Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2016 8:23:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 21, 2016 10:24:12 GMT -5
Since you are now adopting (at least for the purpose of this post) the "we" habit so beloved of certain member/s here, should I assume you to refer in this particular instance to "the royal 'we'"? Whatever the answer (if any) to that might be, I am fairly certain that the Queen rarely if ever listens to BBC Radio 3 (for I do not think that she cares for music as much as her mother did or her eldest son does) and I'd lay a British pound to a British penny that the cornucopic variety of pursuits that continue to occupy her time in her tenth decade does not include eavesdropping on this forum... I have no idea whether or not Sydney is a monarchist and, if he is, whether his monarchist sympathies extend to other monarchies outside that of UK but, since he has made much on previous occasions of his advocacy of the abolition of states and national boundaries, it would surely seem unlikely; however, no doubt he will enlighten those interested in such matters should he so choose...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 0:31:59 GMT -5
. . . Are you a monarchist, Sydney? Of course kc. We chased Her down a railway line in 1954. She was educated at home under the supervision of Her mother and Her governess. Her lessons concentrated correctly on history, language, literature and music. An example to all ladies of quality. How startled we were at the arrival of Her third and fourth!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2016 7:29:53 GMT -5
I had to check out Royal visits to Australia to work out which railway line that might have been, Sydney. Girls are generally outperforming boys at school these days, Sydney, and although I suspect that the Queen's education has served her well, I disagree with you that ladies of quality should concentrate on history, language, literature and music. Thank you for your clarification about the Queen, ahinton. Not many people do listen to Radio 3!
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 22, 2016 8:32:41 GMT -5
. . . Are you a monarchist, Sydney? Of course kc. Could you please then explain, to those who might be interesed to know, how you reconcile your pro-monarchist stance (at least where UK is concerned) with your oft-expressed desire to witness the end of nation states, national borders and the like? I ask quite simply because it seems far from obvious how national monarchies can be expected to survive in the absence of nations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2016 6:58:50 GMT -5
We are obliged to kc for the photo-graph, to track down which he is very sharp, and in which the crown on high is particularly apt. Here are a couple more taken in 1954, illustrating the attending of the polloi along the lines and the passage of the Glory. In fact the Glory there was so intense that She and the husband are difficult to make out. Members with very sharp eye-sight may perceive an item of head-gear (not a crown) and a hand raised in acknowledgement. Member H is confused in regard to monarchy. Any thought of governing ourselves is obviously too presumptuous to contemplate! Think of the Crown, or of the Empire even, not of the Lady's person. And study well the secret, sacred and mystical part of the Coronation, known as the Anointing: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronation_of_the_British_monarchBefore 1908 there had to be a reason for everything had there not. Why then do you think we use the word "Majesty"?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 23, 2016 10:53:36 GMT -5
Member H is confused in regard to monarchy. He is most certainly nothing of the kind and, in any case, you were not referring to monarchy per se but to the UK one specifically. Any thought of governing ourselves is obviously too presumptuous to contemplate! But did I suggest any such thing? The Empire no longer exists, so can be "thought of" only as an historical phenomenon, but that's not the point. All that I had asked was how it is that you manage to reconcile for yourself the notion of a continuing monarchy with the idea of ridding the world of nations and national borders and boundaries, but you have so far refrained from answering that straightforward question. Before 1908 there had to be a reason for everything had there not. Why 1908 in particular and why not since then, as far as you are concerned? Why then do you think we use the word "Majesty"? Again, I do not know who "we" are here but in any case many people don't and, of those who still do, many tend have recourse to it out of what they might regard as "tradition" but which is in reality more closely associated with mere habit. For the avoidance of doubt, I should perhaps add that I have immense respect and admiration for the UK Queen's sense of duty and loyalty and for the punishingly hard work that she has continued to do as a matgter of personal choice throughout the 64 years to date since her accession. I read somewhere recently that, having allegedly "scaled back" her royal engagements of late, she still undertakes almost 350 of them annually - that's almost one per day on average! Whilst I realise that she has access to the finest healthcare available and can easily afford it, her workload would be enough kill some people of what's quaintly called "ordinary working age", let alone those of her advanced years. I thought from what I saw of her trip through Windsor on her birthday that she appeared in remarkably good health and equally good spirits, so the possibility that she'll still be working her crown off at the time of her centenary seems quite considerable. That said, how the UK monarchy might hope to survive once she finally does depart is another question altogether; I happen to know a number of staunch Republicans who, despite their convictions, wish the UK monarchy to survive for as along as Queen Elizabeth II remains its incumbent.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 4:05:37 GMT -5
Well, we advised the members to think of the Crown and not of the Monarch's person; and Mr. H. at once goes off and writes reams about the persons of monarchs present and future. This is precisely why I say that he is confused in respect to monarchy.
Nor does the Empire need to be thought of as an "historical phenomenon". It can can it not be thought of as one of our possible futures, and not an all that unlikely one.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 24, 2016 5:39:14 GMT -5
Empires rise and fall, Sydney, so you have a point! The British Empire may have risen and fallen, but much like the American Empire, will not another replace it, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Apr 24, 2016 5:46:20 GMT -5
Well, we advised the members to think of the Crown and not of the Monarch's person; and Mr. H. at once goes off and writes reams about the persons of monarchs present and future. This is precisely why I say that he is confused in respect to monarchy. I wrote a view about the present UK monarch; I said nothing about any others. One can only think about "the Crown" either as another historical phenomenon to be or as something whose constancy is desired, depending upon the thinker's point of view; you, on the other hand, continue to omit to answer the simple question that I put to you, albeit not for the first time! Nor does the Empire need to be thought of as an "historical phenomenon". It can can it not be thought of as one of our possible futures, and not an all that unlikely one. It has to be thought of in the here and now as an historical phenomenon in the here and now, because that's what it is; I did not suggest that another one might rise in the future although, unlike you, I think this to be most improbable, not least because the days of empire-building are over to the extent that the rise and fall of so many past ones have taught at least some people a useful lesson.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2016 18:34:51 GMT -5
Here we see Her Majesty in the Green Room with some of Her lineal descendants:
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 2, 2016 2:26:48 GMT -5
Here we see Her Majesty in the Green Room with some of Her lineal descendants: I understand that she possesses and uses quite a lot of money. You wouldn't mark her out as a criminal, would you? (and, in so asking, I refer, of course, to the "The definition of "money"" thread, specifically your post therein dated 30 April 2016 at 08:41).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2016 9:47:57 GMT -5
We could all be criminals, ahinton?
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on May 3, 2016 10:51:43 GMT -5
We could all be criminals, ahinton? Not in my view, no; I was referring to Sydney's curious suggestion in another thread that all those who possess and use money are criminals, not endorsing it!
|
|