Strangely ironic

..that the Queen should be reading some statement about a 'fair system'' when all the time she has that bloomin great diamond in that bloomin silly crown that she had balenced on her regal head blinking at us in the camera flashbulbs. Nice touch Queenie.

..that the Queen should be reading some statement about a 'fair system'' when all the time she has that bloomin great diamond in that bloomin silly crown that she had balenced on her regal head blinking at us in the camera flashbulbs. Nice touch Queenie.

TBF, she reads them; she doesn't write them.

Things will never be "fair" whilst someone "reigns over us" on the basis of their birth .

TBF, she reads them; she doesn't write them.

Ah but she chooses to read them, ergo she supports and agrees with them. After all, it is 'my government' of whom she speaks.

fwiw I have no problem with Fergie touting her ability to introduce people to these bloodsuckers, fair play to her, always had a soft spot for the old toe-sucker.

Mmmmmmmmmm, but unless we radically change our system, someone like the queen is needed or the constitution will soon fall to pieces. That's the Westminster Model for you, like it or loathe, it's the way it is and unless you want a quasi-presidential system like France, then shhhhh shhhh.

The Monarchy is good for tourism and income from that exceeds the cost of the civil list

Who knew hamster is in fact John Lennon.

Who can honestly say that they don't enjoy watching an old Queen bedecked in jewels, every now and again?

Eh?

when you see all the pomp and ceremony on display, it shows we still have an identity and heritage left

what does ruin it is whenyou get someone from the great unwashed holding some sort of protest in the centre of London in a tent and a whippet on a piece of string

when you see all the pomp and ceremony on display, it shows we still have an identity and heritage left

 

what does ruin it is whenyou get someone from the great unwashed holding some sort of protest in the centre of London in a tent and a whippet on a piece of string

Is this another of Tracey Emin's works?

The Monarchy is good for tourism and income from that exceeds the cost of the civil list

No, the Palaces and parks are good for tourism., as are the troops in their parade uniforms. Plenty of republics around Europe have their heritage on display for tourists, without the richest spongers in the world having to be there as well. There's more German blood in their veins than British, and the only useful purpose Liz is currently serving is keeping Chas off the throne.

No, the Palaces and parks are good for tourism., as are the troops in their parade uniforms. Plenty of republics around Europe have their heritage on display for tourists, without the richest spongers in the world having to be there as well. There's more German blood in their veins than British, and the only useful purpose Liz is currently serving is keeping Chas off the throne.

Is that an 'agree' or a 'disagree' ?

Ah but she chooses to read them, ergo she supports and agrees with them. After all, it is 'my government' of whom she speaks.

 

fwiw I have no problem with Fergie touting her ability to introduce people to these bloodsuckers, fair play to her, always had a soft spot for the old toe-sucker.

Wrong. As head of state, the Queen reads the speech prepared by the government. She does not necessarily agree with it. Pretty basic concept!

Wrong. As head of state, the Queen reads the speech prepared by the government. She does not necessarily agree with it. Pretty basic concept!

Pretty much, the Queen is obliged to read them and she is obliged to accept the forming of a new government from whatever party has the majority - it's in the (invisible) constitution.

Also dune, Badger is right about their blood line. You do know they changed their name during WW1 to Windsor because the house was called Saxe-Coburg!?!?!

The Monarchy is good for tourism and income from that exceeds the cost of the civil list

Would the tourists stop coming if we abolished the Monarchy?

Nobody is suggesting knocking down the Palace, so it'll still be there for the tourists to look at.

Would the tourists stop coming if we abolished the Monarchy?

 

Nobody is suggesting knocking down the Palace, so it'll still be there for the tourists to look at.

It works for the French!

Pretty much, the Queen is obliged to read them and she is obliged to accept the forming of a new government from whatever party has the majority - it's in the (invisible) constitution.

 

Also dune, Badger is right about their blood line. You do know they changed their name during WW1 to Windsor because the house was called Saxe-Coburg!?!?!

The same applies to the Battenbergs becoming the Mountbattens.

I find it slightly strange that in this day and age our head of state is determined by a fate of birth, and that the revenue tourists bring in is used a defence of that. If Roman Abramavitch agreed to donate more money than the royal family generate,( I know he's Russian, but aren't the present lot German?) should we let him "reign over us". Surely there's a principle involved, you either agree with the principle or not, money shouldn't enter into it.

Things will never be "fair" whilst someone "reigns over us" on the basis of their birth .

