Don't let King Charles III hear y'all talking smack. He might dissolve the Parliamentš² like King Charles I and King Charles II did long ago.šš
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Queen Elizabeth II has died
- Thread starter MYZ
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's actually one of his duties as HoS, just at the request of the government executive, not of his own volition!
I do find it interesting that Charles II is remembered as a good King, "The Merry Monarch", yet towards the end of his reign in particular he was slipping closer to the behaviour which saw his father deposed, tried and executed. In the end it took the coup of his brother James II by his daughter and son in law (Mary II and William III) "The glorious revolution" to make the concept of Constitutional Monarchy finally stick.
House of Dragons is not based on real events, The Crown certainly is and Iāve already stated that it is not a documentary. Iāve said what I believe and I accept your disagreement without ranker.
You remember what happened to Charles I right?
It's got nothing to do with ethnicity, friend, she is a liar and hated by many due to her actions and her uncanny ability to lie outwardly, believe her own lies and continue to do so even when proven wrong. Why you brought race into this is bizarre... but then if it's based on Facebook, we know the types of people that use that as a source of truth.
Both myself and my former colleagues have now worked with her and her entourage, including her former PR agency, they are out for themselves and will be slanderous even behind their most adorning fans backs - she is sickening.
There is a reason why she no longer has the level of support and friendship she once had. The royal debacle just exasperated it more.
I agree with one of the comments early on in this thread. Nothing against Elizabeth, but this is the twenty-first century. Seems like it's past time for the UK to join it.
Apparently these quaint old traditions swell the tourist coffers quite a lot, i donāt hear people saying your kind of comments to some other countries about their culture and traditions. Strange,.
I can't speak to the rest of the world, but so far as I am aware, the only monarchy which attracts the attention and fascination of Americans generally is England's. To be fair, I'm kind of a bit surprised how interested and captivated we Americans (I'm speaking generally) are, given our own national history with England, and given how anti- a lot of things we are in this country, which incidentally England's overall governmental system represents.
Speaking now only for myself, while I "recognize" in the sense of being aware that Elizabeth II, Charles III, and all the others are government officials hold a particular sort of status which comes of there being a monarchy, I do not "recognize" it in the sense of being or feeling as though I am obligated to it, or that I would respect or observe it in any actual sense.
To put it another way, if I were walking along somewhere and Charles walked by, I would be kind and polite to him as I would with any other fellow human being, but I would not pay deference nor accord any other special status to him.
I have no vested interest in defending Meghan Markle nor am I defending her, just observing and the difference between press coverage of the couple on this side of the pond compared to the UK is stark, and the difference is bazaar.It's got nothing to do with ethnicity, friend, she is a liar and hated by many due to her actions and her uncanny ability to lie outwardly, believe her own lies and continue to do so even when proven wrong. Why you brought race into this is bizarre... but then if it's based on Facebook, we know the types of people that use that as a source of truth.
Both myself and my former colleagues have now worked with her and her entourage, including her former PR agency, they are out for themselves and will be slanderous even behind their most adorning fans backs - she is sickening.
There is a reason why she no longer has the level of support and friendship she once had. The royal debacle just exasperated it more.
At this point Iād need something approaching evidence to fairly judge your accusation. The British Press comes across as rabid dogs profiting from sinking their teeth into the Duchess because she āresisted conformingā, and their readers seems to be infected. Apparantly a story about Meghan making Kate cry in a discussion about childrenās attire at her wedding was blatantly false. In fact it was the opposite and statements after the fact, Meghan indicated her frustration with the British Pressās failure to correct the record.
Regarding Facebook, this was what I was referencing, not a source of truth AT ALL, a source for UK citizens who have bought into this toxic narrative to bad mouth Markle as part their daily routine. And Oh My God, they bailed on the Crown. In some corners of the UK this would definitely be a source of anger. This is the obsession I was referring to.
And if you friend, think race plays no part in this, I canāt prove it, but suspect it does. Now if we were in a political forum, which we are not, Iād ask you for evidence of lies and slander, but we are not, so I wonāt. To continue this discussion will inevitably result in moderation From the local powers. However, for your reference:
The Character Assassination of Meghan Markle
As the tabloids speculate that a newly-announced autobiography of Prince Harry will really have been written by his wife, Richard Sanders sheds light on a 21st century tale of racism, class and misogyny
bylinetimes.com
Last edited:
@Huntn, yes, I rather suspect that race does play a role in the tone and content of some of the deeply unpleasant UK media coverage of the Duchess of Sussex, namely, Meghan Markle.
And, I would argue that race - in this instance, a deliberate playing of a "victim" card - also plays a role in her public reaction to much of this coverage.
The fact that one is a black woman who has been disgracefully vilified on racial grounds does not detract from the fact that this particular black woman can also be a manipulative, materialistic, mendacious individual.
One can agree with much of @Trhodezy's post (and I do) while also recognizing that the Duchess of Sussex has been poorly treated and poorly served by much of the right-wing media in the UK.
And, I would argue that race - in this instance, a deliberate playing of a "victim" card - also plays a role in her public reaction to much of this coverage.
The fact that one is a black woman who has been disgracefully vilified on racial grounds does not detract from the fact that this particular black woman can also be a manipulative, materialistic, mendacious individual.
One can agree with much of @Trhodezy's post (and I do) while also recognizing that the Duchess of Sussex has been poorly treated and poorly served by much of the right-wing media in the UK.
Last edited:
This is how I see it. MM made a critical error in banking on a celebrity status she did not have when returning to America. Most people knew her as one of the women holding suitcases on Deal or No Deal (if they knew her at all) before her marriage into the royal family.
Instantly adopting an entitled attitude just because your husband happens to be a prince means nothing in or to Hollywood. Her acting skills are what matter here and apparently those have not measured up.
She is no Grace Kelly.
Last edited:
I was surprised to be so sad to learn of the Queen's death, since I am American and not Scottish (I live in Scotland). I am saddened think of the wealth of experience, wisdom, and knowledge the UK and the country's Prime Ministers have just lost. I think that now the Queen has gone, both the monarchy and the UK government will ignore Scotland. I also think of the Queen's service ethic. I have worked at my job around forty years and I'm damned exhausted. The Queen did her job for 70 years, and her job must have always been bittersweet because she got it because her father died. She served her country honourably and with devotion - few elected politicians and civil servants can boast the same. Frankly the same applies to most of us posting here.
And in a world of rampant and crass me-first individualism, it is nice to be reminded of the ethos of community-minded service and sacrifice that we once had, but seem to have lost. Thank you ma'am.
And in a world of rampant and crass me-first individualism, it is nice to be reminded of the ethos of community-minded service and sacrifice that we once had, but seem to have lost. Thank you ma'am.
I am certainly not a pro-monarchy individual, but this strikes me as a strange take. Like it or not, Charles III is the head of a State that everyone recognizes as such, and has special status.
The same applies for all the other monarchies in Europe. I am always surprised that people talk about the āUK joining the XXI centuryā but forget that Europe has 10+ monarchies, and that the world has about 45 countries with a monarch as head of state; thatās almost 25% of nations. Often people also forget what a mess it would be to change form of government, especially if itās currently working somehow.
The respect that Charles would and should get should be the same respect that any other foreign head of state should have, and thatās of course in virtue of his office not of his person.
Americans tend to think that if their form of government (which I do love) isnāt the form of a foreign country, then the country has a problem (which also paves the way for the āexport democracyā BS). Thatās not true. In the vast majority of cases, forms of government and who is the head of such state/government, either comes as an organic development of the country or a revolution (which often is an organic development, just abruptly applied). Obviously this development is never without serious bumps, but when it works the result is precisely the result of the country solving a problem.
Thinking that whoever holds the office - especially if mostly symbolic as a constitutional guard - is either ābehind the timesā or ālike any other personā is an insult to the history and character of a nation (of course that doesnāt mean that the policies and politics of such person/country deserve automatic respect).
