Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Gonnagle on September 09, 2015, 08:43:56 AM
-
Dear Your Majesty,
Congratulations, 63 years loyal service, God Bless You Mam.
:) :)
Gonnagle.
PS: Good morning oor Jim. ;)
-
LONG LIVE THE QUEEN
-
Dear Your Majesty,
Congratulations, 63 years loyal service, God Bless You Mam.
:) :)
Gonnagle.
PS: Good morning oor Jim. ;)
we were having a light hearted wager in our house over the last few days as to who would break the record first - the Queen or Wayne Rooney. I was in a minority of one opting for Rooney - I won!!
-
Dear Prof,
And why not. :D well done Mr Rooney. 8)
Gonnagle.
-
Congratulations Ma'am. Long may your reign continue.
Actually, all things considered Wayne Rooney might well make a better heir to the throne that the present incumbent of that position.
Considering that her mother lived to 101 - if the Queen does the same then Charles will be 78, and, with the progress of medical knowledge, H M may well last longer than that.
Twelve more years married to Camilla Park-and-Ride? He just might not make it that long.
King William III? A far better bet in the job than his father, in my personal opinion only, of course.
-
Not overly fussed about it but I do like to think of all those stately homes that will need to reprint their 'longest reigning monarch' posters.
-
Let's celebrate the institutionalised privelege of rich people! Old lady made wealthy at our expense still hasn't died! Yippee!
The only upside of this in any sense is that the plank Charles hasn't taken the crown.
O.
-
Bet the Mail are shifting lots of souvenir editions 'in colour' today.
-
Dear Mrs Windsor.
I wish you a long life filled with health, but hope that the smell of paint that assaults your nostrils everywhere the traffic is held up for you to plant your unelected little tootsies, isn't to irritating.
Why not open a food bank in celebration - or instead of being a super0-scrounger, live on benefits instead?
-
Dear Mrs Windsor.
I wish you a long life filled with health, but hope that the smell of paint that assaults your nostrils everywhere the traffic is held up for you to plant your unelected little tootsies, isn't to irritating.
Why not open a food bank in celebration - or instead of being a super-scrounger whose benefits have been increased this year by that nice Mr Cameron, try living on the minimum wage and housing benefit instead.
Ps:
While your at it: any chance of getting some superglue to apply to the mouths of
A) that twit you married,
and
B) the numpty who will wear your million pound hat after you pop your clogs?
-
Dear Jim,
I thought you would be in Edinbugger waving yer Union Flag, helping Her Majesty open that new railway line. :P
-
Congratulations Ma'am. Long may your reign continue.
Actually, all things considered Wayne Rooney might well make a better heir to the throne that the present incumbent of that position.
Considering that her mother lived to 101 - if the Queen does the same then Charles will be 78, and, with the progress of medical knowledge, H M may well last longer than that.
Twelve more years married to Camilla Park-and-Ride? He just might not make it that long.
King William III? A far better bet in the job than his father, in my personal opinion only, of course.
Problem is that of course Charles was popular in his youth, similar to William - don't you remember that lovely couple in the 80s with their 2 sweet kids.
But decades of kicking his heels waiting for a job he was 'born' to but unlikely to actually attain until he is over 70 has corroded the public's view. Not least because it is difficult to retain good news stories when you effectively spend decades at tax payer expense without a job.
And for all the great press about William now I struggle to see how he will be able to sustain media positivity over the decades he will need to wait until he attains the throne.
So just to give some kind of perspective. If the Queen lives to the same age as her mother, Charles won't become King until he is 78. If Charles lives as long as his father William will be at least 61 before he attains the throne. And the same issue will face George.
In the world of longevity, with a strict hereditary monarchy we will constantly have heirs kicking their heals until old age and monarchs not attaining the throne until they are at traditional retirement age and then likely spending a considerable amount of their reign in increasing poor health and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job.
-
My mum got her gong from Charles on a day when his mum was trying to find something useful to do. She was terribly disappointed (my mum that is, but maybe his as well).
-
... decades of kicking his heels waiting for a job he was 'born' to but unlikely to actually attain until he is over 70 has corroded the public's view.
I don't think the length of time it's taking for him to assume the throne has corroded the public's view; it's far more to do with recent press intrusion into the lives of these people and the fact that we now know, amongst numerous other things, that he had a thing for (or rather with) Camilla Park-and-Ride long before Diana was on the scene, that he was caught on the telephone declaring his wish to be a tampon and the like.
-
Yes and no. I think the intrusion also gained him some sympathy, at least in hindsight. We're a sentimental bunch and like the fact he's happy after his arranged marriage went belly up.
-
Dear Jim,
I thought you would be in Edinbugger waving yer Union Flag, helping Her Majesty open that new railway line. :P
-
why?
Did auld Liz pay for it to be built?
As for the butchers apron?
The only time you'll see me using it is when I run out of Andrex.
-
Yeah, like I said before, Anchorman, classy. ???
-
In the world of longevity, with a strict hereditary monarchy we will constantly have heirs kicking their heals until old age and monarchs not attaining the throne until they are at traditional retirement age and then likely spending a considerable amount of their reign in increasing poor health and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job.
This matter is much better organised in The Netherlands where the reigning monarch feels free to abdicate at a suitable time.
Charles receives a rather bad press together with vacuous insults for no good reason. He has not actually been supported to any great extent by the taxpayer, his income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. If he becomes king he will commit no howlers - the tightmesh security system surrounding him will prevent that. His major mistake so far was to be coerced into marrying a rather vapid, sloany virgin.
The best news we could receive today, as HM steps from the shadow of Nigel Gresley's masterpiece, would be that she is terminating the monarchy and we shall be a republic in the morning.
-
The best news we could receive today, as HM steps from the shadow of Nigel Gresley's masterpiece, would be that she is terminating the monarchy and we shall be a republic in the morning.
Hear hear!
-
In the world of longevity, with a strict hereditary monarchy we will constantly have heirs kicking their heals until old age and monarchs not attaining the throne until they are at traditional retirement age and then likely spending a considerable amount of their reign in increasing poor health and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job.
This matter is much better organised in The Netherlands where the reigning monarch feels free to abdicate at a suitable time.
Charles receives a rather bad press together with vacuous insults for no good reason. He has not actually been supported to any great extent by the taxpayer, his income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. If he becomes king he will commit no howlers - the tightmesh security system surrounding him will prevent that. His major mistake so far was to marry was to be coerced into marrying a rather vapid virgin.
The best news we could receive today, as HM steps from the shadow of Nigel Gresley's masterpiece, would be that she is terminating the monarchy and we shall be a republic in the morning.
-
Wot HH said.
-
Charles receives a rather bad press together with vacuous insults for no good reason. He has not actually been supported to any great extent by the taxpayer, his income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall.
That would be the Duchy of Cornwall which is exempt from income and corporation taxes that isn't subsidised by the tax-payer, right?
If he becomes king he will commit no howlers - the tightmesh security system surrounding him will prevent that.
Like they did when he started writing to government ministers asking them to interfere in legislation?
His major mistake so far was to marry was to be coerced into marrying a rather vapid virgin.
He's in the unfortunate position that he's been born into a system that limits his freedoms at our expense.
The best news we could receive today, as HM steps from the shadow of Nigel Gresley's masterpiece, would be that she is terminating the monarchy and we shall be a republic in the morning.
I shall not hold my breath...
O.
-
In the world of longevity, with a strict hereditary monarchy we will constantly have heirs kicking their heals until old age and monarchs not attaining the throne until they are at traditional retirement age and then likely spending a considerable amount of their reign in increasing poor health and unable to fulfil the requirements of the job.
This matter is much better organised in The Netherlands where the reigning monarch feels free to abdicate at a suitable time.
Charles receives a rather bad press together with vacuous insults for no good reason. He has not actually been supported to any great extent by the taxpayer, his income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall. If he becomes king he will commit no howlers - the tightmesh security system surrounding him will prevent that. His major mistake so far was to be coerced into marrying a rather vapid, sloany virgin.
The best news we could receive today, as HM steps from the shadow of Nigel Gresley's masterpiece, would be that she is terminating the monarchy and we shall be a republic in the morning.
Ooh, is the Mallard there? Might be worth a look after all.
-
... decades of kicking his heels waiting for a job he was 'born' to but unlikely to actually attain until he is over 70 has corroded the public's view.
I don't think the length of time it's taking for him to assume the throne has corroded the public's view; it's far more to do with recent press intrusion into the lives of these people and the fact that we now know, amongst numerous other things, that he had a thing for (or rather with) Camilla Park-and-Ride long before Diana was on the scene, that he was caught on the telephone declaring his wish to be a tampon and the like.
I agree, but I think once the media has 'built' someone up, they will eventually 'tear them down' unless the person is unassailable, and that really only applies to the Queen but not the heirs. So no doubt there was a time when the media only really published good news stories about Charles, even though no doubt they knew all sorts of other things. Then they got to a point where the good news narrative got boring so the nasty stuff came out. I have no doubt the same will happen for William - currently they are treating him with kid gloves, all nice and lovely - it won't last, and I've no doubt there will be plenty of muck to rake over in due course, just as there is in anyone's lives if the media are constantly in attendance and are minded ton put it out there.
I do think that people tend to have rather short memories. In many ways the current position of William is just about identical to that of Charles in the mid 80s. Lovely wife who seems to be more media-worthy than he is, nice young kids - family media darlings - recently left his military career and searching for a new role. All the elements are there just the same.
-
I think they have forgotten what the media did to Diana also. I feel very sorry for Kate.
-
He has not actually been supported to any great extent by the taxpayer, his income comes from the Duchy of Cornwall.
The Duchy of Cornwall (and indeed of Lancaster) are effectively state property. They are not private property in the manner that some other residences of the Royals are. Indeed there was a legal judgement to this effect recently (I think I even posted it here).
So income that comes from the Duchy is effectively state income - so if that goes back to Charles that is state funding, merely through a rather unusual part-hypothecated route.
