Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Pip on May 31, 2025, 04:46:35 PM »
Happy Birthday FairyGirl and lemsips
2
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Amanda_George on May 31, 2025, 06:29:59 AM »
Another two birthday bods are celebrating today, right FairyGirl and also lemsips?   :D

anim_65
3
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Amanda_George on May 30, 2025, 05:02:51 AM »
Bexwa is celebrating today!
4
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Pip on May 29, 2025, 05:41:11 PM »
:bdayballoons: MichaelAlone and stewart
5
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Amanda_George on May 29, 2025, 07:32:54 AM »
There are 2 people celebrating today!

:happybday:  MichaelAlone and also stewart!
6
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/royals/article-14595115/Queen-Victoria-Queen-Mary-tragedy-similarities-two-royals.html

How Queen Victoria and Queen Mary both endured tragedy and the other fascinating similarities between the two royals born nearly 48 years apart

By ED HOLT

Published: 07:14, 26 May 2025 | Updated: 08:26, 26 May 2025

Despite being born 48 years apart, Queen Victoria and Queen Mary of Teck have far more in common than first meets the eye apart from both being the matriarchs of the Royal Family.  Queen Victoria was born 206 years ago tomorrow in the same room of Kensington Palace as the then-Princess Mary of Teck almost exactly 48 years later on May 26 1867.  Mary was the great-granddaughter of King George III, making her Victoria's first cousin once removed.  The Queen came to visit the newborn Mary and described her as 'a very fine one, with pretty little features and a quantity of hair'.

Through her marriage to Prince George in 1893 whose father Edward was the heir to the throne Mary would one day become Queen too.  In many more ways Queen Victoria's and Queen Mary's lives were remarkably similar. Both were impacted by personal tragedy and massive societal changes taking place in Britain.  At birth, both women's lives could have been very different due to their parents being quite low-ranking royals in the family.  Victoria was the only child of Prince Edward, the fourth son of King George III. This meant at birth she was only fifth in line to the throne a distance that is often enough to make the likelihood of becoming queen a slim one.  However, a number of deaths in the family which included the King and Victoria's own father who passed away when she was less than a year old saw Victoria rise to third in line.  Then the death of King George IV in 1830 saw William IV crowned and Victoria became heir presumptive at just 10 years old.  Victoria's whirlwind journey to the throne culminated with her being crowned Queen in 1837 when she was 18.   Similarly, Mary's parents were minor royals. Her father was Prince Francis the Duke of Teck a member of the German House of Wurttemberg dynasty which ruled over what is modern-day Stuttgart in Germany.  Her mother was Princess Mary, a fellow German from the Kingdom of Hanover.  The family were not as wealthy as you might have expected and her father had no inheritance or wealth. In order to live a more frugal existence they relocated to Florence in the 1880s.  By the end of the decade the family had returned to London and she became engaged to Prince Albert, the eldest son of the Prince of Wales.   But tragedy struck when he died from pneumonia just six weeks later.  With the help of Queen Victoria, Mary then became engaged to Albert's younger brother George who was now second in line to the throne. They married on July 6 1893.  Just 17 years later Mary became Queen consort in 1910 when her husband succeeded his father as King.  Following their marriages, Queen Victoria and Queen Mary had plenty of children giving birth to nine and six respectively but both were known to be somewhat distant towards their offspring.  Victoria wrote that she found pregnancy difficult and was uncomfortable in the presence of children but, like many women at the time, a large family was her ambition.  Their first child, Victoria, was born in 1840. The Princess Royal was followed by Albert Edward (1841), Alice (1843), Alfred (1844), Helena (1846), Louise (1848), Arthur (1850), Leopold (1853) and Beatrice (1857). The day-to-day care of her children was delegated to governesses including Baroness Louise Lehzen who had been a major supporter of Victoria while she grew up under the draconian Kensington System administered by her controlling mother.  Similarly, Mary was a hands-off mother to her six children. Edward was born in 1894. He was followed by Albert, later King George VI (1895), Mary (1897), Henry (1900), George (1902) and John (1905).  Both Mary and Prince George failed to notice the abuse of Edward and Albert at the hands of their nanny who would often pinch the two boys.  King Edward VIII, when he heard of his mother's death in 1953, wrote: 'Mother could have been so hard and cruel towards her eldest son for so many years and yet so demanding at the end without relenting a scrap.  I'm afraid the fluids in her veins have always been as icy cold as they are now in death.'

