In Scotland, you can go by any name you like.
But you're not wrong- what an arrogant bairn that George is!
There was some chatter, out here in the colonies, about what last name might be chosen, maybe Windsor?
The rest of us have to have a surname, but, for those born with a silver spoon sticking out of some orifice, any "rules" simply don't apply. They are "above" such things.
It is also reported that they do not even have to use one of their given names when ascending the throne and can choose whatever amuses them.
Echoes of another recent choice of Francis.
Next comes all the fawning, ad nauseum and ad infinitum.
They all make me puke.
In Scotland, you can go by any name you like.
But you're not wrong- what an arrogant bairn that George is!
On my planet, I am totally relaxed that others may be royalty, millionaires, or have just been lucky and won the lottery. I am not relaxed about the bitterness which goes with class or wealth envy. It implies a victimhood which only exists in the mind of the person with such thoughts. Sids - you're absolutely right. How DARE little George be deliberately born just to upset people? It's not fair! Nobody made a fuss when I was born.........etc.....etc......
I too am relaxed about wealth be it earned won or inherited however I find that relaxed stance constantly challenged by governments who dont care that in the 21st Century people are committing suicide to escape poverty and that we still have children born into and living in deprived poverty stricken situations and that their life chances are diminished because of that. I am delighted that the inane baby related babble has stopped takinv over the news and other programmes. I am perfectly happy for there to be a King George, Fred or N-dubz whatever he wants to call himself. But I hope he reigns over countries which have governments that do not target the weak and the poor whilst handing out tax breaks to the ultra rich.
Yes, good post. This sad infant is being used to deflect attention away from other, more important news. Nobody with more than an ounce of grey matter cares about him, his name, his very large amounts of inherited goods and chattels excepted when it is being paid for by the Scottish taxpayer. These people are parasites. They live off the hard work of people in this country who pay taxes.Titles and land are thrown at them and we are expected to keep them. Thank God the SNP are having no truck with the House of Lords and have set their face against hereditary peers. The Earl of Caithness, for example, has lived in Oxfordshire his whole life and his only interest in Caithness is the money he is getting from Scottish Heritage and the tourists from Girnigoe.
Once you jolly types get your heads round the idea of stewardship rather than ownership, and of duty which accompanies privilege - like Her Queen working quite a lot (ask the British public) for the UK over the last SIXTY years (plus a lot of training before that) , then maybe the concept of a showcase family representing the nation - rather more ably than the winners of "Britain's Got Talent" - might find a place in your heart.
In case it doesn't, just keep repeating the following mantra - "President Blair, President Salmond, President Blair, President Salmond."
Now THAT's when the puking starts!
You are scaremongering. A president doesn't need to have the power like in the US model. And any case you can change a president by voting out or impeachment. I say if you do not like the system then don't vote for party that does. And if there is no choice then join a republican party and provide that choice. Simples.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Oooh, you used the word "scaremongering" - one of the few words permitted by the Dear Leader for his minions to use in the Great Non-Debate! How original. How boy crying wolf!
He's a Dick, Ducati!
Personally, I think a republic could be an improvement on a monarchy. There are other examples one could consider, such as Finland.
A country does need a person(s) to perform “ceremonial” duties such as meeting heads of state from other countries, acknowledging citizens who have acted with distinction, and a myriad of other duties. This “job” can be combined with the leader of the government, or handled by another person such as an elected president. It is the “elected” part that I particularly like, and I think such posts should have term limits.
Further, I have no problem with a wide range of wealth in a population -- from living in government-supported housing all the way to earned, inherited or lottery wealth. However, if one can believe statistics, it seems that the gap between the ultra-rich and ultra-poor is widening, and I would vote for a government which had a progressive tax system to control the extremes.
It is the superior - inferior divide of a class system, based purely upon birth, that I would like to see abolished.
Why don't you start by campaigning for Canada to become a republic? You could show us the way.
Well, I'm sure most of Québec is already onside.
And, we have people going to court recently over being required to swear allegiance to "the queen" when taking out Canadian citizenship.
And, there is another attempt - ongoing - to get rid of "our" version of "your" house of lords.
We're working at it!
Bring on the Republic.
Lol! I suspect Québec would choose to secede from Canada long before a republic came about.
A second chamber works well in many countries, but the current UK House of Lords is a mess that resulted from the (less than) half baked reforms by the Blair government. What is the current situation in Canada, and what is the plan for reform?
Bookmarks