Randy Andy & Charles mourning a tyrant: Is it time to chop off the Royal Family

Started by snokitty, January 23, 2015, 08:25:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

snokitty

Prince Andrew, King Abdullah mourned by Prince Charles? Is it time to chop off the Royal Family? - Fleet Street Fox - Mirror Online
Quote
Next Friday it will be exactly 366 years since we chopped off the head of King Charles I.

It's widely regarded now as the necessary execution of a man who tried to constrain Parliament and his people, who thought he was ordained by God to oppress whomever he liked, and the net result was that - after a short time in the Sin Bin - our Royal Family realised it ruled only with our consent.

At the time it was seen rather differently. A group of insurgents had seized control of a kingdom by force, publicly beheaded someone, and went about saying their God was much better than everyone else's.

There are plenty of similarities between the Roundheads and Islamic State, not least their mutual dislike of Christmas which, in the case of Oliver Cromwell and his New Model Army, was their eventual undoing.

QuoteTrue or not, the allegations mean the Royal Family - and by extension the island populace which allows them to rule - are smeared worldwide, purely because of a prince with all the foresight and wisdom of, well, his ex-wife.

This week at the World Economic Forum in Davos where he was supposed to be promoting British entrepreneurship he refuted the allegation and said: "My focus is on my work."

Hang on. What work?

I ask only because we told him he had to resign as a trade envoy in 2011, when pictures emerged of him holidaying with a convicted child abuser.

Not a man who would later be accused of child abuse, not a man charged with but not yet proven to be a child abuser - a convicted child abuser who, coincidentally, was also a billionaire.

QuoteBut now let's take today's Royal news, in which Prince Charles is expected to fly - in either a taxpayer-funded Royal Flight jet, a Queen-funded private jet or a rather cheaper scheduled flight we'll also pay for can get him there - to Saudi Arabia, a country the rest of us are warned to be careful travelling to.

That nation's dip-dyed old despot King Abdullah has died and Charles - who considered him a "personal friend" - wants to pay his respects. Non-Muslims can't attend the funeral (heavens above) but there will be a reception, where Charlie boy will mourn with some fruit juice the death of a man whose response to the rise of Islamic State next door in Iraq was to build a big wall.

That's the same king whose nation exported 1,000 jihadis to join IS; created Mr O. Bin Laden Esquire; was home to most of the 9/11 hijackers; bars women from voting, driving, and without a male guardian's permission getting married, divorced, being operated on, travelling, or landing a job; and which last year passed a law making it a terrorist act to be an atheist, join a political party, protest, campaign for reform, talk to groups like Human Rights Watch or otherwise "shake the social fabric".

The only reason I can see to attend King Abdullah's funeral reception is to be sure the old bastard is really dead.

And, presumably, if you've been at the centre of the modern world's most notorious case of adultery you've had a written promise they won't give you the same 100 lashes everyone else gets.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


HistoryGirl

Clever, if not a bit of a stretch to relate it to Charles I. However, I have no clue what in the world Charles was doing being friends with that man and to show up to his funeral; even worse if it's tax payer funded. Andrew...well that's just too embarrassing to even go into.

snokitty

The relation is because they are royalty.

This is not going to be a good year for the royals because the press is getting sick of their attitudes.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


Limabeany

Queen Elizabeth was certainly chummy with him beyond the required niceties of formal dinners, so why should the others pretend otherwise?

Queen Elizabeth Once Took King Abdullah For A Drive, Proved She's A Badass
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

HistoryGirl

I referred to the stretch because the main power struggle with Charles I was between him and Parliament, which isn't the case with Andrew or Charles. The people that are mentioned in the article that finally made the royal family realize it can't rule without the people's consent, weren't really all that pleased to see their king beheaded and in fact, most of the men in Parliament walked out because of it. So it was hardly a public mandate to rid themselves of a royal family. Clearly, the relation is because they're royal; as I said it was a clever since his death has come at a bad time for the royals today.

I think the press is getting quite sick of their attitudes. However, with actual problems affecting most people in Britain. I don't see that many even care enough to rid themselves of a monarchy. The criticism seems to always be there and spikes up at odd moments, but it never seems to lead anywhere or be loud enough to make others believe.

And just because the Queen does something doesn't make it right. I think separation between diplomatic relations and actual friendship is the sticking point that bothers me. Saudia Arabia is a very important country politically and economically and cannot simply be ignored. However, this clearly was not just a diplomatic relationship for Charles and Abdullah since he counted him as a personal friend. Charles focuses a lot on religious freedom and to have as a friend someone that led his country through a theocracy that allowed for virtually no religious freedom seems hypocritical, in my opinion.

Limabeany

 :goodpost: I agree with your previous point about Andrew, I think he is in enough hot water to be attending this, is HM appraised of all that is happening with him? This is quite an arrogant road to take.
"You don't have to be pretty. You don't owe prettiness to anyone. Not to your boyfriend/spouse/partner, not to your co-workers, especially not to random men on the street. You don't owe it to your mother, you don't owe it to your children, you don't owe it to civilization in general. Prettiness is not a rent you pay for occupying a space marked 'female'." Diana Vreeland.

