893 posts
|
Post by max on May 6, 2023 15:32:46 GMT
....which will fuel the idea that a Starlight Express revival is foremost in his musical mind.
|
|
18,816 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 6, 2023 15:37:30 GMT
|
|
10 posts
|
Post by Andy on May 6, 2023 17:07:57 GMT
I was disappointed I couldn’t catch any obvious lifts from his previous stuff but it did remind me of Freddie Mercury’s Man Made Paradise. 56 seconds into this:
|
|
501 posts
|
Post by chernjam on May 6, 2023 19:59:22 GMT
My only interest as an American and a Catholic Christian was to hear ALW's anthem, which I found quite beautiful. Particularly the live version in the Abbey with the Pipe Organ. ALW is a gifted composer.
|
|
859 posts
|
Post by BVM on May 7, 2023 9:23:10 GMT
My only interest as an American and a Catholic Christian was to hear ALW's anthem, which I found quite beautiful. Particularly the live version in the Abbey with the Pipe Organ. ALW is a gifted composer. I totally agree 👌🏻✌🏻😍
|
|
4,596 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on May 7, 2023 10:15:25 GMT
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 7, 2023 13:46:26 GMT
With QEII now departed, I seem to have mostly, unconsciously, detached to the point that, in the photos I saw, it looked pretty deranged.
Poor Penny Mourdaunt (above) being a case in point. You can almost see her mouthing 'help'. Did I read something about a 1000 year-old spoon?
Anyway, I wondered how it could even be classed a royal event without Elton tinkling away somewhere before remembering an earlier event hereabouts, which reminded me of Queen Camilla playing the absolute mother of all long games.
|
|
893 posts
|
Post by max on May 7, 2023 18:00:31 GMT
Anyway, I wondered how it could even be classed a royal event without Elton tinkling away somewhere before remembering an earlier event hereabouts, which reminded me of Queen Camilla playing the absolute mother of all long games. "The absolute mother of all long games" indeed...
|
|
867 posts
|
Post by karloscar on May 7, 2023 18:01:27 GMT
BBC radio has been playing a clip of some posh child telling us that the crowning of the King was a magical experience. How gullible do they think we are? We don't live in Harry Potter land, Chaz iii has neither supernatural, magic or God given powers. He's an ordinary, not particularly bright human who happened to be born into the right family. Not magic at all!
|
|
5,588 posts
|
Post by lynette on May 7, 2023 19:37:00 GMT
BBC radio has been playing a clip of some posh child telling us that the crowning of the King was a magical experience. How gullible do they think we are? We don't live in Harry Potter land, Chaz iii has neither supernatural, magic or God given powers. He's an ordinary, not particularly bright human who happened to be born into the right family. Not magic at all! I’m with you up to a point. The media are pretty crass. But ‘not particularly bright’ doesn’t really work now. He had a uni degree when degrees were not ten a penny, so in academic terms, ok and he foresaw the climate, environmental issues and was ahead of the game, a different kind of intelligence perhaps. He connects with people, maybe not you, but quite a few others. He sticks at stuff, his projects, yes, but beneficial on the whole. You might not like Poundbury but if he were allowed to build villages and towns we might not have this terrible housing crisis. He isn’t daft. Might be grumpy at times…..
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 7, 2023 19:42:37 GMT
BBC radio has been playing a clip of some posh child telling us that the crowning of the King was a magical experience. How gullible do they think we are? We don't live in Harry Potter land, Chaz iii has neither supernatural, magic or God given powers. He's an ordinary, not particularly bright human who happened to be born into the right family. Not magic at all! I think this summarises how I feel about the Royals too really. Yes, they may do this that and the other to form a part of the UK's identity on the world's stage, but nowadays does anyone believe that they are the sacred, God-chosen individuals that they were viewed as in the past?
|
|
1,871 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 8, 2023 11:50:38 GMT
Can you source this view? These days, I'd say the actual majority are just indifferent, and unable to source an alternative could give much of an eff either way. Thats the overriding view within my echo chamber atleast. Every poll ever taken by a major polling organisation has put 'in favour of the Monarchy' far above the Republicans. The nadir of polling for the former was 55%, the zenith of the latter, 33%. The latest poll is: Keep the Monarchy - 62% Abolish - 25% Don't know - 12% I think it is easy to get wrapped up in echo chambers and think the pervading view within those groups is how the country thinks - 2016 and 2019 was definitely an eye opener for many - but that's why it's important, in my opinion, to broaden our social circles to include those with contrasting views and not to only follow people we agree with on Twitter and other social media.
As far as I'm concerned these surveys are meaningless. They just reflect how utterly manipulated most of the public are by the mainstream media.
It is well known the media and the British Royal Family are in this ghastly co-dependant, parasitical relationship. There is barely a mainstream news outlet taking a Republican stance. Barely even a critical one.
|
|
18,816 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on May 8, 2023 12:09:21 GMT
Ithought there was something very fairytale-like about this photo taken from behind the two of them on the balcony looking out over the crowds. The ermine cloaks, the crowns looking unfeasibly tall, it is exactly what people unfamiliar with our monarchy think it’s all about. A friend was in London last week for business and as he was coming out of his hotel in Victoria an American couple asked him for directions to the palace. He told them where to go and as they walked ahead the woman said to guy “do you think there’s a chance we might see the King?”. I think they’re a huge pull for tourism and probably generate more revenue than they cost us.
|
|
1,871 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 8, 2023 12:20:41 GMT
Ithought there was something very fairytale-like about this photo taken from behind the two of them on the balcony looking out over the crowds. The ermine cloaks, the crowns looking unfeasibly tall, it is exactly what people unfamiliar with our monarchy think it’s all about. A friend was in London last week for business and as he was coming out of his hotel in Victoria an American couple asked him for directions to the palace. He told them where to go and as they walked ahead the woman said to guy “do you think there’s a chance we might see the King?”. I think they’re a huge pull for tourism and probably generate more revenue than they cost us.
The argument is though - do we really need all this expensive ceremonial stuff, and keeping them all in the lap of luxury? Tourists would still come to see the castles and the palaces. As they do in France!
It is a mainstream media narrative that is peddled and repeated so much that everyone believes it to be fact.
Legoland Windsor gets more visitors than any Royal building!
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 8, 2023 13:09:24 GMT
The country can afford what it chooses for a democracy model. Comparing cost-benefit analyses might miss the point of what is best for the people. Maybe something approaching the best -in the long run - is the most transparent, least corruptible option, even though it looks a little bizarre at times.
At least this lot don't make laws. Best they can offer a buyer is some influence or a shiny badge and title. Worst places to deposit symbolic powers in a democracy.
|
|
1,266 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 8, 2023 14:33:06 GMT
The country can afford what it chooses for a democracy model. Comparing cost-benefit analyses might miss the point of what is best for the people. Maybe something approaching the best -in the long run - is the most transparent, least corruptible option, even though it looks a little bizarre at times.
At least this lot don't make laws. Best they can offer a buyer is some influence or a shiny badge and title. Worst places to deposit symbolic powers in a democracy.
The monarch is the linchpin that holds the whole of the feudal establishment in place. Whether or not there is corruption at the top I've no idea, but the layers beneath are riddled with it. If you choose to have a head of state and you elect them, at least the people have the power not to re-elect corrupt, useless or otherwise bad ones. And, if the people still elect them in a fair election, well that's democracy in action. Many testimonies of people I don't regard as sucker-uppers say that Charles Windsor is a decent guy. He certainly comes across that way. I think I much prefer him to his mother. But it's not about him as a person; it's the office he holds, what it represents, and the utterly abhorrent idea that rights and privileges should be bestowed according to bloodline, and that we should all obsequiously respect that, doff our caps, and pray to god that the "gracious" monarch be saved from mortality. Our great grandchildren will look back in history with astonishment that grown adults indulged in such behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 8, 2023 15:37:17 GMT
In a Parliamentary-style democracy, I do prefer to make the distinction between real power and symbolic. They can wave around 1000 year-old spoons and dress in ermine all day long, but they know - as we all know - the minute they try to exercise undemocratic power it's over (it will pretty much be over with evidence of corruption). Last I'm aware a monarch tried to exercise power was Easter 1916 (which, for context, was before working class adults had a vote, so no democracy as we understand it anyway). Seem to have largely kept their noses clean and out the way since universal suffrage.
Sure, the UK can put up random two-bob politicians, celebrities, academics every five years as a HoS but, if you're only in the job for 5 years .. who are you going to choose, some washed up political no name or Elton John and David. Hardly matters, all they're going to do for 5 years is smile and shake hands. Parliament is sovereign, etc.
The House of Lords is the real game, here.
|
|
1,445 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on May 8, 2023 15:56:51 GMT
I’d much rather be stuck with a non-elected King, and for us all to be stuck with him, than be stuck with an elected $hit like Johnson, or stuck in a voted for situation like Brexit.
Democracy sucks when so many of your countrymen are brainless freaks!
|
|
475 posts
|
Post by bimse on May 8, 2023 16:02:34 GMT
The music is fantastic, and Pretty Yende singing wonderfully while wearing that huge yellow creation… fabulous. Pretty Yende was (as expected) magnificent, singing Sacred Fire by Sarah Class, with brilliant orchestrations , the highlight for me.
|
|
1,871 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on May 8, 2023 16:41:27 GMT
The country can afford what it chooses for a democracy model. Comparing cost-benefit analyses might miss the point of what is best for the people. Maybe something approaching the best -in the long run - is the most transparent, least corruptible option, even though it looks a little bizarre at times.
At least this lot don't make laws. Best they can offer a buyer is some influence or a shiny badge and title. Worst places to deposit symbolic powers in a democracy.
The monarch is the linchpin that holds the whole of the feudal establishment in place. Whether or not there is corruption at the top I've no idea, but the layers beneath are riddled with it. If you choose to have a head of state and you elect them, at least the people have the power not to re-elect corrupt, useless or otherwise bad ones. And, if the people still elect them in a fair election, well that's democracy in action. Many testimonies of people I don't regard as sucker-uppers say that Charles Windsor is a decent guy. He certainly comes across that way. I think I much prefer him to his mother. But it's not about him as a person; it's the office he holds, what it represents, and the utterly abhorrent idea that rights and privileges should be bestowed according to bloodline, and that we should all obsequiously respect that, doff our caps, and pray to god that the "gracious" monarch be saved from mortality. Our great grandchildren will look back in history with astonishment that grown adults indulged in such behaviour.
This, this. THIS! We are talking more about the Establishment itself. Those high ranking civil servants (i.e. part of the Elite that REALLY run this country) that work to stop at nothing to ensure The Crown survives. It's no reflection on individual members of the Royal Family - they are indeed just the public face, and are to a great extent "stage managed" by those powerful figures behind the scenes.
|
|
723 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 8, 2023 17:25:11 GMT
In a Parliamentary-style democracy, I do prefer to make the distinction between real power and symbolic. They can wave around 1000 year-old spoons and dress in ermine all day long, but they know - as we all know - the minute they try to exercise undemocratic power it's over (it will pretty much be over with evidence of corruption). Last I'm aware a monarch tried to exercise power was Easter 1916 (which, for context, was before working class adults had a vote, so no democracy as we understand it anyway). Seem to have largely kept their noses clean and out the way since universal suffrage.
Sure, the UK can put up random two-bob politicians, celebrities, academics every five years as a HoS but, if you're only in the job for 5 years .. who are you going to choose, some washed up political no name or Elton John and David. Hardly matters, all they're going to do for 5 years is smile and shake hands. Parliament is sovereign, etc.
The House of Lords is the real game, here.
I used to think this too, but I’m afraid it’s not really true is it. Turns out lots of our laws don’t apply to Crown Estates, specifically because the royals gave them the once over and suggested that they didn’t apply to them! Look up Guardian article “Royals vetted more than 1,000 laws via Queen’s consent”
|
|
|
Post by londonpostie on May 8, 2023 17:50:44 GMT
Mainstream media trying to pretend the constitutional role of King's /Queen's Consent is some mysterious, hidden "vetting" power, is a little embarrassing. In the UK Parliamentary system, you cannot have Bills pass into laws until the HoS procedurally signs off: what chance Charles refusing the will of Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by sph on May 8, 2023 18:55:17 GMT
I do wonder how one would quantify exactly how much money they supposedly generate for tourism though? Ask everyone exiting Heathrow if they're here to see the Royal family?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 8, 2023 20:02:26 GMT
Ithought there was something very fairytale-like about this photo taken from behind the two of them on the balcony looking out over the crowds. The ermine cloaks, the crowns looking unfeasibly tall, it is exactly what people unfamiliar with our monarchy think it’s all about. A friend was in London last week for business and as he was coming out of his hotel in Victoria an American couple asked him for directions to the palace. He told them where to go and as they walked ahead the woman said to guy “do you think there’s a chance we might see the King?”. I think they’re a huge pull for tourism and probably generate more revenue than they cost us.
The argument is though - do we really need all this expensive ceremonial stuff, and keeping them all in the lap of luxury? Tourists would still come to see the castles and the palaces. As they do in France!
It is a mainstream media narrative that is peddled and repeated so much that everyone believes it to be fact.
Legoland Windsor gets more visitors than any Royal building!
Well made point vs. "I think". Well I know that Versailles in India and the Taj Mahal are no less popular despite having no king for at least a couple of centuries. In fact we recently visited 7 Royal "Palaces" in India and saw not a single Prince. The guides said in February they were likely to be in Gstaad but by June they will be in st Tropez! For Charles replace Highgrove and Sandringham; neither of which are as big a tourist earner as The Tower of London,Windsor Castle and Buck House.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Snow on May 8, 2023 20:14:56 GMT
Unfortunately The Sunday Times reporting is behind a firewall, so I can't show you how their investigation into The illegal selling of a knighthood for cash has "been stalled" since Charles got the top job. Their formal requests under the Freedom of Information act for disclosure have been illegally ignored. His two closest aides have resigned over this, saying he knew nothing. Apparently this is the first case in all of history where the fish rots from just below the head. You can get a few pointers here. www.cumnockchronicle.com/news/23144939.princes-foundation-metropolitan-police-investigation/People on here keep repeating he's not corrupt! Read the above and marvel at the fact he saw the donations and he saw the Knighthood and yet he had nothing to do with it and didn't put 2&2 together and personally sack those who resigned only once the police got involved. Look at the recent series of articles in the Guardian showing how gifts to the Royal family are suddenly not listed in the States assets. If the man at the top has his finger in various pies, believing the rules don't apply to him, is it any wonder more are developing a taste for this?
|
|
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on May 8, 2023 20:33:17 GMT
The institution is undemocratic plain and simple, it should be gone. No he's not gonna override Parliament but to say the position holds no political power isn't true. He can lobby the government about who knows what - we certainly don't know because the minutes of any meetings he has with them are not made public. Just because his views seem like they may be agreeable doesn't mean some random guy should have that much power and influence by virtue of who his mum was. Plus for all his talk of being an environmentalist he was the worst polluter of the lot of them by far and that was before he was king. All I'm saying is Paris makes plenty from tourism and look what they did to their monarchy...
|
|
723 posts
|
Post by Latecomer on May 8, 2023 21:00:30 GMT
Mainstream media trying to pretend the constitutional role of King's /Queen's Consent is some mysterious, hidden "vetting" power, is a little embarrassing. In the UK Parliamentary system, you cannot have Bills pass into laws until the HoS procedurally signs off: what chance Charles refusing the will of Parliament.
If you read this it suggests legislation is run past the crown first before they even contemplate a bill! They do have crown exemption from a lot of bits of law. Seems quite a coincidence! So no, they don’t turn down at the “consent” stage as they have already expressed opinions far earlier! www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/14/secret-papers-royals-veto-bills
|
|
|
Post by sukhavati on May 8, 2023 22:08:12 GMT
I’d much rather be stuck with a non-elected King, and for us all to be stuck with him, than be stuck with an elected $hit like Johnson, or stuck in a voted for situation like Brexit. Democracy sucks when so many of your countrymen are brainless freaks! This. Do you really want a President Farage or some other neo-Trumpist?
|
|
1,266 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 8, 2023 23:47:03 GMT
I’d much rather be stuck with a non-elected King, and for us all to be stuck with him, than be stuck with an elected $hit like Johnson, or stuck in a voted for situation like Brexit. Democracy sucks when so many of your countrymen are brainless freaks! This. Do you really want a President Farage or some other neo-Trumpist? Of course not, but if you're using a proportional voting system, and Farage has >50% of the votes of your compatriots in the final round, who are you or I to over-rule the majority? Democracy means accepting when you lose. It also doesn't preclude you from using democratic means to overturn the result at the next election.
|
|
215 posts
|
Post by eulenspiegel on May 9, 2023 0:59:23 GMT
Ithought there was something very fairytale-like about this photo taken from behind the two of them on the balcony looking out over the crowds. The ermine cloaks, the crowns looking unfeasibly tall, it is exactly what people unfamiliar with our monarchy think it’s all about. A friend was in London last week for business and as he was coming out of his hotel in Victoria an American couple asked him for directions to the palace. He told them where to go and as they walked ahead the woman said to guy “do you think there’s a chance we might see the King?”. I think they’re a huge pull for tourism and probably generate more revenue than they cost us. Watching this outdated show …I had to laugh the whole time….living and growing up in Rhineland…the similarities to carnival in Rhineland… but the Cologne Dreigestirn ..even the kids Dreigestirn are better dressed.. koelnerkarneval.de/koelner-dreigestirneand if you think of the mllions of people in Cologne, Düsseldorf, Mainz… etc. every year ..watching the parades on Rose Monday.. even their „military“ making more sense and fun as the real troups in London btw. most of the ceremonies are the same age… in 1823 the carnival military was created to make fun/ to mock the Prussian miltary… as Rhineland was kind of occupied by Prussia and was part of Prussia…totally different culture
|
|