Royal birth

Oh no! It's on it's way! Batten down the hatches, don't read a newspaper or listen to the radio from here on in! Sicofancy rules!

 

I Wish Them Well And Hope That She Gives Birth To

A Happy, Healthy, Boy/Girl...



Cheers Glen.

 

*insert long boring speech about the cost of the royal family compared to how much they generate for the UK GDP etc - the fact why should they have large tracts of land etc*

I managed to avoid big brother. I think I can avoid this.

 

i like the idea that since i left home for work this monring and till i get home this evening this is all going on and ive missed all coverage of it, wish them all the best regardless

 

Oh no you haven't missed it at all. The press are all still camped outside the hospital with cameras trained on doors. How can you bear to miss such knicker wetting excitement?

 

The docs have this thing , it looks a bit like a pool stick with a point on the end of it . It breaks the yoke sack , or some thing like that . Just use one of these things and be done with .
p.s. They used one on my g.f. , she was a pool player , I kidder her on this . Just poke this royal pane in the ass and let the kid be born .

 

Woohoo! I for one am pretty happy that we're getting an addition to the royal bloodline.

Yeah yeah there's a lot of flag-waving and excitement and publicity, but that's part of the process - the reconnection of the monarchy to the public, the reaffirmation of the symbiotic bond between crown and people. The only thing that annoys me is how most of the enthusiasm for the royal family is about patriotism, or tourism, or history, or just aren't-they-a-nice -couple or other such meaningless cr*p.

The constitutional monarchy keeps us safe from tyranny! IT KEEPS US SAFE FROM TYRANNY!

If that's not worth getting a bit happy about, what the f*ck is?!



(/poking)

 

How so?

 

I thought it was the British legal system , Parlement , Prime minister , courts , ect. that kept you form tyranny , the royal family was just a hold back to the old days of when they had a king running things .

 

Or Queen There has only been 5-6 but hey ho.

 

I meant either king or queen .

 

The Constitutional Monarchy acts as a check and balance on Parliamentary tyranny (true story). It's the equivalent of the American Constitution, but better because it's more flexible and has been developed, modified, negotiated, refined and improved day by day for 1000 years - the beauty is that because the British Constitution isn't written down, it is just an ethereal conceptual mass of traditions and conventions it can move with the times much more easily... but it is also very real - because it's embodied in the flesh and blood monarch. (gushing over)(for now)

But huzzah HUZZAH! It's a boy! I'd a preferred a girl, just for the hell of it, but ach. In the end it's all good.

 

Because the existence of the monarch acts as a passive (key point) counter-weight to the active power of an elected but potentially unrepresentative, potentially tyrannous parliament.

It's a passive power, it hasn't had to be used but the reason it hasn't had to be used is because the fact it exists prevents parliament from thinking about trying tyranny on.

An example of the tyranny btw would be if an election result threw up a coalition of Conservative, UKIP and EDL/BNP members of parliament who'd been elected on a low turnout/low majorities/split left wing vote... and the right wing, unrepresentative, but still elected coalition, THEN DECIDED to abolish any more elections. Democracy isn't perfect, it does need checks and balances, safety mechanisms for the 'just in case' scenarios.

In this instance, civil unrest would then give the monarch a mandate to refuse royal assent to the law abandoning future elections.

This is a relatively unlikely scenario, but the without the royal family it becomes a lot LESS unlikely.

Egypt just found out the problems of electing a president - yes Morsi got more votes than any other candidate... but he was elected by the largest minority... not an actual majority. And then he made a power grab, changed the constitution, tried to impose the will of a minority, a large minority but still a minority, on the rest of the country.

Yes, a hereditary monarch as head of state is counter-intuitive, it doesn't quite make sense - but that's the beauty. Because it doesn't quite make sense, the monarch must keep the people onside - ie they can't abuse their powers - because the system ONLY makes sense for as long as it isn't abused.

Our current political problems are caused by how we elect MPs and how they behave once elected and how much influence the corporations have on them... not anything to do with the monarchy.



(edit - a much more succinct way of putting it would be:

It's like the Monarch, as head of the armed forces, holds a gun to parliament's head... and we the people hold the sword of republicanism over the monarch's head. A mexican stand-off of counterbalancing powers.)

 

how much you wanna bet this kid becomes king before Charles.

 

unedited


That makes sense. Thanks.

 

i wish Diana were still around to enjoy her first grandkid //

 

I'm Sure She's Up There Watching Over Them...



Cheers Glen.

 

avoided all new till 9:50 to hear it was a boy them went to sleep.
Unedited you should check out namaste magazine, they have alot of articals about the connstituion you might enjoy.....
i think any baby born is a reason to celbrate becasue life is precious, kinda cool though that if you were born on the same day you get a silver coin

 

I agree I think its nice to have something celebratory on the news although 24/7 coverage is toooooooo much!

 

i agree with you on that one

 

Fed up with the BBC syncophancy ? Here's a few helpful hints from Republic - http://www.republic.org.uk/


So the new royal baby is finally here - and the BBC has disgraced itself yet again.

Its coverage has been appalling: hours and hours of trivial chatter and intrusive detail, with professional sycophants queuing up to offer their "insights". Even BBC presenters have admitted this isn't news!

Meanwhile, republican perspectives are marginalised or suppressed. Republic has been vetoed from appearing on two flagship BBC news programmes already today.

Of course we don’t expect the BBC to ignore the event, but the coverage should be proportionate, balanced and respectful of the new parents’ privacy.

The BBC also has a duty to all of us – regardless of our views on the monarchy – to offer serious, intelligent and unbiased analysis. They should report, not celebrate.


**
What you can do - complain to the BBC today
------------------------------------------------------------
We need to show the BBC that they've got it badly wrong. And the best way to do that is to complain.

Submit a formal complaint to the BBC now (http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/)

Points you may want to include in your complaint:
* The BBC's blanket coverage does not reflect the level of public interest in the royal baby
* The BBC has a legal duty to include a wide range of views, including those of republicans
* Representatives of pro-monarchy groups have appeared on BBC news programmes - why not those from Republic?
* All the serious issues raised by a royal birth - about hereditary power, for example - have been completely ignored
* Such disproportionate coverage means many serious news stories have been dropped

Remember to keep your complaint short, polite and to the point. And please put the above points in your own words if you can.


**
Want to do more? Tweet BBC journalists directly
------------------------------------------------------------
BBC staff do take Twitter complaints seriously - especially if they're respectful and constructive.

If you're on Twitter, why not tweet the following with your views? Remember to keep it polite!
* Peter Hunt, Royal correspondent for the BBC - @BBCPeterHunt (https://twitter.com/BBCPeterHunt)
* BBC Newswatch, viewer feedback programme - @newswatchbbc (https://twitter.com/newswatchbbc)
* Luisa Baldini, BBC royal reporter - @LuisaBaldini1 (https://twitter.com/LuisaBaldini1)
* Sam Taylor, controller of BBC news channel - @samtaylornews (https://twitter.com/samtaylornews)


**
Why it's important
------------------------------------------------------------
A few weeks ago we officially announced our #bornEqual (http://bornequal.org) initiative. The aim was to highlight the serious questions raised by a royal baby.
Now Kate and William's new son is here, those questions are more important than ever.

As republicans we simply cannot accept that a prince is more important, more valuable, than every other child.

But we should also remember that he hasn't chosen to be royal. His career, religion, even personal relationships, have already been mapped out. Thanks to the monarchy, he will have very few real choices in life.

The message of #bornEqual (http://bornEqual.org) is simple: all children should be born equal, able to aspire for the top job and make their own path in life.