I can't take criticism.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by Jdsk »

reohn2 wrote: 30 Mar 2022, 11:02amI 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.
Why not? Family who want to attend these rites of passage doing so is generally a good thing.

The public status of this individual and of the royal family and their use as rôle models and the management of their public images is a different matter.

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

Re: The "Royals" Thread

Post by thirdcrank »

I'm drawn back to this exchange:-
Jdsk wrote: 25 Mar 2022, 10:08am
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.
I 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.

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
The country seems to have a lot of humbugs.
Post Reply