Scrutable

According to one of the right wing papers, we're being asked to join a chant in support of the monarchy: I can see a point in us looking forward to when (in the fullness of time) the King passes into a state where loses all capacity except for continued existence - at which point, if our chants really, really work and (as the right wing paper wishes) he never actually dies - we may come to the position that there can be no more active engagement, no further palaver, and - importantly - no succession.

Maybe - in the same way as the HeLa line* - we can get a number of laboratories around the country to be the keepers of the Royal line, and amend our constitution to move into the f.cking 21st Century


* they didn't ask her or her family, I'm sure the same can be applied in this case, given the expense of having yet a(f.cking)nother funeral/accession/coronation and all that expense so soon** after this one.

** the Conservatives have ensured we're still economically f.cked 15 years after the last major economic crisis, so I'm sure they're cool with avoiding unnecessary expenditure.

Not just the papers....

Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65435426

Had planned to pretty much ignore the whole event. But this is obscene. Not sure where I'll be at that moment - but I'll certainly publicly shout something.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:11 am

Maybe - in the same way as the HeLa line* - we can get a number of laboratories around the country to be the keepers of the Royal line, and amend our constitution to move into the f.cking 21st Century

I have to say that cloning a reigning monarch would produce a magnificently complicated succession etc argument. I want the full sci fi version though, where a juvenile CK3 is prduced from a lab somewhere - or preferably 2 of them.

Slightly seriously, I would normally describe myself as a mild republican - I certainly wouldnt start from here but I'm not sure as a country we have the capacity to absorb and manage constitutional change without messing it up. Best course would be for them to fade into continental-style near irrelevance. (and pay their taxes and hand back a bunch of sovereign property).

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 30, 2023 7:36 am

Not just the papers....

Coronation: Public asked to swear allegiance to King Charles
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65435426

Had planned to pretty much ignore the whole event. But this is obscene. Not sure where I'll be at that moment - but I'll certainly publicly shout something.

f.ck THAT sh.t. Weather permitting I'm going for a walk in a local bluebell wood so won't be shouting anything as I won't want to scare away the birds. If I remember I will swear under my breath, just of the four-letter kind, rather than the allegiance kind.

Imrael wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 30, 2023 8:44 am

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 30, 2023 12:11 am

Maybe - in the same way as the HeLa line* - we can get a number of laboratories around the country to be the keepers of the Royal line, and amend our constitution to move into the f.cking 21st Century

I have to say that cloning a reigning monarch would produce a magnificently complicated succession etc argument. I want the full sci fi version though, where a juvenile CK3 is prduced from a lab somewhere - or preferably 2 of them.

You've happened upon part of the plot of Foundation. Cloned rulers - called Dawn, Day and Dusk - where the middle one, Day, is the incumbent.

The oath ends 'so help me God' so that's us atheists excluded

Tessa K wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 30, 2023 11:51 am

The oath ends 'so help me God' so that's us atheists excluded

2 things I dont believe in - do they cancel out?

I vow my commitment to freedom, equality, kindness and justice for all. And to these ends, may we all help one another.

I already had to swear, five years ago on Thursday:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;..."

dyqik wrote: ↑

Mon May 01, 2023 12:41 am

I already had to swear, five years ago on Thursday:

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen;..."

I learned the ridiculousness of saying "may he live for ever" from CS Lewis, who quite deliberately points it out in his children's book The Horse and his Boy. The characters go to a kingdom south of Narnia, which is like somewhere in North Africa or the Middle East, with a despotic monarch, who must always be referred including the phrase "may he live for ever". Or doubtless the secret police will be after you for sedition. The characters discuss the folly of such a wish. The implication is that Lewis thinks that wishing monarchs live for ever is only the habit of despotic regimes.

Of course Lewis never had to make that oath, because he was born British. But today people becoming British have to make this oath. Those of us who are born British, well we are British whether we are sworn loyal subjects or not.

With a few shameful exceptions. Those are the people who, due to a change in the law, were British until they woke up one morning and discovered they weren't British any more. They usually discovered when they tried to renew their British passport, or applied for one after many years of never going abroad. Usually the only mistake they had made was to be born in another country before their British resident family returned here. And then years later, the law said that they weren't automatically British in that situation, depending upon the precise situation of their parents. That happened to Spike Milligan. He refused to reapply to be British, and became Irish at that point. Good on him.

In Calormen they always say "may he live for ever" when mentioning the Tisroc. But they are a barbarous people who have oil on their bread instead of honest Narnian butter.

Definitely a foreign practice and not for the likes of us.

But Lewis was probably referring more to the treatment of rulers as literal gods. As per Roman emperors the Tisroc was presented as a descendent of Tash and considered divine. Narnian Kings and Queens were not divine, and Lewis probably considered the practice blasphemy.

"May the King live forever" is of course from Zadok the Priest, and hence from 1 Kings. The king in question was Solomon, who history/mythology records did not in fact live forever (60 years according to Wikipedia, so it must be true).

Good a place as any to post this

"The king reportedly feared that a "fetching" photo of Kate taken at the event could squash his chances of appearing on the front page of the newspapers the next day.

Harry wrote: "That couldn't be tolerated."

Oh dear, oh my oh no! Kate might dash the king's chances of making the front page because she's too...

charming? Don't take much to beat king chuck

beautiful? King chuck ain't much to look at

Swooningful? I'm swooning over her already from that dazzling pink dress

Interesting? If king chuck is that worried he might not get the front page, he's probably a bore (nevermind all the evidence pointing to this before today).

Now admittedly I'm just a dumb rash ignant merkinanian, so somebody needs to splain me. Just please don't let king chuck King-splain me.

Al Capone Junior wrote: ↑

Mon May 29, 2023 6:59 pm

Good a place as any to post this

"The king reportedly feared that a "fetching" photo of Kate taken at the event could squash his chances of appearing on the front page of the newspapers the next day.
Harry wrote: "That couldn't be tolerated."

Now admittedly I'm just a dumb rash ignant merkinanian, so somebody needs to splain me. Just please don't let king chuck King-splain me.

Two things to note...
You quote this is a something that Harry has claimed. So only a "reported fear" of the king.
It is very possible that Harry had nothing to do with this - and also that the king has nothing to do with it - it could be a complete fabrication

Though if taken at face value
Spoiler:

I don't know where this was reported or how reliable their sources might be (I mostly try to ignore anything to do with this lot) but, as Gfamily says, it has the hallmarks of yet another fabricated story about the putative Harry'n'Meghan vs William'n'Kate war that the tabloids are so keen to stoke in their quest for clickbait.

Yes it's from a site that was linked to a site that CFI referenced, but you know how the quality of a link goes exponentially downhill with each click. I doubt it's worth linking to. But fabrication or real, and the responses it generated so far tell me everything I needed to know.

Our press is also focused on stupid sh.t. Thankfully it's not king Charles or his gf's ass