IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Tiny bit of dissent on the "uncontroversially":
As PeeWee sez:
She is widely and uncontroversially well-loved, a sentiment that crosses political, ethnic, and class boundaries.
None of my biz, really, and not such a biggie that I'm constantly up in arms about it, but I can't be totally alone in the world in thinking that on one point she's being a bit of an arsehole: Her eldest son, while admittedly a bit boring-as-a-plank and not having been the best of husbands in his first marriage[1], seems on the whole to be a diligent and decent chap... Who is now either fast approaching or, more probably, over retirement age -- and he still hasn't even got to begin his real job (as King), but is still at the apprentice (PoW[2]) stage.

It's a shame she didn't follow her Dutch[3], Japanese, and IIRC Belgian colleagues' example and chuck the gig. In her case, sometime around the turn of the century, when she snatched the "longest reign" trophy from her great(-great...?)-gramma Vicky, or at the latest around the London Olympics / her Diamond Jubilee. Wonder if she regrets that now; would have got some more years in peace and quiet with hubby before she had to sit alone at his funeral. Bet she does.

I see two potential defenses of her stubbornness rearing their ugly heads, so let's nip them in the bud:

1) "But she's not alone in this, other monarchs linger on too!" Yeah, no, that's no defense. Megs of the Danes should also have chucked it around the time her hubby did; her son and successor is also quite old enough I think (not quite, but somewehere near Charlie's age?). Likewise wossface; Haakon, Harald something of Norway, and soon Cal Gustf[4] of Sweden too. At least the latter is eminently placed to do so; his Vicky[5] seems to have benefitted from her mother's injection of commoner blood into the shallow gene pool of European royalty by becoming, in the eyes of the great unwashed, at least as sympathetic as -- and objectively quite a bit sharper than -- he is.

2) "But she can't; the British constitution doesn't allow it!" Oh, bullpucky!

a) The "British constitution" is just as Common Law as the rest of the British legal system (or perhaps better, "system". In quotes). When it needs to change, it somehow magically always changes. And on this point, it needs to.

b) The Japanese constitution didn't allow it either; Emperors just couldn't quit. And yet, here we are -- Akihito quit. And neither the world nor even the Japanese Empire shattered because of it.

So, sure, not a huuuge controversy... But still, some, AFAICS?

___

[1]: Though in his defence, it seems he was forced into that whole debacle -- mainly by his Mum? -- just as much as his young bride was.

[2]: And wow, doesn't that usually stand for something else than "Prince of Wales"...

[3]: The two last of them, IIRC, before the current part-time KLM pilot; his Ma and Grandma.

[4]: Authentic signature. Admittedly, the poor buffoon is well-known for being a bit dyslexic on top of everything else; but still, your own name...

[5]: Named for the same common great(-great-great-whatever) grandmother.
--

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who Apparently Still Knows Fucking Everything


Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New On legalities ...
When she finally kicks, is there a possibility they skip Chuck and go straight to Billy?
--

Drew
New WTF kind of asshole move would that be? Why? They've had far, far worse, haven't they?
New Don’t think so. Succession is what it is.
New No-one here *really* wants Chucky on the big chair.
He's broadly perceived as being a bit of a knob, and no-one likes his wife.
New If "being a bit of a knob" were a reason not to get the job...
New I think you’re losing sight of a fundamental property of a monarchy…
…to wit: it doesn’t really matter what any of us proles think.
New Don't think I did: That's exactly why sometimes far worse "knobs" than him have got the job.
New Does that "no-one" include the other royals?
I gave less than a third of a shit at the time, but I did pick up that he was somewhat pressured into his first marriage, and that the fam didn't much like that he kept seeing Camilla on the side. I've idly wondered how badly they wanted to keep her farther from the throne.
--

Drew
     A Game of Throwns - (rcareaga) - (32)
         monarchy keeps the folks in circuses to go along with parliment -NT - (boxley) - (1)
             So the occasional idiocy is intentional? Or just tolerated as useful? -NT - (drook)
         Yes. - (pwhysall) - (22)
             Happy Toast's take on that famous picture. - (Another Scott)
             Hold on, what's this about parties? -NT - (drook) - (18)
                 Re: Hold on, what's this about parties? - (pwhysall) - (17)
                     If this was all in April/May, why is it on the news now? -NT - (drook) - (5)
                         The daggers are held back until they're most likely to succeed... -NT - (Another Scott)
                         Or, in more words... - (Another Scott) - (3)
                             This - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                 Does that work over there? - (drook)
                                 It's become a real problem over here, I think. - (Another Scott)
                     over here lotsa bigwhigs flouted laws about restrictions, minor tutting here - (boxley) - (1)
                         None of them were the president, and none of them did it the day before Dolly's husband's funeral - (pwhysall)
                     Tiny bit of dissent on the "uncontroversially": - (CRConrad) - (8)
                         On legalities ... - (drook) - (2)
                             WTF kind of asshole move would that be? Why? They've had far, far worse, haven't they? -NT - (CRConrad)
                             Don’t think so. Succession is what it is. -NT - (pwhysall)
                         No-one here *really* wants Chucky on the big chair. - (pwhysall) - (4)
                             If "being a bit of a knob" were a reason not to get the job... -NT - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                 I think you’re losing sight of a fundamental property of a monarchy… - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                     Don't think I did: That's exactly why sometimes far worse "knobs" than him have got the job. -NT - (CRConrad)
                             Does that "no-one" include the other royals? - (drook)
             You can’t recall a world without “Brenda” - (rcareaga)
             Good on the mil'try, that. -NT - (CRConrad)
         Wolves, jackals... Isn't this mostly because of his US-based activites? So, I'd guess coyotes. -NT - (CRConrad) - (5)
             Oh we have Wolves here all right . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                 Re: Oh we have Wolves here all right . . . - (rcareaga) - (1)
                     I don't *know* the provenance, but ... - (drook)
                 Yes, but wolves are everywhere else too, so that won't work to point out the American-ness of it. -NT - (CRConrad) - (1)
                     Yes, but I'm accustomed to people "presuming". - (Andrew Grygus)
         ICYMI, re BoJo - (Another Scott)

Ahead one third!
76 ms