 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Her Majesty The Queen
|
|
|
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. |
|
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: 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: 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: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 21 - 11:22 AM Talking out of your arses again!!! |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 21 - 01:06 PM Long to reign over us! |
|
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: 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: 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: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 21 - 06:22 PM Walkabouts verse - typical usaian drivel!!!!! |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 09:13 AM ...back to "Jerusalem" then?! In my "repertoire", by the way. |
|
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: 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: 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 - 11:43 AM I wouldn’t think she can either, Bonz. Magna Carta an’ all that? |
|
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: 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: Backwoodsman Date: 07 Feb 21 - 01:30 PM Captain Swng, Bonzo - here ya go! |
|
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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:21 PM Sorry the other was only the monarch can appoint the Prime Minister. |
|
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 - 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: 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: 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... |
