 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Her Majesty The Queen
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Feb 21 - 01:45 PM "...he can easily manage 3 or 4 jobs in one day eg a hospital in Sheffield, a Town Hall in Leeds, a School in Nottingham etc." Bet those "jobs" didn't involve cleaning the bogs... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 10 Feb 21 - 12:02 PM The best way for us humans to get things done is via cooperation and FAIR competition so, as said above, capitalism is a bad system and monarchism even worse. Or, in WalkaboutsVerse, "Global Regulationism" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 10 Feb 21 - 12:00 PM So William's doing 220 jobs a year. So, lets say he has 6 weeks holiday a year. That gives him 46 weeks to carry out 220 jobs. If he works 5 days a week then he has 5 x 46 days in which to work = 230. So he's not even managing 1 job a day on average! And don't forget that he can easily manage 3 or 4 jobs in one day eg a hospital in Sheffield, a Town Hall in Leeds, a School in Nottingham etc. So at a rate of 3 jobs a day, he's really only at work 73 days a year. So I would say he's slacking a bit, by at least 70% in comparison to the rest of the working population. His granny is doing a bit better but given that she could cover at least 2 jobs a day, given her age, she still falls 27% short. And remember, these jobs don't take a great deal of skill or knowledge. It's about the same level as a Corrie actor opening a supermarket; walking, chatting, smiling, waving and reading a pre-prepared speech. But the Corrie actors have to provide their own transport, clothing and food. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Feb 21 - 11:08 AM Were a lot of these engagements waving across barriers to flag-waving piccaninnies with watermelon smiles? How many engagements did they travel to in a J-reg Astra? Did they stay in Travelodges after noshing on KFCs on the hoof? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 10 Feb 21 - 10:56 AM Well I sit in front of a screen but that is because I am working. I think most people would snap up the chance to do these engagements, to travel a bit at least, to get wined and dined at times, and to be treated as they are - for the fortune they get paid. One thing they ain't is hard done by. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 10 Feb 21 - 09:25 AM Despite being 93-years-old, the Queen attended 295 engagements in 2019, while Prince William carried out 220 and the Duchess of Cambridge went to 126. Harry and Meghan also managed an incredible figure, considering they welcomed their son, Archie, this year. Prince Harry carried out 201 royal engagements and Meghan - who was on maternity leave for much of the year - still attended 83. And what did you lefties do - sit in front of a computer screen!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:58 AM "The girl wasn’t that good looking? I don’t think her face was at the forefront of his mind..he couldn’t even see it! ;-)" Huh, it's easy for you to say that whilst resorting to hindsight.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:56 AM The thing is, John, that the arguments about privilege, its legitimisation, and the unearned trappings, etc., are THE arguments as to why we shouldn't have the royals. The "politics of envy" comeback, whilst inevitable, needs confronting. It's an easy and sneery riposte - and saying that it is should be the starting point in countering it. It's possible to give chapter and verse on the gross inequalities in society, the unemployment, the low pay, the disgraceful treatment of the disabled, the NHS waiting lists, the humiliation of the benefits-claiming process, the food banks, the homeless, all in stark contrast with those cosseted royals, whilst sidestepping the "jealousy" jibes, as most of those things don't apply to me. And don't forget that that arch-communist, Jesus Christ, told us not to store our wealth here on Earth, but to give it away... Well, I've even seen that stolid Christian Queen Croesus of ours making sure she's been filmed going to church of a Sunday... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:51 AM The girl wasn’t that good looking? I don’t think her face was at the forefront of his mind..he couldn’t even see it! ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:29 AM Politics of envy? The girl wasn't that good-looking... :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Thompson Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:29 AM What do the royals actually do? I keep reading about how some are "particularly hard-working", but I've never seen any pictures of them actually… well… working. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Feb 21 - 07:27 AM Well I only mentioned ‘the money’ because Steve has gone on about ‘tens of millions per annum to an already super-rich woman’, ‘privilege and trappings’, ‘entitlement and unearned privilege’, etc., etc., etc. FWIW, I’m not disagreeing with you, Steve, but I simply wanted to raise the point that there will still be considerable cost, no matter whether we have a hereditary monarchy or an elected HoS. I’d very much like to see a comparison between the full cost to US taxpayers of the US President and his family, and the cost to UK taxpayers of the Royal List plus other costs covered out of public funds. I’ve tried to find such a comparison but have had no luck. I’m in complete agreement about the hangers-on (by which I mean in particular the wider royal family, rather than the queen’s immediate family or her employees) and I’m certain there’s room for a sizeable contraction there, with a resultant cost-saving. I have to say that I regard it a mistake of the republicans and those on the political Left to witter on about ‘privilege and trappings’, ‘tens of millions’, ‘unearned income’, ‘thick grandsons having knee-tremblers’ yadda yadda, because that kind of rhetoric plays straight into the hands of the Monarchists and Political Right who simply airily dismiss those arguments as the politics of envy, even though they contain undeniable truth. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Feb 21 - 05:59 AM Yes, I remembered that one! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 10 Feb 21 - 05:51 AM I agree Steve Shaw, it's not about the money, it's about the principle! (Yes, I know Tommy Cooper had his own take on that phrase!