Nevertheless, it still remains clear that both Queens loved and cherished their children dearly.  Victoria had marble sculptures made of each of her nine children produced from casts taken of them while they were asleep.  And Edward wrote fondly about Mary in his memoirs: 'Her soft voice, her cultivated mind, the cosy room overflowing with personal treasures were all inseparable ingredients of the happiness associated with this last hour of a child's day.   Such was my mother's pride in her children that everything that happened to each one was of the utmost importance to her. With the birth of each new child, Mama started an album in which she painstakingly recorded each progressive stage of our childhood.'

Tragically, the two women also suffered their fair share of grief during their long reigns.  Victoria's husband of 21 years, Prince Albert, died in 1861, aged only 42.  The Queen was devastated. At a Privy Council meeting three weeks after his death she could not utter a word.  She wrote to her uncle Leopold: 'The poor fatherless baby of eight months is now the utterly broken-hearted and crushed widow of forty-two! My life as a happy one is ended! The world is gone for me!'

Victoria wore black for the rest of her life and her sharp withdrawal from public life lasted ten years.  The monarch almost obsessively tried to keep the presence of Albert in the lives of her nine children. At one of her son's weddings, she insisted the siblings pose around a bust of Albert.  Meanwhile, the death of King George V in 1936 brought an end to his and Mary's 43 years of marriage meaning they were married for longer than Albert was alive.  Mary issued a message of gratitude to the nation for their condolences after the King's death, expressing her appreciation for their support.  Her life differs from that of her cousin's at this point as with the death of Prince Albert Victoria was still sovereign while Mary ceased being Queen Consort and instead became the Queen Mother.  In her new role she lived through a tumultuous period of the 1930s when her son, King Edward VIII, abdicated the throne in order to marry American divorcee Wallis Simpson.  Although she was supportive of her son, Mary could never understand why he would neglect his royal duties.  When the timid Prince Albert became George VI she saw it as her duty to provide moral support to the new King alongside his wife Elizabeth.  Yet another devastating similarity which permeates their lives is the death of their children.  Three of Victoria's nine children died before her.  Her second eldest daughter, Princess Alice died, when she was 35 from diphtheria on December 14 1878 - on the 17th anniversary of Prince Albert's death.  Victoria described the coincidence of the date as 'incredible' and 'mysterious'.  In a letter to her eldest daughter, Victoria, the queen wrote: 'My precious child, who stood by me and upheld me seventeen years ago on the same day taken, and by such an awful and fearful disease.  She had darling Papa's nature, and much of his self-sacrificing character and fearless and entire devotion to duty!'

Tragedy struck the Royal Family again in 1884 when Victoria's youngest son Leopold died aged 30.  Leopold had hemophilia and was holidaying in Cannes, the south of France, when he slipped and fell, causing him to suffer a cerebral hemorrhage.  Writing about his death in her journal, his mother said: 'Another awful blow has fallen upon me and all of us today.  My beloved Leopold, that bright, clever son, who had so many times recovered from such fearful illness, and from various small accidents, has been taken from us!   To lose another dear child, far from me, and one who was so gifted, and such a help to me, is too dreadful!'

Victoria's son Alfred died from throat cancer in July 1900 just months before Victoria died in January 1901.  Of Mary's six children, three died before her.  In 1919 Mary's youngest child, Prince John, died aged 13.  The Prince had severe epilepsy and what is now speculated to have been autistic. He was known as the 'Lost Prince' because he was kept away from the public eye.  He was sent to live in a house on the Sandringham estate as his condition deteriorated, and he died in 1919 at the age of 13 after suffering a severe seizure.  Upon his death, Mary described his death as a 'great relief' to a close friend.  'For [John] it is a great relief, as his malady was becoming worse as he grew older, and he has thus been spared much suffering.  I cannot say how grateful we feel to God for having taken him in such a peaceful way, he just slept quietly into his heavenly home, no pain no struggle, just peace for the poor little troubled spirit,' Mary said.

