A lot of people who ought to know better are saying they agree with the Prince of Wales's off-the-cuff comment on Vladimir Putin. I often defend the POW myself.
But likening Putin to Hitler is just about as crass and politically illiterate as it's possible to be. Didn't even have the sense to say Stalin... I'm utterly appalled.
|
|
By all current standards HRH is RACIST!
|
|
No Rastaman, not racist. Politically illiterate, far worse for someone like him. .
|
>>By all current standards HRH is RACIST!
A nutter more like it - I'd lock him up in The Tower!
|
>>
>> I'd lock him up in The Tower!
>>
But his Mum owns the keys!:)
|
To be fair he was talking specifically about the invasion of Crimea, I think. not making a sweeping generalisation.
That's the danger of making any specific comparison with anybody notorious, everyone jumps to the wrong conclusion.
Supposing you were reviewing someone's efforts at watercolouring, and made the offhand remark that it was pretty naff, at about tourist street-artist level, reminiscent of Hitler's works. If you were famous, and the media got hold of it, you might immediately be branded as comparing X to Hitler.
(PS Stalin didn't invade the Crimea, that was Catherine the Great)
Last edited by: Cliff Pope on Thu 22 May 14 at 15:37
|
|
Besides, he was talking to a Holocaust survivor, so Hitler (which seems not to be the the iphone dictionary, incidentally) was already in play. It was Putin that HRH introduced to the conversation; it would have been even more incongruous to mention Stalin.
|
|
It was a remark made during a private conversation. Heaven help us all if everything we said was open to public scrutiny.
|
|
No, it was a remark made while on official royal business in the full knowledge (if the man has any awareness at all of his position and responsibilities) that it would be quoted and analysed. He's not exactly new to the job of heir to the throne, is he?
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 22 May 14 at 16:15
|
Whole point about Crimea is it's always been Russian or Soviet in modern times. Putin isn't behaving like Hitler at all, just resisting what probably looks to him (and looks a bit to me actually) like a fascist or fascizing onslaught from the West. Stalin was forced to do the same. Then one thing sort of led to another. None of these people are sweetie-pies of course.
And of course the other thing is that any mention of that vile nerd the führer is toxic. Exceptionally bad manners to bring the fellow up.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 22 May 14 at 16:18
|
"Whole point about Crimea is it's always been Russian or Soviet in modern times"
Not actually true. Russians were in the minority at the turn of the twentieth century and even in 1939 the split was about 50/50. The balance moved very heavily towards Russians with the expulsion of the Crimean Tatars and increasing settlement of Russians post the Second World War.
Russia has for strategic reasons has had a policy of Russification of the Crimea for the past 100 years and Putin's grab of the territory is the final move in this long term policy.
|
>> "Whole point about Crimea is it's always been Russian or Soviet in modern times"
>>
>>
>> Not actually true. Russians were in the minority at the turn of the twentieth century
>> and even in 1939 the split was about 50/50. The balance moved very heavily towards
>> Russians with the expulsion of the Crimean Tatars and increasing settlement of Russians post the
>> Second World War.
>>
But I don't suppose the Ukrainians were too keen to welcome the displaced Tartars back when thay aquired Crimea either?
|
>> Not actually true. Russians were in the minority at the turn of the twentieth century
>> and even in 1939 the split was about 50/50.
I didn't mean ethnically Russian, naturally. I meant Russian/Soviet/Russian politically, in power terms.
|
"To be fair he was talking specifically about the invasion of Crimea..."
That certainly is my interpretation. The Prince was speaking to a former Polish war refugee and they were discussing Hitler's annexation of various territories; the Prince said this was not unlike what Putin has been doing.
Hitler made arguments about the unfair redrawing of borders in the Treaty of Versailles, which left ethnic Germans in countries were they were supposedly disadvantaged; he cited the "German" city of Danzig (Gdansk, Poland) as an example. He used such arguments to help justify the invasion of Poland. The parallels with the recent Russian annexation of Crimea are clear. They are not strict re-runs of history, but close enough.
