The new King ...

[smitcompton]

The idea of the monarchy uniting people is an interesting one and in the case of the UK it will be interesting to see how the situation plays out. My MIL surprised me today. She is an ardent supporter of the Queen, she loves the pomp, ceremony and the sense of history that comes with generations of Royals. But then she mentioned that the 'Voice' was supposed to be on TV tonight and she hoped it wouldn't be cancelled because after two days of sad songs on the radio, even she needed a little levity. (She is a widower and lives alone so relies on the TV for company). I also heard that the funeral isn't until next week and that the period of mourning will extend for 10 days after the funeral, I suspect if that is the case, then the period of mourning may well run the risk of outstaying its welcome. Beyond being respectful of the passing of the Queen, the people I come into contact with just don't care that much, the event has little to no impact or relevance on their lives. The issue of unity becomes even more interesting when you throw in Scottish independence because the royal family are possibly seen as more of an English institution that a Scottish one. I heard that Charles will now be doing the rounds of the UK and beyond local kids being bussed into any event, union jacks being handed out and onlookers told to wave their flags and cheer, I again doubt there will be that much interest (in Scotland). I don't believe the monarchy unites people because beyond tourism revenue and a certain celebrity status that helps charities raise income, I don't see any relevance for people to unite behind. But as I said it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Hi,

I just read in the New York Tines a better description of what the Monarchy means. Some here didn't like the usage of the term unifier to describe the Monarchy. A better word is it represents the British Identity. If this is the British Identity (of course not all of it), it is a shared concept or belief in an institution, and has been present for hundreds of years. This has nothing to do with complaints against the Monarchy, or whether it will survive in the future, just that it is part of the British Identity.

Just a clarification. Annette

 

[Jambalaya]

I haven't read all this discussion yet, but if GB were to give back the plunder, apologize, and make reparations, then all nations who has or still have colonies/empires should do the same.

 

[Tartansparkles]

Hi,

I just read in the New York Tines a better description of what the Monarchy means. Some here didn't like the usage of the term unifier to describe the Monarchy. A better word is it represents the British Identity. If this is the British Identity (of course not all of it), it is a shared concept or belief in an institution, and has been present for hundreds of years. This has nothing to do with complaints against the Monarchy, or whether it will survive in the future, just that it is part of the British Identity.

Just a clarification. Annette

British identify becomes even more interesting because Scots tend to identify as Scottish first and foremost, not particularly as British (www.scotsman.com/news/politics/who-do-we-think-we-are-scottish-and-not-british-1559978). (The most recent census data has just been collected, I'm not sure when it will be available). So if the monarchy represents part of the British identity, then again there are large groups of people for whom it is still mostly irrelevant. I think if there was a unifying aspect then it would be the continuity that Queen Elizabeth provided and has been commented on in various threads. To many people that continuity has meaning and and value; fairs dos. The Queen was possibly one of the most famous women in the world and possibly the least celebrity-like. I can respect that, I just don't buy into the idea of kings and queens. (I also find it telling that despite the day of the funeral being declared a bank holiday most of the shops, including garden centres, opted to close. I consider that to be a 'nudge' as it really wouldn't look good if folks got an extra day off for a funeral and then opted for a day out at the shops. I realise that the official reason for closing most shops was to allow staff to pay their respects but I feel the decision was more about optics than the feelings of shop workers). After all the TV coverage, the non-stop news about people spending up to 16 hours queuing and the pomp and ceremony of today's funeral the thing that is playing on the BBC tonight is Paddington 2. I think that's a good choice; Paddington offers some light relief.

 

[Jambalaya]

I think most people realize that the British Empire was not created or maintained by anyone alive today, and that in recent decades the British government let it dissolve, per the desires of countries that were still colonized as hold-overs. I wonder when the US will hand back Puerto Rico?

As for the Queen harboring a pedophile, he is her son, so of course she would believe him. Also, Virginia was 17, which is a year over the age of consent in the UK. So technically he's not a pedophile. I just want the facts not to get twisted. For me, the more important issue is whether he knew she was being coerced by Jeffrey. The whole thing is super-shady, and he is definitely sleazy, but in the country where it happened she was well over the age of consent. I don't think we should fling around words like pedophile lightly - especially as we can't prove it happened and he has not been convicted of anything. I suspect it did happen. He's definitely sleazy enough. But what if it didn't, and she just saw dollar signs? We never stop to consider how it must feel to be a man wrongly accused. If he IS innocent, his life has been ruined for nothing.

I'm just uncomfortable with unproven yet serious allegations being flung around...it can whip up the wrong people and lead to rough justice. The modern equivalent of a medieval witch-hunt, in other words. "Harboring a pedophile" makes it sound as if she was hiding Gary Glitter or Jimmy Savile in her palace so they could escape the law, not giving a home to her son who has not been convicted of anything! It's important to keep a balanced perspective.

Anyway, whether guilty or innocent, his life is in the toilet. And since he didn't want details about his private parts and sex life aired in court, he declined a trial and paid up, and his life is ruined. Just think, for a moment, how abusive that is if he's innocent....

 

[kenny]

I haven't read all this discussion yet, but if GB were to give back the plunder, apologize, and make reparations, then all nations who has or still have colonies/empires should do the same.

I agree, BUT ...

That means all people in America who are not Native Americans must return to the country they came from.
Immigrants from Europe decimated the peoples first here and stole their land.

And I would have to return to two European countries.
My mother's parents were from one European country and my father's parents another.

Do I get chopped in half?
Next, I accept that being born a white America male has given me unfair advantages.
Should my wealth be confiscated and distributed to those who are not white American males?

And this would open the proverbial Pandora's Box, as this is probably true of every country.
Some people's arrived firsts, while other groups arrived later.

Can't change history.

But of the countless offenses throughout history GB's offense ranks high, and its wealth accumulation so massive, obscene it is traceable to one unworthy family today.
Like tobacco manufacturing, it's only accepted today because it was accepte yesterday.

And ultimately, do all 8 Billion people of the earth now have to return to Africa?
Using DNA sequencing scientists have traced the likely movement of humans throughout history back to Africa - where modern humans were firsts identified.

Scientists Use DNA Fragments To Trace The Migration Of Modern Humans

Human beings may have made their first journey out of Africa as recently as 70,000 years ago, according to a new study by geneticists from Stanford University and the Russian Academy of Sciences. Writing in the American Journal of Human Genetics, the researchers estimate that the entire...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Jambalaya]

@Calliecake - I think you replied and it disappeared. I just wanted to say that yes, I absolutely DO think that he would have still paid up if innocent. The alternative would have been an INTENSELY embarrassing trial, laying bare details about his genitals and god knows what else about his private life. It would have been an untold embarrassment not only for him, but for the entire monarchy. The papers would have been full of nothing else for weeks and weeks, and it would have gone down in history. It would have been a total circus because nothing like it has ever happened to a royal. William and Charles pressed him HARD to settle.

By these machinations, a potentially innocent man can be made to settle and look guilty to many, even though it was the least bad option of two bad choices, if he's innocent.

I'm not saying that he didn't do it. He's sleazy enough all right. If he did sleep with her, since she was a year over the age of consent where it happened, I'm more concerned if he knew that she was being co-erced than about her age, since she was 17. If he did sleep with her, he might have thought she was a starry-eyed fan, or even a willing s*x worker. Or maybe he didn't sleep with her at all. We'll never know.

But his case illuminates for me a growing concern I have that we are abandoning a key tenet of our democratic justice system, which is innocent until proven guilty. Social media has enabled a court of public opinion, witch hunts, and the whipping up of high emotion which can spill over into offline violence against potentially innocent persons, and I think it's wrong. We need to consider the possibility that some accused men are innocent, especially when large amounts of money are on the table, and that's why we have to let justice take its course. Unfortunately we'll never know in this case because there wasn't a trial, due to the unusual circumstances (monarchy etc.)

Woody Allen's latest book was canned by his publisher. I thought that was unfair because he has not been convicted of anything. Allen has been investigated twice and charges were not brought.

I feel strongly that it is not right to treat people who have been through the due legal process, and been declared innocent, as if they are guilty. It's not right to have book contracts taken away and livelihoods ruined in the absence of a conviction. That is a form of rough justice, and in my opinion has no place in a civilized society.

My concern with cases like the above - and Brett Kavanagh was another - what if they're innocent? Imagine how you would feel if you were innocent and your life was ruined anyway? All possibilities should be considered before ruining people's lives, and one of those possibilities is innocence. That's all I'm saying.

 

[Jambalaya]

But of the countless offenses throughout history GB's offense ranks high

Well, if we're lining up countries to repair their wrongs in order of how wrong they were, I think Germany will be higher up that list than GB...not to mention the many terrible dictatorships through history. And the Japanese empire?? And the Ottoman Empire?

 

[telephone89]

Wow, I don't think I've heard quite this heartfelt a defence for a pedophile person who sexually assaulted a minor*. Disgusting, but oh well.

He settled 10 days before he was scheduled to testify under oath. And the queen allegedly funded both the legal battles AND part of the settlement. She knew what she was doing, it was damage control before the jubilee.

