Royalty V. Rebublicanism

[PeterRS]

It is a debate that appears in politics with conderable regularity, particularly if you live in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries which were at one time colonies of Britain and now members of the Commonwealth. Still King Charles is their Head of State, despite numerous attempts to replace the British monarch. By all accounts, Queen Elizabeth was popular despite anti-royal political movements. And Charles seems to be doing a decent job. His son Prince William, it would seem, will carry on that tradition as he remains a popular heir apparent, even with concerns over his wife's long cancer treatment and the public not knowing from which type of cancer she suffered.

All is not well in British royal circles, though. Thought to be the late Queen's favourite son, the once dashing Prince Andrew (nicknamed Randy Andy) is now all but avoided like the plague. Although he distinguished himself during the Faklands War, virtually since then he has been a near disaster at everything he has done. And like many others, Epstein has capped the lot. He had befriended Epstein long before the Florida jail sentence. But he then kept seeing the guy and there is one now famous pic of him and Epstein walking in Central Park. He claims that he had flown to New York to do the "honorable thing" by Epstein to tell him face to face that their friendhip was over rather than sending an email. This came long after the "other" famous pic, that of him with his arm around the young Virginia Giuffrey (who committed suicide in April earlier this year) as Epstein's fixer and now jailed Ghislaine Maxwell looks on with a smile.

Andrew looked as though he might weather these storms until he decided to do what became a totally disastrous one hour television interview in 2019, the intent being to show the British public how innocent he was. This full vdo is available on youtube but this shortish analysis by a body language expert illustrates where he shows that he is basically lying throughout much of it.

In the last week, though, it is this foolish man's disgraceful divorced wife who has yet again shown for the umpteenth time what an idiot and conniving jet-setter she actually is. She runs through cash like water. As a reminder, in her time in a sting operation she had attempted sell access to the royal family for a stash of cash, been photographed on a beach lounger with her financial adviser licking her toes, had an obsession with Tiger Woods and chased him across America . . . and so on. 

As revealed a few days ago, though, her Epstein moment is now just one of the best of the bunch, it shows her as the fickle-headed, no brain, massively extravagant over-spending idiot she has usually been portrayed to be. She knew Epstein well and had borrowed considerable sums of money from him which were never paid back. Two newspapers had published a 2011 email to Epstein. A few weeks earlier she had in an interview stated unquivocally that she had broken off all contact with him. even denouncing him. She claimed their friendship had been a "gigantic error of judgement" and he had been rightly jailed.

The newly released email shows that this was all a massive sham. In her email she writes basically asking his forgiveness. "I humbly apologise to you," for what I said. "I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. You have aways been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family." Allegedly she wrote this ridiculous email after Epstein threatened to sue her for defamation. And if you believe that . . .! That anyone in his position with Maxwell and Andrew being so close to the Queen is farcical. But then the awful Sarah Ferguson is just a one-woman farce. 

All of which illustrates how lucky the UK was when King George VI had to take over the throne when his stupid brother abdicated to marry the dreadful Wallace Simpson.  There were clearly concerns when his daughter Elizabeth succeeded him at such an early age, but she went on to became a much-loved world figure. Had Edward VIII or Andrew got near the throne, goodness knows what might have happened to the UK.

But it is not just in the UK where someone in royal circles like Prince Andrew has been able to thrive. In Norway, the son of the Crown Princess has been charged with 32 criminal offences including rape, and faces up to ten years in jail if found guilty. The former King of Spain Juan Carlos, who restored the monarchy after the Franco fascist regime, fell victim to a scandalous long-term love affair with a beautiful foreign businesswoman 25 years his junior. When finally exposed, it was discovered he had set her up in an apartment close to the Royal Palace, showered her with expensive gifts and wrote letters telling of his monotonous life with Queen Sofia. He was forced to resign.