It just goes to prove, you can never judge a book by its cover, I am in agreement with you 100%, not sure how long it will last though :-)

The Monarchy is good for tourism and income from that exceeds the cost of the civil list

Ever visited Versaille? Can't imagine it being any better with whole wings closed due to an incument taking a bath, I'd actually argue that it would in fact be a bad day out with them in situ and imagine the security costs??

And fwiw some of my best friends are German.

when you see all the pomp and ceremony on display, it shows we still have an identity and heritage left

 

what does ruin it is whenyou get someone from the great unwashed holding some sort of protest in the centre of London in a tent and a whippet on a piece of string

We'd still have heritage dd.

hth

Identity? I sincerely hope that no-one I ever meet thinks of me as one of her subjects, I am not.

Just to clarify (although I may be wrong), the current head of the house of Saxe Coburg is Andreas. The Quenn is an imposter who even monarchists need to accept is only there due to 'agreements' made without either consulatation nor agreement with her 'subjects'.

Regarding income generation, there would be no bigger moment in World history, no greater TV audience and no bigger talking point for at least a couple of centuries to come than we would get if the TV cameras covered Lizzie being driven down The Mall to the Trinity Place and ....... Sponsored by MacDonalds.

Just to clarify (although I may be wrong), the current head of the house of Saxe Coburg is Andreas. The Quenn is an imposter who even monarchists need to accept is only there due to 'agreements' made without either consulatation nor agreement with her 'subjects'.

.

Queen Victoria, whose first langauge was German, was the eldest legitimate child of the 4th son of 'mad' George III, and came to the throne when her uncle, of sorts, William IV died without a legitimate heir. Her eldest son reigned as Edward VII, the only British monarch to be recorded as from the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha because his son, George V, changed the name to Windsor in 1917, ( at the same time his relatives the Battenbergs changed their name to Mountbatten ).

As we all know, Lillibet effectively came to the throne by virtue of Edward 8th's infatuation with a twice divorced american.

Queen Victoria, whose first langauge was German, was the eldest legitimate child of the 4th son of 'mad' George III, and came to the throne when her uncle, of sorts, William IV died without a legitimate heir. Her eldest son reigned as Edward VII, the only British monarch to be recorded as from the house of Saxe-Coburg Gotha because his son, George V, changed the name to Windsor in 1917, ( at the same time his relatives the Battenbergs changed their name to Mountbatten ).

As we all know, Lillibet effectively came to the throne by virtue of Edward 8th's infatuation with a twice divorced american.

Exactly.

what is wrong with mixin it up with our european brothers..?

Would the tourists stop coming if we abolished the Monarchy?

 

Nobody is suggesting knocking down the Palace, so it'll still be there for the tourists to look at.

They wouldn't stop coming, but undoubtedly their numbers would decline if we did away with all of those quaint customs that are associated with the pomp and ceremony that is rooted in our history. If the monarchy is an irelevance to modern Britain, then you might as well do away with the trooping of the colour, horseguards parade, those archaic Hussars and Lancers uniforms circa the Crimea War, Busbies, judges and barristers wearing horsehair wigs, etc.

So who wants President Blair as an alternative?

The monarchy is largely titular, with little real power. Liz does a good job of flying the flag for Britain around the World, for comparatively little cost. Phil would too, if he could be told to keep his mouth shut.

.......then you might as well do away with the trooping of the colour, horse guards parade, those archaic Hussars and Lancers uniforms circa the Crimea War, Busbies, .......

Why ?

France has the Garde Republicaine, Greece has the Evzones, even the Vatican has the Swiss Guard.

They wouldn't stop coming, but undoubtedly their numbers would decline if we did away with all of those quaint customs that are associated with the pomp and ceremony that is rooted in our history. If the monarchy is an irelevance to modern Britain, then you might as well do away with the trooping of the colour, horseguards parade, those archaic Hussars and Lancers uniforms circa the Crimea War, Busbies, judges and barristers wearing horsehair wigs, etc.

I would wager that there will be a larger global audience for the events at Horseguards on 12th August 2012 than there will be for trooping the colour 2012.

Which just goes to show what can be achieved with just a little bit of 'thinking outside the box'.

Why ?

France has the Garde Republicaine, Greece has the Evzones, even the Vatican has the Swiss Guard.

Precisely my point. It is all part of the pomp and ceremony, purely for show to the tourists. The truth of the matter is that those historic uniforms have a lot more glamour to them than the modern equivalents.

I would wager that there will be a larger global audience for the events at Horseguards on 12th August 2012 than there will be for trooping the colour 2012.

