What a farce. Why would anyone celebrate for a family that never earnt a penny in their own right but just took from everyone over the last few centuries. The Royals have stolen peoples land to amass the fortune they have today. I for one will not be celebrating '60 glorious years.' Yeah, f**king glorious for the Queen but not for us. Its funny but someone who takes handouts from the state is labelled a scrounger but its okay for the Queen to get state money. Is Buckingham palace a council house? I guess in a way it is.
Sixty years of service in the same job is commendable, and it's bread and circuses for the "In it together" masses.
She costs each person in the UK 66p per year far less than she used to! and for that she is still working at 86. Sure her situation belongs to a different time but as I noticed in a recent documentary she has always worked exceedingly hard particularly concerning the Commonwealth. She is a major tourist attraction for London and is able as Head of State with no powers to fulfil a position no one else can. Royalty can have no claim to being superior. Mass media has filled us all in on that and yes it is old fashioned but for 66p per year and still working at 86 with the gennuine commitment she has put in to a job she did not choose, I think the UK gets it's money back. I have known two people who met her, one being my daughter, just a shake of the hand you know, but both were impressed. I used to be anti royalty. I probably still am in some ways but I have mellowed I think she has earned some respect.
I am anti royalist. Why UK should bother about dark age societies. It would be better slogan "Glory to anti royal". Sure some demonstrations anti monarchs, and all the rubish which is not that easy to get rid of. They are rules and we suffer.
I'm a republican at heart......but I look at the ********s who would likely be candidates in a republican UK....or a republican Scotland....and I think just what is the problem with a monarch who is only a figurehead with no real power. Seems to me much better than yet another sodding politician with no concept of real life for the plebs, but who thinks he does because he does theories and party policies, having any say in Government at all. We have big enough problems with the "not living in the same world as we do" politicians we have already.....a layer on top, who have a right to an opinion we have to take notice of, is a layer too far, imo. Not in favour of subsidising anyone but the Queen, though....if Andrew thinks his daughters need a quarter of a million pounds to protect them, because he is so important...then he can pay for it....why should we? But then I'd be letting anyone with a gun loose on Tony Blair as well. If he hadn't been a complete ******** as PM, he wouldn't be needing to worry about his security, would he? Would kinda like to see, when the Queen goes, an election as to which Royal would take over as the public face of the UK, though..he/she could always be called President, after all, as long as their position in the scheme of things stays the same...ie no influence...the automatic succession allows self-important, arrogant numpties, like Charles and Andrew a foot in the door and a hand in our pockets. If/when Scotland becomes Independent....I'd vote for Princess Anne as President.......she seems to be by far the most normal of the Royal Family..though that isn't saying a great deal...........but then, is there any such animal as a normal politician either?
You can see near the beginning of this Draft Constitution the obligations of a future Scottish Monarch http://www.constitutionalcommission...sets/A MODEL CONSTITUTION FOR SCOTLAND(1).pdf. I think they are roughly the same as at present with the UK but with a Scottish slant. I think if Independence is voted for whether to be a Republic or maintain the Monarchy should be voted for in a later Referendum. Possibly at the same time as a referendum on acceptance of the Constitution. I had never imagined that if we had one it would be any other than the one in the rUK. Charles is not popular there either. However Queen Victoria was not popular either and nor was her successor Edward V11 before he became king. He was always living it up and eating too much and doing nothing but being a playboy. However once he became King he became very popular. He apparently was the one who began to change the image from Ruler to Server of the people. I feel that if a Monarch continues it should be kept in line. If people are not happy with that then I think we are saying it is time to end it after the Queen dies. I understand what you are saying but I would have thought that one of the reasons for keeping a Monarchy would be recognising our historical relationship with the rUK. Would not a president have more powers? I am not sure. Does Ireland's president have powers other than as merely ceremonial and representing the Irish? (P.S. that draft Constitution may have changed since I last looked at it. I do not remember the sovereignty having so many duties and current inclusions like being head of the Church of Scotland and it being recognised as the 'leading National Church' but maybe all this is leading to having a discussion of the draft constitution? )
The role of Irish president was modeled on the role of the British monarch. It is mainly ceremonial, much of their "powers" are only exercised on the advice of the government (with their permission). The only powers they exercise independently are the power to refer legislation to the supreme court and the power to refuse to dissolve the dail (house of parliament).
We're enjoying watching the flotilla of a thousand ships sailing down the Thames anyway. Happy days. Government is a drone compared to the monarchy. Government would have us all wage slaves. Get in there Lizzie...