On the other hand, when we see the likes of Trump, Erdogan, Robert Mugabe or Paul Biya of Cameroon, Is there much of  difference, apart from the presumed ability to kick one out at the next election? I don't see much movement to get rid of the dictators Edogan, Mugabe or Biya. In those cases they have so rigged the system they have basically become dictators. Trump seems to be doing his best to do likewise! Even so, if Heads of State were elected, I think there could have been some sort of revolution in the UK had Margaret Thatcher or Boris Johnson been elected to a Head of State position.

Clearly you win some, lose some. I am more in favour of an elected Head of State, but not if they happen to be a former senior politician. They have already tasted too much power!!!

[Keithambrose]

2 hours ago, PeterRS said:

It is a debate that appears in politics with conderable regularity, particularly if you live in Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other countries which were at one time colonies of Britain and now members of the Commonwealth. Still King Charles is their Head of State, despite numerous attempts to replace the British monarch. By all accounts, Queen Elizabeth was popular despite anti-royal political movements. And Charles seems to be doing a decent job. His son Prince William, it would seem, will carry on that tradition as he remains a popular heir apparent, even with concerns over his wife's long cancer treatment and the public not knowing from which type of cancer she suffered.

All is not well in British royal circles, though. Thought to be the late Queen's favourite son, the once dashing Prince Andrew (nicknamed Randy Andy) is now all but avoided like the plague. Although he distinguished himself during the Faklands War, virtually since then he has been a near disaster at everything he has done. And like many others, Epstein has capped the lot. He had befriended Epstein long before the Florida jail sentence. But he then kept seeing the guy and there is one now famous pic of him and Epstein walking in Central Park. He claims that he had flown to New York to do the "honorable thing" by Epstein to tell him face to face that their friendhip was over rather than sending an email. This came long after the "other" famous pic, that of him with his arm around the young Virginia Giuffrey (who committed suicide in April earlier this year) as Epstein's fixer and now jailed Ghislaine Maxwell looks on with a smile.

Andrew looked as though he might weather these storms until he decided to do what became a totally disastrous one hour television interview in 2019, the intent being to show the British public how innocent he was. This full vdo is available on youtube but this shortish analysis by a body language expert illustrates where he shows that he is basically lying throughout much of it.

In the last week, though, it is this foolish man's disgraceful divorced wife who has yet again shown for the umpteenth time what an idiot and conniving jet-setter she actually is. She runs through cash like water. As a reminder, in her time in a sting operation she had attempted sell access to the royal family for a stash of cash, been photographed on a beach lounger with her financial adviser licking her toes, had an obsession with Tiger Woods and chased him across America . . . and so on. 

As revealed a few days ago, though, her Epstein moment is now just one of the best of the bunch, it shows her as the fickle-headed, no brain, massively extravagant over-spending idiot she has usually been portrayed to be. She knew Epstein well and had borrowed considerable sums of money from him which were never paid back. Two newspapers had published a 2011 email to Epstein. A few weeks earlier she had in an interview stated unquivocally that she had broken off all contact with him. even denouncing him. She claimed their friendship had been a "gigantic error of judgement" and he had been rightly jailed.

The newly released email shows that this was all a massive sham. In her email she writes basically asking his forgiveness. "I humbly apologise to you," for what I said. "I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. You have aways been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family." Allegedly she wrote this ridiculous email after Epstein threatened to sue her for defamation. And if you believe that . . .! That anyone in his position with Maxwell and Andrew being so close to the Queen is farcical. But then the awful Sarah Ferguson is just a one-woman farce. 

All of which illustrates how lucky the UK was when King George VI had to take over the throne when his stupid brother abdicated to marry the dreadful Wallace Simpson.  There were clearly concerns when his daughter Elizabeth succeeded him at such an early age, but she went on to became a much-loved world figure. Had Edward VIII or Andrew got near the throne, goodness knows what might have happened to the UK.

But it is not just in the UK where someone in royal circles like Prince Andrew has been able to thrive. In Norway, the son of the Crown Princess has been charged with 32 criminal offences including rape, and faces up to ten years in jail if found guilty. The former King of Spain Juan Carlos, who restored the monarchy after the Franco fascist regime, fell victim to a scandalous long-term love affair with a beautiful foreign businesswoman 25 years his junior. When finally exposed, it was discovered he had set her up in an apartment close to the Royal Palace, showered her with expensive gifts and wrote letters telling of his monotonous life with Queen Sofia. He was forced to resign.

On the other hand, when we see the likes of Trump, Erdogan, Robert Mugabe or Paul Biya of Cameroon, Is there much of  difference, apart from the presumed ability to kick one out at the next election? I don't see much movement to get rid of the dictators Edogan, Mugabe or Biya. In those cases they have so rigged the system they have basically become dictators. Trump seems to be doing his best to do likewise! Even so, if Heads of State were elected, I think there could have been some sort of revolution in the UK had Margaret Thatcher or Boris Johnson been elected to a Head of State position.

Clearly you win some, lose some. I am more in favour of an elected Head of State, but not if they happen to be a former senior politician. They have already tasted too much power!!!

Er, Mugabe died six years ago! And he was deposed in 2017.

 

[PeterRS]

40 minutes ago, Keithambrose said:

Er, Mugabe died six years ago! And he was deposed in 2017.

Very true. But then he had ruled like a tyrant for 30 years.

[vinapu]

2 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Er, Mugabe died six years ago! And he was deposed in 2017.

 

and I presume he is still dead

[vinapu]

5 hours ago, PeterRS said:

I am more in favour of an elected Head of State, 

# me too. I'm good with parents and siblings being unelected but those are only exceptions I can think of.

Specially in places where Head of State wields real power  like USA of France they should be elected with term limits - it's the best thing America ever invented, too bad it doesn't apply to members of Congress.

China one day will regret they removed term limits for Xi

Even in countries where elections are clearly sham, they serve purpose of reminder  that theoretically power can be changed by way of popular vote , no matter how theoretical.

Monarchies may have their unifying  use when monarch  stays above the fray but clearly fact that British monarch is nominally Head of State  of countries with less and less ties with UK any decade like Australia or Canada is anachronism and most elegant way of ending it would be   for new monarch to abdicate from that part of his duties once and for good.

[jimmie50]

The term 'teflon don' comes to mind in this case.  Originally a nickname given to mobster John Gotti, in more recent times it has been used to refer to prominent inviduals, such as Trump, who seem to have this uncanny ability to withstand public and legal challenges without any significant or long-term consequences.  It is difficult to understand the downfall of Andrew when Trump's association with Epstein was just as bad...yet nothing seems to come from it.  

I am beginning to believe we no longer have three separate branches of government in this country.  Congress nor the Supreme Court seem to be willing or able to have a backbone and stand up to such a tyrant.  There are no checks and balances anymore.  

 

[vinapu]

15 minutes ago, jimmie50 said:

 

I am beginning to believe we no longer have three separate branches of government in this country.  Congress nor the Supreme Court seem to be willing or able to have a backbone and stand up to such a tyrant.  There are no checks and balances anymore.  

 

for wide world it means lectures about superiority of American system of governance are over . And American political class seems to be as prone to yield to strongman as ones in North Korea, Russia, Cameroon or Nicaragua 

[jimmie50]

42 minutes ago, vinapu said:

for wide world it means lectures about superiority of American system of governance are over . And American political class seems to be as prone to yield to strongman as ones in North Korea, Russia, Cameroon or Nicaragua 

So true.  Was something that I didn't think was a possibility in this country until now.  But, when the other two branches of government which are supposed to provide the checks and balance to the executive branch simply look the other way and become a door mat that says 'welcome'...do as you please, regardless if it is legal, moral, or good for the country as a whole.  It is now all about one individual and what is best for me, me, me.  