 

Which just goes to show what can be achieved with just a little bit of 'thinking outside the box'.

Which is it? The closing Olympic ceremony, the start of the grouse shooting season, or the predicted end of the World?

Precisely my point. It is all part of the pomp and ceremony, purely for show to the tourists. The truth of the matter is that those historic uniforms have a lot more glamour to them than the modern equivalents.

But you linked the ceremony to the presence of the monarchy, inferring that without the latter we might as well drop the former. My point is that republics manage the ceremonial perfectly well, and tourism thrives.

But you linked the ceremony to the presence of the monarchy, inferring that without the latter we might as well drop the former. My point is that republics manage the ceremonial perfectly well, and tourism thrives.

we are not a republic..maybe THAT is part of the attraction..being different from the rest

No, the Palaces and parks are good for tourism., as are the troops in their parade uniforms. Plenty of republics around Europe have their heritage on display for tourists, without the richest spongers in the world having to be there as well. There's more German blood in their veins than British, and the only useful purpose Liz is currently serving is keeping Chas off the throne.

Are you mad? Are you genuinly trying to pretend that people come here to see troops parade? The whole world is aware of the Queen of England, she is one of the most famous queens of all time, they even made a simpsons episode out of her, Americans dont sit on their planes thinking 'oh I cant wait to see the troops parade around' ...they think, 'I cant wait to see Buckingham Palace, its where the Queen lives'

We need OUR monarchy it is part of OUR heritage and it saddens me that there's so many people (mostly wishy washy people who dont live in the real world) who would be happy to see us lose our heritage and just become some sort of grey country with no ...

But the tourists don't get to SEE the monarch, do they.

When I go to cities in other countries, I go to look at the history. For example, in Athens, it's the Acropolis, the Parthenon and even the Parliament building with its guards in frocks!

If we no longer had a monarchy, tourists would still go to the Tower of London and Buckingham Palace because of our history.

Lots of things are part of our history; not all of them fill us with pride.

thats not the point, if the queen didnt live there it wouldnt have the appeal, the queen gives the building its status

Are you mad? Are you genuinly trying to pretend that people come here to see troops parade? The whole world is aware of the Queen of England, she is one of the most famous queens of all time, they even made a simpsons episode out of her, Americans dont sit on their planes thinking 'oh I cant wait to see the troops parade around' ...they think, 'I cant wait to see Buckingham Palace, its where the Queen lives'

 

We need OUR monarchy it is part of OUR heritage and it saddens me that there's so many people (mostly wishy washy people who dont live in the real world) who would be happy to see us lose our heritage and just become some sort of grey country with no ...

thats not the point, if the queen didnt live there it wouldnt have the appeal, the queen gives the building its status

So, you wouldn't go to the Louvre, or Versailles in Paris; or the Winter Palace in St Petersburg, or even the Kremlin, because the respective royal families are no longer there.

How many tourists go to Horse Guards to stand next to the horses, as compared to standing next to the Queen ? How many watch the changing of the Guard, as opposed to watching the Queen ?

The royal family are an historical anachronism, and their continued presence ensures that this country is forever trying to live on past glories.

Also, AFAIK, I actually DO live in the real world. ( Though by the look of it, not necessarily the same one as you ;-) )

The fact that our monarchy is still working makes it living history that is the pull for tourists.

All those republicans are just chippy people; I mean do you really feel 'ruled over'?. The Queen brings in more revenue than she spends and I enjoy the odd Jubiliee celebration. I like all the pomp and ceremony; it makes us stand out from all those bland European parliaments.

Ask yourself the question do you really think you will wake up feeling any happier or better if we get rid of the Queen? Get passionate about things that will make a diffrenece to your lives.

Get passionate about things that will make a diffrenece to your lives.

Like voting for Sir Rickie for SSN Goal of the Season!!!

Text VOTE D to 84408

or Red button on Sky.

Ask yourself the question do you really think you will wake up feeling any happier or better if we get rid of the Queen? .

YES !

YES !

You and that awful Gary Neville!

But you linked the ceremony to the presence of the monarchy, inferring that without the latter we might as well drop the former. My point is that republics manage the ceremonial perfectly well, and tourism thrives.

The linkage was in response to comments that the monarchy was an anachronism in a modern day society. Therefore it follows logically that all of the other pomp and outdated uniforms are also an anchronism too. Or don't you wish to be consistent in your views?

