Princes and politics don't mix

maddy1

I let is pass at the time but the photo of him holding the, iron grid-work map of England Wales and Cornwall was reminiscent of the Diana Photo. The Cornwall section made him look like a giant prick! I suppose people were too pitying to mention it at the time.

In2minds

For as long as anyone can remember Charles has been a joke.

Publius

I wish you'd stop this lazy use of "modern" as a self-evident good.

If something is good or bad, then explain why it is good or bad. Don't just label it "modern" and assume that modern=good.

Simon Stephenson

"As Hastings puts it, ‘he is so set in his ways, so accustomed to not being contradicted — because those who argue with him are swiftly expelled from his counsels — that I am convinced that if he becomes King he will persist in trying to save the world, and thus precipitate a crisis.’"

Funny, isn't it. Change "King" for "Chancellor of the Exchequer" and he could have been writing about Gordon Brown.

Scary Biscuits

Good kings have always had political views, even constitutional ones. Victoria actively undermined Gladstone, for example.

You could argue that the current Queen's lack of political involvement, her apparent willingness to sign anything put before her and her supine behaviour before ministers who seek to further undermine the crown its itself a bigger source of crisis than any future king who has opinions.

Elizabeth, God bless us, has not protected the constitutional rights of her subjects and when people write to her complaining of a ministry overreaching its constitutional powers she simply forwards the letter to the ministry being complained about. She has allowed terrible abuses of the Royal Perogative and Orders in Council. She has signed away powers to Europe that it is dubious that she even had the right to do. She has allowed the Passport Office, which operates mostly under Royal Perogative, to undermine fundamental freedoms.

The balance of power cannot be maintained if all of it is in the hand of the Prime Minister of the day. Power must be shared to avoid corruption and yet the Queen has not resisted the steady accretion of power by ministers at her expense. The most recent example is David Cameron removing her right to dissolve Parliament. At the very least she should reassert her right to give honours. Ministers in the last Parliament have shown themselves utterly unworthy of such powers and restoring them to the crown would be an important rebalancing in our constitution.

Sally Chatterjee

Simon Stephenson, yes. The difference being that Brown was far more politicised and ended up sabotaging the nation. Yet we finally managed to prise him from offic; you can't vote a King out of office.

AF

He speaks in the comfort that he's unlikely to go the way of that other Charlie!
Although according to the mob the other evening.......

Osred

Charles believes that from March 2009 we had only 100 months to save the world from irreversible AGW (now 72 months and counting). As China and India continue to develop apace there is therefore a risk that we would have a king hiding in a (fully furnished) hole in the ground broadcasting doom to the world. This won't do. His mother and William need to take him to one side and suggest he shouldn't allow the burdens of kingship divert him from his important work on the environment and Duchy Originals recipes and so the Succession should skip a generation.

JP

But either we have a hereditary monarchy, or we don't. The whole point about it being hereditary is that we don't get to choose who wears the crown.

Whatever you think of Charles, skipping a generation on the grounds that William might be a better choice would do far more to undermine the constitutional monarchy.

ma'am

Constitutionally who becomes King or Queen next is not a matter for the royals but the Privy Council. It has a duty to elect the next sovereign on behalf of the people. It could properly decide it wishes to appoint someone entirely different. Like Lady GaGa. Or some other national treasure. Like Stephen Fry.

Nicholas

Scary Biscuits I enjoyed your post. I too think HM The Queen has allowed her strong sense of duty to diminish her power in the face of corrupt or weasely politicians, the latest being the whey-faced disappointment Cameron.

It is always as well to remember that the alternative to a PITA King Charles might be a Baroness Ashton as Head of State. I know which I think is the lesser of two weevils. Also, there is little doubt that in the abandonment of monarchy, mawkish "modern" thinking by moronic British society would probably dote on the idea of a black head of state for its own sake - the Obama Syndrome.

EC

"Nothing lasts forever. Even the longest, the most glittering reign must come to an end someday."

Francis Urquhart, House Of Cards, 1990.

strapworld

Scary Biscuits is right.

Perhaps we should ask the present day Houses of Tudor and Stuart to create a constitutional crisis whereby, instead of wars, we could have a democratic vote on which King or Queen we would wish.

It would make life so much more interesting.

The present Queen, God Bless Her, should do something about the size of the Royal Family.

I believe only the ones who are next in line for the throne should be considered 'Royal' the rest should get a job in the real world. (I would love to see Andrew's face, should he ever read this!!).

Does anyone remember the Mr Benn childrens television cartoon, The one where the chap goes into a shop and dresses up in a different costume every day? That is what the Royal Family remind me of these days. Naval, Army, RAF uniforms galore not counting the Knights of the Garter/ Bedchamber etc. Must be a real annoyance turning up in the wrong costume!

Chuck Unsworth

@ Publius

"Full of wise saws and modern instances"

Shakespeare's disparaging view. Still applies, I think.

AF

Vulture,
really,
are you feeling a little peckish,
fed up with your usual diet.

Ed P

As the Queen approaches Victoria's record reign of 64 years, I'm sure she will wish to continue until 2016, when she will be 90. The old jug eared eco-loon must be hoping her health fails before his own does.

DZ

And who, pray, is Mr Max Hastings? Holy cow! Another journalist. Must be a REALLY important person then. Either that or he gets paid for what he writes. Roll on the controversy, another article is ready and waiting.

TrevorsDen

Mr Buscuits talks sense in that its absurd to pretend that Charles is somehow different from past Monarchs and heirs in having opinions; some poorly formed. In fact I agree with Charles about Architecture and indeed GM foods.

Hasting is a disgrace - no more so when as Editor of the daily telegraph he did his best to undermine Thatcher; he took it upon himself to be the opposition. I remember the leader well.

The notion that William will not have views and opinions if and when he becomes first PoW and then King is totally glossed over.

Charles is wrong and naively misinformed about global warming but so is the entire establishment. As King he is more constitutionally constrained than as PoW.

But none of this should exclude him from being King; Did cavorting around with various showgirls prevent Edward VII from becoming King?

Fundamentally if the absurd Mr Hastings a sometime vaguely average war correspondent is representative of the Establishment then no wonder the country is endlessly up Shite Creek without a paddle.

anne allan

Scary Biscuit is right. The Queen works hard and is very dutiful.
However, I do wonder how much resistance she has shown to a succession of traitorous governments, apparently working in her name.
And 'modern' is not a compliment; look around you.

Frank P

Prince Charles, as an occasional politician putting his oar in, is much preferred to any elected current politician on the green seats - and any unelected politician kipping on the red seats, almost all of whom are out to screw us through the Exchequer by multi-various overt and covert taxes, to the benefit of themselves and the lobbyists who provide double-bubble for their efforts in an increasingly undemocratic parliament. A touch of eccentricity is to be expected - and no bad thing in a future Monarch. Princes Charles’s tireless efforts for the better charities are well documented and appreciated by millions and more than compensate for his quirks. The MSM have never forgiven him for their darling Diana's mainly self-imposed predicaments and ultimate reckless foolishness that led to her demise. The Daily Mail has consistently carried an undercurrent of Republicanism arising from Britain’s Dianification . My only major worry with Charles is his tendency to suck up to Islam. 'Defender of Faiths' indeed – get a grip guv’nor! Look at the bigger picture, as you seem to do on most other issues. Even your inner circle of Middle Eastern potentates would recognize the existential threat of the barbarism of that fundamentalist religion and its loose alliance of militant arms and their aims.

I agree with the posts of Scary Biscuits and Nicholas (little change there, then), HM advisors are a weary lot these days, but having sworn an oath allegiance in my youth to:

“well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the Office of Constable for the London Metropolitan Police, without favour or affection, malice or ill will, and that the best of my power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved, and prevent all offences against the persons and properties of Her Majesty’s subjects, and while I continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to the law.” - (an oath that I understand has been removed by overweening politicians, as a prerequisite for police service now, sadly, mainly to accommodate exotic recruits, I guess) I have continued to discharge my obligations under that oath beyond its original purview. In general my loyalty has not wavered over the years: God Bless Her Majesty QE II! Still on the throne and despite the trials and tribulations of her reign, the changes to her realm and the escapades of her extended family, she remains a shining beacon for our nation, the epitome of public service and a far better Monarch than each of the three previous ones that I lived under,

So anyone who plots to overthrow the Constitutional Monarchy - either by persuasion or force - still has me (and a few million like me I’m sure) to contend with. Having been long retired to the comparative peace of a cosy mud hut quite close to HM’s own private country retreat in Norfolk, I now walk as often as health permits, in the parklands of the delightful Sandringham estate with my dear wife - and occasionally with our children and grandchildren and during my perambulations I am still mindful of the oath that I took back in 1954, keeping my eyes skinned for those who would disturb The Queen’s Peace - particularly in her own back garden.

That Vulture feller (12.44pm) should know better – didn’t realize before he had a seditious streak. Is he alone, he asks? He may not be, but in this regard, he is, I hope, part of a very small minority.

Hastings is, of course, a right royal dickhead – always has been ; considers himself to be part of a new aristocracy apparently. Now there is an apple that fell a long way from the tree, or was blown away in the winds of change. His father was a gent - despite being of Scottish descent.
:-)

Biggestaspidistra

"That Vulture feller (12.44pm) should know better – didn’t realize before he had a seditious streak."

Seditious and funny. I am still laughing.

strapworld

Frank P..I note you were attested! Have you ever been detested? I ask because I am in the same boat as yourself and wonder if I still hold constabulary powers?

Victor Southern

Vulture - yes, you are alone as the insane are always alone in their private worlds. The sane do not hold such opinions.

I think that even at the Daily Mail you are out of synch with opinion there.

Verity

I agree with Scary Biscuits that Queen Elizabeth has been disastrous for Britain and our Constitution. She placed the survival of the house of Windsor over the survival of Great Britain as a discrete and separate country.

Verity

Well, Vulture, I can't stand Charles or the deeply repulsive Camilla, but I can think of at least 100 candidates for deployment as lamp post decor before either of them.

TomTom

Charles III-to be is simply Edward VIII reincarnate. Unfortunately we do not have a PM as effective as Baldwin in removing the problem from the throne

justathought

The problem with Max is he just doesn't get enough fun out of life and this tends to make him sound like a grumpy old whatever.

Apart from the irritating tendency to apologise after ever time he puts the boot in Charles he completely misses the point. The benefit of Charles accession to the throne is that we know everything there is to know, and most of the information provided by Max confirms its pretty small beer.

So are we supposed to ditch tradition and replace it with the Max Hastings royalty X-factor? I would suggest that Charles is harmless compared to air miles Andy and trolly bag Fergie. How dangerous is it to have Andy as an ambassador for industry holding the widely published views on his distaste of investigation of corruption exposed by wikileaks? Who's idea was it to include air miles Andy in the last Chinese visit in September? Does anyone know anything about Chinese history?

What was the benefit of William in securing votes for the world cup? How would that convince the ex-colonials to vote for the UK?

Perhaps Max should consider that the danger is not the constitutional power of the monarchy but the deference that clouds the judgement of that we elect to represent the country.

I would much rather stick with tradition and have Charles as King than Baroness whoever or some untested royal give the experience of the royal ambassadors to date. If reform is needed then let it be the reduction in the size of the royal household.

England is a nation of eccentrics and we can surely cope with a King who can hold his own, the challenge is for the politicians to do their job and keeping things in check.

ST

@JP

"But either we have a hereditary monarchy, or we don't."

We've ignored the hereditary principle before now. The Glorious Revolution is a good example.

Passing from the monarch to the heir's heir is a lot less questionable than many other successions which have taken place. The problem would only arise if Prince Charles resisted.

Verity

Frank P - I have unfailingly agreed with your posts - until now. A small point that you, as such a close family man, should appreciate:

You write: "their darling Diana's mainly self-imposed predicaments and ultimate reckless foolishness that led to her demise".

Her predicament was not self-imposed. It was forced on her by a cold, selfish Charles. Ultimately, she was reckless and foolish, but so driven by Charles's dismissal of her (rather young and naive) love for him in favour of his long term mistress, who he had never had a single thought of giving up. He married Diana out of undiluted self-interest. He knew the public would insist that he go the way of his uncle if he insisted on marrying Camilla - and he has an overriding urge to be king.

No wonder Charles is so drawn to islam. That multiple wives deal is really a cracker.

Boudicca

It isn't good enough for Prince Charles to desist from political interference when/if he becomes King. We all know his views; he regularly interferes in politics by writing to Ministers and appealing to foreign rulers when something is proposed which he disagrees with.

Steps should be taken now to exclude Charles from the succession. He will make a very poor King and will be divisive both here and elsewhere in the Commonwealth. If he won't remove himself from the Line of Succession the Queen should take steps to have him removed. Otherwise, we just have to hope that Queen Elizabeth outlives her son.

Edward

Hear hear, Publius.

It's lazy at best, deliberately manipulative at worst.

Everybody should read Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language', which discusses the causes and effects of this sort of thing.

AF

There is a rumour that Charles and Camilla are to be driven around London as decoys during the next student demo,in order to flush out the anarchists and trouble makers.
That should please the self appointed toff Hastings.

biggestaspidistra

"England is a nation of eccentrics"

Except it isn't anymore, is it? It used to be. Now it's is a nation of conformists.

Ron Todd

Scary Biscuits

The Queen might not have protected the rights of her subjects. We have no reason to suspect Charlie boy would do any better. His interests are forcing the rest of us to live a ‘greener’ life effectively a poorer life while he continues to live in opulence. Architecture where he wants buildings restricted to neo Georgian semi-mansions that only the rich can afford. Medicine where he wants to abandon tested scientific medical treatment for improbable homeopathy. His recent writings suggest he wants to return to a pre scientific pre industrial world where kings were one step below gods and us peasants knew our place.

The balance of power indeed cannot be maintained with an overmighty prime minister. Making the commons and an elected second house more powerful is a better solution than a more powerful monarch. Remember we were one ‘not tonight Philip one has a headache’ from having Andrew as the next king and Fergie as the next Queen mother.

Nicholas

The alternative to a hereditary monarch is not baroness whatshername it is somebody that gets elected by the people; something that neither the dear baroness or the Queen have or ever will do.

TrevorsDen

You are correct justathought. But whilst most people tend to beatify the Queen - the ultimate responsibility for Air Miles Andy and Fergie etc is hers.

I am not opposed to the Queen or the monarchy; the present lot are quite saintly compared to the past. Suddenly becoming a Republic would not enrich our lives, but when you see that David Beckham is more coherent than the next King but one - you do begin to wonder.

I guess I am too warm hearted and generous - I do not find Camilla repulsive. Sadly I have to admit to regarding Diana as bonkers. Charles does have something in common with a number of people in Britain today - he does have a brother and a son who have served in war zones.

Hastings has only cowered behind them.

yank

An interesting comment string, and I'm grateful to see this kicked about in here.

The blogger's post is correct though. You'll have an end to the monarchy, if it becomes just another political avenue, as jug ears the small sot will surely bring on.

And his spawn will do similarly, and no sense thinking otherwise. It's as much the modern era as these personalities, and I don't view modern as always equaling good, either. The old gal has done splendidly, imo, struggling to keep above the fray, but she's human, and will be forced into it. Imagine if you had to deal with such as the oily Blair, or the wild Brown, or the current court jester asmile, all tugging you away from a reserved nature, the very thing that gives the monarchy its power as a conservative institution?

And now comes an unreserved personality, one flauntingly disrespectful of conservative institution, and even more shockingly… a card carrying progressive? It’s at an end, then. Lament that, but it is so.

No longer do the subjects stand in awe. I should think that all ended as Diana was on tour over here, 30 years ago, and I believe Madonna was likely on the bill with her as well, back then. I bet Elizabeth detested it. I sure did. We don't stand in awe of celebrities... we wait for them to get nailed by the paparazzi, so we can discard the 3rd raters like m'lad Chuck. It's awesome.

A celebrity culture and hereditary monarchy cannot mix, not in the age of Wiki. No longer can they politic behind the scenes, out of sight and out of mind, with a compliant and (self or otherwise) censored media supporting their every move. Now, the stupes write books, and launch themselves into the fray. Fair enough. And their boozing and whoring and wiccan rants and royalicitudeinalityization will be part of that fray, unlike yesteryear. An anti-conservative, anti-liberal media will not be a conservative or liberal institution’s friend… not over the long haul. It will ruin the people (who are well enough capable of ruining themselves), and manipulate the institution, as we’ve seen.

The bloodline thing has to go. Sorry. They’re in politics to stay now, and with tools inappropriate to the task. Kill it, modify it, or watch others (within the monarchy and without) illegitimately modify it for their own ends. That’s the reality here.

Frank P

Strapworld

“I note you were attested! Have you ever been detested? I ask because I am in the same boat as yourself and wonder if I still hold constabulary powers?”

Attested, contested, infested, tested, retested, infested, quested, rested and – yes – detested (by some). But as far as duty was concerned, hardly ever bested: all part of the Austin Reed service, as we used to say to grateful customers!

As for whether or not you still hold ‘constabulary powers’ I doubt they still exist substantially even for serving officers, let alone retired ones. The CPS put an end top all that. You still have, under PACE, some Citizen Rights to intervene in the prevention of crime in certain circumstances, almost as many powers as the lads still on the Job have, God help ‘em. What betrayal we have witnessed over the past couple of decades.

Having, I hope, established my undying loyalty to the Crown in the above post, I must qualify it slightly by admitting I am mightily disappointed that HM hasn’t done more to prevent the leaching of powers and Jurisdiction from her ‘keepers of the Queen’s Peace’. But considering the way her Royalty Protection boys have performed over the last 30 years or so it is perhaps understandable. But then when you take into account the way her Ministers of State have pissed her sovereignty down Barking Creek on way to the EUSSR, I’m surprised she hasn’t done a Victoria: retired to Balmoral with the Corgis and sulked.

It would have been great to listen to some of the conversations she had in private with PTG after some of her audiences with the slimey Blair (and Cherie!) and later the gauche Brown. I wonder if the F & C words are in the Private Royal Lexicon? Perhaps the egregious Paul Burrell could tell us; I’ll bet he was a world champion eavesdropper as well as a Premier League greaseboy.

Magnolia

A small anecdote.
Prince Charles was visiting one of the old mental subnormality asylums. The staff took him for lunch and guided him to the staff dining room and a prepared buffet. The Prince declined and said that he had come to see the patients and that he would have lunch with them and that is what he did.
So what you may ask. Well the member of staff on duty that told me this story said that they wouldn't like to have lunch with the patients themselves and they admired his courage in doing so. Having seen how very disabled these poor people were I can only agree that the Prince had high standards of his own sense of duty to some of the most helpless of his subjects. To be blunt the overwhelming aroma in such places was of overpowering airfreshner with a distinct background of faeces and vomit. You try eating your lunch with that.

Simon Too

Scary Buscuits' comment is to the point.

The point about a heriditary head of state is that you know who the next one is going to be, and the next one does not have to politic around to get the job. Similarly, there's not much the heir can do to wriggle out of the job.

The constitutional principle is crystal clear. Admittedly the constitution can prove flexible when dealing with an actual, present, issue. There is no actual, present, issue to address here, so the principle is inflexible.

I am surprised at the suggestion that Max Hastings is a member of the establishment. He may have been the editor of a couple of major newspapers, but he remains a journalist in the finest British tradition.

(You cannot hope to bribe or twist,
Thank God! the British journalist.
But, seeing what the man will do
Unbribed, there's no occasion to.)

Publius - I could not agree more about the false association of "modern" with "good".

Tarka the Rotter

Now, where to begin..
@) Ma'am: technially the monarch is 'elected' by the people at a certain moment in the coronation service when he/she is acclaimed, or recognised as king or queen. There is no election of the monarch by the Privy Council. The succession is laid down by Act of Parliament, the Act of Succession etc etc and it needs an subsequent act to change it, not to mention roayl assent. Coffeehousers rightly point out the Queen has not refused to sign anything that has been put before her, which means her oath to defend the constitution has been breached many times, most significantly when powers were signed away to Brussels. Prince Charles, who is likely to become King George VII in an attempt to airbrush away the past (and that troublesome woman Diana), will succeed according to the laws of the land, end of. Quite agree with the comments attacking the assumption that 'modern' means 'good': it does no such thing. The problem now is that the checks and balances of our ancient constitution - sovereign, House of Lords, House of Commons, has been blown out of the water by politicians. I ask you to consider what sort of a job they have made of it. What's needed is a constitutional convention to decide how we are to proceed into the 21st century, and re-establish checks on the over-mighty executive. Yes, I mean you, Prime Minister.

Herbert Thornton

Simon Stephenson - I think that the paragraph you mentioned must have given rise to many similar reactions to yours. In my case I immediately thought of the North Korean monarchy......

David Lindsay

Talk of personal fitness negates the whole concept of monarchy, and it is a complete fantasy that the monarchy is supposed to be neutral in all matters. What would be the point of that? If, for example, it could not intervene to prevent the despoilment of our built environment, then there really would be no purpose at all to it. But such is not the case.

Leaving aside the mistakes and misfortunes of his own life (which have absolutely nothing to do with the institution as such), Prince Charles is either on the wrong track or just plain wrong when it comes to syncretism, and Greenery, and the Dalai Lama. But he is right about an awful lot more. And that makes him the voice of huge numbers of people who have none in the supposedly more legitimate parliamentary process, of which the monarch is properly, but not currently, an integral part, complete with a power of veto in the defence of certain interests now impossible to defend by means of voting because not exactly dear to the hearts of New Labour or the Coalition.

Give me Charles over them any day.

Herbert Thornton

Frank P., Verity, Vulture et al. -

1. Frank, you hanker after knowing what may have been actually said in royal circles. So do most of us. I makes we wonder whether anyone has sent any tips about it to Wikileaks. Isn't that a tantalising prospect? It would make Julian Assange even more popular.

2. In the matter of Charles wanting, should he become King, to still further debase his supposed status of Defender of the Faith by claiming also to be a Defender of Islam, I should have thought that it amounted to an abdication of his duty to his country and countrymen so gross that he should have been excluded from the line of succession from the moment he announced that desire. It makes me feel that in the matter of the slight differences of your and Verity's attitude towards the monarchy, I incline towards Verity's assessment.

3. Vulture's characterisation of Camilla reminds me of James Delingpole's recent column in praise of blunt speech: (Freedom starts with plain speaking - 11 December 2010). It all makes me feel that Camilla's title is much too bland. A Prince has finally taken her officially to his bed, so would it not be more fitting for her to have the title "Princess Concubine"?

Verity

I did read, when Antonio Ego slithered into No 10 (leaving a nice slime trail which facilited the entry of the creepy conga Cameron), during his first audience with HM, that when she entered the room, he stuck out his hand and said, "You can call me Tony")

To which HM responded "And you can call me Your Majesty." It's not all beer and skittles being Queen, you know.

Ron Todd

David Lindsay

'Talk of personal fitness negates the whole concept of monarchy.' Exactly Can get a complete plonker or somebody with the right balance of knowledge wisdom and humility.

Unfortunately looking at the Queens offspring the chances of the former are greater than the chances of the later.

No more than to be expected. Take the best family you know, your own or another and consider how many of them over several generations would be fit to be head of state. Even if you live in a much better neighbourhood than I do it is not likely to be a high percentage.

Then imagine each generation of that family brought up with the belief that they are better than everybody else do you think that the proportion of them that would make a good ruler would go up or down?

With a democratically elected head of state we can get a choice from the best of a whole generation. Or at least from those that are willing to put themselves up for election.

Even with election we can get a bad'un. But most of the time there will be a baseline standard below which people become unelectable. And when we do get a duffer we do not need to wait until they die, just to the next election.

Ron Todd

Herbert Thornton

'Concubine' would not be appropriate. She is his lawfully wedded one and only wife. Though I will conceded that the pendant could argue about the ‘lawfully’

We might not like it and the establishment might not publicise it but she is Princess Camilla and will, if Charles survives the Queen, be Queen Camilla.

donpatrico

Max Hastings liked Blair, and later felt terribly let down. Judgment not that good, then. Writes well and provocatively - but serious questions and 'knockabout' sometimes need to be separated.

