9th of September 2015-Longest reigning monarch celebrations?
Poll: 9th of September 2015-Longest reigning monarch celebrations?
Total Members Polled: 203
Discussion
dcb said:
Oh I don't think it's as important as that.
A day to switch the TV off - we know what kind of fawning
twaddle will be on the BBC for a few days - and go and do
something else more interesting.
Maybe I'll paint the shed and get it ready for winter.
Other fawning broadcasters are available.A day to switch the TV off - we know what kind of fawning
twaddle will be on the BBC for a few days - and go and do
something else more interesting.
Maybe I'll paint the shed and get it ready for winter.
Breadvan72 said:
Tells you all you need to know about twitter users.Esseesse said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Out of interest, what do you think that she has done badly?
I, personally, would tend to disagree and think that she has done most things very well, some things exceptionally well and only a few things rather poorly.
I, personally, would tend to disagree and think that she has done most things very well, some things exceptionally well and only a few things rather poorly.
Bill of Rights in 1688 said:
... I doe declare That noe Forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiasticall or Spirituall within this Realme Soe helpe me God.
Oath taken by Elizabeth II in 1953 said:
Archbishop said:
Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?
Queen Elizabeth II said:
I solemnly promise so to do.
Lisbon Treaty in 2007 said:
The Conference recalls that, in accordance with well settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Treaties and the law adopted by the Union on the basis of the Treaties have primacy over the law of Member States, under the conditions laid down by the said case law.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Out of interest, what do you think that she has done badly?
I, personally, would tend to disagree and think that she has done most things very well, some things exceptionally well and only a few things rather poorly.
Overall, she has performed consistently in the same role for over sixty years, which is quite an achievement, even compared to other comparable monarchs; Carl Gustav of Sweden has seen the Swedish monarchy turned into a tourist attracting irrelevance, whilst Juan Carlos oversaw the Spanish monarchy fall from stratospheric approval ratings to the point where there is a very credible republican movement in Spain. the King of Greece lost his throne altogether whilst Queen Beatrix's rather overtly heavy-handed use of the Dutch monarch's constitutional powers saw these legally curtailed and the standing of the monarchy much diminished. Compared to all that, Brenda hasn't got very much wrong IMO
I think that says more about the other countries progressiveness and modern outlook than anything elseI, personally, would tend to disagree and think that she has done most things very well, some things exceptionally well and only a few things rather poorly.
Overall, she has performed consistently in the same role for over sixty years, which is quite an achievement, even compared to other comparable monarchs; Carl Gustav of Sweden has seen the Swedish monarchy turned into a tourist attracting irrelevance, whilst Juan Carlos oversaw the Spanish monarchy fall from stratospheric approval ratings to the point where there is a very credible republican movement in Spain. the King of Greece lost his throne altogether whilst Queen Beatrix's rather overtly heavy-handed use of the Dutch monarch's constitutional powers saw these legally curtailed and the standing of the monarchy much diminished. Compared to all that, Brenda hasn't got very much wrong IMO
TBF to Brenda she's been a good ambassador and tourism host for the UK (especially to lost Irishmen), pity most of her family are scrounging ne'er do wells
Edited by Strocky on Wednesday 9th September 12:08
Brenda's main virtue is that she knows how to STFU. To STFU is her only job. She is well paid to STFU. Some say that she is good at saying nothing about anything because she has nothing to say abut anything. But whether that is right or wrong, she STFU, this being her alloted Constitutional role. It remains an open question whether the boy Chazzer will learn how to STFU.
BTW, for the tinfoil wibblists who think that Brenda has betrayed her sacred vows: Dudes, go to law school, dudes, and maybe history school too. If you really think that a promise made at gunpoint (almost literally at gunpoint) not to let any Papists have a say in the management of the oligarchy known as the UK in 1689 has any bearing on treaty arrangements made by a democracy that uses the same name in the late twentieth century, then you need to study up a bit. You would probably get on well with Second Amendment gun nutters in the USA, as they rely on a similarly clueless view of history and the interpretation of documents to support their enthusiasm for the sacred right of maniacs to slaughter school children with semi auto weapons.
BTW, for the tinfoil wibblists who think that Brenda has betrayed her sacred vows: Dudes, go to law school, dudes, and maybe history school too. If you really think that a promise made at gunpoint (almost literally at gunpoint) not to let any Papists have a say in the management of the oligarchy known as the UK in 1689 has any bearing on treaty arrangements made by a democracy that uses the same name in the late twentieth century, then you need to study up a bit. You would probably get on well with Second Amendment gun nutters in the USA, as they rely on a similarly clueless view of history and the interpretation of documents to support their enthusiasm for the sacred right of maniacs to slaughter school children with semi auto weapons.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th September 12:25
Breadvan72 said:
Brenda's main virtue is that she knows how to STFU. To STFU is her only job. She is well paid to STFU. Some say that she is good at saying nothing about anything because she has nothing to say abut anything. But whether that is right or wrong, she STFU, this being her alloted Constitutional role. It remains an open question whether the boy Chazzer will learn how to STFU.