You get places around the World where there are particular events that tourists go to especially, like the bull-running in Pamplona, or the Palio in Sienna. Undoubtedly there are many tourists who come over here to coincide with those events where the Queen is featured in some ceremonial capacity too. And they don't wish to see her in some ordinary Mercedes or Rolls Royce limousine wearing her pearls and twin-set either. They want to see the ornately gilded State Coach with liveried footmen and Liz wearing her bling jewellery.

And just to counter your argument that plenty of Republics manage their ceremonies quite well, which ones come anywhere near ours?

We cannot just get rid of them so the argument is redundant. However, only a fool, usually a tory, believes that tourists wouldn't still come to see all the trappings if the royals weren't there.

And they don't wish to see her in some ordinary Mercedes or Rolls Royce limousine wearing her pearls and twin-set either. They want to see the ornately gilded State Coach with liveried footmen and Liz wearing her bling jewellery.

 

Her? I thought they were ours?

They don't even allow us dirty commoners to see the real ones (allegedly) when we go to the Tower!

fwiw

the ceremony of the keys is a good one to attend, on each night and FREE at The Tower. Go when it's dark, take a kiddie and be taken back in time.

I hope that people don't think that by dissolving the monarchy all of us antis want shot of the whole lot? I personally would keep most of it, therefore maintaining an income stream yet reducing the outgoings. Is this not just good business sense? Canb someone tell us the actual monetary value of the royals after deducting all costs; security, loss of rental income, transport, advisers, speech writers, free schooling etc. enc?

People seem happy that we are ruled and reigned over, by someone on the basis of their attraction to, and help for, the tourist industry. I prefer to stick to the basic prinicple that everyone is born equal, that you shouldn't discriminate against someone on the basis of sex (male heir's first) relegion (no catholics allowed), or the fact that your German ancestors managed to kill, rob and maim their way to the crown.

It seems really strange to me that everyone is banging on about an elected house of Lords and getting rid of the Hereditary peers, but there's no difference whatsoever in the Queen's status.

People seem happy that we are ruled and reigned over, by someone on the basis of their attraction to, and help for, the tourist industry. I prefer to stick to the basic prinicple that everyone is born equal, that you shouldn't discriminate against someone on the basis of sex (male heir's first) relegion (no catholics allowed), or the fact that your German ancestors managed to kill, rob and maim their way to the crown.

 

It seems really strange to me that everyone is banging on about an elected house of Lords and getting rid of the Hereditary peers, but there's no difference whatsoever in the Queen's status.

How Lord Duckhunter does this impact on your life. Do you really feel 'ruled over'? If you do you are a little bit sensitive.

The Queen has so much power in theory because we never had a revolution. If she ever tried to use it she would be on her way.

Her? I thought they were ours?

 

They don't even allow us dirty commoners to see the real ones (allegedly) when we go to the Tower!

 

fwiw

the ceremony of the keys is a good one to attend, on each night and FREE at The Tower. Go when it's dark, take a kiddie and be taken back in time.

 

I hope that people don't think that by dissolving the monarchy all of us antis want shot of the whole lot? I personally would keep most of it, therefore maintaining an income stream yet reducing the outgoings. Is this not just good business sense? Canb someone tell us the actual monetary value of the royals after deducting all costs; security, loss of rental income, transport, advisers, speech writers, free schooling etc. enc?

They cost you £1.58 I think a year before you take into account the revenue they bring in. Thats basically a half.

How Lord Duckhunter does this impact on your life. Do you really feel 'ruled over'? If you do you are a little bit sensitive.

 

Does Nick Griffin's refusal to allow blacks into the BNP impact my life? No, is it wrong? of course.

Does having international rules on Human rights impact on my life? no, shall we abolish them then?

MP's expenses, that didn't have much impact on my life, but I still think they were wrong.

I employ people and if I sacked them for being a Catholic, or didn't promote them because they were a female, the law would come down on me like a ton of bricks and yet I'm expected to bow and scrape to a posh old biddy whose german forefathers killed, maimed and cheated their way to the British throne?

Does Nick Griffin's refusal to allow blacks into the BNP impact my life? No, is it wrong? of course.

 

Does having international rules on Human rights impact on my life? no, shall we abolish them then?

 

MP's expenses, that didn't have much impact on my life, but I still think they were wrong.

 

I employ people and if I sacked them for being a Catholic, or didn't promote them because they were a female, the law would come down on me like a ton of bricks and yet I'm expected to bow and scrape to a posh old biddy whose german forefathers killed, maimed and cheated their way to the British throne?

Exactly - the whole point is that you should be addreessing issues like these. Things that ultimately matter.

The head of state matters.