George Blackadder-Bstard

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:39:53 GMT

Definitely where theiving socialist politicians are concerned.

Wynne

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Lucy Fleming — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 12:40:32 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Alan: This present lot, I wouldn't piss on 'em if they was on fire.

Caller: I'd piss on 'em even if they wasn't on fire.

[/quote]

I just spat hot tea on myself reading that. I imagine it is not an uncommonly held sentiment.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:36:41 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

But don't forget that William III ruled jointly with his wife Mary II, who was the oldest sister of James II, and Anne was Mary's younger sister, not her daughter.

[/quote]

Well spotted with regards to Anne, mea maxima culpa. :) I'd still suggest that in the 'normal' inherited way of things, had there been no revolution, William & Mary would not have acceded to the throne at all and so I like to think my point still stands.

[/quote]

Yes it does! It was the birth of James II son (also called James) that precipitated the Glorious Revolution as he was to be raised as a Catholic, and he became first in line to the throne ahead of his older sisters.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Mark Hedberg — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 09:14:37 GMT

[quote user="Thomas Johnson"]

But don't forget that William III ruled jointly with his wife Mary II, who was the oldest sister of James II, and Anne was Mary's younger sister, not her daughter.

[/quote]

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Thomas Johnson — Mon, 02 Nov 2015 08:57:42 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]

Why is the UK ruled by the Windsor family? Because in 1688 the English nobility was horrified that James II had a son, and so invited William of Orange to invade England with an army, so as to avoid having a Catholic succession in England. So I'd say William III aspired to be king! Then once his daughter Anne died heirless, the 1701 Act of Settlement forbade Catholic succession, and so the closest Protestant relative got to be king - the Hanoverian Elector George. In fact George was announcing his intent to succeed Anne as early as 1710 - a full 4 years before he became king. He aspired to it! He only became King due to political maneuvering, not accident of birth.

[/quote]

But don't forget that William III ruled jointly with his wife Mary II, who was the oldest sister of James II, and Anne was Mary's younger sister, not her daughter.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Francisco Gomez — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 23:01:03 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

The great thing about Royalty is they haven't sought power.

[/quote]

Is it? Like a guarateed reason for what they're less likely to be corrupted, seeking unwanted change or even perpetualism if ppl turned against them? Many bussiness and institutions are ruined by the offspring, who simply didn't seek power, instead they were born to it. I'd say that not having to work to get a position of responsibility might be as problematic for the ppl you rule... or more!

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Mark Hedberg — Sun, 01 Nov 2015 22:48:08 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Mark You're missing the point. We have a system in which the elected politicians make the decisions, but the role of Head of State is one which no-one can aspire to. You're either born to it, or not.

[/quote]

Horse Hockey, Wynne! ;)

The current Swedish royal family (The House of Bernadotte) dates back to Jean Bernadotte, Marshall of France (one of Napoleon's generals) who himself was descended from a shepherd. He was elected king by the Swedish Rikstag (parliament) in 1810. He wasn't born to it.

The current Dutch royal family dates back to King William I, who proclaimed himself king in 1813. He totally aspired to it. :)

Why is the UK ruled by the Windsor family? Because in 1688 the English nobility was horrified that James II had a son, and so invited William of Orange to invade England with an army, so as to avoid having a Catholic succession in England. So I'd say William III aspired to be king! Then once his daughter wife's sister Anne died heirless, the 1701 Act of Settlement forbade Catholic succession, and so the closest Protestant relative got to be king - the Hanoverian Elector George. In fact George was announcing his intent to succeed Anne as early as 1710 - a full 4 years before he became king. He aspired to it! He only became King due to political maneuvering, not accident of birth.

(Oh, and Henry Tudor, later Henry VII? He totally aspired to be king, as did William the Conqueror, Stephen, Henry II, Henry IV, and Richard III.)

So while I'm quite happy to respect the British Monarchy, it's not something you're automatically guaranteed to. Just ask any king or queen quo was ever assassinated or deposed; historically, royalty has been taken on or revoked quite frequently!

Cheers,
Mark

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Hannah Wynne Richards — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 09:56:36 GMT

Mark You're missing the point. We have a system in which the elected politicians make the decisions, but the role of Head of State is one which no-one can aspire to. You're either born to it, or not.

