The British Monarchy

Lol, People are trying to convince themselves that the media haven't gone overboard on it. Every front page and first Major Story on every News channel last night. About a fuckin picture. Never seen anything like it.
Is it all about the picture, though?

From what I have seen, apart from the rags like the Mirror and the Sun (which will always sensationalise anything to do with the royals until their readers move on to the next sordid story), most reputable outlets have had ‘below the fold’ or ‘side bar’ write ups about the bizarreness and problematic nature of the situation as a whole.
 
Genuine question, as I am interested in your thoughts:

Would you say there is a reasonable expectation for the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign, Home, Defence Secretaries, and the Chancellor to disclose in advance a major operation that could have them in hospital for several weeks, during which time they may not be able to carry out their duties (in part or whole), or may potentially be doing so without full control of faculties?
No they wouldn't need to say what the major operation was for and as long as they had appointed a Deputy to carry out their duties why would we need to know? The Government have x number of MPs and therefore should have someone to take over from them.

In a similar way that a school for example has a teacher off long term and they employ a supply teacher. Or if the Headteacher is off long term the Governors either temporarily promote the DH and employ a supply further down the line of command to cover their classes or they make an arrangement with the LA to bring in one of their people.
Or as happened to me after I retired, an organisation I had done voluntary work for had a person go off for an operation and they asked me to cover for him as a paid employee.
I am taking it that you don't think all those people would be having operations at the same time? :-)
I hope that clarifies my take on your question? :-)
 
No they wouldn't need to say what the major operation was for and as long as they had appointed a Deputy to carry out their duties why would we need to know? The Government have x number of MPs and therefore should have someone to take over from them.

In a similar way that a school for example has a teacher off long term and they employ a supply teacher.
Or as happened to me after I retired, an organisation I had done voluntary work for had a person go off for an operation and they asked me to cover for him as a paid employee.
I am taking it that you don't think all those people would be having operations at the same time? :-)
I hope that clarifies my take on your question? :-)
Thanks for the earnest response, as always.

Do you think there are any possible negative implications—either in function of government or in public trust—from any one of those individuals holding high office suddenly not being available to fulfil their duties in a time of crisis, with the public only being made aware another individual has been undertaking their duties for a period of time prior without disclosure (and will be doing so during the crisis)?
 
Thanks for the earnest response, as always.

Do you think there are any possible negative implications—either in function of government or in public trust—from any one of those individuals holding high office suddenly not being available to fulfil their duties in a time of crisis, with the public only being made aware another individual has been undertaking their duties for a period of time prior without disclosure (and will be doing so during the crisis)?
If the whole of the Tory front bench suffered from a really bad case of the shits for the next month which left them sat on the toilet unable to function then there’s a good argument the country would improve exponentially..
 
The late Queen didn't tell everyone about her health issues. Charles has told people of his because of the reluctance of many males to have the necessary checks done and so he has highlighted the benefits.

To my mind their health is their business until they decide otherwise.

The photo thing sounds a bit like me trying to alter/enhance photos.....I wouldn't even know how to do it really or which programme to use. :-) A bit of a clanger dropped on that but not the end of the world. She's recovering from a major operation and is probably not feeling 100% so wasn't concentrating properly maybe. Let's face it the woman has 3 school age children mithering her as well. :-)
Been there, done that, worn the tee shirt as they say. Mine was more when I was baking and forgot to put the flour/butter/salt in maybe. *lol* easily done.
Well young lady, if you did not put the flour/butter/salt in you were not baking;-)
 
If the whole of the Tory front bench suffered from a really bad case of the shits for the next month which left them sat on the toilet unable to function then there’s a good argument the country would improve exponentially..
At the risk of attracting the ire of the mods, I wouldn’t disagree, but that is a different discussion than what *should* happen if we ignore our personal opinions about the current government.
 
At the risk of attracting the ire of the mods, I wouldn’t disagree, but that is a different discussion than what *should* happen if we ignore our personal opinions about the current government.
Meh! I can’t possibly attract anymore ire from the mods than I do already so my point remains. :-)
 
Thanks for the earnest response, as always.

Do you think there are any possible negative implications—either in function of government or in public trust—from any one of those individuals holding high office suddenly not being available to fulfil their duties in a time of crisis, with the public only being made aware another individual has been undertaking their duties for a period of time prior without disclosure (and will be doing so during the crisis)?
There is National Security I suppose. However (maybe naively) I would hope that the public would be understanding about someone's ill health and be sympathetic to the circumstances. The other negative would be if the person 'promoted' was not competent to fulfil the role adequately the crisis would multiply and become crises!!
The thing with Governmental people of course is that they (allegedly) have Civil Servants who have the expertise to guide them in their roles. Whether the MP would have the nous or the humility to take advice is another matter.

I bet we could have avoided some of the problems we have been facing if someone had listened to a real expert in the first place but that's another discussion entirely. :-)
 
Last edited:
Well young lady, if you did not put the flour/butter/salt in you were not baking;-)
*rofl* I only missed one item.... but it could have been any of them. (Apart from flour. Not really sure why I said flour) My children (4 in 5 years!) had a very varied diet. But they absolutely loved Saturday as they had casserole with dumplings on Saturday. And if that sounds repetitive it was their choice. :-)
 
There is National Security I suppose. However (maybe naively) I would hope that the public would be understanding about someone's ill health and be sympathetic to the circumstances. The other negative would be if the person 'promoted' was not competent to fulfil the role adequately the crisis would multiply and become crises!!
The thing with Governmental people of course is that they (allegedly) have Civil Servants who have the expertise to guide them in their roles. Whether the MP would have the nouse or the humility to take advice is another matter.

I bet we could have avoided some of the problems we have been facing if someone had listened to a real expert in the first place but that's another discussion entirely. :-)
Yeah, the issues with lack of transparency (public trust) and potential degradation of government function (as much as some of us would love that right about now) are the key issues I see with not expecting advance disclosure of medical procedures that may prevent someone in high office from fulfilling their duties.

In this case with the increasingly bizarre situation with Kate’s absence, it more falls in the realm of public trust.

And if we don’t enforce a basic expectation of disclosure, what’s to stop the front bench from instituting a secret drawing of straws by all the Tory MPs the Monday morning of each week which decides who is actually handling any given government function until the next week?

You know, now that I think about it, that would explain quite a lot about the last decade or so.

[hides from the mods behind his sofa]
 
Last edited:
Lol, People are trying to convince themselves that the media haven't gone overboard on it. Every front page and first Major Story on every News channel last night. About a fuckin picture. Never seen anything like it.
I'm in Italy at the minute and even their news channels were running with it every half hour. The banner headline was Fake Kate .... didn't understand the rest of it. Still none the wiser after logging in here.
 
*rofl* I only missed one item.... but it could have been any of them. (Apart from flour. Not really sure why I said flour) My children (4 in 5 years!) had a very varied diet. But they absolutely loved Saturday as they had casserole with dumplings on Saturday. And if that sounds repetitive it was their choice. :-)
My god, woman, you deserve a MBE.

No wonder you are cozying up to Kate! ;-)
 
Last edited:
Too late for me. I was Bill the Conquerors GP, and what a mither getting that fucking arrow out, I can tell thee.Could have killed him.
Wasn’t it Harold that did the “I spy with my little eye something beginning with A ?” Bill (le frog) was a worthy winner of the Battle of Hastings.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top