9th of September 2015-Longest reigning monarch celebrations?

[RobinBanks]

Breadvan72 said:

Here's a plan that went well:-

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/09/07/the-que...

Isn't Huffington Post one of those satirical fake news sites?

[Strocky]

RobinBanks said:

Isn't Huffington Post one of those satirical fake news sites?

Nope, you might be thinking of the Daily Mash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

[Gecko1978]

Jinx said:

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.

It would also appear the Queen is still rather popular so breadvan is minority like say communists or the scottish....

End of the day like the royals or not they are relativly cheap bring in tourists and provide a figuer head without the need for costly presidential elections etc.

Day to day DC runs the country and in 5 years someone else will an so on an so forth, we don't need to worry about who would be king or queen etc it just happens an once in a while there is a marrage or a birth etc and we get to have an extra day off. Whats not to like...oh yeah I forgot they are rich and most of us are not...life is so unfair but if you moan it will get better...or not

[RobinBanks]

Strocky said:

Nope, you might be thinking of the Daily Mash

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Huffington_Post

My mistake. I've seen it mentioned and I always thought it was a joke.

'Huffington' just sounded like a made up town. I still have no idea where it is or why it's significant.

[Strocky]

RobinBanks said:

My mistake. I've seen it mentioned and I always thought it was a joke.

'Huffington' just sounded like a made up town. I still have no idea where it is or why it's significant.

It's named after the founder of the blog/website

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianna_Huffington

[SilverSixer]

Gecko1978 said:

End of the day like the royals or not they are relativly cheap bring in tourists and provide a figuer head without the need for costly presidential elections etc.

Myth, myth, and what's that last one? Oh yeah, a myth.

[Trax]

SilverSixer said:

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.

I dont seem to remember any such comments from the Queen about how she doesnt want more time with her dad, and would rather beat "records" than have time with him, or would rather have a longer reign and him die young. Did I miss it??? What does she do on the aniversary of her Dads death? Do you know, or know what she thinks??? Please tell.

[anonymous-user]

BlackLabel said:

Not long to go now. Quite an innings she's had and there are no signs of her slowing down.

I wonder what Charlie makes of all of this. Must be such a bitter-sweet moment for him as he patiently waits for the top job.

Presumably it's not like waiting for your boss to retire, she's probably told him she's going at (whatever age) or staying till she dies? I expect when she goes, there will be some big changes around the commonwealth. I doubt many countries really want prince Charles as head of state.

Looking at some of the stuff her and Phil get dragged around, I'd just get the record and then retire knowing nobody's going to beat it for a while.

[esxste]

I respect the lady. She's done her job relatively well.

However it concerns me that both she and Prince Charles have the ability to veto laws on certain subjects, and it concerns me more that after this lady departs this world, or simply retires, we have her utterly bonkers, interfering Son to take over.

Time for the republic when she departs the position, I think.

[Gecko1978]

SilverSixer said:

Gecko1978 said:

End of the day like the royals or not they are relativly cheap bring in tourists and provide a figuer head without the need for costly presidential elections etc.

Myth, myth, and what's that last one? Oh yeah, a myth.

Well I seem to recall a figure of 60p person in the uk to run royal house hold but let's says it's 1.20 still a small price. Would a presedent be cheaper I have no idea but then more do you so my point about relatively cheap stands. Tourism well we know thousands turn out to wave flags when its a wedding or a jubilee and also folk love visting royal palaces when possible royal parks tower of London etc. I suspect they would still visit if no royals but of course no jubilee stuff then. Finally if not the queen then someone else would be head of state and it would have a cost and we would still fund cost of royal palaces as cultural icons etc course queen etx might have to live in a bedsit if we took it back.

I am not a royalist not even a big fan but as they are in offensive any many people like them I see no reason to change the system after all day to day fact some people have a title has no impact on my life and such social climbers (minor aristocracy) are increasingly marginalised by the new super rich which anyone of us may become should we think of the next bookface or jibber jabber app etc

[anonymous-user]

Jinx said:

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.

Your historical, legal and constitutional ignorance is so profound that it would take more than the few minutes I have even to begin to point out how little you understand the system that governs this country. If I get a bit of time tomorrow I may give it a stab, but right now I have a dull dinner to go to some way off, so had better dig out the old soup and fish and head for Paddington.

[dcb]

esxste said:

Time for the republic when she departs the position, I think.

That would be the sensible rational thing to do, so knowing HMG,
it won't happen.

Phil the Greek and Brenda stepping down at her 90th birthday
and Prince Big Ears stepping up to the plate and doing a Prince Regent-type
role looks a likely move.

I'm sure Brenda and Phil aren't looking forward to many more
years still in harness doing their usual thing of opening shopping centres
and sports facilities etc etc.

There's probably a role for Camilla too. Queen Regent, maybe.

[ali_kat]

SilverSixer said:

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.

Seeing as her Father died in February (6th?) 1952, this isn't celebrating that her Dad died young

Neither Charles nor she wanted the role, as it means their parent is dead. Her Father really didn't want the job!

And an elected HoS costs a hell of a lot more than the Monarchy and brings a lot less tourism value in to the Country

[Halb]

Tourism might be a poor reason to keep a constitution, or not, but if the UK was to become a republic, the tourism wouldn't dry up, France is the most popular place to go, and history is in the customs and people, not a single family. How much of a boost to actual coffers would it be to open up all the royal residences, like Buck House.

These days the Royals real power lies in keeping onto royal privileges. That may go, it may not. But I think going off history, the weight of time is against them.

[RobinBanks]

Strocky said:

It's named after the founder of the blog/website

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianna_Huffington

Ah, thanks. I've seen it mentioned before and always thought it was like the Daily Mash or Onion News.

[ali_kat]

Halb said:

Tourism might be a poor reason to keep a constitution, or not, but if the UK was to become a republic, the tourism wouldn't dry up, France is the most popular place to go, and history is in the customs and people, not a single family. How much of a boost to actual coffers would it be to open up all the royal residences, like Buck House.

These days the Royals real power lies in keeping onto royal privileges. That may go, it may not. But I think going off history, the weight of time is against them.

I didn't say it was or that it would.

I simply stated it was more expensive to have an elected HoS & they wouldn't bring tourists in.

[Halb]

ali_kat said:

I didn't say it was or that it would.

I simply stated it was more expensive to have an elected HoS & they wouldn't bring tourists in.

An elected head of state might cost less (more than likely), there is no reason to make a version that would cost more. Recovered moneies from the lost revenue of the duchies too. It would be a saver.
And as the Royals would be disempowered, there would be likely no loss from tourism. Even if one considered that that should have an impact on the running of a country.

Edited by Ollie_M on Thursday 10th September 08:55

[johnxjsc1985]

esxste said:

I respect the lady. She's done her job relatively well.

However it concerns me that both she and Prince Charles have the ability to veto laws on certain subjects, and it concerns me more that after this lady departs this world, or simply retires, we have her utterly bonkers, interfering Son to take over.

Time for the republic when she departs the position, I think.

i think a lot of people realise how Her Maj has worked hard for this Country and that when she goes the thought of Charles as King and that awful Woman as his consort sends shivers down the spine.
Mind you not as much as the thought of Tony Blair as president and his lovely wife as first lady now that is the stuff of nightmares

[Jinx]

Breadvan72 said:

Your historical, legal and constitutional ignorance is so profound that it would take more than the few minutes I have even to begin to point out how little you understand the system that governs this country. If I get a bit of time tomorrow I may give it a stab, but right now I have a dull dinner to go to some way off, so had better dig out the old soup and fish and head for Paddington.

BV we are never going to agree on this one - so how about we agree This is funny.

[eccles]

Halb said:

Tourism might be a poor reason to keep a constitution, or not, but if the UK was to become a republic, the tourism wouldn't dry up, France is the most popular place to go, and history is in the customs and people, not a single family. How much of a boost to actual coffers would it be to open up all the royal residences, like Buck House.

These days the Royals real power lies in keeping onto royal privileges. That may go, it may not. But I think going off history, the weight of time is against them.

I think you underestimate the global power of the 'brand' of the Royal family. When you say 'The Queen' in conversation anywhere in the world, it is assumed you mean our queen, every head of state wants to rub shoulders with them, same for most business leaders. Look at how Andrew, and at one point Fergie, get doors opened to them because of their background. Many businesses clamour for the 'By Royal appointment' crest because it cuts a lot of ice abroad.