What is the Queen for?
Discussion
The Queen won't nail her colours to the mast (she obviously doesn't want the Scots to go) she knows that if they do go there is a very real possibility that the Scots may then vote to become a republic.
Who knows where that might end?
They are more than welcome to take her if they want.
Who knows where that might end?
They are more than welcome to take her if they want.
MarshPhantom said:
The Queen won't nail her colours to the mast (she obviously doesn't want the Scots to go) she knows that if they do go there is a very real possibility that the Scots may then vote to become a republic.
The SNP certainly used to be against the monarchy. I wonder if that was step two of their beer mat master plan. I like the Queen, and the fact that we have a royal family.
I watched a few documentaries about her and read a couple if books, and it's quite staggering the work she does to promote us abroad and also broker discussions between countries that bickering politicians couldn't manage.
I think our queen and royal family are genuinely the envy of many other countries.
It's certainly a major attractions for visitors to the UK.
I would go so far as to say Prince Charles has really turned out alright in the end too, being a big champion of architecture, the built environment, business enterprise and nature/conservation.
Long live the Queen
I watched a few documentaries about her and read a couple if books, and it's quite staggering the work she does to promote us abroad and also broker discussions between countries that bickering politicians couldn't manage.
I think our queen and royal family are genuinely the envy of many other countries.
It's certainly a major attractions for visitors to the UK.
I would go so far as to say Prince Charles has really turned out alright in the end too, being a big champion of architecture, the built environment, business enterprise and nature/conservation.
Long live the Queen
Ayahuasca said:
We have always been led to believe that the monarch is where we as a country can draw strength in times if crisis.
But now her kingdom is at risk of being broken up, people look to her for leadership and she says she cannot interfere?
I am sorry your majesty, but if you cannot interfere in something like this, just what are you and your family for?
The Queen could and probably would remain the head of state for Scotland if they split from the UK, as she is for other countries which stopped being governed by Westminster. But now her kingdom is at risk of being broken up, people look to her for leadership and she says she cannot interfere?
I am sorry your majesty, but if you cannot interfere in something like this, just what are you and your family for?
el stovey said:
McWigglebum4th said:
el stovey said:
She's there because some people like to feel subservient to others. It stems back to the medieval days and 'the great chain of being' where everyone had a place in the cosmic heirachy with God at the top, then the angels then kings and queens, then Lords and then peasants above the animals and plants and so on, everything imaginable fits into it somewhere, giving order and meaning to the universe.
While this could be correct there is one small problemRemove the queen and suddenly you have Ed Milliband thinking he is two steps from god
For this reason we should replace the royal family with a ceremonial goat
Then Ed Milliband is one step below a goat wearing a frock
Try picking a hole in my logic
Its a goat in a frock
A politicians ego will not let them realise it is a goat in a frock
So they will be deeply bothered by reporting to a goat in a frock
Your turn
turbobloke said:
The winning response.
To be fair Chuckles, Ninja above makes a decent point about the built urban environment. There never used to be a public debate on it buildings just kinda happened. Nobody was engaged in the design aesthetics of them except architects. The rest of us were lumped with them. And let us be brutally honest here...for about 40 yrs in the second half of the century, we the public got a bum deal. There is now a public conversation about this stuff, buildings, designs and the urban environment are part of national conversation and Charles speaking out about buildings has had a large part in driving that. My natural inclinations are towards more classical designs but I like quite a lot of the new designs going up to be honest. I think architects and designers have really raised their game...this a good thing. We have one of the most stable political systems in the world. The constitutional monarchy has had its ups and downs but it is a distinct improvement on the Stuarts, with the possible exception of Jim I.
We do have something that institutions can swear allegiance to which is, as far as reasonable, apolitical.
When parliament was blocked from pushing through female emancipation, it was the fact that we had a monarch that gave everyone an 'out'.
It stops us having to vote in people like Bush.
There are faults with the system of course, but since Queen Liz came to the throne we've had someone who has understood what is required of her and who has performed her duties impeccably.
The main concern is her replacement. Chas seems to be a bit of a dolt who struggles with his position.
It is a shame that she cannot come out for Union, which is almost certainly what she wants, but that is part of the cost of not having a Hollande or Burlesque-coney.
The Queen is head of the army and the police. That provides a sort of check, although the present and previous governments have tried to erode the safeguards.
All in all we've had the bonus of a person perfectly suited to an important role in this country.
I'm not sold on a monarchy, but I'm a firm supporter of Queen Elizabeth II. We've been lucky.
We do have something that institutions can swear allegiance to which is, as far as reasonable, apolitical.
When parliament was blocked from pushing through female emancipation, it was the fact that we had a monarch that gave everyone an 'out'.
It stops us having to vote in people like Bush.
There are faults with the system of course, but since Queen Liz came to the throne we've had someone who has understood what is required of her and who has performed her duties impeccably.
The main concern is her replacement. Chas seems to be a bit of a dolt who struggles with his position.
It is a shame that she cannot come out for Union, which is almost certainly what she wants, but that is part of the cost of not having a Hollande or Burlesque-coney.
The Queen is head of the army and the police. That provides a sort of check, although the present and previous governments have tried to erode the safeguards.
All in all we've had the bonus of a person perfectly suited to an important role in this country.
I'm not sold on a monarchy, but I'm a firm supporter of Queen Elizabeth II. We've been lucky.
otolith said:
I don't care if Charlie wants to chuck his man in the pub opinions at architects, just keep him well away from things that matter.
Personally, Chuck(les) can keep his architectural preferences, and the rest, as conversation pieces between him and his flowering plants and vegetables. It'd be better for him and us if he achieved his ambition to be Camilla's tampon rather than become monarch. Queenies lack of response has been strange to say the least. I can only assume she feels or has been advised she may do more harm than good. This morning I heard some silly girl on sky news saying she was voting yes to 'end inherited privilege'. I assume she is a republican rather than fighting against the injustice of being born stupid. Perhaps the advice has been that the Queens intervention will consolidate undecided republicans as yes voters.
turbobloke said:
Personally, Chuck(les) can keep his architectural preferences, and the rest, as conversation pieces between him and his flowering plants and vegetables. It'd be better for him and us if he achieved his ambition to be Camilla's tampon rather than become monarch.
He's compromised by becoming his own suppository.turbobloke said:
Personally, Chuck(les) can keep his architectural preferences, and the rest, as conversation pieces between him and his flowering plants and vegetables. It'd be better for him and us if he achieved his ambition to be Camilla's tampon rather than become monarch.
So we can't even credit someone for a positive thing now? I find that attitude very strange. I have no great love of Chuckles, I loathe gardening and think his Duchy products overpriced blah. His wading into the urban environment topic however has been a positive thing for all of us plebs.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff