The 'I warn you not to be old ...' etc one, a master-piece.
The one where he got Hatton and Militant on the run too.
Genius.
And thanks to a certain cross-pond cribber, we will never forget "My ancestors were all coal miners who couldn't afford to go to university."
Yes, cross-pond plagiarist ...
But let's not get into Pond War territory again.
For the record, I wasn't in any way pandering to cross-pond animosity, even jocularly. It was just a way of more clearly identifying the lifter in question.
Apparently, Kinnock always accepted it as a genuine mistake. Biden had credited him with the quote on previous occasions but forgot to do so once.
I’ve always said that it’s a massive shame that we never had Neil Kinnock as Prime Minister. He turned the Labour Party around and set it back on course for government. Although he didn’t quite make it to No 10, I truly believe he laid the foundations for the 1997 victory.
I think John Smith deserves more of the credit for that, and I rather regret we didn't have the opportunity to have him as PM. Kinnock did a lot of work to turn the Labour ship around, but still lost rather badly in 92.
I would consider Lester Pearson, Canadian PM 1963-1968, whom apparently I met once but as I was 18 months old at the time, my recollections were focussed on eating and other bodily functions. My late mother had taught English to the residents of the Cornwall Sanitorium, where tubercular DPs were housed after their arrival in Canada. Pearson, as External Affairs minister, had pushed very hard for this after he learned of DP camps full of people who were deemed inadmissible to migrant-receiving countries for health reasons. He was greatly responsible for the implementation of UN peacekeeping which, while flawed, has staved off a few wars.
More pertinently to this thread, he set the ball rolling for much change for the next thirty years, from the Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism on. A former academic and diplomat, he grasped that Canada involved francophones, Aboriginal Canadians, and immigrants, and ensured that they took a prime position in the 1967 Centennial celebrations (although often in a way which makes 2024 cringe). Unlike many leaders, he realized that his main job was to recruit his replacement(s) and he launched the careers of Trudeau, Turner, & and Chrétien. And he joined the ranks of those US allies who declined to send troops to Vietnam, which earned him an energetic response from LBJ who grabbed him by his lapels for a lecture.
Not my tribe, but I’ve always had a lot of admiration for Stanley Baldwin - if for no other reason than his career as Prime Minister and after greatly highlights the essentially ‘memory of a mayfly’ of the British electorate.
Anonymously donated a big percentage of his family wealth to repay Britain’s WW1 debt (and unlike how it would be now, did so properly anonymously, not looking for a headline), tolerated his son’s career in Labour, tried to lay the foundations for rearmament while taking the country with him, then spent the 1945 victory parade in tears because, now profoundly deaf as he travelled through the streets in an open carriage, he thought the crowds were booing him, when they were cheering.
@Augustine the Aleut I remember my father speaking well of Lester Pearson, probably for not sending troops to Vietnam - which the NZ government of the time did. Damn tories.
Not my tribe, but I’ve always had a lot of admiration for Stanley Baldwin - if for no other reason than his career as Prime Minister and after greatly highlights the essentially ‘memory of a mayfly’ of the British electorate.
Anonymously donated a big percentage of his family wealth to repay Britain’s WW1 debt (and unlike how it would be now, did so properly anonymously, not looking for a headline), tolerated his son’s career in Labour, tried to lay the foundations for rearmament while taking the country with him, then spent the 1945 victory parade in tears because, now profoundly deaf as he travelled through the streets in an open carriage, he thought the crowds were booing him, when they were cheering.
We (UK) were lucky to have him.
A dedicated man of Worcestershire. Always lived in North West Worcestershire and got rid of a useless king.
I would consider Lester Pearson, Canadian PM 1963-1968, whom apparently I met once but as I was 18 months old at the time, my recollections were focussed on eating and other bodily functions. My late mother had taught English to the residents of the Cornwall Sanitorium, where tubercular DPs were housed after their arrival in Canada. Pearson, as External Affairs minister, had pushed very hard for this after he learned of DP camps full of people who were deemed inadmissible to migrant-receiving countries for health reasons. He was greatly responsible for the implementation of UN peacekeeping which, while flawed, has staved off a few wars.