-
No, Rhi.
The steam engine that will pull auld Lizzie is
"The Union of South Africa"
(Thankfully the real thing ditched her....after she was 'queen' of that nice colony in which her great great granny's government invented the concentration camp)
The station in the borders only opened for passengers on Sunday.
Apparantly, some of the rails, kerb stones, garden edging etc, were touched up with paint - YESTERDAY - less than six weeks after the whole place was completed, paintwork and all, in the first place!
-
Dear Jim,
Auld Lizzie, my Father's affectionate name for the Queen and my Ma was Auld Tin Lizzie, just googled it and found it was a name given to a old ford car. ;D
Gonnagle.
-
I agree, but I think once the media has 'built' someone up, they will eventually 'tear them down' unless the person is unassailable, and that really only applies to the Queen but not the heirs.
I'm not convinced that the Queen is unassailable. Certainly in very recent history - the last twenty-odd years or so - there has been severe media scrutiny and criticism of the Queen directly and personally, partially in relation to having to pay a bit of tax (eventually) but especially with what was deemed to be a catastrophic misstep in failing to catch what was at the time deemed to be the "national mood" of grief at Diana's death. It's neither here nor there if you believe, as I do, (a) that it never was a "national mood" and only applied to a certain minority sector of the population, and (b) that it was a hysterically mawkish outpouring of sentimental quasi-piety by those with nothing else in their lives; the point is that the Queen was deemed to be running on a separate set of rails to everybody else, who got it badly wrong.
The rest of the time the Queen, like the royals generally, are, I should say, viewed by most people as being like Nuneaton: yes, we know it exists, yes, we know where it is, but we wouldn't want to go there. For the vast majority of people she's only somebody who fetches up on the news now and again at the opening of something wearing the same interchangeable hat and coat distinguishable only by colour and carrying a handbag.
-
Dear Jim,
Auld Lizzie, my Father's affectionate name for the Queen and my Ma was Auld Tin Lizzie, just googled it and found it was a name given to a old ford car. ;D
Gonnagle.
--
We used to call Brenda's mother "Auld Lizzie" - remember the sainted Queen Mum, patron of those charities for people wiyth learning disabilities, who never once lowered herself to visit her own close relatives, confined to institutions by her 'loving' family?
And we were taught to respect THAT?
-
Problem is that of course Charles was popular in his youth, similar to William - don't you remember that lovely couple in the 80s with their 2 sweet kids.
I don't remember him ever being popular. In fact, I seem to remember personally being a bit resentful that he got into Cambridge on substandard A-level grades.
But decades of kicking his heels waiting for a job he was 'born' to but unlikely to actually attain until he is over 70 has corroded the public's view. Not least because it is difficult to retain good news stories when you effectively spend decades at tax payer expense without a job.
He does have a job. He has to go round visiting places and shaking people by the hand and pretending to be interested in what they do. Granted it is not the same as cleaning sick up off the floor of a care home, but I bet it is more tedious than my job.
Honestly, I think we should just miss him out when the Queen pops her clogs, but I don't see it happening.
-
Dear Mrs Windsor.
I wish you a long life filled with health, but hope that the smell of paint that assaults your nostrils everywhere the traffic is held up for you to plant your unelected little tootsies, isn't to irritating.
Why not open a food bank in celebration - or instead of being a super0-scrounger, live on benefits instead?
STFU - just remember it was Elizabeth 1 that allowed a Scotsman to plonk his fat arse on the English throne and thus establish the Union that you and the SNP are now trying so hard to undo!
I'd even rather have Charles as ruler (in name only though it may be) than Nichola Sturgeon as PM!
-
Dearest Forum,
Ah well! Here was me thinking, a wee chance to cheer up the forum, silly Auld me. :o
-
You need videos of dogs falling off things for that, Gonners.
-
And kittens.
-
The one with the kitten and the lizard's good.
-
I think they have forgotten what the media did to Diana also. I feel very sorry for Kate.
The little b*tch Diana played to the gallery always upstaging her husband, whilst her death was tragic for her kids, no doubt, she is no loss, imo!
-
Dear Rhiannon and Shaker,
Videos!! I would settle for old Vlad telling us his get on stage before the funny turn wears off joke. 8)
Simple things please simple............... :P
Gonnagle.
-
What's brown and sticky?
A stick.
-
Problem is that of course Charles was popular in his youth, similar to William - don't you remember that lovely couple in the 80s with their 2 sweet kids.
I don't remember him ever being popular. In fact, I seem to remember personally being a bit resentful that he got into Cambridge on substandard A-level grades.
But decades of kicking his heels waiting for a job he was 'born' to but unlikely to actually attain until he is over 70 has corroded the public's view. Not least because it is difficult to retain good news stories when you effectively spend decades at tax payer expense without a job.
He does have a job. He has to go round visiting places and shaking people by the hand and pretending to be interested in what they do. Granted it is not the same as cleaning sick up off the floor of a care home, but I bet it is more tedious than my job.
Honestly, I think we should just miss him out when the Queen pops her clogs, but I don't see it happening.
