Wracked with angst over the fate of our beloved and horribly misgoverned Republic, the DiploMad returns to do battle on the world wide web, swearing death to political correctness, and pulling no punches.
My advice to the Queen: pile all the H&M personal effects out on the front lawn, and hand them two one-way plane tickets to Ottawa. Oh, and change all the locks.
I think that Megan just could not abide by the Royal culture and tradition and decided to split. And Harry tagged along. It would have been more civil to sit down with the Queen and discuss the problem and come up with an amicable solution and agreement. That is how grownups do it.
Meg really isn't a very good actress is she? The whole sorry mess unravels 18 months after "I do." My money was on 5 years longevity before the exit. SoCal raised, Hollywood actress, divorced (twice?), very questionable, ahem, life experience...not exactly the stuff of British Royalty. That this mess was done having fragile 93 and 98 yr old grandparents is bizarre. Why not wait until they passed? Well, best of luck to the grifter and her prince who will roll out tacky schlock emblazoned with some faux royal kiss of authenticity all run through a charity patterned after the Clinton Foundation. Kardashian-Clinton with lemon in the tea. Mercy.
Royalty is getting interesting. Read this thread from REX https://social.quodverum.com/@REX/103473466886913573 They've been hanging with the Obama's too.
Much as I admire the American people in general, the American Republic is not my idea of a role model for any sane people to adopt. Having a hereditary monarchy is far from perfect, but a politically neutral, and essentially impotent monarch, is far superior to the American system where an elected President is (these days at least) bound to be at the very least despised if not actually hated by at least half the population at any given time. The Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump administrations are more than conclusive proof if any were needed that elected Presidencies are inherently divisive, while the British Monarchy is a powerful uniting force, not only for Britain but also for the British Commonwealth. Spare me from republics.
The US presidency isn't in any way comparable to the monarchy. The presidency has constitutional authority denied to a reigning monarch; different powers and different responsibilities. It is more decentralized than the parliamentary system on purpose and disparaging the opposing party is how the game is played here. Which means that while the game is noisy, we don't behead or exile former leaders. You have to understand that what works for us doesn't have to work for you. I can assure you of the one thing that would unite Americans of all political stripes, and that is the imposition of a hereditary monarchy.
Probably not. It is only a reminder of how leftism is a wasting disease that eats away at every institution that has stood the test of time. It even eats away at normal people who allow it in there lives.
You know what drives me mad? It's the people that like to put their imaginary connection to their European roots right up front. So you're 400 years removed from Europe but you still consider yourself a Celt. Maybe you should ask some Celts if they'll have you.
Mmm, looking round the world which system has the better long term track record of preventing civil strife. Constitutional monarchy as practised in the bicycling monarchies, spain, NZ Oz, Can.japan etc etc Republic as practised in US, France, Mexico? So wherevis more likely to have a civil war?
There is a relationship in the history of the Royals which is relevant to Harry and Meg, albeit under a different context and goal.
As with Prince Edward and Simpson, the travails of Harry and Meg are ultimately against America's culture and best interests.
The worst thing that can happen is that a large minority of Americans turns back the clock and worships the false idols of Royalty - at which point, these traitors must again be driven north into Canada.
Reposting:
{Snip}
Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was "just about sex" in the same way that Edward VIII's marraige to Wallis Simpson was "just about divorce".
{Snip}
The leadership of the World's sole superpower is not lightly removed for so petty a reason - be it the 1930s or the 1990s - even if petty circumstances are used to justify that removal. There are too many interests at risk, too much money changing hands, and too many lives in the balance. You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to understand that most political, business, and religious leaders don't want to upset the gears of industry, including the benefits of graft it entails. World War I did not occur just because Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. Al Capone was not sent to jail just because he avoided taxes. The Iraq War was not just about oil.
[edit: and Trump's impeachment is not about Russian or Ukrainian "collusion"]
The reductionism is as childish as it is transparently dishonest, lazy, and cowardly.
Understanding why Edward VIII was forced from the throne, then defamed so he would stay dethroned, allows Americans an understanding of why Winston Churchill was a dead-man-walking before, during, and after World War II.
After all, Edward was Churchill's patron.
More to the point, Edward VIII was an advocate of strengthening the trans-atlantic relationship between the British Empire and America long before it was in style. To be sure, his aim was to extend the British Empire's dominance. He was familiar with American culture, far moreso than many in the British aristocracy were comfortable with. It would not be untrue to say that his ambition literally may have led him into fascination.