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Feb 21 - 05:16 AM "I’m not sure that the anti-monarchist ‘cost’ argument holds a great deal of water because, whatever the type of HoS we have, there will be considerable cost involved." Well there certainly wouldn't be a whole army of hangers-on, raking it in for doing next to nothing (no bleating about their "charitable works," please... Not you, John!) or huge estates with regal names surreptitiously funnelling millions per annum to the head of state. Aside from that, there are much wider arguments than just "the money." Let's talk matters of principle... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 10 Feb 21 - 04:33 AM QUOTE FROM PHILIP HALL and TheIndependen ichael Portillo's decision to spend pounds 60m of government money on replacing the royal yacht Britannia really touched a nerve - the public do not want to pay out for a new luxury yacht. This is why Labour opposition to the plan, a rare event these days, had stiffened by the weekend. Telephone polls are not trustworthy, but the fact that all five did show overwhelming rejection seems to have convinced Blair and co. Nor is the issue of public money one which attaches to the royal yacht alone. Much of the flak which the royal family has received has always concerned the cost of hangers-on. For many this definitely included Princess Margaret, the subject of a documentary tonight on Channel 4, in its Secret Lives series. She has never been the most productive of royals - she always came near the bottom of the league table of royal activity. Even when the monarchy was much more popular than today, Margaret attracted Fergie- style attention for her holidays in the Caribbean, leading the former republican MP, Willie Hamilton, to ask: what is Princess Margaret for? One gets a feeling of deja vu. As with the 1992 Windsor fire, the Government has shown great enthusiasm to meet the costs from the public purse, whereas the majority of people think otherwise. Then, attention was focused on the Queen's tax-exemption and the number of royals paid for by the Government from the Civil List. Within days of the Windsor fire, the Queen finally and reluctantly - after 40 years - agreed to pay taxes, except for inheritance tax, and to take Margaret, Andrew, Edward, Anne and the Dowager Duchess of Gloucester off the Civil List. Everyone nowadays seems to accept that the Queen pays pounds 890,000 a year for these minor royals out of her own pocket. Of this, pounds 219,000 is for Princess Margaret. So the Queen may be thought to have skirted around Willie Hamilton's question: what is Princess Margaret for? She is the Queen's sister and she, not the public purse, helps support her. However, the pounds 890,000 for these royals comes not from the Queens private pocket but from somewhere very different - the Duchy of Lancaster. There is much confusion over the status of the Duchy, whose annual income of pounds 5.35m goes to the Queen. That she draws this revenue suggests that it is her private property, yet when the Palace calculate her private wealth they never include the 51,150 acres of land and pounds 32m of investments from the Duchy. Also, the Duchy, if not on a day-to-day basis, is in the charge of a government minister. At the moment it is Roger Freeman who carries the title of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (his main job is Minister for Public Service in charge of Civil Service Reform and the Citizens Charter). So it seems strange that the money does not go to the Government, as is the case with the profits of the Crown Estate. Over the last 200 years, all manner of leading politicians have maintained that the Duchy and its revenues really belong to the public. These include Edmund Burke, Lord Palmerston, Lord Brougham, Sir Charles Dilke, Clement Attlee and many more. The Duchy of Lancaster's origins go back to 1265, even further in time than the Duchy of Cornwall, a higher-profile organisation, whose income goes to Prince Charles. Monarchs had for hundreds of years treated the Duchy of Lancaster's rents, along with tax revenue, as money for the business of government, not as a fund for personal expenses. So it is an anomaly, now that government finance is totally detached from the monarchy, that its profits did not pass to the Treasury. The Duchy revenues would have been transferred to the public purse in the last century, if William IV in 1830 had not dug in his heels and simply refused to hand over the income. The government of the day gave in, vainly hoping to get William not to use the royal prerogative to block the Reform Bill to extend the vote from its then extremely narrow base. They were unconvinced of his case, but acted out of expediency. He did not return the favour, and in the end did his best to block the Bill. A government attempt at taking back the Duchy in 1860 came to nothing. It probably backed down in face of opposition from the recently widowed Queen Victoria. Yet the ties to government remain. The Duchy, whose headquarters are close to Waterloo Bridge in London, requires Treasury approval for many of its financial decisions. In this respect it has the same relationship with the Treasury as other government departments. It also has to submit accounts to Parliament, again showing that it is hardly a private possession of the Queen. Even Kenneth Clarke, when he was Chancellor of the Duchy in the late Eighties, confessed that a "private estate" which was regulated like a government department, "puzzles me". The solution to the puzzle is that this is not money that should legally and constitutionally go to the monarch. Princess Margaret also lives rent free at Kensington Palace, which is maintained at public expense. Other perks, such as her clothing allowance for official royal tours abroad, are paid for by the Foreign Office. In June 1995, a one-week visit to San Francisco seemed to require a clothing account for that visit alone of pounds 7,200 - more than those at the bottom end of the income scale might spend on clothes in a lifetime. However, it is the Duchy revenue which is the biggest loss to the taxpayer. If Margaret and co plus the Queen's cousins - who from an earlier date were put on the Duchy payroll - cannot make do on their own, the Queen might pay for them from her own pocket. This is, in any case, what people think already happens Estimates of the Queen's wealth in stocks and shares vary, from the Palace's own pounds 70m to mine of more than pounds 400m. Even on the lower figure she can afford to keep them above the poverty line, especially as some of these royals are hardly urgently in need, when they or their spouses already earn an income as company directors, and also have inherited wealth, If our prospective