There have always been some who have been negative about the Royals - indeed even though William seems to be the most popular at the moment there are people who similarly criticise the amount we paid to get him qualified as a RAF helicopter pilot only for him to quit within months of being fully qualified etc.
But I think you aren't right. If you go back to the period from the late 60s (investiture of Prince of Wales) through the 1970s 'career' in the Navy and RAF (including qualifying as a helicopter pilot just like William) through the early period of his marriage he, alone, and later with Diana and the children, was extremely popular. The rot began to set in through the late 80s with the marital problems and also the perception of a meddling, tinkering force in the background of public life.
-
Just watched a few seconds of our fawning PM expounding nauseatingly about the anachronistic, undemocratic and that generally offensive institution that is the monarchy and (its associated toadies).
So, I shouted 'get rid' loudly at the screen, along with few sweary words, and turned off the telly - feel better for that, so I'm off to the bookies!
-
The little b*tch Diana played to the gallery always upstaging her husband
That's not much of a stretch, is it?
whilst her death was tragic for her kids, no doubt, she is no loss, imo!
Did you lend her a tenner you never got back or something?
-
Dear Mrs Windsor.
I wish you a long life filled with health, but hope that the smell of paint that assaults your nostrils everywhere the traffic is held up for you to plant your unelected little tootsies, isn't to irritating.
Why not open a food bank in celebration - or instead of being a super0-scrounger, live on benefits instead?
STFU - just remember it was Elizabeth 1 that allowed a Scotsman to plonk his fat arse on the English throne and thus establish the Union that you and the SNP are now trying so hard to undo!
I'd even rather have Charles as ruler (in name only though it may be) than Nichola Sturgeon as PM!
-
Hey!
Since Jamie the saxt was a reasonable governor of those rebellious Scots...,.unlike the cretinn who succeeded him, I',m not to bothered.
As for Nicola as 'prime minister'?
Since I'm allmost certain that we both agree that will never happen, I'm quite happy with that.
Although I know Nicola personally -and she will make a grand prime miniister of Scotland cum indyref 2!
-
I think they have forgotten what the media did to Diana also. I feel very sorry for Kate.
The little b*tch Diana played to the gallery always upstaging her husband, whilst her death was tragic for her kids, no doubt, she is no loss, imo!
-
What did you expect?
This bunch of parasits' only reason to exist was to produce more parasites.
Diana was the brood mare.
Lizzie Windsor knows about stuff like that.
-
Oh and I thought we were going to have a happy afternoon of YouTube vids and schoolboy jokes. >:(
-
Just watched a few seconds of our fawning PM expounding nauseatingly about the anachronistic, undemocratic and that generally offensive institution that is the monarchy and (its associated toadies).
So, I shouted 'get rid' loudly at the screen, along with few sweary words, and turned off the telly - feel better for that, so I'm off to the bookies!
-
Ah, yes....I heard this vomit from the 'Palace of Westminster' AKA Faawning- trashmongers-r-us.
It made me turn off as well.
So, no bad thing, really.
-
What's brown and sticky?
A stick.
-
Lizzie?
-
Dear Gordon,
Doncaster 2.30, tomorrow, Majestic Queen, its prophetic man!! :P
Gonnagle.
-
The one with the kitten and the lizard's good.
Is this a recipe? If so, can you post it: it sounds delicious :) :) :)
-
Dear Gordon,
Doncaster 2.30, tomorrow, Majestic Queen, its prophetic man!! :P
Gonnagle.
-
The auld nag is running in a gee gee race?
Well, at least she'll be useful as a tail end charlie.
-
Well done Newton grange brass band!
I just tuned into BBC radio Scotland AKA sycophants-r-us, to find Auld Lizzie doing a stopover on the way to the borders (doesn't the ;royal train' have a WC?)
Anyhow, as Brenda was leaving, the aforesaid band struck up "Will ye no come back again"......
A song written by Lady Nairn urging Bonnie Prince Charlie to return and get rid of the pestilence of the Hanoverian.....Lizzie's ancestors!
Nice one!
-
Oh and I thought we were going to have a happy afternoon of YouTube vids and schoolboy jokes. >:(
We have a number of frothing-at-the-mouth republicans on the forum. There's no chance that any thread about the Royal Family is going to stay out of vitriol mode.
-
Oh and I thought we were going to have a happy afternoon of YouTube vids and schoolboy jokes. >:(
We have a number of frothing-at-the-mouth republicans on the forum. There's no chance that any thread about the Royal Family is going to stay out of vitriol mode.
Oh I don't know about that - the most vitriolic post so far has come from a monarchist. ;)
The little b*tch Diana played to the gallery always upstaging her husband, whilst her death was tragic for her kids, no doubt, she is no loss, imo!
-
Ooh, is the Mallard there? Might be worth a look after all.
No, not Mallard but Union of South Africa which is another of the preserved members of the A4 class. I'm not sure that Mallard is currently certified for mail line use.
I've just heard a news report about today's rail journey and heard the unmistakable "chime" whistle unique to the A4s. I well recall lying awake as a child in our home in Grantham hearing this chime across the valley in the middle of the night.
-
Ooh, is the Mallard there? Might be worth a look after all.
No, not Mallard but Union of South Africa which is another of the preserved members of the A4 class. I'm not sure that Mallard is currently certified for mail line use.
I've just heard a news report about today's rail journey and heard the unmistakable "chime" whistle unique to the A4s. I well recall lying awake as a child in our home in Grantham hearing this chime across the valley in the middle of the night.
I only know about this because my eldest was into trains and loved watching DVDs aimed at the nostalgia/enthusiast market. The Mallard was and is her favourite, along with the other A4s. She'll be interested to watch this later.
-
Oh and I thought we were going to have a happy afternoon of YouTube vids and schoolboy jokes. >:(
We have a number of frothing-at-the-mouth republicans on the forum. There's no chance that any thread about the Royal Family is going to stay out of vitriol mode.
Shame. Watching small kittens attack massive dogs is much more fun.
-
Well I am a republican (although I think not a frothing at the mouth type) and I think it is a little hard-hearted not to recognise the achievements of the Queen (we will now get a long list of imagined sleights from some quarters) on this anniversary.
Anyway it does amuse me that some posters can see so clearly through an anachronistic, wildly undemocratic system that is fundamentally a tool of oppression to keep ordinary people in their places - and yet, at the same time they cling to other systems that are designed to achieve many of the same aims.
-
Would you say that the monarchy has anything like the influence of the church these says, Trent? I certainly think not.
-
Well I am a republican (although I think not a frothing at the mouth type) and I think it is a little hard-hearted not to recognise the achievements of the Queen (we will now get a long list of imagined sleights from some quarters) on this anniversary.
Allow the granite-hearted amongst us to pipe up: her most significant achievement appears to have been to have said and done very little whatsoever to attract much attention for sixty-odd years.
-
Oh and I thought we were going to have a happy afternoon of YouTube vids and schoolboy jokes. >:(
We have a number of frothing-at-the-mouth republicans on the forum. There's no chance that any thread about the Royal Family is going to stay out of vitriol mode.
Oh I don't know about that - the most vitriolic post so far has come from a monarchist. ;)
For fairness, I should have put "We have a number of frothing-at-the-mouth republicans and monarchists on the forum..." but I lean towards the monarchist side myself so I am naturally going to paint the republicans in the worst light.
-
Would you say that the monarchy has anything like the influence of the church these says, Trent? I certainly think not.
Well John Major was interviewed about the monarchy on TV last night, and for possibly the first time in his life he said something interesting.
He said given that conversations between PM's and the Queen are never divulged how would ordinary mortals (I paraphrase here) ever know what influence she wields.
I think from his comments, and the context he was clearly implying that she does wield considerable influence behind the scenes - but whether that was his attempt to bolster Madge's position/image or whether it was the truth, we'll never know.
Who said I was comparing it to the church?
I was thinking of the Conservative party ;)
-
Would you say that the monarchy has anything like the influence of the church these says, Trent? I certainly think not.
-
Possibly there is more symbolism attached to the role in England - especially with the monarch being 'Supreme Governor of the CofE'.
However, even in pre-Reformation times, the kings of Scots found it very difficult to assert their role as 'king by divine right'. Probably only three ever managed it to any degree - Alexander III, Robert I and James IV.
The remainder ruled through manipulating the great families - Stewarts, Douglasses, McDonalds, etc, and marrying their offspring, legitimate and illegitimate, into them.
They were, on the whole 'first among equals'.
After the Reformation, Mary Stuart was virtually ignored by her courtiers, and James VI ruled Scotland from afar mainly by committee. He was the last to understand the Scots.
Since then, they/we have treated the institution with a wry scepticism, at times acknowledging, at times reviling it.
The present monarch, Elizabeth I, does her job well - very well.
It's simply that I don't think that there should BE a job for her to do.
-
Would you say that the monarchy has anything like the influence of the church these says, Trent? I certainly think not.
Well John Major was interviewed about the monarchy on TV last night, and for possibly the first time in his life he said something interesting.
He said given that conversations between PM's and the Queen are never divulged how would ordinary mortals (I paraphrase here) ever know what influence she wields.
I think from his comments, and the context he was clearly implying that she does wield considerable influence behind the scenes - but whether that was his attempt to bolster Madge's position/image or whether it was the truth, we'll never know.
Who said I was comparing it to the church?
I was thinking of the Conservative party ;)
I think the Queen wields a huge amount of 'soft power' - not overtly and directly but through maintenance of the establishment structures in the UK - and those establishment structures, while they remain and remain strong through mutual support, have enormous power.
-
Dearie me,
A brilliant Ambassador, this has been discussed before, who else could do such a brilliant job in promoting this country, she wields enormous power just by being the Queen.
Gonnagle.
-
Dearie me,
A brilliant Ambassador, this has been discussed before, who else could do such a brilliant job in promoting this country, she wields enormous power just by being the Queen.
Gonnagle.
Any head of state is a fantastic ambassador - the fact we have a head of state isn't the issue, the present incumbent isn't, intrinsically, the issue (on the whole she's been reasonably good), but the process whereby they come to the role most definitely is an issue, and is emblematic of an ongoing issue this nation has yet to completely overcome.
O.
-
Dear Outrider,
I have read enough Anchorman posts to kind of agree with you ::)
But the good lady has done a great job for this country, something we should all celebrate.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Outrider,
I have read enough Anchorman posts to kind of agree with you ::)
But the good lady has done a great job for this country, something we should all celebrate.
Gonnagle.
-
Whether Lizzie has or has not done a 'good job for this country' (whatever that is) is immaterial.
As I posted, she has done a reasonably good job....but it's a job she should not be doing.
A job NO-ONE should be doing.
Why should anyone give their alliegance to someone because they were born in the right bed at the right time?
-
Dear Jim,
Aye awe right big man, whit else should we get rid of, oh I know!! That bloody English invention, the dress kilt >:(
Bye the way, I still love. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
I think if the Queen really had any power she'd have told Tony Blair where to stick his Millennium Dome party.
I don't know if there are more monarchists than Christians but I doubt many if the former are troubled by the Queen's views on who they sleep with, what contraception they use or whether they divorce.
-
I think if the Queen really had any power she'd have told Tony Blair where to stick his Millennium Dome party.
I don't know if there are more monarchists than Christians but I doubt many if the former are troubled by the Queen's views on who they sleep with, what contraception they use or whether they divorce.
Interesting that in the news over the last couple of days in the run up to the Queen becoming the longest reigning monarch there was discussion over her publicly giving her views.
The point being that since becoming Queen she has been very careful not too but was a little less reticent in her earlier days - with reports of some rather strong comments (negative) on the notion of divorce.
-
I don't know if there are more monarchists than Christians but I doubt many if the former are troubled by the Queen's views on who they sleep with, what contraception they use or whether they divorce.
Not sure that the latter two issues create any real issue for Christians, Rhi. So, what's the point you're trying make through your first issue?
-
PD, she can hardly criticise divorcees now. But even if she is against it (or gay relationships/marriage) she can't tell anyone they are outside of her country and her duty as a result.
-
What contraception people use and whether they divorce seem to be a big issue for Catholics, or are you going to be one of that group who considers Catholics not to be Christians?
-
I think from his comments, and the context he was clearly implying that she does wield considerable influence behind the scenes - but whether that was his attempt to bolster Madge's position/image or whether it was the truth, we'll never know.
No doubt she does - I don'think that many Brits believe that she doesn't; what we won't know is how often has that influence stopped the Government taking Britain to war; how often have social reform ideas come from her before coming from Government ministers; in other words, how often has that influence actually benefitted the ordinary British citizen and how often hasn't it?
-
No doubt she does - I don'think that many Brits believe that she doesn't; what we won't know is how often has that influence stopped the Government taking Britain to war; how often have social reform ideas come from her before coming from Government ministers; in other words, how often has that influence actually benefitted the ordinary British citizen and how often hasn't it?
Which is part of the problem with the institution. Even if we all agree that, on balance, Queen Elizabeth II has been a pretty good, caring, reticent, politically neutral in the public arena monarch, the system means that there is no accountability, no right of recall, and no transparency.
O.
-
What contraception people use and whether they divorce seem to be a big issue for Catholics, or are you going to be one of that group who considers Catholics not to be Christians?
Shaker, if you look at stats, "what contraception people use and whether they divorce" may be an issue for the leadership of the Catholic Church but the only way that they seem to be an issue for most ordinary Catholics is in their ignoring of most of the ecclesiastical legislation regarding them.
-
Shaker, if you look at stats, "what contraception people use and whether they divorce" may be an issue for the leadership of the Catholic Church but the only way that they seem to be an issue for most ordinary Catholics is in their ignoring of most of the ecclesiastical legislation regarding them.
Which suggests that some Catholics possess some sense in some quarters at least.
-
I think from his comments, and the context he was clearly implying that she does wield considerable influence behind the scenes - but whether that was his attempt to bolster Madge's position/image or whether it was the truth, we'll never know.
No doubt she does - I don'think that many Brits believe that she doesn't; what we won't know is how often has that influence stopped the Government taking Britain to war; how often have social reform ideas come from her before coming from Government ministers; in other words, how often has that influence actually benefitted the ordinary British citizen and how often hasn't it?
I think her influence is more about maintaining the status quo within the establishment. And that is partly achieved by nothing more than her continued presence (the ultimate in soft power when you exert it merely by your presence).
The UK remains massively dominated by a tiny elite who exert massive control over the rest of the population, and (lets face it) are concerned largely with maintaining influence and wealth within that tiny elite. And the Queen sits right at the heart of that elite - without her the ability to continue to perpetuate that elite would be significantly undermined.
-
I think her influence is more about maintaining the status quo within the establishment. And that is partly achieved by nothing more than her continued presence (the ultimate in soft power when you exert it merely by your presence).
The UK remains massively dominated by a tiny elite who exert massive control over the rest of the population, and (lets face it) are concerned largely with maintaining influence and wealth within that tiny elite. And the Queen sits right at the heart of that elite - without her the ability to continue to perpetuate that elite would be significantly undermined.
What better reason is there to get rid of her and her kind?
-
Which is part of the problem with the institution. Even if we all agree that, on balance, Queen Elizabeth II has been a pretty good, caring, reticent, politically neutral in the public arena monarch, the system means that there is no accountability, no right of recall, and no transparency.
In which of the existing Presidential systems do any of those really exist? Is there any evidence that whatever system that we might choose to replace the monarchy with would be any better? For instance do we, as the electorate, have any right of recall on any elected person?
-
The UK remains massively dominated by a tiny elite who exert massive control over the rest of the population, and (lets face it) are concerned largely with maintaining influence and wealth within that tiny elite. And the Queen sits right at the heart of that elite - without her the ability to continue to perpetuate that elite would be significantly undermined.
Oddly enough, the tiny elite you refer to have far less control than most major company bosses, bankers and probably also less influence than most MPs. Notconvinced that their position could be undermined that much more than it has been since the rise of capitalism (remember that most of these 'elite' families may have started out as a result of money, inherited or 'earned', but few if any actually hold any influence now).
-
"...get rid of her and her kind"
No, get rid of the Marxists and their kind.
-
Congratulations to the Queen on being the longest reigning monarch in British history and second longest reigning monarch over here.
-
Oddly enough, the tiny elite you refer to have far less control than most major company bosses, bankers and probably also less influence than most MPs.
Err - they are often one and the same.
Don't forget that our PM went to Eton, as did the mayor of London, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a number of others in the cabinet, plus plenty in senior back room positions that really pull the strings of government.
And don't forget that pretty well half of the Chairs of FTSE100 companies also went to top public schools
And so it goes on.
We have a tiny elite that are exceptionally good at ensuring that 'their kind' are maintained in the top positions of influence (and of wealth).
-
Problem is that of course Charles was popular in his youth, similar to William - don't you remember that lovely couple in the 80s with their 2 sweet kids.
I don't remember him ever being popular. In fact, I seem to remember personally being a bit resentful that he got into Cambridge on substandard A-level grades.
I was more resentful when I heard that Jeffrey Archer had got into Oxford with no A-levels at all.
I used to like Prince Charles' voice when he was younger - it sounded really quite melodious. Until he strongly adopted the standard royal affectation of talking about "a hice" (rather than a house - or should that be "a pelless". Must be orff now.
-
Dear Jim,
Aye awe right big man, whit else should we get rid of, oh I know!! That bloody English invention, the dress kilt >:(
Bye the way, I still love. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
She doesn't 'get rid of' anything, Gonners.
WE'RE the ones who should get rid of the monarchy!
-
Oddly enough, the tiny elite you refer to have far less control than most major company bosses, bankers and probably also less influence than most MPs.
Err - they are often one and the same.
Don't forget that our PM went to Eton, as did the mayor of London, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, and a number of others in the cabinet, plus plenty in senior back room positions that really pull the strings of government.
And don't forget that pretty well half of the Chairs of FTSE100 companies also went to top public schools
And so it goes on.
We have a tiny elite that are exceptionally good at ensuring that 'their kind' are maintained in the top positions of influence (and of wealth).
And don't forget that most of the major posts holders of the last Labour Government went to Cambridge or Oxford - or that some of the best political orators of the 20th century went to public schools.
May I also remind you that many of the richest people in British society either went to their local comp. or did poorly (academically, at least) at public schools. May I also remind you that Eton is but one of several hundred private schools around the UK, many of which started out life as grammar schools that charged fees to the wealthy, but also provided education for nothing to many bright students from poor backgrounds. The vast majority of the alumni of said schools are teachers, medics, scientists, journalists, aid workers, care workers, bankers, - in other words, no different from the rest of society.
It's less what school you went to, and more what you did with the education you got. Leadership in politics isn't the only way one can influence society, and even if it were, there have been plenty of non-private school products who have run things like local councils, etc.
-
.... May I also remind you that Eton is but one of several hundred private schools around the UK, many of which started out life as grammar schools that charged fees to the wealthy, but also provided education for nothing to many bright students from poor backgrounds.
Yes? And now they are profitable businesses which have registered themselves as charities and get nice tax benefits at the expense of the vast majority of people who didn't go to them.
To send a boy to somewhere like Eton probably costs about £500,000 for the time he is there. Do you think that that is good value for money?
-
.... May I also remind you that Eton is but one of several hundred private schools around the UK, many of which started out life as grammar schools that charged fees to the wealthy, but also provided education for nothing to many bright students from poor backgrounds.
Yes? And now they are profitable businesses which have registered themselves as charities and get nice tax benefits at the expense of the vast majority of people who didn't go to them.
To send a boy to somewhere like Eton probably costs about £500,000 for the time he is there. Do you think that that is good value for money?
