"Sacha" wrote ...

"Bob Hobden" said:

"Sacha" wrote ..
"alan.holmes" said:


I can't agree with you more, the whole thing is becoming a farce!



LOL!! But not gardening, Alan. ;-)) Farcical it is, however!

Is it available on the internet? Don't take the DM.

I don't know, Bob. I just got sick & tired of these ridiculous polls
about whether William should skip over Charles to become King etc. and
wrote saying so. Our constitution doesn't work like that so I have no
idea why these polls even bother, except of course if they're promoting
a republican agenda of 'voting' for a monarch which instantly nullifies
the entire point of a dynastic monarchy. That, I suspect, is their
agenda. The pollsters make none of that clear to the individuals who
respond to the polling questions. You *cannot* 'vote' for a monarch in
UK nor can you ditch one in favour of someone else. Edward VIIII had
to become King before he could abdicate his responsibilities, for
example. He could not just 'step aside' as some newspaper polls
suggest to the public for Charles and William and that was a poll taken
by the NoTW in the immediate wake of the engagement of a very young and
attractive couple. If our country's future depends on a soap-opera
reaction, heaven help us all!

My letter was very pruned because I asked, too, how it is that the DM,
which is part of the group that owns the Western Morning News, often
takes pics and stories from the WMN feed but *never* the stories of how
well Charles has been received in the west country, how he visited
during the recent floods, was photographed visiting homes and
businesses, or how a lot of people here think highly of him, with
quotes from some of those people. The DM has a republican agenda,
IMO, despite its apparent right wing tendency and never misses a chance
to diminish all members of the royal family, other than the Queen, who
they know is sacrosanct to most of their readers! Whatever one's
personal sympathies, it's dishonest and sneaky, imo and finally, I was
sufficiently irritated to write saying something about it.

My bit about the WMN was cut out - what a surprise! I dislike this
form of manipulation very much and even while I know that all
newspapers do it to some extent, living here and reading both the DM
and the WMN makes it extremely clear to us what is going on in this
regard. We have a dynastic monarchy, not a pick'n'mix set up or, as I
said in the bit that wasn't published, Strictly Come Reigning'. A
ridiculous article elsewhere asked if people would 'vote' for Prince
WIlliam as next monarch over Prince Charles. The entire point is you
don't 'vote' for a dynastic monarch, you get what there is and IMO,
what there is is coming along is just fine. Now - if you don't like
the monarchical set up and you want something different, go to work
through the ballot box, but don't manipulate and obfuscate to achieve
your ends by manipulating us through the newspapers. That really makes
me mad!

I totally agree, thought for years something sinister was going on pandering
to the brain dead who don't have a clue about how this country and our
monarchy works. Look at all the chatter about the cost of policing the
wedding, most is for the benefit of those lining the route not the couple.
Another reason why I haven't bought a newspaper for decades, look who owns
them. Wouldn't even trust the date at the top.

--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK