• REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

    At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Curtsy

an capall

an capall

Senior Jockey
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
5,695
Location
Dalkey
I'm neither a voter nor a citizen of the UK, so this is an outside view on something which may be none of my business.

But I've been jolted on several occasions today by the many clearly rehearsed and performatively executed curtsies to Queen Camilla (totally decent egg, btw) at Ascot.
I know it is tradition etc, but it seems strange in today's society that one citizen would demonstrate such outward obsequiousness to another.

Am I just a bitter little man with little to do, finding fault as a I await my only bet of the day at 3.37?
 
It’s just an old tradition I think - can’t really think many of the royals since after QE2 came to the throne would have been the slightest bit bothered if it didn’t happen. Certainly can’t imagine Charlie/camilla onwards would give two hoots.
 
It's just part of that whole ITV Racing thing which reveals to the casual viewer that racing this time of year is all about the well-heeled, silver pound, Saga Holidays racehorse ownership mob meeting a bit of royalty if their jumper happens to win at Ascot.
 
For me, in 2025, a quarter of the way through the 21st Century, the idea of one extended inbred family sponging billions of pounds off ordinary citizens is absurd.

For it actually to be happening is obscene.
 
Desert Orchid said:
For me, in 2025, a quarter of the way through the 21st Century, the idea of one extended inbred family sponging billions of pounds off ordinary citizens is absurd.

For it actually to be happening is obscene.
Click to expand...

Seems a bizarre conclusion to draw for a member of the Church an organisation that has a lot more money, is far more corrupt and follows a book which has plenty of incest and other questionable things from cover to cover. Where does the Church's money come from again ?
 
Considering how much I seem to be able to fritter away on nothing, 86p a year seems not too bad to me.
If everyone in the UK would like to give me 86p a year I would say yes too 😆
 
Danny said:
Seems a bizarre conclusion to draw for a member of the Church an organisation that has a lot more money, is far more corrupt and follows a book which has plenty of incest and other questionable things from cover to cover. Where does the Church's money come from again ?
Click to expand...
It's not necessarily always 'either-or.' It can be 'and-and' too. Both positions can be true at the same time.
 
Danny said:
Seems a bizarre conclusion to draw for a member of the Church an organisation that has a lot more money, is far more corrupt and follows a book which has plenty of incest and other questionable things from cover to cover. Where does the Church's money come from again ?
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • IMG-20250211-WA0004.jpg
    IMG-20250211-WA0004.jpg
    61.5 KB · Views: 6
That's terrible Mr.P. it reminds me of the reverse exorcism. That's the one where the devil tells the priest to get out of the child.
 
Desert Orchid said:
For me, in 2025, a quarter of the way through the 21st Century, the idea of one extended inbred family sponging billions of pounds off ordinary citizens is absurd.

For it actually to be happening is obscene.
Click to expand...
The alternative is not worth thinking about though.

It would be President Starmer now, or President Truss a few years ago. This might not mean a great deal to residents living in the Republic of Ireland or even Scotland, but it does to me.

Looking at the way Russia has turned out with supreme authority given to Putin, or even The U.S with President Trump, I think the royal institution could be seen as keeping our politicians in check. Or at least trying to.

Amazing how few focus on the House Of Lords and ask for them to be removed during these debates. I guess they do nothing either and are a waste of money? Why not widen the conversation and abolish the Pope aswell? Why not. Honest question...

I am well aware the Royals are flawed, as we all are to some extent, but always assess whether the grass is really greener....

I thinks it's a psychological thing as much as it is political. People have wrongly blamed King Charlie and Co for the state of the country, more so than ever under Tory Austerity and during Brexit, which of course, had bugger all to do with them.

They are powerful, but we can't directly hold them accountable electorally, so let's just keeping blaming it on and bashing them.

And continually complain about something that in reality, a bit like jumps racing, will likely never be abolished anyway.

Amazing how some rebels don't mind taking a good title when offered one isn't it.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of Republics around the world that function perfectly well as democracys without a constitutional monarch.

The British monarchy provides revenue via tourism at cost to the taxpayers, most of who don't see that tourism income themselves.

Let those who benefit financially from having a monarchy FULLY subsidise the cost of having a monarchy ON THEIR OWN, or get rid.

Simple and equitable (fair).
 
Isn’t that rather the point though - everyone benefits ( some more than others, obviously!) from the touristy bit ( which I’m not sure is as much as everyone thinks it is?)
 
The people tourists pay money to in order to facilitate, and in the course of, their visits here are the sole beneficiaries - I've never been one of those beneficiaries consequently I not unreasonably don't feel I'm getting value for any of my tax which goes towards keeping right charlie and his entourage on those special-rate royal social security benefits! 😂
 
I think that’s a very blinkered way to look at it - but ok, that leaves basically Londoners, everyone around the various houses and Duchy benefactors doing it. Plus all the charities who have royal patronage, airlines, there’s a lot more than meets the eye and somewhere along the line I don’t doubt you’re affected somewhere.
Maybe a sliding scale 😆
 
Ian_Davies said:
There are plenty of Republics around the world that function perfectly well as democracys without a constitutional monarch.

The British monarchy provides revenue via tourism at cost to the taxpayers, most of who don't see that tourism income themselves.

Let those who benefit financially from having a monarchy FULLY subsidise the cost of having a monarchy ON THEIR OWN, or get rid.

Simple and equitable (fair).
Click to expand...
Fair enough.

I just don't think we would.

I'm totally not enamoured with any politician being head of state in this particular country.

It would be an absolute disaster.

A total stab in the dark I'm not personally prepared to take.

President Farage.

Just imagine that.
 
trudij said:
I think that’s a very blinkered way to look at it - but ok, that leaves basically Londoners, everyone around the various houses and Duchy benefactors doing it. Plus all the charities who have royal patronage, airlines, there’s a lot more than meets the eye and somewhere along the line I don’t doubt you’re affected somewhere.
Maybe a sliding scale 😆
Click to expand...
Of course it's a blinkered way of looking at it - I look at everything in a blinkered way!

I don't care about: Londoners, everyone around the various houses and Duchy benefactors. nor do I care about the charities (I don't actually agree with charity as a concept anyway - if it's a truly worthy cause fund it via taxation so everyone has to pay towards it) or airlines.

None of these institutions cares about me in any tangibly real and meaningful sense!

If we had no monarchy I can assure you I'd suffer no adverse personal consequences and if you think I'm wrong, I happily agree to disagree and take my chances!

The monarchy epitomises and symbolises everything I despise about Britain tbh and I have always resented the crass wrong assumption by some that because I'm into racing I must be some sort of monarchy-loving, Tory voting, Daily Mail (or Telegraph if you've got that crucial second brain cell in order to make the leap) reading royalty fan boy! 😂
 
Last edited:
Well said, Ian.

All I would say is, you don't have to be a Tory or a Daily Mail reader, or both, to broadly support the Monarchy.

The same way some on the left are atheists, while others might be Christian or other faiths.

It's not a left versus right issue, per se.

You could find people on different political sides that think the same or the polar opposite on this one.
 
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here Ian - I don’t care about you any further than I can see you. But to say you aren’t affected when there is a lot more to it than the surface is a leap.
I’m not sure many people will notice any real difference if the monarchy is wiped out entirely, but that doesn’t mean I want it to happen - ability to see the bigger picture just means knowing it’s not just the first and second line who would be affected.

Sounds to me like you’ve got an entire potato field on your shoulder that’s nothing to do with the royal family 😆😆😆
 
trudij said:
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here Ian - I don’t care about you any further than I can see you. But to say you aren’t affected when there is a lot more to it than the surface is a leap.
I’m not sure many people will notice any real difference if the monarchy is wiped out entirely, but that doesn’t mean I want it to happen - ability to see the bigger picture just means knowing it’s not just the first and second line who would be affected.

Sounds to me like you’ve got an entire potato field on your shoulder that’s nothing to do with the royal family 😆😆😆
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the trouble to post this tremendous reply.

Not caring about me is always a good life choice because outside of family and close friends no one should even take a billion to one that I care about them - big odds don't always mean value! 😂

For me, there is no wider picture.

As for the chip on the shoulder thing, I've always found that a weird concept as it seems to suggest that those who have the awareness to complain about living in a less-than-fair society are the ones with the problem.

I don't know the origin of the term, but odds-on it was invented by a Tory, possibly one who reads the Daily Mail to stay in that tabloid comfort zone! 😂

I don't actually think I even fit the definition.

Too old to care, comfortable enough, I know abolishing the monarchy wouldn't make any of us appreciably better off individually if you divide the spend among the population, it's a point of general principle thing and, against all odds, I do still retain one or two principles! 😂
 
Last edited:


Write your reply...
Back
Top