 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 09 Feb 22 - 08:50 PM Allan is right - it'd be essentialy the system they have in Ireland. But I'd worry that the voters in England would be less wise in their choice than their neighbours in Ireland. I can easily see them going for a celebrity, or a retired politician. Unfortunately David Attenborough is too old to do the job. Actually I suspect they'd very likely go for Prince William The nightmare of course would be if England went down the executive president model of America, Russia and France. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Allan Conn Date: 09 Feb 22 - 06:06 PM Difference in Britain is that democracy is well established as is the system. An elected Head of State would probably have the same largely ceremonial role that the present monarch has. Government itself would not be greatly different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: robomatic Date: 09 Feb 22 - 02:33 PM Well, again, just for fun. This is by no means scientific, but we have some historical examples of when monarchy was disposed of. One of them is England. It can be argued that that hiccup in orderly transfer of power led to the United States of America, or at the very least, enabled it. More recently it was Russia. The Russian monarchy was overbearing and inefficient. But under it Russia experienced something that might be called technical and economic progress. Under the Soviets. Stalin was more powerful and malicious than any Russian royal ever (Ivan the Terrible never had that kind of power over the entire territory). Similar examples can be found in China, (North) Korea, and of course, Germany. Reminds me of one of the cleverer scenes in "Game of Thrones" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Feb 22 - 04:13 AM Well the noble Queen has reigned over many a shabby scandal, mostly not of her making (though I'm never sure about Diana....or Harry...) She keeps her inner core safe (Cambridges and kiddies, Anne) and a few peripherals anonymous (Wessexes and, to an extent, Phil The Greek and his big racist mouth, generally just a looming yet silent grouse-murdering presence). We've had Fergiegate, Dianagate, Cheating-Charliegate, anus-horribilisgate, divorcesgate, Andygate, Meghangate...they keep coming and they add flame to the spluttering embers and they never let us forget "the firm." Yet Her Maj shines through the crock of shite like a glistening jewel. She's managed what Boris couldn't - surround yourself with gross inferiors that make YOU shine all the more. He's tried that (he calls them "his cabinet"), but with him you'd achieve more shine on a polished turd. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: The Sandman Date: 09 Feb 22 - 01:45 AM Andrew does not need the Media concentrating on him at the moment, so this other attention is a distraction from which he bernefits |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Feb 22 - 11:39 PM At least he doesn't give her unsolicited backrubs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Feb 22 - 09:56 PM Can't really rate those things as "milking the media". They just happen, and the media make a big thing out of it. No doubt they enjoy much of it, but it wouldn't matter if they loathed it. The rest of the stuff in between they just have no option but to endure -, like the Queen has to endure having a session with Boris Johnson every week. Though I imagine that's not as bad as Margaret Thatcher must have been. Boris can be quite enteraining, as in his Have I Got News For You days. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 22 - 07:58 PM Reminding people that they're still there won't serve them. They need to be in our faces and they are, being in the news all the time (a platinum year means mentions every day for months). There's been almost more coverage in recent weeks of our virtuous Queen removing this, that and the other privilege from Andrew than there has been about him and his misdemeanours. Not long go it was all about Harry and Megan being distanced by the others. Now it's the Queen making irrelevant statements about what she wants Camilla to be called (yes, that same Camilla who connived in the cheating on Diana even before the infamous waste-of-money royal wedding). Gosh how many column kilometres has that received... We will be ceremonied to death in the next few months. This goes on and on, and it suits them down to the ground. Diana almost did for them, but only by getting killed in a crash. It's a perennial and eternal saga, they love it (so do millions of the more unthinking elements of the public, unfortunately), and they need it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Feb 22 - 07:06 PM No, I can't see the benefit, Steve. Yes, it keeps them in the public ete andso forth, but where's tge good of that. If the only public appearance of the royal family in 2020 had been the Queen's Vera Lynn broadcast, and Prince Philip's funeral with the Queen on her own, that would have been quite sufficient to remind people they are still there. Especially with all the replays the latter has got thanks to Boris's party problems. What more is needed, from their point of view. Not from the tabloids who revel in working over real or fancied royal family squabbles, keeping us up to date about princes on the loose getting into scandals. You might say they deserve it, but they hardly benefit from it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 22 - 06:40 PM Nicholas Witchell, surprisingly, is only 68. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 22 - 06:38 PM I've either bought or subscribed to the Guardian for fifty years. Until recently, in "know thine enemy" mode, I'd get a free Daily Mail with my My Waitrose card, about once a fortnight. The coverage of the royals, and the dissing of the ones who fall by the wayside (unsurprisingly frequent) is legendary. They'd be nothing without the metaphorical front page. Try it and see, but hold your nose. Sadly, the free paper with a ten-quid spend is coming to an end this month. The Mail is the royals' best friend. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Feb 22 - 06:19 PM I can't see any advantage to them from the the tabloid media's obsession. Other very rich people seem to get along happily without that kind of attention. The occasional ceremonial occasion, like Presentation of the Colours ,or the Tourist stuff like the Changing of the Guard, and the trickle of Royal Visits to hospitals would be quite enough. The tabloid gossip rubbish, I cannot imagine why they can benefit from, still less enjoy.. My impressionis that most of the other royals in Europe don't have too much of that, and don't miss it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Allan Conn Date: 08 Feb 22 - 06:01 PM One does wonder about Witchell. I used to think what on earth has he done wrong to get lumbered with that gig? When he could have been reporting on many different and interesting news stories. Now though hey, he is way past pension age and still clinging on! Maybe waiting on to be the face of the story when she dies??? She might outlive him yet though! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Feb 22 - 05:28 PM Come along now, Kevin. They need the media like I need food and drink. They would be nothing without the tabloids. Oh, and Nicholas Witchell. And the occasional story of family dysfunction does them no harm whatsoever. It keeps them on the front page. Even Diana couldn't dint them, though she did come close. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 08 Feb 22 - 01:47 PM I'm pretty sure they'd much prefer it if the media generally ignored them. As would I. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Feb 22 - 04:17 PM Another way of looking at it, Charmion, is that they milk the media to death to suit their own agenda. Maybe you have to be here. I'm not bolshie either. Just telling it like it is. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Charmion Date: 07 Feb 22 - 04:02 PM Hardly a sinecure, Steve. I get that you feel particularly bolshy on this issue, but you have to admit that they put up with an awful lot of guff that us commoners don't tolerate, starting with massive invasion of privacy. You couldn't pay me enough to endure the constant prurient criticism of the most personal choices that I see in the UK news media. Only the second-line royals like Princess Anne and Prince Edward can avoid even some of it. King Olav of Norway used to ride the tram out to the suburbs of Oslo to go skiing. The past is a foreign country ... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Feb 22 - 01:39 PM In the unlikely event that England abolished the monarchy , I suspect that would strengthen the feeling that Scotland should retain it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Allan Conn Date: 07 Feb 22 - 12:41 PM Re what would happen to the Royals should Scotland go independent. The official line just now is that it is not in the discussions. It is the 1707 Union of Parliaments that is in question. It is true that a Republican stance is a bit more popular in Scotland than in the UK as a whole - and a bit higher again among SNP voters than Scots in general. However there would be enough of a support for the monarchy among Yes supporters and waverers for it to cloud the issue - so the official line is that the monarch would remain monarch of an independent Scotland. So we'd share a monarch with the rest of the UK just as we did between 1603 and 1707. Saying that though yes I imagine if Indy was secured then there would be a move by some to campaign for an elected Head of State instead. Probably on the Irish model. It wouldn't be a guarantee that folk would plump for that though. There are plenty royalists here too - just not quite as many as down south. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 07 Feb 22 - 11:38 AM Or sinecure? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Mrrzy Date: 07 Feb 22 - 10:37 AM Yes, job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Feb 22 - 08:44 AM I wouldn't call the royals silly leftists. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 07 Feb 22 - 08:09 AM I can't see why the real establishment would worry for a moment if the silly lefties got disposed of!!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 08:59 PM As I said, a fun topic. No more than that! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Feb 22 - 08:56 PM I suspect Charles may be quite a popular king. A very Wodehousian monarch. Sort of a royal Lord Emsworth, but with a touch of melancholy. Eccentricity surely counts as right at the top of those British Values people go on about. I can't see why the real establishment would worry for a moment if the monarchy got disposed of - in fact if it ever happened it would probably be the work of the establishent of the day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 07:12 PM Not sure about that, Kevin. The earthquake that removing the royals would create would have the rest of the establishment quivering in their fur-lined boots at the very least. Still, we know it won't happen, unless some terrible revelation about Charles emerges, but it's fun contemplating it. Does he still talk to his weeds and conduct Beethoven in front of his bedroom mirror? Does he still believe that expensive solutions containing no ingredients bar water can cure diseases? And has he finally ditched his ambition to be one of Camilla's t*amp*ons? Does he still wear built-up shoes due to his inferiority complex about his small stature? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Feb 22 - 07:01 PM I've never been too impressed by the idea that dispensing with the Queen would have any effect upon the hierarchy in this country. Look at the other countries all around us. In fact in Europe the ones that appear to be less cursed by that are more likely than not to have royals - I'm thinking of Scandinavia and the Netherlands. I suspect they could likely get shot of the royals up in Scotland when they go independent, thugh I wouldn't bet on it. But in England I can't see it happening. And it wouldn't do a thing to get rid of the distorsions to society Steve catalogued. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 07:00 PM "Who we all pay for" is perfectly good standard English. Sorry to have to apprise you of that, Nigel. You'll be telling me next that I can't tell you that the Great Storm of 1987 decimated areas of Epping Forest.... As for the regal finances, I note the totally unbiased nature of your source. Bwahahaha! In fact, if you go back far enough, all the royal land holdings and property were stolen from the people, no less that Robert Mugabe's amazing palace that was so lavish that it threw Zimbabwe into poverty. I know that the modern royals can't help that, but the very least they could do is to act with a bit more humility and refuse to take any more taxpayers' money. I doubt that such a move would pitch them into food banks or force them to huddle round one-bar electric fires. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 06:47 PM Paper with royal heading could be recycled as toilet paper. That would recoup at least some of the money we've wasted on the firm. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Nigel Parsons Date: 06 Feb 22 - 06:45 PM The Queen and her entourage of hangers-on, aka her dysfunctional family (who we all pay for), are at the very top of the pyramid of unearned privilege. Not too far down that pyramid are the elite public schools. One of those is called Eton, many of whose pupils are taught that they are born to rule. Those pupils include David Cameron and Boris Johnson, and quite a few of the other entitled toffs that run the country. They are the products of that pyramid of entitlement. Always worth remembering. "Who we all pay for" No! Apart for the fact that (if the argument was true) it would be "for whom we all pay" We do not 'pay' for the royal family.Royal Finances |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Allan Conn Date: 06 Feb 22 - 06:38 PM The idea that your choice of constitutional settlement would depend on companies having or not having to change their stationary is a new one! How many companies would this even involve?? Not that many I imagine in the scheme of things and for those who do have a Royal prefix..... Will they all use pre headed paper?? Surely many, I imagine even most companies, would only need to amend their PDFs for their headed paper. It is the 2020s ?? Why would they even need to change the name. Because of their history I could imagine they might keep it. After all the Kings Own Scottish Borderers kept that title for decades when there was no king. There would of course be some costs but hardly a deal breaker. Companies regularly upgrade or change their stationary etc. Why would road signs need to change??? That would affect very few surely? Honestly don't think stationary costs would be a major factor. No way it would be an issue with this monarch anyway as she is too popular and has aye been there. However popularity, maybe after an initial honeymoon, may well take a drop with Charles and Camilla. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Allan Conn Date: 06 Feb 22 - 06:04 PM In regard to Royals and football. Rest assured Prince Andrew will never get a game for Raith Rovers now!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 05:48 PM And Borehamwood have made it to the fifth round of the Cup without conceding a single goal in five matches played! The sort of fairytale that the insipid royals could never manage! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 03:47 PM Yes indeed, that was excellent. Now they have to go to Merseyside to play Everton. On that same evening they will hear You'll Never Walk Alone resounding from nearby Anfield as Liverpool slaughter Norwich. Let's hope Borehamwood prevail. After all, as Bill Shankly (aka God) once said, there are two great teams on Merseyside: Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 22 - 03:38 PM And well done to Borehamwood (where I lived 1955-69) for beating Bournemouth in the 4th round of the FA Cup!!! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: robomatic Date: 06 Feb 22 - 03:31 PM When Britain really ruled the waves, in good Queen Bess's time, The House of Peers made no pretense, to intellectual eminence Or scholarship sublime Yet Britain won her proudest days In good Queen Bess's glorious days. When Wellington smashed Bonaparte, as any child can tell, The House of Peers throughout the war, did nothing in particular And did it very well. Yet Britain set the world ablaze In good King George's glorious days And while the House of Peers withholds its legislative hand, And noble statemen do not itch to interfere in matters which They do not understand. As bright will shine Great Britain's rays as in King George's glorious days! (done from memory) God Save the Queen! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: meself Date: 06 Feb 22 - 01:38 PM "The monarch as Head of State is one of the factors that make Canadian politics less than entirely poisonous." Agreed. I've come to appreciate our peculiarly indirect, ambiguous, and at times confusing type of nationhood, with our Head of State enthroned on the other side of the ocean, and having as little to do with us as possible. I miss the days when the status of our specifically-Canadian flag - the Red Ensign - was uncertain, and O Canada and God Save the Queen competed quietly for national-anthemhood, and overt displays of patriotism were a little embarrassing. And we were "the Dominion of", the meaning of which few if any understood, but it sounded grand. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 01:18 PM Well, leeneia, we could pay for it by ceasing to pay them millions in taxpayers' money and making them do honest jobs instead. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Steve Shaw Date: 06 Feb 22 - 01:16 PM "Job," Mrrzy? Y'mean, being carted around in luxurious transport paid for by someone else, having servants that do everything for you, walking up and down lines of cheery people all waving plastic flags, sitting there looking bored in services and ceremonies, reading a speech once every now and again to open parliament, reading another one from an autocue after Christmas dinner? That kind of a "job?" The Queen and her entourage of hangers-on, aka her dysfunctional family (who we all pay for), are at the very top of the pyramid of unearned privilege. Not too far down that pyramid are the elite public schools. One of those is called Eton, many of whose pupils are taught that they are born to rule. Those pupils include David Cameron and Boris Johnson, and quite a few of the other entitled toffs that run the country. They are the products of that pyramid of entitlement. Always worth remembering. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: leeneia Date: 06 Feb 22 - 01:11 PM Interesting question: if the UK got rid of the royal family, how much money would be spent expunging the word Royal from institutions - new letterhead, new websites, new laws, new street signs. In one generation, how many records would become hard to find because new scholars don't look up the Royal Society (say) under R? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 22 - 12:55 PM He died, that's what you do when your life comes to an end. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Convolutions to HM The Queen! From: Donuel Date: 06 Feb 22 - 12:43 PM Sounds like quaint PC? We have to look past your presentations to find rhyme or reason. Even then there is less than could be. Judge not lest... Such vehemence regarding a public relations job, jeesh. I would add there is quantity and a PC quality to Elizebeth's job. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 22 - 12:16 PM "Take it up with Yahoo, I just quoted it!" Sounds like some kind of quaint political correctness! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 06 Feb 22 - 12:07 PM Rules about such tihings get adjusted, and presented as being traditional even when they've only just been invented . The term "Queen Consort" has never been used for ay previous partners of Kings. Nor has Princess Consort. Prince Albert was the only partner of a queens regnant to be known as Prince Consort, and of coirse Philip never had the title. ……………. Actually, in some ways I'd be more inclined to use the expression "naive" of Charles rather than Diana. But I've never really got itnto Palace gossip. I tend to see them as part of the landscape of this strange country. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Feb 22 - 11:52 AM Take it up with Yahoo, I just quoted it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Charmion Date: 06 Feb 22 - 11:51 AM As a Canadian, I approve of the Queen and would rather have Charles as her successor than any politician currently treading the boards. The monarch as Head of State is one of the factors that make Canadian politics less than entirely poisonous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Charmion Date: 06 Feb 22 - 11:47 AM Medieval law, not parliamentary rules, Stilly. Parliament merely codified an inheritance system that dates from the Norman conquest. When her father took the throne, Princess Elizabeth (as she then was) became the "heir presumptive", to be pushed aside automatically if her parents ever had a male child. For the record, Britain abolished the preference for male heirs only a very few years ago. In the first scene of Shakespeare's "Henry V", the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely have a learned discussion of Salic law, in which "mulieres ne succedant" [women don't inherit], and how it bars Henry from being King of France because his right to the throne comes from his mother. The same law was responsible for the civil war that broke out after Henry I died. He had named Matilda, his only surviving child as his heir, but the nobles who ran England preferred her cousin Stephen of Blois -- cue the Anarchy. Of course, this issue was topical in Shakespeare's own time because of, y'know, Good Queen Bess, and her obvious reluctance to marry and have children. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Bonzo3legs Date: 06 Feb 22 - 11:09 AM King George VI didn't pass, he died. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Stilly River Sage Date: 06 Feb 22 - 10:22 AM It seems suitable to find that kind of news via Yahoo. “Queen consort” is a title given to a woman who becomes queen via marriage to the king, while Queen Elizabeth, who became Queen at 25 when her father King George VI passed, is known as queen regnant. "Regnant" looked like a typo, but I guess not. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Congratulations to HM The Queen! From: Mrrzy Date: 06 Feb 22 - 10:17 AM Bully for the Queen. I'd like to see you naysayers do *any* public job for 70 years. |
