Enough of all this naff waffle about the Queen. Yesterday was Hitler's birthday. #r4today— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
.@Patriarchalist are you a Republican? :)— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin I am a monarchist, and you don't have to be a Republican to think Charles has been waiting long enough.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
.@Patriarchalist if queen goes early, the pressure will immediately be on Charles to do so too... We mustn't choose our monarch.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist I don't think a monarch can 'pass it on' it is for their replacement to take it...— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin The Queen would be abdicating, technically, not retiring.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist Charles is a milksop.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Can you give an example of his milksoppery?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist that he isn't obviously a king in waiting... Completely mummy's boy, unassertive.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Unassertive? I thought people were complaining about Charles for expressing his views too much.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist instead of secret letters he should have manned up and faced them down.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Palace protocol and all that. You are not even trying to be fair to Charles, are you?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin You would be unmanned too if you had to spend your entire life not expressing any political views. Credit to Charles for doing so.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist he should have been a loud, outspoken rogue... A lost/wasted life...— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist he was dealt a hand and played it as he saw best at the time. That's not my 'fairness' it is his fate.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist he should have been a tough guy - he would have been criticised at the time by *everyone* but he'd now be fit as king.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin In what way could Charles have been "a tough guy"? Staged a Palace coup?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist run a ranch producing steaks to bbq, not an effete organic outfit producing 'Duchy original granola thins'.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Ah, Charles is not fit to be king because he didn't sell the foods you approve of. Can we have a sensible argument, please?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Charles was outspoken enough for us to be acquainted with his views. Honestly, why do you prefer an overstaying old woman?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin It is time to retire if you are already 90, especially if you know the next in line, now 67, is itching to step into your shoes.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin 90 is a nice round number at which to retire, if one is fortunate to reach that age still doing one's job.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin It was up to Charles' mother to know when to go. She could have abdicated in 2006, 1996 or 1986 when Charles was 56, 46 and 36.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist @pperrin no. Her Majesty should reign until she passes away. Or if she feels unable.— Mister Snoops (@Mister_Snoops) April 21, 2016
@Mister_Snoops As I was saying to @pperrin, one mustn't overstay one's welcome and be obviously reluctant to give up the limelight.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin The Queen is giving the impression that she does not think Charles is fit to step into her shoes, which is why she is staying on.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin The point is that milksop or not, he is next in line n is now 67. You are already tired of him cos he's been hanging round so long.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin I am not saying we should be seen to choose, only that the Queen should know she shouldn't overstay her welcome.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin If I were the Queen, I wouldn't fuck up my son's chances of taking my place like that, unless I really hated him.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist he'll probably be thrown on her funeral pyre. An entire life in her shadow - never man enough to break out.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin I suppose there is not much point fighting to be an ornament of the nation and to have even more restrictions on our liberty.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist we can't choose, so milksop or not he is next in line. Push the queen out and he will be pushed even quicker!— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin If you think Charles is emasculated, it is only because he has been emasculated by his mother not giving way to him when she should— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist agreed. Scandinavian saying 'You are not a man until you father is 5 years dead' - She must die for him to grow.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin The Queen is not the father of Charles.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist she is mother and matriarch the worst possible combination for him. Too late for him to grow up properly now...— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Perhaps Charles should have had all his arguments ready in 2006, at her 80th and been more insistent, perhaps.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist she will always be a better monarch than him - that how experience works and why she can't retire while fit.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin u cling to Queenie cos u fear change. You probably want the crown to go straight to William cos u don't want to look at an old king— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin There is no reason why Charles should not be reign as king now. He's as ready as ever he's going to be. I think it's actually cruel— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist it is harsh - but billions of people endure far, far harsher lives...— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Another sensible argument from you: life is unjust, so let's also be unjust.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin How do you measure the goodness of a constitutional monarch? They have no official power.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin If you cared about the monarchy you would care about how things are going to play out for the next in line.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist the monarchy is the monarchy - it makes no odds what I think/care...— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin You were just saying earlier that the Queen should "hold the fort" in order to prevent Charles from taking over.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist The queen needs Charles as a buffer against people calling for William to take over.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin The older Charles is, the more strident the calls from plebs 4 the crown to go to William cos they don't want to look at n old king— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Perhaps you are one of those people who want the crown to go straight to William cos you don't want to look at an old king?— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin If you want the monarchy to continue, you make sure the next in line has not gone "off the boil" by the time he's on the throne.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin I am just saying a mother should be more concerned about her son's career than the Queen appears to be.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist monarchy is irrational but has worked for us. Try to rationalise it and you'll destroy it.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin There is nothing irrational about monarchy, which is essentially about kingship. A king is just another word for leader.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin A constitutional monarchy is arguably irrational, but that's because we hold on to the idea of a monarchy for sentimental reasons.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@Patriarchalist we still have a monarch *because* they have no power - they literally can do no wrong. (Not enough to get ditched!)— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Exactly. So Charles can be handed the baton, so to speak.— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
.@Patriarchalist having a monarch hasn't stopped us getting an unelected political president (Junkers) - monarchy's usefulness is waining.— Paul Perrin (@pperrin) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Use of a constitutional monarch: self-destructive act of protest eg Queen saying "I ain't reading this SHIT in my Queen's Speech!"— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin I would love Charles to precipitate a constitutional crisis while king by converting to Islam. https://t.co/2BGC3HUTn5— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
@pperrin Prince Charles - Follow Islam to save the World https://t.co/yLBtaUtbo0— Claire Khaw (@Patriarchalist) April 21, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment