Jump to content

Lord of Mann


0bserver

Recommended Posts

Wiki gives a choice of adjectives:

But given that the two previous Charles had their own, it seems a bit unfair Charles III doesn't get a new one for himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Roger Mexico said:

 

(I suspect the Royals are almost as bemused as the rest of us).

I suspect the Royals are bemused, but also dealing with grief and the implications for their family of the loss of not only a family member but the protocols for the rest of the family.  I thought it was quite telling how C3 referred to Harry in his address yesterday;  much loved but making his own way.

It seems that the parting is permanent, he  made a point of not accompanying the rest of the family on Thursday, and the announcement was before he arrived at Balmoral. Presumably, everyone is happy with that, but it does seem like he is now outside the castle gates. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I suspect the Royals are bemused, but also dealing with grief and the implications for their family of the loss of not only a family member but the protocols for the rest of the family.  I thought it was quite telling how C3 referred to Harry in his address yesterday;  much loved but making his own way.

It seems that the parting is permanent, he  made a point of not accompanying the rest of the family on Thursday, and the announcement was before he arrived at Balmoral. Presumably, everyone is happy with that, but it does seem like he is now outside the castle gates. 

 

 

But he’s not even a blood relative is he? Allegedly. 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Gladys said:

I suspect the Royals are bemused, but also dealing with grief and the implications for their family of the loss of not only a family member but the protocols for the rest of the family.  I thought it was quite telling how C3 referred to Harry in his address yesterday;  much loved but making his own way.

It seems that the parting is permanent, he  made a point of not accompanying the rest of the family on Thursday, and the announcement was before he arrived at Balmoral. Presumably, everyone is happy with that, but it does seem like he is now outside the castle gates. 

It's possible to get a bit Kremlinologist over this - even to who is standing where on balconies. So separate travel may have been for practical reasons (and the rule about not travelling together) and the media will love any excuse to diss Harry and Meghan because they actually stood up to them (and won).

But it was always well known that when Charles succeeded there would be a slimming down of the 'Firm' and indeed you could start to see this happening already, with more distant relatives moving out of royal residences for example.  It wouldn't surprise me that Harry's children aren't given the Prince/ss title for example.  Not as a 'snub', but as a part of downsizing (Anne's and Edward's kids never got them and Andrew's only did because he's a dickhead and insisted on it).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gladys said:

But how will that work even if T W Cain, who is likely elsewhere? He would have had to deal with the Lord of Mann, anyway.   

We are a Crown Dependency, that's it.  To change that is to change our entire constitutional position.  That is my point really. 

But nobody is talking about not being a Crown dependency, merely scrapping the title of Lord of Mann. If we're dependent on another country why do we need a head of state? It makes no sense at all. The Queen or King or whoever would still be head of state for the country we're "dependent" on, but we wouldn't have a head of state because, not being a sovereign state , we simply don't need one - it serves no purpose whatsoever.

I see you're playing the constitution card as normal when anyone dares to question anything vaguely British, as if our constitution is set in stone (it's not even written down) and as if it can never be changed in the slightest way, even to better reflect the changing society and political direction of the island.

Constitutional reform is long, long overdue on this island, why bother modernising other legislation if our entire constitution is mired in archaic irrelevance, why bother striving for a more inclusive and egalitarian society if we are to continue with the costly charade of an unnecessary head of state whose appointment represents the complete opposite.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

I went onto Ebay yesterday and was met with a black screen and and mourning message saying they were sorry for my loss.

This latest guff is less about virtue signalling (although it's still there) and more about everyone covering their back in case they get piled on.

I bloody hate social media.

That display of Baked Beans is like a shrine, especially with the photo and message of condolence. 
 

Manx Radios website is still draped in black, presumably till after the funeral? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, A fool and his money..... said:

But nobody is talking about not being a Crown dependency, merely scrapping the title of Lord of Mann. If we're dependent on another country why do we need a head of state? It makes no sense at all. The Queen or King or whoever would still be head of state for the country we're "dependent" on, but we wouldn't have a head of state because, not being a sovereign state , we simply don't need one - it serves no purpose whatsoever.

I see you're playing the constitution card as normal when anyone dares to question anything vaguely British, as if our constitution is set in stone (it's not even written down) and as if it can never be changed in the slightest way, even to better reflect the changing society and political direction of the island.

Constitutional reform is long, long overdue on this island, why bother modernising other legislation if our entire constitution is mired in archaic irrelevance, why bother striving for a more inclusive and egalitarian society if we are to continue with the costly charade of an unnecessary head of state whose appointment represents the complete opposite.

You seem very angry, but I still cannot see what you are advocating more or less independence?   Do you mean that we should no longer have Royal Assent for legislation? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...