|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should the Queen retire?
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.
The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choise for Charles. William, Kate and George have the perfect family image to keep the monarchy popular. Charles probably doesn't, with the memory of Diana still large in so many people's eyes. And I'm not sure if being married to a divorcee is compatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While I have great respect for both Charles and his wife, they can't cut it like William and Kate do.
Seems to me that the civil marriage between Charles, divorced widower, and Camilla is close to a perfect representation of UK reality. Too bad Charles is not gay, and Diana wasn't his closet. If the future Defender of the Faith was in a civil union with some guy now, and planning to upgrade that to a gay marriage soon, then he would have absolutely nailed the Zeitgeist. What's with the idea of having a royal Ken & Barbie moment? This isn't the 60s, and it seems decidedly weird to me to have the Royals as a projection screen of ideals that have been ditched with considerable enthusiasm by society. Do they have to be a living museum of the British past in their personal lives? I say it's retro enough if they live in palaces, do the royal pageantry for the natives and tourists, and the national representation spiel on the international stage.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
[Bastard Plantagenet tangent contd] Richard III of course famously declared his brother's marriage to Elizabeth Wydville/ Woodville invalid as Edward had allegedly been betrothed to another woman (Nell someone or other?) when he married her, hence the princes in the Tower were declared bastards so Richard could then be King. It was his other brother George who declared that their mother Cicely Neville had a roll in the hay with someone other than their father to conceive Edward, whilst he was in cahoots with Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick. As I'm descended from pretty much all of them, I don't bloody well care! [/Bastard Plantagenet tangent]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
An die Freude
Shipmate
# 14794
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It will then be up to him if he chooses to serve as king or abdicate in favour of his son. Personally, as a royalist, I think abdication would be the right choise for Charles. William, Kate and George have the perfect family image to keep the monarchy popular. Charles probably doesn't, with the memory of Diana still large in so many people's eyes. And I'm not sure if being married to a divorcee is compatible with his role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. While I have great respect for both Charles and his wife, they can't cut it like William and Kate do.
Seems to me that the civil marriage between Charles, divorced widower, and Camilla is close to a perfect representation of UK reality. Too bad Charles is not gay, and Diana wasn't his closet. If the future Defender of the Faith was in a civil union with some guy now, and planning to upgrade that to a gay marriage soon, then he would have absolutely nailed the Zeitgeist. What's with the idea of having a royal Ken & Barbie moment? This isn't the 60s, and it seems decidedly weird to me to have the Royals as a projection screen of ideals that have been ditched with considerable enthusiasm by society. Do they have to be a living museum of the British past in their personal lives? I say it's retro enough if they live in palaces, do the royal pageantry for the natives and tourists, and the national representation spiel on the international stage.
Meanwhile in Germany, ministers are effectively required to hold doctorates and resign when it is revealed they don't. To each his own obsession.
[ 23. April 2014, 12:57: Message edited by: JFH ]
--------------------
"I too am not a bit tamed, I too am untranslatable."
Walt Whitman
Formerly JFH
Posts: 851 | From: Proud Socialist Monarchy of Sweden | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.
The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.
If you could get someone declared a bastard then you effectively ruled them out of the succession - as Matt points out that worked very well for Richard III. If you could convince people that the Queen had committed adultery you could attaint her for High Treason, hence the suggestion of an affair between Margaret and Somerset. In Henry VIII's reign this did for Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.
Actually, it would have been ironic if Edward of Westminster had been illegitimate, given that Fortescue dedicated 'The Laws and Governance of England' to him. The Laws and Governance is, among other things, a tract demonstrating the superiority of English law to Roman law. Among the superiorities adduced by Fortescue is that under no circumstances in English law can a bastard be legitimised!
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
If you could get someone declared a bastard then you effectively ruled them out of the succession
Shame that doesn't work for UKIP candidates...
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Ho ho ho!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JFH:
Meanwhile in Germany, ministers are effectively required to hold doctorates and resign when it is revealed they don't. To each his own obsession.
I'm aware of four doctorates out of 17 members among the third Merkel cabinet. Given the nature of the job, I think that's an OK ratio. And several German ministers had to leave over having plagiarised to attain their PhD title, and in consequence losing it when that was discovered. The logic there is the usual one of political life: everybody expects politicians to cheat, but being clever enough to not get caught is part of the job description. That there were several cases in a row also has the obvious reasons: once one minister was discovered as having cheated to obtain his doctorate, and lost his position over it, people started paying close attention to the doctorates of other politicians in the expectation that several more could be tripped up that way. The same deal as with the UK expenses scandal then, just on a smaller scale and about cheating for status rather than money.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.
The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.
But it's on the goggle box so it must be right.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ProgenitorDope
Apprentice
# 16648
|
Posted
For what it's worth, she has my respect for continuing on as long as she has and that will grow the more she goes on. Certainly I think there comes a point where one must face their age and step down, but until then, the workaholic in me sees something to aspire to.
Posts: 50 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
There are two different themes here a) Monarchy v Republicanism and b) Ageism. Facing (b) myself at the moment (de facto I am I danger of being pushed aside at work in favour of someone younger - hoping to come through), I worry that even on this board folk are prepared to suggest someone be forced to retire solely on the basis of age. It should be their choice. quote:
In a survey for the University of Kent, England, 29% of respondents stated that they had suffered from age discrimination. This is a higher proportion than for gender or racial discrimination. Dominic Abrams, social psychology professor at the university, concluded that Ageism is the most pervasive form of prejudice experienced in the UK population.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tulfes
Shipmate
# 18000
|
Posted
You're misrepresenting my OP. My argument is that the Queen feels compelled to continue, possibly to the detriment of her health and well being. I have not suggested that she be forced to retire.
