Queen's 90th

Subject: Queen's 90th
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:52 AM

Looks like a busy weekend if you want to celebrate The Queen's 90th. Could be equally busy for fellow Republicans trying to avoid it.

I found much general reassurance by listening to one of the UKs finest singer-songwriters on all issues social and political - LeonRosselson: http://www.leonrosselson.co.uk/ I say 'general reassurance' because many of his songs just trip you up here and there - and so it should be. Thanks Leon.


His website

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Rapparee
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 11:04 AM

Her 90th. That's sooooooooooooooooooo sweet.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Will Fly
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 12:34 PM

It's a good weekend for gigs - a double header on Saturday and a double header on Sunday for me. Lots of places are having fairs, and lots of institutions are holding celebratory dances because of the 90th birthday. So, thanks for being 90 and being the queen.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 02:04 PM

Well I wish the woman well, but I'm not going to be celebrating the long life of an extremely pampered woman who has travelled the world in luxury in order to get crowds of cheering natives to wave plastic union jacks at her from behind ropes under the gaze of watchful armed guards and who milks the public purse of tens of millions per annum, not only for her own use but also for the benefit of her mostly exceptionally useless extended family. Yep, it's going to be a great weekend for leaving the telly off. Happy birthday whatever your pet name is, missus.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 03:41 PM

I've never met her, I have absolutely no reason to like or dislike her as a fellow human being, and she has absolutely no effect on my life whatsoever. So, I wish her a very happy birthday, exactly as I would wish any other 90-year-old.

In fact, she's been 90 since 21st April 2016.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:06 PM

Well she does cost you about 67p per annum. Me too. I regard that as very bad value.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:20 PM

I'm quite comfortable financially in my retirement, Steve. I'd far rather pay 67p p.a. (which I don't miss anyway) for her than for President Camoron, or President Osborne, or President Bo-Jo who do, or would, affect my life in oh-so-many ways! 👍

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:27 PM

Ah, but the lesser-of-evils argument still don't make a thing right!

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:36 PM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:06 PM

Well she does cost you about 67p per annum. Me too. I regard that as very bad value.

As the bible says:
"Whose likeness is on that coin?"
"Then render unto Caesar . . ."

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 04:59 PM

Good point, Nigel. If she had every coin and note with her fizzog on it, she'd even be able to afford Pedigree Chum for the corgis.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 06:44 PM

"Ah, but the lesser-of-evils argument still don't make a thing right!"

Generally I imagine most people would go for the lesser of two evils, unless there are other choices.

The right thing is to opt for the least evil of whatever choices are there.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 09:01 PM

Quite so. But you've hardly negated my point.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 09:26 PM

The thing is, you can pretty well guarantee that any system they'd introduce for appointing a President would land the country with some superannuated politico, like the ones mentioned.

Given it's supposed to be a purely ornamental job, I've sometimes thought it'd be an idea to appoint a horse. That way we could still have the Trooping of the Colour. Maybe a Royal could be kept on to look after it, and ride it on such occasions. The Opening of Parliament could be fun. They'd have to modify the arrangements for the Queen's Speech, I suppose.

Short of that, I'd as soon stick with the present arrangements.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 10 Jun 16 - 09:50 PM

Dunno. A horse could well represent some kind of intellectual advance on what we have now.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Megan L
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 02:27 AM

If we no longer have the grace to wish a happy birthday to someone who has reached 90 then we no longer have a society worth saving.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 02:40 AM

Agreed, Megan.

Steve -- ❤-y congratulations on what must be the nastiest & most stupid post to appear on this site for quite a while. You really did surpass even your previous efforts in vulgarly fatuous obloquy; which really took some doing. "... a horse" eh; wow, there's a world·shatteringly witty & brilliant aperçu!

...{or am I missing that oh-so-masterly 'sarcasm' again?
Eheu!}


LoL in ♠♠

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 02:44 AM

& I hope you observed my own use of supremely subtle sarcasm; which will probably, acc to my own predictions above, leap up to bite me on the ɷ ...

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:01 AM

I agree with the comments made by both Megan and by MGM-Lion in relation to Steve Shaw's post, or should that be posts, to this thread.

The following - Steve Shaw - 10 Jun 16 - 02:04 PM - in particular demonstrates a degree of ignorance that is downright astonishing in magnitude. Hardly surprising really he normally does argue on most subjects from total ignorance of the subject under discussion.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:26 AM

Perhaps the essential aspect of hereditary monarchy that makes its retention morally dubious, is once it has become decorative rather than exercising power is that involves a form of slavery. The person destined to fill the role is marked at birth and held as a kind of national toy figure throughout their life. And incidentally subject to obtuse insults like that from Steve just then.

