foreveryoung Posted May 6, 2023 Share Posted May 6, 2023 9 minutes ago, chrisp65 said: Ah yeah I see the possible problem with this brand finance thing, different companies making different nebulous guesses on how to rank brands. I guess the main problem for many would be the presuming people have come here and spent money they wouldn’t have if there was no King. If they don’t buy King Charles souvenirs then their money would have stayed in their pocket, rather than buying a I heart London souvenir. Which is also sort of disproven by Versailles, I think the French king is dead but their palaces still get some visitors, more than ours even. Or taking the money made by the Crown Estate, which has been granted rights to the seabed and ‘owns’ £16 billion in properties around the UK and gets paid for the right to put wind turbines in the sea and all that weird shenanigans over and above then being granted millions in public money. Taking that and presuming it would be lost to the nation’s finances if it wasn’t royal. Like, it would disappear somehow if it wasn’t for a living monarch? Personally, I’m not convinced the UK would lose 1.7 billion a year if we didn’t work the system so heavily in their favour. We even pay ground rents on prisons to the royals, no wonder they’re raking it in. So yeah, I can see why even those suggesting they are a positive, couch it in slightly vague terms. But it can’t just be down to money anyway, can it? I guess if you’re in to it, you’re in to it. Your just frustrated you couldn't get in with you placard today aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 6, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 6, 2023 Here's William Bloke's take on it (from his Facebook page). Very reasonable, I think. Quote One of the most annoying things about appearing on a topical debate programme on tv or radio is that you spend the day after thinking of all the things that you should have said in response to audience questions. My appearance yesterday on BBC1’s Question Time was no exception. It was obvious that we’d be discussing the Coronation and sure enough the first question was about the invitation to swear allegiance to King Charles III, his heirs and successors. I made the comment that such things were obsequious, that pledges of loyalty to a new king belong in Game of Thrones rather than a modern democracy. What I should have done was to pick up on what one of the other guests had said just before I spoke, something that I think is more important than the flummery of a coronation. There were two MPs on the panel, one Labour, the other Tory, and both admitted that they had already pledged allegiance to the monarch - in their case the late Queen - when they became MPs. They are required to do so due to the nature of our constitution. The current arrangement stems from the 1689 Bill of Rights, an agreement that William of Orange was required to sign in order to become King of England. Under this settlement, the monarch agrees to give parliament the right to exercise executive power while they in turn pledge their loyalty to the crown. As democracy developed, the power of parliament grew while the monarch assumed a figurehead role, but the concept of the crown in parliament has remained the same. As a result, the people are not sovereign in their own parliament - the government acts in the name of the crown. Although the administrative powers of the monarchy - the right to make laws and raise taxes - have long been under democratic control, that are some very important powers that the government have retained, powers that they can use without recourse to parliamentary debate. These so-called ‘royal prerogatives’ include the right to declare war and the right to sign treaties. In practice, prime ministers have chosen to let MPs debate treaties and the Iraq War was debated and voted for by parliament. However, while these precedents remain uncodified, there is always a danger that an irresponsible prime minister could seek to exercise what are the final few remnants of absolutism. What we need is a written constitution, a document that begins ‘We, the People’, a modern Bill of Rights that protects citizens from abuse and can’t be abolished by a government with a majority, as the Tories are threatening to do with the Human Rights Act. Removing the crown from the constitution will allow us to end the anomaly of the royal prerogatives, replace the House of Lords with an elected chamber and ask incoming MPs to pledge allegiance to the people of the United Kingdom, rather than one person. We could hold a referendum on retaining a ceremonial monarchy that does the things that monarchists like - attract tourists, open hospitals, offer a sense of continuity - as well as the things we all enjoy - like providing an excuse for extra public holidays and giving people like the Sex Pistols something to rage against. The spectacle of what we all know as the Queens Speech would have to go of course. That big gold throne in the House of Lords would look splendid in a museum. More importantly, the symbolism of that event - of a monarch summoning our elected representatives to bow before them - might make us all feel less like subjects and more like citizens who are sovereign in their own parliament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeyp102 Posted May 6, 2023 Share Posted May 6, 2023 1 hour ago, Bizzzle said: Not my king! I’ve seen this from other people, just out of interest what is the meaning? Is it because he wasn’t voted in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted May 6, 2023 Share Posted May 6, 2023 Just now, mikeyp102 said: I’ve seen this from other people, just out of interest what is the meaning? Is it because he wasn’t voted in? I believe it’s because he popped out of a privileged fanny and didn’t spend his youth with an Ernesto Guevara poster on his wall 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 6 hours ago, mikeyp102 said: I’ve seen this from other people, just out of interest what is the meaning? Is it because he wasn’t voted in? Yeah! At least the prime minister was!!!! Seriously though the state of what we vote for should be a much larger concern than these lot, would be interesting to see a properly organised opinion poll to see who has the bigger disconnect which in truth should be alarming results for both 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomav84 Posted May 7, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2023 8 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said: Seems happy for his father probably. It’s stuff like this which adds fuel to the fire. As bad as the other side who try and make him look bad. Tit for tat I suppose. i don't believe the fire needs any fuel. i felt dirty doing it but to see