Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

I loved it. And I'm not really all that much of Monarchist. 

It was superbly casted. (John Lithgow as Winston Churchill!)

Post WW2 Great Britain isn't a historical period I'm hugely familiar with so it was interesting to see these world events through the lens of a 20-something that has been thrust into the spotlight in this manor. 

After finishing the first season, I suggest watching (even if you've already seen it) The Queen and the King's Speech. The Queen is actually made by the same filmmaker as the Crown. Also the same actor that plays Prince Charles in the The Queen plays King Edward VIII in the Crown. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The dire health problems of Churchill and Eden (and FDR for that matter) show why the entire medical records of senior political office holders should be made public on an ongoing basis. I also think that 70 should be the cut-off point for being elected to the top job. It's no place for geezers.

    

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

The dire health problems of Churchill and Eden (and FDR for that matter) show why the entire medical records of senior political office holders should be made public on an ongoing basis. I also think that 70 should be the cut-off point for being elected to the top job. It's no place for geezers.

That kind of policy would probably make someone unelectable. 

Surprising you didn't cite Reagan.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched the full series movie "The Crown".   Very enjoyable.    I am a fan of the constitutional monarchy and think it has been a very good system for Canada.  It helps to ensure Canada is not taken over by a dictator because  the fact the Armed Forces and RCMP still swear allegiance to the Queen means it would be difficult for a renegade PM for instance to cancel elections and set up his own dictatorship.  Secondly we are part of a Commonwealth of Nations which automatically makes them our allies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boges said:

That kind of policy would probably make someone unelectable. 

Surprising you didn't cite Reagan.

People would get used to diabetes, hypertension etc. Our interest in politicians is not that great. As celebs go they are very low-end, Trump excepted. What you don't want to see are things like strokes and septicemia. Again, Trump has broken the excellent US conventions in this regard with his absurdly limited release of health info. It matters a lot in an overweight man of his age.

It is said that Reagan never fully recovered from the shooting and may have suffered cerebral damage at that time. That should have been disclosed.

 

 

    

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Canada is more of what one political scientist called a "crowned republic", in my observation (if you'll excuse me if I overreach).  The monarchy in the UK actually wields executive authority (different in nature from actual power as we know).  In your commonwealth realm, by contrast, the effective head of state is really not so much the Queen herself, but her supposed "representative" (or viceroy), H.E. the G.G.  Since the PM makes the recommendation to the Queen, and the recommendation isn't typically ignored or argued with, and the aforementioned recommended designate is no longer "London's Man" but instead a native Canadian; you effectively have a republican order in imperial dress.

But I digress again.  And I hope that doesn't offend anyone, by the way.  Because 1) your system seems find to me, even if the PM has a little bit more power than he probably should--I'm the sort of person "if it's cool with you it's cool with me" by the way; and 2) Because I think your nominal head of state has put up with a lot of crap for the last 65 years that the average elected official has to do with a very limited term.  After all, what American president had to eat lunch with Idi Amin? (I'd love to know what idiot Prime Minister arranged that one and kick him in the balls.  What the hell do you think they actually talked about?) And family problems, as covered in the series, of course.  She has to put up with so much bull**** that the average president or PM just doesn't.

So here's to you, Your Majesty.  Happy 65th!

Margaret Thatcher one said that those who insist that a politician should be a head of state should spend a little more time with politicians.  (Maybe the late Baroness Thatcher would know...)

But I think they overreacted about Princess Margaret.  They should have let her just marry that dude.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

...But I think they overreacted about Princess Margaret.  They should have let her just marry that dude.
 

 

Perhaps, but even then as today, it was/is important to cherish and support the continuation of the monarchy not only as a lasting vestige of Great Britain, but outright rejection and contempt for those uncouth, bastard rebels...the Americans.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

Well Canada is more of what one political scientist called a "crowned republic", in my observation (if you'll excuse me if I overreach).  The monarchy in the UK actually wields executive authority (different in nature from actual power as we know).  In your commonwealth realm, by contrast, the effective head of state is really not so much the Queen herself, but her supposed "representative" (or viceroy), H.E. the G.G.  Since the PM makes the recommendation to the Queen, and the recommendation isn't typically ignored or argued with, and the aforementioned recommended designate is no longer "London's Man" but instead a native Canadian; you effectively have a republican order in imperial dress.

But I digress again.  And I hope that doesn't offend anyone, by the way.  Because 1) your system seems find to me, even if the PM has a little bit more power than he probably should--I'm the sort of person "if it's cool with you it's cool with me" by the way; and 2) Because I think your nominal head of state has put up with a lot of crap for the last 65 years that the average elected official has to do with a very limited term.  After all, what American president had to eat lunch with Idi Amin? (I'd love to know what idiot Prime Minister arranged that one and kick him in the balls.  What the hell do you think they actually talked about?) And family problems, as covered in the series, of course.  She has to put up with so much bull**** that the average president or PM just doesn't.

