BS: The Royal Family Part 2

Subject: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 15 Nov 01 - 10:20 PM

Part 2

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 04:57 AM

Ah, where was I?
Murray, to suggest that anyone who holds antimonarchist sentiments is doing so purely on the basis of class envy is bloody ridiculous!
My objection is based purely on the fact that a head of state should not be appointed as a result of an accident of birth. I have nothing against anyone bequeathing things to their kids, but the idea that Charles will become King George VII merely because of his birth is nonsensical in this day and age.
Even if the man were to be a living saint who developed a cure for cancer, made the trains run on time and provided free jam for the world, he would still have no right to be my head of state unless the state - i.e. we the people - appointed him.
Thus to wake up a citizen rather than a subject would thrill me. It would show that a moribund and hide-bound country had thrown off some of its absurd ruritanian shackles and woken up to the real world.
As for the old canard about the tourist bucks, I haven't noticed an aversion to travelling to France since 1789. More people visit France each year than the UK, and the Froggies aren't so bad at the old pomp and ceremony themselves, as any July 14 parade will show.
Still, until the glad day when I live in a republic, I can look green-eyed across the Irish Sea. Here's to you, Mrs Robinson...

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 05:09 AM

gervase "Still, until the glad day when I live in a republic, I can look green-eyed across the Irish Sea." Damn you didn't tell me you were moving to the states. When are you going? 8-0)Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Gervase
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 05:15 AM

Ya daft bugger! Actually, I thought I'd follow Tony B and just walk there!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 06:53 AM

I notice that this thread was started by John in Hull While you are entitled to your opinion it seems you are only looking for agreement. I do not share your views but presumably by starting this thread you were at least open to listen to an alternative stance or at least an exchange of views. After I had been personnally attacked for my views by Eric and Fionn you said and I quote ". I agree with what Eric The Viking said.( Every word of it)" Do I detect a note of sour grapes that you have found that there are people who actually disagree with you. or is it that you started this thread just so you could insult people you disagree with. Come on John in Hull which is it? I notice in nether of the preceeding posts that either of you acknowledge that I was actually right about the constition, but I suppose it is a lot easier to insult someone than to admit you were wrong.Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Fiolar
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 08:15 AM

Cllr. You may be right about the "constition." I have never heard of it myself, still I bow to your superior knowledge.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 08:17 AM

Dang!Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 11:47 AM

Cllr-I started this thread because the sysem I am using ha problems with threads with more than 100 entries, I have mentioned this many times, trace my posts.Although I will state again that I agree with everything Eric said and I think you are talking crap, also you did not read Fionn's first post properly, Fionn mentioned Ireland NOT northern Ireland, I also agree with Eics point about you using a title instead of your name, I wonder why this is, as Eric said there are many people here that are very highly qualified, I know personally a bank manager, several teachers, and a few social workers (these are all in Hull) however I have no wish to argue with you on this forum, but if you have any problem with anything I have written here you are welcome to send me a PM or e mail at [e-mail].

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 16 Nov 01 - 07:10 PM

Gareth you little sarchy bugger-Now you are not going to share my sheep ever!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 11:53 AM

JfH Yes I know you stated this thread I was referring to the original thread. Fionn should have referred to Eire not Ireland. Fionn implied that my knowledge of the constition was "drivel" and I had to work at it. Then, wildly inaccuratley said that the UK doesnt have a constitution. I responded not only that it did I proved it. I also mentioned my degree to show that I had studied it obviously a damn sight more carefully than Fionn. Your counter arguments to mine on this particular issue have consisted of calling me names. Now you say you don't want to discuss it in public in the forum where you publicly insulted me in the same post, get a grip. As for my name its short and sweet (like a roasted maggot)and not party political - any one can be a councillor, even apparently Fionn, but I joined this news group as some one who is interested in folk music as a performer and organiser of clubs not particularly to discuss politics but if you think this is a suitable forum to air your views then I will reply whether you like my comments or not. Cllr (Roll on the Golden Jubilee)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 12:01 PM

Cllr- I have NOT called you names, I said you are talking crap, there is a BIG difference.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 12:15 PM

Eric the Viking called me a "sad person" and was using it in a derogatory fashion. That is name calling, JfH, you said you agreed with everything he said (twice) Saying I speak crap is insulting and not a very good argument either. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: GUEST,Les/ Manchester uk
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 12:31 PM

Part of the myth of the royal family (clearly bogus because they Jim and real Royal Family live in Wythenshawe, Manchester) is that they can be traced backwards into English/Scottish history and give some kind of legitimacy to a single concept of Englishness or something.

