Whenever it’s the max opportunity for a protest, someone is always ready to say ‘this isn’t the time’.
A few weeks ago, I was told the hottest day ever recorded in the UK wasn’t an appropriate time to talk about climate change and soaring global temperatures.
What they actually mean is ‘don’t talk about this’.
So it doesn’t matter what a country does,as long as after it has enriched itself,that country then condemns other countries who do the same.
I don’t think it would be worthwhile replacing one religious referencing dirge with another one. Sort of defeats the purpose.
Additionally, the lyrics don’t actually relay the patriotic sentiment that most people think they do.
That wasn’t the point I was making. I was talking about how because of British policy, slavery eventually became illegal in other Western states, since the British Navy hunted slaver ships and destroyed the transatlantic slave trade.
This could be thrown into confusion now by legal action (
) being brought about by Simon Charles Dorante-Day:joy:
The people of Kenya who were part of the Mau Mau uprising would very much disagree with this sentiment.
It is indisputable that much of the Monarchy’s wealth, power and status was rooted in the empire and brutal oppression that characterised it. It arguable that the Queen did very little to atone for or repair that brutality
I recall some parable about rescuing sheep on the Sabbath…the sport cancellations are irritating because they seem excessive, and simply waste opportunities for mass remembrance (I am told the minute of silence at the weekend Ottawa game was breathtakingly total).
But cancelling GP surgery? Look to your priorities.
Heckling Andrew is quite the hill to pick to die on.
Sadly though, people who reasonably point to the structural racism that blights society as a result of our involvement in the slave trade are dismissed as Woke SJWs.
Made that comment earlier - saw one irate article attributing a decision to deploy troops in Yemen to the Queen personally. Absolute nonsense, but the kind that as Canadians we are quite accustomed to seeing from some Americans. Apparently, we are not a democracy because we are ruled by the English monarch.
It’d go to William’s kids first, then on to Harry and his kids, before even reaching Andrew.
I don’t think he’s stepped back from the line of succession? Think it’s very much a case of he’s still in it, and will become King if the event happens. Probably lead the republicanism charge if that happens though, since it’d be either him or his children versus Andrew.
I don’t understand the part where it was changed about the succession to include for example say Charlotte was Williams first born that she would become next monarch etc , then why is it that Andrew still has precedent over Anne ?
Also, it is problematic from my perspective that the queen never apologiced officially on behalf of the Unitid Kingdom and Commonwealth/Empire for any of this (now that she is buried I can say that I think).
She really should have, but always refused to do so. Sympathy and regrets isn’t and have never been, good enough for anyone.
Harry’s stepping back would not have any influence on that line of succession, unless he chose to refuse it. William’s status is ‘lost’, so to speak, his children’s claim becomes inferior to Harry’s because William was not crowned.
edit: NVM, that changed by law just over ten years ago at the same time that daughters were put in birth rank priority.
In darker times, this was the sort of thing that saw children ‘disappear’. Andrew is fortunate that he lives in these times, 700 years ago he’d probably be dead fairly soon.
Like the Queen’s disabled cousins?
Since we’re going down this rabbit hole, I think it’s only if they follow primogeniture. Other systems include agnatic seniority, which prefers the younger brothers over the children, or a rota system. There are also other systems available.
I do think there was a time and a place for protest…turn the situation around…would this young man like people to shout abuse at his mothers funeral…
I think it only applies to anyone born after 28 October 2011.
Surely in darker times 700 years ago, if a prince had sex with a 17 year old common girl, no one would have batted an eye lid, and if someone did, they and the girl would have disappeared rather than the prince?