The Coronation

[Daggers]

9 hours ago, TJQuik said:

Have any of the royalists here looked up where the jewels on the crown come from?

Argos?

[Zear0]

9 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

I hope we can all agree that there are occasions when the right to protest is overridden by the right of other people to do what they want to do.  Let's take an extreme example, the memorial to your late owner the game after his helicopter crashed.  Would anyone believe that an anti-Thailand protester should have been allowed to wave banners and shout slogans during the memorial ceremony?  I hope not.

 

So that's the principle, that sometimes freedom to protest is overridden by circumstances.  The only question is, in this case, should that freedom have been overridden?  Well, that I suppose depends how much disruption they intended to cause, and how much they would have spoiled the enjoyment of the people around them.

Firstly, no, we can't "all agree". Stop speaking for myself and other people who have literally disagreed with your view in this thread who obviously don't agree.

 

Just like the previous post I quoted, you have an equal right to desire that police and government behave in an authoritarian manner, when it suits your own personal view, that I do for wanting to permit protest. You have a right to your view, myself and others have a right to ours. That was what I found so laughably stupid about the previous post who tried to shoehorn freedom and democracy into their justification for the complete opposite of both those principles. You haven't thankfully, but make a different point that I think strays I to what I consider to just be human decency which is a judgemental concept. When the Queen died, people had the right to protest, but they didn't as most people considered that extremely poor taste. But they still had the right to do so but chose not to. Apart from one bloke shouting at Prince Andrew, I don't recall a single protest at the procession. 

 

Environmentalism, abortion, trans rights, nuclear weapons, government policies, religion are all things that have actual impact on how people live and are also, at times, divisive. I have strong views on the above and consider them far more important than the justification for the continued existance of a monarchy. For a functioning democracy to work, and for people to be truly free, without the illusion of freedom, people need to be allowed to protest. There is a sliding scale (funerals as the example we've used) where discretion is applied. A few people holding cards at a coronation saying "down with this sort of thing" is perfectly fine. 

 

Boris Johnson (as if a soppy lefty like me using him to make a point...) nailed it when he said what a wonderful example of freedom we have in this country when someone can shout "twat" at the PM on his morning run. Freedom and democracy, which is slowly being chipped away is about letting those we disagree with have a voice and tolerating them the most when it's things we disagree with. I'll never ever say protests should be banned as the right should always exists and I trust the majority of people to apply that right at appropriate times. Saturday was an extremely appropriate time.

[Spudulike]

11 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Anyone see the bit where they oiled up the king with the special king oiling spoon yesterday?

 

Totally normal stuff, that.

It's normal for coronations. It's part of a ceremony dating back a thousand years. History, it's important. 

[Daggers]

1 minute ago, Spudulike said:

It's normal for coronations. It's part of a ceremony dating back a thousand years. History, it's important. 

History: it’s important to learn from it - not repeat it. 

[jonthefox]

1 hour ago, Daggers said:

History: it’s important to learn from it - not repeat it. 

History is overrated . There’s definitely no future in it.

[TJQuik]

14 hours ago, ian__marshall said:

Bet the Scousers are livid listening to this after yesterday. Top wumming from the King 🤣

From the people who brought you "politics doesn't belong in sport"...

[dsr-burnley]

2 hours ago, Zear0 said:

Firstly, no, we can't "all agree". Stop speaking for myself and other people who have literally disagreed with your view in this thread who obviously don't agree.

 

Just like the previous post I quoted, you have an equal right to desire that police and government behave in an authoritarian manner, when it suits your own personal view, that I do for wanting to permit protest. You have a right to your view, myself and others have a right to ours. That was what I found so laughably stupid about the previous post who tried to shoehorn freedom and democracy into their justification for the complete opposite of both those principles. You haven't thankfully, but make a different point that I think strays I to what I consider to just be human decency which is a judgemental concept. When the Queen died, people had the right to protest, but they didn't as most people considered that extremely poor taste. But they still had the right to do so but chose not to. Apart from one bloke shouting at Prince Andrew, I don't recall a single protest at the procession. 

 

Environmentalism, abortion, trans rights, nuclear weapons, government policies, religion are all things that have actual impact on how people live and are also, at times, divisive. I have strong views on the above and consider them far more important than the justification for the continued existance of a monarchy. For a functioning democracy to work, and for people to be truly free, without the illusion of freedom, people need to be allowed to protest. There is a sliding scale (funerals as the example we've used) where discretion is applied. A few people holding cards at a coronation saying "down with this sort of thing" is perfectly fine. 

 

Boris Johnson (as if a soppy lefty like me using him to make a point...) nailed it when he said what a wonderful example of freedom we have in this country when someone can shout "twat" at the PM on his morning run. Freedom and democracy, which is slowly being chipped away is about letting those we disagree with have a voice and tolerating them the most when it's things we disagree with. I'll never ever say protests should be banned as the right should always exists and I trust the majority of people to apply that right at appropriate times. Saturday was an extremely appropriate time.

Protest was allowed.  Not all protests, because the police decided (rightly or wrongly) that some of the protestors were overstepping the mark and had to be stopped, others were protesting within acceptable limits and could continue.  There have to be limits to what protestors can do.