Mr L

The problem with Priunce Charles is his intellectual pretensions. When he talks about architecture he just says 'this is ugly', which is what many of us think but are derided by the architectural pundits for saying. But I'm afraid that on other things he comes across as a bit of a nut. If he would just calm down and stop trying to be an intellectual (which he plainly is not, and which the monarchy does NOT require) things would be a lot easier.

Frank P

Verity

Diana was a member of the aristocracy and knew the rules of the game before she joined. She spent years at Sandringham before she was fed into the system; observing it at close quarters. She got her fairy tale beginning, but it was obviously never going to be a fairy tale ending. When the inevitable started to unfold she tried to change the rules. They were both victims in that regard, albeit both consenting victims. On balance Charles was more hog-tied to his role than she was. But, like her father, she was slightly bonkers and probably thought that she could defy the farmyard practices that prevailed in the milieu. In the end she played it much dirtier than he did. I knew two of their protection officers. They deduced it was six of one and half a dozen of the other. She enjoyed her role as a Royal vamp. I met her a couple of times during official visits and observed that she turned it on to anything in trousers. Most males fell into simpering fits of fantasy. Fair enough; it was showbiz, after all. I'm normally a sucker when it comes to the female of the species, but she was brittle and deeply scheming. Any residual sympathy I had for her in the early stages dispersed rapidly when she put the Constitution in jeopardy by hooking up with an Egyptian ponce-cum-arms-fixer in cahoots with his father - the odious the social climbing grocer from Knightsbridge; then she forfeited any natural sympathy I had 'as a family man' (as you put it). She entered subversive politics with some panache and, unsurprisingly went out with a bang. It caused irreparable damage to our Constitutional Monarchy which has limped ever since. I would adjudge that the self-interest was not so much Charles' failing; after all - we all unfortunately now know that he would much rather have served a replacement for his mistress's tampon. I fear that he may have thought that it was his duty to fulfil the desire of the general public to have a fairy-tail princess; which was stupid, but not necessarily wicked. As it is, he will succeed to the throne. One hopes that when he does he will abandon his quirks and do a good job, Even Edward VII knuckled down to it when the weight of the Crown rested on his bonce. I'm sure Prince Charles will make a good King - if he survives his mother.

Lucas Ford

I really can't wait for Charles to become King, just to see how he reacts when presented with a piece of legislation that doesn't sit well with him. It will be interesting to watch him dissolve Parliament for no reason whatsoever.

Yow Min Lye

Scary Biscuit might regret a whole host of occasions when Her Majesty could have exercised the royal prerogative not to affix her signature to a contentious bill.

However, for the Queen to take this unprecedented step really would be to press the constitutional thermo-nuclear launch button. Understandably, she would want to be absolutely certain that her people stood be 100% behind her before doing so.

In fact, when was the last time a monarch refused to sign something put in front of him or her? Wasn't it Queen Victoria striking out all reference to lesbianism from the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 because she refused to accept that women could do such things. Hence why female homosexual acts have never been illegal in Britain.

Herbert Thornton

Frank - A good King? Maybe - but I can't help wondering whether he is going to devote part of his Fridays to turning towards Mecca, sticking his arse in the air, and bumping his head on the floor.

Nicholas

Ron Todd: "The alternative to a hereditary monarch is not baroness whatshername it is somebody that gets elected by the people; something that neither the dear baroness or the Queen have or ever will do."

That's potentially just as bad. We'd probably end up with Simon Cowell.

Herbert Thornton

Ron Todd.

When Charles married Diana he expressed vows of marriage that were completely false. His and his fancy woman's morals in fact remained firmly in the gutter.

Why should we regard this second expression of vows, this time to his fancy woman, as having any more value? So much more in fact that they suddenly lift the pair of them out of - and way above - the gutter? Too think that it does really involves stepping down into the same gutter.

If anybody doesn't like the title Princess concubine for some reason, Princess courtesan will probably do. The same applies if he ever becomes King. If Camilla is ever described as Queen consort it will debase the ancient and honourable meaning of 'consort'.

TrevorsDen

Dear Mr Rotter (and others of your persuasion) The Queen has never taken an oath to defend the constitution. Take a look back at the coronation. One reason of course is that we do not have a constitution.

She has sworn to protect the protestant reformed religion. And to 'preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England,' (not Scotland!).

She also 'to the utmost of your power' promised to 'maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel' but not the laws of the country.

Indeed she promised to 'govern' Britain and the commonwealth within 'their respective laws and customs'. If parliament passes a law she governs within it.

Whatever she promised was 'to her power' ie she is not an absolute monarch but can only act within her powers.

The privy council does what the Cabinet tells it and both tell the monarch what to do.

May I also say that the whole notion that a 'Head of State' must have no former life or opinion is rubbish. One only has to look at places where the Head of State (ceremonial or constitutional as opposed to executive) is elected. Such countries manage quite capably - as Britain would if Republicans got their way.

Verity

Frank P - Certainly Diana became harder and more savvy and scheming as the years passed married to a man who didn't love her and who had liked under oath. (I assume the phrase "forsaking all others" was included in the ceremony.

As it happens, I never liked her. But at age 17 or 18, I think she was innocent and full of romantic dreams and probably thought she was in love. I don't think Charles thought he was in love for one nanosecond.

But this is about the deceit and selfishness of Charles, not a defence of Diana. I complained to my local Safeway when they closed for the day of her funeral (without warning) out of "respect".

And although I don't like Camilla either, Charles did dither around and keep her hanging, while he kept his options open, for years before she finally upped and married someone else.

Charles just doesn't come out of this well. And he has announced that when he becomes king, he wants to be known as Defender of Faith -- a more meaningless phrase would be difficult to imagine.

He's done some good work, but it would be diffiult to imagine such a louche individual as the Sovereign. Especially after his exemplary mother.

Frank P

Verity ;-)

I wouldn't argue with most of what you say and I take many of your points. But it is a fait accompli, unless the Reaper decides otherwise, so the boy has my support (I am sure that he doesn't give a ff whether I do or not).

Charlie will be alright. As I said, nobody would have forecast that 'Bertie' would have performed as well as he did in the ten years that he reigned, after donkey's years as a playboy prince in the shadow of his imperious, reclusive mother. And Princess/Queen Alexandra put up with a lot more than Diana ever did - and stuck to her guns. I guess you would despise her supine acceptance of the life-style, but the privileges of the Royal life have a heavy price and the duties are at times onerous.
Those hereabouts who would abolish the Crown haven't suggested an acceptable alternative, imho. Just imagine Buckhouse as a Trades' Union HQ; or as offices of Ed Miliband's Labour Party. Diane Abbot sitting on the balcony varnishing her nails? Windsor Castle as the HQ of Amstrad? Balmoral as one of many future Donald Trump golf centres?

I agree wholeheartedly about the Defender of Faith shtick, I ceded that point already in my 2.40pm post. That aspect of his eccentricity worries me a great deal.

http://www.ameinfo.com/137945.html

It would be interesting to have a decko at his private investment portfolio. But then the private investment portfolio of many of our elected politicians would make very interesting reading , too, particularly the offshore ones.

Fergus Pickering

Verity, our FAVOURITE monarch, the only one who appears as a character in a work of great literature as far as I know, was King Edward VII, and you don't get more louche than that. Charles will do very well. And remember, the monarchy, whoever he/she is, is the only persn standing between us and a President. President! No good can come of Presidents.

Ron Todd

Nicholas

I think you underestimate the voting public. Most of Mr Cowell’s viewers will be too young to vote and most of the rest will know the difference between a TV show that lets them pretend they are getting a choice and the election of the head of state. It would be likely that any serious contender would need the backing of a politically party which would filter out the real numpties.

I hate the royalists view that the little people are incapable of electing their own head of state. Are we not as good as the citizens of countries that do? And yes I do know they sometimes make odd choices.

Herbert Thornton

His vows might have lacked any sincerity that does not change the legality of the ceremony. If it did few of our showbiz ‘stars’ would ever be legally married.

TrevorsDen

We might not have a written constitution, we do have a constitution. Even if nobody can quite define what it is. I would like to have a proper written constitution that clearly defined the powers of two elected houses a proper head of state and the judiciary. It could also restrict the politicians ability to drag us further into Europe.

Getting one that has wide support would be difficult while the main opposition party will always put partisan party and union interests above the interests as the country as a whole.