iron chancellor, Gordon Brown, can show some resolve towards the royal yacht, he should do likewise and make plans to take back the Duchy of Lancaster. Phillip Hall is author of `Royal Fortune: Tax, Money and the Monarchy' (Bloomsbury |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 10 Feb 21 - 04:22 AM EX LABOUR MP Willie Hamilton R I P is best remembered for his stridently anti-royalist views, which he set out in detail in his book My Queen and I. He branded the Queen "a clockwork doll", Princess Margaret "a floozy", and Prince Charles "a twerp". However, he admired the Queen Mother, declaring on her 80th birthday: "I am glad to salute a remarkable old lady. May she live to be the pride of the family but quote from Guardian he described Princess Margaret as "this expensive kept woman" for her £82,000 allowance. He then said of the Queen Mother, "It is obscene that this House should be spending its time giving an old lady like that £95,000." In 1981 he demanded that the Windsors and the Spencers pay for the "disgusting display of conspicuous wealth" - the wedding of the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana - instead of the taxpayer. He introduced a bill to abolish hereditary peerages. In 1983 he said the Queen should have her inflation-geared overpayment clawed back like that of old-age pensioners. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 10 Feb 21 - 03:23 AM I suspect you’re right, Allan. I’m not strongly ‘for’ the monarchy, but then I’m not strongly ‘against’ the monarchy either. I don’t believe we need a monarchy, but I do believe we need a benign, benevolent, non-political HoS. I would **somewhat** prefer an elected HoS - someone who has at least some grasp of the kind of world that the vast majority of us live in - but I’m not sure how the candidates for such an election should be chosen. But what I am sure of is that a US-style President, a political position with all the power such a position endows, would be the worst of all options. I’m not sure that the anti-monarchist ‘cost’ argument holds a great deal of water because, whatever the type of HoS we have, there will be considerable cost involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 10 Feb 21 - 02:53 AM It is always difficult telling what folks think from the occassional survey but Scotland is seemingly less supportive of the monarchy than the rest of GB. In 2018 a survey found 41% in support of the monarchy; 28% were against the monarchy - but a whopping 27% didn't much care one way or the other. I suspect even among those who support it or are against it - for many they may think that way in general but it may not be a burning issue. Way down the list of priorities. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:31 PM I've even got the right song for it, "Tiara Boom-de-ay"... Am I in...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:27 PM I'll do it... Though I'm usually a bit pissed by 3pm on Christmas Day...Does that rule me out...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:20 PM Bonz, you seem to forget not all tories are royalists... Privatise the queen, cut off all state aid, and put her job out to tender... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:16 PM A legless list, Bonzo. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:07 PM What a load of drivel! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:39 PM It really gets the lefties!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:32 PM quite apt, since the throne is a slang term for the W C, AND EVEN THE QUEEN HAS TO SIT ON THE THRONE AND DO HER DOO DOOS. so bonzo has kindly provide us with athe order of who are the biggest squits,let us hope some of them are constipated and do not mind waiting their turn to sit on the throne. The Prince of Wales, Charles, has a very unlucky name as far as Monarchs go the first one lost his heasd the second one couldnot poduce a legitimate heir of course Charles Prince of Wales frequently loses his head generally when talking to plants |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 09 Feb 21 - 05:00 PM Here is the new succession to the throne!! 1. The Prince of Wales 2. The Duke of Cambridge 3. Prince George of Cambridge 4. Princess Charlotte of Cambridge 5. Prince Louis of Cambridge 6. The Duke of Sussex 7. Master Archie Mountbatten-Windsor 8. The Duke of York 9. Princess Beatrice of York 10. Princess Eugenie of York 11. Eugenie's baby son 12. The Earl of Wessex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 09 Feb 21 - 10:42 AM based on lack of intelligenceand lack of facts |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: punkfolkrocker Date: 09 Feb 21 - 09:23 AM "I don't do evidence" ..fair enough.. I don't do licking royal arses... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 09 Feb 21 - 06:34 AM "I don't do evidence" Well Bonz, I must say it's refreshingly honest of you to admit that your arguments are based on a lack of intelligence! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Feb 21 - 04:36 AM What, you mean like Charles Darwin? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 09 Feb 21 - 04:24 AM I don't do evidence, that is for people with nothing to do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raggytash Date: 09 Feb 21 - 03:29 AM Bonzo, what is your evidence to support your claim that Captain Swing is in a "very very tiny minority" You and your ilk absorb the nonsense that is put out about the royal family day after day, week after week, month after month. If you just stopped once to question it you may realise it yourself. For example today on the MSN news feed 4 of the top 21 articles were about one family, wonder if you can guess which one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 09 Feb 21 - 01:46 AM Well captain swing you are in a very very tiny minority!!!!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 21 - 08:56 PM It doesn't offend me, Bill. I just relish the idea of dissing brainless sycophancy. I've never said she was evil or anything like that. But she has cheerfully embraced the privilege and the trappings that you could hardly say she's earned. And that egregiously dysfunctional family of hers... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 08 Feb 21 - 08:42 PM Her service in WW2 was no more than any other woman at the time and most likely less so as she didn't have full child care considerations or a proper day job - many women were fulfilling a day job, bringing up kids single handed and going out on fire watch. Her actual contribution to the war effort was negligible. But that's not the point! It's not about individuals, it's about the fact that some individuals are more important than others in this country. She could have dropped the bouncing bomb as far as I'm concerned and she still wouldn't deserve my respect as a monarch. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bill D Date: 08 Feb 21 - 08:25 PM Being queen, of course she's rich and waited on much of the time... but she doesn't have 'everything' done for her. She did serve in WWII and I'd forgive her a lot just for this story: driving Abdullah I am in no position to have an opinion about the monarchy, but I do see why the pageantry and history fascinate some... and why the whole system offends others, like Steve S. Oh.. and it supports a bunch of photographers.. ;) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 21 - 06:06 PM I'm not sneering. I'm telling you like it is in order to counter the gushings of one or two sycophants around here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 08 Feb 21 - 05:55 PM I've no personal grouse against Elizabeth Windsor but I can't see that she has worked particularly hard. What has she actually done to deserve the "faithful service to our nation and an unwavering commitment" stuff? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raedwulf Date: 08 Feb 21 - 05:48 PM Yes, I pretty much thought the thread would descend into this sort of pettiness... Oh, and sneering. Of course there will be sneering. Shaw is involved... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 21 - 04:52 PM "Those years have been marked by faithful service to our nation and an unwavering commitment to the vows she made when she was crowned." Those years have been marked by much faithful service to the Queen and her bloated and feckless entourage by the public, who have unwaveringly donated tens of millions per annum to an already super-rich woman who repays us by hiding in huge, guarded mansions or fenced-off estates except for when she's doing dainty little white-gloved waves from a strangely golden carriage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 08 Feb 21 - 03:31 PM no bonzo? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:50 PM ...Alex or me? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:47 PM Stupid boy |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:41 PM Just tweeted - To #AlexSalmond, #NicolaSturgeon & the #SNP: PLEASE soon come to your senses as, before kicking the bucket, I'd like to live in a Republic of England and make VISITS "To Scotland, Again" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 08 Feb 21 - 01:24 PM As for the tourist argument, I'm quite sure Paris, within the French REPUBLIC, is the most-visited city in our world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 08 Feb 21 - 12:57 PM I don't do evidence in case you couldn't tell!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 08 Feb 21 - 12:50 PM Bonzo - If you want to be considered as a worthwhile contributor, you will need to provide some evidence or explanation to support your response to my last post. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 08 Feb 21 - 12:23 PM On this day in 1952, The Queen acceded to the throne on the death of her father King George VI. Her Majesty has now been Sovereign for 69 years. Those years have been marked by faithful service to our nation and an unwavering commitment to the vows she made when she was crowned. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: DMcG Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:33 AM My slightly tongue in cheek remark about the Palaces in St Petersburg was to point out that the palaces can be attractions irrespective of whether royalty in in them. So that Buckingham Palaces has a lot of visitors does not really demonstrate they are coming because we have a Royal Family. Neither of us could say how the visitor numbers to Buckingham Palace would change without the family, but it is at least plausible that being able to see more of it would actually increase the numbers. (I should perhaps point out that not all the palaces of St Petersburg are royal palaces, just in case, you know.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Nigel Parsons Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:17 AM Best thing is to riposte that royalists would say that, wouldn't they? And republicans would try to rebut it, while admitting that it isn't proven either way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:15 AM They still don't do well, Nigel, despite your valiant defence. Saying that the royals draw droves of tourists is a bit like saying that there are little green men on Mars or that God exists, neither provable nor disprovable. Best thing is to riposte that royalists would say that, wouldn't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Nigel Parsons Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:10 AM What are the UKs top tourist attractions? How are they ranked? Buckingham Palace gets a lot of visitors, most people visiting London sightseeing (or even visiting UK if from abroad) will make a point of going to see Buckingham Palace. But if the 'top ranking' relies on numbers through the gates/doors then Buckingham Palace will score very poorly. There is a list provided by ALVA (Association of Leading Visitor Attractions). But it only appears to list numbers for its 'members', hence a report in the Telegraph needing to point out that A number of UK attractions such as Alton Towers, Legoland, Madame Tussauds and Thorpe Park are not members of the ALVA, so do not appear on its list. Clearly some care needs to be taken when viewing such lists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: DaveRo Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:09 AM DMcG wrote: On the other hand, the Royal Palaces in St Petersburg are definitely major tourist attractions ...As is the Palais du Louvre. Clearly revolutions are good for the economy! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 21 - 11:06 AM Not drivel, Bonzo. More than any other institution, the royals represent entitlement and unearned privilege and are right at the very top of that pyramid. While we have them they represent a major obstacle when it comes to moving towards a more equal society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: DMcG Date: 08 Feb 21 - 10:52 AM What is clear is that not a single royal location was in the top twenty UK tourist attractions, last time I looked. On the other hand, the Royal Palaces in St Petersburg are definitely major tourist attractions ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 08 Feb 21 - 10:35 AM "For me, the issue regarding getting rid of the monarchy became clear when I realised that however far we progressed with equality of rights, eg race, gender, sexuality, age etc, we would never be truly equal while we had one group of people that others were obliged to bow and curtsey to. Even if I had any feelings of affinity for the royals (which I don't), I would find this argument impossible to ignore." Drivel |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 21 - 10:34 AM "The Queen has voluntarily paid income and capital gains tax since 1992" Yes well just two questions from me. First, did she pay the back tax for the forty years she was Queen before 1992? Second, can I make MY tax payments voluntary too? The question of their being a tourist draw is in the realms of received wisdom. It can't be proven and never will be. What is clear is that not a single royal location was in the top twenty UK tourist attractions, last time I looked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 08 Feb 21 - 10:17 AM For me, the issue regarding getting rid of the monarchy became clear when I realised that however far we progressed with equality of rights, eg race, gender, sexuality, age etc, we would never be truly equal while we had one group of people that others were obliged to bow and curtsey to. Even if I had any feelings of affinity for the royals (which I don't), I would find this argument impossible to ignore. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raedwulf Date: 08 Feb 21 - 08:59 AM Dave - Thanks. The only paper I ever buy (about 3 times per winter) is the Daily Fail. Partly for the pleasure of shaking my head in disbelief at the drivel they publish (& morons presumably believe!), but mostly because it represents the best value in terms of pages per penny for fire-lighting. I kid you not! ;-) I sometimes keep up with the BBC News site, but often don't, so no, I have not the foggiest what's been going on in Italy. Thank you for the info. Italy, of course, is a vastly different country. I'm always very wary of comparisons of that ilk. Socialists will always point to the likes of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, going "Look how well Socialism works" whilst ignoring the vast differences. The Leavers kept pointing at Switzerland & Norway, going "Look how we can thrive outside the EU"... whilst ignoring the vast differences. As for what they cost... Everyone can play Pin The Tail On The Donkey to their own satisfaction / biases. Any estimate inevitably runs into "We don't know what the economy would look like if the monarchy was abolished". But a quick & fairly cursory squint around the net suggests that they generate considerably more GDP than they cost, even if you add in less visible costs such as providing security for them. The argument against them is a political / moral / philosophical one, rather than economic. Sandman - The Queen has voluntarily paid income and capital gains tax since 1992 on her private income and the revenues not used to finance her official work. The Prince of Wales ditto since 1993. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 21 - 06:50 AM To all intents and purposes, the Queen is simply a ceremonial head of state with "powers" that can be exercised only on the say-so of the government. In principle I have no objection to that idea, but what I do object to is the whole swollen coterie of privileged hangers-on, many of whom inevitably descend into a sort of entitled disrepute (racist husband and mother, alcoholic wastrel of a sister, one son who consorts with paedophiles and who lies in his teeth, another who treated his first wife disgracefully with the Queen's connivance and who prattles on about homeopathy and who rakes it in via owning half the bloody Westcountry whilst doing no actual work there, a thickie grandson* who let himself be snapped giving a girl a standing-up one from behind and who's buggered off to foreign lands to be a non-royal after a start in life that most of us can only dream of, all the unearned wealth and the palaces and the country houses and the estates and the free luxury travel...And, of course, a few tens of millions for all of 'em from the grateful taxpayer... Oh, and Fergie... :-) Oh, and the Nazi dressing-up... To them that have it shall be given, saith the Lord... *Unkind, you may say, but I know someone who actually knows him well... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: DaveRo Date: 08 Feb 21 - 04:19 AM Raedwulf wrote: DaveRo - shan't. Because that means any / all of us have to look for ourselves. And then we might find different sources, etc... So why don't you just give us your source & save a good deal of hassle?Well, it's been in all the papers over the last month or so. The president, Sergio Mattarella, declined to play along with the squabbling leaders of the main Italian political parties and to allow an election in the middle of a pandemic. In this he seems to have a approval of the increasingly pissed-off Italian public. Sergio Mattarella, Italy’s president, who is imbued with extraordinary powers during a political crisis, made it clear on Tuesday night that he saw that — and not early elections — as the way out of Italy’s duress.Italy Looks to Mario Draghi to Solve Crisis, to Delight of Pro-E.U. Politicians It's not the first time the President has asked a 'technocrat' to form a government. That person still needs to appoint politians to run it - it's not givernment by decree. Come to think of it, maybe the Italians can tell us how to deal with a Family that accumulates unearned wealth to the detriment of society. BobL wrote: Just to remind some of you, we did try ditching the monarchy once, and could hardly wait to restore it.The 'we' in that case was the aristocracy. Maybe if the Civil War hadn't happened we would have followed the French in 1789. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: BobL Date: 08 Feb 21 - 02:40 AM Just to remind some of you, we did try ditching the monarchy once, and could hardly wait to restore it. To go back to the original post, and FWIW, Feb 6th was also the accession date of one of our least successful kings, James II & VII. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 08 Feb 21 - 01:45 AM Yes, Steve, and all of that is the reason why, after a great deal of thought over a very long time, I came to the conclusion that the best solution would be an elected, non-executive, non-Political President along the lines of the Irish arrangement. Someone who would represent the nation for ceremonial purposes, but who would have no power to do us harm the way Trump has harmed the US. IMHO, we don’t need the Royal Family, we don’t need a King or Queen, and the very last thing we need is a US-style President. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Feb 21 - 09:33 PM Blimey, third time today: it's "piccaninnies" fer chrissake. Oh reading specs, where art thou... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Feb 21 - 08:52 PM Hmm. Rather unfortunate that Bonzo should be bigging up Her Maj on the very day that her plot to keep her wealth secret, conjured up using archaic laws, has been revealed. Her embarrassment over her unearned Croesus-like fortune was successfully covered up with the connivance of the Heath government in the early 70s. Of course, in those days the very suggestion that the ultra-wealthy Queen, recipient of massive dividends on her land holdings (lands stolen by her ancestors from the ordinary people, who are now duped into supporting her, lest we forget) should have to pay any actual tax, let alone have the plebs knowing how much she and her ancestors had robbed from them, would have been utterly outrageous. So it looks like the queer old dean is just as corrupt, if not more so, as any other rich bugger. Well who'd have thought it... Of course, the poor old bugger has probably earned her fortune. After all, all that waving back to picaninnies with their plastic flags (don't touch them whatever you do, these foreign johnnies have all kinds of lurgies...), let alone having to explain to Phil why some of their "subjects" have funny-coloured skin, must have been so taxing. Good job they didn't have to pay their own air fares, which would have given them so much more stress. Such good value for the undeserving poor on disability benefits, etc... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 07 Feb 21 - 08:04 PM Ok, so apart from some very fine and pointless detail, the monarch has no substantive executive power. The monarch is useless. We all seem to be in agreement on that point but then there is the question, "What could we possibly replace her with?" It seems to me that the UK is like a guy who has a Rolls Royce on the drive that has no engine. It can never be used to take him anywhere but does look beautiful in front of the house and many of his neighbours are quite jealous. He would like to be able to travel more easily as it would enrich his life but he couldn't think of getting rid of the RR because, "What could we possibly replace her with?" Well there will be many cars available that will get him from A to B and maybe even X, Y and Z. They won't all look as good as the RR but they will all perform better, undoubtedly some will fail from time to time and some he will need to ditch quite quickly and move on. It's reasonable to consider that each car does not need to be his last. As his needs change he might need to change his style of vehicle. "What about the neighbours though?" Well he will have loads of photos, memories and anecdotes of the RR to share with the neighbours and they will probably enjoy visiting him on occasion to reminisce about when he had the RR on the drive! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 07 Feb 21 - 07:06 PM One of the funniest things I've heard recently was that some adviser at Number 10 thought one way to bolster the union is to relocate Prince Edward and Sophie to Scotland. I take it the idea was dismissed but it is so weird that folk can get in these positions nr gvt when they have not good a scoobie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 06:50 PM She does not pay income tax? Why? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 07 Feb 21 - 06:21 PM Sorry the other was only the monarch can appoint the Prime Minister. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 07 Feb 21 - 06:20 PM Just checked on Hennessy and the two powers that still reside with the monarch are named the 'personal perogatives' and that is only the monarch can dissolve parliament and only the monarch can dissolve parliament. She does have the power to refuse a desolation. It would of course cause a constitutional crisis should that happen but the power is real. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 07 Feb 21 - 06:08 PM The point is though that it is her duty to ensure the continuation of gvt. If there was a stalemate and an impasse over who was to be PM then it is the monarch who has final say. It is the duty of Parliament to never put her in that position. However who'd have thought a President of the US would try and override their system? Peter Hennessy lays all this out pretty comprehensively in "The Prime Minister, The Office And Its Holders Since 1945" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raedwulf Date: 07 Feb 21 - 05:25 PM DaveRo - shan't. Because that means any / all of us have to look for ourselves. And then we might find different sources, etc... So why don't you just give us your source & save a good deal of hassle? Allan - Precisely. It's theoretical in the sense that "As long as you don't try to exercise it..." Etcetera. Which was my point earlier. The political power of the monarchy is not even a ghost now... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: DaveRo Date: 07 Feb 21 - 04:24 PM Raedwulf wrote: I've never understood the point either of having an elected powerless HoS or of a second HoS that isn't powerlessLook at what's just happened in Italy for the benefits of a separate HoS. Today's Observer has a piece about the powers of the monarch over legislation: A series of government memos unearthed in the National Archives reveal that Elizabeth Windsor’s private lawyer put pressure on ministers to alter proposed legislation to prevent her shareholdings from being disclosed to the public.Queen lobbied for change in law to hide her private wealth Private Wealth? Ridiculous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Mo the caller Date: 07 Feb 21 - 04:14 PM Exactly Captain Swing. The British Constitution lecturer suggested that the monarchy was there as a last resort to stop that kind of thing. It would be wrong to suggest she has no power. The Observer reports that she has to be consulted and consent in advance about any bill that affects her personal wealth or interests. And as for the National Anthem. My friend has just been granted British Citizenship and she had to sing it. So we only grant it to monarchists and theists, or to liars and hypocrites. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 07 Feb 21 - 02:53 PM The monarch does retain some theoretical power. Only she can appoint the PM etc. Though in practice there are precedents laid down saying who is appointed etc and she follows these to the line. So she basically acts as a rubber stamp. It is the duty of Parliament to act in a way that never puts the monarch in a position to use the power but it is the monarch's duty so to speak to ensure that there is a gvt should there be a parliamentary impasse. This has never happened as yet and everyone knows that actually using the power would cause a constitutional crisis. So it works as long as it works. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raedwulf Date: 07 Feb 21 - 02:46 PM Bw - No, she can't. The Monarch's "power" these days amounts to the rather vague "right to be consulted / to warn". In practice, that has meant nothing for a century, more or less. The monarch is a figurehead to whom no PM would pay more than polite attention if they wanted to do something any monarch disapproved of. It's still a better bet, frankly, than having some random twat (especially some random political, supposedly ex-political, or celebrity twat) "elected" to be Head of State. If you're determined to abolish the monarchy, then just make the PM the HoS. I've never understood the point either of having an elected powerless HoS or of a second HoS that isn't powerless. For all practical purposes the UK PM is the UK HoS; President + PM just seems to muddy the waters. As for the loathsome republicans amongst you {big wink}, there's no point in me saying anything. The arguments have been hashed, rehashed, recycled, fermented, drunk, pissed out, manured, matured, fermented again and etc so many times... You don't believe 'em, and the rest of us won't agree with you. So why bother? ;-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 01:30 PM Captain Swng, Bonzo - here ya go! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 01:01 PM the Queen does not have that power, this was a result of Oliver Cromwell. Prior to Cromwells succession to power, kings such as Henry the Eighth had much more power, than the monarchs that followed Cromwell |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 12:32 PM Oliver Cromwell it was that gave parliament more power, and when the monarchy was restored under Charles the Second, THE MONARCHY WAS RESTORED BUT WITH MUCH LESS POWER. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 11:43 AM I wouldn’t think she can either, Bonz. Magna Carta an’ all that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 07 Feb 21 - 11:41 AM I don't think she can. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 11:29 AM But is she Constitutionally-able to ‘take action’? That’s a genuine question BTW - I don’t know whether our constitutional rules, written or unwritten, permit the monarch to act against the government and/or parliament. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Captain Swing Date: 07 Feb 21 - 10:19 AM One of the arguments put forward frequently in in defence the monarchy is to consider it the best of a bad job eg, "Well, Brits, take a good luck at what you get when you dispense with the Royals...US! " We have the most corrupt government in my lifetime who lie brazenly; have put us in the position of making the most stupid in terms of economics, security, culture; have threatened to break international law; have acted against the best interests of the country re Covid; and refuse to take responsibility for their actions. One would have thought the Head of State would have at least some influence here but she has proved herself to be completely useless. A real H of S would have taken action! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 07 Feb 21 - 09:13 AM ...back to "Jerusalem" then?! In my "repertoire", by the way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Feb 21 - 09:08 AM Well save it by ourselves, thank you very much. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 07 Feb 21 - 08:32 AM I made a start a few years ago but have not got back to it: God save our pleasant land Long live our long-lived land (or maybe "verdant"?) God save England...(anyone)... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Jos Date: 07 Feb 21 - 08:25 AM I can't remember anything happening for Empire Day. I don't even know when it is, and lining up in the playground to sing the national anthem wouldn't have been my idea of fun. I do remember cinema audiences getting up and rushing for the exit at the end of a performance to avoid getting caught by the national anthem and having to stand still while it was played. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: The Sandman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 08:03 AM Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Dave Hanson - PM Date: 06 Feb 21 - 03:36 PM Bonzo you sycophantic twat. I agree with you,Dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 07 Feb 21 - 07:40 AM So did we and great fun it was too!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Mo the caller Date: 07 Feb 21 - 05:32 AM 50+ years ago I took an A Level evening class in British Constitution. My hostel room-mate was doing in and it felt like something I should know about. We covered the House of Lords, and the Monarchy and in both cases the conclusion seemed to be that the alternatives might be worse, and they were part of the checks and balances of the constitution. I got rather disillusioned about that when she was powerless (or unwilling) to stop the illegal prorogation of Parliament. We were certainly taught at school that the monarchy and the Empire were 'good things', believed it at the time. Lined up in the playground to sing the National Anthem on Empire Day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 07 Feb 21 - 05:18 AM With the Australian referendum going very narrowly the way of remain, apparently it was concern over the new head of state that prevented independence. What is wrong with the person the people voted for being head of state? Either way, my poem on "Acts" (PS: I went to vote in that referendum but didn't - I would have had to lie and say I was still residing at my parents home in Sydney.