HRH Queen Elizabeth 90 yrs old

[The Railway Man]

Not in the slightest.

Fvcking parasite.

 

Whatever your view on the Royal Family this is a pretty ridiculous statement, as people have mentioned her public service has been amazing at times and she still even at this age carries out nearly 300 engagements a year, no way in a million years could any resaonable person describe her as a parasite. (Some of the hangers on certainly are though)

 

If she had "privatised" heerself can you imagine the money she could have made and kept for herself? Can you imagine how much William and Kate could make? Why wouldn't we want to let everyone share in that rather than let them just keep it for themselves like the Kardashians or something...makes no sense.

[Alf Bentley]

Careful what you wish for.

 

 

 

This.

 

In theory, I'd like us to become a republic.

However, if there was a referendum, unless there were cast-iron constitutional guarantees that an elected president couldn't centralise power, I'd vote to keep the monarchy. Imagine a President Farage/Blair/Cameron/Branson/Beckham accumulating ever more power and representing the nation as head of state. 

 

When I was a kid, I used to know all the royal reigns back to Egbert (though England wasn't a single nation then). I could still recite most of them back to 1000 AD, but might struggle with Harthacanute & Harold Harefoot.

 

When I was 10, I made a royal timeline, showing all the reigns, for my bedroom wall. Strange kid, strange adult!   Old Queenie had only done 20 years then and I remember wondering how many she'd manage - and, like the royal Jamie Vardy, she's only gone and broken Victoria's record, hasn't she?

 

I think any lefties who get irate about the monarchy are barking up the wrong tree worrying about the benign relics of the aristocracy, when it's global capital and finance that have the real power.

 

I like the idea of good old Brenda dutifully working the nation (at 90!) with her poker face and dowdy clothes, making polite conversation and studiously not intervening in politics. It combines an unspoken attachment to history with an unself-conscious, unfashionable eccentricity and unintentional humour that expresses a part (though only a part) of what the country is about. 

 

I find her dedication quite moving. Her life would drive me bonkers - meeting all those boring/toadying people and having to curb your opinions. I'd have to adopt the Prince Philip approach and make the odd risqué comment about tartan knickers and slitty eyes to retain my sanity.

 

It's quite odd to think that, if future generations don't get rid of the monarchy, there are currently at least 4 future monarchs out there: Good Queen Bess II, Charles III, William V & George VII. I hope to live to see 3 out of 4, but wouldn't even bank on outliving old Queenie. Maybe Charlie Boy will cause a constitutional crisis by intervening in politics, though, when his turn finally comes?

[Stadt]

The queen is just so inoffensive, whether you like the monarchy or not I find it difficult to understand that anybody could dislike her 

[Buce]

This.

In theory, I'd like us to become a republic.

However, if there was a referendum, unless there were cast-iron constitutional guarantees that an elected president couldn't centralise power, I'd vote to keep the monarchy. Imagine a President Farage/Blair/Cameron/Branson/Beckham accumulating ever more power and representing the nation as head of state.

When I was a kid, I used to know all the royal reigns back to Egbert (though England wasn't a single nation then). I could still recite most of them back to 1000 AD, but might struggle with Harthacanute & Harold Harefoot.

When I was 10, I made a royal timeline, showing all the reigns, for my bedroom wall. Strange kid, strange adult! Old Queenie had only done 20 years then and I remember wondering how many she'd manage - and, like the royal Jamie Vardy, she's only gone and broken Victoria's record, hasn't she?

I think any lefties who get irate about the monarchy are barking up the wrong tree worrying about the benign relics of the aristocracy, when it's global capital and finance that have the real power.

I like the idea of good old Brenda dutifully working the nation (at 90!) with her poker face and dowdy clothes, making polite conversation and studiously not intervening in politics. It combines an unspoken attachment to history with an unself-conscious, unfashionable eccentricity and unintentional humour that expresses a part (though only a part) of what the country is about.

I find her dedication quite moving. Her life would drive me bonkers - meeting all those boring/toadying people and having to curb your opinions. I'd have to adopt the Prince Philip approach and make the odd risqué comment about tartan knickers and slitty eyes to retain my sanity.