There was no suggestion that Putin hates Jews, is a vegetarian, believes Russians are a super-race, loves the music of Wagner and so on.
So the Prince is not historically illiterate.
Whether he should have actually given utterance to his thoughts is questionable; it was in fact a private conversation which the other person reported - possibly a breach of confidence (naive, not malicious, I'm sure).
He may therefore be politically illiterate in being seemingly unaware that his comments, if reported, would be misquoted and taken out of context and would generally inflame the international situation in a most unhelpful way.
Let's remember how much Russia suffered from the Nazi invasion: military losses of over 4 million killed, over 3 million taken prisoner, most of whom later perished; civilian losses as a result of military action of over 4 million kllled; civilian losses due to the war of over 6 million deaths. That, I imagine, is what has upset the Russians more than anything else.
|
Let's just look at Prince Charles.
Mistake number 1
It was a private conversation BUT, he's been around long enough to know that in his position, NO conversation is private.
Mistake Number 2
He treated Diana despicably marrying her to get an heir to the throne, while all the time getting his leg over with Camilla.
Mistake Number 3
After Diana's untimely death he INSISTS he will marry his girlfriend despite public opinion being against it.
Mistake Number 4
He gets his own way.
With a track record like that he should, at the very least, be aware there are folk out there who will hang on his every wrong word. To NOT realise this is a gross misjudgement and shows just how out of touch with the real world he is.
Off with his head as far as I'm concerned and he should never be king.
Pat
|
|
But do you think *anybody* should be King? (Or Queen?)
|
Yes I do, Mapmaker.
I think someone who has a credible past history of being honourable and patriotic should be King.
Prince William, or Harry, fit the bill admirably and have the upbringing required to bring the compassion and feeling needed to do the job.
An example needs to be set by the monarchy and Prince Charles will never be able to do that now.
Let us not forget how many years our Queen has been on the throne and never put a foot wrong.
Pat
|
>> Yes I do, Mapmaker.
>>
>
I vote for Mapmaker too.
Long Live Mapmaker !
|
Yes. He should be and will be if he outlives the Queen.
Some people can't see anything without wanting to mess around with it. Like a bunch of evil monkeys.
I am worried about Pat. What on earth does she think Diana Princess of Wales and the Prince's other wives have to do with Putin?
|
Phil-the-Greek's probably grateful it's not him putting his foot in his mouth.
With a dad like that it's not really surprising, is it?
;>)
|
I was a bit disappointed Pat didn't take her thoughts through to blaming Chucky Boy for the Chavs in the UK.
He did become a grandfather and a pensioner before ees got his first propa job, init.
Last edited by: gmac on Thu 22 May 14 at 18:29
|
>> Chavs in the UK<<
Now I'm glad you've brought that up gmac:)
There seems to be a vast difference in the idea of what a 'chav' actually is depending on where you are in the social spectrum.
Until I joined this forum I thought I knew what a chav was....he/she drove a BMW, had pots of money, and most of all, belittled those with less money and enjoyed doing it.
Now it appears that Chavs have become lower class idiots, specially if you listen to Rattle!
Can someone define a chav please?
What do I need to do to qualify as currently I'm standing with one foot either side of the fence not knowing which way to aspire to!
Pat
|
I understand the original definition of CHAV come from police shorthand. Council Housed And Violent.
Could be an urban myth, mind you.
|
>> I understand the original definition of CHAV come from police shorthand. Council Housed And Violent.
>>
>>
>> Could be an urban myth, mind you.
>>
and an unwarranted slur on all those living in council houses.
|
and an unwarranted slur on all those living in council houses
Not in my book. As with most types of folk, the overwhelming majority are fine, the moniker and violent only applies to a limited number.
I once carried out electrical surveys in Salford, in an area so bad for all types of crime that the police advised me to forget it, and when they learned I was not put off, to approach by walking as even chained up, they considered by bike would be gone in a matter of minutes.