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Feb 21 - 10:12 PM I think the queen has fulfilled the function of a benevolent, non-political Head of State very well since her accession in 1952. Despite the attempts of her family members to destroy her reputation she has remained a stable, matriarchal-style figurehead for almost seventy years, and it’s undeniable that, rightly or wrongly, she’s regarded with respect and affection by a large percentage of the population. However, for many of the reasons stated by Steve above, I would prefer an Irish-style symbolic, non-political, elected President with a term limited by statute. It seems to work very well for Ireland, and I can see no reason why it wouldn’t work for the UK too, always assuming that there is a UK in the future - by no means a certainty. I’m sure it won’t happen in what’s left of my lifetime, but perhaps within the next fifty years...? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 21 - 08:44 PM Well, if you can admire a woman who has spent her whole life having everything done for her (not sure whether her anus horribilis was wiped by servants or her good self), always living in the lap of luxury, enjoying wealth that was stolen from the ordinary people by her ancestors, presiding over one of the most dysfunctional families ever (would you like a list of her multiple ne'er-do-well descendants? - it will take me a long while!), eventually having to hand her crown to an utter charlatan who was shagging his ladylove in a railway siding on his stag night before wedding Diana the next day (another bad pick if ever there was one), and having a racist husband who gets away with mowing people down in his luxury car "because he was temporarily blinded by the sun", then you need to question your own sanity (I have to do that quite a lot here on Mudcat...) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Feb 21 - 08:27 PM I admire her. Grace under pressure, tenacity, fortitude. Strong woman. And probably, like the old Trek salt monster, the last of her kind. None of her heirs have a decent percentage of her ooomph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Allan Conn Date: 06 Feb 21 - 07:00 PM Mind Robomatic just because you don't have a monarch as Head of State it doesn't mean you have to have an American type president. In the unlikely event of Britain going to a Republic soon I imagine it is likely to be more an Irish type set up. With a symbolic Head of State rather than one wielding political power. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 21 - 06:28 PM "Talking out of your arses again!!!" Heheh. Are you sure you're not confused and talking about the queer old dean's anus horribilis, Bonzo? :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 21 - 06:22 PM Walkabouts verse - typical usaian drivel!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: robomatic Date: 06 Feb 21 - 04:46 PM Well, Brits, take a good luck at what you get when you dispense with the Royals...US! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: WalkaboutsVerse Date: 06 Feb 21 - 04:32 PM The United Nations should make all monarchism illegal - be they in Thailand, the UK, etc. They champion the revoltingly inhumane inequality that capitalism produces and have even less to do with merit - as it happens, Elizabeth Windsor is quite a competent public speaker but, even if quite useless, would have the job anyway. Furthermore, as in this WalkaboutsVerse poem, they are blasphemies - "AFTER PSALM 118:9 AND MATTHEW 4:8-10" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Dave Hanson Date: 06 Feb 21 - 03:36 PM Bonzo you sycophantic twat. Dave H |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 21 - 01:06 PM Long to reign over us! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: meself Date: 06 Feb 21 - 12:26 PM When I saw the thread title, I was sure of two things: who would have started it, and who would have responded to it. I was right ... well, except I wasn't sure I was going to bother responding ... ! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Feb 21 - 12:00 PM ”At least we have the opportunity to get rid of them every few years and WE choose who we elect.” What, like ‘we’ chose to leave the EU, Raggy? Or, rather, 63% of us were forced to accept the wishes of 37%. Sounds like a shit deal to me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:56 AM Forgot the link... https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/accounts-reveal-what-queen-costs-taxpayers-1594182 |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Backwoodsman Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:55 AM ”Rather Queen Elizabeth than King Boris (or Queen Theresa, King David, King Gordon, King Tony, King John, Queen Margaret ...).” Or, perish the thought, King Donald. She and her family cost each of us £1-23 in the year 2019/20. A bargain AFAIC. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raggytash Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:53 AM At least we have the opportunity to get rid of them every few years and WE choose who we elect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Jos Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:44 AM Rather Queen Elizabeth than King Boris (or Queen Theresa, King David, King Gordon, King Tony, King John, Queen Margaret ...). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: robomatic Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:30 AM Jeez Jack: Robert Kennedy's assassination seems to have been your ownly other joy in this forum. Now it's death wishes on the living. Had your jab yet? Or do you have a personal death wish also? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raggytash Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:23 AM Makes no difference Jack ......... the king is dead long live the king and as long as the public are prepared to put up with it, it will continue. That is why we get a constant saturation level of media coverage maintaining how "good" they are. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:22 AM Talking out of your arses again!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Jack Campin Date: 06 Feb 21 - 10:54 AM Disappointed. This ought to have been an "Obit:" thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Raggytash Date: 06 Feb 21 - 10:18 AM Wonder how many million she and her entourage have cost us in that time. The TRUE cost not just what she is "paid" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 21 - 10:07 AM On this day in 2013, nothing happened in my house. |
|
Subject: BS: Her Majesty The Queen From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 21 - 09:44 AM On this day in 1952, The Queen acceded to the throne on the death of her father King George VI. Her Majesty has now been Sovereign for 69 years. Those years have been marked by faithful service to our nation and an unwavering commitment to the vows she made when she was crowned. |
