Congratulations Queen Elizabeth!

Oafman · Sep 15, 2015

Armoured said:
I'm not belittling the meaningful contributions and sacrifices of others, I'm merely pointing out that Her Maj has performed over and above what one would expect of a "mere" figurehead. Her contributions have been real and required genuine work on her part.

I don't disagree. I just think that she has done nothing that an elected president wouldn't do. So I don't see this as a good argument for maintaining the monarchy.

Armoured said:
True. But I think even Chuckles has benefitted from the common popularity of the boys. Couple with the fact he's not a young man himself, so it's not like his reign will be for an overly long period.

They live for ever! Look at the Queen Mum, her blood was more sherry than it was blood cells before she died. Many of us suspected she had technically been dead for years, and had been controlled by animatronics ever since. This was never proven though...

They would no doubt put their longevity down to superior breeding (as aristos always do, as if they are assessing racehorses), but I think it's more to do with how little they have to do every day and how well they are looked after.

Armoured said:
Baring unforeseen accidents, this is true. But even as a prince of the realm, he still plays a highly visible role in public life and his actions affect public opinion about the family. Just look at Andrew, Fergie, and the rest of them. Only, like, the opposite of that.

I don't have too much of a problem with Harry. His military service should not be ignored; he was by all accounts a 'proper soldier', although it's questionable whether or not he would have become an Apache pilot without the influence of his bloodline (there is apprently great competition for that role). He also does a lot of good charity work, especially with veterans' charities. But there are also plenty of non-royal celebrities who do lots of good work for charities. They rightly get praised for their work, just as Harry does. The difference though, is that they don't use their charity work as justification for ruling a country!

Oafman · Sep 15, 2015

Jesus' Follower said:
If the UK is in disarray and central government cannot hold pace nor the Queen, the local governments will hold the power to make their own governments.
If the local leader see's you kill he could say right kill that man without trial - that would be legal.
Whether it would happen is debatable, however that is the process in force.

I know that there were directives for local governments to adopt some autonomy in the event if a nuclear holocaust rendering the country impossible to run from London.

But I'm pretty sure the idea that they could make up whatever laws they wanted was not a part of that.

I don't really see how this relates to us having a monarchhy though. And I certainly don't see how it supports the concept.

Oafman · Sep 15, 2015

Armoured said:

The helmet makes me think of Madonna. I can't quite put my finger on why...

Oafman · Sep 15, 2015

Hetta said:
We had the right idea about what to do with the monarchy in 1789, and you all had the right idea in 1649, but then you reverted back to the monarchy. Boo.

We appear to be gluttons for punishment.

Coincidentally, today is International Democracy Day. I don't suppose this is something the Windsors celebrate!

Catherineanne · Sep 15, 2015

Oafman said:
Warm and hearty congratulations to our supreme leader, who today became the longest 'serving' monarch in our nation's history.

Granted, she has not had to win re-election during that time, or re-interview for her position, or avoid a wave of redundancies, or survive a coup d'etat.

Actually, now that I think about it, all she has had to do to fulfil this wonderful accomplishment is to not die.

So congratulations to QEII for not dying!

Though actually, if most of us had access to the best healthcare that taxpayers' money can buy, and had never had to do a day's work in our lives, I reckon the majority could have not died for just as long as Liz.

So perhaps this is not such a wonderful achievement after all.

And perhaps the endless hours of sycophantic forelock-tugging coverage on the Beeb and elsewhere ought to make mention of the fact that all she has done is not die. Just a thought....

Every single birthday celebration, every anniversary ever is a celebration that the person concerned has not died in the past year. However, only someone really, really bad mannered would say so.

Good luck with that.

Jesus' Follower · Sep 15, 2015

Oafman said:
I know that there were directives for local governments to adopt some autonomy in the event if a nuclear holocaust rendering the country impossible to run from London.

But I'm pretty sure the idea that they could make up whatever laws they wanted was not a part of that.

I don't really see how this relates to us having a monarchhy though. And I certainly don't see how it supports the concept.

Yeah the has veered off slightly; this is what I have been told anyway, don't hold me to the accuracy of the information.

Catherineanne · Sep 15, 2015

Oafman said:
I don't disagree. I just think that she has done nothing that an elected president wouldn't do. So I don't see this as a good argument for maintaining the monarchy.

They live for ever! Look at the Queen Mum, her blood was more sherry than it was blood cells before she died. Many of us suspected she had technically been dead for years, and had been controlled by animatronics ever since. This was never proven though...

I must say, your name is well chosen.

Oafman · Sep 15, 2015

Catherineanne said:
Every single birthday celebration, every anniversary ever is a celebration that the person concerned has not died in the past year. However, only someone really, really bad mannered would say so.

Good luck with that.

Some anniversaries are not worthy of celebration. The length of time someone has occupied an unelected position of power is one of them.

You sound like you're cap doffing!

theFijian · Sep 15, 2015

Catherineanne said:
I must say, your name is well chosen.

Miaow!

Oafman · Sep 15, 2015

Catherineanne said:
I must say, your name is well chosen.

I'll pass on the compliment to my school friends who gave me the name.

Now, back to the arguments....

Catherineanne · Sep 15, 2015

theFijian said:
Miaow!

Do you think it is polite to describe any old lady, no matter who she may be, as having more sherry than blood in her body? Would you accept that kind of comment about your mother or grandmother? Do you think any reasonable person would talk that way?

I don't. I think that kind of language is verging on Neanderthal, never mind oafish. I am not a Royalist, but neither do I think it is fair to use such words about them. If I would not want such things said about my own family, then I would not want it said about anyone else, no matter who. Such language actually says nothing about the target, and everything about the ill manners of the person using it.

Oafman · Sep 16, 2015

So, it seems that overnight, my time-machine bed must have transported me back to 16th century feudal England, an era when failing to show sufficient deference to the monarch was a serious offence, worthy of villification.

A time when, if the leader of Her Maj's opposition were to miss an opportunity to sing a song about how wonderful he thinks the Queen is, the medieval tabloids would make themselves vomit with outrage.

As loathesome Tory MP Sir Nicholas Soames (a man who is quite clearly stuck some centuries behind the rest of the world) put it, this failure to sing in praise of our glorious ruler was "very rude and disrespectful" to the Queen. He then added "I think he needs to make his mind up whether he is a grown-up or not"! I'm honestly not making this up, he really said that.

I miss the 21st century. Back there, British society was broadly egalitarian, with the majority believing that everyone is born equal, and respect should be earned and is optional, rather than deference being commanded without exception.

Actually maybe this isn't medieval England? Maybe this is just a bad dream, where someone has cruelly combined North Korea with Britain, and where not bowing low enough to the Supreme Leader can put you in hot water?

Either way, I hope I wake up back in 21st Century Britain soon.

theFijian · Sep 16, 2015

I certainly look forward to a 21st century Britain where Christians are allowed to follow their conscience and principles just like Jeremy Corbyn is.

Genersis · Sep 16, 2015

Armoured said:
Guess which camp I fall into?
<Picturez>

Wow! Do you LARP?!

Catherineanne · Sep 21, 2015

Oafman said:
So, it seems that overnight, my time-machine bed must have transported me back to 16th century feudal England, an era when failing to show sufficient deference to the monarch was a serious offence, worthy of villification.

A time when, if the leader of Her Maj's opposition were to miss an opportunity to sing a song about how wonderful he thinks the Queen is, the medieval tabloids would make themselves vomit with outrage.

As loathesome Tory MP Sir Nicholas Soames (a man who is quite clearly stuck some centuries behind the rest of the world) put it, this failure to sing in praise of our glorious ruler was "very rude and disrespectful" to the Queen. He then added "I think he needs to make his mind up whether he is a grown-up or not"! I'm honestly not making this up, he really said that.

I miss the 21st century. Back there, British society was broadly egalitarian, with the majority believing that everyone is born equal, and respect should be earned and is optional, rather than deference being commanded without exception.

Actually maybe this isn't medieval England? Maybe this is just a bad dream, where someone has cruelly combined North Korea with Britain, and where not bowing low enough to the Supreme Leader can put you in hot water?

Either way, I hope I wake up back in 21st Century Britain soon.

Nice attempt at deflection. It is not the monarchy I am defending but an old lady. I would do the same for any old lady, no matter who. This is egalitarianism; treating everyone with respect, no matter who they are.

Your posts reveal a contempt for those who are different from you, as if they are inferior simply by virtue of their birth; that is feudalism if ever I saw it. All that differs is the target.

Oafman · Sep 22, 2015

Catherineanne said:
Nice attempt at deflection.

That post was not in response to your previous post. I chose not to respond to your post, partly because I'm not about to try to defend a joke about a dead woman's fabled booze intake, but mainly because I think you overreacted to it, given the light-hearted tone of parts of this thread.

Catherineanne said:
It is not the monarchy I am defending but an old lady. I would do the same for any old lady, no matter who. This is egalitarianism; treating everyone with respect, no matter who they are.

Egalitarianism is about equality, and not about treating everyone with respect regardless of whether or not they have earned it. Hereditary succession is the antithesis of egalitarianism.

Catherineanne said:
Your posts reveal a contempt for those who are different from you, as if they are inferior simply by virtue of their birth; that is feudalism if ever I saw it. All that differs is the target.

Nonsense. There is nothing I have written in this thread which displays contempt for any individual royal; not even the Queen Mum joke. In fact I have been quite complimentary about both the Queen and Harry in this thread. My problem is with the institution, not the individuals.

There are times when I have felt sympathy towards the royals, for the position they are born into, and the fact that they do not have the chance to live a normal life. But then I remember that there are literally billions of people who are much more deserving of my sympathy. I have also considered what I might do if I were born in their shoes. And the only answer I can come up with is that I would immediately renounce my 'right' to the throne, set in process a major constitutional review, give away most of my wealth to charity, and spend the rest of my days in idle luxury, living off the remainder of my fortune. Just as any reasonable person would do!

tealight · Sep 23, 2015

Genersis said:
The royals are just a family of people.
Supported by us, expected to be pseudo-politicians to put a face on British interests, with little power(thank goodness).

This is what they want people to think.

NIrelandGillian · Oct 1, 2015

I say congratulations to Queen Elizabeth the Second for a job well done. Not many 89 year olds do what she does in a day.

Gillian

rebornfree · Oct 4, 2015

I agree Gillian.

I also think it must be hard never to express a personal opinion nor to choose your own path in life. I know the royal family has many privileges, but I think there are sacrifices as well. I am very, very thankful to have Elizabeth II as queen.

NIrelandGillian · Dec 11, 2015

No, I don't envy the Queen her position, rebornfree.

Gillian

Congratulations Queen Elizabeth!

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Well-Known Member

ACCOUNT NO LONGER IN USE

Well-Known Member

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Well-Known Member

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Well-Known Member

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Well-Known Member

Person of Disinterest

Well-Known Member

Try telling that to these bog brained murphys

Active Member

Member

Senior Veteran

Member

Similar threads