BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 04:03 PM

Tim: You, & Fred, & anyone, can think what the hell you like. Can you not get it that it is just that reference to vomit, to throwing up, with which Fred in his exquisite taste & moderation chose to initiate a thread on this forthcoming occasion, & to which he remains devoted & dedicated, to which I took, & take, exception? I have not 'abused' him, except to call him a booby because I thought him a booby. {If you call that 'abuse' then I fear the Mudcat is unsuited to one of your refined and exquisite sensibilities}. I hope I am not finding you one too. If you don't want to be thought so, please lay off about the VOMIT ~~~ please. I find it exceptionally distasteful.

I know no-one any apology, and am profoundly uninterested in your opinion on the matter.


~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 04:37 PM

Booby, I thought that was BRITNEY SPEARS, or Dolly Parton, has Fred had a change of sex, heaven forbid.what is the folk scene coming to
   personally i would put all the royal family in the stocks with the exception of Fergie,
Fergie deserves preferential treatment, I would give her a good going over, then I would make sure she had to read budgie the little helicopter, till she begged for mercy

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 04:56 PM

Quote by Dick Miles
Fergie deserves preferential treatment, I would give her a good going over
Unquote

Bloody hell Dick, you must think a lot of yourself. She wouldn't even touch a whisker on your beard, let alone letting you give her a good going over.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 28 Nov 10 - 05:39 PM

That depends on how you define a good going over.
maybe I wouldnt touch a whisker on her beard either, JUST GIVE HER A BUNCH OF FIVES.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 02:55 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:04 AM

Personally, I wasn't going to mention my ginger fetish, but there you go....

Amazing how many call Charles for being an adulterer. How many mates have some people got? One in five married men apparently, and one in seven married women.

Those who decry Charles for being dragged into a marriage he didn't want (his love being a left footer and that would never do for the establishment thirty years ago.)   Does this mean you are going to go through your address book and delete 20% of your mates?

What the Bishop doesn't take into account (getting back to the thread) is that he sees himself as relevant to the people whereas, due to the fact few people are religious, he is only relevant in his job as being part of the establishment, so he was slagging off the only institution that gives him the right to wear silly headgear and waffle sanctimonious twaddle in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 04:07 AM

MtheGm takes his ball home.....what next, threatening to tell teacher that someone said 'vomit'?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:11 AM

As the monarch is the head of the church of England, he's in a tricky position but I admire his courage in speaking out about this unspeakable institution. Ironically, some prominent members of the C of E oppose having women in positions of authority i.e. bishops, so acknowledging Liz Windsor as head of the church is, in itself, hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:19 AM

Though OT, Leveller, I think that is amongst many reasons why my (included a failed attempted me) prefer to just try to be Christian and see ourselves as non denomination...

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:21 AM

my should have been many above

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:25 AM

Earlier up the thread Joe Offer said: "For us in the colonies, British pageantry is fascinating."

For the record, Joe, many of us in Britain find much of this pageantry to be baffling and irrelevant! We are still a very class ridden society and I, for one, think that much of the pageantry is really about mystifying and overawing the 'peasants' so that they will know their place. Unfortunately for the British ruling class the world has moved on and there are now a sizeable minority of 'peasants' who are no longer overawed.

Nevertheless, this thread just goes to show that there are quite a few British peasants who are still willing to let themselves be dazzled and bamboozled!

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Jon
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:35 AM

Had 6 peasants in the garden again today... At least that's what I call them when in ironic mood. Poor blighters will all get shot. And no, not by us - we just feed them when they come to the garden.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:43 AM

'MtheGm takes his ball home.....what next, threatening to tell teacher that someone said 'vomit'? '

I don't need to take any ball home, Tim, nor tell anyone except you & Fred that I find the hyperbolical threat of vomiting, throwing up, &c, in this context a peculiarly vulgar, distasteful locution, unworthy of anyone with any pretension to being thought a gentleman. YMMV, naturally; but if it does, & you can't even see the grounds of my objection, then I do feel genuine pity for you.

Regards as ever

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 05:59 AM

"I have nowhere denied you any right to the opinions you hold". Sorry M. Your postings here and on other threads have shown a complete intolerance of all who oppose the monarchy.

You have, on several occasions equated the wish of myself, and several other posters, to end the monarchy, as left wing. It is nothing of the sort. It would be the logical step of any country faced with such an outmoded institution.

You seem to think that I and those other posters are somehow motivated by hatred of the incumbents of the monarchy. Wrong! I hate the institution, and I hate unjustified rank, wealth and privilege. But the kings, queens, princes and princesses of this world are there by accident of birth, nothing more. The holders of those things are thus a source of irritation to me, nothing more. I reserve my hatred - and my vomit - for the office, not the holder, and for the pomp and pageantry and wanton waste of public money which are associated with that office.

As for "piss of u big booby". If you cannot see what is so patheticly childish about making a remark like that, it can only be because you have sunk so low, that you are incapable of realising how low you have sunk.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Fred McCormick
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:01 AM

"unworthy of anyone with any pretension to being thought a gentleman". Wrong again, M. I am not a gentleman and have no pretensions towards being thought of as such.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:17 AM

I accept your point SW but here we have a paradox: if you really want to change the system and feel you can, there's little point in grumbling into your pint or contributing to these theads; you have to join the establishment, risk the charge of hypocricy, and try to change it from within. Did our goverment listen to all the stop the war protesters? The biggest upheaval in Britain was started in parliament itself by a relatively small group.
And Fred, another paradox. If the monarchy and peerage were to be abolished, do you think they would go willingly and sacrifice even a small part of their privilages and wealth. She would just be the Former Queen with her fortune, houses, income and servile staff still. As good old Oliver said: 'We will cut off the king's head and the crown with it'. You cannot separated the institution and the holders of the office. The Queen, who monarcists tell us is very experienced and wise in the ways of the government and the world, expected the public to pay for the restoration of Windsor Castle after the fire and took 30 years to see that she should really pay income tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:26 AM

MtheGM; how about 'I'm feeling a little bilious'? Is that 'gentlemanly' enough for you?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:33 AM

I'm not a big fan of Royalty apart from reading about early Kings and Queens which I do I admit find facinating, anyway having said that I am indifferent to what the Royal family are doing now in the words of Katherine Tate 'not bovvered'. However, the remarks coming from the Bishop were impolite and ill-mannered, no excuse. Who the heck is he to put a time limit on anything it's none of his damn business. This is typical C of E bad-manners. It's not the first time one of them has opened his fat gob, they tend to tell little children just before the Christmas break that Santa isn't real great for the parents of tearful little ones. If I was Wills I would punch him on the nose.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 06:38 AM

Exlnt, that really raises the tone of this ...erm discussion

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 07:00 AM

"I have nowhere denied you any right to the opinions you hold". Sorry M. Your postings here and on other threads have shown a complete intolerance of all who oppose the monarchy.<<<< Fred McCormick
====
No, Fred. I am 'intolerant' of no-one's right to hold any views, on the monarchy or anything else. I myself have, as I have often said, no particular interest either way in the monarchical institution, tho I think the traditional parades & ceremonies can make good tv from time to time.

But what I am 'intolerant' of is those who would deny to those {as I say, I am sure any survey would establish them as a considerable majority, so anyone with pretensions to being a democrat should have more respect} who do enjoy the fact, the activities, the tradition, of the monarchy, the right to this legitimate enjoyment; or to the media, in a country with a free press, to cater fully for these widespread tastes. As I have said, that seems to me mean-spirited. As is likewise to grudge some of the inevitable side-effects of such public provision. And I repeat that I think the expression of your dislike of such tastes, coverage, provision, as something that makes you "want to throw up" is a peculiarly offensive and distasteful choice of locution ...

... as it appears was my injunction to you in a previous post, which I thought would be recognised as being intended light-heartedly as part of that flyting which is in the Mudcat tradition; but which you took amiss: so clearly a misjudgement on my part; for which, realising that, I have no hesitation in apologising for and begging your pardon. You are not a booby and I hope you will remain.

~Regards~

Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Grishka
Date: 29 Nov 10 - 09:26 AM

Patsy, you are right. Quote from the news:

A leading bishop has been criticised after denouncing the upcoming wedding of Britain's Prince William and Kate Middleton, saying the marriage will only last for seven years.
The Rev Pete Broadbent, the Bishop of Willesden, attacked what he described as the "nauseating tosh" surrounding the engagement and likened the couple to "shallow celebrities".
He said the royal family was full of "broken marriages and philanderers" and expressed disappointment that the wedding would cost the public "an arm and a leg".

In my humble opinion (not being a Royal subject, see above), it is not the office of a clergyman to predict the failure of any marriage, particularly if his judgment is based on a family record. That is rude and primitive and runs afoul of the occidental and Christian image of humanity, which gives anyone the chance to amend.

From the political point of view, it would be even more of a disaster if the Royals or the clergy showed a flawless image, so that even more people would be deluded into believing their fate in safe hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:27 AM

Shimrod, you may be right about British royal pageantry being a waste of money and an expression of class superiority. Maybe you'd be better off with American pageantry, like the Rockettes at Radio City Music Hall in New York. I saw them and the Macy's Christmas parade on Thanksgiving in 2000 - a very nice dose of pageantry, and no class conflict involved whatsoever.
But hey, pageantry is fun....tacky, perhaps, but fun.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:47 AM

Right, Joe. Rockettes are marvellous. So is The Trooping Of The Colour, especially when they march to The Old Grenadier ~~ the one that ex Brigade of Guards trumpeter Howard Evans used to play with Carthy & Kirkpatrick's great Brass Monkey ensemble; along with Battle Of The Somme and Shebeag & Sheamor, one of the most beautiful tunes ever composed.

I say again ~~ those who don't like it, stay away, switch off, read a book or go to sleep. You all must have some 'interests'. Try costing out some time how much they cost and who pays. You might get a big surprise.

And to think I've been denounced on this thread for being 'intolerant'! LoL...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 04:42 AM

Hi Joe,

Thanks for that. I have no objection to pageantry per se, but somehow that American glitz seems a lot healthier than our peculiar upper class rituals. You should also remember that all of this dressing up and 'poncing about' (to use the venacular) is largely London based. Up here in't North we have to watch it on't telly (or not watch it as the case may be). I suppose that we could travel down to the Capital and stand around in the rain for hours with a plastic Union Jack on a plastic stick ... but, speaking personally, such an experience ranks about number 10,232,612 on the list of things that I would like to do before I die!

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 05:01 AM

London pageantry is as far away to me as American glitz and television is the only medium that I would get to see either if I wanted that of course, which I don't. I would rather the healthier get togethers of villages when the community mucks in (pardon the pun!). I am not for hunting in any shape or form but on Boxing Day the Beaufort Hunt team with small children on their ponies go through the village town of Thornbury Nr. Gloucester and the red coats are impressive to watch and everyone seems to be out with all kinds of working dogs. If I do tune in to a 'Royal' occasion it is mainly to see the horses if anything. And to sneak a little look at 'that dress'.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 05:17 AM

I think it is important to remember what special skills the royal family have brought to ........ erm ............. erm ....... oh yes how about diplomacy?

Check Prince Andrew's views on various bits of the world in the Wikileaks stuff:

"To the cheers and laughter of foreign businessmen, the Duke of York is said to have ridiculed Americans for having no understanding of geography and called French business practices corrupt. He even supposedly branded UK anti-fraud investigators idiots."

Before you agree with him, remember this is supposed to be diplomacy!

Best wishes

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:23 AM

I suppose that we could travel down to the Capital and stand around in the rain for hours with a plastic Union Jack on a plastic stick ... but, speaking personally, such an experience ranks about number 10,232,612 on the list of things that I would like to do before I die!<<<<<

Purely out of interest, Shimrod [& I do genuinely mean precisely that], why on earth do you imagine any of us should be remotely interested in your priorities regarding entertainment. But aren't you lot of holier-than-thou denouncers of most people's pleasures interesting yourselves with the utmost officiousness and impertinence in theirs, just!?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 07:59 AM

"But aren't you lot of holier-than-thou denouncers of most people's pleasures interesting yourselves with the utmost officiousness and impertinence in theirs, just!?"

Well there are lots of things I'd like to do for my own pleasure but no-one seems prepared to cough up £8 million so I can have a few hours vicarious amusement - so why the fuck should I have to pay for anyone else's? Officious? Impertinent? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:22 AM

Yes, theleveller. But more people want that £8m spent on this specific purpose than don't. & they are contributing just as much to the sum as you are. So how about that, then, Mr Self-Righteous Democrat? Let's see you Houdini yourself out of that one.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:29 AM

OK republicans I think you have far too much fun with this unkind wind up.

L in C#

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 08:33 AM

Nauseating Tosh

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 10:29 AM

"But more people want that £8m spent on this specific purpose than don't"

Ah, so you've done a survey of the entire population, have you? Can we have the exact results Mr Arrogant-Sweeping-Statements?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:06 AM

Oh, don't be so thick, leveller: it isn't worthy of you. Of course I haven't personally done a survey; but you know as well as I do that every survey that has been held, of which there have been many, greatly upholds the wish for the continuation of the royal family in its present form. Stop this head-in-sand stuff, it ill becomes you.

Here's an example which came up after a v brief google:~
=====
····MOST young people would keep the monarchy, despite over half of them saying that the Royals do not provide value for money.

Nearly 70% of 18 to 24-year-olds would keep the Royals and overall only 16% of people would vote for a republic.

A poll of 1,004 people, commissioned by Discovery Channel ···
=====

Now let's see you find a poll with a different result, supporting your view.

Do you not realise that your attitude is identical to that of the curmudgeon who says, "I haven't got any children; why should I pay to educate yours?"

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:23 AM

... and here are just a couple more I googled. Still thin I am making arrogant sweeping statements?

=========
Hundreds of M.E.N readers and website users had their say.Our poll showed a majority in support of the royal family with only 40 per cent saying they believed the monarchy should be abolished.
================================================
        •        MORI On-Line interviewed a representative quota sample of 804 adults aged 18+ across Great Britain.
        •        Interviews were conducted by telephone on 18-20 August 1998.
        •        Data are weighted to the profile of Great Britain.
        •        Where percentages do not add up to exactly 100% this may be due to computer rounding, the exclusion of don't knows or to multiple answers.
        •        An asterisk (*) indicates a figure below one half of a percent.
Q1 Would you favour Britain becoming a republic or remaining a monarchy?
 
%
Republic
16
Monarchy
75
Don't know                                                             9                                                         
==================

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:42 AM

And just in case you missed it in ordinary type, let me repeat this question for leveller & the rest of you-lot in bold:~


Do you not realise that your attitude is identical to that of the curmudgeon who says, "I haven't got any children; why should I pay to educate yours?"

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Doc John
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 11:52 AM

I do not like pageantry, ceremony, ritual of any sort but this is a personal opinion rather like my not liking sprouts or opera; and OK some people do like these things and I'm glad we're all different. The problem occurs when we look at the function of the pageant and who pays for it. A circus parade is harmless and if you don't like it you don't pay to watch it. But much ceremony has a sinister function being designed to intimidate, overawe, exclude or terrify. Witness those grim parades of weapons and missiles in the USSR a few years ago. Or witness much church ceremony with the clergy wearing strange robes, chanting and performing pseudo-magic.
Most, I regret to say, have already have accepted the 'I haven't got any children why should I pay for yours' attitude in 'I didn't go to university, why should I pay for you', and our universities are now the world's most expensive. The difference here is that in the first statement the speaker will have already benefitted from education him or herself and is just paying into the pot which may benefit him or her in the future. In the second the speaker may indeed benefit from the education of another person at university. Nobody benefits from the millions we waste on royalty.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:02 PM

Different logical premise, MtheGM; education has a tangible value to society and the economy, and it is reasonable to expect society to share the burden so the benefits can be realised for the good of all. For example; a childless individual may be paying for the education of the doctors and care workers who look after them in their childless dotage. Royal families and their assorted hangers on do not have any tangible value (beyond rather inferior entertainment) as far as I can see, and indeed the nature of Royal-led patronage in this country could be regarded as a hindrance to progress in our society. It is therefore reasonable to hold the view that society should not share the burden of maintaining their lavish lifestyles. Why not accept that you and your fellow Royalists have one point of view, but it is not shared by everyone? I accept that you hold your view; I don't agree with you, but I'm not trying to shut you up; can you say the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:31 PM

Dear Tim: Let me say again I an NOT a Royalist. The only reason I am, marginally, in favour of their survival is the Unforeseen Consequences likelihood which comes with much change just for the sake of it: the getting rid of Royalty in France & in Russia was/were not spectacularly successful!

But I am a democrat; which I regret to say, for all your saying, you-lot are NOT. I am happy you have your different views, and that mine are not, as you say, shared by everyone. But do please realise that, as I honestly think I have demonstrated with my poll posts above, yours are the minority views; & at least have the humility, & the democratic instincts, to recognise the fact.

I take your point about education being a majority benefit for which all should pay: but Royalty and its concomitant pageantry, as I say I have shown by the polls, & the present attitudes of the media (to which all of you vociferously take exception ~~ but they are in biznis & wouldn't publish it all if it didn't sell becoz so may WANT it), bring a great deal of pleasure to a considerable majority, who contribute as much to its cost as the minority who would prefer to be without it; & who should therefore pay up with as good a grace as they do for education if they are the democrats they [you] claim to be.

And of course I can say I am not trying to shut you up. I am enjoying this thread immensely. Aren't you!

Regards

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:41 PM

I am a Democrat, but I have no interest in Royalty.
"But I am a democrat; which I regret to say, for all your saying, you-lot are NOT" your quote.
Michael we have a democratic right to say that this crap makes us want to vomit, just as those people who like Royalty have a right to wallow in escapism , no one is trying to deny them their right, but we have aright to criticiseand mention how we think it is a waste of money, and that the money might be better used in other ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 12:52 PM

Dick: Do LISTEN ~~ no-one is trying to deny you that right. BUT I say you show yourselves not to be real democrats if you persist your views should prevail, as to the necessary maintenance of the institution as well as to its survival, so long as the majority want it so ~~ as I think I have demonstrated above with at least 2 posts, they do. If you persist in trying to thwart the will of the majority (e.g. by trying to avoid your share of the the inevitable costs of the institution) because it happens not to fit in with your views, then that is not being 'democratic' in any meaningful sense I can think of.

& I am getting tired of saying that I do not particularly LIKE Royalty & do not wish to 'wallow in escapism' ... I am not going to repeat all that bit, please look back at my previous post addressed to Mandotim for my attitude to that aspect of the subject.

Best

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:13 PM

MtheGM; I fully accept that non-royalist views are a minority, even more so those who hold the view that the Royals should be abolished completely. Your point about democracy is worth challenging though; surely in a healthy democracy it is the duty of those in the minority to put forward an alternative view, so that democratic process can decide the way forward. That's what is happening on this thread. It's irrelevant whether those opposing the monarchy are a majority or not. Your view seems to be that the minority should simply accept the view of the majority, and keep quiet.
There will be a watershed in that regard; much of the respect for the monarchy is bound up with the present Queen. When she dies, there is a great deal less respect for the heir apparent, after his reprehensible behaviour over the years. (Perhaps the reason why she won't abdicate). What will happen then is a huge PR and patronage effort from those who stand to gain from Charles's succession; a lot depends on whether the public will see through the hyperbole and accept a foppish, ineffectual adulterer as their Sovereign. Would you be in favour of a referendum about whether Charles should succeed his mother at that point? As a professed democrat, you should be, but we both know that our lords and masters will never let that happen. Where is democracy then? Opinion polls are one thing, elections are another; why not elect our Head of State? Call them a Monarch if you like, but make sure they have the support of the majority before giving them a life of luxury in perpetuity.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 01:40 PM

Tim: I take all these points. But the point at immediate issue is as to whether all should bear the necessary expense of the institution, SO LONG AS IT DOES EXIST. That was the point of my comparison with those who objected to paying for other people's children's education. So long as the institution exists by the expressed will of the majority, it is surely the duty of all democrats to take a share in maintaining it, even those in favour of its abolition (as nobody denies them their undisputed right to do). I trust you will not argue that it is somehow being imposed on us against most people's will: that cock really won't fight, you know.

I have no interest in the succession. I haven't that much interest in royalty at all, I repeat; except that I happen genuinely to enjoy the concomitant pageantry ~~ a part of "Tradition", which all of us here love, don't we?; and that I happen to have the temperament which believes that the best place to start from is where you happen to be ~~ which I appreciate is not one shared by all, or even many.