It's quite odd to think that, if future generations don't get rid of the monarchy, there are currently at least 4 future monarchs out there: Good Queen Bess II, Charles III, William V & George VII. I hope to live to see 3 out of 4, but wouldn't even bank on outliving old Queenie. Maybe Charlie Boy will cause a constitutional crisis by intervening in politics, though, when his turn finally comes?

Do you honestly believe that she has no political influence, Alf?

No offence, but I think that's naive.

[Guest MattP]

Given after all these years the most the press has ever managed to get off anyone involved in politics is a very mild Eurosceptic comment from the Queen at a dinner party I think it's fair to assume she has little if any political influence.

Charles on the other hand, he can't help himself and with what we know now I would find it very hard to believe he could be impartial amd stay out of it.

[Sharpe's Fox]

This.

 

In theory, I'd like us to become a republic.

However, if there was a referendum, unless there were cast-iron constitutional guarantees that an elected president couldn't centralise power, I'd vote to keep the monarchy. Imagine a President Farage/Blair/Cameron/Branson/Beckham accumulating ever more power and representing the nation as head of state. 

 

Having an elected head of state doesn't mean following the U.S. presidential model, though. Maybe the template set by the ROI would be better? A ceremonial duty with limited constitutional powers who is elected, nominated yet separate from party politics.

[Parafox]

These are some very complex answers to what was a simple question... do continue serfs

[Danno]

Not in the slightest.

Fvcking parasite.

Hopefully will be her last!

[Webbo]

Hopefully will be her last!

You're wishing death on an old lady who's never done you any harm?

[Danno]

You're wishing death on an old lady who's never done you any harm?

It certainly looks that way

[Webbo]

It certainly looks that way

Not unexpected from our moral superiors on the left.

[foxoffderby]

Well done her majesty. I hope she reaches 100 yrs so she can send herself a letter

[Buce]

Not unexpected from our moral superiors on the left.

As expected as the fawning sycophancy coming from the right.

[Alf Bentley]

Do you honestly believe that she has no political influence, Alf?

No offence, but I think that's naive.

 

 

Maybe I am naive, but if she does have political influence, very little of it has leaked to the media.

If she had been trying to exert significant influence, I'm sure we would have heard something about that. We have about Charles (some of whose ideas I agree with - but, as a hereditary royal, he shouldn't intervene in democratic decisions).

 

I'm sure she has subtly expressed certain views via officials or to PMs. I'm not sure exactly what her views would be. I'm guessing an old-fashioned slightly wet conservatism: keep most old traditional, hierarchical structures but move with the tide of history where necessary, "one nation" Christian values of concern for the vulnerable, maintain close bonds between the nations of the UK, with the former colonies in the Commonwealth and with European allies etc. ??

 

It can be overstated, but she did live through WW2, and grew up with a very dutiful (traditional, no doubt, but dutiful) royal father - and a very non-dutiful, politically interventionist loose cannon of a royal uncle (Edward VIII). Maybe I am naive, but I suspect she probably has a strong sense of constitutional duty, seeing the royal family as an institution holding the nation together, maintaining its traditions while slowly moving with the times. I suspect she thinks it would be detrimental to the monarchy and to the nation for her to intervene more than slightly - and I suspect she's right about that.

 

What political influence do you think she has exerted, Buce? Both sides have claimed her support in the EU referendum, but I bet she's too wise to involve herself in that (though I'm sure Philip is a secret saloon bar Kipper!). I can believe that she did express a preference for Scotland remaining in the UK - and can believe the rumours that she had some friction with Thatcher (from a Christian, "one nation Tory" perspective, not a pro-left perspective, of course!).... Macmillan in a tiara!

 

I don't support hereditary power, but think hers is largely symbolic - any influence is minimal, partly by choice and partly through advice. I'd like us to have a democratic head of state some time in the future, but wouldn't rush into it - the plutocratic power exerted over politicians by big business/big finance is a much bigger danger. Our head of state might symbolise hereditary privilege, but she's not controlled by plutocratic power, as a future president might be, if we weren't very careful about the constitutional checks and balances put in place.

