Is this how the grand people of history behave, the Queens and Emperors: The Sirs and the Nobles: The Lords and Ladies: The Captains and the Kings? Does it make sense to defer to and respect someone who is shallow and disingenuous, should we really put the Royal Family on a pedestal, and do they deserve esteem: do they deserve to be looked up to? Their latest arrogant insult to millions of British citizens screams no they don't. I refer of course to the guest list for the big Royal Circus last Friday, there were dodgy Greek Royals despite Greece being a Republic (Philip's influence perhaps) also a royal Middle Eastern tyrant who was quickly disinvited (a new word?) as his regime is exposed as being involved in torture and murder, they claim not to have known that, aye right. They were not the worst gaffs though, the Royals have always presented themselves as apolitical: without political bias and the guest list makes them out quite simply to be bending the truth. There is no other way of explaining why two previous remaining Tory Prime Ministers Major and Thatcher were invited and the two previous remaining Labour Prime Ministers Blair and Brown were not. This would have been known to all the big players: the Queen: Prince Philip: Charles: William: Kate: Harry etc. etc. We can only conclude that they agreed to this, some of the younger ones might not have known the full significance of this but the Queen and Charles and Prince Philip etc. would so where does that leave us?
Her Majesty has just coldly and with intent told millions of people whom she chooses to call her subjects that the political representatives they chose (Labour) are not welcome at the Royal Wedding while at the same time demonstrating that the politicians that they oppose (Tory) are more to her taste and are welcome at the Royal Wedding. I hope all the Labour voters will like me take the attitude "I know when I'm not wanted" and I will in future treat those who so demonstrably told me I'm not wanted in the appropriate way, they deserve to be reminded and condemned for this high and mighty insult at every opportunity.
I have always been opposed to unelected power and I have never heard an argument in my life which justifies it hence my Republicanism and intense dislike of Monarchies everywhere including here. You can take it as read that I accept that there are good decent people in the Royal Family as there are in most families but this incident has reduced the number of those in that category, you can choose for yourselves which of them you suspect might agree with snubbing Blair and Brown and those who don't. This rubbish about the Queen being Monarch of all the British people and having the same regard for them all has been exposed as tosh it's a load of bilge; their mask has slipped again and we see the privileged snobs behind it. I suspect that many people like me will never look at the Queen and the members of the Royal family the same way again; we now know what they really think of us. This is as I keep telling everyone why I call myself a Citizen not a Subject.
17 comments:
If I didn't like someone, I wouldn't invite them to my wedding.
Seems pretty simple to me
How do you know they weren't invited? Maybe they refused, just as you would have.
But lets assume they weren't. Could the reason for the non-invites be...Blair - he broke the rules by revealing details of his audiences with the Queen, plus Mrs Blair is as Republican as you are, so why the hell should they be invited?
Brown.. the most paranoid, incompetent PM of HM's long reign, but comparatively harmless.Suspect she felt she couldn't invite him without inviting Blair and his odious wife.
In short, laddie... personalities, not politics.
By Anonymous on THE ROYAL WEDDING GUEST LIST – WHY I’M A CITIZEN N... at 09:22
I suspect that there are a lot of things that seem pretty simple to you aren’t there?
By Anonymous on THE ROYAL WEDDING GUEST LIST – WHY I’M A CITIZEN N... at 16:04
I suspect that it’s much more simple than that, it’s a release for them after all those years of having to lie about being apolitical under Labour and they could not resist reverting to the upper class bigots that they are.
The Fox hunting ban is much more likely to make them act like this that’s a measure of how shallow and dim-witted they are.
Och aye,
Broon and blair and wilson and callaghan et al could have changed a lot of things regarding the royals but they didn't. they bent the knee and kissed the ring. so stop complaining about the most British of British institutions and suck it up, it's part of the Package. Sing a chorus of Jerusalem like they did at Labour party conferences and Willies wedding. You'll feel more British.
By Anonymous on THE ROYAL WEDDING GUEST LIST – WHY I’M A CITIZEN N... on 03/05/11
“most British of British institutions”
It might be an unelected undemocratic circus which costs us £billions and it might be populated by chinless inbred workshy imbeciles, it might be polluted by racists and bigots, it might be a crock of bulldung but at least it’s British right?
They were not invited for two reasons. First, at the official level they had turned down the knighthoods offered automatically to former prime ministers which, in turn, would have automatically entitled them to an invite - as per Thatcher and Major.
Thus, the only other reason they might have been invited is if they were personal friends of either family. Patently they are not for reasons your commenters have made clear.
Still, why let irritating facts get in the way of a good belch?
Oh, and by the way, you may call yourself anything you like, indeed, I often call you several things under my breath, but like it or not, you are a subject not a citizen and there is no way out until the monarchy is disbanded. Happily, I think this rather sensible young couple will keep 'the firm' going for at least another half century.
