Philosophy Now Forum

There seems to be a growing opinion in favour of scrapping the monarchy. For example, Rupert Lowe's Restore Britain movement has something called the Cromwell Club, and Britain First has proposed having an elected Lord Protector, again, emulating Cromwell. The reasons are fairly simple, namely, Charles's perceived treachery. Giving a knighthood to Sadiq Khan, for example, who has suppressed any enquiry into the rape gangs in London, and giving an MBE to another Muslim politician who, again, is noted for suppressing a rape gang enquiry in Yorkshire.

I find this interesting for historical reasons, given the less than stellar track record of the previous two kings named Charles. Charles I, of course, was put on trial by Cromwell and beheaded, and Charles II was a traitor, secretly receiving massive bribes from the French for most of his reign. Personally, I think it's very unlikely that Charles III will be made to vacate the throne, but you never know. After all, it wasn't so long ago that a king was forced to do exactly that, for being a Nazi sympathiser, namely Edward VIII in 1936.

Substantiate those claims.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:38 am Substantiate those claims.

Which ones?

Charles and Camilla do come across as pretty ridiculous and pointless. I suppose they are paying for all those foxes they tortured to death. Horrible people with no charisma at all. The best royals can be these days is good eye candy and they definitely are not that.

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:45 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:38 am Substantiate those claims.

Which ones?

Any would do.

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 9:13 am Charles and Camilla do come across as pretty ridiculous and pointless. I suppose they are paying for all those foxes they tortured to death. Horrible people with no charisma at all. The best royals can be these days is good eye candy and they definitely are not that.

Edit: The reply I wrote here vanished!

accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 9:13 am Charles and Camilla do come across as pretty ridiculous and pointless. I suppose they are paying for all those foxes they tortured to death. Horrible people with no charisma at all. The best royals can be these days is good eye candy and they definitely are not that.

They are indeed uninspiring. I quite like the idea of having a Lord Protector, rather than a bland, European-style elected president, with no real power.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 10:14 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:45 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:38 am Substantiate those claims.

Which ones?

Any would do.

Charles I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Charles II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 10:25 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 10:14 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 8:45 am

Which ones?

Any would do.

Charles I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Charles II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

I know my history, thank you, how do they support any of your claims? Particularly in your toxic 1st para.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:50 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 10:25 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 10:14 am
Any would do.

Charles I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Charles II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

I know my history, thank you, how do they support any of your claims? Particularly in you toxic 1st para.

You shouldn't have said "any would do". One of her claims was that Charles I was beheaded - that's supported in her links.

So if you just want her to substantiate anything she said, well she's done that. If there are particular claims you find disagreeable, you should figure out what they are, Google them first, and then decide if you're still skeptical or not.

Some historical claims are simply accepted history. People can casually talk about accepted historical facts without having to cite and source every individual claim. This isn't a peer reviewed journal, this is a forum.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 12:25 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:50 am

Maia wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 10:25 am

Charles I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_I_of_England

Charles II
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_II_of_England

I know my history, thank you, how do they support any of your claims? Particularly in you toxic 1st para.

You shouldn't have said "any would do". One of her claims was that Charles I was beheaded - that's supported in her links.

So if you just want her to substantiate anything she said, well she's done that. If there are particular claims you find disagreeable, you should figure out what they are, Google them first, and then decide if you're still skeptical or not.

Some historical claims are simply accepted history. People can casually talk about accepted historical facts without having to cite and source every individual claim. This isn't a peer reviewed journal, this is a forum.

No thanks mate. The toxicity shines. The lying for the truth. That's far more interesting.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 1:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 12:25 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:50 am
I know my history, thank you, how do they support any of your claims? Particularly in you toxic 1st para.

You shouldn't have said "any would do". One of her claims was that Charles I was beheaded - that's supported in her links.

So if you just want her to substantiate anything she said, well she's done that. If there are particular claims you find disagreeable, you should figure out what they are, Google them first, and then decide if you're still skeptical or not.

Some historical claims are simply accepted history. People can casually talk about accepted historical facts without having to cite and source every individual claim. This isn't a peer reviewed journal, this is a forum.

No thanks mate. The toxicity shines. The lying for the truth. That's far more interesting.

Ok. Rape gangs are horrible. But what's so bad about "grooming gangs"? What do they do? Sneak up behind people and comb their hair? Straighten stranger's collars? Re-tie the knots on passer-bys' neckties? I'm confused.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 1:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 12:25 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 11:50 am
I know my history, thank you, how do they support any of your claims? Particularly in you toxic 1st para.

You shouldn't have said "any would do". One of her claims was that Charles I was beheaded - that's supported in her links.

So if you just want her to substantiate anything she said, well she's done that. If there are particular claims you find disagreeable, you should figure out what they are, Google them first, and then decide if you're still skeptical or not.

Some historical claims are simply accepted history. People can casually talk about accepted historical facts without having to cite and source every individual claim. This isn't a peer reviewed journal, this is a forum.

No thanks mate. The toxicity shines. The lying for the truth. That's far more interesting.

No thanks what? What toxicity? What "lying for truth"? What's more interesting?

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:07 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 1:23 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 12:25 pm

You shouldn't have said "any would do". One of her claims was that Charles I was beheaded - that's supported in her links.

So if you just want her to substantiate anything she said, well she's done that. If there are particular claims you find disagreeable, you should figure out what they are, Google them first, and then decide if you're still skeptical or not.

Some historical claims are simply accepted history. People can casually talk about accepted historical facts without having to cite and source every individual claim. This isn't a peer reviewed journal, this is a forum.

No thanks mate. The toxicity shines. The lying for the truth. That's far more interesting.

No thanks what? What toxicity? What "lying for truth"? What's more interesting?

The racist lies.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:29 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 2:07 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jul 14, 2025 1:23 pm
No thanks mate. The toxicity shines. The lying for the truth. That's far more interesting.

No thanks what? What toxicity? What "lying for truth"? What's more interesting?

The racist lies.

Racist lies are more interesting? Than what?