Power corrupts,and absolutepower corrupts absolutely. The beauty of a constitutionalmonarchy is that no-one can have absolute power. No-one has had absolute power in this country since 1215 (Magna Carta)

Someone (I think Martin) used to end his posts with the statement that no-one whowanted authority was fit to handle it - or words to that effect. The great thing about Royalty is they haven't sought power.

Wynne

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:53:12 GMT

[quote user="Lucy Fleming"]Can we have a p value on that? [/quote]

There used to be a late night phone-in programme on Red Rose Radio. With Alan somebody, can't remember his name.

One night the talk turned to poiliticians (this was the Eighties, remember).

Alan: This present lot, I wouldn't piss on 'em if they was on fire.

Caller: I'd piss on 'em even if they wasn't on fire.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Sat, 31 Oct 2015 01:46:47 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Disbursement of foreign aid in the same period will be about £3.5 billion.[/quote]

Is that all going to Wales?

[/quote]

Oh, come along JG, you can do a better sneer than that. Try harder, man.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:14:10 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]

Mark You can't seriously think that I would consider the "fiscal reform" of the early 20th C to be a good thing!

there are succesful republics - the USA and Switzerland for starters, but it seems to me that the immediate consequence for any country that abolishes it's monarchy is usually that a megalomaniac dictator seizes the opportunity offered by having a vacuun at the top.

Wynne

[/quote]

Are you really comfortable trusting your national strategy to luck? What if Charles or Wills turns out to be a terrible king? It seems to me it's not the Royalty that's given Britain stability and success, it's the robust legal safeguard that have guaranteed your success. It could just as easily have happened with a President, a President-for-Life, or any elected or unelected head of state!

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Mark Hedberg — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 22:08:31 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

Information received:

Reducing tax credits will save about £3.5 billion.

Disbursement of foreign aid in the same period will be about £3.5 billion.

Discuss.

[/quote]

ooh, a man after me own heart. ;) all depends on where it's going, doesn't it?

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Lucy Fleming — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 16:29:43 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Thomas Blair appointed 43% Labour peers. Cameron appointed 40% Conservative peers[/quote]

Can we have a p value on that?

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

J G Wray — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:28:30 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Disbursement of foreign aid in the same period will be about £3.5 billion.[/quote]

Is that all going to Wales?

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 15:08:52 GMT

Information received:

Reducing tax credits will save about £3.5 billion.

Disbursement of foreign aid in the same period will be about £3.5 billion.

Discuss.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 30 Oct 2015 13:24:12 GMT

Ruths I have today read of something infinitely (at least a zillion times worse) than the salary of the CEO of George Osborne's family company.

An unemployed man with 11 - yes I really did write eleven - I didn't accidentally double click on one - children is recieving £27k per annum of money that's been stolen from taxpayers.

This is obscene for 2 reasons.

Firstly, he's polluting the planet. If everybody was so disgustingly irresponsible, there would be 40 billion of us. Life would be unbearable, for us, as well as for all the other species who are already suffering because of the human excess.

Secongly, taxpayers can't afford to feed/house/clothe them - and it's obscene that we should be expected to.

Wynne

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Hannah Wynne Richards — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 15:39:15 GMT

Mark You can't seriously think that I would consider the "fiscal reform" of the early 20th C to be a good thing!

It ruined lives, and livelihoods. It contributed to the Great Depression. It paved the way for today's unaffordable, and unendurable crippling level of taxation, and also to the disgraceful culture of welfare dependancy

A democratically elected government was elected on a manifesto of balancing the books, and when that had been achieved, of reducing both borrowing and tax. An undemocratic and unelected left-wing elite in the House of Lords is thwarting George Osborne's efforts. According to Thomas Johnson's figures, there are 220 Labour, and 96 Lib-Dem peers out of 596, so the Lords have an in-built left-wing bias.

As far as the monarchy is concerned, we have been lucky in that both the Queen,and George VI have been hard-working and diligent. Some of the others were far less virtuous. Neither George IV nor Edward VII could be described as decent people, whilst Willian IV was so stupid, he was the origin of the phrase "Silly Billy". That isn't the point. The point is that by just being, they fulfill the function of royalty - to prevent a politician from becoming over-powerful. This dual leadership means that Parliament prevents a monarch becoming dictatorial, and the presence of the monarch prevents a Prime Minister from doing so. Without a monarch,there would be no organisation to curb a Prime Minister who chose to become a President for Life. America has a written constitution which, among other thoings curbs the power of the President. We don't. However,since our armed forces swear allegiance to the monarch, then the organisation would be in place to quash any attempt by a Prime Minister to become dictatorial.