A lot of the stuff I would want in a constitution would upset many Muslims. And Labour will not want to lose the Muslim vote. Everybody living under one set of laws would rule out sharia tribunals. If a native Englishman was only allowed one wife Muslim immigrants would be limited to one wife. Freedom of religion would have to include the freedom to leave a religion without fear. Freedom of expression would include the right to draw cartoons of any real or imaginary historic figure. Free speech should not be limited to what one of many religions find acceptable.

Nicholas

Ron Todd. I don't think I do. I am a member of the voting public and I don't want to vote for a Head of State. The idea is ridiculous. How would the candidates be chosen? By whom? And on what criteria? Oh, the "backing of a political party"? For goodness sake. We have seen the gradual politicisation of the neutral state over the last twenty years and you think we want that process to now determine or Head of State? You might. I don't. It was bad enough with the House of Lords where there has been an infusion of career party politicians, party toadies and weird single-issue zealots. If you think the political process is truly representative of democracy you are naive. It is now a useful scam to legitimise the seizure of power by people I wouldn't want to buy a used car from. The role of Parliament has been degraded in recent years not enhanced. "Modern" politicians have trashed our constitutional legacy by failing to understand or honour its conventions and responsibilities.

Even when you vote in a GE you only get to vote for candidates chosen for you and on the basis of their supposed party policies. Recently we have seen policies and manifestos abandoned or changed without qualms. Do I want a party political Head of State? No thanks.

Don't pretend that voting for a Head of State would be anything other than a political stunt. And gravitas? Heritage? Majesty? Personalities aside the institute of Monarchy represents something unbroken and fine about the constitution of Britain. You don't like it? Well I do. You just hate the royalists period - that's where you are coming from.

Like Frank P I have taken an oath of allegiance to HM The Queen, twice in my life, and consider it still binding, happy to do so. You are trying to persuade the wrong person.

Tarka the Rotter

@Trevors Den

'and others of your persuasion...' Tell me, what do you think my persuasion is, oh wise one and seer of the garden shed?

Nick2

Charles has always espoused his pet issues in public (as well, presumably as in private). Compare his courting of controversy/publicity with his mother, who seems to be able to function as a Royal (and Head of State) without appearing to be a publicity hungry media celebrity.

If Charles ever does become king, I doubt whether he could make the transition between an heir looking for a role in the meantime, and a Monarch trying to fulfil their role as Head of State.

Ron Todd

Nicholas

There are many ways of electing a head of state. Every country does it differently. I have no particular preference as to the method.

It is fine if you do not want to vote, I have no wish for voting to be made compulsory. But I would prefer if you did not seek to deny that right to the rest of us.

‘gravitas? Heritage? Majesty? Personalities aside the institute of Monarchy ‘represents something unbroken and fine about the constitution of Britain.’

‘gravitas? Heritage? Majesty?’ How much of that does Charlie boy have? Unbroken! Don’t mention the (civil) War. Unbroken what about when the Norman took over from the English. Unbroken the roll and powers of the Kings’ has always being changing.

‘Kings and Queens have ranged from the good to the monstrous. You could be giving the impression that you do not realise that not all monarchs were like the present one.
They also represent the arrogance of those who think that god has placed them above everybody else. I do not hate those who want to perpetuate this system I pity them. I do not want to convince you just point out the flaws in the royalist arguments.

Yes an elected head of state would be a politician, what do you want somebody picked by accident of birth?

EC

Herbert Thornton, December 18th, 2010 10:18pm

"Frank - A good King? Maybe - but I can't help wondering whether he is going to devote part of his Fridays to turning towards Mecca, sticking his arse in the air, and bumping his head on the floor."

... prompted, no doubt, by the call to prayer from the minaret that be installed at the Abbey.

Arses in the air at Buck House? No change there then!

The British establishment is always slow to react but when it finally decides it is under threat it is always swift to act and is ruthless. If HRH Ego becomes a real problem he may well succumb to a bout of S.I.D.S. like his unfortunate first wife.

Avon Calling

Sage Prince - no Turkey He
Great Seer o' Life's Mystery
Lord Protector o' the Environment
With Fertile Mind and Roy'l Fundament

Herbert Thornton

Ron Todd -

I have not said, nor is it my opinion, that the marriage lacks legality.

However, your reference to the marriages of most of our showbiz stars certainly helps to demonstrate the sleazy character that they and the gruesome couple that we are discussing all share.

Frank P

EC

Cut it out! First Vulture, now you! All these dark hints of seditious plotting will have me out with my night bins on the A149 during the Sandringham family gathering and setting up a a direct line to Nicholas, lest I need back-up!

Nicholas

"Yes an elected head of state would be a politician, what do you want somebody picked by accident of birth?"

Yes, I do. I'd like the House of Lords to be full of hereditary nobles still too. And not so much accident of birth but rather birthright. And for all the "changes" you mention the basic institution of monarchy has endured. Your view represents the typical arrogance of "modern" thinking that views Britain as a place to be molded and forced in some eager conviction that drastic and rapid change is by necessity "good" and required. Rather than viewed as a place of longevity that we enjoy only as transient tenants with a responsibility to preserve and pass on those things that have served the nation well in times far more adverse than the present. That does not inhibit "progress", "change", "improvement" per se but perhaps makes a plea for more circumspection about it. And our history tends to show that the evolved changes are more positive and enduring than the force-fed ones, especially those contrived and pursued on the basis of single issue dogma.

An elected Head of State a politician? Personally I cannot think of anything worse for Britain. In twenty, perhaps thirty years, we have had far too much of politicians moving from duty to ambition (whether personal or party) and they have done far too much to us in the arrogant belief that they owe nothing to the past or the future.

Copy other countries? I can remember when our children were taught that other countries envied us and copied us, for the stability and effectiveness of our enduring political institutions. It is easy to replace enduring legacy with something hasty of modern invention if you first trash that enduring legacy. That is a meme for New Labour. Unfortunately, people like that are more often than not responsible for destroying the good 80% to get the best 20% (which is never achieved anyway), e.g. grammar schools.

And I'm not seeking to deny that right (of voting) to the rest of "you". But who does "the rest of us" really represent? You promote an agenda, sir, and it is neither wanted nor welcome by me but do not pretend that you represent some popular majority of "right thinking". That is an assumption of Leftism not Conservatism, that prejudices and presumes the outcome on a belief in "divine" right every bit as arrogant as that you attribute to monarchy. That is Europe denying the vote of the Irish people and forcing them to vote again for the "right" result. Your opinion is no more valid than mine and if you think the validity of either would be accurately tested in a vote you are sadly naive.

Personally I have always preferred the Devil I know. And in the last 13 years never was that more profoundly demonstrated to me. It is my experience that those who most promote the "democratic" process are usually the greatest enemies to it. There is much about Great Britain that until the arrival of the ridiculous post-1975 generation did not need to be said. It ran through us as strongly and instinctively as the English blood in our veins (and the distinction is deliberate). Airbrushing out the wisdom of the past is a good way to ease the folly of the present.

If you were born much before 1975 I would be surprised and somewhat disappointed. Those are my last words on the subject, because, with respect, I do not care for yours.

yank

Now then, now then... now now then... then now... then

then now ...now... then

Now then, as the high tory fossils have all weighed in, the house will now divide.

All those seeking a valid political mechanism, and to halt its being scabbed together for them by events and cretins, say aye.

All those sitting amidst the study's cobwebbed corners, with crooked assclowns racing around and around outside, filling their pockets and stripping away everything ever written up on those cobwebbed bookshelves, say nay.

donald fraser

True and false about the dangerous mix of politics and monarchical heirs. Cameron is also as loopy as a fruit-the-loop. Namely green banks to the tune of one billion and electric car subsidies of five thousand. Nuclear power stations desperately needed built, so that the young poor have warm accommodation, will be held back on theoretical drawing boards for many years to come. Against this background all hail the Prince of Wales. Any crisis precipitated is well-deserved. If heads come up for the chop, his royal personage is worth the saving (the film "the last emperor" comes to mind). But as for the rest of the fruit-the-loops, democratically elected or not, the executioner’s blade has much less reason to be spared. The separation of the will and needs of the people are clearly and distinctly demonstrated by the challenges of global environmentalism. Our Prince is unique, entitled by birth to his moment in the limelight. The other dappers of the modern persuasion for environmental causes are not. Leaders such as Cameron, thrust onto this stage by self-promotional efforts, remain commoners regardless of wealth. Our Prince will serve the people well by becoming king. His perverted green thinking is the true and honest mirror of modern man. As such I would willingly die to defend this man as our last "green" alive. A death not in vain if the hundreds if not tens of thousands of environmentalists that court the public attention can be easily despatched in a mighty struggle. Three cheers and long live King Charles. Shame upon Grub Street and those pen-pushers who question our right as freemen to live under the peace of the crown. Reject those who would advocate destroying our right to enjoy the future as determined by tradition. Any crisis that Charles's ascension to power brings is well-deserved and frankly in my opinion a golden opportunity to exploit. Only those who share our future King's environmental views should have something to fear. The rest should cherish this opportunity it will provide to rid ourselves of them. God save the king.

Frank P

yank

Remember that most of your compatriots rejoice on 4th of July, but secretly envy the Monarchy that could still have been yours had your forebears not become so petulant back in 1776.

And our enduring, endearing (albeit quaint) Kingdom relies greatly on millions of tourists from Over the Pond coming to gawp at its current and past glories and paying dearly for the privilege(?). Not only that, we are not too proud to solicit a handout from time to time from our more prosperous cousins (as you tellingly point out in some previous posts) when the going gets rough, even if sometimes it is under usurious conditions. That's what families are for, ennit? And that's why I'm such a persistent yankophile - your generosity and open-handed and warm hearted hospitality over there has always outweighed your chippiness and when we act in unison in World Affairs it is almost always to the benefit of the species.
Well - almost always, anyway.

Stand by for blasting!

Ron Todd

Nor I for yours. I was born well before 1975.

Of course I promote an agenda, just as you do. We have an elected commons, an unelected lords an unelected head of state, an unelected European commission and an unelected president of the European Council. My agenda is to get rid of the ‘un’. Yes I promote the democratic process. When you say enemy of it I can only assume that you are referring to those who would use the democratic process to get into power then change the system so they could stay in power. That is not what I want.

I think that you are afraid that people would vote for somebody you do not approve off. You despise the little people and like the early American great and good want a system where a few of the superior sort have more power than the mass of the ordinary people and middling type.

Are unelected politicians preferable to elected ones? Other than a term limit how are our unelected European masters that different to unelected Kings?

If other countries used to envy us but do so no longer is that not an indication that even without a hereditary monarch they have progressed more than us in the last 100 years.

Who are the rest of us, they are all of us who would have and would use the right to vote, I believe that was implicit in what I wrote.

You might prefer the devil you know I would prefer to have no devil at all. You might know what sort of Devil Charlie boy is and what sort William will be, you don’t know what we might get in the generations after that.

Stability is neither inherently good nor bad. North Korea has a more stable system of government than Italy.

Europe might have denied the Irish vote, the Queen was unable to stop Brown denying us our vote. A proper elected head of state with a fair constitution might have been able to deny Brown.

The failings of politicians are well known they are no worse than the failings of unelected Lords and nothing compared with the failings of the worst of the Kings.

The power of Kings has been declining for 400 years, getting rid of them altogether would just be a continuation of that process.

Verity

Yank - I often enjoy, and often agree with, your posts, but you shouldn't be trying to barge into this discussion because you have no understanding at all of the underpinnings and the sense of history and cotinuity that our monarchs provide us.

You don't have the background, from birth.

If you think anyone here is interested in the opinion of a foreigner about our family matters, you're mistaken. A Canadian or a New Zealander or an Indian or a Singaporean, yes, we'd be interested, because she is their monarch,too.

An American has nothig to add.

This is a family dicussion. Butt out.

Frank P

Aw c'mon Verity. We never cease poking our noses into yank's national affairs - we are sort of tied up by common history and it is e-x-t-e-n-d-e-d family, albeit a bit mongrelised now.

This blog has heaped more ridicule and venom on their POTUS than Glen Beck and for longer.

Anyway, I enjoy the craic - don't you?

Frank P

Nicholas (1.34pm)

Great riposte; I'll bet the fish barrel is riddled with holes. Merciless - and keep it up!

Herbert Thornton

At risk of causing more aggravation to the folk with whom I usually agree, here, for a start, is a description of the American presidency. It was put to me some years ago by a colleague when we were comparing the US and Canadian forms of government.

He defined the American President by saying - "He's an elected King."

It hadn't occurred to me to look at it like that, but his point was succinct, lucid and accurate.

The U.S. constitution is actually a modification of, and improvement on, the British one or rather the British one as it once was. It is, fundamentally, very close indeed to the British constitution that existed in the time of Charles II.

Once Charles I and Cromwell were gone, virtually all legislative power - but in particular the power to levy taxes (often called the Power of the Purse) became entrenched in the hands of Parliament.
Executive power on the other hand remained with the King (or in the case of the U.S.A. the President). That arrangement is an excellent one and has stood the test of time, at least in the U.S.A.

But in Britain, unfortunately, the monarch's executive power has been steadily eroded over time to the point where it has virtually entirely passed from the monarch and 99.99% into the hands of whoever happens to be the current Prime Minister. This is unhealthy and retrograde. Indeed, constitutional scholars now sometimes describe Britain's form of government as one by elected (albeit temporary) dictators. The accuracy of that description has become increasingly obvious and more frightening over the last 50 years.

I am not entirely against having a monarch, but I do believe that there is desperate need to reduce the amount of power wielded by Prime Ministers.

Tarka the Rotter

herbert Thornton - my point exactly! Well said sir, well said.

yank

No blasting, Frank. Our young poster earlier played the nationalism card, and I’m versatile, so I stepped on his trump. No worries, and I’d guess you and I are old enough dogs to know that’s all just nonsense, anyways. We all have bigger fish to fry, and other snakes to behead. And they’re (nearly) the same snakes, mostly domestic.

Yes, we here will continue to pay homage at the wellspring. Not the headbangers, but those of us who truly understand will do so. And as Mr. Thornton astutely points out, that wellspring washed directly from 1688 into 1776. It was the same water, with perhaps a bit of frog seltzer added.

That’s what’s sitting up on your cobwebbed bookshelves. That’s what is cherished, not the monarchy. Yes, once, the monarchy was a conservative institution. It was also a liberal institution. It’s neither, now. It no longer supports what’s up on your shelves. It can’t. The institution has been eroded. It’s been perverted, and that man is one of its perverts, ably supported by others of the snakes and political class.

And we here face that precise issue. It’s precisely the same, just the symptoms are expressed differently. Both of our constitutions are being eroded. The English language, that most conservative and liberal of institutions, is being perverted, and used to erode other of our institutions.

Sometimes, you have to separate the traditional from the conservative, and make sure the distinction is finely defined. I’m for both, but put to the test, we must default to the latter. Do otherwise, and we merely play into the snakes, who are all about preying on our own internal weakness.

Oh and Verity, not that it makes any difference to me (nor should it for anyone else) as I’ll be posting on this or any other topic I choose, but I’m a Canadian citizen as well as American, so going by your own definitions, you might spare the bandwidth in future.

Verity

Herbert Thornton - Aye.

Fergus Pickering

Shoulder to shoulder, Verity. Repel the yankee invader. And while we're at it, their Presidential system sucks. As do most of their Presidents, including this one.

Osred

yank - I expect you're a big boy (or girl)and can take the slings an' arrows but rest assured there are those who would stand next to you when it comes to your right to expound on 'owt you like - including the monarchy of the land in which - at least some of us -live.

T Stewart

God forbid we have a King who thinks!! The article is absolute rubbish. I am not a big 'fan' of Charles but I have no reason to believe he will be anything but a dedicated and hard working monarch when the time comes.

alexsandr

Re talk of passing over Charles in favour of William, I remind you of the instrument of Abdication in 1936. - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdication_Crisis_of_Edward_VIII#Abdication
if Charles abdicates then William and Harry and their heirs will be removed from the game. That will pass to Charles' elder brother and his children.
Always assuming the same rules apply.

Y Bonheddwr Huw Jones

Charles Windsor has alway,s been considered a joke and never in a thousand years our prince of Wales.

