Charles to marry Camilla

[sun-star]

To clarify for the third time: I don't mean debate here. I'm talking about our national discourse - the discussion which is carried on in the media and among the political classes, as well as on the internet.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i think i understand you now,

trying to read this, write an archaeology essay, and get stoned is not a good combination

[sun-star]

LOL I love your sig btw.

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

I'm half-asleep, you're half-drunk - now this is what I mean by grown-up debate!

well quite!

im gonna have to leave it for now - and though i think i understand where youre coming from a bit clearer now- i'm still not clear where i think you think i'm coming from is any clearer - and yes! who cares! - i agree - im ceratinlty no wishy washy have' ne' ground te' stand on scottish free fer all wally etc -

i still do not see ( admit i havent reveiwed the psosts) but what is the problem with taking a comic (maybe not original or even "GROWN-UP" - GOD HELP US - ) idea and - forgive us - having some fun with it? - if you don't find it funny fair'enough - but is there some NAZI style morality imposed on the MOOt imposing rigid concepts of either humour or ettiquette? ARE WE NOT FREE TO HAVE AN INNOCENT LAUGH WITHOUT CENSURE?

... or is that in some innocent way Hegemonic thought control?

ps saw the BBC "queen's castle" s/fac on Sun pm with the marriage inserts: on a human level its refreshingly heartwarming,
(not the production)

but should we have a Monarchy? All that held in trust? ETC

interested to know your opinions ( Ps i have had a strong coffee! - nothing like some accurate pointless trviia for you - well at least it's in tune with the subject re: the press!))

[Spock]

I think this is devolving into politics and not the intent of the original statement. Perhaps we might re-think this?

[sun-star]

I'm not trying to stop you having a laugh, Butterbeer, just pointing out a problem I have with the way (I'm saying it for the fourth time now) national debate is carried on. I actually think republicans could get what they want, or at least some of it, if they expended their energy on making a case, putting forward alternatives etc. rather than jokes, but obviously that's up to them. However, they don't get to call a republic more 'grown-up' than a monarchy unless they can act (according to their own definition of what it means) grown-up themselves.

And now to oblige our new mod, I will shut up and leave you all in peace. Thanks for your time - maybe I should have been in the venting thread

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by sun-star

Here's a possible example of a mature response to the issue of Charles and Camilla getting married:
"Well, I don't like either of them (though of course I don't know them personally and can't really judge), but surely the more important issue is whether we should have a monarchy at all / whether it's appropriate for the monarch to be Supreme Governer of the Church of England / whether succession should pass directly to the eldest son of the monarch regardless of his suitability for the job".

Well, next time we'll know to pass our comments past you for vetting.

Originally Posted by sun-star

Personally, I prefer that to "Let's have a republic because Prince Charles has big ears and Camilla looks like a horse".

Aren't you aware of the importance of satire in political discourse? What about Hogarth? The monarchy is a ridiculous institution so what better method for pointing this out than ridicule? In fact, it may well be the ONLY way to put the argument forward effectively.

However, like I said, it's not the republicans who bring the discussion to that level, it's the (pro-monarchy) newspapers and gossipmongers.

Originally Posted by sun-star

I care about the way people - any people - say what they think, because it's an insult to our collective intelligence to conduct national debate in this way.

Welcome to Britain.

Seriously though. No-one cares about republicanism. In fact, if you voice it you get abused, either for being boring or seditious. I nearly got my head kicked in by a bunch of squaddies once for not standing for the National Anthem.
"Why aren't you standing?"
"Because I favour an elected head of state rather than elitist system of inherited power and patronage"
"Get up you ****ing commie ****"
"No"
etc

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Spock

I think this is devolving into politics and not the intent of the original statement. Perhaps we might re-think this?

well that's very logical Mr Spock - ok

sun-star:
I'm not trying to stop you having a laugh, Butterbeer, just pointing out a problem I have with the way (I'm saying it for the fourth time now) national debate is carried on. I actually think republicans could get what they want, or at least some of it, if they expended their energy on making a case, putting forward alternatives etc. rather than jokes, but obviously that's up to them. However, they don't get to call a republic more 'grown-up' than a monarchy unless they can act (according to their own definition of what it means) grown-up themselves.

LOL:i was drunk anyway (and you don't get anymore quintissentially British than that!)

[Spock]

"Cry ' Havoc ' and let slip the dogs of war".

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Spock

"Cry ' Havoc ' and let slip the dogs of war".

well, *embarrased* feel i should really post something here!

Firstly ( that sounds ominous in terms of length eh?
good quote: havoc and certainly (on my behalf true: Let slipref: open postings: sorry!)

well thank-you for re-opening the thread!
much appreciated - and if i may say so, on balance - a good decision so my respects for that!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by gaffer

Seriously though. No-one cares about republicanism. In fact, if you voice it you get abused, either for being boring or seditious. I nearly got my head kicked in by a bunch of squaddies once for not standing for the National Anthem.
"Why aren't you standing?"
"Because I favour an elected head of state rather than elitist system of inherited power and patronage"
"Get up you ****ing commie ****"
"No"
etc

they make it seem like having left leaning views is a bad thing!

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Spock

"Cry ' Havoc ' and let slip the dogs of war".

allright, General Chang!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

allright, General Chang!

who's general chang?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Butterbeer

who's general chang?

Klingon Chief of Military Staff/Chief Security Officer to the Chancellor in
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

before attempting to blow the enterprise out of the skies, he let's out that great shakespearian cry
"Cry Havoc!, and let slip the dogs of war!"

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

Klingon Chief of Military Staff/Chief Security Officer to the Chancellor in
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country

before attempting to blow the enterprise out of the skies, he let's out that great shakespearian cry
"Cry Havoc!, and let slip the dogs of war!"

thats a right royal carry on then: just like Henry V!
maybe the klingons are pro-royalists: actaully i think they are aren' they?
could you imaginne the child of such an unholy unioin: camilla and klingon general chang!

imagine the stamps and coins when (it) grew up!
"god save our ... er ... "

if you could have any star trek character as a replacment to charlie boy who would it be and why? (this sounds a bit like blind date now! mind you in context so was charlie and diana really)

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

any ST character?

erm, Kahless, the first Klingon Emperor, who is said to return when the Empire will need him most

[Sister Golden Hair]

We are just a tad bit off topic here, guys.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I heard on the radio yesterday, that the people who did Camilla's hat, are the same people who do Marylin Manson's clothes!

[Butterbeer]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I heard on the radio yesterday, that the people who did Camilla's hat, are the same people who do Marylin Manson's clothes!

well this is the point isn't it really?: is this the monarchy in a nutshell? Jug ears meets Noddy, meats Camilla, meets maylin manson!

and with respect SGH this is on-point: the debate is not so much about republicanism verus the monarchy (its not a simple 2 way struggle: a tug of war (though apt) or an American football game, or the FA cup final or the oxford /cambridge boat race etc) its about the actual people, their personalities and how they are percieved individually:this debate personifies these individiuals THAT ARE TO RULE OVER US at least in theory! To me its a very personal look at the people themselves and how others see them: and just what this shows us about our system of governence and how we relate to it ( for my part i rather like the absurdity of it and enjoy sharing this point of view) but as cultural or media icons or as simple figure-heads or serious leaders in their own right, i welcome the exploration in personal, and if necessary humourous terms, of what these people and icons mean to others and how they relate to them on both personal and political or cultural grounds.
This to me is both socially and culturally more revealing and interesting than a mere locking of antlers of entrenched positions over A or B!

If LCOU would actually prefer a Klingon or Kahless to Charlie boy then this has a resonance in itself: even more so when you consider the impact of its meaning: an Authurian legend of a Klingon King: who will arise to defend Albion in it's dire need? ( obviously we are not talking of bryan Robson here!)

(note: bryan robson is manager of struggling premiership team west bromwich albion FC)


to see Sun star actually point out eloquent and convincing arguments against her position is both refreshing and a testament to the loosley-drawn remit of this thread and it ability to open new avenues of discussion and concepts in debate without becoming tired or overly pompous ( in relaion to the subject matter: i.e the monarchy ot perhaps more pertinently its supporters in genreral) and therefore exactly relates to our subject matter: if we consider charlie as a person (rather than as the Heir) brought up in a straight jacket of a family, society and culture and liking the Goons etc we can feel some sympathy for him: but the question here is culturally do marylyn manson, a horse, a jug eared half-wit, prince charles, camilla and Kesh the once and future Klingon all fit in the same sentence or not? and how far a diversion, given we have no choice in it, is the question would we prefer a (fictional) klingon or whoever else on the throne to who-ever will be on the throne!

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I heard on the radio yesterday, that the people who did Camilla's hat, are the same people who do Marylin Manson's clothes!

LOL!

(but her long dress/cloak thing was VERY pretty!)