Yes,there are succesful republics - the USA and Switzerland for starters, but it seems to me that the immediate consequence for any country that abolishes it's monarchy is usually that a megalomaniac dictator seizes the opportunity offered by having a vacuun at the top.

Wynne

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:56:06 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]Now about the family motto, yours, roughly translated is a bit martyrish doncha fink?[/quote]

Thing is, boy, tain't mine.

[quote user="J G Wray"]

I would like a bit of dog latin for mine Vir prudens non contraventum mingit

and my wife....Veni, vidi, visa

[/quote]

[quote user="J G Wray"]what a jolly jape, as your ancestors might have said![/quote]

Seeing as they were Hertfordshire agricultural labourers, I rather doubt it.

Unless this is a complicated sort of "Tess of the D'Urbervilles" thing? Fortunarely I'm not likely now to be seduced by a loathsome cad, nor fall in love with a self-righteous prig.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

J G Wray — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 14:46:38 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Seriously, have you really fallen for that "House of Names" rip-off codswallop?[/quote]

Naaah it was when I saw you making a reference to genetics I thought it amusing to see what your genetics might be and tooth puller came up - what a jolly jape, as your ancestors might have said!

Now about the family motto, yours, roughly translated is a bit martyrish doncha fink?

I would like a bit of dog latin for mine Vir prudens non contraventum mingit

and my wife....Veni, vidi, visa.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:26:59 GMT

[quote user="J G Wray"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Nations are different from each other. One of the many factors that makes one group of people different from another is genetics. Obviously.[/quote]

https://www.houseofnames.com/barbour-family-crest

[/quote]

Seriously, have you really fallen for that "House of Names" rip-off codswallop?

Do you perhaps have on proud display a de-luxe leatherbound copy of the book "The World's Most Notable People" in which your name appears?

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:21:43 GMT

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]That's true, but have you ever seen a monarchy anywhere without a nobility? You don't ever seem to have one without the other. The monarchy may not be the head of the nobility, it's true (in fact it's true far more often in history than you'd think; the Capets, Valois, and Bourbons weren't either) but I personally yet to see a monarchy without one. [/quote]

No, indeed, and I think it comes down to both being part of a certain culture. True in Europe and parts of Asia. Not sure about the Arab world, you would know about that. And not really so at all in India.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 13:15:36 GMT

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]Do you believe that 'genetics' (human genetics) is one of the factors that would influence whether a political system will work or not?[/quote]

To the extent that genetics can make one nation different in culture from another, it's one of the many factors.

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Mark Hedberg — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:41:57 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Mark Hedberg"]I'd love to see a Cochrane review of how well the nobles did their jobs! [/quote]

But, you know, we've somehow got into two different discussions here. One is about monarchy, and one is about the completely different matter of the nobility (aristocracy if you like, though that's a word that's never really caught on in this country).

A lot of people assume that the King or Queen is somehow the head of the British nobility. That is not so, and has not been for a long time.

[/quote]

That's true, but have you ever seen a monarchy anywhere without a nobility? You don't ever seem to have one without the other. The monarchy may not be the head of the nobility, it's true (in fact it's true far more often in history than you'd think; the Capets, Valois, and Bourbons weren't either) but I personally yet to see a monarchy without one.

I'm not trying to flog a dead horse, I'm genuinely enjoying exploring this question with you. :)

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

J G Wray — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:33:57 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]Nations are different from each other. One of the many factors that makes one group of people different from another is genetics. Obviously.[/quote]

https://www.houseofnames.com/barbour-family-crest

RE: George Blackadder-Bstard

Francisco Gomez — Thu, 29 Oct 2015 12:30:21 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

[quote user="Francisco Gomez"]

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"] genetics

[/quote]

That's interesting Please expand

[/quote]

Nations are different from each other. One of the many factors that makes one group of people different from another is genetics. Obviously.

[/quote]

Do you believe that 'genetics' (human genetics) is one of the factors that would influence whether a political system will work or not?