Very well rewarded slaves, it is true. But chains of gold are still chains.

We live in a system where there are ridiculous and offensive variations in wealth, far more deserving our attention than the hereditary monarchy.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:34 AM

Absolutely spot-on, Kevin - couldn't agree more.

And welcome back, BTW!

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 04:44 AM

"I agree with the comments made by both Megan and by MGM-Lion in relation to Steve Shaw's post,"
Somewhat hypocritical from a coule of people here who have no problem in slagging of the "gullible" Irish, the French who have never won a war and the appalling dress-sense and sexual perversions of Muslims!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:38 AM

What "coule" of people wrote that "I {singular} agree with....."?

Trouble is Jim you simply do not read things, you do not understand them, with the result you tend to get things wrong damn near all the time.

I have no problem at all slagging the leaders of various Irish dissident groups who have elected to take violent action and who were conned and spurred into action by vague promises of support from dubious "allies" solely because it suited their purposes at the time, and I would say that "gullible" is the right adjective to describe those leaders belief in such promises given previous track record.

I have "slagged" the French have I? When was that then Jom? I would ask for an example of me doing so but this will just be ignored and we will have yet another example of a piece of Jim Carroll "Made-Up-Shit" - Same goes for the "appalling dress-sense ....Muslims" crap.

Kevin, any reigning monarch has the right to abdicate whenever they choose - so hardly slavery.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:58 AM

"Trouble is Jim you simply do not read things, you do not understand them"
Read them all and respond to Teribus - those arguments have no place here.
I'm just commenting on the ludicrous nature of those who have no problem slagging of nations, races and communities but leap for the nearest chair, skirts above knees, when someone takes a pop at 'Our Madge'
"I have "slagged" the French have I?"
Who said you have? - you're not the only tiddler in this pond
"Jom"
Infantile name-calling again - must have been another Teribus who has just been giving someone 'down the banks' for calling that nice Mr Farrage childish names?
I'm sure her Maj is a very nice if uninteresting lady, but as a species it really is time she was extinct.
Wonder if Charlie will wish her, "many happy returns"!!
Hilarious cartoon in the Times this morning showing an apoplectic Duke of E. reading a tabloid which has the headline "Migrants Flood to Britain from Greece" and spluttering "Bloody foreigners coming here taking our jobs"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: banjoman
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:00 AM

I have no problem in wishing a happy birthday to any person who reaches the grand age of 90 and I have no issues with the queen as a member of the human race.
However, I just cannot accept the concept of a hereditary monarchy, constitutional or not, where privilege and position are purely based on ones ancestral line. The least we can say for Messrs Cameron, Corbyn, Clinton or Trump is that the electorate does have a say in their appointment or demise. I take some concern at the comments from commentators such as " Loved by all her subjects"
I am not a subject of anyone and do not LOVE the Monarchy or the Royal Family although I do have respect for some as individuals

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:35 AM

Hmm. I appear to have got the response that you might have thought I'd wished for (though I don't really post here "wishing" for specific responses). I'd just remind the royalist sycophants who have crawled out of the woodwork to bash me of three things: first, there is a considerable body of opinion in this country, not a majority, of course, which quite legitimately opposes the monarchy on a number of grounds. Second, you do not have the monopoly of opinion on the matter, so if you come along to sing her praises I'm equally entitled to state the opposite. You have no right not to be offended (nor, indeed, has the lady in question) and I have no right to immunity from excoriation in return. The bad grace you've so far shown, three of you, speaks volumes about your intolerance of demurral and of your sycophancy.   