More pertinently to this thread, he set the ball rolling for much change for the next thirty years, from the Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism on. A former academic and diplomat, he grasped that Canada involved francophones, Aboriginal Canadians, and immigrants, and ensured that they took a prime position in the 1967 Centennial celebrations (although often in a way which makes 2024 cringe). Unlike many leaders, he realized that his main job was to recruit his replacement(s) and he launched the careers of Trudeau, Turner, & and Chrétien. And he joined the ranks of those US allies who declined to send troops to Vietnam, which earned him an energetic response from LBJ who grabbed him by his lapels for a lecture.
Much of the Canadian Welfare State dates to Pearson's tenure, Trudeau Sr. was much less active on social spending, which is why I like Pearson more. He only had minorities and the CCF/NDP exacted quite a price from him for those minorities.
Though truth be told Medicare efforts were started at the federal level by Diefenbaker.
That said, I will never, ever forgive Pearson, nor Tommy Douglas nor Woodrow Lloyd for leaving pharmacare out of medicare.
Yes, I am the only NDPer who has a legitimate bad word to say about Tommy Douglas.
All leaders are imperfect. This is because they are human, not gods.
That is why I dislike the current obsession with making the PM a sort of quasi-president or substitute (pre-democratic) king when he ought to be merely the first among equals and restrained by an effective, codified constitution. I strongly dislike elected dictatorships and majoritarianism. Especially, as, with FPTP voting, the 'majority' is a false one.
So far as the C of E is concerned, I'm not sure if it was Charles II, or the Restoration Parliament, that insisted on revenge. I was taught the latter, and that Charles was indifferent in matters of religion. He died RC, of course.
So far as the C of E is concerned, I'm not sure if it was Charles II, or the Restoration Parliament, that insisted on revenge. I was taught the latter, and that Charles was indifferent in matters of religion. He died RC, of course.
Charles' indifference to religion is plausible, but I doubt his indifference to regicide, particularly when the target was his father.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
Churchill.. He made mistakes but he made sure that the UK did not lose WW2
Like Stalin, his policies led caused a famine in which millions died.
I assume this is a reference to the Bengal famine in 1943. Without denying that Churchill shared the endemic racism of his culture and class, I think this is a falsely simplistic view.
Madhusree Mukerjee in Churchill’s Secret War (2010) is the most recent exponent of the explanation that Churchill’s policies caused the famine. Historian Zareer Masani has critiqued her book as
"sensationalist" and a "largely conspiracist attempt to pin responsibility on distant Churchill for undoubted mistakes on the ground in Bengal".
As the extensive Wikipedia article indicates the situation was complex and multifaceted, and the historiography remains contested.
The article notes in regard to the attribution of direct responsibility to Churchill due to his suggested animus towards India that
several historians have critiqued this view, with Tirthankar Roy [an Indian economic historian, and not obviously a defender of Churchill] referring to it as "naive". Instead, Roy attributes the delayed response to rivalry and misinformation spread about the famine within the local government, particularly by the Minister of Civil Supplies Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy, who maintained there was no food shortage throughout the famine, while noting that there is little evidence of Churchill's views influencing War Cabinet policy.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
No mileage discrepancies here. I've long thought that the Windsors should be forced to adopt a financial and lifestyle regimen along the lines of Scandinavian monarchs. Not quite sure why this general idea hasn't caught on in the UK, given how widely known the family's extravagance is.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
No mileage discrepancies here. I've long thought that the Windsors should be forced to adopt a financial and lifestyle regimen along the lines of Scandinavian monarchs. Not quite sure why this general idea hasn't caught on in the UK, given how widely known the family's extravagance is.
Hmm. Good point. Maybe we all (or some of us, at any rate - not me BTW) sort of subscribe to the idea that our Monarch is appointed by God to rule over us, and is therefore untouchable...
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortunedamned her in the eyes of many.
I liked the Queen too and am generally a moderate monarchies, although I can't for the life of me understand why certain far-right US crackpots would want to establish one over there.
Some of the ROCOR types (Russian Orthodox Church Overseas) and, tell it not in Gath, some US Antiochians are coming out with this shtick.
I'm not sure I approve of the Windsors obscene wealth though.
I can see no justification for that at all. I'm not saying they should live on the poverty line but excess is excess. It's all relative of course, and most of us here are pretty well off in global terms. Perhaps it's the residual Puritan in me but it just seems wrong.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
Or, not-so-recently-revealed. The prerogative of the monarch to amend laws, or simply have royal property excluded from laws, has been long known. As have the secret meetings between representatives of the monarch and government ministers, that not only don't get minuted even whether or not such meetings have happened can't be discussed. There's a popular fallacy that the UK royal family are just figureheads, who do good stuff being patrons of charities and opening buildings, with political roles limited to reading what the PM writes for them. The monarch has substantial political influence, certainly more than anyone else who doesn't hold an elected position. Powers that Charles inherited, along with the obscene fortune that's not subject to all the taxes and constraints other obscenely wealthy families are subject to.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
No mileage discrepancies here. I've long thought that the Windsors should be forced to adopt a financial and lifestyle regimen along the lines of Scandinavian monarchs. Not quite sure why this general idea hasn't caught on in the UK, given how widely known the family's extravagance is.
The Scandinavian Royals are all well off. The Norwegian Monarchy holds several properties , I count six homes in regular use. two of which are private. The Swedish Royals have three palaces in regular use, one of which is private. The Danish Royals have four palaces in regular use. The Dutch Royal Family, thanks to share ownership in Royal Dutch-Shell are actually wealthier than the Windsors.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
Or, not-so-recently-revealed. The prerogative of the monarch to amend laws, or simply have royal property excluded from laws, has been long known. As have the secret meetings between representatives of the monarch and government ministers, that not only don't get minuted even whether or not such meetings have happened can't be discussed. There's a popular fallacy that the UK royal family are just figureheads, who do good stuff being patrons of charities and opening buildings, with political roles limited to reading what the PM writes for them. The monarch has substantial political influence, certainly more than anyone else who doesn't hold an elected position. Powers that Charles inherited, along with the obscene fortune that's not subject to all the taxes and constraints other obscenely wealthy families are subject to.
We need a Republic.
Do you think that an elected president would have no political influence ?
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
Or, not-so-recently-revealed. The prerogative of the monarch to amend laws, or simply have royal property excluded from laws, has been long known. As have the secret meetings between representatives of the monarch and government ministers, that not only don't get minuted even whether or not such meetings have happened can't be discussed. There's a popular fallacy that the UK royal family are just figureheads, who do good stuff being patrons of charities and opening buildings, with political roles limited to reading what the PM writes for them. The monarch has substantial political influence, certainly more than anyone else who doesn't hold an elected position. Powers that Charles inherited, along with the obscene fortune that's not subject to all the taxes and constraints other obscenely wealthy families are subject to.
We need a Republic.
Do you think that an elected president would have no political influence ?
I'm sure it would be possible to write a constitution where the figurehead president has no political power, either in theory or practice, eg. elected politicians are legally prohibited from discussing policy in the president's presence, and vice versa, much like a judge is barred from expressing political opinions during a trial.
But, the thing is, if you can do that with an envisioned presidency, you can just as easily do it for an existing monarchy, eg. abolish the king's regular tea with the PM, or if you must keep it, have a small contingent of neutral lawyers on hand to ensure the conversation never strays into policy.
Would you happen to know anything about the nordic monarchs' tax situation?
None of the Scandinavian monarchs pay income tax on their direct subsidies from their states, Sovereign Grant, Civil List or whatever. None have such extensive assets like the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster though.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
Or, not-so-recently-revealed. The prerogative of the monarch to amend laws, or simply have royal property excluded from laws, has been long known. As have the secret meetings between representatives of the monarch and government ministers, that not only don't get minuted even whether or not such meetings have happened can't be discussed. There's a popular fallacy that the UK royal family are just figureheads, who do good stuff being patrons of charities and opening buildings, with political roles limited to reading what the PM writes for them. The monarch has substantial political influence, certainly more than anyone else who doesn't hold an elected position. Powers that Charles inherited, along with the obscene fortune that's not subject to all the taxes and constraints other obscenely wealthy families are subject to.
We need a Republic.
Do you think that an elected president would have no political influence ?
I'm sure it would be possible to write a constitution where the figurehead president has no political power, either in theory or practice, eg. elected politicians are legally prohibited from discussing policy in the president's presence, and vice versa, much like a judge is barred from expressing political opinions during a trial.
But, the thing is, if you can do that with an envisioned presidency, you can just as easily do it for an existing monarchy, eg. abolish the king's regular tea with the PM, or if you must keep it, have a small contingent of neutral lawyers on hand to ensure the conversation never strays into policy.
If so, the King in Canada exercises, at least in practice, no power to order or even advise the government on any matter of policy. But, in whatever way, the royals still manage to remain relevant enough to keep any proposed republican alternatives very marginal to the political discussion.
Queen Elizabeth II, despite what her worshippers might think or say, was an imperfect human being, like the rest of us.
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
Or, not-so-recently-revealed. The prerogative of the monarch to amend laws, or simply have royal property excluded from laws, has been long known. As have the secret meetings between representatives of the monarch and government ministers, that not only don't get minuted even whether or not such meetings have happened can't be discussed. There's a popular fallacy that the UK royal family are just figureheads, who do good stuff being patrons of charities and opening buildings, with political roles limited to reading what the PM writes for them. The monarch has substantial political influence, certainly more than anyone else who doesn't hold an elected position. Powers that Charles inherited, along with the obscene fortune that's not subject to all the taxes and constraints other obscenely wealthy families are subject to.
We need a Republic.
Do you think that an elected president would have no political influence ?
An elected president would have a democratic mandate to exert political influence.
No one who hasn't been elected should have more political influence than any other member of the general public (we all have rights to vote, write letters/emails to MPs and councillors, join marches to protest about things we disagree with the government on). Though, I accept that a letter from Charles Windsor is likely to have more impact than an email from Josephine Bloggs - but, so too would a letter from anyone else with wealth or fame.
Or, not-so-recently-revealed. The prerogative of the monarch to amend laws, or simply have royal property excluded from laws, has been long known. As have the secret meetings between representatives of the monarch and government ministers, that not only don't get minuted even whether or not such meetings have happened can't be discussed. There's a popular fallacy that the UK royal family are just figureheads, who do good stuff being patrons of charities and opening buildings, with political roles limited to reading what the PM writes for them. The monarch has substantial political influence, certainly more than anyone else who doesn't hold an elected position. Powers that Charles inherited, along with the obscene fortune that's not subject to all the taxes and constraints other obscenely wealthy families are subject to.
We need a Republic.
Having lived in a republic for four years, I can assure you, we don't.
I would want a long searching debate about the nature of a proposed different constitution before welcoming any change. But I think there are good arguments for change (and some arguments for no significant change at all).
Not my tribe, but I’ve always had a lot of admiration for Stanley Baldwin - if for no other reason than his career as Prime Minister and after greatly highlights the essentially ‘memory of a mayfly’ of the British electorate.
Anonymously donated a big percentage of his family wealth to repay Britain’s WW1 debt (and unlike how it would be now, did so properly anonymously, not looking for a headline), tolerated his son’s career in Labour, tried to lay the foundations for rearmament while taking the country with him, then spent the 1945 victory parade in tears because, now profoundly deaf as he travelled through the streets in an open carriage, he thought the crowds were booing him, when they were cheering.
We (UK) were lucky to have him.
//Tangent
One of the best history books I have ever read is Circle of Sisters by Judith Flanders. Its about four sisters - Alice, Georgiana, Agnes and Louisa Macdonald. Georgiana married pre-Raphaelite painter Edward Burne-Jones, Agnes married artist and President of the Royal Academy Edward Poynter, Alice married John L Kipling and was the mother of Rudyard and Louisa married Alfred Baldwin and was the mother of Stanley. Centering the book on the lives of the sisters gives a unique insight into the lives of the famous men they married / mothered, and brings out all sorts of links between them.
End Tangent//
I would want a long searching debate about the nature of a proposed different constitution before welcoming any change. But I think there are good arguments for change (and some arguments for no significant change at all).
I think there are a lot of good arguments for change... and a lot of good arguments that the time and energy devoted to selecting and implementing those changes should go to 100 more pressing concerns.
US President Jimmy Carter. ❤️ Possibly the most decent human being who’s ever held the office.
I guess this gets into the question of what we mean by "favorite leaders". Do we mean people who are good at being leaders, or good people who became leaders. I would argue that Carter was a pretty terrible president but a very good man (and probably the best ex-president in U.S. history). I made a similar observation on a thread about a different (though related) topic a while back.
A consensus was reached that while Denny Hastert was the worst person to be Speaker of the House (at least within living memory), Paul Ryan was the worst Speaker of the House, being unable to maintain discipline within his caucus, reach across the aisle for situations where caucus discipline had broken down, or in any other way advance his party's legislative agenda. In other words, Paul Ryan is bad at being the Speaker of the House whereas Dennis Hastert was a bad person who became Speaker of the House.
I made that observation in 2018, before the even more incompetent Kevin McCarthy Speakership plumbed depths of incompetence Paul Ryan could only dream of.
True. But I suspect that a sensible reluctance to spend much collective effort in thinking through a change might mean that an undesirable change comes about almost accidentally and unexpectedly.
I occurs to me that if the wealth of the Windsors weree to be confiscated, the present government would use it to provide tax cuts for the rich. I'm not convinced that an incoming Labour government would use it any more constructively, Perhaps a discussion on that needs another fhread.
I occurs to me that if the wealth of the Windsors weree to be confiscated, the present government would use it to provide tax cuts for the rich. I'm not convinced that an incoming Labour government would use it any more constructively, Perhaps a discussion on that needs another fhread.
I think that while your assumption is likely correct, it's also clear that neither Sunak nor Starmer has any intention of touching the wealth and privileges of the monarchy.
I occurs to me that if the wealth of the Windsors weree to be confiscated, the present government would use it to provide tax cuts for the rich. I'm not convinced that an incoming Labour government would use it any more constructively, Perhaps a discussion on that needs another fhread.
Do you think that all wealth should be confiscated ?
What on earth gives you that idea?
Of course, in the real world, any wealth the government comes by will be needed to re-expand and re-equip the armed forces; though, given the dismal history of recent defence procurement and recruitment in this country, any such expenditure is unlikely to be productive in the time-scale needed.
Comments
Apparently, Kinnock always accepted it as a genuine mistake. Biden had credited him with the quote on previous occasions but forgot to do so once.
His rivals made capital out of it.
I don't think that Smith would have had the UK take part in the Iraq invasion.
Never forget that Bobby Kennedy was once a protege of the infamous Senator Joe McCarthy ( who just happened to be godfather to Bobby’s eldest).
By their friends shall ye know them….
I think John Smith deserves more of the credit for that, and I rather regret we didn't have the opportunity to have him as PM. Kinnock did a lot of work to turn the Labour ship around, but still lost rather badly in 92.
