Comments on: The Luvilee Jubilee: underwhelmed by opposition to Her Majesty's Big Day

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 20:14:00 +0000

Oh, the horror. They cheated on their wives. Just like every leader in the US and Europe in recorded history.

By: cfuse

cfuse — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:37:00 +0000

What keeps the monarchy alive? Plenty of other countries have ditched theirs, so the only thing keeping the Queen (and the rest of the family) as royalty is popularity and politics – they don’t put a foot wrong because they know that would be the beginning of the end for them. Once they’re out, they’re out for good.

Knowing this, who’s the better choice for succession Charles or William? That’s an easy question to answer IMO.

By: Mark Stephen Jones

Mark Stephen Jones — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:08:00 +0000

What about all the royal scandals over the years? too numerous to mention, but the most recent being Princess ‘Freeloading’ Margaret, Edward ‘Heil Hitler’ VIII and Duke Edward ‘I am a colonel in chief but ran home to mommy from the military’ Wessex Windsor ‘not forgetting Prince Charles ‘I married my mistress’ Windsor

By: Mark Stephen Jones

Mark Stephen Jones — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 12:01:00 +0000

Never say Never there is more than one way of skinning a cat

By: Mark Stephen Jones

Mark Stephen Jones — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:57:00 +0000

The Anglican Church of England was a Royal offspring, created by Henry VIII as part of royal politics against the Church of Rome and absolutely nothing to do with being created to praise God.

By: Leedslady

Leedslady — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:22:00 +0000

A football usually last about 95 minutes including stoppage time. Unfortunately there was no stoppage time for the jubilee. It was relentless indeed. And awful to boot.

By: Leedslady

Leedslady — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 11:16:00 +0000

It has nothing to do with popularity. Charles will be on the throne and Camilla will be queen and there is nothing we can do about it.

By: Shashwath T.R.

Shashwath T.R. — Sat, 09 Jun 2012 08:11:00 +0000

Richard II was actually surprisingly good; he got a lot of bad publicity because he tried to take power away from the nobles (not the commoners, who didn’t have any power to take away). But he was a patron of the arts, and established some of the first bits of English law.

Henry VI was a peaceful guy caught in a brutal time. He ended up being a good educationist, building Eton and King’s College at Cambridge.

John was handed a bad brief by his dear brother, the “good King Richard”.

Anyway, the more important question is, “how good/bad have British monarchs been since the beginning of constitutional government?”, and equally, “how much power have they actually had in government in that time?”. I’d argue that since Victoria, at the best, their power has mostly been minimal. As such, it’s only a question of whether the British want to go through the bother of maintaining a family on an extremely high social security bill, or elect somebody to an office with no power. Put that way, it’s a choice I’d have no interest in actually making either way, personally…

By: absimiliard

absimiliard — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 15:18:00 +0000

“As an Athiest, you wanna go back to my place and get jiggy with it? (surprisingly effective)”

-abs LOL-d

By: blearghhh

blearghhh — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 13:37:00 +0000

Shouldn’t it be Athiestest?

Anyway, as an Athiest, I don’t think I am really. I’d keep that for like Chris Hitchens, who I worship as like unto a deity.

By: heng

heng — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:54:00 +0000

Why should they be elected?

By: heng

heng — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:52:00 +0000

Yeah, bring the Stuarts back to power, they know what’s best!

By: Neill "Dire" Mitchell

Neill "Dire" Mitchell — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 11:46:00 +0000

“Meanwhile, at Dagenham the unofficial strike committee at Ford have increased their demands to thirteen reasons why Henry III was a bad king.”

By: cfuse

cfuse — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 05:48:00 +0000

The Windsors are a well oiled PR machine, they aren’t about to screw up their position of privilege. Charles will never sit on the throne, he’s just not popular enough and they aren’t about to give people reason to be questioning the institution. William is the next ruler, and that’s why his profile is so elevated. So, barring totally unpredictable events, I know exactly who I’m getting (and given his age, there’s a genuine possibility that he’ll outlive me).