Third and last, I did actually wish the woman a happy birthday. Perhaps the red mist prevented you from seeing that, Megan.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:47 AM

"..... although I do have respect for some as individuals"
Perfik - B
When we were recording Travellers in London, one of them, our friend, Kerry Traveller, Mikeen McCarthy, set up a collection around the local sites in Hackney for the Save the Children Fund.
It was duly noted by the organisers who contacted him and said their President, Princess Anne, would like to visit the site to thank him personally,
The Lord mayor of Hackney got wind of the visit and decided it would be good opportunity for a publicity photo-shoot so, on the day of the visit he turned up at the site, which was surrounded by a high wire face, closed off by a gate, in full regalia, mayoral chain and all, accompanied by a photographer and a reporter from The Hackney Gazette.
The Royal entourage had placed a couple of dinner-suited bouncers on the gate to stop intruders - they told his worship to sling his hook, so he made his way around the fence, attracted the attention of a Traveller child inside and asked her to tell H.R.H. that The Lord Mayor would like an audience with her.
The child ran off, popped her head into Mikeen's caravan and yelled "Hey, missis!"
We cherish the photos we were given of Mikeen and Nonie sitting in their caravan chatting to "the nice lady"
We also cherish the old copy of the Hackney Gazette bearing the front page headline "Hey, missis!"
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 09:44 AM

Steve Shaw - 10 Jun 16 - 02:04 PM

Well I wish the woman well, but I'm not going to be celebrating the long life of an extremely pampered woman who has travelled the world in luxury in order to get crowds of cheering natives to wave plastic union jacks at her from behind ropes under the gaze of watchful armed guards and who milks the public purse of tens of millions per annum, not only for her own use but also for the benefit of her mostly exceptionally useless extended family.

Well Shaw you are about what? At least 20 years her junior? You would not last one week in her shoes and she has been doing that for over 64 years. Those cheering natives elected representatives on gaining independence actually chose the Queen as their Head of State, they didn't have to - their choice. Your rather fanciful notion about the armed guards was rather amusing and I cannot remember ever seeing any official state visit by any head of state where the military and armed security were not present.

Steve Shaw - 10 Jun 16 - 04:06 PM

Well she does cost you about 67p per annum. Me too. I regard that as very bad value.

Well No Shaw she doesn't, she doesn't cost you or any other tax payer a single penny. The 67p per annum is a figurative cost not an actual cost. So much for your milking of "the public purse of tens of millions per annum, not only for her own use but also for the benefit of her mostly exceptionally useless extended family".

Up until the Civil List payment ended in 2011 the payments had been the same for 20 years - how many people do you know who have not had a pay rise for twenty years Shaw?

Since the demise of the Civil List the costs of our Head of State are paid for out of the profits from the Crown Estate.

The upkeep of Royal Residences which are buildings that form part of the Crown Estate but are used for official state functions are also paid from the Sovereign Grant.

Not a penny of tax payers money has ever been spent on any of the Monarchs family even in the days of the Civil List payment. Costs of the members of the Royal Family with the exception of the Prince of Wales and his family are met from the profits from the Duchy of Lancaster, separate from the Crown Estate.

All costs related to the Prince of Wales and his family are met from the profits from the Duchy of Cornwall, separate from the Crown Estate.

After having paid for all this the Treasury receives in full the remaining 85% of the profits of the Crown Estate plus the normal tax on the profits from both the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall - in short a collective contribution to the Exchequer of something between £250 and £300 million per annum.

The "cost" of our Head of State is about two-thirds the cost of the President of a country like France and far, far cheaper than say the costs associated with the President of the United States of America.

We only have to pay for one Head of State at a time and there is no pension whereas with time limited term Presidents you have to pay the costs, the wages and the pensions of Presidents past and present. Costs of state functions remain the same irrespective of whether the Head of State is a Monarch or an elected President.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 10:27 AM

So our prime minister comes free just because he's not called Mr President? Garn, pull the other one! 😂

Landed gentry such as the royals possess their wealth as a result of their ancestors' stealing land from the rest of us. All their profits are ill-gotten gains. We can only hope that they at least put them to good use for the benefit of their tenants. Unlike many of the latter, they do seem to have rather pleasant lives, no five-day forty-eight hour weeks with just four weeks' holiday for them! And how do you know I wouldn't last a week in her shoes (given that they are size tens, wide fitting)? Oh yes, I forgot: she has to go around on the bus and fly Ryanair, then when she gets back to her mansion of choice after having those flags gruellingly waved at her as she asks people "hellay, and what do YOU do?" she has to put the washing up away, cook the tea, make the beds...

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 11:44 AM

Ehmmmm I don't think any of "us" were around in those days, and no their profits are not ALL ill-gotten gains if you are headed back that far. They provided protection and justice of the sort was around in those days to let others get on with their lives service was a two way street back in feudal times.

You wouldn't last a week Steve because the Queen has to go around constantly being "nice" to people of all sorts, she has to appear interested in whatever they are saying whether she agrees with it or not, she always has to be immaculately turned out and never ever late. That is just the outside engagement programme she has to cope with. Then there is the "office" work all those Red Dispatch Boxes, and yes she does actually have to read that lot and do what is required of her, then of course the State commitments and charity work on top of that - you and your wide fitting size tens if you started on the Monday morning would be running down the drive by Tuesday lunchtime. Five day 48 hour weeks would be a breeze for her - almost like a holiday. As for holidays, how many are you forced to take with a list of guests that you cannot stand being imposed on you without option - just think about it, a beautiful breakaway from it all up at Balmoral in the company of Tony and Cherie Blair.

Couldn't quite seen what you were driving at regarding the Prime Minister - President is the Head of State most countries that have them also have Prime Ministers or someone else in their role/function equivalents - point being put across was Presidents are far more expensive than a Monarchy and you did not manage to counter the point.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:39 PM

"you do not have the monopoly of opinion on the matter, so if you come along to sing her praises I'm equally entitled to state the opposite. You have no right not to be offended" ···

Indeed so, Steve. I will gladly drink to all that.

& add moreover: tu quoque & same·right·back·2U·with·brass·knobs·on; & so ad·∞ ...

So why this preternatural & extraordinary air of pained offence that we're not all grovellingly agreeing with Great·Big·Steve, eh?!

Just asking...

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:42 PM

I'm very nice to everyone face to face. I'd let you buy me a pint any time. Anyway, what's your real name - Nicholas Witchell? 😂

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:43 PM

Michael, the day I take any kind of offence at what the madmen in this forum say is the day I have meself committed. And I hope you know who you all are.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 12:49 PM

Not much point arguing so rationally & cogently, Teribus: those as ignorant and prejudiced as the likes of S Shaw & his cohorts are impervious to logic & reason. And to think they are the ones who are always lifting ☝☟ in horror & crying out that grotesque cant word "bigoted"! Anyone ever known anyone else as bigoted as Shaw 'n' that lot!

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Senoufou
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:22 PM

Whether one is in favour of the Monarchy or not, the Queen chose to accept the role, and vowed publicly to dedicate herself to it lifelong.
No-one could disagree, surely, that she has fulfilled her vow admirably, and stuck to her duty through good times and bad for 63 years.
At the age of ninety she is remarkable in that she continues to perform her duties conscientiously.
I disagree that she has had a cushy life. She may not have had any domestic duties, but the terrible strain of maintaining her composure in the full glare of the media at all times, through all personal sorrows and worries and minor indispositions, must have been enormous. And she has had virtually no freedom. All her activities and pursuits are watched obsessively. She has never been able to saunter outside without the whole circus following her, including her own detectives etc. It's a life I would have absolutely detested, but she has endured it nobly.
I wish her a very Happy Birthday indeed.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Pete from seven stars link
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 05:41 PM

Good post senoufou , IMO.   I,m not particularly royalist but I think the queen is doing a good job.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:22 PM

Rubbish. She has had the freedom to abdicate whenever she wanted, and no doubt she wouldn't exactly have been a pauper had she done so. Of course she's had a cushy life. Her travel arrangements are all made for her by someone else, she needn't worry about the cost of them and she travels in the lap of luxury. No Easyjet for her, no mixing with the unhygienic hoi polloi. She has stylists and wardrobe assistants travelling with her and I severely doubt that she has to bother packing her own knickers and bras. She stays in exclusive residences wherever in the world she goes, no worries about airport transfers, etc., and she's looked after by armies of servants, and her transactions with the flag-waving public are brief and highly restricted. The only hassles she ever has in her life are the ones brought on by her feckless and disreputable family members, such as her son having it off with his mistress the night before marrying Diana, messy inevitable divorces brought on by cynical exploitation of gullible young society women (yes, and watch that space...), her foul-mouthed, ignorant, racist husband and her grandson, of doubtful heritage in any case, who allows pictures to be published of his naked self shagging a young woman from behind in what we northerners call a "standing-up one." I'll allow that the dear old queen herself has managed (by keeping her mouth shut, mostly) to maintain a modicum of personal dignity. But she is the captain of, to a man, a ship of fools. And I have a suspicion that she knows it, so kudos to her for toughing it out. Happy birthday, whichever one it is, missus.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Senoufou
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 06:47 PM

But Steve, her travel arrangements and stylists, luxurious places to stay and servants packing her underwear are not to any great extent under her own control. She is more or less 'sent' on engagements, wearing what her stylists decide is appropriate. Can you not see that it's a gilded cage? You sound a bit jealous of her wealth and her opulent surroundings, but I'm almost sure you'd be driven crazy in a couple of months by such a restricted way of life. I enjoy very much my freedom to go out for a simple stroll in the park, wearing comfortable clothes of my choice, munching on a Wispa bar and nattering to a neighbour. No amount of servants, dressers, chefs, chauffeurs or personal secretaries would suffice to compensate me for the lack of freedom which as an ordinary person I relish.
Regarding the other Royals, this thread as I understand it, is about the Queen's 90th Birthday, not the behaviour or shortcomings of her family.
(And I think I'd prefer to pack my own knickers to be honest!)

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 07:01 PM

Well it sounds like you live your life rather similarly to the way I live mine. I have no need to feel jealous of the royals, in fact, as you seem to be implying, in many regards they are probably to be pitied rather than envied. Maybe she does get "sent," etc., but she's 90 fer chrissake and she could decently have butted out twenty or twenty-five years ago if she'd really wanted to. This talk of gilded cages, her bring trapped, etc., is a load of hooey. And if she wants a stroll in the park, why, she has a bloody great big park at the back of her humble London abode, as well as a rather huge one up in Scotland, and she would never have to worry about being forced to mix with the plebs in either as she strolled around them. In fact, her only worry would be to avoid stepping in some occasional corgi shit.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 08:32 PM

The heredtary monarchy is a pretty trivial and insignificant matter. Getting rid of it would change nothing significant to even dent, let alone eliminate the gross inequality that disfigure our society.

Which is the more egalitarian society, the United States or Norway? Which one has no hereditary monarch, and which has one?

Ranting on about the Royals is a distraction and an irrelevance.

And it only too easily descends into the kind of stuff Steve has been throwing up in this thread. Troll talk, liable to make the most dedicated republican incline towards royalty.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 08:32 PM

The heredtary monarchy is a pretty trivial and insignificant matter. Getting rid of it would change nothing significant to even dent, let alone eliminate, the gross inequality that disfigures our society.

Which is the more egalitarian society, the United States or Norway? Which one has no hereditary monarch, and which has one? I don't mean to suggest a connection, but rather the reverse.

Ranting on about the Royals is a distraction and an irrelevance.

And it only too easily descends into the kind of stuff Steve has been throwing up in this thread. Troll talk, liable to make the most dedicated republican incline towards royalty.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 08:58 PM

Ah, another royalist! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Jun 16 - 09:39 PM

But seriously. The monarchy is no trivial matter. It is the culmination of many centuries of unearned privilege to which we are supposed to doff our caps and wave our union jacks. Of course it hasn't necessarily increased inequality, but it has legitimised it and made it far more difficult to counter. That's exactly what privilege does and is intended to do. There is a massive media machine protecting and promoting the royals. Even that can't prevent the more discerning among us (not including Kevin, evidently) from detecting the fact that they are a bunch of people of rather average intelligence and often dubious morality who are detached from reality by virtue of their inherited wealth and the non-requirement of them ever to do an honest day's work. It's hardly "troll talk" to have the temerity to point this out. In fact, if Kevin were to get his way and such talk were to be suppressed (presumably that's what he'd want with a troll), then we wouldn't be living in a democracy worthy of its name. I don't need to go comparing us with other nations who are unlike us in all manner of ways to see that we'd be a damn sight better off without this bunch of spoiled parasites. Happy birthday, anachronism!

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Megan L
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 01:17 AM

Are you equally critical of overpaid primadonna football players

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 02:01 AM

Of course the elected president of any republic does all his own decorating. His wife does all the housework & cooking. They have to rush to the station for fear of missing the train when they go anywhere, and nobody helps them with their luggage or keeps a look out just in case there might be some joker around who wishes them a bit of no·good ...

Poor old Steve. Eaten up by class-envy & inverted snobbery. To paraphrase the perceptive barrister in the play You Never Can Tell by his distinguished late Irish namesake: "He thinks he isn't but he is".

"Carry on, Steve", as the old catchphrase regarding your late distinguished jockey namesake Donaghue used to go. It's a real caution, the way you chunter so furiously and obsessively on at the way the world wags.

Regards
≈M≈

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Senoufou
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 04:23 AM

I don't imagine that, with the intensive 'indoctrination' the Queen has been subjected to from early life, she is even capable of considering Abdication. The more I think about it, she really is a sort of prisoner. The 'walk in her enormous garden' isn't all that different from a spot of fresh air in a prison exercise yard, but with grass.
I genuinely admire her steadfastness and loyalty to her position. And it seems to me she has been blessed with a tremendously 'noble' character.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm actually coming to believe that the Monarchy is an anachronism nowadays, and needs radically paring down to a very simple, low-key role (similar to the Dutch perhaps). And it's quite true that most of the other 'supporting cast' are a bunch of spongers with dodgy personalities and lifestyles. I could name several that I would pension off with a shilling if it was in my power.
It will be interesting, when the time comes, to see how Charles deals with his kingship. He appears to have some rather radical ideas and may introduce sweeping changes in the System.
I would never curtsey to anyone, royal or not. (Except my parents-in-law in Africa, since that is the tradition and I don't mind doing it as they're sweeties and totally delightful!)

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 05:42 AM

I've noticed that the people who express outrage and indignation over the existence of a hereditary monarchy almost always do so in terms and on the grounds of the cost, their 'pampered lifestyle', the servants and attendants seeing to their every need, the 'free' travel, and compare all that to the way we have to conduct our own lives.

Then, having pissed and moaned about the 'good life' enjoyed by the royals but not by the rest of us, they try to pretend they're not envious!

They think they aren't, but they are. Or they're a bunch of liars.

I've also noticed that they never actually manage to put forward any kind of proposal for a workable alternative arrangement that (a) would cost less than the current arrangements and (b) where the head of state (presumably a president and his/her family) wouldn't benefit from all the goodies that the royals get but the rest of us don't have.

So - come on, raise your argument out of the gutter, put your money where your big mouths are. Tell us precisely how you would replace the monarchy, precisely what the financial savings to the nation would be, and precisely how you would ensure that they don't benefit from the pampering and freebies that the rest of us don't get.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Teribus
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:08 AM

"And it's quite true that most of the other 'supporting cast' are a bunch of spongers with dodgy personalities and lifestyles. I could name several that I would pension off with a shilling if it was in my power." - Senoufou - 12 Jun 16 - 04:23 AM

Who are the "supporting cast" members sponging off Senoufou? They do not cost the tax payer a penny.

In terms of charities and good works think of them as "force multipliers" instead of only having your Head of State acting as Patron and encouraging good works you have a whole team whose ages span generations so that they can connect so much more effectively.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: banjoman
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:36 AM

Just been told that the contract for the Patrons Lunch was given to her Grandson, Peter Philips, for an undisclosed fee.
Taking from the poor to give to the rich perhaps?
The whole argument, for me, is nothing to do with her finances or property or her role as head of state. Its only about the right of her son & his heirs to inherit simply on the basis of who their parents are. The sooner we adopt a democratic election of Head of State the better.

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:38 AM

I am neither a liar nor am I even remotely envious, thank you. My beef with royalty is that they represent the pinnacle of the pyramid of privilege which works relentlessly counter to any drive towards fairness and equality in society, supported by a huge public relations machine and sycophantic media, the Beeb included to its discredit. In fact, they legitimise unearned privilege and inequality. They encourage patriotism of a rather mindless, "wot makes Britain great" kind and they appear to have the ability, rather like religion, to persuade people to temporarily abandon their critical faculties, as we've seen in abundance this weekend. I call it the Nicholas Witchell syndrome. I must say that I admire the woman's longstanding ability, unlike anyone else in her tawdry extended clan, to retain a smidgeon of dignity. She's done it not by being "remarkable" but by keeping her mouth firmly shut except when reading speeches written by someone else. As for Charles, that country squire who pontificates inanely about subjects he doesn't understand, talks to his flowers, who is a homeopathic nutcase and whose private life has long been littered with some very dodgy morality, he represents by far the greatest threat to the continuation of the monarchy, and for that we should be grateful.

Incidentally, good joke, that one, you know, the one comparing a walk with the corgis in a usurped vast Scottish private estate with a stroll round the prison yard. Yep, I enjoyed that one! 😂

Subject: RE: Queen's 90th
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 12 Jun 16 - 06:52 AM

The Patrons Lunch is a massive publicity stunt, attended by carefully selected people from charities closely linked to the royal family. Peter Philips, as you say, is not doing it, er, for charity. It costs £150 a head to attend for the 10000 attendees. If you haven't got a ticket you won't be able to walk along a street that is normally open to you. It's all about the left hand definitely knowing exactly what the right hand doeth.