During World War Two, the Royal Family, like thousands across the UK, suffered the loss of family members. This included the death of Mary's son Prince George.  He was one of 15 passengers killed in the Dunbeath air crash in August 1942.  The plane crashed into the Scottish Highlands while on a routine flight from RAF Invergordon to RAF Reykjavik.  Mary also outlived her son King George VI, who died in February 1952 from cancer just over a year before Mary passed away in March 1953.  The loss of a third child had a profound impact on Queen Mary. She reportedly told Princess Marie Louise, grandaughter of Queen Victoria: 'I have lost three sons through death, but I have never been privileged to be there to say a last farewell to them.'

Finally, during their long lives both Queen Victoria and Queen Mary lived to see massive societal changes in the United Kingdom.  When Victoria was born in 1819 the light bulb had not been invented and the horse-drawn carriage was the main mode of transportation.  By the end of her reign the white heat of the industrial revolution had brought marvelous inventions to Britain, including steam trains that cut journey times from days to mere hours.  On top of this Victoria had overseen the sun rise on the British Empire, which became the world's most powerful superpower of the 1800s.  She also ushered in the era of constitutional monarchy, which saw the Queen swap hard power for influence over British politics. It remains the system of government in Britain to this day.  Meanwhile, Queen Mary's life was permeated by periods of deadly wars, which led to the rapid development of new forms of warfare.  She was Queen Consort during World War One and the Queen mother during World War Two. In the latter she reportedly would visit troops and directed the gatherings of scrap materials.  Mary was born at a time when cavalry charges were still common in war and lived to see the invention of the hydrogen bomb the most devastating weapon mankind has ever created.  She was also Queen when the Empire reached its peak in 1920, covering approximately one quarter of the world, and by the time of her death decolonisation had begun.  In death, both women have left a lasting legacy in Britain.  Queen Victoria is now one of the most famous monarchs to have ever ruled second only to Queen Elizabeth II with her cultural impact continuing to this day.  Queen Mary is remembered as a 'grand Queen' who was 'above politics' as well as an avid collector of antiques. Many of her most treasured items including her Dolls House are on display in Windsor Castle.
7
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14743517/ANDREW-NEIL-55-years-covering-politics-Ive-never-accused-UK-government-routinely-telling-untruths-Starmer-taken-lying-gaslighting-deplorable-level.html

ANDREW NEIL: In 55 years of covering politics, I've never accused any UK government of routinely telling untruths. But Starmer & Co have taken lying and gaslighting to a deplorable level

By ANDREW NEIL

Published: 02:14, 24 May 2025 | Updated: 02:14, 24 May 2025

How can you tell when politicians are lying?

Their lips are moving. It's a hoary old joke but it can still be guaranteed to raise a rueful chuckle among British voters increasingly disillusioned with the political process. I always thought it a tad unfair.  Yes, politicians do deploy all manner of contrivances to avoid telling the truth when it's inconvenient. As someone who's spent an adult lifetime interviewing them, I can readily testify to that.  They regularly mislead, dissemble, obfuscate, bluster, sidestep the question and teeter on the edge of lying by being economical with the truth.  But outright lie?

I have found that to be very rare indeed on either side of the political divide.  No longer. I have had to revise my opinion. In the so far short and sad existence of the Starmer Government, lying has become not just a feature to which it increasingly resorts it's become its modus operandi, with the Prime Minister himself leading the charge into untruths.  For me, matters came to a head this week.  In the wake of the latest net migration figures, showing a 50 per cent reduction compared with 2023, the Home Office tweeted out a poster which said 'Net Migration cut by nearly 50%', describing it as 'the largest-ever drop in net migration for any 12-month period'.

The implication was clear: it was all somehow a result of Labour Government policy. But, of course, it wasn't. And the Government knows it wasn't.  Last year's fall in net migration (only the 'largest-ever drop' because it was coming off such a high total the year before of almost one million) was largely the result of tougher visa rules introduced, belatedly, by the previous Tory government when James Cleverly was Home Secretary.  For half of last year Labour wasn't even in power. In opposition, it had actually attacked Cleverly's rule-tightening, with then shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper (now in charge of the Home Office) dismissing it as 'chaotic' and 'Tory failure'.  But that didn't stop Keir Starmer from going even further than his Home Secretary. On Thursday he tweeted out the claim that 'we have nearly halved net migration in the last year. We're taking back control.'