But on agism generally, we're now in an era wherein selfish baby boomers are clinging onto their high paid positions to fund their over indulgent lifestyles, or maybe the over indulgences of the past, long past the age when they might have been expected to make way for new growth. We prune plants for the benefit of the garden.
Posts: 175 | Registered: Feb 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pine Marten
Shipmate
# 11068
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
- Tangent -
The nonsense about Edward IV being illegitimate is just that - nonsense. His mother, Cecily Neville, was very partisan towards two of her children (George and Margaret) to the exclusion of the others. One of the pieces of 'evidence' cited for Edward's bastardy is his great height and colouring, but in fact he and his brother George were so alike they were often mistaken for each other as children; moreover their sister was nearly 6 foot tall - an impressive height for a women today, gobsmacking in the 15th century. Edward, George and Margaret all had the same blonde-blue eyed colouring.
The Plantagenets had a habit of crying 'bastard' about one of their own, usually about one of the better members of the family; John of Gaunt was always being taunted with his supposed bastardy too. In almost certain cases of illegitimacy they were notoriously silent - as in the case of Edward of Westminster, supposed heir to Henry VI but likely the child of the Queen and Somerset.
But it's on the goggle box so it must be right.
Sorry to continue this tangent but it appears from contemporary evidence when they were children that (although Edward as an adult was indeed about 6'4") George was *not* as tall as Richard for his age. And all the contemporary depictions of Edward show him with dark hair. The rumours about Edward's bastardy had been going the rounds for years, especially circulated by the French. The story of Edward's bigamous marriage to Elizabeth Woodville was revealed by Bishop Robert Stillington, who claimed to have witnessed Edward's contract of marriage to Eleanor Talbot, not by Richard, who was planning the coronation of Edward V.
Right, back to the scheduled conversation.
--------------------
Keep love in your heart. A life without it is like a sunless garden when the flowers are dead. - Oscar Wilde
Posts: 1731 | From: Isle of Albion | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
At Common Law, descent has historically been from the person last seised. The person last seised before HMQ was George VI.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
My argument is that the Queen feels compelled to continue, possibly to the detriment of her health and well being. I have not suggested that she be forced to retire.
Compelled by whom? ISTM, she's compelled by her own sense of duty. No one, as far as I know, is forcing her to continue against her will - that would be as wrong as forcing her to retire.
And, at present she is fit and healthy, more than capable of fulfilling the roles she has. Which includes delegating to other members of the family. I'm sure her advisors and doctor would make sure that she doesn't over do things and make herself unwell, although if she set her mind on doing something I doubt they'd talk her out of it.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tulfes:
You're misrepresenting my OP. My argument is that the Queen feels compelled to continue, possibly to the detriment of her health and well being. I have not suggested that she be forced to retire.
But on agism generally, we're now in an era wherein selfish baby boomers are clinging onto their high paid positions to fund their over indulgent lifestyles, or maybe the over indulgences of the past, long past the age when they might have been expected to make way for new growth. We prune plants for the benefit of the garden.
Some of us cling to our positions to provide a roof and fund our offspring and their partners who, after graduation, struggle to find employment or earn a minimum wage, live at home and have no hope of moving out and being self sustaining in the foreseeable future. I most certainly could not afford to do that on my pension. Once free of responsibilities perhaps then I will be able sell the house, retire and live off the pension. I resent being called selfish when for the moment I see my dreams of retirement disappearing in the face of family economic necessity.
That quite apart from the fact that I am fitter than my father at the same age, do my job well, have both capacity and experience to offer and am able to embrace and drive change in a a way that some of the "new growth" frankly do not.
As for over indulgent lifestyle: how do you judge? I work hard, and live comfortably but try to give back to family, church and community.
To be called selfish because I want to be judged on my ability to hold down a job on the basis of competence and achievement so that I can continue to support my dependants feels like ageism to me. Silly of me feel hurt because of something said by someone I don't even know - but it feels a struggle to try and hold down that well paid job, look after the family long after I expected them to be independent and do it after I have had to give half the assets and the pension to the ex.
Far from indulgence, I really would just like to get off the roundabout and do something for me. Perhaps one day.
Meanwhile why is it wrong to expect a level playing field? Tomorrow I find out whether I have succeeded in securing another 2-3 years which should give the family space or whether I have been pruned.
Already so many of my peers have been pruned. Some physically ill, some mentally tired and many ready for retirement. But some physically fit, mentally agile and wanting to work, wanting to continue to contribute rather than becoming dependant but not understanding why they can no longer get the jobs or why their contribution is not valued in spite of over performing on their targets. I no longer want to go to farewells, its too sad.
--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds
Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Merchant Trader's post shows how these issues are touching many people. One of the things I like about the Queen's approach is that she is showing us that age, in itself, is no barrier to function (admittedly, she's not a surgeon or pilot and is in a line of work where words and presence are the basic tools).
Her focus is on duty and I suspect that if she felt that her condition be barrier to her carrying out her duty, we would see her take action. I do not know if that would include abdication-- I would imagine more a transfer of powers and I suspect that protocols have been worked out somewhere.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