The Jubilee sums up everything wrong with modern Britain, trying to live in the glories of yesterday. The Tories and their 'Big Society' concept totally out of touch with how modern Britain works, trying to conjure up some kind of romantic notion of British society that never existed. The Oxford and Cambridge toffs who might once have been the brains of a British empire today are bigoted, naive mummies boys, who are intent on closing Britain off to the world, in denial that Britain is no longer a world power. The British have become a stagnant society, let them watch a soggy queen salute a rusty barge. Rule Britannia no more!
I liked the Russian horses best.......ooo exciting stuff. Edao, I agree with you in principle on toffs and Tories (same thing really) but I'm still enjoying the party and you're just jealous. Btw, what do Australians think of Rolf Harris? I liked their contribution, it was very emotive for some reason.
Been chasing about the radio and telly since yesterday avoiding it all, tbh,.....just two days and eternal recaps to avoid now. Doesn't appear to be anything happening in my neck of the woods that I've seen advertised.....but will find out when the local papers turn up on Wednesday if anybody celebrated anywhere up here. I will be doing the same avoiding when the Olympics and the European football take over the telly and radio.
You'll be free then to watch Andy Murray v Richard Gasquet in the 4th round French Open. STV but not sure of the time.
Nooo Oddie you have to watch it and just enjoy it for what it is. Can't do anything about it anyway and they're putting on a great show. I can't believe you missed the horses last night, they were lovely. I have tickets for some Olympic events. Nobody better bomb it. Wait...wait...THIS JUST IN Wahay!! It's absolutely gorgeous here and we're going out for lunch to a cafe overlooking the river, followed up by a walk along the shore (to all other cafe/bars on the shore). Ah canny wait mon.
If this were 1640, I'd agree completely. This isn't 1640, though - times have changed, and so has the constitution and the monarchy. 'Never earned a penny'? The monarch, and several members of her family, actually work pretty hard performing many state functions. Unlike other workers, she can't 'resign' or 'retire' either (she could attempt to 'abdicate', of course, but only if parliament allows her to do so (or tells her to do so, of course, if they choose to)). 'Stolen peoples land'? They actually have relatively little land of their own (and that which she does personally own, such as Sandringham and Balmoral, were actually purchased from previous owners by previous monarchs, and certainly not 'stolen' at all). Most of what is held 'in their name' in the form of the Crown Estates is owned by the country, run by an independant organisation, and the monarch has no power to dispose of it or keep the profit for themselves (the profit goes to the state, and it is from that money that she is effectively 'paid', so she doesn't actually really get paid 'by the taxpayer' at all). 'get state money'? Well she works for the state, so she gets payed by it! 'Is Buckingham palace a council house?' No, it's an official residence of the Head of State, and used for many state functions, like the White House in the USA. That kind of intrusion isn't something that coucil house occupants have to put up with - it's not a private home as such at all, but a working ceremonial state building. Since it's used for state events, the state pays obviously towards its upkeep. These kinds of myths and misunderstandings seem often to be behind many of the complaints about the monarchy. I have no particular care one way or the other about them (and I'm certainly not celebrating the Jubilee in any way!), and no objections at all to a public debate about the monarchy and republicanism, but it needs to be an honest debate based on facts, not on rumours and unsupportable assertions. Personally, my own feeling is that although theoretically I object in principle to the hereditory method of appointment for a Head of State, I have yet to see a proposed system which would actually be likely to be better in practise, so generally I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't be worth all the hassle of abandoning the monarchy just to create something less good at doing the job! It may not be theoretically a perfect system (there could always be some little tweaks and improvements here and there, of course), but it generally works OK, and could very easily be a whole lot worse, so why bother worrying about it?! Edited to add: As for the Jubilee, although I personally see no reason to go around celebrating and waving flags and all that, I don't think it unreasonable for someone who has been doing a difficult job reasonably well for 60 years (with no real hope of ever leaving it, apart from through death!) to want to mark the occasion, and for others to want to congratulate them on it. If that includes a bit of pointless pomp and ceremony for those people to enjoy (and they do enjoy such things), that's fine by me.
This. The whole celebrity cult / circus reminded me of Diana's funeral. Flags hanging outside of the houses of people who I know for a fact don't care about the Royal Family any more than they did about Diana the day before she died. It just seems at best yet another cynical excuse to "let oneself go" (a hallmark of the modern English) and have a party and a drink (not that the English need an excuse) and at worst some half-hearted attempt to remind ourselves that we actually used to be a country with a distinct culture, tradition and purpose. But this Britain, which was already in decline at the time of the coronation, is now as forgotten a memory as Atlantis. I've even had people call me non-patriotic for saying this. These are the same people who define patriotism as supporting 11 semi-literate thugs kicking a little ball around a pitch.