Indeed. I quite agree.
More pertinently to this thread, he set the ball rolling for much change for the next thirty years, from the Commission on Biculturalism and Bilingualism on. A former academic and diplomat, he grasped that Canada involved francophones, Aboriginal Canadians, and immigrants, and ensured that they took a prime position in the 1967 Centennial celebrations (although often in a way which makes 2024 cringe). Unlike many leaders, he realized that his main job was to recruit his replacement(s) and he launched the careers of Trudeau, Turner, & and Chrétien. And he joined the ranks of those US allies who declined to send troops to Vietnam, which earned him an energetic response from LBJ who grabbed him by his lapels for a lecture.
Anonymously donated a big percentage of his family wealth to repay Britain’s WW1 debt (and unlike how it would be now, did so properly anonymously, not looking for a headline), tolerated his son’s career in Labour, tried to lay the foundations for rearmament while taking the country with him, then spent the 1945 victory parade in tears because, now profoundly deaf as he travelled through the streets in an open carriage, he thought the crowds were booing him, when they were cheering.
We (UK) were lucky to have him.
A dedicated man of Worcestershire. Always lived in North West Worcestershire and got rid of a useless king.
Much of the Canadian Welfare State dates to Pearson's tenure, Trudeau Sr. was much less active on social spending, which is why I like Pearson more. He only had minorities and the CCF/NDP exacted quite a price from him for those minorities.
Though truth be told Medicare efforts were started at the federal level by Diefenbaker.
That said, I will never, ever forgive Pearson, nor Tommy Douglas nor Woodrow Lloyd for leaving pharmacare out of medicare.
Yes, I am the only NDPer who has a legitimate bad word to say about Tommy Douglas.
Someone said that Churchill made a career of being wrong about everything, but made his reputation by being right one time when it really mattered.
That is why I dislike the current obsession with making the PM a sort of quasi-president or substitute (pre-democratic) king when he ought to be merely the first among equals and restrained by an effective, codified constitution. I strongly dislike elected dictatorships and majoritarianism. Especially, as, with FPTP voting, the 'majority' is a false one.
US President Barack Obama, for healthcare
King Alfred the Great, for his work for literacy
Queen Elizabeth I, for holding together the C of E
King Charles II, just for the Restoration
but not for his revenge
I can't think of anyone better
Revenge is horrible, yes. (QE I was not perfect either—which is why I have specific reasons for her, KC II, Obama, etc.)
I don’t know enough about QE II’s accomplishments to list her among my favorites per se.
Charles' indifference to religion is plausible, but I doubt his indifference to regicide, particularly when the target was his father.
Like Stalin, his policies led caused a famine in which millions died.
It was not his policy for the Japanese to invade India
She may have generally done a good job as head of state (although hardly as a leader - that's the Prime Minister's job), but her recently-revealed predilection for secretly amending the law so as to protect her own immense and obscene personal fortune damned her in the eyes of many.
YMMV, of course.
I assume this is a reference to the Bengal famine in 1943. Without denying that Churchill shared the endemic racism of his culture and class, I think this is a falsely simplistic view.
Madhusree Mukerjee in Churchill’s Secret War (2010) is the most recent exponent of the explanation that Churchill’s policies caused the famine. Historian Zareer Masani has critiqued her book as
As the extensive Wikipedia article indicates the situation was complex and multifaceted, and the historiography remains contested.
The article notes in regard to the attribution of direct responsibility to Churchill due to his suggested animus towards India that
No mileage discrepancies here. I've long thought that the Windsors should be forced to adopt a financial and lifestyle regimen along the lines of Scandinavian monarchs. Not quite sure why this general idea hasn't caught on in the UK, given how widely known the family's extravagance is.
Hmm. Good point. Maybe we all (or some of us, at any rate - not me BTW) sort of subscribe to the idea that our Monarch is appointed by God to rule over us, and is therefore untouchable...