Just my 2c.
No. The PM is the leader of the government.
To the rest of the world, the leader of the government is the head of state... (I ninja edited and put quotes around the word actual). If the Crown was the leader of the government like in the past, I would think the response would different.
Iāll ask you is she playing a victim or is she a victim? For calibration, was Diana a victim? Show me some real evidence of a jumped up lying PoS, a nasty piece of work, and her āslanderous statementsā as something other than right out of a British tabloid and Iāll listen.
Last edited:
absolutely not true.
In Italy the head of the state is the President, and the leader of the government is the Prime Minister. In Spain the head of the state is the King, and the leader of the government is the Prime Minister. In Germany the head of the state is the president and the leader of the government is the Chancellor. Countless states have a similar structures, including Russia.
Others, have a more mixed or unified government (Mexicoās President is both).
Last edited:
To people from countries where the Head of State (president/chancellor/king/queen/...) = Leader of Government, we are always going to count the Head of State as the position that actually runs the government.
To us, anything else is a just a figurehead.
And thatās precisely why Americans tend to suck in understanding foreign policy and cultures. Yes, mine is an abominable generalization, but after 20 years here and several facepalm moments while talking to people, thatās my conclusion. The rhetoric by some around the Queenās death just confirmed it.
Nuances here are vital.
That ājust a figureheadā is the symbol - in its highest meaning of the word - of the country. Its history, its battles, its deaths, its ups and downs, its ideals, everything is there. Diminish its status and youāre diminishing everything else, including the actual government in charge of policies and treaties.
Last edited:
Louis XIV made things simpler "L'Ć©tat c'est moi" (I am the state) though that was problematic as well even in a time with powerful monarchs. I visited his former home this past June.
I never visited it! It must be beautiful!Louis XIV made things simpler "L'Ć©tat c'est moi" (I am the state) though that was problematic as well even in a time with powerful monarchs. I visited his former home this past June.
I hereby declare, āMacRumors cāest moi!ā
It is not a lack of understanding, I understand that there is a King/Queen that holds a title, but is not the head of the government. I simply do not hold the position to the same level as you do. This makes me no worse at understanding foreign policy and culture, I understand it, I just don't agree with it.
I hold elected officials to the highest standard, I do not hold positions that are passed down by lineage the same way, even if they are the actual or "actual" head of state.
I respect the person, their service, and feel for the loss to their family.
Respectfully, I think itās not a matter of agreeing or not.
In many structures, such as the UK/Germany/Italy/Spain etc the leader of the government is a spawn of the head of state. The legitimacy of the government comes from the head of state. Thatās why the PM of UK goes to the King, or the PM of a country often has his/her āduty of government conferred byā the President (which often are agreed with by a parliamentary motion).
If you (generic you) diminish the role and meaning of the head of state, youāre diminishing the role and meaning (and possibly even the legitimacy) of the leader of the government, and his/her functions. Thatās why usually with PM-HeadOfState structures thereās lots of attention in not doing stuff that would seem as offensive/inappropriate towards the Head of State, while the Leader of the government is often fair game (to a point).
Granted, on a practical level, the leader of a government works with the leader of a government, and never with a head of state (unless the form is different, such as Presidential republic or dictatorship), so on a day to day basis, in terms of pragmatic tasks, the leader of the government is more āimportantā to get things done.
Ultimately I think weāll need to agree to disagree and just enjoy the weekend š
(Couple of minor edits for clarifications)
Our Monarch is there as head of state to make sure those corrupt politicians donāt get too much power and say. Thereās plenty of people in this country that want to abolish the Monarchy and thatās fine, but Iām glad there is a wider understanding as to why it is important to our constitution that they exist. I am glad our Royal family are not elected which would be a bit weird in itself to be fair. Our electorate have a pretty poor history of voting for the right people and at least the Royal line is stable and consistent in its service to the people.
Last edited: