Trooping the Colour!

[martin_p]

You might not think your uncle was a great bloke worth celebrating if he'd spent 18 months in the nick for GBH.

And it might have been a long time ago and he’s a totally different person now.

[2 Bee Holed]

......financially beneficial, would that reason enough to persevere with them? Take a step back, forget about history and tradition and think about how bonkers it is that the country is ruled by someone who happens to be born into an elite family.

My figures this morning were just explaining this from the financial perspective. There are many other benefits and advantages to having a constitutional monarchy.

I would argue the word 'ruled' is not correct here. I think the way you have used it here is more in line with the way the PM and the Cabinet rule/govern us.

The monarchy is more of a ceremonial role.

[BurnleyFC]

Rightly or wrongly I think we probably are nearing the end of the monarchy and I wouldn’t be surprised if Charles is the last.

That being said, I think the senior royals actually work a damn sight harder than most people with inherited wealth.

[elwaclaret]

There is a wide school of thought that, as usual, it is a London centric celebration of London’s power and glory. Empire and aristocracy is just the means of keeping the classes in awe of the ruling class, who literally ‘lord’ it over the rest of us. It is one of the biggest slights of hand of all time: The reason Lancaster was vital to the throne virtually forgotten: to make the North West subservient. An Anglo-Saxon nation? Not the North West, we were not even part of England during Alfred the Great’s Reign when the English border was the Mersey. We were subjugated and have been treated as such throughout history, while the crown has filled its coffers from the County Palatine for hundreds of years.

I admire Queen Elizabeth II and her handling of the poison chalice, but the institution of aristocracy stinks with death and repression.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think there’s a time and a place for acknowledging the more difficult parts of our history and during a celebration probably isn’t it. You probably wouldn’t go to your uncles birthday party and start a conversation on the 18 months he spent in the nick for GBH!

In my defence, I'm only replying to people who are clearly being very selective about our history

Its my thing, and I get that its not everyones thing, but I still don't like it

[2 Bee Holed]

There is a wide school of thought that, as usual, it is a London centric celebration of London’s power and glory. Empire and aristocracy is just the means of keeping the classes in awe of the ruling class, who literally ‘lord’ it over the rest of us. It is one of the biggest slights of hand of all time: The reason Lancaster was vital to the throne virtually forgotten: to make the North West subservient. An Anglo-Saxon nation? Not the North West, we were not even part of England during Alfred the Great’s Reign when the English border was the Mersey. We were subjugated and have been treated as such throughout history, while the crown has filled its coffers from the County Palatine for hundreds of years.

I admire Queen Elizabeth II and her handling of the poison chalice, but the institution of aristocracy stinks with death and repression.

A wide school of thought? Really?

I used to berate the Irish for fighting over stuff that happened 300 years ago.
It now appears some English people can get upset by things that happened 600 + years ago.

Could it just be something as simple as London is the capital. Traditionally, Trooping the Colour and religious commemorations of jubilees have always taken place in London?

The Queen is 94, I think you are being unrealistic to expect her to come to Lancashire. Indeed, she has been unable to make the journey from Windsor to St Paul's today.

[martin_p]

A wide school of thought? Really?

I used to berate the Irish for fighting over stuff that happened 300 years ago.
It now appears some English people can get upset by things that happened 600 + years ago.

Could it just be something as simple as London is the capital. Traditionally, Trooping the Colour and religious commemorations of jubilees have always taken place in London?

The Queen is 94, I think you are being unrealistic to expect her to come to Lancashire. Indeed, she has been unable to make the journey from Windsor to St Paul's today.

She 96 actually! And just to back up your point, during other jubilee years she has done tours round the country to celebrate with those outside the capital. Clearly not realistic this year.

[Burnley Ace]

OK stick to Love Island. Pure class.

You haven’t read all this thread before commenting have you??

[Jamesy]

I love people are interested in our history

I just wish they didn't ignore the bits they are not interested in because its not what they want to acknowledge

Of course people are interested in our history. It is what we are about, good or bad. It’s trendy to want to erase parts of history some of us find disturbing. However, without the disturbing parts we wouldn’t be where we are today. A more tolerant and inclusive society.
It’s just a shame that many people cannot recognise this.