The Royals don’t run anything (other than their own brand), they are figureheads. In that role, they do a great job for my country.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:47:00 +0000

Richard III was actually a good king. He just got rewritten by Shakespeare to please the Tudors. Some of those bad ones, like Henry VI, were just puppets to other interests. I’m surprised that you didn’t include the ultimate toxic monarch, Mary I.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:40:00 +0000

For slightly less than eleven months. And the system spit him out.

By: Daneel

Daneel — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:34:00 +0000

As well as Edward VIII, I’d say all of these were bad kings:

Stephen
Richard I
John
Edward II
Richard II
Henry VI
Richard III
Charles I
James II
George IV

By: Joliet

Joliet — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:22:00 +0000

Poor Republican protestors. They’re a stoic lot aren’t they? Just hang in there boys. You only have to hold out for the biggest Republican gift this universe could ever provide. I got three words for you:

King Charles IIIWhen that day comes just watch those monarchist throngs disappear with their fingers in their ears “lalalalala I can’t hear you”.

By: Daneel

Daneel — Thu, 07 Jun 2012 00:16:00 +0000

1936.

By: stumo

stumo — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:09:00 +0000

Do you also complain when the BBC is covering a football match and doesn’t devote 1/3 of that coverage to rugby?

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:59:00 +0000

I reckon Diana would make a better president now than then anyway. I’ve certainly found her a lot less annoying recently.

I suppose that some of it is retconning, but she was a bit of a whiny narcissist.

By: Wystan Mayes

Wystan Mayes — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:54:00 +0000

OK sorry about the national health glasses anomoly. All that talk of the pistols sent me back into the seventies, which is regrettable. The punks were supposed to gather this last weekend for a festival in Bath called ‘The Last Jubilee’ but the hosts, Bath Racecourse, cancelled it citing ‘health and safety’ and contractural issues. The organisers seem to think it is much more political but there has been no outcry. It is not ’77 and I apologise for the slip. Ok and the warm beer, who knows and the teeth? I was simply projecting myself. All reprehensible use of stereotypes but the atmosphere of all those archaic remnants was there to be sniffed, like the smell of an old book about deindustrialisation.
I am sorry if I offended any of my fellow Brits cos we must stand together brothers, an injury to one is an injury to all, sorry there go the seventies again.

By: Daneel

Daneel — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:45:00 +0000

@antinous I didn’t remember seeing it on the internet, I remembered seeing the old ITV programme it was commissioned for. I’m kind of surprised it’s available online.
I reckon Diana would make a better president now than then anyway. I’ve certainly found her a lot less annoying recently.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:53:00 +0000

The inclusion of Princess Diana was a clue that it was from 16 years ago.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:32:00 +0000

Just because Elizabeth Windsor has not used most of these powers during her reign, doesn’t mean her anti-science meddler son Charles won’t.

Why don’t you try look at a neutral source instead of political propaganda? The monarch is constitutionally unable to exert devolved powers despite them being in the monarch’s name.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:26:00 +0000

Well, you’re the athiest atheist of them all.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:24:00 +0000

Yes, all those tyrants that Britain has endured while democracy has bloomed elsewhere. When was the last time that you had a really bad monarch? The 17th Century?

By: Alisdair Cameron

Alisdair Cameron — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:16:00 +0000

Higher approval rates than any elected official? Look a bloody earthworm would have higher approval rates. That says nothing about the institution, and simply reflects the dismal calibre of Westminster politicians. I’ve nothing against them as individuals and am not a fervent republican but the relevance of royalty as an institution, as opposed to a curio or relic is very much in question. And pace what some else has said on the thread, there was suat all festivity devoted to the Jubilee in Newcastle, Tyne and Wear or Northumberland, while Scotland was particularly quiet.Far, far less than one might expect given the hype and hoopla and the build-up across so much of the media.

By: Antinous / Moderator

Antinous / Moderator — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:11:00 +0000

So, as we support this national broadcasting service you might expect that coverage of events like the Jubilee would be fair and impartial

From what I read online, the BBC coverage of the Jubilee barely covered the actual events of the Jubilee, as they were too busy giving face time to minor reality show stars and up and coming ‘journalists’ doing vague human interest stories.

By: stuzy

stuzy — Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:10:00 +0000

and the warm beer thing? Really?