What is much more interesting is the web of royal families that have inter-married and shared power & wealth across Europe for a very long time.

I suppose the full family tree would be a bit big but what I picture of trans-national greed & corruption it would be. This kind of tree has been done for 10,000 versions of Fairport Convention so who's up for the big picture?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 12:59 PM

As an SNP voter myself, I'd not be sad to see the back of our present royals. However before you dash out and depose them with hot-headed republican fervour, ask yourself this question "With what or whom, are we going to replace them?" I mean look at what we have now, Yogi Blair in Downing St,ignoring both parliamentary, and cabinet opinion, and opting for government by spin doctors. Then we have the Scottish parliament, or to give it it's true name The Edinburgh Labour Cronies Club, graft corruption and cronyism is endemic in Scottish politics, and always has been. Getting rid of Liz & Phil along with Chuck & co.,won't bring about a socialist utopia overnight. Give me a good working replacement, and I'll join you on the barricades. Jock

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 01:15 PM

Would know all Cllr please tell me where Eire is.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 01:52 PM

Eire is correct name for the Repulic of Ireland which is what Fionn was trying to refer to. Ireland includes Northern Ireland which has many Irish people in it who still want to remain part of the UK. HTH Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 02:21 PM

Cllr-sad is not a really derogatory name calling incident.(The word is now common parlance) I though that politicians had slightly tougher hides than that.(Hustings and heckling are part of the political scene) So I publicly and without reservation apologise for calling you a sad person.(Though I didn't feel it was rude, I could have been much worse-but that would have been unfair to a stranger and this is not the place for such) Having been told I am obviously not intellegent, I take that not to be an insult, merely an observation relating to the political arguemnt going on at present and not based upon anything other than my apparent failure (in your words)to interpret correctly the language used earlier-though I would say, that is a pretty hasty judgement. A wise old adage is "sticks and stones etc".

However if you wish to discuss folk and related topics, as I often do. Then don't raise to the bait. (Although I know for a fact! That maggots, sweet or not are a good bait for catching fish)

What do you perform, instrument do you play,where, and are you going to any of the gatherings?

I have known many people of different political persuasions and doctrines, however, I make up my own mind based on the evidence available to me. I do state that after living through the "tory" years I would never vote conservative again. I have seen her majesties police forces block roads, assult people, enforce harsh and unfair laws, stop people going about their lawful business.I have seen people put out of work for profit, families made homeless and the decline of a social network that facilitated change , hope and help. All done I might add in the name of her magesties government!(deliberate sp mistake-in case you start name calling again)I do not, will not, believe I am anybody's subject, or in the inequality of my fellow beings.

I would (though I have no power ,I agree and this is only my opinion, remove from the royal family and the churches all their wealth and power, and the privallege that goes with it.

Goodnight for the time being-I am off to see a really good gig.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Terry K
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 06:10 PM

Why, oh why am I joining this.

Please don't anybody fall in to believing that the Royals have any power or control any longer. Anti-Royalists have been trotting out the "priveleged birth" argument for centuries, but it's all a bit passe (can't do acute accents I'm afraid) in today's terms.

And in no way is Her Majesty responsible for (probably not even conscious of!) anything carried out by "Her Majesty's police force" and especially not "Her Majesty's Government". Bottom line is they don't COST, they EARN, so it's best thay stay.

And Gervase, are you bidding for non-sequitur of the season? - more people go to France than to England simply because the weather is better. Oh - and the food.

Cheers, Terry

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 06:29 PM

Should not this thread be

"The Royal Family Part II"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Gareth
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 06:30 PM

Should not this thread be

"The Royal Family Part II"

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cobble
Date: 17 Nov 01 - 07:56 PM

Part 1. John from Hull, your shit stirring, should it continue I will put up the picture of you with a GOB full of dinner at the Jug.