Out of 12 addresses in the problem block, I felt sorry for 2 of them as the area had gone way downhill since they moved in, and they were nice folk. Perhaps 8 were ok, and the remaining 2 were so bad I was very quick in my work and spent the minimum time to learn what I needed.
So out of the 12, 2 were chavs, and from what I learnt from other surveyors 'my' address was by far the worst.
|
|
I thought it was older than that meaning child in Romani. Now it's an anti-social subculture.
Last edited by: gmac on Thu 22 May 14 at 20:33
|
>> I thought it was older than that meaning child in Romani. Now it's an anti-social
>> subculture.
>>
This is exactly right. I'm surprised our resident ex-canine hasn't chimed in, as "chavvy" is a fairly well known London East End slang term for a child, coming from the old Roma usage. In fact, you can hear Del Boy use it in an episode of Only Fools and Horses where he speaks of a heavily pregnant Raquel being about to "drop their chavvy". Another example of this kind of slang is "drum", a term Londoners use for their home - a word Roma brought here from the Serbo-Croat language - it means small lane in that language now.
Anyway, back on topic.
The main point is this: in his current role, there is no requirement for Charlie Chuckles to voice an opinion on political matters, in fact it is pretty much proscribed, and when he is in his future role it is most definitely neither required nor allowed.
If he, or any other Royal, wishes to pontificate on political matters, then I suggest they should do the Tony Benn - give up their titles and privilege and stand for election.
Now, who's voting for Charles Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg. Any UKIP voters think that's a nice name for a proper Brit? I suppose it's about as British as Farage.
|
I'm from sowf lunden of course vić, but we escaped from there in 1987.
I can honestly say that chav isn't a word I've ever used, and don't ever remember it being used, as a kyd.
I can also say, in all honesty, that I've really no idea (or care) what chav really means.
|
>> I can also say, in all honesty, that I've really no idea (or care) what
>> chav really means.
>>
I only care etymologically. I just thought you'd have heard the term chavvy given your background. Even my Dad, who grew up in Fulham, used to use it occasionally as a term for a child, long before its more modern appropriation.
BTW the Serbo-Croat word it's conected to - čovek - just means "man".
Last edited by: Alanović on Fri 23 May 14 at 10:02
|
>>I only care etymologically
I don't know what etymologically means either, but I know what man means, man, being I'm an aging hookah-smoking cat-erpillar :)
|
>>
>> Mistake Number 3
>> After Diana's untimely death he INSISTS he will marry his girlfriend despite public opinion being
>> against it.
>>
>>
What's public opinion got to do with it? If public opinion had it's way Jade Goody would have been in the running.
|
>>What's public opinion got to do with it<<
Simple, we finance the monarchy and their lifestyle.
.....and Jade Goody would have been preferable to the possibility of Camilla as Queen.
Pat
|
>>
>> .....and Jade Goody would have been preferable to the possibility of Camilla as Queen.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
We have enough trailer trash on our sink estates, let's not start promoting them.
|
Can you define the difference between Jade Goody and Camilla?
No morals despite their upbringing does it for me.
Pat
|
>> No morals despite their upbringing does it for me.
>>
>> Pat
>>
What stopped him marrying Camilla first time round? His family?
He's not the first man to miss out on love of his life first time only to catch up later and messily. And he won't be the last either.
|
|
The man is part of an archaic and outdated system. I'm with the Russians on this one both in 1917 and 2014.
|
>>>Until I joined this forum I thought I knew what a chav was....he/she drove a BMW, had pots of money, and most of all, belittled those with less money and enjoyed doing it. Now it appears that Chavs have become lower class idiots, specially if you listen to Rattle!
Gentleman BMW drivers have never been chavs. Chavs have always been young Corsa driving, track suited, tartan wearing, blinged idiots.
Or as the Oxford dictionary says... A young lower-class person typified by brash and loutish behaviour and the wearing of (real or imitation) designer clothes
|
>> Gentleman BMW drivers have never been chavs. Chavs have always been young Corsa driving, track
>> suited, tartan burberry wearing, blinged idiots.
