I'm sorry but I think the Bolshevik's got it right, frog march the whole clan on the front lawn and end it. It reminds me of the current debate on "reforming" ICE. After century's of murder and privilege, in the case of the royal family, they are beyond repair. Charles "permitting" some version of justice being applied to Randy Andy is all about survival, just to head off the pitchforks for the whole rotten bunch. Being sent to bed without your dinner level of punishment, as in moving from one castle to a smaller one, was not going to cut it.
Re: Piers Morgan comment about Charles removing Andrew from the line of succession: I’ve read elsewhere that the line of succession is part of British law, not a list Charles keeps by his bedside. It would take an Act of Parliment to remove Andrew, and move some random cousin up the list.
As a matter of practice, Parliament seldom (as in, not since 1688) revises the succession laws unless the current monarch is in accord, one of the few cases in which Parliament really does care what the monarch thinks.
The episode ot The Crown about Edward’s trip to Germany (I think it’s that one) ends with archival footage of Edward and Wallis palling around with Hitler and his cronies.
It’s amazing how little the cost is for rich people’s souls in their attempt to hang onto their vaulted positions and wealth. No amount money can buy you principles. That belongs to us little guys who have suffered through poverty. There’s worse things than being poor. Who knew?
The real question is “Why is there still a THRONE with a succession line to it?” Does all of this pomp, circumstance, and depravity truly merit the substantial $$$$$, energy, and time it takes to sustain it, on the backs of The People?
I've increasingly come around to the argument that America might be better off with an elected "head of state" who is mostly a figurehead (like the King) who performs all the ceremonial duties the average person wants to see. While the true leader -- like the UK Prime Minister -- is more easily accountable and removed if necessary.
I’ve heard it argued that’s what the VP job is, in addition to being a placeholder/tryout for future president. America needs many changes to make accountability easier, faster.
The whole Andrew mess is reminding me again how generally unenthusiastic I feel about even having royals. They really can be ghastly. And oh yeah Edward. Hooray it worked out again that maybe the worst of them didn’t at least wind up on the throne but honestly I do get sick of hearing about them. Get these impulses. Sometimes wish they’d just take their fucking fancy hats and sod off the lot of them. Charles is calling it right I guess and turfing him out—realising of course he probably figures he has to for them to retain any kind of legitimacy and public support. Suppose it will have to do.
I think at the time of Lizzy the Deuce's passing that Charles should have said something like "OK, everyone, we're going to assume the Dutch/Danish model of royalty, where we'll be available for state functions and will still have one snazzy place to live, but we're going to have to take bikes and buses in our daily lives and all our other properties will become parks or public housing."
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor-the royal formerly known as Prince Andrew-and Donald Trump are what you get when someone has all the resources and advantages in the world but absolutely no sense of duty or purpose instilled in them. It corroded both their souls. If they hadn't caused so much damage and pain-in Trump's case, continues to-I would feel sorry for them. As it is, they're just loathsomely pathetic, barely human.
I respected the Queen a great deal, and her sense of duty and purpose is well documented. But-and I'm not judging, just observing-she doesn't seem to have instilled that same moral sense in any of her children except Charles.
Well, yes and no. The kids at the top of the quiver are likely the most skillfully parented ones, but it's not because they hold any particular purpose. In the monarchy, the oldest royal's purpose is clear and that is what they are prepared for, while the younger ones seem to flounder in all that privilege with no goals or real responsibilities.
Yes, it's kind of a sick system, not based on anything but birth order. This can also be seen in Elizabeth and Margaret as well as William and Harry. Being a royal not in line to be coronated is a prison.
My mother was most interested in Princess Margaret, probably because when she was a teenager, Margaret was in love with Peter Townsend, a divorced man. Mama had hoped that they would marry, and was disappointed when they didn't. I was confused, because I thought she meant Pete Townsend of the Who, and he would have been too young to marry then! Mama explained that it was another Peter Townsend.
Right? She was never going to be a queen and really wasn't given a lot else to do, it seems, but toe the royal line. It seems as though she at least could have been permitted to marry the man she wanted.
I'm sorry but I think the Bolshevik's got it right, frog march the whole clan on the front lawn and end it. It reminds me of the current debate on "reforming" ICE. After century's of murder and privilege, in the case of the royal family, they are beyond repair. Charles "permitting" some version of justice being applied to Randy Andy is all about survival, just to head off the pitchforks for the whole rotten bunch. Being sent to bed without your dinner level of punishment, as in moving from one castle to a smaller one, was not going to cut it.
Re: Piers Morgan comment about Charles removing Andrew from the line of succession: I’ve read elsewhere that the line of succession is part of British law, not a list Charles keeps by his bedside. It would take an Act of Parliment to remove Andrew, and move some random cousin up the list.
As a Brit, Morgan should know this.