[Dahnsouff]

2 hours ago, Daggers said:

History: it’s important to learn from it - not repeat it. 

UK Economy says hold my beer. 

[Alf Bentley]

16 hours ago, st albans fox said:

If we were a republic, we would have to elect a president as a head of state (with no powers) to represent the U.K. on the international stage at many public events 

 

you’d expect that to be a political figure of some description…… given the quality of politician we’ve seen over the years, i reckon we’re better off with Charles and then William !

 

president Blair? President Hague ?  President brown.?  President ashdown ?   Heaven forbid ….. president Johnson ! 

sometimes pragmatism works ……..

 

 

15 hours ago, bovril said:

I think in Italy parliament chooses an elder statesman of politics, which seems quite sensible. Hague wouldn't be a bad choice to be honest. I suppose you could argue we have our own version of that where the monarch rules with the tacit approval of parliament.

 

Having said that, getting the UK parliament to decide on an ex politician to be head of state would probably be a car crash. 

 

I'd like to put some questions to those who favour an elected head of state:

- Would the head of state be directly elected by a national vote?

- What role would they have and what powers or political influence (if any) would they exercise?

- What sort of elected presidents do you envisage? Politicians or other public figures? Politically partisan or not?

 

There are a lot of directly-elected heads of state with strong political powers (France, USA, Mexico, Brazil). As Bovril points out, there are indirectly-elected heads of state with powers limited to a domestic constitutional role who rarely represent their country on the global stage. Both Germany and Italy have such Presidents: ever heard of Frank-Walter Steinmeier or Sergio Mattarella?  The only directly elected President with limited powers that I can think of is Michael Higgins, President of Ireland.

 

Of course, we could opt for a powerful political head of state like France or USA, but that would require a recalibration of the whole democratic/constitutional system, unless you wanted an elective dictatorship. France and the USA have checks and balances: a PM and National Assembly (parliament) in France, Congress and the Supreme Court in the USA. But both have had issues: e.g. "cohabitation" of a right-wing President and left-wing PM/National Assembly or vice-versa in France; gridlock between President and  Congress and conflict with Supreme Court in the USA. A large proportion of the population would also feel that a partisan President didn't represent them or would feel actively hostile to them (more so than under the monarchy).

 

I assume most who want change envisage the elected head of state fulfilling a similar role to the monarch: i.e. a non-partisan, relatively apolitical head of state? That might work if such a President was indirectly-elected - parliament does manage to elect non-partisan Speakers fairly successfully (though Bercow became a controversial figure). But would they still represent the UK globally and at public events? By definition, they'd have a lower profile than either a monarch or a directly-elected President.

 

It would be possible to have a directly-elected President with no power to legislate, but would it be possible to prevent them from seeking political influence via speeches? The President could cite their massive personal mandate - particularly in comparison to our indirectly-elected PM, who has no such direct mandate. It's easy to imagine a scenario of an unpopular Labour government with President Boris lambasting it - or, if the country went further downhill and migration is further weaponised, how about President Farage - or, if you're a Tory, how about President Blair or President Corbyn using their national mandate to whip up opposition to an elected but unpopular Tory government?

 

Maybe the country would elect someone responsible, uncontroversial and happy to play a limited role as constitutional guarantor/non-partisan figurehead, but I wouldn't bank on it. Pretty likely that characters like Johnson, Farage & Blair would be candidates, I reckon. Given our quirky British sense of humour, we could also end up with a non-political celebrity - President Robbie Williams or Katie Price? Mind you, President Zelenskyy of Ukraine was a TV actor, so maybe that could work?

 

Anyone know of a country that has a directly-elected head of state with only limited powers, apart from Ireland? It seems to have worked for Ireland with their last 3 Presidents (Mary Robinson, Mary McAleese & Michael Higgins) but that might be more luck than an endorsement of the system - before my time, De Valera was Irish President and he was certainly a polarising figure. I'm not well informed about Irish politics, but think they've partly ended up with widely respected presidents due to voters of the two main traditional parties (Fianna Fail & Fine Gael) electing someone they can both live with & the luck of high-quality candidates. I'm not sure how that situation will develop now Sinn Fein has become a major player in the Irish Republic....

 

The monarchy is, in many ways, an absurd anachronism. But its nature, role and staff expertise have also been developed by historic change - from medieval warlords via the growing power of landed property, then capital, then labour and people over the centuries, leaving us with the current situation of a monarchy with little real power, a relatively unifying role and a lot of learned/trained expertise. If they were to exceed their powers, they know that they would rapidly face public hostility and potentially the removal of their status. Unless persuaded otherwise, I'm with St. Albans Fox: it ain't broke so don't fix it! Let's fix our malfunctioning democratic system with its corporate lobbyists, corruption, incompetence, unfair elections and over-centralised power instead! 

 

Time to stop ranting and focus on football..... 

 

 

[foxile5]

4 hours ago, Spudulike said:

It's normal for coronations. It's part of a ceremony dating back a thousand years. History, it's important. 

Just because something has happened for a relatively short period of time given the scope of human life and the universe doesn't mean it should go unquestioned.