Best

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:11 PM

That's precisely my point; in democratic terms, the monarchy is wholly illegitimate; opinion polls sample a small proportion of the electorate, which is manifestly not a democratic election; if it were, we could run elections very cheaply by running focus groups in and around Westminster. Whether or not the monarchy is imposed is moot; that has never been tested in an election. No serious party has ever stood on an 'abolish the monarchy' platform ('Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, for Pete's sake!), and therefore we don't actually know what the 'expressed will of the majority' is. We can guess; but we don't know. How much of the current monarchism dies with the current Queen? Individual MPs have been elected though; remember Willie Hamilton? As a member of the Disloyal Opposition, I will keep expressing my distaste for this feudal anachronism, and refusing to be the 'subject' of an unelected, illegitimate institution.
With reference to the cost; ever heard of the principle 'no taxation without representation'? I've never been offered the chance to vote yea or nay to the monarchy, so why should I be taxed to pay for it? If the vote occurred, and the majority said yes, then I go along with the democratic decision. No such vote has taken place, and the Establishment in this country will fight tooth and nail to make sure it never does. I'm with Oliver Cromwell on this one, I'm afraid; I wouldn't tug my forelock, even if I had one, and I don't defer to anyone simply as a function of an accident of birth.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:18 PM

Dick: Do LISTEN ~~ no-one is trying to deny you that right. BUT I say you show yourselves not to be real democrats if you persist your views should prevail, as to the necessary maintenance of the institution as well as to its survival, so long as the majority want it so ~~ as I think I have demonstrated above with at least 2 posts, they do. If you persist in trying to thwart the will of the majority (e.g. by trying to avoid your share of the the inevitable costs of the institution) because it happens not to fit in with your views, then that is not being 'democratic' in any meaningful sense I can think of.
bullshit
we have not said that our views should prevail, we have said [ with varying degrees of force] that we find it tedious to vomit making

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 03:49 PM

"No serious party has ever stood on an 'abolish the monarchy' platform "

My point exactly, Tim. Of course they haven't ~~ it would be throwing the election before it even began. Why else do you think they haven't? Don't be so naive, for heaven's sake.

"No such vote has taken place and the Establishment in this country will fight tooth and nail to make sure it never does."

How? never heard such fatuous arguments, Tim. Do you think there wouldn't have been a party to fight the platform if it had ever had the remotest chance of success? Puhleeze!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 30 Nov 10 - 05:01 PM

So we let them stay there - knocking back the champagne and eating Royal Dutchy sausages.

Remember old Bill Wordsworth talking about the French Revolution:-

          Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,
          But to be young was very heaven!--Oh! times,
          In which the meagre, stale, forbidding ways
          Of custom, law, and statute, took at once
          The attraction of a country in romance!
          When Reason seemed the most to assert her rights

There was a time when Englishmen weren't all stick in the muds. And when we accept this gang of twits and twats as our leaders and representatives - we really aren't fit to be the inheritors of Bill and his like.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:12 AM

Yes ~~ & Will Wordsworth greatly regretted his "Bliss was it in that dawn" sonnet when the Reign Of Terror took over, didn't he? ···

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 02:39 AM

Eyup, the armchair revolutionaries are awake again..

Nurse! Nurse! Where's their medication?

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: mandotim
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 03:09 AM

Don't forget; monarchies have been deposed before, and doubtless will be again. The usual reason for their demise is conspicuous decadence and enormous, undeserved wealth, plus hard times for the general populace. Read your history folks; this country has a fine tradition of deposing or disciplining those who purport to rule. It just needs the right conditions. The decadent buffoon who is due to succeed may just be the catalyst. I was talking to a group of very elderly people this week; a very conservative group who had lived through (and in some cases fought in) the Second World War. They were chatting about this very subject, and expressing their admiration for the Queen and how she has behaved over the years. One of the group said 'Great woman, but she should be the last, the current lot are no use', and the entire group agreed. That's my point; I believe that the institution of monarchy will be seriously weakened by Charles's succession, and may not survive for long afterwards.

Subject: RE: BS: Bishop Suspended - critic of royal wedding
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Dec 10 - 08:18 AM

I thought this might stand repeating:

I think it is important to remember what special skills the royal family have brought to ........ erm ............. erm ....... oh yes how about diplomacy?

Check Prince Andrew's views on various bits of the world in the Wikileaks stuff:

"To the cheers and laughter of foreign businessmen, the Duke of York is said to have ridiculed Americans for having no understanding of geography and called French business practices corrupt. He even supposedly branded UK anti-fraud investigators idiots."

Before you agree with him, remember this is supposed to be diplomacy!

Best wishes

L in C#