[ SECRET POST #2405 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2405 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 04 pages, 099 secrets from Secret Submission Post #344.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Anon who originated the point about the monarchs here.

Of course for all practical intents and purposes the monarchy has no formal power (although Charles still seems to spend a lot of time exerting influence behind the scenes - but then it's also true that the wealthy and well-connected do that whether or not they're technically royalty). But even so, there's still remains the formal status of the monarchy. And if it's objectionable only on a point of principle, it's still on principle objectionable.

I don't see how the US being bad is in any way a defense of England being bad, for Pete's sake. That doesn't make any sense. It's not like it's somehow okay for you guys to be bad just because you are. And I'm perfectly capable of being critical of all the fucked up shit in the US - there's no reason being critical of the one stops you from being critical of the other.

I don't know, I don't think you and I are that far apart. I would say that both countries have a lot of troubling elements in their political system and class mobility that is unacceptably low, and the US is worse in that regard than Britain, and also the existence of a monarchy is unjust in principle.

[(Anonymous)]

although Charles still seems to spend a lot of time exerting influence behind the scenes

Do I detect a whiff of eau de Conspiracy!anon here? I was under the impression ol' Chuckles is mostly a batty treehugger with no concept of what it's like to, you know, live like an actual human being.

OK, OK, I admit I got this from a documentary where the hired help were complaining about how alien the monarchs were, when compared with their actual subjects, and that was why all of them loathed Diana so much. So yeah it was a biased documentary.

I really really really don't think (at least I hope) that Charles doesn't have a whole lot of power or influence; because if he does, that may end up coming back to bite the Commonwealth on its collective backside once he's on the throne.

[(Anonymous)]

He apparently spends a lot of time talking to and writing letters to government ministers in the UK, and nobody's really sure about what, or whether or not he has any real influence.

There's a bunch of stuff in the Guardian about it - here's a decent piece: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/09/prince-charles-letters-mps-private-court

Also, here's a piece about how apparently he has a legal right to any money from the estates of anyone who dies without a will in Cornwall, and is currently giving it to his own charities: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/may/01/prince-charles-intestate-cash-cornwall

[(Anonymous)]

At least the money goes to charities and not into his pockets?

[(Anonymous)]

Batty treehugger or not, it'd be really naive to think that someone rich, connected AND of royal blood would somehow not have any political influence in a country like England where all of those things are valued.

Dumb, clueless rich people have huge political influence in the U.S., too. Some are even elected President. There's nothing conspiracy-minded about it, it's just how politics works.

[(Anonymous)]

The Queen and Prince Charles do both use the Royal Veto. More than we think. She does have power. Also the Prime Minister has to visit her once a week and she is informed of everything.

I'm British, and in fact these things don't necessarily bother me because I look at the world and think about people like Murdoch, and the big companies that fund The Republican party, and the Tory party here, not to mention religious interests etc. So I tend to feel our constitutional monarchy has done OK in recent years, this is a very liberal country, and laws such as abortion and anti discrimination laws are very safe, not to mention the Queen supports gay marriage. I'm not even a royalist, but I just don't feel hostile toward them, just sort of fond really.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm Canadian and I'm fond of her too. Fond of a lot of them really; it was awesome seeing William over here with our military, and seeing other members of the royal family serve. Here the PM decided to have a fancy paint job put on the military transport plane he occasionally rides on, so now there's one less for our troops to use.