This isn’t a funeral.
The funeral is on Monday.
What this is, is an exercise in public grief oneupmanship. It’s a vanity exercise, to not allow people to show their respects, but to be seen to show their respects. That particularly British trait of jostling to show how deferential one is to ones betters.
It’s fair game in my opinion.
Doubt it. The girl or any children would probably have been bestowed a noble title, and at least be given some payoff.
The law governs those born after 2011
Sometimes the noble recogniced the child and gave the girl and allowance to raise it as a bastard. Not always. It depends on the whims, politics and heart of the father and his family.
But in any case, my point is that a 17 year old girl from a common family today has a lot more power than 700 year ago.
Oh, probably. But a younger son who had become a liability would be in trouble, regardless of that reason.
They were hugely influential in developing and enriching themselves using slavery and indentured servitude for a couple of hundred years. I understood what you were saying,i just don’t agree that they should get credit for destroying it once they had taken most everything they could.Chance is they only done it to stop other countries from gaining ground on them
That’s fair.
So given that I suspect from your comments that you’re not a flag waving royalist, will YOU go and shout your opinions in London right now? Or would you consider it inappropriate? Or do you consider that it’s not worth the effort?
Thank fuck Boris ain’t king , working out the line of succession would be a nightmare
Andrew is definitely closer on the scale to them than the ‘fled to York to gather his forces’ gig some second sons have tried in the past.
Fair enough, I understand your feelings. I would argue though that if you study or read up on that period in British history, ideology and abolishonism actually did play a role. From records from that time, many who took part in the anti slaver blockade and championed it , were quite proud of it. Things are seldom black or white though.
So while I absolutely agree concerning how Britain got it’s wealth through ruthless imperialism, including slavery, I find this a bit of redeeming histloric epoch myself on the slavery matter.
Did the young man’s uncle pay 12m of public money to settle a sexual assault case against a child out of court?
And did his Mother specifically provide him with some of that money?
No, I don’t think that is really fair. The history of abolition is genuinely fascinating, and it was quite a struggle in British politics. One of the very few times where the underlying motivation is idealism, even if certain economic interests needed to coalesce to finally make it happen.
It does have many perverse episodes though. From the vantage point of two centuries on, it is remarkable to see that slaveholders were compensated as part of a moderate compromise to make it happen, but the idea of compensating the slaves themselves was intensely controversial and recklessly radical.
To the people of Scotland…obviously not all…but it did seem to be the majority…it was there way of paying their repects…so yes not a funeral…but near enough for the people who attended…
I don’t know…you may have that info…but he could have demonstrated after the coffin had gone into the Cathedral…we all know, the person in question ,his new job is caretaker at Sandringham…but …there is a time and a place…
Nah fuck that, people who do reprehensible things and then are able to pay their way out the consequences don’t deserve that out.
That’s an utterly meaningless comment. You are either an absolutist, or you think there are exceptions. And being an absolutist on anything is frankly dumb, so the only questions should ever be where the line is.
No, once Charles has kids, andrew falls back behind all of Charles line. So, it’s William, Williams’s kids, then Harry, then Harry kids. hat puts Andrew 8th in line. The line itself doesnt change if anyone above you dies, you just move up.
That’s he technical answer, with the age of the kids and the status of Harry, the answer in practice is very uncertain.
All rapists should be put in an extremely dangerous chair. You disagree? That’s pretty absolute.
If you believe in absolute freedom of speech then you must allow person X to spend £10m calling person Y a person who likes children a little too much. Do we allow that? Obviously, there has to be a line. But who draws that line?
Rape also covers a 16 year old 5th former who has sex with his long time school girlfriend who is in the same year as him but isn’t yet 16. This is still technically illegal, but still treated differently than what you seemingly had in mind. You know, because absolutes are utterly unworkable.