Gransnet forums

News & politics

Go Barbados ?

(110 Posts)
Alegrias1 Sun 28-Nov-21 19:18:54

Taking a step into the future.

www.ctvnews.ca/world/a-new-republic-is-born-barbados-celebrates-ditching-queen-as-head-of-state-1.5678942

EllanVannin Sun 12-Dec-21 15:12:39

Oh I remember that Calistemon, there was quite a hoo-ha about the arm across the back grin

Calistemon Sun 12-Dec-21 14:54:46

He was very anti-royal and not really the most popular PM

He did put his arm round the Queen, he must have quite liked
her ?

And his daughter is fond of the royals, though, at least one of them

(Sorry, that was probably uncalled for ?)

EllanVannin Sun 12-Dec-21 14:28:31

I have a great letter somewhere in my possession from Paul Keating when he was PM of Australia, explaining all that entailed in becoming a Republic. This was in the early to mid-90's. Very self-explanatory. He was very anti-royal and not really the most popular PM, but at least he took the trouble to write smile

nadateturbe Sun 12-Dec-21 13:59:58

Alegrias1

Yes, that's right, the leaders "chose" Charles.

Exactly. "Chose"

Jaberwok Sat 11-Dec-21 21:52:54

If that is what the majority of Australians, via a referendum, followed by a Presidential election, choose to adopt then that is absolutely fine, their choice. I don't imagine they'll do it any other way.

EllanVannin Sat 11-Dec-21 21:21:25

I think it'll be Australia in the not too distant future. It is ridiculous when you think about it------the sheer distance of that continent.

Alegrias1 Sat 11-Dec-21 21:15:48

Sorry, posted too early.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/commonwealth-queen-prince-charles-chogm-succession-buckingham-palace-a8313376.html

?

Alegrias1 Sat 11-Dec-21 21:15:12

Yes, that's right, the leaders "chose" Charles.

Jabberwok Sat 11-Dec-21 21:12:35

The leaders of the Commonwealth have already chosen Charles to take over from the Queen when the time comes. Lets hope that other countries, should they wish to become Republics are allowed, unlike Barbados, to have a referendum followed by a Presidential election .

absent Sat 11-Dec-21 19:49:24

I am not absolutely sure but I think that the next Head of the Commonwealth will not automatically be the current Prince of Wales. I think the leaders of all the Commonwealth countries have to approve the choice of the Head. Of course, they may decide to approve the appointment of Prince [King] Charles.

Alegrias1 Sat 11-Dec-21 19:45:36

The article doesn't even mention Harry and Meghan, but still you manage to have a go at them for something that isn't even in the article.

Excuse my bluntness, but it's blooming pathetic.

Lincslass Sat 11-Dec-21 19:27:14

Grany

The existence of a monarchy is an admission that a government can’t, or doesn’t care to, solve people’s problems. Instead, it offers spectacle. It has always been easier to elevate one family to a fairy-tale life of luxury than to do the dreary work of elevating every single family to a decent standard of living. The common people fund the lifestyle of a tiny, exalted and thoroughly unworthy elite, rather than the other way around. Any nation that still has a monarchy in 2021 is proving itself to have a mortifying lack of revolutionary gumption.

www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/opinion/meghan-harry-abolish-monarchy.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR3j8iRzQhsHqimP4LI20p0F7sNiI2wM3bYl5fK2YigDh0LlTnDBLk3UO70

Well they are really an unbiased pair. Funny H never mentioned, what a coward, any of this until he met his scheming wife, who of course never knew anything about him. Hope they never set foot in the UK again.

nadateturbe Sat 11-Dec-21 13:14:19

Sorry that should be so true. iykwim.

nadateturbe Sat 11-Dec-21 13:12:58

Thanks Grany. Good article.

Based not on moral worth but on accidents of heredity
So wrong.

Grany Sat 11-Dec-21 10:41:41

By Hamilton Nolan
Writing for The New York Times

Grany Sat 11-Dec-21 10:36:38

A recent interview you may have heard about revealed that the British monarchy is a toxic den of backbiting and racism. And who would doubt it? There is nothing easier to believe than that an institution created to be the physical embodiment of classism is awash in inhumanity. Where the public response to this humdrum revelation has gone astray is in the widespread conviction that we should make the monarchy better. Not at all. You cannot turn a bottle of poison into a refreshing drink, no matter how much sugar you pour into it.

A just and proper response to what we have learned would be for the entire United Kingdom to come together, join hands in a great circle around the institution of the monarchy and burn it to the ground, while singing “Sweet Caroline,” to maintain a positive spirit. Then the members of the royal family can sweep up the ashes and deposit them neatly in the bin, a ceremonial beginning to a new life of working for a living.