BTW, for the tinfoil wibblists who think that Brenda has betrayed her sacred vows: Dudes, go to law school, dudes, and maybe history school too. If you really think that a promise made at gunpoint (almost literally at gunpoint) not to let any Papists have a say in the management of the oligarchy known as the UK in 1689 has any bearing on treaty arrangements made by a democracy that uses the same name in the late twentieth century, then you need to study up a bit. You would probably get on well with Second Amendment gun nutters in the USA, as they rely on a similarly clueless view of history and the interpretation of documents to support their enthusiasm for the sacred right of maniacs to slaughter school children with semi auto weapons.
You started off well but then linking the Queen to gun nutters was probably a step too far.BTW, for the tinfoil wibblists who think that Brenda has betrayed her sacred vows: Dudes, go to law school, dudes, and maybe history school too. If you really think that a promise made at gunpoint (almost literally at gunpoint) not to let any Papists have a say in the management of the oligarchy known as the UK in 1689 has any bearing on treaty arrangements made by a democracy that uses the same name in the late twentieth century, then you need to study up a bit. You would probably get on well with Second Amendment gun nutters in the USA, as they rely on a similarly clueless view of history and the interpretation of documents to support their enthusiasm for the sacred right of maniacs to slaughter school children with semi auto weapons.
Edited by Breadvan72 on Wednesday 9th September 12:25
4/10.
You couldn't help yourself and then ruined your own argument by your heart ruling your head. Have another go. I can give you some help to construct an argument that does not take so many different points in one paragraph.
Jinx said:
Breadvan72 said:
Feeling the butthurt that not everyone shares your servile notions, eh?
You are perfectly entitled to 
off out of Her country anytime you like BV...... 
Gandahar said:
Breadvan72 said:
Brenda's main virtue is that she knows how to STFU. To STFU is her only job. She is well paid to STFU. Some say that she is good at saying nothing about anything because she has nothing to say abut anything. But whether that is right or wrong, she STFU, this being her alloted Constitutional role. It remains an open question whether the boy Chazzer will learn how to STFU.
BTW, for the tinfoil wibblists who think that Brenda has betrayed her sacred vows: Dudes, go to law school, dudes, and maybe history school too. If you really think that a promise made at gunpoint (almost literally at gunpoint) not to let any Papists have a say in the management of the oligarchy known as the UK in 1689 has any bearing on treaty arrangements made by a democracy that uses the same name in the late twentieth century, then you need to study up a bit. You would probably get on well with Second Amendment gun nutters in the USA, as they rely on a similarly clueless view of history and the interpretation of documents to support their enthusiasm for the sacred right of maniacs to slaughter school children with semi auto weapons.
You started off well but then linking the Queen to gun nutters was probably a step too far.BTW, for the tinfoil wibblists who think that Brenda has betrayed her sacred vows: Dudes, go to law school, dudes, and maybe history school too. If you really think that a promise made at gunpoint (almost literally at gunpoint) not to let any Papists have a say in the management of the oligarchy known as the UK in 1689 has any bearing on treaty arrangements made by a democracy that uses the same name in the late twentieth century, then you need to study up a bit. You would probably get on well with Second Amendment gun nutters in the USA, as they rely on a similarly clueless view of history and the interpretation of documents to support their enthusiasm for the sacred right of maniacs to slaughter school children with semi auto weapons.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 9th September 12:25
4/10.
You couldn't help yourself and then ruined your own argument by your heart ruling your head. Have another go. I can give you some help to construct an argument that does not take so many different points in one paragraph.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Or has she created that impression whilst, in fact bh-slapping every PM in her reign on a weekly basis during their Tuesday night audiences and sent them on their way with their marching orders and her toe up their backside?We will never know. That is her genius.
As ever, BV is right. The role of the monarch in 2015 is not to run the gig, or even to directly influence those who do. The role of the monarch is to create the impression with the government that if they get a bit above themselves, she'll fk them up. Could the Queen have had Wilson/Thatcher/Blair over if it came to a constitutional show down? Because she never says anything beyond small talk, they couldn't be sure. It's a stunningly simple tactic and one that, I fear, the demented hedge-whisperer will not master
k them up. Could the Queen have had Wilson/Thatcher/Blair over if it came to a constitutional show down? Because she never says anything beyond small talk, they couldn't be sure. It's a stunningly simple tactic and one that, I fear, the demented hedge-whisperer will not masterBreadvan72 said:
Wonderfully for those of us who, unlike you, do not wish to live in the fourteenth century, it's not Brenda's country, it's ours. Yours, mine, all of ours. Voters, citizens, free people (I have two passports, BTW, one with a harp, and one with a lion and unicorn, which these days are guards, not supporters). Brenda's bunch of previously successful armed gangsters were put in their box in the seventeenth century (initially by some other armed gangsters, but they gave way to some people in tall hats, and eventually to some people in rather dull suits). We let her out of her gilded prison for a stroll every now and then when we need a bridge opening or a school visiting, or a dull dinner with Prince Johnny Foreign Big Arms Deal attending, and we let her sign stuff (if she did not sign it, she would be in trouble), and read out someone elses's boring stuff from a big chair in Parliament, but it's not her country.
A strange understanding of inheritance laws and the entire land registry you have there BV. As my ancestors were obviously lacking somewhat in the conquest ability stakes doesn't mean I can claim ownership over a country merely by having citizenship (well we're all subjects really)?ClaphamGT3 said:
We will never know. That is her genius.
If we can never know what she has/has not done, how can anyone judge it to be genius?All this guff and grovelling today seems quite sick to me, she's only been Da Q this long because her Dad carked it a bit young. Most people would swap such things as "records" for a few more years with their Dad. Maybe this is what marks royals out as "special". Total self absorption and an inability to form normal relationships. I mark the anniversary of my father's death by laying some flowers at his grave and having a bit of a cry.
Hope she resigns, and the country wakes up and demands an election for our next HoS. Charles Saxe-Coburg-Gotha-Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glucksburg can stand if he likes.
Jinx said:
Breadvan72 said:
Wonderfully for those of us who, unlike you, do not wish to live in the fourteenth century, it's not Brenda's country, it's ours. Yours, mine, all of ours. Voters, citizens, free people (I have two passports, BTW, one with a harp, and one with a lion and unicorn, which these days are guards, not supporters). Brenda's bunch of previously successful armed gangsters were put in their box in the seventeenth century (initially by some other armed gangsters, but they gave way to some people in tall hats, and eventually to some people in rather dull suits). We let her out of her gilded prison for a stroll every now and then when we need a bridge opening or a school visiting, or a dull dinner with Prince Johnny Foreign Big Arms Deal attending, and we let her sign stuff (if she did not sign it, she would be in trouble), and read out someone elses's boring stuff from a big chair in Parliament, but it's not her country.
A strange understanding of inheritance laws and the entire land registry you have there BV. As my ancestors were obviously lacking somewhat in the conquest ability stakes doesn't mean I can claim ownership over a country merely by having citizenship (well we're all subjects really)?Jinx said:
Breadvan72 said:
Wonderfully for those of us who, unlike you, do not wish to live in the fourteenth century, it's not Brenda's country, it's ours. Yours, mine, all of ours. Voters, citizens, free people (I have two passports, BTW, one with a harp, and one with a lion and unicorn, which these days are guards, not supporters). Brenda's bunch of previously successful armed gangsters were put in their box in the seventeenth century (initially by some other armed gangsters, but they gave way to some people in tall hats, and eventually to some people in rather dull suits). We let her out of her gilded prison for a stroll every now and then when we need a bridge opening or a school visiting, or a dull dinner with Prince Johnny Foreign Big Arms Deal attending, and we let her sign stuff (if she did not sign it, she would be in trouble), and read out someone elses's boring stuff from a big chair in Parliament, but it's not her country.
A strange understanding of inheritance laws and the entire land registry you have there BV. As my ancestors were obviously lacking somewhat in the conquest ability stakes doesn't mean I can claim ownership over a country merely by having citizenship (well we're all subjects really)?Breadvan72 said:
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, where do I start? The Constitution trumps the quaiant legal fictions of a vanished feudalism. I know that you knee bending and forelock tugging types like to live in the past, but do some research, will yas? If Brenda pops around to your gaff and says "render me homage and knight service or GTFO orrf my land", will you say "Yea, O My Liege Lady"? FFS, maybe you would. The funny farm is over there.
We have no written constitution. The laws of the land still refer to the Crown. The armed forces still swear allegiance to the incumbent throne warmer. "GTFO orrf my land" - ever heard of compulsory purchase? Your brave new world is still somewhat in your own head.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff