Page 1 of 3
The Royal Baby
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 03:34
by BritDownUnder
Now that the next but next but one in line to the throne is here my thoughts wonder to what kind of 'United Kingdom' they will inherit when they come to the throne about 2050 to 2070 say.
I doubt they will be King of Australia as I think the consensus here is that the present one will be the last. Will there still be a King even in the UK? Maybe they will move the Papua New Guinea which could be a thriving resource based economy by then.
What do you think the UK will be like in 2060? A thriving economy powered by renewable energy or a horrendous polluted wasteland.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 07:57
by biffvernon
Unless the Australians (and the rest) stop digging up the coal there will be little joy for this baby in her middle age.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 08:21
by Little John
biffvernon wrote:Unless the Australians (and the rest) stop digging up the coal there will be little joy for this baby in her middle age.
There'll be a lot more joy for for it than there will be for my grand kids, thank you very much.
The last few hours have been a predictably relentless round of mindlessly sycophantic media coverage of yet another rich, pampered benefit scrounger entering the world. After having to endure over an hour of unremitting coverage of the bloody birth this morning on Radio 4's Today programme, they then went on to report, without a hint of irony, on how all of the wall to wall media coverage of the birth was simply going round and round in circles due to a lack of actual knowledge of any damn thing apart from the fact that some bloody woman has given birth to a baby.
What the F--k are we doing even discussing it here for God's sake?
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 10:43
by raspberry-blower
stevecook172001 wrote:biffvernon wrote:Unless the Australians (and the rest) stop digging up the coal there will be little joy for this baby in her middle age.
There'll be a lot more joy for for it than there will be for my grand kids, thank you very much.
The last few hours have been a predictably relentless round of mindlessly sycophantic media coverage of yet another rich, pampered benefit scrounger entering the world. After having to endure over an hour of unremitting coverage of the bloody birth this morning on Radio 4's Today programme, they then went on to report, without a hint of irony, on how all of the wall to wall media coverage of the birth was simply going round and round in circles due to a lack of actual knowledge of any damn thing apart from the fact that some bloody woman has given birth to a baby.
What the **** are we doing even discussing it here for God's sake?
Steve, you might want to build
one of these 
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 11:33
by JohnB
raspberry-blower wrote:Steve, you might want to build
one of these
It's also caused a tipping point in something we discuss endlessly
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/envi ... 3072376562
The Today Programme were going on about how there is such a thing as royal blood, and it's somehow good that it's been mixed with commoners blood. So are the Beeb are actually saying that the poor little sod is a mutant?
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 12:27
by PS_RalphW
By 2050 Australia will be a Chinese protectorate, after the native peoples (and your abundant coal and iron ore) have been liberated from UK imperial rule. Life epectancy in the imperialists re-education camps (otherwise known as coal and iron ore mines ) is 15 months due to the 45C average surface temperature and daily water ration of 750cc.
Prince Harry will attend the formal lowering of the flag as we hand over sovereignty in 2034.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 13:07
by RenewableCandy
From time to (rare) time the presence of non-elected figureheads is a good thing. In times of national emergency (WWII for example) they can unite people, and in times of rapid change they can lead by good example (Victoria using painkillers for childbirth).
The presence in the UK of Royals should, in theory, make it impossible for anyone in elected government to go on about "entitlement culture" while keeping a straight face.
My main beef with royals is the resulting skewed land ownership distribution. London might be underwater by 2060, which will make the sequel very interesting...
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 15:56
by JohnB
I've got mixed feelings about them. The whole idea of a monarchy is just totally wrong, but the current version of it has probably kept the country more stable than it could have been without it. That still doesn't make it right though, and there are more benign examples around.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 17:02
by Mean Mr Mustard
Blinking flip. Beaten to it. I was preoccupied with building my bunker.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 17:19
by Blue Peter
JohnB wrote:I've got mixed feelings about them. The whole idea of a monarchy is just totally wrong, but the current version of it has probably kept the country more stable than it could have been without it. That still doesn't make it right though, and there are more benign examples around.
Michael Rosen on
stability
I'm not sure what 'stability' means in this context - apart from the mostly trivial fact that the same family passed the crown down through its immediate descendants. Even by this account, it was a period of the most extraordinary upheaval in an area described as the 'third of the globe'. As it happens, the process was one of appalling exploitation and oppression involving slavery, mass death and terrible hardship.
Peter.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 17:23
by JohnB
Blue Peter wrote:JohnB wrote:I've got mixed feelings about them. The whole idea of a monarchy is just totally wrong, but the current version of it has probably kept the country more stable than it could have been without it. That still doesn't make it right though, and there are more benign examples around.
Michael Rosen on
stability
I'm not sure what 'stability' means in this context - apart from the mostly trivial fact that the same family passed the crown down through its immediate descendants. Even by this account, it was a period of the most extraordinary upheaval in an area described as the 'third of the globe'. As it happens, the process was one of appalling exploitation and oppression involving slavery, mass death and terrible hardship.
Peter.
I said "the country" meaning the UK, and not the other "third of the globe", and the time when Liz was in charge and I've been alive!
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 19:19
by Lord Beria3
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/0 ... a-j23.html
From all indications, hardly anyone in the US cares very much about the royal birth. According to Pew Research, “by and large, most Americans say they do not follow news of the British royal family.” Why in the world should they?
In December 2012, a quarter of those polled by Pew said they were following the news that the royal couple was expecting a child, which was all over the television and tabloid press. Among those 18-24, only 16 percent expressed interest. The most intrigued were Americans 55 and older. One suspects that if the survey results were organized along income lines, the youngest and least affluent layers of the US population would express minimal concern with the British royal family…if not open hostility.
In that sense, the media’s insistence on the significance of the event, in the face of the public’s general lack of interest, is an expression of the social, political and moral divide in American life.
As always, the media coverage involves a great deal of fakery and manipulation. It is unlikely that even the numbskulls who deliver the news to the US population are genuinely made “excited” and “giddy” by a new addition to the crowd of unamiable parasites who sit atop and live at the expense of the British people.
The Crown Estate (the royal property portfolio), one of the largest property owners in Britain, had holdings estimated at £7.3 billion [$US11.2 billion] in 2011. Forbes in 2010 calculated Queen Elizabeth’s wealth to be approximately $450 million.
It is hard to imagine a more useless bunch than the British royal family, from whom the odor of fascism, with which they were infatuated in the 1930s, cannot be eliminated.
A nice alternative to the gushing crap on the BBC and other mainstream outlets.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 20:41
by BritDownUnder
RalphW wrote:By 2050 Australia will be a Chinese protectorate...
That's going to be so true. I loved the Prince Harry bit.
I have taken the precaution of marrying an Asian wife (but not Chinese) so I guess I can send her out to do the shopping in 2045 while I hide away from the re-education police and do the gardening.
I have never been to a coal or iron ore mine but I did go to a town called Mount Isa once which houses a copper/lead/zinc mine. 30C in the middle of winter.
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 21:14
by biffvernon
Posted: 23 Jul 2013, 21:19
by biffvernon
Natalie Bennett wrote:I congratulate the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on the birth of their son, and also the estimated 1,982 other parents in the UK who today also celebrated the birth of a child.
I hope all of the children have a healthy, fulfilling, financially secure life.
I hope that by the time this child comes of age, with the right to vote at age 16, that the hereditary principle will have disappeared from all aspects of the constitution. The new baby might then have the same civil rights and fiscal obligations as all other citizens.
I would wish the baby the same chance to become a democratically elected head of state as any other individual.
See more at:
http://brightgreenscotland.org/index.ph ... ment-32336