I will not discuss Elizabeth's ambition here (and George's lack of leadership of even his own House); merely note that, like most British aristocracy and Royalty, Elizabeth was especially hostile to the mere identity of "America", let alone its "peasant culture" and rebellious rabble. It's something the current British Queen shares with her namesake mother. Needless to say, they were far more comfortable with the aristocratic traditions of the Continent. But ultimately, from inbred history to business affiliations to religious hierarchies to culinary tastes and connoisseurs of wine, it's obvious why the British in general loved the Continent.
Edward was the oddball.
He supported Churchill's confrontational approach to the Continent or, more to the point, Churchill supported Edward's approach (It was not simply Germany they were wary of). Meanwhile, the "Queen Mother", her husband, and her future Queen regnant daughter supported what is now called "appeasement", a fact that has been stricken from politically-correct record, and laid at the feet of Neville Chamberlain. To wit, the whitewash tactic mirrors the "rehabilitation" of Emperor Hirohito vis-a-vis the scapegoat Hideki Tojo. Both obeyed their sovereign lords throughout the war, even going as far as to fall on their swords when ordered.
{snip}
It is a blessing that America is spiritually free from this accursed, parasitic family - Americans having long since disposed of the forced conversions to the Anglican Church's Divine King, George III, and his Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, coerced via financial ruination via the crown's Bank of England (and their partners in New York City) or at musket point by the British Army.
Jeffrey: "Should I care about all of this? if so, why?"
Yes, absolutely.
For one thing, the British Royals are quite literally the biggest corporation in the UK, arguably the most powerful corporation in all of Europe; literally the directorate of the City of London, the financial center of much of what America is fighting today - in fact, this has not changed throughout the history of the United States.
America was literally born to fight this age-old British tyranny, going back to the days of America's self-discovery when the British attempted to marginalize and even outlaw colonial currency in competition with the Bank of England's currency (the Currency Act), or tried to dispossess American homesteaders by declaring roving bands of Iroquois Indians owners of their homesteads, which the Indians would raid, massacre, loot, then happily "sell" the land/barn/house/homestead/etc that had been built by the luke-warm colonists-homesteaders back to the banks in New York City at pure "profit" - because nothing is so profitable as theft, where the costs and investments are born by others. It didn't help that the Stamp Act required payment in the type of approved "currency" that homesteaders had little of, thereby depriving them of any "legal" documentation and claim to the homes tehy built and the land they'd developed.
That was the colonial reality; why Americans had to protect themselves rather than rely on the British Army (who counted the most savage Indian tribes their allies - the more savage, the more profitable they were to the British).
On and on it goes.
The British crown and their financial partners have always used thugs to do their dirty work in confiscatory economics - these days, they use Muslim savages to dispossess their people and keep the British peasantry in check.
From the British supplying Indians against America in the 1790s in an "area-denial" strategy when General Wayne had to force the British Army out of New York, Michigan, the Ohio, etc (and eliminate their "Rangers" who were augmenting Indian raiders) to the British helping the Sioux massacre entire communities throughout Minnesota (Another attempt to "clear the map" and regain control over the Source of the Mississippi River, which the British lost in the War of 1812), to the crisis in Canada when America pinned John Wilkes Boothe as part of the assassination team the British sent from Montreal, and that the Crown had been conspiring with the Confederates since long before they'd been publicly exposed when the Jacinto captured the Trent...
I'm sorry, but your view of the British Monarchy and its status in the British political system is seriously mistaken. You have pretty much misinterpreted all of the very few aspects of reality that you’ve actually stumbled upon. Crown land does not "belong" to the Queen, least of all "in literal terms". Your opinion is simply so wrong that it would be a waste of time and effort to correct every error. Suffice to say that in fact, and in law, the Queen has none of the powers you ascribe to her, and you seriously misunderstand the relationship between the Monarchy and the people. It survives because the British people want it to survive, and no matter the extent of division at any given time between different political factions in Britain, when was the last time you saw or even heard about the sort of crazed demonstrations against a British Monarch that occur in the US almost daily against a democratically elected President. You need to read a bit more widely on the British political system.
Some 'common' people can rise to the occasion and act properly.
ReplyDeleteThen there's Meg.
The Ginger-Idiot didn't help any. He's always been a loose twit, but in combination it was like mixing thermite and gasoline.
My advice to the Queen: pile all the H&M personal effects out on the front lawn, and hand them two one-way plane tickets to Ottawa. Oh, and change all the locks.
ReplyDeleteI think that Megan just could not abide by the Royal culture and tradition and decided to split. And Harry tagged along. It would have been more civil to sit down with the Queen and discuss the problem and come up with an amicable solution and agreement. That is how grownups do it.
ReplyDeleteMeg really isn't a very good actress is she? The whole sorry mess unravels 18 months after "I do." My money was on 5 years longevity before the exit. SoCal raised, Hollywood actress, divorced (twice?), very questionable, ahem, life experience...not exactly the stuff of British Royalty. That this mess was done having fragile 93 and 98 yr old grandparents is bizarre. Why not wait until they passed? Well, best of luck to the grifter and her prince who will roll out tacky schlock emblazoned with some faux royal kiss of authenticity all run through a charity patterned after the Clinton Foundation. Kardashian-Clinton with lemon in the tea. Mercy.
ReplyDeleteRoyalty is getting interesting. Read this thread from REX https://social.quodverum.com/@REX/103473466886913573 They've been hanging with the Obama's too.
ReplyDeleteMuch as I admire the American people in general, the American Republic is not my idea of a role model for any sane people to adopt. Having a hereditary monarchy is far from perfect, but a politically neutral, and essentially impotent monarch, is far superior to the American system where an elected President is (these days at least) bound to be at the very least despised if not actually hated by at least half the population at any given time. The Clinton, Bush, Obama and now Trump administrations are more than conclusive proof if any were needed that elected Presidencies are inherently divisive, while the British Monarchy is a powerful uniting force, not only for Britain but also for the British Commonwealth. Spare me from republics.
ReplyDeleteThe US presidency isn't in any way comparable to the monarchy. The presidency has constitutional authority denied to a reigning monarch; different powers and different responsibilities. It is more decentralized than the parliamentary system on purpose and disparaging the opposing party is how the game is played here. Which means that while the game is noisy, we don't behead or exile former leaders. You have to understand that what works for us doesn't have to work for you. I can assure you of the one thing that would unite Americans of all political stripes, and that is the imposition of a hereditary monarchy.
DeleteShould I care about all of this? if so, why?
ReplyDeleteProbably not. It is only a reminder of how leftism is a wasting disease that eats away at every institution that has stood the test of time. It even eats away at normal people who allow it in there lives.
DeleteVery good. Thanks.
DeleteYou know what drives me mad? It's the people that like to put their imaginary connection to their European roots right up front. So you're 400 years removed from Europe but you still consider yourself a Celt. Maybe you should ask some Celts if they'll have you.
ReplyDelete"Brevity is the soul of wit." The most perfect DIPLOMAD post ever!
ReplyDeleteMmm, looking round the world which system has the better long term track record of preventing civil strife.
ReplyDeleteConstitutional monarchy as practised in the bicycling monarchies, spain, NZ Oz, Can.japan etc etc
Republic as practised in US, France, Mexico?
So wherevis more likely to have a civil war?
There is a relationship in the history of the Royals which is relevant to Harry and Meg, albeit under a different context and goal.
ReplyDeleteAs with Prince Edward and Simpson, the travails of Harry and Meg are ultimately against America's culture and best interests.
The worst thing that can happen is that a large minority of Americans turns back the clock and worships the false idols of Royalty - at which point, these traitors must again be driven north into Canada.
Reposting:
{Snip}
Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was "just about sex" in the same way that Edward VIII's marraige to Wallis Simpson was "just about divorce".
{Snip}
The leadership of the World's sole superpower is not lightly removed for so petty a reason - be it the 1930s or the 1990s - even if petty circumstances are used to justify that removal. There are too many interests at risk, too much money changing hands, and too many lives in the balance. You don't have to believe in conspiracy theories to understand that most political, business, and religious leaders don't want to upset the gears of industry, including the benefits of graft it entails. World War I did not occur just because Franz Ferdinand was assassinated. Al Capone was not sent to jail just because he avoided taxes. The Iraq War was not just about oil.
[edit: and Trump's impeachment is not about Russian or Ukrainian "collusion"]
The reductionism is as childish as it is transparently dishonest, lazy, and cowardly.
Understanding why Edward VIII was forced from the throne, then defamed so he would stay dethroned, allows Americans an understanding of why Winston Churchill was a dead-man-walking before, during, and after World War II.
After all, Edward was Churchill's patron.
