would you like to source that one?
what it does not change is the whole stinking paternalism attitude of that era that somehow celebrates the aristocracy and revels in the rich and poor divide
GOD BLESS!
Peace and Love,
what kind of source...history? If you don't believe me, just research, and provide evidence to the contrary, but it seems to be such a well established fact that any old source would do. Do a search on the Bedchamber crisis. Peel was the Tory who took over , and then resigned because the queen refused to remove her whig LIWs.
quoting from wikipedia (for what reliability or non reliability it is worth)
The Bedchamber crisis occurred in May 1839 after Whig politician Lord Melbourne had resigned as Prime Minister. Queen Victoria invited Tory politician Robert Peel to form a new government. Peel realised that such a government would hold a minority in the House of Commons and would be structurally weak, possibly damaging his future political career.
Peel accepted the invitation on the condition that Queen Victoria dismiss some of her ladies of the bedchamber, many of whom were wives or relatives of leading Whig politicians. The Queen refused the request, considering her ladies as close friends and confidantes, not as objects of political bargaining. Peel, therefore, refused to become Prime Minister and Melbourne was eventually persuaded to stay on as Prime Minister.
After Victoria's marriage to Prince Albert in 1840, the Queen no longer relied on her ladies as companions. In the 1841 general election, Peel's Tories gained a majority and Peel replaced Melbourne. Perhaps on the advice of Prince Albert, Victoria made no attempt to block Peel's request to replace the Whig ladies of the bedchamber with Conservatives.
The Bedchamber Crisis was depicted in the 2009 film The Young Victoria.cool.... listen i don't mind admitting if i was factually short of a plank or two though while we are on this sort of point ... i would appreciate if you spent as much energy correcting one or two other folks in these parts who i have as good as never seen apologise for or admit to incorrect factual info even when it is documented to them ...
on the above wiki insert ...what it sounds like is that the monarchy is always at risk of meddlin with the mortals of politics then! and can change theri configuration during the course of a reign in ways that are completely outside of the interests or needs of the people (however they might be defined) which is hardly good for a case of impartiality.... i guess it would be like today Cameron resigning and Gordie Brown being reinstated... though that would be ... extremely unexpected ...... Cameron resigning would surely though push the boat into interesting debating territory.....
still ... though the idea that the tea lady was cosying up to queen vic and making political capital out of that is hardly a relevant case.... i have elsewhere stated that though libs and tories may have differences they are all out of that political stable of the past where and i repeat for the umpteenth time they both conspired in effect to deny the common man as pauper the vote and also all women.... and they haven't changed their spots either of them... and they is still doin their utmost to cosy up to the royals and now the ladies in waitin appear to be a whole collection of blokes with blue rinse eyeballs....
the missing link to all this is what happened politically in the royal house once qv became a little distracted.... did the realtionships between tories and the aristocracy (if you do have some history to provide to say anything) how the power handling was affected..... there is something going on that can't quite be seen with the naked eye of the commoner... and that is largely cos the commoner with notebook prefers internetting these days... i mean in reagrd with the whole political strategies the whole balance of payments issue AND the whole future of industry stuff..... it affects and impacts the disenfranchised working man the commoner who has no vote in effect and the whole ambassadorial role of prince william and the other royals is a largely hidden agenda at least to the public eye.... should we be concerned ... yes should we be included.... well yes are we being told or included.... wwell no! and what about the monies that is disappearing out of the country ? well.....
the whiggs may do it for you as a significant departure from .... the interests of the aristoocracy and the rich? but they do not do it for me... for all the rhetoric ... i can see the victoriana in them i can't see change that politically includes the real commoners ie folks who never got the vote under that lote..
on the radio programme moral maze there was an issue of ther being a point to having a monarchy that should make a stand against the excesses of any one or other elected institution which does not say a lot for the elected institution or the monarchy's view of what is excessive....
i did wonder at what point the police would strike under the thatcher/major years
however the
this is all a bit higgledy piggledy but i've had enuff now
The monarchy generally are paid for by the Crown estates, land which was owned by the Monarch, and which was bound over to the Government in exchange for the Civil list. People play with the figures, buty it is generally believed that the Government are in profit.
Charles has asked to return to a situation where they live off their own estate, whether profitable or not, but the Govt prefers not to, either because they want to keep the surplus, or because they want to keep the Monarch on a leash
mmm
GOD BLESS!
Peace and Love,
Home
Search
Calendar
Login
Register