[Tainari88]

Aha, someone who likes my logic and thinking eh? @Deutschmania is being truthful. It is a made up thing that someone has something special with the bluebloods.

One learns a lot from dinner conversations with children. I had one just now. My son asked,'Am I descendent from Europeans?" and my answer was "most probably. You also got some African in there, some Indigenous, and who knows what else there?" the New World is about racial mixture and different groups. In Brazil a lot of Brazilians were African and the Chinese servants who worked in kitchens would cook side-by-side with them. They wound up marrying and there are descendants of both of them in Brazil.

All people if they live near each other and have an opportunity to converse, socialize and get to know each other in some capacity very much can wind up mating and having descendants. It has been that way forever. Only the class obsessed Royal houses of Europe were into cousins marrying and incest. To protect power, position and wealth and inheritance. To keep things in the family per se. Literally. Genetically it is not a good thing. You get some of those royal lines with genetic defects like hemophilia.

The best thing is to keep relationships based on reproduction fairly varied and distant from your own. Variation is very healthy in nature. In most all living organisms. The myth of superiority is just myth.

[snapdragon]

Tanairi, what does your private life have to do with anything?
Still, if your son is really interested in his background, there’s lots of online resources he can use. You could get him a DNA pack, which I believe is very informative.

Personally, I live in a very cosmopolitan part of London and my neighbours have come from all over. Australia, various African countries , the Indian sub continent and different parts of Europe, which can make for some interesting conversations. It’s common in big cities.

But so what?

There’s a decent argument for becoming a republic. It’s not one I agree with personally, because I think the fewer arsehole politicians we have, the better.

However, nothing I’ve read on here is a decent argument. It seems to be mostly about insulting and abusing the royals as individuals, rather than making any sensible points.

I fail to see what these feelings of jealousy and spite have to with the U.K. being a constitutional democracy.

A republican website I looked at talks of a mysterious ‘we’. This ‘we’ are going to make sure the head of state does everything ‘we’ want them to do. It boils down to giving everyone lots of money etc etc, without saying much about how.

‘We’ are going to choose this head of state, Im guessing, by voting.

So a lot of chancers, fat cats, crooks and downright oily bastards grease a lot of palms to get power. And ‘we’ will vote for them.

Just like ‘we’ voted to have the great and wonderful boris Johnson to be head of government.

No thanks. I’d rather not. I’m very satisfied having a head of state who hasn’t pulled any fast ones to get their position.

The last thing I want is another raft of politicians, all with their snouts in the trough giving plum jobs to their mates.

All pulling in vast sums for expenses and then after a few years claiming an enormous pension to do nothing.

Not for this lady.

[Rich]

I went on to the live feed for the ex Queen lying in state. And I was like wow! It wasn't till I went back for a second look that I saw a single non European face. This is London. What is the percentage of British born people of European race? The BBC propaganda is like something out of Rudyard Kipling with non European people loving their Royal betters, despite the fact that until recently people of non European race were totally rejected when it came to Royal marriage, and when they finally did let someone in that was at least half non European racially, she got rejected because she wasn't sufficiently humble and failed to know her place.

[ingliz]

What is the percentage of British born people of European race?

60%

40% of Londoners are Black and Minority Ethnic and 37% are not born in the UK. West London has the highest proportion (50%) of its population that are Black and Minority Ethnic and 40% who are not UK-born.

It's gone down slightly. It used to be that 42% of Londoners were Black or Brown.

[Rich]

Here's an interesting article exposing the lies of the BBC portraying the Queen as some great progressive: Buckingham Palace banned ethnic minorities from office roles, papers reveal

Notice how its compulsory diversity for us plebs but free to choose for the Royals.

[snapdragon]

Don’t lie, rich. There are people of all ethnicities in the queue. People have come from all over the country to pay their respects.

[Rich]

Don’t lie, rich. There are people of all ethnicities in the queue. People have come from all over the country to pay their respects.