DaFluffs

I'm not sure I see the same thing.  I see the King's funeral as a more diplomatic, go-to-be-seen type of funeral.  After all, Obama is going to be there so one already knows that its not really an event to be taken seriously....  (sarcasm intended)

"Mourning a tyrant"?  Nah, I don't see Charles "mourning" this guy as he would have Hugh Van Cutsem.

The Saudi royal family DOES shower the BRF with many financial gifts.  The most notable one in my mind was the gift of the saphhire necklace, earrings & bracelet to Pricess Di early in their marriage.  There may be an aspect of the BRF playing nice w/the Saudi RF in order to keep the diplomatic gifts coming.  Yes, I say this and mean this statement.

While I understand the criticisms of the Saudi state it is not just the King who perpetuated those policies.  He received pressure from within his own Muslim clerics to maintain these policies.  And the Saudi state is well within the neighboring Arab countries in its treatment of women, views towards the US and 'sympathizing' with terrorist agendas.  Another way I can put this:  can't blame one frat boy for his behaviour at a party - going on for decades - which is attended by many other frat boys. 




DaFluffs

 :goodpost:  Outstanding point!

That's why I wonder how the Jordanian RF walks its tightrope of being among the frat boys but still tries to go against the crowd in some of its actions (Queen Rania's support of women in education, etc.).



HistoryGirl

^A tightrope is a wonderful way of describing it. There are so many contradictions in what people may personally want and what is politically sound based on the circumstances and it's exceedingly difficult for officials to navigate.

TLLK

Quote from: Limabeany on January 24, 2015, 10:36:04 AM
Queen Elizabeth was certainly chummy with him beyond the required niceties of formal dinners, so why should the others pretend otherwise?

Queen Elizabeth Once Took King Abdullah For A Drive, Proved She's A Badass
I read this on another site and loved it!!! Thank you for sharing.

Double post auto-merged: January 24, 2015, 05:50:53 PM


Quote from: DaFluffs on January 24, 2015, 02:32:48 PM
I'm not sure I see the same thing.  I see the King's funeral as a more diplomatic, go-to-be-seen type of funeral.  After all, Obama is going to be there so one already knows that its not really an event to be taken seriously....  (sarcasm intended)

"Mourning a tyrant"?  Nah, I don't see Charles "mourning" this guy as he would have Hugh Van Cutsem.

The Saudi royal family DOES shower the BRF with many financial gifts.  The most notable one in my mind was the gift of the saphhire necklace, earrings & bracelet to Pricess Di early in their marriage.  There may be an aspect of the BRF playing nice w/the Saudi RF in order to keep the diplomatic gifts coming.  Yes, I say this and mean this statement.

While I understand the criticisms of the Saudi state it is not just the King who perpetuated those policies.  He received pressure from within his own Muslim clerics to maintain these policies.  And the Saudi state is well within the neighboring Arab countries in its treatment of women, views towards the US and 'sympathizing' with terrorist agendas.  Another way I can put this:  can't blame one frat boy for his behaviour at a party - going on for decades - which is attended by many other frat boys. 
IMO the government in the UK sees that it is important for a royal to attend due to its trade/military/diplomatic ties to the Saudi kingdom. Also I don't believe that Charles is necessarily "mourning" King Abdullah either.

Excellent points about the internal issues in the Saudi kingdom DaFluffs. 

cate1949

I think these are very complex issues and the results of the so called Arab Spring ought to serve as a warning to us about pushing our agendas on other cultures.    Personally - SA is not a place I would like to live in and I find much of what they do there to be horrendous.  But - it is I think wrong to impose our values on other cultures.  We should focus instead on perfecting or at least improving our own countries before we start telling everyone else how to live.  If we genuinely believe in democratic institutions we must recognize that some times people make choices we are not comfortable with yet they have that right.  I find it absurd that we - given the problems with our own democratic institutions as well as prejudice and bias and the wide inequity in income distribution in both the US and UK should be lecturing others about democracy and human rights.  Lead by example - be clear about what we value - but do not seek to impose on others.  Chaos tends to follow such demands.  See ISIS as an example.

I have worked with men and women from SA - very well educated.  These people have told me they support more reforms but also they support their monarchy.  It has kept SA stable and free of the sort of chaos and violence so common in the ME.  In a part of the world mostly in chaos to the great detriment of the people who live there ( see Syria or Lebanon)  I just do not think we have the right to tell them how to run their country especially when we are not doing so well either and especially when the alternatives might be a lot worse.