As a matter of practice, Parliament seldom (as in, not since 1688) revises the succession laws unless the current monarch is in accord, one of the few cases in which Parliament really does care what the monarch thinks.
The episode ot The Crown about Edward’s trip to Germany (I think it’s that one) ends with archival footage of Edward and Wallis palling around with Hitler and his cronies.
Well that's some disturbing history for a chaser of the disturbing present.
It’s amazing how little the cost is for rich people’s souls in their attempt to hang onto their vaulted positions and wealth. No amount money can buy you principles. That belongs to us little guys who have suffered through poverty. There’s worse things than being poor. Who knew?
I'd say that Fetterman is more Unity Mittford. Down to the brain damage.
Must recommend Do Admit by Mimi Pond. The Mittford sisters in the war years were a trip!
A Fine Old Conflict by Jessica Mitford is a great memoir
How do we place these horrors into a recognizable perspective?
Here's a lived example.
Last year I turned 66.
On the morning of my birthday, I had to take my beloved dog to be euthanized.
That afternoon I had a prostate exam.
At the end of the day, there was cake.
All in all, head and shoulders better than Randy Andy's sixty sixth.
The real question is “Why is there still a THRONE with a succession line to it?” Does all of this pomp, circumstance, and depravity truly merit the substantial $$$$$, energy, and time it takes to sustain it, on the backs of The People?
I've increasingly come around to the argument that America might be better off with an elected "head of state" who is mostly a figurehead (like the King) who performs all the ceremonial duties the average person wants to see. While the true leader -- like the UK Prime Minister -- is more easily accountable and removed if necessary.
I’ve heard it argued that’s what the VP job is, in addition to being a placeholder/tryout for future president. America needs many changes to make accountability easier, faster.
"The Vice Presidency is the most piffling and inconsequential office which the imagination of mankind has ever contrived." -- John Adams
I don’t know. It doesn’t seem like the perpetually on vacation JD Vance has any purpose at all.
Well, there are Vance’s pithy observations—as MAGA’s back-up standard bearer—on the leading issues of the day to consider. From October 31, 2024:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/31/politics/vance-transgender-college-admissions/
The whole Andrew mess is reminding me again how generally unenthusiastic I feel about even having royals. They really can be ghastly. And oh yeah Edward. Hooray it worked out again that maybe the worst of them didn’t at least wind up on the throne but honestly I do get sick of hearing about them. Get these impulses. Sometimes wish they’d just take their fucking fancy hats and sod off the lot of them. Charles is calling it right I guess and turfing him out—realising of course he probably figures he has to for them to retain any kind of legitimacy and public support. Suppose it will have to do.
I think at the time of Lizzy the Deuce's passing that Charles should have said something like "OK, everyone, we're going to assume the Dutch/Danish model of royalty, where we'll be available for state functions and will still have one snazzy place to live, but we're going to have to take bikes and buses in our daily lives and all our other properties will become parks or public housing."
Andrew Mountbatten Windsor-the royal formerly known as Prince Andrew-and Donald Trump are what you get when someone has all the resources and advantages in the world but absolutely no sense of duty or purpose instilled in them. It corroded both their souls. If they hadn't caused so much damage and pain-in Trump's case, continues to-I would feel sorry for them. As it is, they're just loathsomely pathetic, barely human.
Andrew is a spoiled child.
Agree 100%.
I respected the Queen a great deal, and her sense of duty and purpose is well documented. But-and I'm not judging, just observing-she doesn't seem to have instilled that same moral sense in any of her children except Charles.
Anne seems normal enough.
Don't really hear much about her at all, actually.
No news is good news
Her sense of duty to Andrew reportedly involved paying off his alleged victims, to the tune of millions of Pounds.
Yes, sadly. Covering his fuck-ups was probably a long standing pattern.
I think that’s the dynamic Harry described- the heir gets all the attention and the rest are treated like afterthoughts.
Doesn't that also happen in those "Quiverfull" kind of families (where they even have the older kids coparenting)?
Well, yes and no. The kids at the top of the quiver are likely the most skillfully parented ones, but it's not because they hold any particular purpose. In the monarchy, the oldest royal's purpose is clear and that is what they are prepared for, while the younger ones seem to flounder in all that privilege with no goals or real responsibilities.
Yes, it's kind of a sick system, not based on anything but birth order. This can also be seen in Elizabeth and Margaret as well as William and Harry. Being a royal not in line to be coronated is a prison.
My mother was most interested in Princess Margaret, probably because when she was a teenager, Margaret was in love with Peter Townsend, a divorced man. Mama had hoped that they would marry, and was disappointed when they didn't. I was confused, because I thought she meant Pete Townsend of the Who, and he would have been too young to marry then! Mama explained that it was another Peter Townsend.
Right? She was never going to be a queen and really wasn't given a lot else to do, it seems, but toe the royal line. It seems as though she at least could have been permitted to marry the man she wanted.