Don't lie about what I said. i didn't say there were no people of some ethnicities in the queue, I said when I watched the live-feed, non European ethnicities were heavily under represented. Looking again this still seems to be the case. So as far as I can make out support for the monarchy amongst non European ethnicities is significantly lower than amongst European British, but the media seem to want to obscure the figures.

[AFAIK]

I clicked on the live feed for 20 seconds and only saw white faces thank goodness. Otherwise I would have been triggered and would have to post an unhinged rant invalidating the opinions of non whites.

[Rich]

I clicked on the live feed for 20 seconds and only saw white faces thank goodness. Otherwise I would have been triggered and would have to post an unhinged rant invalidating the opinions of non whites.

Until one makes the effort to understand how the establishment works with these "crises" one will be prone to make silly comments like the above. The establishment often combines extreme right wing reactionary bigotry with extreme left wing political correctness.

Take 9/11. The American government started rounding up foreigners from all around the world and tortured and caged them without trial. They treated these foreigners like animals. There was also the completely politically unsupervised use of air, helicopter and drone strikes against civilian targets around the world. Showing callous disregard for the lives of non European men, women and children often in allied dictator countries where the population had little or no options to appeal against their treatment. This was extreme, nasty vile right wing conservative / reactionary racism. Yet they combined this with an extreme left wing political correctness, where it was forbidden to criticise Islam or the cultures of Islamic countries.

This is how the establishment works, they put foreigners in cages and torture them without trial, while screaming racist at anyone who tries to make a serious critique of Islam and explain why Islam needs to be combated ideologically and can not be just left to wither away of it own accord. We've seen this pattern in Britain more recently. "Woke" political correctness is running rampage through Britain despite having a supposedly Conservative government. Yet people are being made stateless without trial or due process, just because they have a parent that was born in Pakistan or Bangladesh (East Pakistan). The government doesn't even have to have inform them that they've been made stateless.At a stroke millions of Britons had been turned into 2nd class citizens. Their continued recognition as Britons conditional on their good behaviour. This again is extreme, very nasty traditional bigoted "White supremacist" racism.

Note this traditional imperial "White supremacist" racism is not just a question of individual rights, but racist treatment of the countries and governments where these stateless people are marooned. Why should the Kurdish authorities and other non European governments have to deal with these alleged "terrorist" subjects? Imagine if a Jamaican citizen came to Britain, committed a crime and then when the British government tried to return him, the Jamaican government said, we've made him stateless. He's no longer Jamaican he's your problem now.

We see the same "racist cop" "woke cop" double act when it comes to defending the monarchy. The marriage of Harry and Meghan was a diversity fairy tale. It even had the evil "White trash" father figure. But it didn't take long before the "White supremacist" and sexist dogs (or should that be dog whistles) were unleashed against Meghan, while at the same time for the woke, there was the attempt to go after Prince Andrew.

So no far from seeking to invalidate the opinions of people of non European race, I'm pointing out that, that is exactly what the BBC is doing. I'd like to know what the support for the monarchy is like amongst Black British men.I suspect you will find that its the BBC not me that seeks to suppress these discordant voices.

[Saeko]

Oh my God, this is the funniest thing I've ever seen.

[Potemkin]

Oh my God, this is the funniest thing I've ever seen.

As Jacques Lacan once pointed out, most people are slaves in search of a master. And they usually find what they are seeking. Lol.

[Rancid]

I bet @Potemkin went to see the queen.

[Rich]

Elizabeth's reign of 70 years is deeply shameful, even ignoring the bigotry of succession. All decent people should come together to condemn the vile sexism that forced Edward VIII to abdicate. A lot of people both in Britain and abroad objected to Edward becoming head of the Church of England as he was a fornicator and an adulterer. But is King Charles anymore fit to become Britain's spiritual leader? Without Edward's abdication Elizabeth would have come to the throne in 1972 not 1952.

The dead Queen was a loathsome hypocrite, spurning Edward and his wife for the rest of their lives for his supposedly selfish behaviour, while doing everything possible to ensure the succession of Prince Charles who has made even less sacrifices to traditional Christian sexual morality than his great uncle. Edward VIII at least seemed to be "faithful" to the woman he actually married.

[ness31]

Anyone else watching?

[Rich]

As Jacques Lacan once pointed out, most people are slaves in search of a master. And they usually find what they are seeking. Lol.

I think fundamentally the problem is that humans have been designed / have evolved to live in social structures of 200 to 400 people. A world of seven billion people is just to complex to manage so people look for short cuts to manage that complexity. Most people, including all Christians, Muslims and Communists, but many other at least in principle adhere to universalist morality. This means that all seven billion people are part of our tribe.

So just for starters the foundation of the world order is the countries, most of which claim to be nation states. But nation states are totally incompatible with our human universalist principles.

[Potemkin]

I think fundamentally the problem is that humans have been designed / have evolved to live in social structures of 200 to 400 people. A world of seven billion people is just to complex to manage so people look for short cuts to manage that complexity. Most people, including all Christians, Muslims and Communists, but many other at least in principle adhere to universalist morality. This means that all seven billion people are part of our tribe.

So just for starters the foundation of the world order is the countries, most of which claim to be nation states. But nation states are totally incompatible with our human universalist principles.

As the figurehead of the British Empire, and later of the Commonwealth, the Queen symbolised a kind of universalist leader. The fact that she did not exercise direct control over people's lives, even in Britain, only added to her mystique as a universalist ruler. After all, God does not seem to directly intervene in human affairs (at least, not for the past two millennia or so), yet this had not diminished his appeal as the 'Lord God Almighty'. Just as the Empire - and later the Commonwealth - transcended the nation-state, so she did. So yes, she was a short-cut to simplifying a complex world. And if the French Revolution taught us anything, it taught us that universalism requires a radical process of simplification (often via a very sharp edge).

[ness31]

Move over Inspector Rex. I had no idea.


Today has been a learning curve on a few levels regarding our security.

God Save The King.

[ness31]

Phillips coffin appeared so much heavier. I guess the carriers were a touch weaker .


-there is no appropriate emoji, but it’s one of semi shame -

[Drlee]

If there is anything that the queen has taught us it is that it is possible to have an adult in charge.

The state of politics in the UK and worse in the US, indeed the world, shows that we are just not up managing a howling democracy through democratic means.

England needs a King to show how important one person can be.

When I was young the message of democratic politics was that the individual was supremely important. Today the Republican Party is dedicated to demonstrating how unimportant the vote of one person is.

Give me a king everyday. Constitutional monarchy. The only grownup form of government left.

[Rich]

Give me a king everyday. Constitutional monarchy. The only grownup form of government left.

What is it about the Thai King that you love so much? What is it about the Italian King's leadership in the nineteen twenties you find so wise?

Its certainly true that in America's case they made a terrible mistake in 1775. Its long amused me that most people seem to have failed to notice that the insurgents lost the war of independence, losing half their country in the process. If the American nationalists had concentrated on building representative and cultural institutions across the whole of British owned North America and made efforts to reach out to French and Dutch speaking minorities rather seeking premature war, America could have been much greater. The power weight of the slave holders in the nascent Anglo America could have been significantly reduced. If the American nationalists had had a bit more patience and wisdom they could have had a much greater Anglo American country and probably avoided both the war of independence and the war over slavery.

But one example does not make a general case. The Protestant monarchies of Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Britain and the Netherlands have not been stable with steady progressive evolutionary development because they were monarchies. No they retained their monarchies because they were stable with steady progressive evolutionary development. And Iceland has continued on as before since it chose to become a Republic.

By the way, one of the reasons I find the untimely death of Edward VI so tragic, is that if he'd lived he might well have liberated Ireland in the same way that the King of Denmark liberated Iceland.