[Moses]

6 hours ago, vinapu said:

is nominally Head of State  of countries with less and less ties with UK any decade like Australia or Canada

is it "nominally"???

at past 50 years British Crown General-Governors 4 times intervened into business of [not so] sovereign states within Commonwealth:

11 November 1975 → Australia → Sir John Kerr → Action: Dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam

25–29 October 1983 → Grenada → Sir Paul Scoon → Action: Requested and sanctioned foreign intervention; temporarily assumed executive authority; appointed advisory/temporary council

14–25 May & 23 September – 15 October 1987 → Fiji → Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau → Action: Declaration of emergency; temporary assumption of executive powers

July 1984 → New Zealand → Sir David Beattie → Action: Considered dismissal of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon

 

Can you imagine: foreign citizen, appointed by foreign country to your  country dismiss elected by you premier minister. Circus du Buckingham Palace / Windsor Castle 

[Keithambrose]

3 hours ago, Moses said:

is it "nominally"???

at past 50 years British Crown General-Governors 4 times intervened into business of [not so] sovereign states within Commonwealth:

11 November 1975 → Australia → Sir John Kerr → Action: Dismissal of Prime Minister Gough Whitlam

25–29 October 1983 → Grenada → Sir Paul Scoon → Action: Requested and sanctioned foreign intervention; temporarily assumed executive authority; appointed advisory/temporary council

14–25 May & 23 September – 15 October 1987 → Fiji → Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau → Action: Declaration of emergency; temporary assumption of executive powers

July 1984 → New Zealand → Sir David Beattie → Action: Considered dismissal of Prime Minister Robert Muldoon

 

Can you imagine: foreign citizen, appointed by foreign country to your  country dismiss elected by you premier minister. Circus du Buckingham Palace / Windsor Castle 

Most, if not all, Governers General are citizens  of the country to which they are appointed, they are not British.

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, Keithambrose said:

Most, if not all, Governors General are citizens  of the country to which they are appointed, they are not British.

those days all and they are selected by their own country, monarch just rubber stamps it although I'm sure has something to say behind the screen if need arises

7 hours ago, Moses said:

Can you imagine: foreign citizen, appointed by foreign country to your  country dismiss elected by you premier minister. Circus du Buckingham Palace / Windsor Castle 

not a case for few generations already and when it was,  not necessarily it clashed with citizenship rules neither Britain was considered exactly foreign country. those things evolved for more than century. Circus fort some, constitutional order for others.

Circus part may come somewhere else   , say Canada goes to war with Britain  so military goes against country they pleaded allegiance to head of state of  . It's why I suggested above that anachronism should be done with. 

[Moses]

4 hours ago, vinapu said:

not a case for few generations already and when it was

Hitler is also "not a case for few generations already", should we forget his crimes?

[vinapu]

8 hours ago, Moses said:

Hitler is also "not a case for few generations already", should we forget his crimes?

no, absolutely not,  but I kind of fail to see what Hitler crimes have to do with how  former British dependencies chose their heard of state.

Speaking of crimes, unfortunately history has way of forgetting those given enough time. How strong is memory in Russia of Chinggis Khan and his ilk and their conquer of most of country along with big chunk of  Asia ? Alexander the Macedonian was greatest murderer of antiquity , levelling whole cities in his conquests and now almost universally we call him Alexander the Great. We admire madrassas Tamerlane built in Samarkand but who remembers how cruel ruler he was. And we can go on and on. 

[Keithambrose]

7 hours ago, vinapu said:

no, absolutely not,  but I kind of fail to see what Hitler crimes have to do with how  former British dependencies chose their heard of state.

Speaking of crimes, unfortunately history has way of forgetting those given enough time. How strong is memory in Russia of Chinggis Khan and his ilk and their conquer of most of country along with big chunk of  Asia ? Alexander the Macedonian was greatest murderer of antiquity , levelling whole cities in his conquests and now almost universally we call him Alexander the Great. We admire madrassas Tamerlane built in Samarkand but who remembers how cruel ruler he was. And we can go on and on. 

Wasn't there someone called Stalin? Quite well known  at the time. Only killed a few tens of millions.  Nice chap really, favourite  uncle.