ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th August 2018, 11:40 PM   #81
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,485
Originally Posted by Information Analyst View Post
No, the Sovereign Grant covers the cost of royal duties, whoever carries them out. It's expenses, not a salary. The Queen has never done everything, so trying to make an issue out of her now doing less and others doing more is pretty weak.
Yet I've made it clear that I accept a 92 year old can't do as much as a younger person....
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2018, 04:50 AM   #82
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 45,415
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Yet I've made it clear that I accept a 92 year old can't do as much as a younger person....
That's what she wants to you believe! In reality, the queen is a Sith Lord, and can throw any number of CGI objects at you while cackling madly (she's doing the mad cackling. Well, I guess you could as well, but it would just come across as weird if you were both cackling madly during the fight. Although I guess that might psychologically undermine her a bit, and maybe cause her to not attack as well as she could? The mad cackling could save your life! You should do it, always) and whirling around through the air and doing parkour and using a lightsaber to cut Jedi as if they were Fergie at a garden party.
__________________
One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2018, 10:25 AM   #83
CORed
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 8,092
Originally Posted by Diablo View Post
Good question. Charles and Camilla would not be a good act imo, but I doubt there's any way to skip directly to Wills.
Sure there is. Just make sure that the Queen outlives Charles. Ask Putin for help if necessary to ensure that happens.
CORed is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th August 2018, 10:54 AM   #84
Diablo
Critical Thinker
 
Diablo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 313
Originally Posted by CORed View Post
Sure there is. Just make sure that the Queen outlives Charles. Ask Putin for help if necessary to ensure that happens.
Tut, tut.
Diablo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:46 AM   #85
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,182
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
I think people are going to be smart enough to disassociate the office from the holder. Many Americans hate Trump, but I suspect very few of them want to abolish the Presidency because of Trump. It will be no different with Charles, who isn't even near the crazy that Trump is.
I'm not sure it's so clear cut when the office is life long and hereditry, you almost certainly feel that eight years of Trump is better than civil war, sixty plus years followed by President-for-Life Ivanka might make you more inclined toward a major shake up*. The office and the holder aren't so clearly separated when the holder is (for practical purposes) unreplaceable and the succession predetermined.

*This isn't to imply a direct equivalence between Brenda and Brian, and Cheeto and Ivanka, or between the offices of US President and Monarch of the UK et al.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; Yesterday at 01:47 AM.
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:17 AM   #86
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 15,364
Originally Posted by surreptitious57 View Post
she is universally loved.
No, she isn't.



Originally Posted by ddt View Post
The odds are against him. 50% of English monarchs named "Charles" ended on the chopping block. Ditto for Scottish ones.
I think there's a fair chance that his regnal name won't be Charles.
__________________
Up the River!
3point14 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:20 AM   #87
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,182
Originally Posted by 3point14 View Post
I think there's a fair chance that his regnal name won't be Charles.
Don't blame him, it's associated with two bad kings and a right prat of a prince.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:39 AM   #88
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
[...]you almost certainly feel that eight years of Trump is better than civil war, sixty plus years[...]
I don't think Brian's quite unpopular enough for us to fight a civil war over him. And I very much doubt he'll last another sixty years.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:07 AM   #89
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,749
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Don't blame him, it's associated with two bad kings and a right prat of a prince.
Don't forget the Swedish King Charles'. At least six of them were fictional. One was a bloodthirsty Calvinist butcher (cf Linköping blood bath, Åbo bloodbath, Vyborg bloodbath: when a whole bunch of Catholic bishops were beheaded and their heads placed on railing spikes [Vyborg]) Charles 'IX' (actually, the third) and then there was Charles XI who ripped away free estates and made them taxable in order to raise funds for his own coffers.

Not good. Not good at all. Whatever possessed her Maj to name her heir Charles..?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:12 AM   #90
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 27,145
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Don't forget the Swedish King Charles'. At least six of them were fictional.
I had to look that up. And I thought our Charles was a nutter!

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:49 AM   #91
Lothian
should be banned
 
Lothian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: No no he's not dead, he's, he's restin'
Posts: 13,731
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
I thought it had to do with English/British tradition that a monarch doesn't abdicate for old age but dies on the throne? Which, I think, is a silly tradition.
.
Couldn't agree more. Why can't they leave the role on the end of a rope?
Lothian is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:12 AM   #92
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 82,485
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
I thought it had to do with English/British tradition that a monarch doesn't abdicate for old age but dies on the throne? Which, I think, is a silly tradition.

...snip...
"tradition" for the current lot is whatever they want to make up. "Prince of Wales Investiture" for an example of the made-up traditions they like to pretend exist.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:14 AM   #93
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,773
There is a kind of satire on the Queen on YouTube with comedian Stanley Baxter:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZjIpb-iInk
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:30 AM   #94
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,773
There is a chapter about the Crown in the Commonwealth in the book Afternoon Light 1967 by former Australian Prime Minister Sir Robert Menzies:

Quote:
In addition to this, it has, in recent years, become vulgarly fashionable to write and publish in England denigratory articles about the Crown and (for good measures) about the Royal family. The attackers, whose names will perhaps occur to you, wear the mask of the disillusioned intellectual, a mask which conceals their own inverted snobbery. They have not wit enough to realize that to occupy much time in attacking something which they affect to despise is to reveal their own lack of perspective.

But if they wish to be rid of the Monarchy, and substitute an elected President; if they wish to convert Buckingham Palace into a White House, which will attract its own 'social circle', if they affect to prefer the publicity which attaches to a President's family to the publicity which attaches to the Queen's family; then there are some facts to be faced. As a loyal Monarchist, I will endeavour to state some of them...……….
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:33 PM   #95
P.J. Denyer
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,182
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I don't think Brian's quite unpopular enough for us to fight a civil war over him. And I very much doubt he'll last another sixty years.

Dave
I specifically stated that they, and the roles were not equivalent. And the sixty years referred to the Queen not Charles. Oh, and 'civil war' was a slightly hyperbolic 'worst case scenario' of removing Trump not Brian.

But anyway the point wasn't directly even about the Queen or Charles as specific individuals, but rather that if you had a truly terrible (or simply hugely unpopular) Monarch/Head of State and no practical way of replacing them or preventing their heir inheriting the role it will have a greater effect on turning peoples opinions against the role than if the incumbent can, or indeed must, be changed in a reasonable period and people have their say on the succession.

While the distinction between Office and Holder is certainly still there, it is less clearly seperate when the role is tied exclusively to specific individuals in a single family and the successes and failures of the Holder have more effect on perception of the Office.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion
P.J. Denyer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 02:58 AM   #96
Henri McPhee
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,773
The problem is that there could be a referendum about the Monarchy in the future which Charles and Camilla might lose.
Henri McPhee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.