>>
Fixed !
|
>>Until I joined this forum I thought I knew what a chav was....he/she drove a BMW, had pots of money, and most of all, belittled those with less money and enjoyed doing it. Now it appears that Chavs have become lower class idiots, specially if you listen to Rattle!
I like the definition that purports to come from Cheltenham Ladies College:
CHeltenham AVerage.
|
>>He's not the first man to miss out on love of his life first time only to catch up later and messily. And he won't be the last either. <<
Agreed Bromp, but making good choices the first time around comes with his job, and he failed miserably.
Let's face it, I bet there's been many a time Liz has regretted marrying Phillip when he's dropped a clanger, but she's always stood by him and made the best of a bad job.
It's what we expect of the monarchy, and what they should be doing to set an example to us all.
If you need to have a second go at life changing decisions you need to be funded by sheer hard work, not the public. In other words, you're not fit for purpose.
Pat
|
>>>If you need to have a second go at life changing decisions you need to be funded by sheer hard work, not the public. In other words, you're not fit for purpose.
That's a lot of folks off benefits then...
And of course it is debatable if the monarchy is funded by the public when looked at in a net sense.
Last edited by: Fenlander on Thu 22 May 14 at 19:04
|
>>
>> It's what we expect of the monarchy, and what they should be doing to set
>> an example to us all.
>>
>>
So if you're in a lousy marriage where you're unhappy, you'd hang on in there because you think it's the right thing to do?
Very noble of you.
|
Seems a bit harsh on someone who had a pretty awful start in life, managed to become what she had always dreamed of being, a celebrity and died an untimely death from cancer.
|
What a load of irrelevant rubbish is being spouted by Pat, RP and probably others.
Thank God no one would dream of listening to these utter asses. Obviously they mean well. But they are utter, utter asses.
The monarchy is a THING, not a succession of 'individuals'. Grow up for God's sake.
|
Yeah ! but you can have too much of a good THING that's why so many people are considering UKIP.
Not saying that's a good thing in itself but people are realising that the money in the bank is devaluing, they can no longer afford the things they had before. The energy companies are taking the micheal etc... etc...
I hear the media propaganda about how the economy is thriving but if you'd been with me on Sunday evening you would not have believed your eyes. The A1 from Berwick to Morpeth southbound around 8:30pm, I stuck my cruise control on at 60MPH. I did not get baulked once by lorries, trucks, HGVs or whatever you want to call them or any other traffic for that matter, it was like Armageddon had taken place. I have never, EVER, driven that stretch of road regardless of the time of day or night when there has not been a convoy of HGVs moving.
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 22 May 14 at 21:34
|
Sticks and stones.
Who gives a toss what the POW said. I certainly don't.
|
For what it's worth I consider him a total wassock.
Like the vast majority of my acquaintances who look on him in a similar light. That's the POW, not Putin, just for clarification
Last edited by: legacylad on Thu 22 May 14 at 22:08
|
I'm wiv ^these^ geysers. Except I wouldn't describe all my acquaintances as ' total wassocks ' Most of them, like me, are only partial wassocks.
I can't be doing with all these chinless hangers on. Just another ' upper class twit of the year ' IMO. The top of a rich vein of similar types.
I like Camilla, though..she enjoys a fag and a wee drop, I believe. Probably goes like a train as well !
|
I like the Prince of Wales, and Andrew.
As as for this pile of poo, Prince Charles allegedly made a nasty comment about Putin and all the lemmings are up in arms. And I'm sure all the lemmings have read a transcript and are not just relying on tabloid headlines.
Ridiculous.
And pathetic.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Thu 22 May 14 at 22:22
|
>> I like ...... Andrew.
Allegedy a weapons enabler for sadistic regimes in unpleasant parts of the world.
Sweet.
Still, it's a living I suppose.
|
>> I have never, EVER, driven that stretch of road regardless of the time of day or night when there has not been a convoy of HGVs moving.
I don't really believe that, no offence of course. 24 hours a day 7 days a week... there will certainly be the odd fallow hour.