Nicholas

yank - I don't know from your somewhat garbled post who you are referring to as "young poster". But if it was me you were missing by a mile. I'll venture I'm even older than you. What were you doing during Suez? I was jumping out of aeroplanes and had been for quite some time. You remember Suez surely? One of those many occasions when your lot knifed us in the back.

I realise your preferred style is the all knowing deity coming down amongst the ignorant to drop your somewhat dreary pearls of wisdom (or twisting tails, what fun) but it might be better to drop the patronising cracks. That way you won't look quite such a chump when my mates and I read your posts out loud in our club (we have this ongoing ugly American competition - it's a long story but was started by a couple of characters, sadly no longer with us, from the "old army" which fought in Italy in 1944 and who told hilarious tales about uptight US colonels. We "younger" members always thought of them as the originals of Jon's Two Types).

If you were not referring to me, then as you were sir, but perhaps some improvement in articulating the Queen's English might be warranted - old bean.

yank

Nicholas, you really must cease leasing space in your head to me.

Although I do rather sinfully enjoy twisting your tail, I must admit.

And tell your boyz back at the club we sometimes play the same little game here, except, well, it's at a far smaller scale, as there never seems to be enough limeys in action to really get it kicked off right. Always the near homogeneous theater, it seems.

Can't get the pump primed, you know.

Oh, and there's a Canadian chapter as well, old bean. Americans don't really care, but they do, fyi.

Frank P

yank

Didn't expect any 'blasting' from you. It's them others! As you may have gathered I'm much better disposed to our American cousins than most of our co-posters here; but then my experiences in travails and travels over the pond were almost entirely beneficial and happy - not to mention reciprocal sorties. Not sure that would apply today though - something of a chill does seem to have set in, sadly. But we stand or fall together imnsho.

I did gently take Verity to task for her somewhat abrupt 'butt out' imperative, on the grounds that we seem to spend a great deal of time here telling the Yanks who and who they should, and should not, vote for as POTUS, so it's only fair that you put your oar in here. Don't suppose either side will heed the other, though. So it goes.

Frank P

yank

Sri. I forgot to mention that my post to Verity (as described above) didn't make the cut. Dunno why - it was very polite; I always am when I take issue with friends.

Nicholas

Aha! Twisting tails again, eh? Well sometimes the twisting gets so tight and fast it is difficult to tell the twister from the twistee!

Leasing space in my head? Don't flatter yourself, old boy. Well, do, because it must be a sad old life for you casting pearls amongst swine and jibing at limeys who'll you'll never, ever, quite understand. I know we bring out the inferiority complex in you chaps and sometimes have to dig your Sherman tanks out of brick archways you thought you could drive through but couldn't, which infuriates bird colonels no end, not to mention tiffin and stopping for tea, but we think you quite harmless really, in a homespun, rough-hewn, colonial sort of way.

Yes, I guess your game would be on a far smaller scale. "Ugly Englishman" doesn't quite scan and our colonels tend to have less bugs up their arses than yours. Very hidebound your lot with their heavy complement of "Regulation Bobs" and that class/caste system you hide so well. I remember watching one of your training films where the platoon in Vietnam breaks under fire and the narrative asks "What Would You Do?" The whole room erupted in laughter at that one. We liked to advance to contact and use the bayonet you see, not going in much for that "reconnaissance by fire" nonsense, or sitting tight at the first shots until the arty and air come up, or "bugging out" (yank expression if I recall) on choppers at the first sign of serious resistance. Now if supplies of ammo had been brains and balls, then, boy, would yours have been something.

And Canadians? Good types. A redeeming feature for you.

yank

Funny you should mention bayonets, Nicholas. In the Great War, the historically thick limey officer corps (and why is it that "slaughtered to the last man" seems to appear so often in your books, anyways?), when offering to send over training instructors to America to gear up the boys, had them piffling about with bayonets as an integral part of warfare, or so the thicks imagined.

Of course, as we know now and the smart knew then, well less than 1% of all battlefield casualties were caused by blade weapons in that war, something the frogs well knew, and it was they who jumped in and helped get the boys ready, after the thick limey officer corps was shunted aside (sorta like the recent shuntings in Basra and Helmand).

No sense having an American entry in your "slaughtered to the last man" sweepstakes, was there? And many thanks to the frogs, they helped get many of our boys home.

When next you sit with the donkeys, give them a shout out for me. Pity that so many of the lions can no longer shout, isn't it?

Herbert Thornton

The jibes being exchanged between the Limeys and Yanks are quite entertaining - e.g. Nicholas' saying "We liked to advance to contact and use the bayonet you see." but if we think about it for a moment isn't that particular method a bit pointless when your enemy already has a suicide belt strapped round his torso?

As somebody - maybe Charles De Gaulle - said, when asked to agree that the Polish Cavalry were great heroes for having charged, cutlasses waving, against German tanks, - "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre".

I'd rather have my trigger finger on a piece of the latest U.S. technology.

Frank P

Someone should email this thread to the HRH; he'd be interested to know that, not only is he being accused of "opening the Pandora's Box of whether the monarchy is really appropriate in the democratic age" (what bollocks that stanza was), but that he has kicked off a war of words; a highly humorous catharsis of yonks of pent up military resentment between two veteran factions of the transatlantic alliance. As Herbert remarks, very entertaining! What's the betting he and Camilla would have a good giggle over their G & T's?

Nicholas

Herbert Thornton I'm not surprised by your ignorance (and I remember you were arse-licking yank from day one), but yank with his pretensions of hoary old frontiersman (an Anglophobe "conservative" there's an oddity) ought to know better. He could start by reading some facts about the Great War instead of settling for the myths.

Your quote is as off beam as you are. It was said by General Pierre Francois Joseph Bosquet on witnessing the Charge of the Light Brigade during the Crimean War.

Nicholas

yank, you sadly ignorant wee man, it's not the wounds. Dear oh dear, such pretensions to understanding warfare and yet such tiresome groping in the mud of mythology. Such colourful language rooted in the crass chauvinism and deceit of Hollywood. You surprise me, sir. I somehow expected more and am beginning to doubt that you ever were a loud-mouthed bird colonel at all, bug up your arse or no. If you ever were in the service it must have been the Marines - please tell me it was the Marines. That would explain the incredible sharp-honed intelligence and wit of your comments.

As even your blokes found in Iraq, at some point you have to face your opponent and turf him off the ground he is standing on, regardless of the weaponry available. That is a constant of warfare and always has been.

I remember capturing one of your young Marines during an exercise. He kindly field stripped his M14 (at the time an example of snivelling toady Thornton's "latest US technology", schhhhhhlp!) to demonstrate its complexity to us. Unfortunately we had to send him back to his unit with the pieces in a bag because he couldn't reassemble it. To be fair probably more the result of his shaking hands and the fact that he had peed his pants when we hauled him out of his hole in the middle of the night rather than any incompetence with weapons. But my goodness it was an elaborate beast of many parts. Had a bayonet too.

I remember when one of my naughty oppos told one of your cigar-smoking bird colonels that he reminded him of a film star. How that colonel puffed himself up even more, if that were possible, and weedled for further flattery, sucking on his turd-brown stogie. "Yeah? Which one, son" (they always called us by the diminutive, even when we had seen many more elephants than they, q,v. yank). "Lassie having a shit" came the answer.

But you are right, you know. When it comes to chest pounding, loud shouting, blowing hard and inflating the biggest balloons you have us beat hands down. As your mighty posts show.

Basra? You are correct there too. No argument.

Frank P

Heh, heh, heh! Best blog exchange for years;
I'm beginning to suspect that you are the much missed furriskey (or perhaps his brother)?

Can't wait for yank to get his shit together for the response to that salvo.

"Lassie having a shit!" .... Hadn't heard that one before.

yank

What salvo? The poor man is flailing, and with the burden he's carrying, it's a tough flail. Thus, the long, empty post.

Sorry, Nicholas, but if it's military prowess you're debating, salted with imerialist nationalism, you're unarmed.

The empire is long gone, and not unlargely because of the limey officer corps' historical incompetence. That's what you get, when advancement is based upon class, and not merit.

When the Argies are walking the last of them off the islands, bound and blindfolded, we'll revisit the argument. And you're right, Basra is prologue for that ongoing saga.

It's sorta sad, that you defend the indefensible, including those that deserve the death penalty, and not your adoration.