But not me. I thought she was wonderful.
Some of the ROCOR types (Russian Orthodox Church Overseas) and, tell it not in Gath, some US Antiochians are coming out with this shtick.
I'm not sure I approve of the Windsors obscene wealth though.
I can see no justification for that at all. I'm not saying they should live on the poverty line but excess is excess. It's all relative of course, and most of us here are pretty well off in global terms. Perhaps it's the residual Puritan in me but it just seems wrong.
We need a Republic.
The Scandinavian Royals are all well off. The Norwegian Monarchy holds several properties , I count six homes in regular use. two of which are private. The Swedish Royals have three palaces in regular use, one of which is private. The Danish Royals have four palaces in regular use. The Dutch Royal Family, thanks to share ownership in Royal Dutch-Shell are actually wealthier than the Windsors.
Fair points, thanks for the info.
Would you happen to know anything about the nordic monarchs' tax situation?
Do you think that an elected president would have no political influence ?
I'm sure it would be possible to write a constitution where the figurehead president has no political power, either in theory or practice, eg. elected politicians are legally prohibited from discussing policy in the president's presence, and vice versa, much like a judge is barred from expressing political opinions during a trial.
But, the thing is, if you can do that with an envisioned presidency, you can just as easily do it for an existing monarchy, eg. abolish the king's regular tea with the PM, or if you must keep it, have a small contingent of neutral lawyers on hand to ensure the conversation never strays into policy.
None of the Scandinavian monarchs pay income tax on their direct subsidies from their states, Sovereign Grant, Civil List or whatever. None have such extensive assets like the Duchy of Cornwall or the Duchy of Lancaster though.
If so, the King in Canada exercises, at least in practice, no power to order or even advise the government on any matter of policy. But, in whatever way, the royals still manage to remain relevant enough to keep any proposed republican alternatives very marginal to the political discussion.
No one who hasn't been elected should have more political influence than any other member of the general public (we all have rights to vote, write letters/emails to MPs and councillors, join marches to protest about things we disagree with the government on). Though, I accept that a letter from Charles Windsor is likely to have more impact than an email from Josephine Bloggs - but, so too would a letter from anyone else with wealth or fame.
//Tangent
One of the best history books I have ever read is Circle of Sisters by Judith Flanders. Its about four sisters - Alice, Georgiana, Agnes and Louisa Macdonald. Georgiana married pre-Raphaelite painter Edward Burne-Jones, Agnes married artist and President of the Royal Academy Edward Poynter, Alice married John L Kipling and was the mother of Rudyard and Louisa married Alfred Baldwin and was the mother of Stanley. Centering the book on the lives of the sisters gives a unique insight into the lives of the famous men they married / mothered, and brings out all sorts of links between them.
End Tangent//
I think there are a lot of good arguments for change... and a lot of good arguments that the time and energy devoted to selecting and implementing those changes should go to 100 more pressing concerns.
I guess this gets into the question of what we mean by "favorite leaders". Do we mean people who are good at being leaders, or good people who became leaders. I would argue that Carter was a pretty terrible president but a very good man (and probably the best ex-president in U.S. history). I made a similar observation on a thread about a different (though related) topic a while back.
I made that observation in 2018, before the even more incompetent Kevin McCarthy Speakership plumbed depths of incompetence Paul Ryan could only dream of.
Or the line from the 1939 film version of The Wizard of Oz, "Oh no, my dear. I'm a very good man. I'm just a very bad wizard."
I think that while your assumption is likely correct, it's also clear that neither Sunak nor Starmer has any intention of touching the wealth and privileges of the monarchy.
Do you think that all wealth should be confiscated ?
Of course, in the real world, any wealth the government comes by will be needed to re-expand and re-equip the armed forces; though, given the dismal history of recent defence procurement and recruitment in this country, any such expenditure is unlikely to be productive in the time-scale needed.