Labour, of course, had done no such thing. It had merely presided over implementing the new rules it inherited from the Tories – rules it had criticised in opposition – when it took power in the second half of the year.  This is not misleading or obfuscation or being economical with the truth or any other circumlocution we might like to fall back on to gloss over what is really happening. It is, in plain English, a downright lie.  Why?

That's easy to answer. The Government's approval ratings are in the dirt. So are the PM's personal ratings. As the economy stutters during the year ahead, there's probably worse to come.  Nigel Farage's Reform Party is soaring ahead in the polls, leaving Labour in its tracks and the hapless Tories nowhere to be seen.  Uncontrolled mass migration is the rocket fuel that propels Reform. Labour is so desperate to counter its appeal that it's ready to lie about the issue which gives Reform most salience. It's a response born out of panic. And it is, of course, fooling nobody.  This week I asked a prominent Labour MP, often wheeeled out for broadcast interviews, to tell us exactly what Labour had done last year to cut net migration by 50 per cent. I said I was especially interested in what Labour had done during the six months it wasn't even in power! Naturally, I'm still waiting for an answer.  'You really must take us for fools,' I said.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that lying and gaslighting telling us things we know not to be true but doing it with such authority that we begin to question our own sanity have become the distinguishing features of the Starmer Government.  The Prime Minister, after all, has a long track record of doing both.  Let us not forget that Starmer was elected leader of the Labour Party just over five years ago on an undiluted Corbynista prospectus. He proposed the nationalisation of energy, water and the mail, the scrapping of Universal Credit and university tuition fees, and banning outsourcing in the public sector.  He had once described Jeremy Corbyn as a 'friend' and then, sometime later, as 'never a friend'.  In a BBC TV interview to which many still refer, I asked him if he promised Corbyn's policies would be in the next Labour manifesto. His answer was a categorical 'Yes' adding these policies were not just promises, they were pledges.

Within a year every one had been junked.  Starmer realised that what had made him Labour leader wouldn't necessarily make him Prime Minister. So he fought last year's general election with a manifesto as phoney as the one with which he'd bid for his party's leadership.  'We don't need higher taxes,' shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves insisted during the campaign.

Labour has 'no plans to increase any taxes', she regularly repeated (bar a few small, specific rises, like VAT on school fees), thereby confirming the old maxim that when a politician says they have 'no plans' to do something, the reality is they have a shed load just waiting to be wheeled out.

And so it transpired. Labour fought the election on tax rises of only £8.5 billion, an extra £9.5 billion in spending and £3.5 billion in additional borrowing.  In her first Budget last October Chancellor Reeves raised taxes by £40 billion and borrowed £36 billion more, allowing for a massive extra increase in public spending of £76 billion between now and the end of the decade.  So, an actual £76 billion more versus a promise of only a frugal £9.5 billion more.  I guess if you're going to lie you might as well make it a whopper.  Reeves claimed she'd been forced to increase taxes because she'd discovered a £22 billion 'black hole' in the public finances on taking office. But this was to pile lie upon lie.  As The Guardian revealed during the election campaign, it was always the plan to say, 'We've seen the books, it's much worse than we thought', as the precursor to whacking up taxes, spending and borrowing.

No doubt lots of documents and policy papers since last summer have been shredded and deleted at Labour Party HQ. But, one day, written evidence will come out to confirm what Labour intended all along. It always does.  At no stage has the Office for Budget Responsibility, which Reeves professes to revere, ever endorsed the existence of a £22 billion black hole.  What we do know is that the public finances, not left in any great shape by the Tories, were immediately made worse on Labour taking office by doling out all manner of inflationary pay rises to the party's friends in the public sector.  In any case, even if there had been a black hole of some £22 billion, when did that require £40 billion more in taxes and almost as much in extra borrowing?