Things may well have changed since mt day, but I remember that stretch of road with some affection. Met a well dodgy copper up there one time, a bit shocking and a nasty man.
|
None taken.
Of course there'll be times when the road is quiet it's never usually when I'm on it though.
I know I mentioned specfically HGVs, it was the general lack of traffic of any kind which struck me including the shed draggers who normally crawl south on Sunday afternoon/evening.
|
>>But likening Putin to Hitler is just about as crass and politically illiterate as it's possible to be.
Nonsense. I'm actually pro Putin. And I think the West haven't been very clever in the way they've treated him. And that it's perfectly reasonable for Russia to have Crimea.
But what he has done is exactly the same as Hitler did. Remember Austria? Hitler was welcomed with open arms (perhaps). Little by little; remember your salami principle.
Likening their actions is not the same as likening them, and a chap of your skill with words should recognise the difference. Man up!
|
>>
>> Nonsense. I'm actually pro Putin. And I think the West haven't been very clever in
>> the way they've treated him. And that it's perfectly reasonable for Russia to have Crimea.
>>
Exactly. We have pushed the ever-shifting boundary further East than it has been for centuries, and now wonder why the Russians want to shift it back a bit.
If we are going to plant our standard somewhere and say we are going to defend it, then we have to mean it. If we don't really then we are playing with fire.
If sanctions fail, are we going to declare war on Russia? If not, then lets not manoeuvre ourselves into a position where we drift into something we didn't intend.
|
>> Exactly. We have pushed the ever-shifting boundary further East than it has been for centuries, and now wonder why the Russians want to shift it back a bit.
According to today's comic, the Ukrainian parliament has told the interim president he's being too aggressive in the east and should tone it down and back off. Very sensible of them even if it causes scowls in Foggy Bottom and other centres of world evil.
Putin's laughing because all this has turned him into a good guy despite the idiot yawping of western politicians and media (and the Prince of Wales to his shame).
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 9 Jun 14 at 15:15
|
>>
>> Putin's laughing because all this has turned him into a good guy despite the idiot
>> yawping of western politicians and media (and the Prince of Wales to his shame).
>>
>>
He's managed that before - remember the Syrian chemical weapons fiasco?
He's clever, has a clear aim, but knows how far to push his luck. It's a pity our leaders in the west have wooly aims and are amateurs at great-power politics.
|
>>
>> He's managed that before - remember the Syrian chemical weapons fiasco?
>>
>> He's clever, has a clear aim, but knows how far to push his luck. It's
>> a pity our leaders in the west have wooly aims and are amateurs at great-power
>> politics.
>>
I'd disagree, from the way he deployed his forces it was blind panic. There seemed to be little in the way of thought to it. He threw everything including the kitchen sink to keep Assad in place, including some real ear bending of Assad. Managed more by luck than judgement.
|
As I recall he suddenly wrong-footed Obama, leaving Obama looking like the isolated war monger and himself the man of peace with a sensible solution. He timed it just as Cameron lost support for his efforts to intervene in support of the Americans.
He's achieved his aim - the world has stopped talking about overthrowing Assad, and now talks in terms of accommodation or easing his exit.
On Ukraine he's given enough encouragement to the extremists to be able to ride their achievements so far as it's safe to go, then has backed off and is again the voice of restraint.
So again, he's noteched up an achievement. No one cares about the Crimea, the point has been taken that really it's Russian anyway, so Russia's annexation has ended up seeming a very modest tidying up of the map that no one remotely wants to go to war over.
The last thing a country pursuing an aggresive foreign policy wants is for its activist client subversives in the target country to actually gain control. Putin learned that from Hitler - he exploited the feelings in the Sudentenland, but quickly suppressed Henlein etc once he'd achieved the objective.
|
Assad got himself in trouble when chemical weapons came out of the box, that's when the west wanted him to stand down. Before no-one was too bothered and they aren't now. As soon as the West showed an interest and dissapproval of chemical weapons, Putin thought Assad would fall. There's little doubt of that, so he panicked and threw everything he could find towards Syria as an attempt to block the West. As it turned out it didn't really matter.