Slavery ended in SA because JFK helped the Saudi's see that it was best for them to do that.  Engaging and encouraging seems the best course to me.  King Abdullah started elections for local councils and brought women into those councils - he created the first University in SA that women can attend and opened the professions up to women - that doesn't sound like much to us yet it is an improvement for them.  Again - the conservative clergy have much power in SA and they resisted even those small  reforms.  Abdullah also supported a more tolerant approach to other religions - he was the first Saudi to meet with the Pope and was severely criticized for that.  He also established an institute to promote greater understanding among different religions.  And yes - the floggings and beheadings also still occur.  It is not easy for us to stomach - but it is not our society and IMHO it is not up to us to tell others how to live. There are enough terrible  examples of what happens when the West pushes its agenda on to countries utterly unprepared and often unwilling to live the way we want them to.

And let us be honest - we need their oil.  Unless we are prepared to radically alter our lifestyles and lower our standard of living - for the time being - we need that oil.  And so heads of state will go to SA and honor Abdullah's memory.   
 


snokitty

When world leaders show up for something like this then it is seen as support for them, their reign and their policies.

Cameron went to represent the UK and Charles should have stayed home. I think Charles went because of a close friendship instead of representing his Monarch.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


DaFluffs

@cate1949  Great post! 

I'd like to add an anecdote to your post:  I met a woman who emigrated to the US from Zimbabwe.  I asked her what it was like to live under a dictatorship.  She once told me that American's think they have all this freedom but they really don't.  Yes we have freedom of speech but we don't have individual freedom - much of what we do on a daily basis is heavily regulated by the government - travel (including autos - which I hadn't thought of until she said this), education, workplace, finance and even the food we eat (this last item triggered a conversation over the dinner table that lasted until midnight).



TLLK

Quote from: cate1949 on January 25, 2015, 04:48:47 AM
I think these are very complex issues and the results of the so called Arab Spring ought to serve as a warning to us about pushing our agendas on other cultures.    Personally - SA is not a place I would like to live in and I find much of what they do there to be horrendous.  But - it is I think wrong to impose our values on other cultures.  We should focus instead on perfecting or at least improving our own countries before we start telling everyone else how to live.  If we genuinely believe in democratic institutions we must recognize that some times people make choices we are not comfortable with yet they have that right.  I find it absurd that we - given the problems with our own democratic institutions as well as prejudice and bias and the wide inequity in income distribution in both the US and UK should be lecturing others about democracy and human rights.  Lead by example - be clear about what we value - but do not seek to impose on others.  Chaos tends to follow such demands.  See ISIS as an example.

I have worked with men and women from SA - very well educated.  These people have told me they support more reforms but also they support their monarchy.  It has kept SA stable and free of the sort of chaos and violence so common in the ME.  In a part of the world mostly in chaos to the great detriment of the people who live there ( see Syria or Lebanon)  I just do not think we have the right to tell them how to run their country especially when we are not doing so well either and especially when the alternatives might be a lot worse.

Slavery ended in SA because JFK helped the Saudi's see that it was best for them to do that.  Engaging and encouraging seems the best course to me.  King Abdullah started elections for local councils and brought women into those councils - he created the first University in SA that women can attend and opened the professions up to women - that doesn't sound like much to us yet it is an improvement for them.  Again - the conservative clergy have much power in SA and they resisted even those small  reforms.  Abdullah also supported a more tolerant approach to other religions - he was the first Saudi to meet with the Pope and was severely criticized for that.  He also established an institute to promote greater understanding among different religions.  And yes - the floggings and beheadings also still occur.  It is not easy for us to stomach - but it is not our society and IMHO it is not up to us to tell others how to live. There are enough terrible  examples of what happens when the West pushes its agenda on to countries utterly unprepared and often unwilling to live the way we want them to.

And let us be honest - we need their oil.  Unless we are prepared to radically alter our lifestyles and lower our standard of living - for the time being - we need that oil.  And so heads of state will go to SA and honor Abdullah's memory.   
 


We do need their oil and we want to keep our bases there in the region. Therefore the governments of these nations who sent representatives believe it was the correct thing to do.

wannable

Of course, Saudi Arabia is a member of the OPEC, consists of 12 countries with the largest deposit and production, they decide how much oil to produce and prices, setting the how much you will pay, hence it affects every single country - worldwide.

A country stops buying from SA, they will indeed have to buy from another OPEC member, evil! 😱

snokitty

Quote from: DaFluffs on January 25, 2015, 03:04:16 PM
@cate1949  Great post! 

I'd like to add an anecdote to your post:  I met a woman who emigrated to the US from Zimbabwe.  I asked her what it was like to live under a dictatorship.  She once told me that American's think they have all this freedom but they really don't.  Yes we have freedom of speech but we don't have individual freedom - much of what we do on a daily basis is heavily regulated by the government - travel (including autos - which I hadn't thought of until she said this), education, workplace, finance and even the food we eat (this last item triggered a conversation over the dinner table that lasted until midnight).

:goodpost:   :thumbsup:  The woman from Zimbabwe was correct. It has steadily grown worse since 2000.
"Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too"      Voltaire

I can see humor in most things & I would rather laugh than cry.    Snokitty


KaTerina Montague

@cate1949
That was a fantastic post and so true. It irritates me so much to see people forcing their culture onto others.