The existence of a monarchy is an admission that a government can’t, or doesn’t care to, solve people’s problems. Instead, it offers spectacle. It has always been easier to elevate one family to a fairy-tale life of luxury than to do the dreary work of elevating every single family to a decent standard of living. The common people fund the lifestyle of a tiny, exalted and thoroughly unworthy elite, rather than the other way around. Any nation that still has a monarchy in 2021 is proving itself to have a mortifying lack of revolutionary gumption.
America is guilty of many crimes against humanity, but this is one thing we got right. Our presidents may be national embarrassments, but at least Americans are not required to scrape and bow before some utterly random rich wastrel whose claim to legitimacy is being the child of the child of the child of someone who was, centuries ago, the nation’s biggest gangster. Yes, we have our own hypnotic capitalist addiction to celebrity, but monarchy is something altogether more twisted — as if the Bush family, the Kardashians and the Falwells were all rolled into one bejeweled quasi-religious fame cult, topped off with a bracing dose of imperialism.

What is a monarchy if not the highest veneration of inequality? Based not on moral worth but on accidents of heredity, a small group of people are lavished with millions of dollars skimmed from the public till and are worshiped as sentimental nationalist gods, in exchange only for performing the duty of “being pleasant in public,” which they do with mixed success.

More than 60 million citizens, many of them living in poverty, are instructed to celebrate rather than to loathe this tableau of excess. They are told to be happy that someone has a dream life, even if it is not them, and to live vicariously through this soap opera cast of royals, rather than demanding equality for everyone else. The crown would greatly appreciate if you tune in to this show rather than spending your time reading Karl Marx.

And that plan appears to be working: More than four in five British adults have a positive view of the queen. The appeal of fancy hats is hard to overcome.

The stars of this insipid show will change with time. New princes and princesses will be born, opulent weddings will be had, different coddled butts will get their turn to sit on the cushioned throne. These machinations, each of them designed to occupy the public’s attention for a while, are just the scrambling of termites atop the enormous nest that is the monarchy itself. It feeds on the vigor of the working people and regurgitates it into a giant home for itself.
Abolishing the monarchy shouldn’t be too tricky. First you take away their homes. Then you take away their wealth. Then you take away their titles. All of those things properly belong to the public, and those squatters have held them for far too long.

The good news for the royal family is that the economy seems to be on the rebound. It shouldn’t be too hard for them to find jobs, even considering their lack of practical experience. They could get honorable jobs at a Tesco market. What a wonderful opportunity for them to earn an honest living, for the first time in their lives. As our social betters often tell the rest of us, hard work is good for self-esteem. I expect that they will soon be happier than ever.

Grany Sat 11-Dec-21 10:35:22

nadateturbe

Can't read without subscribing Grany

I will copy paste article for you ok smile

nadateturbe Sat 11-Dec-21 10:26:29

Can't read without subscribing Grany

Grany Sat 11-Dec-21 10:15:30

The existence of a monarchy is an admission that a government can’t, or doesn’t care to, solve people’s problems. Instead, it offers spectacle. It has always been easier to elevate one family to a fairy-tale life of luxury than to do the dreary work of elevating every single family to a decent standard of living. The common people fund the lifestyle of a tiny, exalted and thoroughly unworthy elite, rather than the other way around. Any nation that still has a monarchy in 2021 is proving itself to have a mortifying lack of revolutionary gumption.

www.nytimes.com/2021/03/09/opinion/meghan-harry-abolish-monarchy.html?smid=fb-share&fbclid=IwAR3j8iRzQhsHqimP4LI20p0F7sNiI2wM3bYl5fK2YigDh0LlTnDBLk3UO70

Grany Tue 07-Dec-21 09:43:07

We must challenge the monarchy before it takes root in an independent Scotland

www.thenational.scot/politics/19763764.must-challenge-monarchy-takes-root-independent-scotland/

Alegrias1 Mon 06-Dec-21 22:55:24

No, bit of a misunderstanding there. I didn't get anybody banned. People get themselves banned by posting unacceptable things. As far as I know, neither of the people I've reported have been banned.

Nice to know you're following my posts though.

Calistemon Mon 06-Dec-21 22:51:54

And the real "auld country"

Ah, that too.

As you have told us today that you reported a poster and got them banned then I refuse to play your little games any more.

Alegrias1 Mon 06-Dec-21 22:50:01

So apparently I have an agenda and a strategy tonight.

I never realised I was so sophisticated. ?

Calistemon Mon 06-Dec-21 22:48:21

When I say "Let 's do something" I usually mean just that.
What it says on the tin.

I think most of us have sussed your strategy by now anyway.

As for all my Australian family and friends - rarely a British surname amongst them.

Alegrias1 Mon 06-Dec-21 22:41:24

Let's pick people with non-British surnames who have no links go the auld country!

Your words Calistemon, not mine. Suggesting that the poll had been skewed to avoid people with a British background. Which is a bit iffy, if you ask me.

And the real "auld country" is the one the indigenous people have been inhabiting for 50 plus millennia.