Some good articles in the Guardian today looking at the complex (or, apparently, fairly simple) relationship between patriotism, national pride and the monarchy, like this one:
[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/30/royalty-british-attitude-patriotism[/url
"The scale of the crowds, like the fervour of the broadcasters, was a reminder of just how rare such displays are in Britain. We have no national day, no Fourth of July. World Cup victories are rarer than coronations and, besides, sporting events are complicated: the teams often represent England or Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland alone rather than Britain.

This, then, is how Britain does patriotism. Republicans in Britain have long made their case in the language of political institutions, explaining why an elected head of state would be a better system. They've couched the argument as if abolishing the monarchy were like a move to AV. It's nothing of the sort. What we saw yesterday is proof that a shift away from royalty would require an entirely new form of British patriotism – for the two are utterly bound together, hand in hand, like a prince and his bride at a gorgeous wedding."

Excellent post.

Well put.

Mrs B. Please stand at the next election and I will voe for you.

Sorry fellas, I'm actually quoting the Guardian article. But flattered you think I'm capable of that sort of eloquence. If you like that, try this other one: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ish-people For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a raving royalist, I don't hang the flag of St George out the window on St George's day and I think Charles is an @rse. But I do get a bit sick of people being snooty about others' enjoyment of a great day of British pageantry and patriotism. I don't get huffy about people celebrating May Day and that gets a Bank Holiday every year.

Sorry fellas, I'm actually quoting the Guardian article. But flattered you think I'm capable of that sort of eloquence. If you like that, try this other one: www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ish-people For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not a raving royalist, I don't hang the flag of St George out the window on St George's day and I think Charles is an @rse. But I do get a bit sick of people being snooty about others' enjoyment of a great day of British pageantry and patriotism. I don't get huffy about people celebrating May Day and that gets a Bank Holiday every year.

It was.

The sea in mid-channel was near flat-calm. The fishing could have been more productive but I still found it £70 well spent, even though I only came home with a pair of pollacks

LOL - were your pollacks cold ?

Pretty much my take on it, Mrs B.

I'm not a royalist but probably less of a republican than I was in my late teens or twenties. I certainly felt quite proud to be British yesterday.

I rather like Charles. I like his organic gardening and his appreciation of proper old buildings.

I too love our history and feel it does no harm to display it and remind everyone else of it from time to time. I'm also fascinated by the aristocracy and their culture and how it's shaped our country today. Don't like many of them, though, and think that as individuals they're probably a set of selfish ar$es. And I'm convinced Philip did away with Diana. Didn't like her either, though.

But I'd be happy with Charles in Charge, if only to protect our old buildings and stop the scientists poisoning us. As long as his remit stays within those sorts of boundaries, he's useful.

Hmm, think he should have known better at 32 than to have married Diana (20) whilst still in a "relationship" with Camilla. However, the story goes that he was coerced by Phil the Greek into doing so. I agree entirely about Phil's subsequent "work" to finish that story. Best not mention this to Mr B. Over the last 10 years we've spent days winding each other up about the conspiracy theory. Or should I say truth.

Completely agree about his low morals in marrying the girl in the first place, but then monarchs and their offspring have been doing this for millennia, it's part of the aforementioned British history. I reckon she made up for it afterwards, and I also reckon Charles' stiff upper lip has never had to be more resolute now he's faced with James every time he looks at his youngest.

I do blame Philip, though. He appears worse than Cockayne with his apparent tendencies to violence and xenophobia.

(Rovers have now gone three games without a single question towards their internal investigation being asked, by the way

.)

Todays caption competition?

"For Queen and Country"

Only about the 500th time I've seen that picture this weekend.

Wow.

You must really like it?

First time was quite amusing.

Why bother responding to it then?

Sounds like you would have been a big advocate of president blair then? Far worse than any monarch we could have IMO

No offence, but you are a fine one to talk.

None taken but I don't bother posting in response to something I'm not interested in or that I don't think I can get someone riled about

While I assume that is tongue in cheek, there is a serious issue that his opinions are given media attention and even credence because of who his mum is. Even if (some of) his views weren't quite so bonkers, it'd be grossly inappropriate. It absolutely isn't his remit - his remit is waving and smiling. The Queen never says anything much - Charles need to realise that is why she has managed to make a success of the role.

Summed up quite nicely here...

[urlhttp://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100047851/the-prince-of-wales-needs-to-defend-science-if-he-wants-to-defend-nature/[/url

Or by Professor Michael Baum, a cancer specialist at University College London:
"The power of my authority comes with a knowledge built on 40 years of study and 25 years of active involvement in cancer research. Your power and authority rest on an accident of birth."

The man knows next to nothing about science, yet he abuses his position to promote his views and sections of the public suspend their rationality to think they have especial value.

I feel a bit for the Royals, in one sense, in that you can never achieve anything through merit. William serves in the military, but has to be kept safe from harm. Charles has a food production company, but any success it has will always be attributed to his using his name. Realistically they can't even walk away to a normal life. They're comfortably cossetted, but they're less free than we are.

Hey - I just feel a bit of an affinity for the old bumbler because he appreciates our heritage and has a beautiful organic garden. I live in an old house and like my garden. And I try to avoid eating food that's genetically modified because we don't know the full extent of it's effects and long term consequences, yet.

And that's about it, really.

You mean Baldy and Jake went with you?

Fair enough. He's 62 and he's spent his whole life waiting to fill a role, so I can understand why he might cast about for something to do in the meantime. He's as entitled to an opinion as anybody else - people listening is the strange part, IMO.

The Monarchy is like Father Christmas - apart from some childish minds, nobody [ireally[/i believes in it, but it can be fun and is pretty harmless to pretend occasionally. I don't like to see any person bowing and scraping to another, but if everyone is in on the joke that is their choice I suppose. I think if we got rid, it'd subtley enhance people's sense of individulal self-worth - but for many I guess it'd diminish their sense of supporting something bigger and more glamourous, and would not be a price worth paying. If they had a greater sense of self-worth, of course...



I am serious today - I think it is the prospect of playing Wakefield with £500k of salary cap sidelined!

How come?