Part 2. Eric me old mate, the police and forces of this fair isle do not work on the orders of the QUEEN, they take there orders from the luke warm Conservative/Labour mafia we have now or they take it from the extreme right wing Conservative trying to look like Labour mafia we had. Bloody behave both of you.

Your best Mate Cobble. ( Ex Royal Navy, so I should Know).

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 08:10 AM

Eric we all have different experiances which lead us to our chosen views. My experiences of the Labour Governments of the seventies and experiences of the far left within local government have led and consolidated my own. I do believe in rational debate and the main thrust of my arguments is that it is too much of a simplfication to just say lets get rid of the royal family without putting it into context. I am a monarchist and will remain so. Many thanks for your apology it is much appreciated. ( I would be the last person to make fun of someone's spelling as you can tell from my posts) Some other points about your post have already been made by others and I see no reason to repeat them. I will be going to the Stony Stratford gathering I hope. I don't play but I do sing ( when I started I did the odd booking but the politics kind of took over) I ran Uxbridge Folk Club for most of the nineties (about eight years)And I go to Bedford Folk Club or Topsham in Devon when time allows. Which Clubs/festivals do you go to? Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Fiolar
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 09:03 AM

Cllr: Can you please tell me where the "Repulic of Ireland" is as I like to visit it some time. I have heard of the Republic but I must admit that the country you mention is a new one on me. Has it anything to do with the mythical "Hy Brasil" or "Tir na nOg"? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 10:25 AM

Could the right honourable member of mudcat more commonly known as Fiolar please refer to the comments on spelling I made in posts some moments ago. Cllr

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 11:49 AM

Cobble and Terry, my friends. You do not really believe that I actually think that the royals have any real power? You should know me better than that!(I know they have none, though they do have influence. Only Phil and Charlie are really brave enough to express opinions and exert theirs, also much good work is done by others in the royal circle) I believe the "royal ascent" has only been refused once or twice in the last few hundred years-can't remember what for) The elected government runs the country (But the non elected mandarins in "Whitehall"-many of them the "old school tie" class have great influence). Most times the police service runs independantly within it's localised area eg North Yorkshire police (being county or political boundrry based)under the control of it's chief constable within the framework of legislation given by the government(Through the home office, the home secretary and parliament)But that being so, the "met" "thugs" were sent to yorkshire in the miners strike.(nor do I really think of Her majesties navy or any of the armed forces as being "hers", but I believe there were a few "queens" in the navy)I suggested that much the turbulent times of the 80's and 90's were the result of "Her Mag -isties" government, and predecessors (meaning Maggie T- should have put 2 t's in the spelling for more obivous effect, but the pun was missed (I did indicate this).

Cllr, I agree rational debate based on evidence and logical, reasonable arguement is the desired outcome of discussion. (And if the truth be known, I have as harsh an opinion of the "loony left" as I do of the right wing extremists).I did not, and was not asked, I am glad, (though requests to enlarge discussion end up as thread creep) my opinions of the early 70's period in our political history or the present because that would have thown a big cat into the pigeon loft and produced greater dichotomy.

I agree that "get rid of the royals, yes or no?" and ask for expressed opinions simplifies what would be an extremely complex discussion. It has led to almost rigid polarisation, which is a shame, worse than that it has led to insults and offence being taken (which I very much doubt was the original intention of the thread). Though I don't feel personally offended about anything written here or in the threads about this or words directed towards me. I don't take slight easily as those who know me will be able to testify and I rarely intend to insult people- I often chide,in a (I hope) good natured way.I quite like perverse argument, it is a often a very good way of finding out real depth of feeling and gaining insight, but can become emotionally entangled, as it has here.(I enjoy untangling what makes people tick, it is part of my job to make rational and realistic asessments of people, I am quite good at my job).

Never once did I offer an alternative to the royals or a strategy for their removal or replacement- I did not feel it was in the brief of this discussion.(nearly all of this argument has been hypothetical)

I do maintain strong beliefs about equality, (though I know this is an "ideal" and not really practical given the nature of human beings and the animal kingdom in general) But nonetheless I would enjoy seeing a levelling out of the social culture within which we live.(Ideally, but very difficult practically)

For me I will state that I don't believe that wealth and power should be handed down from generation to generation by right. I believe each generation should have a better life and opportunities than the generation before. It is the only logical pattern for human evolution if we are to continue as a species (since medical practice and change in socio- econimic structure has almost removed "natural" selction and is in danger of replacing it with controlled genetic inheriatance-ok, over simplification again!)