if i was correct in my assumption i went to the daily mail home page...lo and behold, story about how harry left straight after the ceremony right at the top of the page. he is utterly despised by the right leaning media who are determined to have their readers feel the same (and by and large they have succeeded) .so yes, it's nice to see him enjoying himself and seemingly unaffected by the various talk about his attendance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Jareth Posted May 7, 2023 Popular Post Share Posted May 7, 2023 I'm just a humble observer and found the coronation interesting yesterday for all the ancient stuff which us serfs are not normally privy to. Many will dismiss it as old fashioned theatricals, personally I found it a bit daunting - those at the top of the pile who wield the power in this country - this is how they roll. Sirs, Lords, Masons, Scouts, all branches of the same ancient tree of power rooted across the various levels of society in the UK. Also can't help but think the Christianity element is complete BS, given Charlie boy was regularly knocking off Camilla whilst married to Diana, yet is now enacting Gods will amongst men. Bunch of self serving hypocrites. If you want to feel proud about your British identity - this lot ain't on your side. 9 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 1 hour ago, Jareth said: I'm just a humble observer and found the coronation interesting yesterday for all the ancient stuff which us serfs are not normally privy to. Many will dismiss it as old fashioned theatricals, personally I found it a bit daunting - those at the top of the pile who wield the power in this country - this is how they roll. Sirs, Lords, Masons, Scouts, all branches of the same ancient tree of power rooted across the various levels of society in the UK. Also can't help but think the Christianity element is complete BS, given Charlie boy was regularly knocking off Camilla whilst married to Diana, yet is now enacting Gods will amongst men. Bunch of self serving hypocrites. If you want to feel proud about your British identity - this lot ain't on your side. Without taking this down the ode religion route too much . Charles is ok and has sorted it with God . After all Jesus died on the cross for our sins . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enda Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 Awful seeing so many peaceful protestors arrested by the police. Such an undemocratic thing to do on the day of the coronation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted May 7, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2023 The moment a 17 year old took her seat and everyone looked to see if she knew Andrew; while he pretended to be someone else as he didn’t have £12,000,000 in small change with him... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 1 hour ago, tomav84 said: i don't believe the fire needs any fuel. i felt dirty doing it but to see if i was correct in my assumption i went to the daily mail home page...lo and behold, story about how harry left straight after the ceremony right at the top of the page. he is utterly despised by the right leaning media who are determined to have their readers feel the same (and by and large they have succeeded) .so yes, it's nice to see him enjoying himself and seemingly unaffected by the various talk about his attendance Well someone is telling lies. I stopped reading the mail so god knows , but in the daily sport it said Harry went to a private party straight after where an orgy took place with 24 virgins and dwarfs among one or two other things 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted May 7, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2023 1 minute ago, Rugeley Villa said: Well someone is telling lies. I stopped reading the mail so god knows , but in the daily sport it said Harry went to a private party straight after where an orgy took place with 24 virgins and dwarfs among one or two other things I believe it ended with a massive bukkake cum tribute into an ancient goblet believed to have been present at the last supper of Christ and then passed round each person taking a sip whilst declaring allegiance to the new King 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted May 7, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, Follyfoot said: I believe it ended with a massive bukkake cum tribute into an ancient goblet believed to have been present at the last supper of Christ and then passed round each person taking a sip whilst declaring allegiance to the new King This is weirdly close to the ending of Ghost's latest video... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Follyfoot Posted May 7, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, Lichfield Dean said: This is weirdly close to the ending of Ghost's latest video... Spillways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lichfield Dean Posted May 7, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2023 Just now, Follyfoot said: Spillways? Jesus He Knows Me (cover of the Genesis tune) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xela Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 10 hours ago, mikeyp102 said: I’ve seen this from other people, just out of interest what is the meaning? Is it because he wasn’t voted in? It means they only recognise Elvis as the true King. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sidcow Posted May 7, 2023 VT Supporter Share Posted May 7, 2023 12 hours ago, Rugeley Villa said: Read a few comments about the money the taxpayers pay towards the royal family and events like today . Correct me if I’m wrong but the royal family generate far more money for the country in a year than it costs the taxpayers over a year . 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 3 minutes ago, sidcow said: Just trying to give our king and monarchy some pros and to show people it isn’t all that bad. I know for a fact that some of the anti monarchy on here would jump at the chance to have dinner at the palace and be honoured by our king . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 2 minutes ago, Rugeley Villa said: Just trying to give our king and monarchy some pros and to show people it isn’t all that bad. I know for a fact that some of the anti monarchy on here would jump at the chance to have dinner at the palace and be honoured by our king . Just not a certain Scouse taxi bloke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rugeley Villa Posted May 7, 2023 Share Posted May 7, 2023 Just now, rjw63 said: Just not a certain Scouse taxi bloke He’d be there I know he would . Our king has a good record collection , so that would be the deal breaker . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts