BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: robomatic
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 10:45 AM

You can't have good times without bad times, unless you want to go the Starbucks route and call a 'small' a 'tall'.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 10:27 AM

Although they take an eternity to decide, one thing I agree with the U.S. on (the tennis tie-breaker is another) is an elected President as Head of State. Apparently, Australia only just failed to become a republic because many were concerned about Parliament choosing their Head of State.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Raggytash
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 10:25 AM

"scum protesters" really? ............ do you know these people, do you know where they live, if they are married, if they have children, what they do for a living, do they vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour are they kind to strangers.

If so please share it with us .............. or keep your bigotted opinions to yourself

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 10:10 AM

Great to see the scum protesters at Trooping the Colour were very forcibly removed immediately.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 09:51 AM

"I'm not bothered about the cost to all of us so much as the principle of giving extremely wealthy people even more money."

OK, so suppose we had an elected president. That role would still need to be funded. They would need accommodation, staff, travel expenses, the cost of official functions, etc etc. That cost would fall on the state, regardless of the incumbent's personal wealth, or lack of. That is what the Sovereign Grant covers - the costs of carrying out the role of head of state. It is not for the Queen's personal expenditure, that comes from her private resources.

Of course these costs could possibly be reduced, but that has nothing to do with monarchy v republic. Some monarchies run very modestly, some presidencies cost far more than our Royal Family. It all depends on what the nation wants and expects from its head of state. The majority of British people seem to enjoy a bit of spectacle and flummery.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 09:48 AM

I'm British by accident of birth and I'm not going to go round thinking that it's wonderful to be British. As it happens, we have a once-marvellous NHS that's falling to pieces, a shortage of workers in many areas, inflation rocketing up (ignore the official figures: it's far worse than that), a corrupt and incompetent government, food shortages, food banks and a liar and hypocrite for a prime minister. How good is that.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 09:36 AM

More global warming then. Along with the burning of grouse moors leading to the destruction of peat.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 09:35 AM

A reminder: the jubilee has nothing to do with your personal politics. It’s about celebrating Britishness, it’s about unity. You don’t need to think that everything about Britain is wonderful, just that being British is wonderful and that the Queen’s reign has been remarkable.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 09:31 AM

A magnificent flypast which apparently flew over the centre of Croydon, we are 5 miles away so only heard it in the background. Big Jet TV did a wonderful broadcast from the Rembrandt Hotel roof in Knightsbridge which I recorded live!!!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 08:51 AM

I am sure that getting rid of the monarchy would do absolutely nothing to reduce inequality and inequality in this country. It's a daft aspect of the country, but then so is Morris Dancing.

I can see having an elected head of state landing the country with President Boris Johnson. Or even a President Jimmy Saville.

There's no particular reason they couldn't just keep the present Queen in place for good. Or bring back King Arthur, the Once and Future King. There's no real need for a symbolic Head of State to be a living person. And all the pageantry people love could remain. The stuff with opening hospitals and so forth could be carried out by Pearly Kings and Queens and suchlike.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: MaJoC the Filk
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 07:42 AM

*Grenade*: Separation of ceremonial and actual head of state is a Good Thing, and well worth £1.29 a year. Imagine the ego boost to Alexander B**** de Pfeffel if *he* was at the centre of the Trooping of the Colours; compare and contrast with Vlad the Invader taking the salute in Red Square (mayday, mayday).

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Donuel
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 07:40 AM

The Queen in lavander looks good for 96. She is beloved for her silence according to some talking heads but I recall her delivering some momentus speechs. Long live the Queen indeed. She deserves 4 days of muscle relaxants for her back and a unique reverence for her established lifelong duties.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 07:36 AM

I just did a search and learnt the long-running brass band you mention is quite famous and have concerts later in the year...

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 07:24 AM

I understand that the last hangman in England had a pub at Besses.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 06:46 AM

The Metro I got before that steam train from Bury to Rawtenstall (as recently posted on WAV with Pics) stopped at Besses o' th' Barn. (Maybe that's one thing we can all agree on, England has some great place names.)

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 06:24 AM

My uncle was a Buck Palace guard. There's a photo of him somewhere wearing his bearskin (I got a bollocking once for calling it a busby). He was a damn fine E flat bass player in Besses o' th' Barn Band as well. I do have come-froms, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 06:21 AM

I remember watching the then 17-year-old James Milner at Elland Road in his first few games for Leeds United. Even then, a great player. Well worth his MBE.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 06:13 AM

Further to the above on Trooping the Colour, for what it's worth, I do like the marching music WITHOUT the horses - we can keep that going after our return to republicanism.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 06:10 AM

Especially to James Milner, superb footballer, charity fundraiser and leader of men, a loyal servant of Liverpool FC.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 06:03 AM

Congratulations to all on the Platinum Jubilee Honours List, especially those awarded the British Empire Medal!!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:47 AM

The point I was making, Steve - the point which you neatly side-stepped - is that, no matter what it’s called, it’s not the Queen who decides who receives what, it’s a committee of senior civil-servants and others, plus the PM, who decide. Whether you believe it or not, that’s the fact of the matter. As you say, she rubber-stamps the list, nothing more.

How the British Honours System works…

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:41 AM

Congratulations to Her Majesty The Queen, on this, her Platinum Jubilee.

Thank you for a lifetime of service.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:38 AM

WE are looking forward to start watching Trooping thr Colour this evening!!!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:30 AM

It's called the QUEEN'S birthday honours, John. It has her name on it, her rubber stamp. She it would be who pats them all with a sword. She owns it. If you tried to tell me that she has absolutely no say, I wouldn't believe you!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:26 AM

I'm not bothered about the cost to all of us so much as the principle of giving extremely wealthy people even more money. It isn't true that they operate under huge restraints. The Queen has several vast and luxurious residences. She travel in cosseted luxury, hang the expense. She owns vast estates on which privileged men can catch the finest salmon or shoot at silly birds that are kept on carefully-manicured land in order to make sure that there are enough of them there to get shot at, an environmental disaster. She doesn't have to worry about a thing, apart from her disreputable, spoiled and dysfunctional family, who, to a large extent, are the way they are because of the privilege that embraces them as well.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:25 AM

RE Trooping The Colour, the saying "champing at the bit" is ridiculous as what the horse is keen on is trying to get the damn thing out of its mouth.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:17 AM

But of course, Steve, the ‘Queen’s Birthday Honours List’ is nothing of the sort - the list is determined by the Honours Committee and the Prime Minister, not by HMQ, so she hasn’t really ‘made’ anybody anything.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Howard Jones
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:13 AM

I agree the monarchy is an anachronism. It is a privileged life, but also one of extraordinary constraints. The Queen is personally wealthy (although not wealthy enough to appear in the Top 250 of the Sunday Times Rich List) but has comparatively little freedom to enjoy it. It seems a cruel thing to do to a family.

On the other hand, it is unclear whether republics fare any better than monarchies. There is an argument that monarchies provide greater stability, but probably there are too many other variables to draw any proper conclusions. What is certain is that an elected head of state, even one with a purely ceremonial role, is inevitably a political figure to some degree.

It is true the British monarch is not elected by the people. Nevertheless her powers are mostly exercised through the elected parliament.

The impact of the cost of the monarchy is exaggerated. The Sovereign Grant in 2020-21 was £85.9m, equivalent to £1.29 per person. Of that, £34.4m was for the refurbishment of Buckingham Palace, which is owned by the Crown ie the state, not the Queen personally. It is a publicly-owned asset. The core cost is equivalent to 77p per person. The Sovereign Grant is paid from income from the Crown Estate (with the remainder going to the Treasury), not from general taxation.

Of course a stripped-down head of state could cost less to run. The Irish presidency costs only €5m, on the other hand Denmark's costs €80m and Poland's €115m. It is difficult to know if this is comparing like with like. £85.9m is a large sum, but compared with total public expenditure of over £1 trillion it is a drop in the ocean. It is legitimate to debate how public money is spent, but it is naïve to think that saving a few million here or there will make any difference to anything.

Of course it is entirely legitimate to want a republic, but polls have consistently shown that the overwhelming majority don't support it. Personally I am content with what we have. That may be in part due to the current Queen, who on the whole has done a remarkably good job of adapting the role to changes in society. It remains to be seen how well Charles will do (I suspect better than his critics believe) but the institution is greater the than the individual holding it. Nevertheless it must continue to adapt, and that probably means reducing the roles of the wider Royal Family.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 05:04 AM

In the long term, doing away with a privileged-by-accident elite would be for the good of everyone. When Jesus said that to them that have it shall be given, he wasn't advocating the continuation of unearned privilege: he was making bitter comment on the unfairness of life. He wasn't wrong all the time...

On another matter, I note that the Queen has made Arlene Foster a dame. Arlene Foster. Hard-right wrecker of any chance of harmonious politics in Northern Ireland. Opposer of the Good Friday agreement. Implacable opponent of same-sex marriage and civil partnerships for different-sex couples. A vicious anti-abortionist. Opportunistic propper-up of Theresa May's lame-duck government. Mired in what was quite likely corruption. As far as I'm concerned, her elevation brings the honours system into utter disrepute. I'd like to think that it could be another nail in the monarchy's coffin, but, sadly, that's just a pipe-dream.

Have a nice day, all you sycophants!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: BobL
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 04:06 AM

What disturbs me is that anti-monarchist arguments are, all too often, not concerned with making life better for anyone, but making it worse for a handful of people who for historical reasons, neither merit nor fault of their own, find themselves in a privileged position. Levelling down doesn't necessarily lead to levelling up.

Like Bill D, I can see both sides. However, for the last couple of centuries the monarchy has (mainly) worked well, and my inclination is to follow the principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Senoufou
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 02:39 AM

I still feel that the monarchy is an anachronism, and ought to be 'disbanded' after this Jubilee doo-dah.
I well remember watching the queen's coronation on a tiny black-and-white TV set (neighbour's house, we didn't have a TV then) But my attitude has changed, and I think the enormous privilege the royals enjoy, merely because of their birth, is antiquated nowadays. Our leaders/representatives etc should be democratically elected.
The weather is glorious this morning, and I am looking forward to our village hall activities, plus seeing my husband again, in his African outfit. (He's coming over at 10am) There will apparently be a 'Scone Pop-Up Stall' (why no crumpets eh?) and the much-publicised Decorated Wheelbarrow competition.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 02 Jun 22 - 02:03 AM

The stuffy establishment did not want TV cameras inside Westminster Abbey during the Coronation. Luckily when Elizabeth was told, she was having none of that and insisted it was broadcast to the nation. Peter Dimmock made sure that we had the best views on our tiny 9" black and white televisions!!!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Jun 22 - 12:34 PM

I see both sides of the debate over the value of the monarchy.
When I think of the queen, I remember her as an ambulance driver in WWII and scaring some Arab potentate by driving him herself in her Landrover.
(He wasn't used to ANY woman driving).
But, sure..I see why many feel the the money and pomp attending the monarchy is antiquated and needs to be converted into something simpler. I'll bet it would make Brexit seem simple to adopt by comparison.

Anyway, it is all 'interesting' from an outsiders viewpoint... and my own ancestry is rooted in English & Scottish history.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 May 22 - 09:06 PM

True enough. But of course none of us had any chance to vote for Boris Johnson either, apart from those living Uxbridge.   And most people didn't even vote for the Tories either.

But imagine if he was Head of State…

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 31 May 22 - 04:48 PM

Well, Nigel, I've been a member of my trade union for fifty years. In my union, and in all others (with extremely limited exceptions), leaders (presidents, general secretaries, members of the executive, etc.) are elected, typically via postal votes of union members. In contrast, I don't recall being asked to vote for any member of the royal family nor for any of their extensive entourage, even though I have to contribute to their upkeep. Just thought I'd mention it.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 22 - 02:54 PM

are Nigel Parsons and Bonzo 3 legs the same people

No.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 May 22 - 02:02 PM

are Nigel Parsons and Bonzo 3 legs the same people

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: The Sandman
Date: 31 May 22 - 02:01 PM

Nigel, perhaps it is time to answer you with some four letter words and anglo saxon vocabulary

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 22 - 12:30 PM

You are not comparing like with like there.
No I was comparing to the dictionary definition, as provided.

I wonder if Nigel actually believes that an elected Trade Union leader is privileged to the same extent that the RF are?
Not to the same extent, but I see no-one claiming that the Union leaders are not privileged above those whom they claim to serve. How is this privilege 'earned'?

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 31 May 22 - 11:55 AM

I wonder if Nigel actually believes that an elected Trade Union leader is privileged to the same extent that the RF are? Or is he just following what has become his rather boring obsession with parasite-eggs?

I also wonder what he does with all those nits he picks - eat them?

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 31 May 22 - 10:40 AM

It is one thing to have earned privilege and an entirely different matter to have inherited it, Nigel. You are not comparing like with like there.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 31 May 22 - 10:22 AM

Privilege:
............... however the Cambridge dictionary describes it as:
"an advantage that only one person or group of people has, usually because of their position or because they are rich"

So, along with the royals we can include union leaders etc. as 'privileged'.

Good to see it's available to both sides.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 30 May 22 - 07:21 AM

Steve - a bit of thread-drift and apropos of nothing, but I did a voyage, back in my Tall-Ship-crew-days, with a guy from Bude. A very nice man indeed, and a great colleague working in the galley - a hard worker, and a source of quite a few laughs. Happy days!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 May 22 - 05:40 AM

Well as we live in the middle of nowhere I won't be seeing any flags round here. I suppose I'll have to venture into town at some point, however, and we're having a special-treat cream tea (done the Cornish way, cream on top) at the Memory Café on Friday. Generally speaking, there are two or three occasions every year when the locals know that Bude is best avoided, and this weekend will definitely be one of 'em!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 May 22 - 02:02 AM

thanK god i have left the UK

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Senoufou
Date: 30 May 22 - 01:23 AM

Well, most of us in this village have put our flags up. Some people have giant flagpoles and huge Union Jacks, others strings of smaller flags.
I've got medium-sized ones sprouting out of the honeysuckles on either side of the front door, and smaller ones attached to the windowsills as well.
Husband is going to attend the Jubilee event with me on Thursday, in the grounds of the village hall, wearing one of his lovely, brightly-coloured traditional outfits (long tunic over narrow trousers).
I think the entire village will be delighted to see him!

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 May 22 - 06:03 PM

If she thinks she shares the same world as the mass of ordinary people, I'm afraid she's seriously deluded. No zero hours for her, no worries about energy bills doubling, no waiting for years for your crucial operation, no food banks, no sending your kids to crumbling schools with outsize classes, huge country estates which see off the riffraff...

Just tell her that you're from Croydon, Bonzo. First, she'll ask where it is, second, she'll get her goons to see you off sharpish...

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 May 22 - 04:10 PM

Absolutely no no no no no.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: WalkaboutsVerse
Date: 29 May 22 - 04:04 PM

"We share the same world but not the same opportunities" (Elizabeth Windsor)...so end monarchism.

Subject: RE: BS: HM The Queen's Platinum Jubilee!
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 29 May 22 - 08:38 AM

”that's your problem BWM - a pinko! You and Vladmir Ilyich Lenin!

Ha! I’ve always understood the epithet ‘Pinko’ to be a euphemism meaning a homosexual man! I certainly don’t fall into that category - anyone who knows me can confirm!

I also regard myself as politically slightly left of centre, so I don’t really think I fall into Lenin’s category either.