Congratulations your Majesty

[trousers]

http://narrate.news.sky.com/queen-timeline/?dcmp=snt-sf-twitter

 

 

[bridge too far]

Oh dear lord - the thought of uber-sycophantic Nicholas Witchell on my screen all day fills me with dread!

[ben05]

The sooner we become a republic the better imo.

[trousers]

The sooner we become a republic the better imo.

 

Why's that?

 

(Aaaand, they're off......)

[Matthew Le God]

 

Congratulations for living a long time and owning a lot of hats?

 

The sooner we become a republic the better imo.

 

Why's that?

 

Because a proper democracy, where heads of state are voted for is fairer than a family born with silver spoons in their mouths just because hundreds of years ago their ancestors were successful warlords.

 

(Aaaand, they're off......)

 

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

It shouldn't even be her...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru024qcTpaA

[Lighthouse]

Because a proper democracy, where heads of state are voted for is fairer than a family born with silver spoons in their mouths.

 

Which political decisions the Queen has enforced during her reign have you disagreed with in particular?

[Sheaf Saint]

Yay- congratulations Lizzie.

 

Well done on the outstanding achievement of having the extreme fortune to be born as the heir to a system of leadership that belongs in the dark ages and, thanks to the many advances in medicine since the days of your great great grandmother, having managed to avoid popping your clogs yet.

[Matthew Le God]

Which political decisions the Queen has enforced during her reign have you disagreed with in particular?

 

Technically she still has power, just chooses not to use it because of the **** storm it would create if she did. She is also funded by the taxpayer.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God

[Lighthouse]

Technically she still has power, just chooses not to use it because of the **** storm it would create if she did. She is also funded by the taxpayer.

 

You haven't answered my question.

 

I have the power to go on a knife wielding killing spree, I just chooses not to use it because of the **** storm it would create if I did. Should I also be removed from society?

 

The entire royal family costs us about 50p each per year I think. I can live with that for all the good will, international relations and tourism they bring to this country.

[Matthew Le God]

You haven't answered my question.

 

You get royals (like Prince Charles) using their status "achieved" through fluke of birth to lobby and attempt to influence politicians on hundreds of occasions over the last 40 years. Would he do it if he didn't have some success?

 

I have the power to go on a knife wielding killing spree, I just chooses not to use it because of the **** storm it would create if I did. Should I also be removed from society?

 

That is a terrible analogy. I didn't say the individuals should be removed from society. I think the way this country chooses its head of state should be democratic.

 

The entire royal family costs us about 50p each per year I think. I can live with that for all the good will, international relations and tourism they bring to this country.

 

I don't care if its 1p, 50p or £200, we shouldn't be subsidising their lifestyle because they have warlord ancestors who fought their way to power. They have income streams from other sources they could use instead of the taxpayer.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God

[Lighthouse]

You get royals (like Prince Charles) using their status "achieved" through fluke of birth to lobby politicians on hundreds of occasions.

 

How is that any different to politicians being influence by large multinational corporations, heads of other states, trade unions, media alliances and agendas, demands for cheaper oil, gas, corporate bankers, etc. etc. etc. Do we get rid of anyone who has ever influenced a politician?

 

That is a terrible analogy. I didn't say the individuals should be removed from society. I think the way this country chooses its head of state should be democratic.

 

No it isn't, it's exactly my point. If the Queen has the power to do something but never does, how is it a problem? She is head of state in name and symbolism only. The political leaders who actually run the country are democratically elected, so what's you're problem.

 

I don't care if its 1p, 50p or £200, we shouldn't be subsidising their lifestyle because they have warlord ancestors who fought their way to power. They have income streams from other sources they could use instead of the taxpayer.

 

They do use other income streams, hence they only cost us 50p a year. Still, why don't you go and tell the thousands of people employed by the royal family and the thousands of others who rely on the tourism it generates that they should be put out of business because you REALLY need that 50p.

[Sheaf Saint]

She is head of state in name and symbolism only. The political leaders who actually run the country are democratically elected, so what's you're problem.

 

The continued existence of the house of lords suggests otherwise.

 

They do use other income streams, hence they only cost us 50p a year. Still, why don't you go and tell the thousands of people employed by the royal family and the thousands of others who rely on the tourism it generates that they should be put out of business because you REALLY need that 50p.

 

The tourism argument doesn't hold water I'm afraid. Buckingham Palace, Windsor and Sandringham could all be opened up to the public as nationally-owned tourist attractions if they were vacated by the royal family. For example, the Portuguese overthrew their monarchy over a century ago, yet they still employ lots of staff and make a nice tidy amount from tourism at places like the old royal palace at Sintra.

[Lighthouse]

The continued existence of the house of lords suggests otherwise.

 

 

 

The tourism argument doesn't hold water I'm afraid. Buckingham Palace, Windsor and Sandringham could all be opened up to the public as nationally-owned tourist attractions if they were vacated by the royal family. For example, the Portuguese overthrew their monarchy over a century ago, yet they still employ lots of staff make a nice tidy amount from tourism at places like the old royal palace at Sintra.

 

Actually I do agree on your first point entirely, the Lords can f**k off.

 

Buckingham Palace is where the Queen lives. That's the de facto British tourist attraction, if you take away the Royals, you take away the whole point of the Palace. I'm we'd still get visitors coming in but without the Royals it's just an old building and you take away the unique selling point. It would be no different to any French Chateau, German Burg etc. etc.

 

Some media outlets would have us believe 2 billion people watched the Royal wedding. Even if it's half of that it's on par with an Olympic opening ceremony, WC final, the superbowl etc. That's the kind of global interest they bring to the UK.

 

Get rid of the Royals and it's like saying we could go and visit St Mary's this weekend. Sure Saints aren't playing but the stadium is still there.

[trousers]

I don't care if its 1p, 50p or £200

 

Fret ye not young man, I've had a word with me ol' mucker Gideon at the Treasury and he's happy for me to pay your 50 pence contribution. If you let me know what you'd like your 50 pence contribution to go towards instead I'll let him know.

 

[Sheaf Saint]

2 billion? That's almost a third of the world's population FFS. I don't believe that for a second.

 

I do get your point though, I just don't share the enthusiasm that so many tourists have towards the Saxe-Coburg family. I don't understand how ordinary plebs can be so impressed by the obscene wealth displayed by a ruling dynasty whose ancestors accumulated such wealth through the oppression and exploitation of the masses - probably/possibly the tourists' own forefathers. The stupidity of it astounds me.

 

Whatever the arguments in favour of it, the idea of hereditary rule is a draconian concept that has no place in a modern, progressive democracy. I guess that tells us that, as much as we like to believe we do, we just don't live in a modern, progressive democracy.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Sheaf Saint

[trousers]

p.s. The thing I like most about the Royal Family is how much their existence annoys certain people, ergo this thread is excellent arousal fodder

Edited 9 September, 2015 by trousers

[trousers]

Whatever the arguments in favour of it, the idea of hereditary rule is a draconian concept that has no place in a modern, progressive democracy.

 

[South City Si]

https://republic.org.uk/what-we-do/news-and-updates/brand-finance-wrong-monarchy-not-worth-billions-economy

[trousers]

[Lighthouse]

2 billion? That's almost a third of the world's population FFS. I don't believe that for a second.

 

I do get your point though, I just don't share the enthusiasm that so many tourists have towards the Saxe-Coburg family. It just don't understand how ordinary plebs can be so impressed by the obscene wealth displayed by a ruling dynasty whose ancestors accumulated such wealth through the oppression and exploitation of the masses - probably/possibly the tourists' own forefathers. The stupidity of it astounds me.

 

Whatever the arguments in favour of it, the idea of hereditary rule is a draconian concept that has no place in a modern, progressive democracy. I guess that tells us that, as much as we like to believe we do, we just don't live in a modern, progressive democracy.

 

We do though. The Royals may reign but they don't rule. Apart from not eating swan they have no effect on your day to day life. USA and France are both republics but their politics are just as riddled with red tape, greed, ulterior motives, hidden agendas and occasional corruption as ours.

 

The best run countries in the World, according to most surveys on quality of life: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Holland, Austria, Oz, NZ, Switzerland and Canada. That's 4 Monarchies, 3 Commonwealths and 3 republics.

 

I agree it's probably not 2 billions, that's just a number I've seen reported. As I said, even if it's half of that...

[sadoldgit]

Never, in the field of human millinery, have so many hats been worn by so few.

[Matthew Le God]

Actually I do agree on your first point entirely, the Lords can f**k off.

 

Buckingham Palace is where the Queen lives. That's the de facto British tourist attraction, if you take away the Royals, you take away the whole point of the Palace. I'm we'd still get visitors coming in but without the Royals it's just an old building and you take away the unique selling point. It would be no different to any French Chateau, German Burg etc. etc.

 

Some media outlets would have us believe 2 billion people watched the Royal wedding. Even if it's half of that it's on par with an Olympic opening ceremony, WC final, the superbowl etc. That's the kind of global interest they bring to the UK.