[Fox92]

Not bothered about Royalty. 

 

Might play some Sex Pistols.

[The Railway Man]

Hopefully will be her last!

 

Classy, wishing death on old ladies. You must be a really nice bloke.

[Webbo]

As expected as the fawning sycophancy coming from the right.

I'm sorry I don't hate for the sake it.

[The Railway Man]

As expected as the fawning sycophancy coming from the right.

 

Yeah because that's just as bad as wishing death on people isn't it?

[The Doctor]

I'm sorry I don't hate for the sake it.

 

It's quite obviously not for the sake of it but rather because her and her family stand for the concept of hereditary power; flying straight in the face of the idea of a meritocracy. Fair enough she's been a good head of state but it doesn't change that she is just the latest in a line of people who believe that power is a birth-right.

[Alf Bentley]

Having an elected head of state doesn't mean following the U.S. presidential model, though. Maybe the template set by the ROI would be better? A ceremonial duty with limited constitutional powers who is elected, nominated yet separate from party politics.

 

 

Agreed. I wasn't assuming the US or any other model. Certainly, Ireland seems to end up with much better Presidents than it does Taoiseachs (PMs), though I'm not sure precisely what powers they have.

 

My point was that, whatever powers/duties we decided on, we'd need that to be constitutionally watertight. Otherwise, not only would there be the risk of undue influence by different interest groups, but there could be constitutional clashes with the government. Even where they have limited powers (Ireland, Germany, Italy), Presidents tend to be political to some extent, even if only promoting general values. In France, there have been political clashes before between Presidents and PMs.

There are obvious risks in one person accruing too much power, without checks and balances, and in the allocation of powers to different institutions not being clearly defined.

 

Any move from a constitutional monarchy to a republic or other system would require very careful planning. Anyway, very few people want such a change at the moment. That might change after a few months of King Charles III's interventions, of course. King Charleses don't have ended badly before, haven't they.... 

[Webbo]

It's quite obviously not for the sake of it but rather because her and her family stand for the concept of hereditary power; flying straight in the face of the idea of a meritocracy. Fair enough she's been a good head of state but it doesn't change that she is just the latest in a line of people who believe that power is a birth-right.

So you wish death on her as well?

[Buce]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, Alf.

The Royals are an integral part of the establishment, and they all feed at the same trough. They benefit enormously from the Tory controlled media. The propaganda is relentless - a daily dose of what the latest Royal brat has achieved (walking, talking, and a whole list of things that every baby does), or how radiant its mother looks, or how brave Harry is. Who actually wants to know that shit? It's all about brainwashing the proles (highly effective it is too, as some of the nausiating posts on here demonstrate).

None of us know her. Where does this commonly held perception of a 'sweet old lady' come from? It comes from the media, the owners of which are also establishment figures.

I think it beggars belief to say she has no part in the running of the country, particularly under a Conservative government. They're all in it together, striving to maintain the status quo.

[The Doctor]

So you wish death on her as well?

 

Well I didn't say that, but if it helps you ignore the point as to why people don't like her as an entity (rather than her as a person) then go for it.

[The Railway Man]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, Alf.

The Royals are an integral part of the establishment, and they all feed at the same trough. They benefit enormously from the Tory controlled media. The propaganda is relentless - a daily dose of what the latest Royal brat has achieved (walking, talking, and a whole list of things that every baby does), or how radiant its mother looks, or how brave Harry is. Who actually wants to know that shit? It's all about brainwashing the proles (highly effective it is too, as some of the nausiating posts on here demonstrate).

None of us know her. Where does this commonly held perception of a 'sweet old lady' come from? It comes from the media, the owners of which are also establishment figures.

I think it beggars belief to say she has no part in the running of the country, particularly under a Conservative government. They're all in it together, striving to maintain the status quo.

 

[Webbo]

Well I didn't say that, but if it helps you ignore the point as to why people don't like her as an entity (rather than her as a person) then go for it.

You're entitled to dislike the monarchy and want a republic but wishing death on someone while telling the rest of us you believe in compassion and accusing the other side of deliberate cruelty seems a bit much.