The key value of Eton (and similar schools) isn't the education per se, but the contacts it makes you. It allows you into a clique, an old boys club like no other. So are that massively disproportionate block of old Etonians who effortlessly rise to the top of their chosen professions better than all the others - I doubt it, but they have the contacts to ensure that the next rung on their particular career ladder is achieved with ease.
Now it has to be emphasised that even in the kind of uber-elite club that is the old Etonians there are still levels. So those 'new money' upstarts still won't be quite accepted in the manner of the 'old money' generation after generation elite.
-
As we approach the close of this day of history, it is only fitting that we pause for reflection....
https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2015/09/09/liz-the-last-takes-the-train/
(Courtesy of the Wee Ginger Dug)
-
Dear Jim,
Aye well!! I have to admit that that gingerdug boy is good with words, probably one of those educated Glaswegians that myth and legend are made of.
So we have a Queen! Deal with it ( or don't ) but using the Queen to have a dig at benefit sanctions!
I would rather he kept his vitriol for the anti Christian, anti British party who allow the use of benefit sanctions.
Gonnagle.
-
So: how can you justify the Windsor wasters getting an increase in their benefits, while the rest are sanctioned, cowed, forced to live without an increase, and, in some cases, driven to suicide?
-
Dear Jim,
I can't!!
All I would ask is the man points his finger at Holyrood and Westminster.
Gonnagle.
-
What has that to do with the Windsor waster's pay benefuit increase?
As for MPs and MSPs?
To be fair, many decent elected members of all parties have refused to accept the increase - many donating the increase, which they hacve to accept under a Westminster law, to charities - and food banks.
-
Dear Jim,
To be fair!! I take it you are talking of the wage increase for politicians.
Another smoke and mirrors from the Tories, it should never have been given parliamentary time, it should have been stood on as a non starter.
Politicians saying, oh look at me, I am giving it to charity, smoke and mirrors.
And please don't tell me that politicians had no say in this matter, who runs this country.
A blatent slap in the face to every citizen of this country.
Smoke and mirrors, forget this nonsense, tell your politician to focus on the real issues, then and only then will they regain my respect, and they have a long way to go before that happens.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Jim,
To be fair!! I take it you are talking of the wage increase for politicians.
Another smoke and mirrors from the Tories, it should never have been given parliamentary time, it should have been stood on as a non starter.
Politicians saying, oh look at me, I am giving it to charity, smoke and mirrors.
And please don't tell me that politicians had no say in this matter, who runs this country.
A blatent slap in the face to every citizen of this country.
Smoke and mirrors, forget this nonsense, tell your politician to focus on the real issues, then and only then will they regain my respect, and they have a long way to go before that happens.
Gonnagle.
-
Hang on:
When the vote to tie MPs' wages to civil servant scales came up, The Lib-dums and Tory farce of a coalition vorted for it.
Labour, SNP and a few independants voted against it.
The majority of the farce called a democracy in Westminster voted to keep their snouts in the trough.
Just as the Tory Eton supporters club voted an increase in the Windsor benefit scroungers' income.
-
Dear Jim,
Bloody hell!! Yer a hard man to get through to, there should not have been a vote, a simple sentence saying, forget it, it is not happening, next item on the agenda is housing.
Smoke and mirrors from the Tories, and the rest of the politicians fell for it.
Gonnagle.
-
I suspect that whilst we will keep the RF its nature will change, and that will be driven in part by government but also from within, specifically from William, Katherine and Harry. The princes lost their mother and saw what life in the public eye did to her. There are signs that Katherine is struggling with trying to be a normal mother in a freakish existence for which she is very unprepared. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see William and Harry downgrade their status in some way in order to save their families in a similar way that Princess Anne did with her children.
-
Dear Rhiannon,
I agree, and this might send me reaching for my tin hat but I think Charlie will be a game changer.
Gonnagle.
-
I suspect that whilst we will keep the RF its nature will change, and that will be driven in part by government but also from within, specifically from William, Katherine and Harry. The princes lost their mother and saw what life in the public eye did to her. There are signs that Katherine is struggling with trying to be a normal mother in a freakish existence for which she is very unprepared. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see William and Harry downgrade their status in some way in order to save their families in a similar way that Princess Anne did with her children.
I think it was easy for Princess Anne to downgrade her status (or have it downgraded) because she was so far down the line of successful the chances of her ever coming close to the top job were zero. Although not quite to the same extent Harry is the same so he could (and to my mind should) be expected to head off into the wild blue yonder of normal life, moral job etc etc. and with the expectation that there shouldn't be public funding for him.
But William is different - he is likely to become King and we (and in part the media) have created this kind of monster which requires the heirs to be public figures even if they don't really have the job yet. I suspect other countries with monarchies are much better at accepting that we shouldn't expect the heir to the throne to kick their heals in a kind of 'non' public role for decades waiting for their chance to be head of state. Rather they should be able to go off and enjoy a normal life and career (and be expected so to do) until the point at which on the death of the current monarch they need to step into their new role. We are a long way from that in the UK and until we are the Royals will continue to be a kind of reality soap opera, at the beck and call of the media day in day out for decades. This isn't right and isn't reasonable.