By David Duff on THE ROYAL WEDDING GUEST LIST – WHY I’M A CITIZEN N... at 11:48
You must be an (A) level groveller most of the Royal mob and their toadying lackeys haven’t even bothered to defend their latest insult to millions of British people. You can call yourself anything you like and so can I, and I am no one’s subject, unlike you I have some self respect.
You haven't been a British subject for the best part of 20 years, seeing as that term was discontinued by the British Nationality Act of 1981, which came into force in 1983.
In legal terms though, you are still one of her majesty's subjects and should you ever be convicted of a crime worthy of imprisonment - such as carrying a knife if Labour win the election tomorrow - you'll be detained at her majesty's pleasure in one of her majesty's prisons - whether you like it or not.
Think you were probably too ugly for the pictures. Simple as that!!!
Curious that you should reject unelected power, yet embrace Castro's Cuba. Remind me when the last President of Cuba was elected?
By Jim Lewis on THE ROYAL WEDDING GUEST LIST – WHY I’M A CITIZEN N... on 15/05/11
The Cuban leaders are elected regularly and do so on turn outs of 98% while George W Bush e.g. was elected by 25% of the voters, go figure.
Um, close but no cigar. As we've discussed previously, all representatives in Cuba's ironically named National Assembly of People's Power are returned unopposed. Can you name the last person to stand in free elections against Castro? It's a rhetorical question, of course, Cuba hasn't had free elections of any kind at any time since the revolution. Human Rights Watch describes numerous human rights abuses, such as torture, arbitrary imprisonment, unfair trials and extrajudicial executions. There is only one political party actually allowed to take part in their mock elections. In the 2008 Press Freedom Index, Cuba was close to North Korea. The media is run by the Communist Party's Department of Revolutionary Orientation, a Big Brother-esque name if ever there was one.
Similarly, we share a detestation of W, but in your haste to demean him, you make yourself look faintly ridiculous with such claims. His share of the vote in his first term was around 48% and this increased slightly four years later.
Terry, you can talk all you want about democracy, but you despise it and you make that clear in every utterance you make. Why not put an end to this intellectual cowardice and own up?
By Jim Lewis on THE ROYAL WEDDING GUEST LIST – WHY I’M A CITIZEN N... at 18:35
“As we've discussed previously”
Absolutely correct Jim but 5 accurate words out of approx. 190 is not a good ratio.
Christ, Terry, you can't count either? That was four words. The problem you have with credibility is that you won't actually address issues as they're raised. Now, that's not a particular problem, since we all know you're, at least on paper, a politician. Of course most politicians occasionally take part in debate on political issues, but we all know how much trouble you have with that concept. By the way, I see you've found a new buzz phrase, namely 'ad hominem'. Get that from your daughter, the English language genius?
I'm just hanging around to see if you are prepared to refute any of what I've written on Cuba. Here's a hint: refutation doesn't mean saying 'no it's not'.
By Jim Lewis on THE ROYAL WEDDING GUEST LIST – WHY I’M A CITIZEN N... at 07:51
I always consider the argument won when someone starts to draw attention to mistakes in my grammar or spelling or things like that. I know it’s a moot point but since you have rather childishly decided to mention it, “we’ve” means “we have” which of course represents two words but it’s interesting that you should pick up on something so trifling it smacks of fear actually.
'ad hominem'? ‘au contraire’ Jim I have always used this phrase and I could have sworn it was Latin and not English which my daughter studied another moot point I suppose but you are getting a bit slapdash while acting in such a ‘carte blanche’ way.
‘c'est la vie’ I suppose, such ‘contretemps’ might improve you, the occasional kick to your ‘derriere’ can remind you not to get ahead of yourself.
I have written on Cuba many times and you can look up what I have said in posts and comments, you see ‘refutation’ in your case Jim does sadly mean ‘no it’s not’ anything else is a waste of time I’m afraid, my ‘ennui’ level has become low when dealing with you.
Is there I wonder a ‘De Facto’ element of 'Ad Homenim' attack on me, and indeed when you sneer at my daughter is that similar?
Not your finest hour I’m afraid Jim but after all said and done you are a nationalist so what else do we expect?
A Nationalist? That's news to me. I abhor the idea of independence. That takes care of that.
To the main topic. I'll take your non-answer as a 'no' then, shall I? You are unable to refute any of the facts on Cuba I have posted, just as you couldn't before, relying instead on the somewhat questionable principle that the percentage of people turning out at compulsory polls, voting for the only candidate on the ballot paper is a measure of democracy. Of course, that might explain how someone with so little regard for the electorate and the political process manages to keep getting himself re-elected.
No Terry, I'm not trying to make a fool of you. You do such a good job yourself.
Post a Comment