In many ways the Starmer Government has never recovered from Reeves's disastrous first Budget which has only made the PM even more cavalier with the facts. Labour had inherited 11 per cent interest rates, he told the House of Commons earlier this year. Which is odd since rates peaked at 5.25 per cent under the previous government.  Hospices have been given an extra £100 million to help them cope with the increase in employer national insurance contributions (NICs) imposed by his Government, he regularly tells the House.  He continues to claim this even after being told the £100 million is a capital grant and nothing to do with meeting running costs, such as increased NICs.  He boasts about an £880 million increase in funding for social care without mentioning the rise in NICs will cost care homes £900 million.  The lies and gaslighting are now coming thick and fast from the Starmer Government across a broad front.  Reeves continues to insist her Budget was tough but 'fixed the foundations of the economy', even as inflation spikes back to 3.5 per cent, dole queues lengthen and Government borrowing remains elevated so much so that those lending the Government money are demanding record returns (higher than even during the ClusterTruss interregnum in 2022).  In reality, our economic foundations are shakier than ever, as we will discover when Reeves is forced to put up taxes again in her second Budget this autumn.  The Chancellor denies she'll have to do this, which pretty much guarantees that she will. Her promises of no more tax rises are as bankable as the ones she gave us during last summer's election campaign.  Sometimes the porky pies are too ludicrous to take seriously. Cabinet minister Lucy Powell claimed that if the Government had not cut the winter fuel allowance for most pensioners there would have been 'a run on the pound'. In which case, better sell your sterling fast now the Government is U-turning on the cut.  This week, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood, trying to deflect from her plans to let prisoners, even violent ones, out early, mooted the idea she might support mandatory chemical castration for sex offenders.  Her idea was to convince us that she wasn't quite the softie when it comes to penal policy that she seemed. It is, of course, an absurd proposition which will never happen. But it is gaslighting of a high order.  Increasingly, we're being misled by omission. Starmer boasts of his new youth mobility scheme with the European Union (which he ruled out only eight months ago 'no plans', again).  But he cannot tell us how many will come here, for how long and what the division will be between work and study.  He says he's negotiated a better deal for British food and defence exports to the EU. But will not say how much the improved access is going to cost us (likely hundreds of millions) or why we're paying for more free trade.  He claims to have opened the e-gates for us at European airports, without telling us when (not in time for this summer).  In all these cases we know what we're giving away (for example, fishing rights for another 12 years). But we have only the vaguest idea what we're getting in return. It's a pretty good rule of thumb that when governments won't tell you things it's because the truth will hurt.  That explains the mountain of obfuscation surrounding the Chagos Islands deal. The untruths we've been served up on that would merit an essay in their own right. Suffice to say almost everything we've been told, from the need to do the deal to the cost (the sums must have been done by Diane Abbott), is untrue which makes it the perfect poster child for this Government.  In opposition, Starmer vowed to provide a Government in which 'truth means something and where honesty is at the heart of everything that it does honesty and integrity matter. You will always get that from me.'

How hollow these words sound now from a man leading a Government which after less than a year in power is already a stranger to the truth.  The country has had untrustworthy governments in the past, from Harold Wilson's Labour administrations of the 1960s and 70s to Boris Johnson's government at the start of this decade. Whatever their achievements, it was always wise to perform an independent audit of everything they said.  But in 55 years of covering politics close up, I have never felt it necessary to accuse any government, on the Left or the Right, of congenitally telling untruths.  Now, for the first time, I do. The Starmer Government has taken the lying, the gaslighting and the deceit to a new level.  It has become endemic in almost everything it does and it's getting worse. It corrodes public trust which, once lost, is impossible to rebuild.  Starmer is heading down a dark road from which, as he will soon discover, there is no return.
8
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Pip on May 25, 2025, 04:34:35 PM »
:bday1: sandy, mrj25 and IAmNotMe anim_65
9
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Amanda_George on May 25, 2025, 05:37:51 AM »
We've got 3 birthday bods on the forum today!

Please join me in wishing sandy (who is celebrating a big birthday) and also mrj25 and finally IAmNotMe the best day possible today!
10
The Lounge / Re: Members birthdays
« Last post by Pip on May 24, 2025, 06:16:45 PM »
 :happybday: Sir STRESSHEaD
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10