Nicholas

yank, weak, weak, weak. I expected better. Surely defending the indefensible is exactly what you accuse us of doing best? You know, all that "slaughtered to the last man" malarkey you've been droning on about.

Well, here I be, standing on my dung hill but listening to you crowing.

The Empire? You know SFA about it and even less about the army that made it and defended it. Rome lost its empire too, and its legions suffered many a defeat, but no-one would pour scorn on their "military prowess", except perhaps loud-mouthed, yank, bird colonels with bugs up their arses.

The Argies tried it before and got their arses kicked, no thanks to the "special relationship" and our "allies", those lovely people who always manage to find a way to twist the knife stuck between the shoulder blades.

Military prowess? You wouldn't know military prowess if it jumped up and bit your big, fat bird colonel ass. What a strange one you are. Anglophobe, "conservative", class warrior and socialist - all wrapped up in one blowhard. Toodle-pip, old bean, I'm off for a cup of tea.

Herbert Thornton

Nicholas,

The report in the media at the start of WW2 of a Polish Cavalry charge against German tanks is one which, though I was very young at the time, I remember hearing or seeing (though it has since been shown to have been inaccurate). And it was indeed, at some tome during the war, described by somebody using those words. However, thank you for showing us the depths of your erudition by informing us of the earlier version.

In your attempts to belittle the American military you read like a very silly version of Bertie Wooster. Evelyn Waugh was a good deal more honest when he wrote, in his epilogue to Officers and Gentlemen this exchange in a London Club -

'What's all this about Ivor Claire?' he asked.
'I've no idea. I've been at sea for eight weeks. The last I heard of him, he'd gone to India.'
'Everyone's saying he ran away in Crete.'
'We all did.'
'They say Ivor ran much the fastest. I thought you might know.'

Are you perhaps one of the newer club members?

Nicholas

Herbert Thornton. I should think so. The club was founded about the time yank's countrymen were throwing tea in the sea.

Glad I was able to help with the quote.

Oh, I'm not belittling the American military, just twisting yank's tail a little. It's curious though, that you don't say a word about his insults of the British military, but feel compelled to butt in and belittle my "defence". But in that sense I suppose you represent the "special relationship" very well.

yank

Oh I'm not insulting the British military, Nicholas. I'm commenting on the historical incompetence of its officer corps, which all know about, here and there, at least all who can read. And the fellows remain busily burying the knife in their own backs, so no need to whine about anybody else's contributions.

To respond to Frank P's whimsical observation about the direction this thread turned, it's really not surprising. It's a thread about entitlement, and the insidious, incestuous, poisonous effects of same. It cankers institutions eventually... always... as we see.

Clean sheet, or massive overhaul, those are the only options for both, and you can count on continued incompetence and failure without same. And there will be blood.

We'll all have to wait for the video from the Falklands for the latest confirmation of this, since the past few centuries, and now Basra, Helmland and Prince Gaia's antics haven't done the trick.

You best find some more head space to lease, Nicholas. It seems you've got me spread out pretty far and wide in there. Let me help spare you some of your anguish, and leave this discussion now.

Herbert Thornton

Nicholas

I represent the "special relationship" very well? Not me, sir. The "special relationship" may have meant, once, the relationship between the USA and Britain that consisted of so much in common that it was an especially cordial one - one moreover that could be described as gentlemanly.

But now that Britain tolerates the presence of - and blindly nurtures - so many religiously inspired terrorists that it even exports terrorism, and moreover has yet another Prime Minister resembling Michael Wharton's Jeremy Cardhouse - a Prime Minister so politically correct and shallow that he has no understanding of the desperate need to act effectively against this cancer in his nation's midst, let alone any urge to slow it's growth by stopping further undesirable immigration of its components, Americans may soon be justified in asking themselves - "What special relationship? If a country with that kind of government is going to continue being treated as a friend, why worry about enemies?

If we are going to identify a special relationship, I suggest it would be more accurate to describe it as the one that exists between the USA and what is now my country - Canada.

Nicholas

Cheerio yank. Parthian shots are always risky. You never know where they will land or whether they will be effective so I won't make any here. I'll leave you yours and just report that they fell wide of the mark and fizzled rather than zipped.

It would be interesting to discover, though, just where you draw your evidence for the "historical incompetence of (the British) officer corps". That is not a national trait but may be found in the military history of most countries, including yours.

Nicholas

Herbert Thornton, thank you for your clarification. Now I understand your position. I presumed you were a fellow countryman rather than another Anglophobe.

Herbert Thornton

Nicholas

Are you implying that British affairs are none of my business? I was born and grew up in Britain, I served in the British army, I have British citizenship and most of my family are still in Britain. I do not think that the fact that I now also have Canadian citizenship should disqualify me from speaking my mind.

Political and social cancers are gnawing at Britain's heart and steadily dragging it towards an even more unstable condition than that of the former Yugoslavia. Think Lebanon and Gaza - with the English Scots and Welsh representing Israel's Christians and Jews.

Yet the British establishment - class-ridden, incompetent and stupid as ever, and now led by a Jeremy Cardhouse as Prime Minister - are nonchalantly continuing to lead the lemming-like rush towards Britain's disintegration and eventual extinction. Indeed to carry the simile a bit further, the establishment are the Gadarene swine - dragging the unfortunate lemmings behind them.

Nicholas

Herbert Thornton: "Are you implying that British affairs are none of my business?"

No. But it surprises me that having served in the British army you would stand by and let an American trash it - or even show him support. Maybe your anti-establishment stance explains it, I don't know.

Herbert Thornton

Nicholas -

Perhaps you had not yet been born, or had only just been born when WW2 began, so that you don't remember it. But those of us who do remember know how near we came to being defeated, and we remember the part that the U.S. armed forces played in ensuring that we - and you too if you were then living - survived.

Winston Churchill wrote, of the U.S. entry into the war, that when he heard the news of it his reaction was - "So we would win after all". The whole of Britain knew it too. I remember the universal sense of relief - it was palpable.

Jibes exchanged between British and Americans about each other's men and each other's equipment can be entertaining and are usually taken in good part, but it is unseemly to raise them to a level that smacks of ignorance and ingratitude.

We should, rather, put our minds to the far more important matter of the disastrous direction in which recent governments and now the current government - and the establishment - have been herding - and continue to herd - the nation.

We should acknowledge too that the same kind of evil that is being allowed to take root and grow in Britain is also working for the downfall of America.

Nicholas

Herbert Thornton. I don't disagree and yes, I remember it too. I also appreciate the assistance the US gave during the war, even before they entered it. But I think you are forgetting - or overlooking - an aspect of the wartime relationship that became quite unpleasant after 1944 due to some of the Anglophobes in the US military. It even cost lives.

I am not going to ignore yank's venomous attacks on our military history just because you think I should be grateful for what his country did for us during the war! We paid more in war debt to the USA than Germany paid in reparations, and they held us to every last cent. Canada on the other hand waived the debt in recognition of Britain's unique struggle on behalf of Europe in 1940-41. Whilst acknowledging their support I don't hold the USA in such high regard as you do, largely as a result of studying the period 1944-1949 and understanding what went on, but I do draw a distinction between the USA and yank as a representative of the USA. There are good and bad in the military of both countries.

But yank himself has admitted on many occasions to enjoying twisting my tail as he puts it and has slagged off the British army from day one. I think your intervention has been partisan.

It is interesting that you mention Churchill, because in many ways it was his affection for the USA that blinded him to their more ruthless and self-serving aspirations. Attlee saw it, but was more pragmatic about the outcome.

Herbert Thornton

Nicholas

We're obviously much closer in our attitudes & opinions than might have been thought. I'll pass over your parting shot encapsulated in the word "partisan" and just reminisce a little more. Maybe you too will remember listening to Churchill's address to Congress (I think it was Congress and not just the HoR).

Churchill referred to his parentage & the fact his mother was an American, and then after a slight pause added - "I often like to think that if it had been the other way round, I might have got here on my own."

The ovation was immediate and tremendous.

Nicholas

Herbert Thornton, I don't remember that but thank you for mentioning it.

This thread is getting further and further back and we are like the two drunks left in the bar after closing time! On that note I better bid you adieu and offer you my best wishes for the season and the New Year.