 

Get rid of the Royals and it's like saying we could go and visit St Mary's this weekend. Sure Saints aren't playing but the stadium is still there.

 

Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God

[CB Fry]

Congratulations for living a long time and owning a lot of hats?

 

 

 

Because a proper democracy, where heads of state are voted for is fairer than a family born with silver spoons in their mouths just because hundreds of years ago their ancestors were successful warlords.

 

 

 

Every day I thank God for the Queen.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle.

 

Spot on.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

On the 2nd June 1953 this women took a solemn oath to devote the rest of her life to the service of her people. 63 years later I dare say that even the most fanatic republican on here would struggle to argue that she has broken that promise or indeed let her people down in any way. There is something quite remarkable there that goes far beyond the mere statistic of how long she has reigned over us.

 

You sometimes see people say that she's not a very clever person - well all I can say to that is that Queen Elizabeth is obviously quite bright enough to understand that her role is to advise and listen to the elected politicians who really run the country and not to interfere in their plans overtly - although Gods knows she must have despaired at what some of them were doing to the nation.

 

To the vast majority of us she is the only monarch we have ever known and when the time eventually comes when she is no longer our Queen the sense of loss will be a palpable one to millions of ordinary people I think - me included.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[Matthew Le God]

On the 2nd June 1953 this women took a solemn oath to devote the rest of her life to the service of her people. 63 years later I dare say that even the most fanatic republican on here would struggle to argue that she has broken that promise or indeed let her people down in any way. There is something quite remarkable there that goes far beyond the mere statistic of how long she has reigned over us.

 

Does she really deserve praise for what is essentially just... living a long time?

[Lord Duckhunter]

On the 2nd June 1953 this women took a solemn oath to devote the rest of her life to the service of her people. 63 years later I dare say that even the most fanatic republican on here would struggle to argue that she has broken that promise or indeed let her people down in any way. There is something quite remarkable there that goes far beyond the mere statistic of how long she has reigned over us.

 

You sometimes see people say that she's not a very clever person - well all I can say to that is that Queen Elizabeth is obviously quite bright enough to understand that her role is to advise and listen to the elected politicians who really run the country and not to interfere in their plans overtly - although Gods knows she must have despaired at what some of them were doing to the nation.

 

To the vast majority of us she is the only monarch we have ever known and when the time eventually comes when she is no longer our Queen the sense of loss will be a palpable one to millions of ordinary people I think - me included.

 

 

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference. What are you saying , that because she's a good civil servant the monarchy is a good thing . What if she was like Charlie Manson , would that make it a bad thing ?

 

Her ability to do the job is irrelevant , she only got it because of who her father was , I thought we were trying to get away from that sort of thing .

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Does she really deserve praise for what is essentially just... living a long time?

 

Try reading what I wrote.

[Lighthouse]

She is head of state in name only. She isn't a leader, a decision maker or a politician. Ambassador would be the best way to describe her. You may not like her but she has spread British good will and diplomatic relations across the globe.

 

No it's not fair that she was just born into this 'job' but she was and she does a heck of a lot of good for this country. Maybe not you personally but she is an important figurehead for this country. She is more well known and respected Worldwide than Cameron, Brown, Blair, Farage, Milliband, Major etc. put together.

[Matthew Le God]

Try reading what I wrote.

 

I did.

[hypochondriac]

Does she really deserve praise for what is essentially just... living a long time?

 

Well living in a guilded cage for that entire time. I have mixed feelings over the monarchy but I can't say it's a job I'd like to do. The intrusion etc sounds like my idea of hell. It's more than just living a long time for sure.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Try reading what I wrote.

 

That because she's a good civil servant , her son should get her job when she pegs it?

[Matthew Le God]

She is head of state in name only. She isn't a leader, a decision maker or a politician. Ambassador would be the best way to describe her. You may not like her but she has spread British good will and diplomatic relations across the globe.

 

No it's not fair that she was just born into this 'job' but she was and she does a heck of a lot of good for this country. Maybe not you personally but she is an important figurehead for this country. She is more well known and respected Worldwide than Cameron, Brown, Blair, Farage, Milliband, Major etc. put together.

 

Wouldn't it be better if we appoint "ambassador" for the country on merit? Even if were true that she is a good one (I'm yet to see what she is actually good at), that is no guarantee any of her descendants will be, yet due to it being monarchy they get the job regardless of their level of competance.

[CB Fry]

On the 2nd June 1953 this women took a solemn oath to devote the rest of her life to the service of her people. 63 years later I dare say that even the most fanatic republican on here would struggle to argue that she has broken that promise or indeed let her people down in any way. There is something quite remarkable there that goes far beyond the mere statistic of how long she has reigned over us.

