162 thoughts on “Losing Bet

1 2 3 4 5 6
  • Suhayl Saadi

    At precious, tender and auspicious moments like these, I really miss Norman St John Stevas, don’t you?

    Long Live Kings Charles III (the ‘Old Pretender’?), William V and George VII!

    Wow – King Farouk was right! In the end, after all the revolutions, all that will be left will be the four kings of cards nd the King of England. Now, in this country, we have three kings and a queen! Just one more king to go, and we’ll have a card game!

  • Uzbek in the UK

    Suhayl Saadi,

    You think very little of the hierarchy in the House of Windsor. There is only the Queen and the rest are Princes. You can of course call them Kings but then you have to add ‘in waiting’. I read once a very interesting article about laws concerning monarchy in Britain. It is hard to imagine but there are more laws concerning monarchy in modern Britain (most still in practice) than in many other vital modern days issues such as healthcare or trade. The only exception was law on taxes but despite thousands of bills concerning taxation in Britain multinationals still avoid paying taxes finding multiple loopholes in this complicated system.

  • Komodo

    Three princes, Uzbek? I make it 11, plus a couple of dodgy ones- Edward’s male offering, Viscount Severn, and a relic of the Hanoverian succession possibly legitimisable as Prince James of Wessex. NB, Wessex is not a county. There are also 13 princesses, 7 by marriage and 6 by inheritance, this time including Edward’s female offering.

  • Uzbek in the UK


    I did not say there were 3 Princes I said the rest are Princes. I am not an expert in British monarchic family but I feel there are many more than you listed, depending of the starting point of the counting and inclusion rules.

  • Komodo

    That’s a GIGANTIC…solar garden light. Pussycat. No question of it. Very tasty, they are, too. For a fee, I will agree to roam the estate semi-surreptitiously and eat it.

  • Komodo

    Sorry, Uzbek, technical point to you. My criterion was live ones. We’re still waiting for Andrew’s and Edward’s grandchildren, I think, and Anne’s offspring don’t get the prince treatment because she’s a girl* (and the one member of the family who’d make a decent monarch, IMO)

    *term used for comic effect

  • Komodo

    Did you mean Norman, Baron Cringe-On-All Fours-ly St. John Fawsley, Suhayl? It’s so important to give due recognition to the titles…

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    Mmmm, I can now understand more fully why this is the third most read political/economic/social blog in the UK.

    Some wonderfully thoughtful insights (“the pregnancy, the birth and b-now the naming of the child has been one giant propaganda exercise”), a lot of tight, well-reasoned argument and discussion (“unelected unaccountable free-loading feudal fascistic relic”), and some useful suggestions as to the way forward, placing the Royal Family firmly in the context of the present economic difficulties (“ditch these hangers on and save some taxes, sell their art treasures, feed the poor, find jobs and houses for the young unemployed”), all expressed in splendidly articulate, elegant and even witty language ( “brood mare and sire”) which neglects no conceivable aspect of the Royal birth and its implications (“no doubt its ‘bris’ will be performed by the new Chief Rabbi”). And as a special treat, a tutorial on the geneaology and history of the House of Windsor with special reference to the names used over time. And, finally, contributions placing this Royal event firmly within the context of other national and international developments (the new Chief Rabbi, Veolia’s work on the West Bank railway plan, etc…).

    Carry on, Team Revolution, you’re doing a great job. Venceremos!

    (honorable exceptions : Fred, Anon, Juteman, Jemand, Jay, Jake and Grant)


    La vita è bella, life is good!

  • Dreoilin

    My last contribution for today

    Big blue cock erected on fourth plinth in London’s Trafalgar Square


    “If you were to Google the sculpture in a few year’s time,” [Boris Johnson] said, “search engines would collapse at the behest of the prime minister. Er, quite properly of course.” He warmed to the theme later. “You would be forbidden by prime ministerial edict from looking at it,” he told journalists. After a meaningful pause, he added: “Quite right too.”

  • Herbie

    If there’s one thing more ridiculous than discussing this royal family, it’s supporting them.

    Their constitutional function is to distract from parliament, where the real levers of power lie, yet that function is much better performed today by media, slebs, games and other wonders.

    Little wonder the main parties are now so keen to ensure only centrally coordinated candidates are selected.

    It’s amazing to think that were people up and down the country to elect their own truly local candidates, they’d immediately have power in their hands. The Westminster Parliament really is quite a revolutionary body, despite appearances.

  • Suhayl Saadi

    Yes, I know about the hierarchy, Uzbek in the UK (I was engaging in some absurdist humour), but I didn’t know about all the laws around the institution of monarchy – that is very interesting, thanks.

    Venceremos, indeed! One day, Comrade Habbabkuk, the revolution will come. And on that day, I will make you the Commissar of Blogs.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ KingofWelshNoir

    Had you posted before me, I’m sure that I would also have been able to include you in the “honorable exceptions” category. 🙂

  • wikispooks

    Phil 1:14pm
    “…. Very surprising. I don’t really grasp your explanation for such odds. Looks like a dead cert to me.”

    The odds were on the name, not responsibility for the Alma tunnel incident

    My explanation was to take account of the hopes of those who KNOW that incident was know accident; naming the infant Mohammed would demonstrate that the 2nd in-line knows that too, and a can of worms would be well-and-truly opened. Wishful thinking of course – or something like that.

    Jeman 2:12pm
    Re your £10m bet suggestion:
    I think you’ll find that standard t&c’s for any on-line betting would precluded any such single – or even rapid set of multiple – stake(s)

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Suhayl

    And I, in turn, will put you in charge of radio broadcasting!

  • Nextus

    Headline: “Gambia’s now got an 0207 London number if it’s the new tax haven that you’re looking for”

    URL: “www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/07/25/ghanas-now-got-an-0207-london-number-if-its-the-new-tax-haven-that-youre-looking-for/

    Is this a aurreptitious slur on the reputation of the Gold Coast, or evidence that the web editor of taxresearch.org.uk is rubbish at geography?

  • nevermind

    Like he’s going to take Louis to a rock festival….with his mates, show him how to roll fat spliffs….
    ‘Look Louis, we’re fine, there’s at least 10 security men looking after us, and the police will turn their back’…..

  • Villager

    Sofia, wonderful stuff — ‘travelling outwards’ etc, but i note you didn’t answer my question. Your recent friend and date did as follows:

    25 Jul, 2013 – 11:29 am
    FACT. Now bugger off to the forest and listen for falling trees before I clap your head with one hand.”

    Very telling that you made no observation about that, Buddhist or not. Try a bit of honest constant awareness instead of your various escapes. Life is lived and understood through its actuality of action, not by playing with some theories however appealing and romantic you may believe them to be.

  • Villager

    Ben, for you and thanks for the link the other eve — i’ve lost it if you can post it again please, appreciate it!

    The Doors Universal Mind
    Dreoilin, thanks for your link too — have saved it for cooler climes — very helpful.

  • Habbabkuk (La vita è bella!)

    @ Herbie (17h31)

    “…this royal family, it’s supporting them.

    Their constitutional function is to distract from parliament, where the real levers of power lie,…”

    Hand on a minute there, Herbie.

    In a little discussion on the UK’s constitution we started on a previous thread, you said that there was a blurring on the executive and the legislature (resulting in an “elective dictatorship”) and that the solution would be to have an executive outside parliament, with a President with “real” power; in this way Parliament could do a proper job of scutinising and controlling the executive.

    But you are now saying that the real levers of power lie in Parliament.

    Have you changed your tune?

1 2 3 4 5 6

Comments are closed.