Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 9:55:46 GMT -5
BBC News - Royal baby: Kate gives birth to boyThe Duchess of Cambridge was in labour for less than a day, Sydney; I always thought that Kate was more of a conservative! As for the concurrent poll, it is quite possible that Kate's first-born child will be King of England during the twenty-second century, and moreover, that Kate will be Queen during the middle of the twenty-first century. I count myself amongst the New Elizabethans here in ' The Third', so I propose some toast: to Elizabeth the Greatest! God Save the Queen! Three cheers from kleines charlie and the gang (Krug)!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 22, 2013 11:48:29 GMT -5
Whilst wishing the couple well, I fail to grasp what all the fuss is about. If she has twins, it occurs to me to wonder whether, as these would be her first children, the birth would constitute a double first at Cambridge but, that apart, I really cannot muster much personal interest in the forthcoming event as I do not know the Cambridges and am never even likely to meet them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 11:51:00 GMT -5
I have competition from Cambridge at last, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 22, 2013 11:53:15 GMT -5
I have competition from Cambridge at last, ahinton? I have no idea.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 13:15:58 GMT -5
But you still have ideas, I trust, ahinton!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 22, 2013 16:14:21 GMT -5
But you still have ideas, I trust, ahinton! Yes - but not about that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2013 21:54:54 GMT -5
It is of little matter, ahinton. ' The Times' leads this morning with the editorial comment that A Future Monarch is Born: Britain and the Commonwealth will delight with the pride and joy that comes with the birth of any new child. South Wharf Road in Paddington is not a comfortable place. Even so, for the past week, it has been an international media village. Reporters from every continent except Antarctica have marked out their spaces on the Tarmac with coloured tape and maintained a 24-hour vigil for a glimpse of a young couple expecting a baby. They have done so for the very good reason that the baby in question is descended directly from Alfred the Great and will probably, one day, be King of England. His Royal Highness, Prince (his name is yet to be announced) of Cambridge, now begins his life on Earth! Here in ' The Third', we naturally wish him, and all children, well! If we can leave this world a little better than we found it, ahinton, then we shall have done well! Despite all objections, the choice still remains ours! Wherefore, choose life!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 0:15:58 GMT -5
. . . the baby [ sic] in question . . . will probably, one day, be King of England. . . . "Probably" is the mot juste kleines c. The regrettable but ineluctable truth is that the mother is a commoner, and the way has thus now been opened to a new war of succession at some point in the future, a war for which the wise heads in the Nation should prepare themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 23, 2013 2:00:33 GMT -5
. . . the baby [ sic] in question . . . will probably, one day, be King of England. . . . "Probably" is the mot juste kleines c. The regrettable but ineluctable truth is that the mother is a commoner, and the way has thus now been opened to a new war of succession at some point in the future, a war for which the wise heads in the Nation should prepare themselves. As indeed you wrote elsewhere - and to which I responded elsewhere as follows: "Quote Originally Posted by Sydney Grew View Post The regrettable but ineluctable truth is that the mother is a commoner What's one of them, then? - and why in any case is it "regrettable" and for whom? Quote Originally Posted by Sydney Grew View Post and the way has thus now been opened to a new war of succession at some point in the future The only such "war" that I can imagine being fought might be over whether anyone of a bunch of unwilling people could be forced to take the gig. It is far from easy to perceive much of a future for the British monarchy once its present incumbent dies or becomes incapable (which may even happen, who knows?); the present British monarch may find herself obliged to preside over (but be able to do nothing to prevent) the fragmentation of the presently constituted UK to the point at which there'll be even less pink on the map than there is now and, in any case, other European monarchical examples surely provide increasing discouragement of the "monarch for life" concept that currently pervades the British institution. Quote Originally Posted by Sydney Grew View Post a war for which the wise heads in the Nation should prepare themselves. Who are they, then?"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 2:27:18 GMT -5
The wise heads here in ' The Third' are undoubtedly ahinton, Sydney Grew and Neil McGowan! When shall these three meet again? In thunder, lightning, or in rain? Online or off? When the hurlyburly's done, when the battle's lost and won. As for the challenger, I should perhaps clarify that kleines c has neither the intention nor the reason to challenge Queen Elizabeth II, Prince Charles, the Duke of Cambridge or his son to the thrones of England, Scotland or anywhere else, for that matter. The House of Windsor may be something of an anachronism, it certainly faced a serious challenge in London after the death of Diana in 1997, but against all expectations, it has entered a golden age after the tremendous social upheavals of the twentieth century. Nevertheless, it is still questionable whether the young infant will actually ever become the King of England, let alone the rest of the Commonwealth! Perhaps he will herald a new Arthurian age, ahinton! ' The Daily Telegraph' leads this morning with some editorial comment that everyone can celebrate a child born to be king: the new Prince has arrived at a period of transition for the United Kingdom. The birth of the Prince is good news, it almost goes without saying. Almost, but not quite. The widespread rejoicing that has greeted the Prince’s birth deserves to be taken seriously for what it is. All babies, it is true, have a cheering way of being public property – everyone is pleased when they arrive. Perhaps it reminds us that we were all once babies too. But no baby pleases more than a prince (though a princess would have pleased as much). There is no point saying that we should not be silly about this. Every adult is silly in the presence of a baby, engaging it in conversation (as if it could understand) in a silly voice, and making silly faces by way of entertainment. In truth such honest behaviour is more sane than many a pretence of adult life. ' The Telegraph' transmits thus: Perhaps the high point of human civilisation, Sydney Grew, is today. You make it so!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 23, 2013 2:57:01 GMT -5
The wise heads here in ' The Third' are undoubtedly ahinton, Sydney Grew and Neil McGowan! Be that as it may (or as it alsmot certainly may not in my case), Mr Grew's reference was to wise heads of "the Nation", not those of "the Third"; whilst I still have no idea who these may be (or indeed if there are any), I though that it might not come amiss for me to point this out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 3:21:55 GMT -5
The wise heads of the United Kingdom, I suspect, are arguably the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Sam! Of course, neither Dave nor Sam may be as wise as they should be, ahinton; a fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
Dave, of course, is probably the most enthusiastically Royalist British Prime Minister since Sir Winston Churchill, although his tenure in office may well run out in less than two years! Paradoxically, I suspect that the monarchy represents rather good value for money, even in an age of austerity.
When you ask tourists why they flock to London, it does, very often, have something to do with Buckingham Palace, the Royal Palaces and the Royal Family. From an economic perspective, tourism is one of the biggest industries of the twenty-first century, so it does matter who chooses to holiday in the United Kingdom, and why. When I occasionally run the gauntlet in front of Buckingham Palace, I am always asked to take photographs by foreign tourists.
One Korean tourist once tried to chat me up. She said, "The problem with you lot is you all look the same!"
I could not help but laugh!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 23, 2013 5:58:04 GMT -5
The wise heads of the United Kingdom, I suspect, are arguably the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, and Sam! Of course, neither Dave nor Sam may be as wise as they should be, ahinton; a fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool. Only one of those is in any position directly to try to affect policy - and that is not the ever-delightful Samantha (pace ISIHAC). That may be a pity, but there it is. If the rest of us have to rely on "wise heads" such as his, I hold out little hope for anything, really - and, given the fact of the UK coalition, the security of his present tenure seems to be sufficiently compromised as to warrant its rather more appropriately being referred to as a sixure...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2013 7:09:47 GMT -5
Perhaps Dave does what Sam says, ahinton, as well he should! As regards the concurrent poll, I am actually surprised that there are no Republicans voting for the abolition of the monarchy today.
If you look at governments around the world, as opposed to world government, it seems to me that there is no obvious advantage either way. For the record, I voted for something else. My vote goes to whatever type of constitution works best. It is, in essence, a pragmatic approach.
The French, for example, may be better off with a republic, particularly after the excesses of Versailles. In contrast, the Scandinavians, amongst the most egalitarian of peoples, have paradoxically chosen to retain their monarchies. I was once discussing meritocracy with a Norwegian pastor. He explained that there is ultimately no consensus as to what has merit!
I suppose that if we did not have a Queen as Head of State in the United Kingdom, we would have a President, but on balance, I would prefer Elizabeth II to Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron! Any other suggestions?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Jul 23, 2013 8:16:44 GMT -5
Perhaps Dave does what Sam says, ahinton, as well he should! I ratgher doubt it but, who knows, it might be better if he did. As regards the concurrent poll, I am actually surprised that there are no Republicans voting for the abolition of the monarchy today. As there is no official national referendum on this (since Dave hasn't instigated one, whether or not Sam has told him to do so), you must be referring to the unofficial one here whose results make clear that hardly anyone is voting for anything at all. As it happens, a substantial proportion of the Republicans that I know are against the abolition of the monarchy while the present incumbent is alive and still able and willing to fulfil monarchical functions. If you look at governments around the world, as opposed to world government, it seems to me that there is no obvious advantage either way. If you do that, you will encounter something that is far from a pretty sight. I suppose that if we did not have a Queen as Head of State in the United Kingdom, we would have a President, but on balance, I would prefer Elizabeth II to Margaret Thatcher, John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron! Any other suggestions? But there's no realistic comparison, since the Queen neither has nor exercises the same powers as do Prime Ministers present and past.
|
|