 

You sometimes see people say that she's not a very clever person - well all I can say to that is that Queen Elizabeth is obviously quite bright enough to understand that her role is to advise and listen to the elected politicians who really run the country and not to interfere in their plans overtly - although Gods knows she must have despaired at what some of them were doing to the nation.

 

To the vast majority of us she is the only monarch we have ever known and when the time eventually comes when she is no longer our Queen the sense of loss will be a palpable one to millions of ordinary people I think - me included.

 

Quite right.

 

On whatever measure you want to use, she has been fantastic.

 

It's not even a role she was actually born into, and definitely not one she ever asked for.

 

But fate conspired and since her coronation she has served her country and commonwealth with huge distinction. I'm no loony royalist but would defend the Queen and her role and how she has served against anyone, except MLG.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by CB Fry

[Lord Duckhunter]

She is more well known and respected Worldwide than Cameron, Brown, Blair, Farage, Milliband, Major etc. put together.

 

So provided the monarch is popular and respected it's a good idea. What if Charles is a plum , how do we get rid of him ?

[Matthew Le God]

Well living in a guilded cage for that entire time. I have mixed feelings over the monarchy but I can't say it's a job I'd like to do. The intrusion etc sounds like my idea of hell. It's more than just living a long time for sure.

 

I'm sure the millions of pounds of state aid help her cope with the nightmarish existence she is clearly enduring.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I did.

 

So when I said that the most remarkable thing about her reign was not its great length, but rather the manner in which it has been conducted, you found that eminently simple statement difficult to comprehend for some reason?

[Matthew Le God]

Quite right.

 

On whatever measure you want to use, she has been fantastic.

 

Fantastic at doing what? She is the head of state, but what does she actually do well?

[hypochondriac]

I'm sure the millions of pounds of state aid help her cope with the nightmarish existence she is clearly enduring.

 

Pathetic reply from you as usual. I said it was my idea of hell abd personally I value my personal freedom and my privacy over any sort of money. It's by no means the worst life in the world but it's not one I would ever want for myself.

[Matthew Le God]

So when I said that the most remarkable thing about her reign was not its great length, but rather the manner in which it has been conducted, you found that eminently simple statement difficult to comprehend for some reason?

 

What has she done well that is so remarkable? What kind of things would she had to have done for you not to consider her reign conducted well? Its a pretty difficult "job" to screw up.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God

[hypochondriac]

What has she done well that is so remarkable?

 

Surviving that long with the eyes of the world on you without going bat**** mental for one.

[CB Fry]

Fantastic at doing what? She is the head of state, but what does she actually do well?

I'll let other people debate with you because I am not bothering.

 

Teach us all about God again, why don't you.

[Lighthouse]

Fantastic at doing what? She is the head of state, but what does she actually do well?

 

She is the best advert for this country Britain has ever had. Even if she just travels around the world smiling, waving and shaking hands, it seems to work so who are we to disagree.

[Matthew Le God]

Teach us all about God again, why don't you.

 

Mythical fairy stories are for bed time master Fry.

[CB Fry]

Surviving that long with the eyes of the world on you without going bat**** mental for one.

MLG has been playing head-of-state simulator computer game and apparently it's a piece of pi ss.

[Lighthouse]

MLG has been playing head-of-state simulator computer game and apparently it's a piece of pi ss.

 

Do you have a youtube video of the Queen to back this up?

[Matthew Le God]

She is the best advert for this country Britain has ever had. Even if she just travels around the world smiling, waving and shaking hands, it seems to work so who are we to disagree.

 

The main thrust of your counter argument keeps coming back to money.

 

As I said in post #23...

 

Your argument largely appears to come down to money. I object to the monarchy on a matter of the principle that I don't think the descendants of successful warlords should be the head of state through fluke of birth. Whether or not they help with tourism is irrelevant to that matter of principle.

 

 

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

What has she done well that is so remarkable? What kind of things would she had to have done for you not to consider her reign conducted well? Its a pretty difficult "job" to screw up.

 

63 years as Head of State for not only this great nation but many other Commonwealth ones too and hardly a mistake worth mentioning in all those years. And yet you find this to be a unremarkable record somehow?

 

Bizarre.

[Matthew Le God]

Surviving that long with the eyes of the world on you without going bat**** mental for one.

 

How do you know for certain her mental condition? In any case, her family has had hundreds of years to learn how to bring up children in such an environment. I really don't think its a big achievement to be one of the most privileged humans in history.

Edited 9 September, 2015 by Matthew Le God