[Duffer_]

Of course people are interested in our history. It is what we are about, good or bad. It’s trendy to want to erase parts of history some of us find disturbing. However, without the disturbing parts we wouldn’t be where we are today. A more tolerant and inclusive society.
It’s just a shame that many people cannot recognise this.

It's just a shame that the tolerance you speak of doesn't extend to a reasonable exchange of views on the monarchy.

Yet another thread hijacked by lefties. They must have started salivating when they saw the title of the topic.
If you don’t agree with the monarchy or are ashamed of our British history, go and do something useful then on this bank holiday like topple another statue.

[elwaclaret]

A wide school of thought? Really?

I used to berate the Irish for fighting over stuff that happened 300 years ago.
It now appears some English people can get upset by things that happened 600 + years ago.

Could it just be something as simple as London is the capital. Traditionally, Trooping the Colour and religious commemorations of jubilees have always taken place in London?

The Queen is 94, I think you are being unrealistic to expect her to come to Lancashire. Indeed, she has been unable to make the journey from Windsor to St Paul's today.

The Jacobite rebellion was 600 years ago Peterloo was 600 years ago? The supression of the Darwen textile workers was 600 years ago? The smashing of the industrial north and the peoples Unions was six hundred years ago?

[Jamesy]

.

[Jamesy]

It's just a shame that the tolerance you speak of doesn't extend to a reasonable exchange of views on the monarchy.

Agreed. This is a thread about Trooping the Colour. I have no wish to exchange views with un patriotic anti British people. Or idiots who intimate at taking the Queen out with snipers.
I was a British Soldier in the 70’s and early 80’s and am proudly patriotic. That’s all.

[JohnMcGreal]

Agreed. This is a thread about Trooping the Colour. I have no wish to exchange views with un patriotic anti British people. Or idiots who intimate at taking the Queen out with snipers.
I was a British Soldier in the 70’s and early 80’s and am proudly patriotic. That’s all.

Why would you think someone is unpatriotic or anti-British just because they're not in favour of having a monarchy?

[elwaclaret]

Agreed. This is a thread about Trooping the Colour. I have no wish to exchange views with un patriotic anti British people. Or idiots who intimate at taking the Queen out with snipers.
I was a British Soldier in the 70’s and early 80’s and am proudly patriotic. That’s all.

I am neither anti-British or unpatriotic, I’m not even a republican but white washing history does everyone a disservice, except those perpetuating the same myths for their own reasons.

[mkmel]

That being said, I think the senior royals actually work a damn sight harder than most people with inherited wealth.

The Queen yes without a doubt.
Charles?
Anne?
Andrew?????????
Edward???? What has he ever done?

[Spijed]

Edward???? What has he ever done?

Got a few medals.

[Jamesy]

Why would you think someone is unpatriotic or anti-British just because they're not in favour of having a monarchy?

Just read some of the posts above for your answer.

[martin_p]

Just read some of the posts above for your answer.

The Americans don’t have a monarch and are famously unpatriotic, especially the conservative ones!

[claret2018]

That half dead old man dressed up as Sgt Pepper stood by the queen made me laugh. How does anyone take this guff seriously.

[2 Bee Holed]

The Jacobite rebellion was 600 years ago Peterloo was 600 years ago? The supression of the Darwen textile workers was 600 years ago? The smashing of the industrial north and the peoples Unions was six hundred years ago?

Are you drunk?
You were banging on about

1/. Lancaster vital for the crown (was this the war of the roses?). I have no idea what you are rambling about here, other than the House of Lancaster?

2/. Anglo Saxon times.

3/. The North West wasn't part of England etc etc etc.

All of which seem more than 600+ years ago to me.

I don't recall you mentioning Peterloo, Jacobite rebellions, Darwen textile workers.

[RMutt]

https://www.royal.uk/future-engagements ... 2F2022&id=

I’ve put this on before. You can check on here how hard the royal family actually ‘work’. Anne seems to go to the most banquets and dinners. A lot seem to be based around central London.