 

[Jambalaya]

^ @telephone89, I am sticking up for the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Or do you not subscribe to that tenet of justice and democracy?

My point is that it's wrong for someone's life to be destroyed if they have been convicted of no crime. You really think it's OK for someone who is potentially innocent to have their life destroyed? What if it was you, and you were innocent? How would you feel?

Innocent until proven guilty. It's important to stick to principles that underpin democracy and our justice system.

As for him being a pedophile, I repeat that she was YEAR over the age of consent in the country where the alleged offense took place.

 

[Jambalaya]

He settled 10 days before he was scheduled to testify under oath.

He wanted to go to court to try to prove his innocence, but his family basically outvoted him because of the damage a trial would do to the monarchy.

I am not saying that he didn't do it. He's sleazy enough, for sure.

I'm just uncomfortable with trial by social media.

 

[Jambalaya]

Disgusting, but oh well.

Upholding the principle "Innocent until proven guilty" is not disgusting.

If some corners of the internet had their way, accused men would be whipped in the public square with no trial.

I do not approve of mob justice, rough justice, trial by media, or witch-hunts. I will fight to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty against the baying-for-blood mob. If that makes me disgusting, then I'm happy to be disgusting.

 

[Jambalaya]

How did our society come to a point where we SO WILLINGLY throw away a principle like "Innocent until proven guilty"? Where people are castigated for upholding that principle? Everything's gone topsy-turvy.

 

[telephone89]

If he wanted to be proved innocent, he would have gone to trial. He decided not to. If you want to uphold justice so much, settlements should not be allowed and ALL cases should get their day in court. That is so far from the actual law and current standards of prosecution, but you know that.

I also rephrased from "pedophile" to "person who sexually assaulted a minor", no need to repeat anything.

He said he'd never even met her but there are actual photos. He's lied multiple times, he just didn't want to get caught doing it under oath.

 

[Jambalaya]

@telephone89 Well, maybe I'm wrong but I thought he DID want to go to trial, which is the whole reason why he ended up settling ten days before - because his family had difficulty persuading him to settle. And that they basically twisted his arm into settling because they were concerned about the damage to the monarchy that a trial would cause. After all, what do William and Charles care if Uncle Andrew is on the scrap-heap without a fair trial?

I just always have an urge to stick up for the underdog (as long as the underdog hasn't been proven guilty, of course). It's possible that he didn't do it and that she saw dollar signs. I'm sorry, but that IS a possibility. Bringing that case was a no-lose for her, because I'm sure her legal advisor told her that there was no way a royal would end up going to court instead of settling, particularly as they have no much money that a settlement is hardly any skin off their noses.

Without a trial, we have no way of knowing who's telling the truth. However, even if she wasn't telling the truth about Andrew, I'm glad for her that she has the money. She was coerced by Epstein into many other things at least, and quite possibly Andrew too, so she deserves millions in compensation, imo.

 

[telephone89]

@telephone89 Well, maybe I'm wrong but I thought he DID want to go to trial, which is the whole reason why he ended up settling ten days before - because his family had difficulty persuading him to settle. And that they basically twisted his arm into settling because they were concerned about the damage to the monarchy that a trial would cause. After all, what do William and Charles care if Uncle Andrew is on the scrap-heap without a fair trial?

I just always have an urge to stick up for the underdog (as long as the underdog hasn't been proven guilty, of course). It's possible that he didn't do it and that she saw dollar signs. I'm sorry, but that IS a possibility. Bringing that case was a no-lose for her, because I'm sure her legal advisor told her that there was no way a royal would end up going to court instead of settling, particularly as they have no much money that a settlement is hardly any skin off their noses.

Without a trial, we have no way of knowing who's telling the truth. However, even if she wasn't telling the truth about Andrew, I'm glad for her that she has the money. She was coerced by Epstein into many other things at least, and quite possibly Andrew too, so she deserves millions in compensation, imo.

Well it wasn't just one occasion that she alleged, it was three. In three different places. So maybe he "didn't do it", but then he "didnt do it" three separate times... after already lying about knowing or meeting her. Sure, it's a possibility, but with many of Epsteins other accusations true and many other victims coming forward, it's less likely that he "didn't do it" (IMO, of course, since we will never know now).

I'm glad you stick up for the underdog! In general, I agree. I just won't agree when that underdog is a multi-millionaire royal with known child sex trafficking friends, accused of having sex with a sex trafficked minor. Doesn't seem like much of an underdog in the real world sense.

 

[Jambalaya]

@telephone89 But if your life is ruined for something you didn't do, I think that makes you an underdog because money and privilege can only go so far...they don't protect against public shame and potential metal health issues caused from that. Potentially, I mean. It's quite possible that Andrew did it.

I didn't know he'd been accused of having s*x with her three times.

I agree that the whole shebang surrounding Andrew is super-shady and he's pretty sleazy. The whole difficulty is that we really have NO idea what the deal is with him, which is why I took issue with the throwaway "The Queen harbors pedophiles!" remark that somebody made above.

Was his worst sin being naive? Did he not know about Epstein's crimes and thought that Virginia was a willing fan excited to sleep with a prince? Or did he know that Epstein was a disgusting pedophile and that Virginia was being held against her will and had been trafficked? There is such a wide range of possibility. And how much did he know about Maxwell? SO many unanswered questions.

 

[smitcompton]

British identify becomes even more interesting because Scots tend to identify as Scottish first and foremost, not particularly as British (www.scotsman.com/news/politics/who-do-we-think-we-are-scottish-and-not-british-1559978). (The most recent census data has just been collected, I'm not sure when it will be available). So if the monarchy represents part of the British identity, then again there are large groups of people for whom it is still mostly irrelevant. I think if there was a unifying aspect then it would be the continuity that Queen Elizabeth provided and has been commented on in various threads. To many people that continuity has meaning and and value; fairs dos. The Queen was possibly one of the most famous women in the world and possibly the least celebrity-like. I can respect that, I just don't buy into the idea of kings and queens. (I also find it telling that despite the day of the funeral being declared a bank holiday most of the shops, including garden centres, opted to close. I consider that to be a 'nudge' as it really wouldn't look good if folks got an extra day off for a funeral and then opted for a day out at the shops. I realise that the official reason for closing most shops was to allow staff to pay their respects but I feel the decision was more about optics than the feelings of shop workers). After all the TV coverage, the non-stop news about people spending up to 16 hours queuing and the pomp and ceremony of today's funeral the thing that is playing on the BBC tonight is Paddington 2. I think that's a good choice; Paddington offers some light relief.

Hi,

Tartansparkles-- Are You a Scotsman? Your moniker just registered for me, and Scotland is brought into your discussion in your posts.

If you are a Scot,, I spent a lovely New Years Eve in Scotland and walked in the heather. The women all played golf and it was the first question they asked me 'Do you play Golf? I don't.

I was just curious.
Annette

Annette

 

[Daisys and Diamonds]

Well, if we're lining up countries to repair their wrongs in order of how wrong they were, I think Germany will be higher up that list than GB...not to mention the many terrible dictatorships through history. And the Japanese empire?? And the Ottoman Empire?

excellent point !
Poland is devinantly wanting

 

[kenny]

Rumor is, there's a huge stash of Nazi gold bullion bars somewhere in So. America.

 

[Tartansparkles]

Hi,

Tartansparkles-- Are You a Scotsman? Your moniker just registered for me, and Scotland is brought into your discussion in your posts.

If you are a Scot,, I spent a lovely New Years Eve in Scotland and walked in the heather. The women all played golf and it was the first question they asked me 'Do you play Golf? I don't.

I was just curious.
Annette

Annette

Hi Annette, yes New Year is a lovely time to visit, less chance of an encounter with the dreaded midgie. (I don't play golf either).

 

[Mrs_Strizzle]

Rumor is, there's a huge stash of Nazi gold bullion bars somewhere in So. America.

Yes! Did you see the show Chasing Hitler (I think)? Suggests he escaped with lots of his officers. Shows all the amazing German looking towns hidden in Argentina and the locals who claim they saw him there. So interesting.

 

[kenny]

Yes! Did you see the show Chasing Hitler (I think)? Suggests he escaped with lots of his officers. Shows all the amazing German looking towns hidden in Argentina and the locals who claim they saw him there. So interesting.

Yes, I've seen a few documentaries and dramas about that.
The suspicion is, the body burned beyond recognition in Berlin was not Hitler, as claimed.
So the theory goes, with all his connections and wealth he, and lots of gold was secretly whisked away to Argentina on a sub.

I find WWII and the Holocaust to be riveting.
I mean, HOW could THAT (and 9-11) have happened?
I want to understand.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi Annette, yes New Year is a lovely time to visit, less chance of an encounter with the dreaded midgie. (I don't play golf either).

Hi Tartansparkles.

I want to congratulate You on having the number one University in Britain, even outshining Oxford and Cambridge. I read St. Andrews University was number one, and my Sherlock Holmes hat went on and I wondered if that was in Scotland? I thought it might be related to St Andrews Golf Course which I knew was in Scotland as the men in my family are the golfers.
And so it was. I think its a big honor and as you , I now know are a Scot, I thought I would give you a shoutout.

Annette