So here's to you, Your Majesty.  Happy 65th!

Margaret Thatcher one said that those who insist that a politician should be a head of state should spend a little more time with politicians.  (Maybe the late Baroness Thatcher would know...)

But I think they overreacted about Princess Margaret.  They should have let her just marry that dude.

 

 The problem in England is the Queen is both head of state and head of the Church of England.  So whatever the hierarchy in the COE says, the Queen must obey.  There should be a separation of church and state.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Perhaps, but even then as today, it was/is important to cherish and support the continuation of the monarchy not only as a lasting vestige of Great Britain, but outright rejection and contempt for those uncouth, bastard rebels...the Americans.

 

LOL.   Now now.  The Americans have many that are thought of as royalty just the same.   Such as the First Lady, or maybe Ivanka Trump will be considered a Princess.   The wife of John F. Kennedy was like royalty. Jacqeline Kennedy.   Not to mention movie stars.  I think of Elvis Presley, as he was close to royalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, blackbird said:

LOL.   Now now.  The Americans have many that are thought of as royalty just the same.   Such as the First Lady, or maybe Ivanka Trump will be considered a Princess.   The wife of John F. Kennedy was like royalty. Jacqeline Kennedy.   Not to mention movie stars.  I think of Elvis Presley, as he was close to royalty.

 

But the difference is that any wealthy or common American can become royalty (celebrity)....not so for the inbred British/European monarchies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But the difference is that any wealthy or common American can become royalty (celebrity)....not so for the inbred British/European monarchies.

 

22 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

But the difference is that any wealthy or common American can become royalty (celebrity)....not so for the inbred British/European monarchies.

Yes.  If I could become a servant, baker or maybe a chauffeur for Her Majesty, I would be satisfied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

A clip about Bokassa of Central African Republic becoming an emperor of his country. His coronation-ceremony cost about 1/3 of the national assets thus practically bancrupting the country.

 

Thinking about it, while a crazy dictator declares himself as an emperor and no outside power recognizes such an empire, which is right, but by the same token, why do we still recognize the British monarchy, the Swedish monarchy, the Dutch monarchy etc? How are they different from the monarchy self-proclaimed by Bokassa? The same bullshit in a different package.

The fact that the bullshit was once upon a time taken seriously does not make it less bullshit than the bullshit which was never taken seriously.

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, -TSS- said:

A clip about Bokassa of Central African Republic becoming an emperor of his country. His coronation-ceremony cost about 1/3 of the national assets thus practically bancrupting the country.

 

Thinking about it, while a crazy dictator declares himself as an emperor and no outside power recognizes such an empire, which is right, but by the same token, why do we still recognize the British monarchy, the Swedish monarchy, the Dutch monarchy etc? How are they different from the monarchy self-proclaimed by Bokassa? The same bullshit in a different package.

The fact that the bullshit was once upon a time taken seriously does not make it less bullshit than the bullshit which was never taken seriously.

I don't think HM costs us 1/3 of our GDP.  In fact, I think she brings in cash.

Edited by bcsapper
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-03-21 at 10:06 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Perhaps, but even then as today, it was/is important to cherish and support the continuation of the monarchy not only as a lasting vestige of Great Britain, but outright rejection and contempt for those uncouth, bastard rebels...the Americans.

 

Not to mention humiliating those Frenchmen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-03-21 at 10:55 PM, blackbird said:

 

Yes.  If I could become a servant, baker or maybe a chauffeur for Her Majesty, I would be satisfied.

There might be a position available for Royal Bum Wiper...

Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL

Lots of countries still take it seriously.  Even countries whose heads of state are less "constitutional monarchies" with "authority on a leash" (so to speak) and more so "crowned republics".  (Canada is more so the latter because the GG is more or less a prime ministerial-appointee rather than an independent "choice" of the Queen.)

So what, though? No Canadian taxes have to support the Canadian monarchy since UK taxes do.  And the royal family gives out a ton of cash to this and that.

Maybe the Central African "emperor" was kind of paying himself quite a bit more than the Queen gets.  Maybe he was giving out free Bentleys to his friends at the ceremony or something.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, OftenWrong said:

There might be a position available for Royal Bum Wiper...

Henry VIII and others had an official position within the royal household called the "Groom of the Stool".  It was apparently a sought-after position.  (Unless of course, the particular king had Irritable Bowel Syndrome...)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...