As requested by Seigy.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F7%2F23%2F1374575944464%2FPrivate-Eye-007.jpg&hash=1cd2e388267bfb021c8419573453e1708efe44e1)
Nuff said.
Andy Borowitz, from the New Yorker:
"CNN: It's a girl"
In Europe that is big news.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.zenfs.com%2Fen_uk%2FNews%2Fapimages.com%2F17126510.jpg&hash=d9f477b3c2588fa51c25357d5a0c9a1739a38ed1)
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/-i-just-crashed-the-party---how-town-crier-tony--76--announced-the-royal-birth---and-he-wasn-t-even-invited--092145685.html
Quote'I just crashed the party': How town crier Tony, 76, announced the royal birth - and he wasn't even invited!
Decked out in all his pomp and finery town crier Tony Appleton brought a touch of tradition to the media melee when he announced the royal birth. And he hadn't even been invited.
Clanging a bell before booming 'Hear ye, hear ye, hear ye' the 76-year-old took wellwishers and journalists gathered outside St Mary's Hospital by surprise.
He declared: "On this day, the 22nd of July, the year 2013, we welcome with honorable duty a future king."
Speaking today to Yahoo!, Tony, from Chelmsford, Essex, said he was stunned by how the world had reacted to his role in the announcement.
"I can't believe it, I've opened up the newspapers and my face is all over them," he said.
"I was not invited, I just crashed the party. I got out of my cab and I stood in front of the steps, because I didn't think I would be allowed on them, and did my bit. It was great.
"It was a great atmosphere, it's like the Olympics."
He said a journalist from the Times newspaper wrote down what he had to say to make sure he stuck to tradition.
Tony, who has been a town crier 25 years and also runs an elderly home, has endeavoured to be part of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's marriage from the start.
He waited outside Buckingham Palace for several hours during the royal wedding to get a glimpse of the royal couple and proclaim their marriage again in the tradition of a town crier.
But his fondness for the royal family started much earlier when he met the Queen Mother as a child during a royal walkabout.
He said: "I love the royal family, I love them to bits."
And he even has a few words of advice for the new parents: "Have some more children! I'm waiting for the next one to do it again."
His full proclamation, in front of the world's media and wellwishers gathered outside the London hospital was: "On this day, the 22nd of July, the year 2013, we welcome with honorable duty a future king.
"The first born of the Royal Highness, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. The third in line to the throne.
"Our new prince is the third great-grandchild of Her Majesty the Queen and the first grandchild of the royal highness the Prince of Wales.
"May he be long lived, happy and glorious and one day to reign over us.
"God save the Queen."
After ringing his bell Tony added: "We've had a prince here today."
A town crier for 25 years, eh? :hmm:
Only one baby? Weak sauce.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPwpWgDCMAAP6gR.jpg:small)
:lol:
Reflects how we feel about President's birthdays. Man we got excited about Lincoln's birthday back when it was a day off.
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
:D I love the Guardian.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
I thought it would convert the dates to the Republican Calendar system. That was a bummer.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2013, 11:24:03 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
I thought it would convert the dates to the Republican Calendar system. That was a bummer.
:lol:
That would have been hilarious.
I'm with Gups. I still want my bank holiday <_<
On the other hand, first baby picture!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F7%2F23%2F1374603740006%2F7a991ef2-0d10-441a-a89d-add798ce0f08-280x420.jpeg&hash=247e641d29d44e2050dcedf9f950db913e89a5e7)
I like how his sleeves are rolled up. He was: hard at work! :bowler:
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
:D I love the Guardian.
I loathe the guardian. Leftist wankers.
Read the monibot column on airports, then read the comments. WANKERS.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2013, 01:36:22 PM
I'm with Gups. I still want my bank holiday <_<
On the other hand, first baby picture!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F7%2F23%2F1374603740006%2F7a991ef2-0d10-441a-a89d-add798ce0f08-280x420.jpeg&hash=247e641d29d44e2050dcedf9f950db913e89a5e7)
Damn I am a sucker for babies now. D'awwwwww
But seriously no bank holiday? What a rip-off.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
I loathe the guardian. Leftist wankers.
Read the monibot column on airports, then read the comments. WANKERS.
The Guardian is the newspaper of righteous revolutionaries :angry:
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2013, 01:42:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
I loathe the guardian. Leftist wankers.
Read the monibot column on airports, then read the comments. WANKERS.
The Guardian is the newspaper of righteous revolutionaries :angry:
Rightous wankers.
Also the Guardian quoted Zhirinovsky for possibly the 'most off-message response to the royal baby':
'The birth of yet another British monarch, who will drink our blood somewhere in the middle of the 21st century, can give us no joy.'
:lol:
Also, Kate looks bangable.
William and Kate are so bland and boring. I'd much rather see King Harry or King Andrew.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2013, 01:42:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
I loathe the guardian. Leftist wankers.
Read the monibot column on airports, then read the comments. WANKERS.
The Guardian is the newspaper of righteous revolutionaries :angry:
+1
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2013, 01:38:42 PM
I like how his sleeves are rolled up. He was: hard at work! :bowler:
But he's not awkwardly wearing jeans. Has he learned nothing from Romney?!
Quote from: Caliga on July 23, 2013, 01:38:42 PM
I like how his sleeves are rolled up. He was: hard at work! :bowler:
For at least 2 minutes. :perv:
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:46:39 PM
Also, Kate looks bangable.
For the next month or so, it's like a hot dog down a hallway.
Unless you're hung like a beer can.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
:D I love the Guardian.
I loathe the guardian. Leftist wankers.
I've gone Red like Seedy. I didn't leave capitalism; capitalism left me. :P
There is being red and being stupidly red like guardian readers.
CHOOSE CAREFULLY
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:46:39 PM
Also, Kate looks bangable.
She is a beautiful woman.
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 03:24:24 PM
I've gone Red like Seedy. I didn't leave capitalism; capitalism left me. :P
You know it, Comrade Fahdiz. It's time to put your smithy interests to work, and swing that hammer in the name of the industrial proletariat to forge a sickle of unity for all those exploited to increase shareholder value.
Barf
Quote from: CountDeMoney on July 23, 2013, 05:41:57 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 03:24:24 PM
I've gone Red like Seedy. I didn't leave capitalism; capitalism left me. :P
You know it, Comrade Fahdiz. It's time to put your smithy interests to work, and swing that hammer in the name of the industrial proletariat to forge a sickle of unity for all those exploited to increase shareholder value.
:punk:
I thought this was true, by Jack of Kent (liberal legal blogger, and a republican) on twitter earlier 'It is strange, but William and Kate do come across as far more "normal" than the political class we would have in their place in a republic. Whether that is a comment about how normal the royals are becoming, or how abnormal our political class is, I don't know.'
The Brits are a stubborn and illogical folk. :hmm:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18237280
Monarchy is civilization Tim. Quit being a goof.
Does anyone know exactly what the onion is pastiching in its reporting?
The mouth of the demon looks odd.
QuoteDamn I am a sucker for babies now. D'awwwwww
But seriously no bank holiday? What a rip-off.
If they did that then we'd have to have a bank holiday for its first word, its first step, its first solid food, etc... etc....
And nobody wants that. :unsure:
Quote from: Neil on July 23, 2013, 09:05:23 PM
Monarchy is civilization Tim. Quit being a goof.
Monarchies are awesome. They have no place in the US of course, but otherwise I'm all for them. Every European country should keep or restore theirs :)
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2013, 08:35:12 PM
The Brits are a stubborn and illogical folk. :hmm:
True. It is part of their charm. But think about it, getting rid of the Monarchy would be ridiculously politically complicated and potentially culturally traumatising while keeping it is easy. Is it stubborn and illogical to not want go through all that for no substantial gain?
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 03:24:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
:D I love the Guardian.
I loathe the guardian. Leftist wankers.
I've gone Red like Seedy. I didn't leave capitalism; capitalism left me. :P
You really fluctuate wildly. I keep the same opinion in spite of the march of time or inclusion of new information.