His actions showed his thoughts rather than words.
Both parties got what they wanted, he's given up his chemical weapons and Assasd is still in power. The compromise was first suggest John Kerry if I remember correctly.
I wouldn't be too sure about Crimea forgotten at all. It will have long lasting repercussions especially in E Europe. Don't be surprised to see an increase in defence spending. No-one will want to be the next Crimea and be 'saved' by Russia. E Europe is certainly high on many people's agenda, far from no one caring about Crimea.
|
The only connection I can see is that both Hitler and Putin exploited irredentism, "any position of a state advocating annexation of territories administered by another state on grounds of common ethnicity or prior historical possession, actual or alleged". Thus, Hitler in the Sudetenland and Putin in the Ukraine.
Royalty should be discreet and a little mystifying and keep its mouth shut on politics and policy, except in so far as instructed by the PM. The Queen understands this perfectly but the rest are inclined to shoot their mouths off. Their behaviour must make her the most put-upon Mum in the Commonwealth.
|
>> So do we still think we should carry on as we are with an unelected
>> Head of State?
Yes
|
Well, obviously. It ain't broke and don't need no fixing.
Saw this ghastly bint on the box last night whose opinion was that the royals should stick to 'charity stuff', but there was no reason for the Prince of Wales to have meetings with or access to government ministers.
Someone said mildly that since he is heir to the throne, surely he needs to have some idea what's going on in the country? Ghastly bint said well, the Queen sees the PM every week so perhaps a meeting or two with the PM... that's all that's needed. Otherwise, get on with the charity stuff by all means.
What she was: a backdoor republican without the guts to admit it.
|
>> Well, obviously. It ain't broke and don't need no fixing.
Well, obviously it is broke when you have the "royals" dipping their noses in to governmental public policy. That is not their remit. Let them stand for election if they wish to be part of public policy making.
|
|
I don't see the problem. Are you saying ministers feel they have to follow Charles's wishes? Can't see many admitting to that.
|
|
No, of course I'm not. The problem is quite obvious. I'm a bit surprised you don't see it, you're not daft.
|
Expressions of concern, opinion etc are a legitimate part of a constitutional monarchy IMHO, Charles, reasonably enough, is doing this more in recent years as he prepares to take on the role as head of state given his mother's age.
If you believe what you read in the press that he is actually having any real effect on policy, decisions etc within government or opposition I am amazed. They don't tend to let facts get in the way of a good story when they can spice it up a bit.
You either think the monarchy works or that it doesn't, I think it does, you obviously think it doesn't.
|
>> Expressions of concern, opinion etc are a legitimate part of a constitutional monarchy IMHO
I'm sorry cd but it isn't a question of anyone's HO. The definition of a Constitutional Monarchy, from The Encyclopedia of Political Science, addresses this from the outset:
"Constitutional monarchy is a form of democratic government in which a monarch acts as a nonpolitical head of state within the boundaries of a constitution, whether written or unwritten."
Nonpolitical. They are not entitled to express opinion on governmental matters. That's the deal. That's the compromise they have to accept if they wish to keep their title and privilege. I think the Queen has been quite good at this, although I'd not be surprised to learn differently. Charles Philip Arthur George Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg seems to be going too far.
It may well be working on some level, it is however under threat now if that is the case.
|
>> "Constitutional monarchy is a form of democratic government in which a monarch acts as a
>> nonpolitical head of state within the boundaries of a constitution, whether written or unwritten."
>>
They should remain resolutely clear of party politics but I don't think there's anything wrong, and much that would be right, if they express views to Ministers from time to time. OK, Charles comes over as a bit of a fruit loop on some issues and is no doubt (small c) Conservative on questions like the 11+.
George VI undoubtedly played a role when Chamberlain fell, albeit perhaps he favoured his friend Halifax. There are foreseeable circumstances with prospects of minority government where the Crown will have to take a view on how best to act. Nothing wrong with that and far better than having a polticaly elected President (Blair?) taking such decisions.
|
Blair? Ha ha, yes, he'd get elected now.