 

But if you're in favour of oiling up old men with ceremonial spoons because a thousand years ago ritual was important to consolidate power then that's fine.

 

But let's not pretend that in contemporary society it's outdated and ridiculous. ****ing oiling up grown up men with special spoons.

Edited 8 May 2023 by foxile5

[Fox1norfolk]

4 hours ago, Daggers said:

History: it’s important to learn from it - not repeat it. 

History is a series of lies agreed upon by historians

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

Just because something has happened for a relatively short period of time given the scope of human life and the universe doesn't mean it should go unquestioned.

 

But if you're in favour of oiling up old men with ceremonial spoons because a thousand years ago ritual was important to consolidate power then that's fine.

 

But let's not pretend that in contemporary society it's outdated and ridiculous. ****ing oiling up grown up men with special spoons.

What is the sentence? "Tradition is peer pressure from dead people."

 

Also you make a great point here in that these traditions may well not be a guide for human behaviour as they have existed for a relative flyspeck of human history - to say nothing of Earth and Universal history - anyway.

[Parafox]

3 hours ago, Fox1norfolk said:

History is a series of lies agreed upon by historians

What rubbish. 

 

So you're saying ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Mayan empire, Chinese history etc. etc. is all lies?

 

Are you claiming the Spanish Armada, the world wars, the revolutions in various nations are lies?

 

Essentially you're claiming that every historical moment since the big bang (or whatever) are lies?

 

All the physical evidence of history that exists, are lies.

 

You've made a bit of a fool of yourself there, unless you can qualify it with facts. Which I doubt.

Edited 8 May 2023 by Parafox

[Fox1norfolk]

3 minutes ago, Parafox said:

What rubbish. 

 

So you're saying ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Mayan empire, Chinese history etc. etc. is all lies?

 

Are you claiming the Spanish Armada, the world wars, the revolutions in various nations are lies?

 

You've made a bit of a fool of yourself there, unless you can qualify it with facts. Which I doubt.

Napoleon

[Parafox]

2 minutes ago, Fox1norfolk said:

Napoleon

What? Napoleonic wars actually happened.

 

Post when you're sober.

 

Or when your carer is with you.

Edited 8 May 2023 by Parafox

[Parafox]

Mind you, I really enjoyed the Coro Concert. 

[Spudulike]

4 hours ago, foxile5 said:

Just because something has happened for a relatively short period of time given the scope of human life and the universe doesn't mean it should go unquestioned.

 

But if you're in favour of oiling up old men with ceremonial spoons because a thousand years ago ritual was important to consolidate power then that's fine.

 

But let's not pretend that in contemporary society it's outdated and ridiculous. ****ing oiling up grown up men with special spoons.

You seem to be showing an unhealthy obsession with this 

[foxile5]

36 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

You seem to be showing an unhealthy obsession with this 

2 posts on it. One pointing it out and one responding to you.

 

By that token I'm also obsessed with Yann Kermorgant's penalty miss.

[Spudulike]

4 minutes ago, foxile5 said:

2 posts on it. One pointing it out and one responding to you.

 

By that token I'm also obsessed with Yann Kermorgant's penalty miss.

Aren't we all 

[Nick]

I'm looking today at the images of Charles and Camilla during the coronation on the front pages of the papers (I've made effort to avoid it all this far) and irrespective of whatever you think of the monarchy, was anybody else's first impression that surely modernisation of the process and particularly their outfits is required? Is it just me that thinks they look completely absurd, literally like a bad panto? 

[RobHawk]

1 hour ago, Nick said:

I'm looking today at the images of Charles and Camilla during the coronation on the front pages of the papers (I've made effort to avoid it all this far) and irrespective of whatever you think of the monarchy, was anybody else's first impression that surely modernisation of the process and particularly their outfits is required? Is it just me that thinks they look completely absurd, literally like a bad panto? 

Isn't the royal family just a bad panto now anyway? 

 

But the public lap it up like sheep

[Daggers]

2 hours ago, Nick said:

I'm looking today at the images of Charles and Camilla during the coronation on the front pages of the papers (I've made effort to avoid it all this far) and irrespective of whatever you think of the monarchy, was anybody else's first impression that surely modernisation of the process and particularly their outfits is required? Is it just me that thinks they look completely absurd, literally like a bad panto? 

I missed everything on purpose, saw the pictures, and was waiting for Jon The Hat to go off on one about drag acts reading to children. 

[HighPeakFox]

My antidote to the Coronation was to be booked to perform at a wedding. One of those where there was a lot of love and happiness in the room, and it was topped off by the bride also turning 50 that day. 

[yorkie1999]

Went to a wedding over the weekend, good night, but it was the first time i've ever seen a stripper performing for the brides birthday.

[Zear0]

1 hour ago, HighPeakFox said:

My antidote to the Coronation was to be booked to perform at a wedding. One of those where there was a lot of love and happiness in the room, and it was topped off by the bride also turning 50 that day. 

 

6 minutes ago, yorkie1999 said:

Went to a wedding over the weekend, good night, but it was the first time i've ever seen a stripper performing for the brides birthday.

Always the quiet ones...