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
I thought this was true, by Jack of Kent (liberal legal blogger, and a republican) on twitter earlier 'It is strange, but William and Kate do come across as far more "normal" than the political class we would have in their place in a republic. Whether that is a comment about how normal the royals are becoming, or how abnormal our political class is, I don't know.'
I also agree with him.
Republicanism is on the back foot here in the UK because of it. Anyone who thinks removing the monarchy is a priority when our political class are such a bunch of cloned tools is unlikely to get much support right now.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
I thought this was true, by Jack of Kent (liberal legal blogger, and a republican) on twitter earlier 'It is strange, but William and Kate do come across as far more "normal" than the political class we would have in their place in a republic. Whether that is a comment about how normal the royals are becoming, or how abnormal our political class is, I don't know.'
I also agree with him.
Republicanism is on the back foot here in the UK because of it. Anyone who thinks removing the monarchy is a priority when our political class are such a bunch of cloned tools is unlikely to get much support right now.
It's rather amazing. The British from two hundred years ago would be amazed.
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2013, 10:01:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2013, 08:35:12 PM
The Brits are a stubborn and illogical folk. :hmm:
True. It is part of their charm. But think about it, getting rid of the Monarchy would be ridiculously politically complicated and potentially culturally traumatising while keeping it is easy. Is it stubborn and illogical to not want go through all that for no substantial gain?
Exactly right. If asked in a poll, I'd choose to keep the monarchy. But not because I love the Royals (I couldn't give a toss one way or t'other) but because getting rid of the institution would paralyse our polity for at least half a decade. It just isn't broken enough to warrant fixing.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 01:45:57 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 24, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 23, 2013, 07:35:40 PM
I thought this was true, by Jack of Kent (liberal legal blogger, and a republican) on twitter earlier 'It is strange, but William and Kate do come across as far more "normal" than the political class we would have in their place in a republic. Whether that is a comment about how normal the royals are becoming, or how abnormal our political class is, I don't know.'
I also agree with him.
Republicanism is on the back foot here in the UK because of it. Anyone who thinks removing the monarchy is a priority when our political class are such a bunch of cloned tools is unlikely to get much support right now.
It's rather amazing. The British from two hundred years ago would be amazed.
It's not at all amazing if you could be bothered to think about what powers a British monarch had in Paine's time and what she has now.
Quote from: Gups on July 24, 2013, 01:50:54 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 23, 2013, 10:01:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 23, 2013, 08:35:12 PM
The Brits are a stubborn and illogical folk. :hmm:
True. It is part of their charm. But think about it, getting rid of the Monarchy would be ridiculously politically complicated and potentially culturally traumatising while keeping it is easy. Is it stubborn and illogical to not want go through all that for no substantial gain?
Exactly right. If asked in a poll, I'd choose to keep the monarchy. But not because I love the Royals (I couldn't give a toss one way or t'other) but because getting rid of the institution would paralyse our polity for at least half a decade. It just isn't broken enough to warrant fixing.
An entire parliament (at least) would be involved and even after the work was done there would be no guarantee of success. All that to change a system that has worked since 1688 (the possible exception being the Crown's behaviour towards the colonists in America). It is just not worth it.........and I think that the middle 50% or so of the population who are neither diehard republicans or royalists can see this quite clearly.
QuoteRoyal Baby
Who cares.
They should name him Arthur.
All hail the once and future King!
Melvin
King Melvin
Joffrey
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 01:45:57 AM
It's rather amazing. The British from two hundred years ago would be amazed.
The British from two hundred years ago were hyper-royalist in reaction to the French Revolution and filled with patriotic zeal fighting Napoleon weren't they?
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2013, 07:43:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 01:45:57 AM
It's rather amazing. The British from two hundred years ago would be amazed.
The British from two hundred years ago were hyper-royalist in reaction to the French Revolution and filled with patriotic zeal fighting Napoleon weren't they?
Who wouldn't be with their royals?
Quote from: Valmy on July 24, 2013, 07:43:53 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 24, 2013, 01:45:57 AM
It's rather amazing. The British from two hundred years ago would be amazed.
The British from two hundred years ago were hyper-royalist in reaction to the French Revolution and filled with patriotic zeal fighting Napoleon weren't they?
In reaction to the terror sure. But before Louis got his block knocked off, and after the American WOI, there was a lot of agitation for political reform.
There has always been two aspects to royalism:
(1) Oooh, a celebrity! Such pagentry! etc.
(2) Royals as a symbol of tradition, continuity, stability and hence good government, as near-figurehead for a whole system that includes a functioning parliament and judiciary (but with a carefully circumscribed power to act where the political machinery gets jammed for some reason).
This is why royalism has survived some truly repellant persons who graced the throne. Even if they can't charm the public (and some have been rather less than charming), it really doesn't matter all that much for reason (2).
As to why a near-figurehead is necessary ... it is nice to have at least a notion of a head of state who is above party and faction. The Americans achieve this by respecting the office of the Presidency, even if they happen to hate the clown who inhabits that office, but that takes a certain amount of willing schizophernia to work. In a system where you have a mostly-symbolic head of government, you can vent on your political master in parliament while acknowledging that, of course, both you and he or she are loyal to the Crown - who returns that loyalty by, basically, existing as a symbol of the country as a whole (except in rare cases where a head of state above faction is actually necessary to break some kind of political gordion knot).
Quote from: Razgovory on July 23, 2013, 10:08:29 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 03:24:24 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 23, 2013, 01:41:37 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 23, 2013, 11:19:42 AM
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on July 23, 2013, 11:17:11 AM
I liked the way that The Guardian treated the story in their online version. They have loads of articles and pontifications about the new baby, but, if you want you can press a little button marked "republican" and all the royal news will go away, to get it back press "royalist" :cool:
:D I love the Guardian.
I loathe the guardian. Leftist wankers.
I've gone Red like Seedy. I didn't leave capitalism; capitalism left me. :P
You really fluctuate wildly. I keep the same opinion in spite of the march of time or inclusion of new information.
I tend to gather experience and form my opinions based on as much evidence as I can gather about the situation.
Prince George. :cool:
The royal formerly known as Prince.
Kong would be a nice name.
Will the Royal Baby Stroller: cost as much as Malthus's stroller? :)
Constantine.
Thank you one.org.
Quote
The whole world is abuzz with news of the royal baby (yup, that means the ONE offices, too).
And we're all happy that the big day resulted in a safe delivery, a healthy baby, and happy (but tired) parents. But this isn't always the case. The majority of health facilities in sub-Saharan Africa don't have reliable electricity and 30% are without any access at all.
Can you imagine if you, a friend, or a family member had to give birth in the dark?
Last week we sent more than 35,000 messages asking Congress to support the Electrify Africa Act that would provide electricity to 50 million Africans - and lots of moms - for the very first time (check out our message below). This week, let's send thousands more.
Where was it i heard that the Home Secretary used to hang out in the birthing room, to guarantee the issue? Was that here?
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2013, 01:27:37 PM
Will the Royal Baby Stroller: cost as much as Malthus's stroller? :)
No, it only cost around a thousand.
Quote from: Caliga on July 24, 2013, 12:46:07 PM
Prince George. :cool:
Also the name of a shithole town in Northern BC. Colloquially referred to as "The PIG".
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/67813-13-people-who-want-the-royal-baby-to-choose-its-gender-not-the-patriarchy/
PATRIARCHY!
That LGBT hashtag annoys me. Me fucking with men has little to do with that nonsense. :angry:
On a different note, I read an article this morning about how people attacked the first gay pride in montenegro. Yahoo commenters said that perhaps the gay people could stay safe if they weren't flaunting themselves about and also that there are people who have legitimate grievances with homosexuality so gay people are learning their lesson. :mellow:
I wondered if their legitimate grievances involved being forced to participate in homosexual acts.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 05:51:10 PM
That LGBT hashtag annoys me. Me fucking with men has little to do with that nonsense. :angry:
The "B" is silly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 24, 2013, 02:29:35 PM
Where was it i heard that the Home Secretary used to hang out in the birthing room, to guarantee the issue? Was that here?
It was normally an adjoining room with open doors. Happened when Victoria gave birth, half the cabinet were there. I think the Hone Secretary still can. Theresa May chose not to attend.
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2013, 05:49:32 PM
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/67813-13-people-who-want-the-royal-baby-to-choose-its-gender-not-the-patriarchy/
PATRIARCHY!
:lol:
Freaks.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2013, 07:47:54 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 24, 2013, 05:49:32 PM
http://www.ijreview.com/2013/07/67813-13-people-who-want-the-royal-baby-to-choose-its-gender-not-the-patriarchy/
PATRIARCHY!
:lol:
Freaks.
Gotta love the Tumblrsexuals.
Quote from: garbon on July 24, 2013, 05:51:10 PM
That LGBT hashtag annoys me. Me fucking with men has little to do with that nonsense. :angry:
LGBTIQQAA2!!11 You exclusionist bastard!!
What if the royal baby decides to go the "King The Brain" route?
I keep reading the thread title as The Royal Navy thread. Dreadnoughts are even better than babies.
Neil, always with Seaman on the brain.
Quote from: Malthus on July 24, 2013, 10:08:34 AM
There has always been two aspects to royalism:
(1) Oooh, a celebrity! Such pagentry! etc.
(2) Royals as a symbol of tradition, continuity, stability and hence good government, as near-figurehead for a whole system that includes a functioning parliament and judiciary (but with a carefully circumscribed power to act where the political machinery gets jammed for some reason).
This is why royalism has survived some truly repellant persons who graced the throne. Even if they can't charm the public (and some have been rather less than charming), it really doesn't matter all that much for reason (2).
As to why a near-figurehead is necessary ... it is nice to have at least a notion of a head of state who is above party and faction. The Americans achieve this by respecting the office of the Presidency, even if they happen to hate the clown who inhabits that office, but that takes a certain amount of willing schizophernia to work. In a system where you have a mostly-symbolic head of government, you can vent on your political master in parliament while acknowledging that, of course, both you and he or she are loyal to the Crown - who returns that loyalty by, basically, existing as a symbol of the country as a whole (except in rare cases where a head of state above faction is actually necessary to break some kind of political gordion knot).
This is all easy when there is a queen like Elizabeth who represents the WWII generation. But a king like Prince Charles?
I have nothing against the guy at all. He seems like a decent fellow. But the first thing when I think of with Charles are him wishing to be a tampon. To me that is a problem with an entirely symbolic monarchy: you get the ridiculous tabloid aspects, but he can't really actually do anything substantive. So in a certain sense he will be King Tampon. A politician (like say a Bill Clinton) has a better opportunity to overcome that, and doesn't have to endure the lifetime media glare that has to be suffocating.
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2013, 08:45:00 PM
I keep reading the thread title as The Royal Navy thread. Dreadnoughts are even better than babies.
These days the Royal Navy has as much to do with dreadnoughts as baby prince george.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2013, 08:55:45 PM
This is all easy when there is a queen like Elizabeth who represents the WWII generation. But a king like Prince Charles?
I have nothing against the guy at all. He seems like a decent fellow. But the first thing when I think of with Charles are him wishing to be a tampon. To me that is a problem with an entirely symbolic monarchy: you get the ridiculous tabloid aspects, but he can't really actually do anything substantive. So in a certain sense he will be King Tampon. A politician (like say a Bill Clinton) has a better opportunity to overcome that, and doesn't have to endure the lifetime media glare that has to be suffocating.
Not that much different from a powerless figurehead president.
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2013, 08:57:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2013, 08:45:00 PM
I keep reading the thread title as The Royal Navy thread. Dreadnoughts are even better than babies.
These days the Royal Navy has as much to do with dreadnoughts as baby prince george.
Nobody operates dreadnoughts anymore. :(
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2013, 09:27:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on July 24, 2013, 08:57:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on July 24, 2013, 08:45:00 PM
I keep reading the thread title as The Royal Navy thread. Dreadnoughts are even better than babies.
These days the Royal Navy has as much to do with dreadnoughts as baby prince george.
Nobody operates dreadnoughts anymore. :(
Because they're useless now.