It is often said one should never discuss religion or politics. I quite enjoy discussing both.( but in a forum such as this(I only go on mudcat, so have no experience of others), one can often, only make generalities and simplify ideas for brevity)

Cllr, it takes a certain courage to brave your soul in public,(and stand your ground and principles) as we both have done. I respect you for this.

Cllr- I'd still prefer to call you by a name- mine really is Eric. I play a poor guitar, an even poorer mandolin and progresively worse down the scale, through tenor banjo (if someone is daft enough to lend me one) to mouth organ, bodhran and finally, torment others with my singing. I get to almost all the gatherings ( with written permission, and granted LoA from Wife and Kids), people are kind enogh to let me play in sessions like the Jug, and others,play in the scratch celiedh band,occasionally get to the local folk club.Festivals when I can, Cleckheaton, Fleetwood, Have been to Sidmouth Cambridge, Swinton and many others over the years.What styles of music are you into?

Hopefully we'll meet, though not opposite sides of the barricades!

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 12:04 PM

Well I have to agree with Eric again, on all points but one-His Guitar playing is very good! When I started this thread I had no intention of insulting people or making trouble.I don't really play any instruments but I am learning a tin whistle ( I am not very good at all),I go to as many gatherings as I can, and I will try to get to Stony Stratford, I hope to see you there(My real name is John).john

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cllr
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 02:21 PM

John and Eric I have had the use of a house in Sidmouth for the last sixteen years (it was how I got into the Folk scene) If you have ever been to the anchor middle bar I tend to be there most of the time. I was once a booked artist at Cleckheaton back in the early '90's and I made Swinton at around the same time, but I havn't had the chance to go back since. Other festivals I have been to on a regulare basis include Chippenham, Ely, Towersey and the Wareham Wail. I like lots of folk music, any thing live is great, but I prefer sessions that I can join in on. I have booked Robb Johnson, Geoff Higginbottom, John Harvison, Maggie Holland, Roy Bailey, Martin Carthy,Pressgang, Jez Lowe,Dave Webber & Anni Fentiman, Johny Collins, Leon Rosselson and Derek Brimstone. This is to name just a few of my favourites of who I listen to. Oh and my name is Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Eric the Viking
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 03:28 PM

Thanks Mike. pax

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Cobble
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 06:46 PM

Nobodys insulted me, love and respect you all. :-)

Cobble.

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull
Date: 18 Nov 01 - 08:18 PM

Cheers Mike.john

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: GUEST,Les/ Manchester uk
Date: 19 Nov 01 - 02:23 PM

Part of the myth of the royal family (clearly bogus because they Jim and real Royal Family live in Wythenshawe, Manchester) is that they can be traced backwards into English/Scottish history and give some kind of legitimacy to a single concept of Englishness or something.

What is much more interesting is the web of royal families that have inter-married and shared power & wealth across Europe for a very long time.

I suppose the full family tree would be a bit big but what I picture of trans-national greed & corruption it would be. This kind of tree has been done for 10,000 versions of Fairport Convention so who's up for the big picture?

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 19 Nov 01 - 05:20 PM

Read a book called The Anatomy of Britain by Anthony Samson, if you really want to know who runs the country. Jock

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Nov 02 - 10:06 PM

sam time sam touts

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: GUEST,Guest Little John
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 05:59 AM

Why has the Royal Family always taken English titles even after the Union of the Crowns in 1603 and the Union of the Parliaments in 1707? Why do we say James the Second (not Seventh) but Edward the Seventh (not First)?
Little John

Subject: RE: BS: The Royal Family Part 2
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Nov 02 - 04:40 PM

"I started this thread because the sysem I am using ha problems with threads with more than 100 entries, I have mentioned this many times, trace my posts"

John from Hull- perhaps you missed it. If you click on a starred (*) thread, it will come up in small sections so that you don't have to wait for a long thread to load.