[Beagle]

Agreed. This is a thread about Trooping the Colour. I have no wish to exchange views with un patriotic anti British people. Or idiots who intimate at taking the Queen out with snipers.
I was a British Soldier in the 70’s and early 80’s and am proudly patriotic. That’s all.

You seem pretty upset about the fact that some people on this public forum have a different opinion to you. If you don’t want to exchange views with them, then don’t. But they have every right to express them.

[2 Bee Holed]

The Americans don’t have a monarch and are famously unpatriotic, especially the conservative ones!

You are correct. Can we look at some of the people they have had as Head of State and Commander in Chief recently?

Donald Trump
Ronald Reagan
George Bush.

[mkmel]

Weren't they all Republicans?

[Jimmymaccer]

Agree, I love it all.

To be fair everyone I know that hates the monarchy in tends to be an argumentative type, that hates everything

A work colleague proudly states he’s a republican…….

And yep, hates everything ……permanently lives under a cloud bless him.

[Lancasterclaret]

Are you drunk?
You were banging on about

1/. Lancaster vital for the crown (was this the war of the roses?). I have no idea what you are rambling about here, other than the House of Lancaster?

2/. Anglo Saxon times.

3/. The North West wasn't part of England etc etc etc.

All of which seem more than 600+ years ago to me.

I don't recall you mentioning Peterloo, Jacobite rebellions, Darwen textile workers.

I am vital to the crown yes

[fatboy47]

Yet another thread hijacked by lefties. They must have started salivating when they saw the title of the topic.
If you don’t agree with the monarchy or are ashamed of our British history, go and do something useful then on this bank holiday like topple another statue.

Do you know what you sound like?

[elwaclaret]

Are you drunk?
You were banging on about

1/. Lancaster vital for the crown (was this the war of the roses?). I have no idea what you are rambling about here, other than the House of Lancaster?

2/. Anglo Saxon times.

3/. The North West wasn't part of England etc etc etc.

All of which seem more than 600+ years ago to me.

I don't recall you mentioning Peterloo, Jacobite rebellions, Darwen textile workers.

What am I banging on about? What a strange post.
1. Nothing to do with the Wars of the Roses, the county Palatine is the largest land owner in Lancashire RiGHT NOW.
2. Historical accuracy
3. See above

No you suggested it was 600 years ago, the following examples proved your reply nonsense, you’re disproved, so they later dates are irrelevant?
Ok. I think it is you that is drunk, at least I hope so.

[Jamesy]

Do you know what you sound like?

No, please tell me.

[ClaretAndJew]

I hope everyone's enjoying their Queen time.

[Bosscat]

I hope everyone's enjoying their Queen time.

"Its a kind of magic" watching with "One Vision"

[boatshed bill]

No, please tell me.

"lefties" used to apply to left-footed sportspeople.

[ClaretAndJew]

"Its a kind of magic" watching with "One Vision"

Highlander sound track is amazing.

[Bosscat]

Highlander sound track is amazing.

My Stepson was in the Army Medical Corps and did a tour in the Falkands in the early 90's he said on the flight back 150 Squaddies were all crying as Connor carried Heather up the Mountain and buried her leaving his sword as a marker

[boatshed bill]

I just want to say that I hope everyone has had a fantastic day today.
I certainly have.

[2 Bee Holed]

What am I banging on about? What a strange post.
1. Nothing to do with the Wars of the Roses, the county Palatine is the largest land owner in Lancashire RiGHT NOW.
2. Historical accuracy
3. See above

No you suggested it was 600 years ago, the following examples proved your reply nonsense, you’re disproved, so they later dates are irrelevant?
Ok. I think it is you that is drunk, at least I hope so.

For the 4th time. You talked about Anglo Saxon times, about a time when the north west wasn't part of England and about a time when the Mersey formed the boundary of England. To my mind these points in time are in excess of 600 years ago. (I.e. 600+). I have typed 600+ ,4 times. Yet you seem to think this means exactly 600 years ago.

I'll have to go back and see why you were talking about the county Paletine. I am fairly certain it wasn't in connection with who is the largest land owner in the north west.
Perhaps I have misunderstood your original post. I thought you were arguing that it's unfair that yet again the Jubilee celebrations are being held in London. I think you wanted our 96 year old monarch to travel to Lancashire. If she had made that effort, would you have then attended the celebrations? I didn't realise your post was about who is the biggest landowner in the north west. I apologise.

Whatever, you reply now, I will be ignoring it. Once I've checked this County Paletine section. I will note your comments and move on. You have worn me down into submission. Well done!!

[2 Bee Holed]

The reason Lancaster was vital to the throne virtually forgotten: to make the North West subservient. An Anglo-Saxon nation?

Here we go. What exactly are you talking about here?
What's this got to do with the Country Paletine? Why was Lancaster vital to the throne? Is the point in time you are referring to more than 600 years ago?

[elwaclaret]

Here we go. What exactly are you talking about here?
What's this got to do with the Country Paletine? Why was Lancaster vital to the throne? Is the point in time you are referring to more than 600 years ago?

Because that is when the aristocracy took Lancashire’s land and is why the Monarch still owns great swaths of land her estates own now. But quite frankly if you were willing to discuss this I’d be happy too, but I take exception to your smart arse comment before every reference so, although you said you’d leave it and then did not; I will here.

[Spiral]

Here we go. What exactly are you talking about here?
What's this got to do with the Country Paletine? Why was Lancaster vital to the throne? Is the point in time you are referring to more than 600 years ago?

I've noticed elwa has replied, but I was going to jump in the conversation, 2 Bee Holed, so here's what I was thinking about saying in response to your posts above.

Not to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think the point elwa might be making (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, apologies if so) is that it can seem a bit odd for people from the NW to become so emotionally invested in upholding a totem whose function, it is argued on this thread, serves to remind the country of its own so-called national history, when the actual unexpurgated history of the country is one of an aristocratic class — the monarchy, nobles, perpetually drunk landed gentry, and in more modern times the newly re-branded aristocracy to be found in every corner of the Square Mile, the City of London — this incestuous class of psychopaths has only ever used the actual people who have lived in the NW and other places outside of the quasi-pomerium of London/the South/SE England, as pawns: as things to be exploited for political or material gain, out of vanity, ambition, survival, or religious zeal. And it is worth remembering that it has been this way since forever. Every concession, every right, all the dignities we have, were fought for by normal people, and not bequeathed to us by an aristocracy.

It seems to me as though the value in drawing attention to southern domination of the north throughout history is in prompting people to ponder questions like, "does this institution serve us? on what authority does it claim sovereignty? is it as benignant as it presents itself?" These are important questions any human being with self-respect ought to ask, in any country, under any political system, at any time, the past, the present or the future, and they ought to be asked incessantly. As a sentient creature with an innate drive to freedom and power, how do you reconcile a person having power over you?

People watch military parades and have a bit of a gathering and a sing-song and they feel like they're friends with everyone else doing it, and some folks go so far as to self-insert themselves into the Second World War films they watched when they were growing up, heroically imagine themselves fighting the baddies; and the images and symbols around us in everyday life, the ubiquitous and inescapable everyday nudges which make people think about nationality: the images printed on money, flags, statues, monuments, the machinations of parliament which we see in the news on a daily basis; the rousing anthems which evoke patriotic emotions (a phenomena which owes less to the truth of the narratives found in those anthems and more to the human capacity to be moved into apprehending harmonic resonance as sublime) — from childhood all of these things plant into one's mind a gallery of images and ideas which are carefully curated and framed and presented as being 'patriotic' by a ruling class for whom this picture of life is enormously convenient; and for reasons that seem inexplicable to me beyond the possibility that millions are docile in the literal sense of the word, people happily enter into covenant with and wed their own identity to the very institution, the very class of people who for centuries have used small-folk, proles, plebs like us as little more than a means to an end.

[Rileybobs]

As a sentient creature with an innate drive to freedom and power, how do you reconcile a person having power over you?

A very good post which I don’t want to reduce to one sentence, but this is the line that resonates.

[dsr]

A very good post which I don’t want to reduce to one sentence, but this is the line that resonates.

If you don't want people to have power over you, then you have anarchy. No government, no police. Not for me.

[dsr]

Not to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think the point elwa might be making (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, apologies if so) is that it can seem a bit odd for people from the NW to become so emotionally invested in upholding a totem whose function, it is argued on this thread, serves to remind the country of its own so-called national history ...

It will seem odd to you because you have this rather jaundiced view of everyone who has ever had political power in this country; but other people don't see it that way. Other people think there have been good and bad in their ancestors, and also that it doesn't really matter - the actions of the Queen's remote ancestors makes no difference to how they (we) feel today.

[Spiral]

If you don't want people to have power over you, then you have anarchy. No government, no police. Not for me.

This is a complete misrepresentation of the argument. The eternal struggle to reconcile a certain thing in one's mind is not the same as rejecting that thing outright.

It will seem odd to you because you have this rather jaundiced view of everyone who has ever had political power in this country; but other people don't see it that way. Other people think there have been good and bad in their ancestors, and also that it doesn't really matter - the actions of the Queen's remote ancestors makes no difference to how they (we) feel today.

Yes, there are indeed other people who have in their own ways reconciled the power the institution of the monarchy has over them by choosing not to see it that way.

[timshorts]

You are correct. Can we look at some of the people they have had as Head of State and Commander in Chief recently?

Donald Trump
Ronald Reagan
George Bush.

And there we have it. I have zero confidence that we would manage to elect anybody much better than those when faced with a probable choice of 2 unpalatable, overly personally ambitious politicians or celebrities.

Whilst many of us have issues with the current system, the replacement of "rulers" with a family of performing sealions, who aren't supposed to say anything much has advantages over other options - particularly that used in the US which is even less democratic than the UK.

[Lancasterclaret]

I've noticed elwa has replied, but I was going to jump in the conversation, 2 Bee Holed, so here's what I was thinking about saying in response to your posts above.

Not to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think the point elwa might be making (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, apologies if so) is that it can seem a bit odd for people from the NW to become so emotionally invested in upholding a totem whose function, it is argued on this thread, serves to remind the country of its own so-called national history, when the actual unexpurgated history of the country is one of an aristocratic class — the monarchy, nobles, perpetually drunk landed gentry, and in more modern times the newly re-branded aristocracy to be found in every corner of the Square Mile, the City of London — this incestuous class of psychopaths has only ever used the actual people who have lived in the NW and other places outside of the quasi-pomerium of London/the South/SE England, as pawns: as things to be exploited for political or material gain, out of vanity, ambition, survival, or religious zeal. And it is worth remembering that it has been this way since forever. Every concession, every right, all the dignities we have, were fought for by normal people, and not bequeathed to us by an aristocracy.

It seems to me as though the value in drawing attention to southern domination of the north throughout history is in prompting people to ponder questions like, "does this institution serve us? on what authority does it claim sovereignty? is it as benignant as it presents itself?" These are important questions any human being with self-respect ought to ask, in any country, under any political system, at any time, the past, the present or the future, and they ought to be asked incessantly. As a sentient creature with an innate drive to freedom and power, how do you reconcile a person having power over you?

People watch military parades and have a bit of a gathering and a sing-song and they feel like they're friends with everyone else doing it, and some folks go so far as to self-insert themselves into the Second World War films they watched when they were growing up, heroically imagine themselves fighting the baddies; and the images and symbols around us in everyday life, the ubiquitous and inescapable everyday nudges which make people think about nationality: the images printed on money, flags, statues, monuments, the machinations of parliament which we see in the news on a daily basis; the rousing anthems which evoke patriotic emotions (a phenomena which owes less to the truth of the narratives found in those anthems and more to the human capacity to be moved into apprehending harmonic resonance as sublime) — from childhood all of these things plant into one's mind a gallery of images and ideas which are carefully curated and framed and presented as being 'patriotic' by a ruling class for whom this picture of life is enormously convenient; and for reasons that seem inexplicable to me beyond the possibility that millions are docile in the literal sense of the word, people happily enter into covenant with and wed their own identity to the very institution, the very class of people who for centuries have used small-folk, proles, plebs like us as little more than a means to an end.

I'm going to use the phrase "quasi-pomerium" much more often from now on

But in all seriousness, you've nailed it (and this is from someone who is more dociled to the current status quo than most)

"

[Lancasterclaret]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... 1654326742

Sort of akin to what Spiral said, but 92% of the UK countryside is privately owned

Work on accessing that (for all) is something that needs a lot of work as well

[JohnMcGreal]

It's funny because I can remember people being incandescent about 6 years ago that they were unable to directly elect a commissioner for the EU. So angry were they that we had no choice but to completely hobble the country in order to get away from such an undemocratic institution.

Yet those same people, by and large, don't give a toss that their democracy at home ends at the House of Commons, and they have no desire to try and change the system so they could one day elect Lords or even the Head of State.

Bizarre.

[Colburn_Claret]

This is a complete misrepresentation of the argument. The eternal struggle to reconcile a certain thing in one's mind is not the same as rejecting that thing outright.



Yes, there are indeed other people who have in their own ways reconciled the power the institution of the monarchy has over them by choosing not to see it that way.

There is no such thing as any power that the institution of the Monarchy has over any of us. There hasn't been since Oliver Cromwell.

We all have the power within us to change our lives. The fact that so many people choose either not to vote at all, or vote in a way that disagrees with you, doesn't make the system broken, or Southern centric, or an upper class privilege. It just means you haven't won the argument.
By all means fight harder for your vision, but don't blame it on the Monarchy, or some dark ages feudal system, because it isn't relevant, and losing the Royal Family wouldn't solve any of your issues.

[mkmel]

I've noticed elwa has replied, but I was going to jump in the conversation, 2 Bee Holed, so here's what I was thinking about saying in response to your posts above.

Not to speak on anyone's behalf, but I think the point elwa might be making (and I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong, apologies if so) is that it can seem a bit odd for people from the NW to become so emotionally invested in upholding a totem whose function, it is argued on this thread, serves to remind the country of its own so-called national history, when the actual unexpurgated history of the country is one of an aristocratic class — the monarchy, nobles, perpetually drunk landed gentry, and in more modern times the newly re-branded aristocracy to be found in every corner of the Square Mile, the City of London — this incestuous class of psychopaths has only ever used the actual people who have lived in the NW and other places outside of the quasi-pomerium of London/the South/SE England, as pawns: as things to be exploited for political or material gain, out of vanity, ambition, survival, or religious zeal. And it is worth remembering that it has been this way since forever. Every concession, every right, all the dignities we have, were fought for by normal people, and not bequeathed to us by an aristocracy.

It seems to me as though the value in drawing attention to southern domination of the north throughout history is in prompting people to ponder questions like, "does this institution serve us? on what authority does it claim sovereignty? is it as benignant as it presents itself?" These are important questions any human being with self-respect ought to ask, in any country, under any political system, at any time, the past, the present or the future, and they ought to be asked incessantly. As a sentient creature with an innate drive to freedom and power, how do you reconcile a person having power over you?

People watch military parades and have a bit of a gathering and a sing-song and they feel like they're friends with everyone else doing it, and some folks go so far as to self-insert themselves into the Second World War films they watched when they were growing up, heroically imagine themselves fighting the baddies; and the images and symbols around us in everyday life, the ubiquitous and inescapable everyday nudges which make people think about nationality: the images printed on money, flags, statues, monuments, the machinations of parliament which we see in the news on a daily basis; the rousing anthems which evoke patriotic emotions (a phenomena which owes less to the truth of the narratives found in those anthems and more to the human capacity to be moved into apprehending harmonic resonance as sublime) — from childhood all of these things plant into one's mind a gallery of images and ideas which are carefully curated and framed and presented as being 'patriotic' by a ruling class for whom this picture of life is enormously convenient; and for reasons that seem inexplicable to me beyond the possibility that millions are docile in the literal sense of the word, people happily enter into covenant with and wed their own identity to the very institution, the very class of people who for centuries have used small-folk, proles, plebs like us as little more than a means to an end.

What a great post!