![]() |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by britvic
(Post 7099119)
It's not who she is it's what she stands for and she ain't done too bad a job :) and I'm not making excuses's for most of that blood line.
Things might change though; if the Queen dies while someone like Obama is in the Whitehouse I think people might prefer an elected official as opposed to Charles. |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
(Post 7105333)
She's more interesting, and more respectful, than the Pope and billions listen to him! :lol:
|
Re: The Queen
Why should the Queen interest you people anyway? You are all foreigners now, living on a foreign shore, so she is as irrelevant to you as you are to her. :D
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Lothianlad
(Post 7108681)
so she is as irrelevant to you as you are to her. :D
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Lothianlad
(Post 7108681)
Why should the Queen interest you people anyway? You are all foreigners now, living on a foreign shore, so she is as irrelevant to you as you are to her. :D
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Lothianlad
(Post 7108681)
Why should the Queen interest you people anyway? You are all foreigners now, living on a foreign shore, so she is as irrelevant to you as you are to her. :D
But based on other posts above, it would probably benefit everyone (except the RF itself) if they turned all the 'royal properties' into hotels/paid attractions. I don't see how reasonable, logical people can support a system that has no basis in common sense. As Monty Python put it so well ... "King Arthur: I am your king. Woman: Well I didn't vote for you. King Arthur: You don't vote for kings. Woman: Well how'd you become king then? [Angelic music plays... ] King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king. Dennis: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis: Oh, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dennis: Oh but if I went 'round sayin' I was Emperor, just because some moistened bint lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away. " |
Re: The Queen
Got up at 6.50am to watch the broadcast at 7am.
Stood for the National Anthem. Watched and listened and was as usual touched by her concern for her people. She has had a very awkward reign. Let down on many occasions by the people closest to her. She has always strived to do the right thing by her people - on some occasions she has had to do the "right" thing when it stuck in her throat to do it. She is still my Queen and I will always respect her for trying to be the best she could possibly be. On her death I would be quite happy to see the end of the monarchy, as there is not one of her relatives who would be able to do this job with her genuine sense of service. |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Kate2112
(Post 7108925)
Got up at 6.50am to watch the broadcast at 7am.
... |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 7108982)
Obviously you didn't shower then, and dress in your finest garments for the occasion! :)
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Steerpike
(Post 7108982)
Obviously you didn't shower then, and dress in your finest garments for the occasion! :)
And you seem to keep arguing for us all to have no freedom and chips in our heads... Are you sure that you aren't North Korean, or a Nazi, or an officer of the Stasi or something? |
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by Kate2112
(Post 7108990)
TV is a one way way experience. So dressing up to watch anything is taking it too far petal :) As long as she doesnt fall out of bed to broadcast on Christmas Day we are all good.
|
Re: The Queen
Originally Posted by chartreuse
(Post 7109005)
I'm not being funny, but you seem to hate the monarchy (which stands as the last line of defence agiainst excesses by the UK government) and you also seem to hate the 2nd Amendment (which stands as the last line of defence against excesses by the US govenment)....
Can you give me a practical example or scenario in which the queen, or her son, could practically provide a 'line of defense' against excesses by the UK govt? I would think the military might perform that function (for better or for worse!), and last time I looked, most countries have a military with or without a king/queen to lead them. Regarding the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution - I simply look upon the issue from a practical and analytical standpoint. It's a fact that the US has more deaths by gunshot than any other civilized country, by an extreme margin, and I feel personally that if there were fewer guns in circulation, if it were harder to get guns, then there may be fewer future deaths. But I concede that the situation in the US is a big ugly mess in this regard, with too many guns already in circulation, and already in the 'wrong' hands. Thus, I respect the desire of law abiding citizens to own a gun for self defense - even though I have no desire to own one myself. But this notion that some folks have that they will somehow overthrow a tyrannical government with their personal arsenal of weapons strikes me as an indication that someone who has watched one-too-many Rambo movies or similar. However - if those fantasies are what float your boat, please enjoy them. I believe the more fundamental 'rights' of individuals are the rights of 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' - guns can work either way in that one, and I choose to view guns as being counter to those rights. Regarding the Monarchy - what logical justification can you give for allowing an entire extended family to live in a certain style and luxury at the expense of taxpayers? Let's not pretend they are 'self sufficient', because of all the income they get from their land and holdings ... if you abolished the monarchy then those lands and holdings would become public property. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 8:54 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.