Red herring.
We should go for the Irish presidential model, not a political US/French style model. There are options. We already have a head of Government in the PM, that's sufficient, politically.
|
A move from UK CM to UK Republic isn't doable as a standalone project. You cannot just replace the Monarch with a President who would almost inevitably be an 'Elder Statesman' with a party political history.
We have no constitution and a PM/Parliament with almost dictatorial powers. Any move to a Republic would need to remedy those defects including a much sharper delineation of rules and formalisation of checks/balances that presently operate.
Too much bother for a system that's not really broken.
|
nonpolitical does not mean not allowed to express an opinion on governmental matters, in my opinion, obviously in yours it does.
A definition from an encyclopedia is hardly a legal or even a quasi legal rule.
You don't like the monarchy, fair enough, I think it works well or at least better than any alternative available or conceivable.
A difference of opinion and throwing german names around is just a tiny bit childish, in my opinion.
|
Then what does nonpolitical mean? Seems quite clear to me, no political involvement. They want political involvement, let them stand for political office.
This does not seem a matter of opinion to me.
|
non political to me (opinion again) is not aligned directly or indirectly with any political party.
Having an opinion on education, the environment, sport, hunting, fishing, shooting, bringing up kids, or whatever is not political it's life.
I fully respect your opinion and believe strongly you have a right to it but i do not share it and I do not see it as anything but a matter of opinion.
Others have put the case against a republic far better than me.
|
>> The problem is quite obvious.
Perhaps you would care to define it?
|
>> See above reply to cd.
I read it of course Alanovic. Very similar to the discourse of the ghastly bint on the telly last night, although a bit less silly. And of course you are a declared republican, not a closet one, so full marks for honesty.
But although far from humble (what's all the sarcasm with strings of incorrect names?), your opinion is just an opinion, and one I see as fundamentally stupid and short-sighted, with the schoolboy arrogance of an ideologue and none of the canniness of an actual politician. What a revolutionary would once have called a useful idiot.
No offence of course. I've been there myself. I think you're quite a nice cat.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 30 Jun 14 at 16:21
|
Well I'm not an actual politician. Heaven forfend. Rather be thought a useful idiot. That's better than the useless ones we seem to have sticking their noses where it isn't supposed to be.
I like that German name, it's PC's father's "house", and therefore what I'd consider to be PC's correct surname. Windsor, indeed. How transparently false. Taking the good name of my home town in vain. Tchah, as you might say yourself, AC.
|
I'm rather pleased that Charles got stuck in.
He is influential, has seen a glaring need for improvement, knows how it could be improved and piped up for the benefit of the schoolchildren of this country ..what's wrong with that?
If the Left don't like someone of privilege and influence interfering with their governmental decision making ..then perhaps they need to make sure they get their decisions right .. and .. are not hypocritical enough to require most of us to endure their failing ideas, whilst sending their own children to private schools.
|
>>
>> If the Left
Category mistake. Republic/Monarchy is not a right/left issue. There are Tory Republicans and Labour Monarchists.
|
|
But broadly speaking, I think it's fair to say republicans are in far greater number on the left?
|
>> But broadly speaking, I think it's fair to say republicans are in far greater number
>> on the left?
>>
I've never seen any numbers to support that. Speaking for myself, I often vote Tory, never voted Labour in my life, and always been a Republican.
|
|
Well fair enough if you've not seen them. I would say that more left wing you are the more likely you are to be republican. Broadly speaking of course, I'm not sure I've seen many solid Tories that are republicans to suggest it has no relevance left/right wing.
|
>>
>> I like that German name, it's PC's father's "house", and therefore what I'd consider to
>> be PC's correct surname. Windsor, indeed. How transparently false. Taking the good name of my
>> home town in vain. Tchah, as you might say yourself, AC.
>>
He dropped the Greek/Danish/German appelation because it was not a surname. Some royal families don't have surnames.
I think when he joined the Royal Navy he needed a proper surname, and chose that of his uncle, Mountbatten.
|
A disappointment - Roger.