More to the point, Edward VIII was an advocate of strengthening the trans-atlantic relationship between the British Empire and America long before it was in style. To be sure, his aim was to extend the British Empire's dominance. He was familiar with American culture, far moreso than many in the British aristocracy were comfortable with. It would not be untrue to say that his ambition literally may have led him into fascination.
I will not discuss Elizabeth's ambition here (and George's lack of leadership of even his own House); merely note that, like most British aristocracy and Royalty, Elizabeth was especially hostile to the mere identity of "America", let alone its "peasant culture" and rebellious rabble. It's something the current British Queen shares with her namesake mother. Needless to say, they were far more comfortable with the aristocratic traditions of the Continent. But ultimately, from inbred history to business affiliations to religious hierarchies to culinary tastes and connoisseurs of wine, it's obvious why the British in general loved the Continent.
Edward was the oddball.
He supported Churchill's confrontational approach to the Continent or, more to the point, Churchill supported Edward's approach (It was not simply Germany they were wary of). Meanwhile, the "Queen Mother", her husband, and her future Queen regnant daughter supported what is now called "appeasement", a fact that has been stricken from politically-correct record, and laid at the feet of Neville Chamberlain. To wit, the whitewash tactic mirrors the "rehabilitation" of Emperor Hirohito vis-a-vis the scapegoat Hideki Tojo. Both obeyed their sovereign lords throughout the war, even going as far as to fall on their swords when ordered.
{snip}
It is a blessing that America is spiritually free from this accursed, parasitic family - Americans having long since disposed of the forced conversions to the Anglican Church's Divine King, George III, and his Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, coerced via financial ruination via the crown's Bank of England (and their partners in New York City) or at musket point by the British Army.
Jeffrey: "Should I care about all of this? if so, why?"
ReplyDeleteYes, absolutely.
For one thing, the British Royals are quite literally the biggest corporation in the UK, arguably the most powerful corporation in all of Europe; literally the directorate of the City of London, the financial center of much of what America is fighting today - in fact, this has not changed throughout the history of the United States.
America was literally born to fight this age-old British tyranny, going back to the days of America's self-discovery when the British attempted to marginalize and even outlaw colonial currency in competition with the Bank of England's currency (the Currency Act), or tried to dispossess American homesteaders by declaring roving bands of Iroquois Indians owners of their homesteads, which the Indians would raid, massacre, loot, then happily "sell" the land/barn/house/homestead/etc that had been built by the luke-warm colonists-homesteaders back to the banks in New York City at pure "profit" - because nothing is so profitable as theft, where the costs and investments are born by others. It didn't help that the Stamp Act required payment in the type of approved "currency" that homesteaders had little of, thereby depriving them of any "legal" documentation and claim to the homes tehy built and the land they'd developed.
That was the colonial reality; why Americans had to protect themselves rather than rely on the British Army (who counted the most savage Indian tribes their allies - the more savage, the more profitable they were to the British).
On and on it goes.
The British crown and their financial partners have always used thugs to do their dirty work in confiscatory economics - these days, they use Muslim savages to dispossess their people and keep the British peasantry in check.
From the British supplying Indians against America in the 1790s in an "area-denial" strategy when General Wayne had to force the British Army out of New York, Michigan, the Ohio, etc (and eliminate their "Rangers" who were augmenting Indian raiders) to the British helping the Sioux massacre entire communities throughout Minnesota (Another attempt to "clear the map" and regain control over the Source of the Mississippi River, which the British lost in the War of 1812), to the crisis in Canada when America pinned John Wilkes Boothe as part of the assassination team the British sent from Montreal, and that the Crown had been conspiring with the Confederates since long before they'd been publicly exposed when the Jacinto captured the Trent...
I'm sorry, but your view of the British Monarchy and its status in the British political system is seriously mistaken. You have pretty much misinterpreted all of the very few aspects of reality that you’ve actually stumbled upon. Crown land does not "belong" to the Queen, least of all "in literal terms".
ReplyDeleteYour opinion is simply so wrong that it would be a waste of time and effort to correct every error.
Suffice to say that in fact, and in law, the Queen has none of the powers you ascribe to her, and you seriously misunderstand the relationship between the Monarchy and the people. It survives because the British people want it to survive, and no matter the extent of division at any given time between different political factions in Britain, when was the last time you saw or even heard about the sort of crazed demonstrations against a British Monarch that occur in the US almost daily against a democratically elected President.
You need to read a bit more widely on the British political system.
Thanks for sharing your perspective, Rykehaven.
ReplyDelete