|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 6 Apr 02:24
Just been watching the Queen's broadcast to the Commonwealth. In it, she makes reference to her first broadcast to the nation from the same building in October 1940.
Now just think about that...
That was 80 years ago.
Winston Churchill was Prime Minister.
It doesn't matter two hoots whether you are a royalist or not. That is ABSOLUTELY FECKING AWESOME!
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Hail2Crail
Date: Mon 6 Apr 08:04
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Stoo
Date: Mon 6 Apr 08:24
I just shrugged so hard my shoulder popped out. Cheers!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 6 Apr 09:35
Being born then not dying is pretty much the minimum qualification for being a human.
I'll give her that at least, she's probably human.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Buspasspar
Date: Mon 6 Apr 09:47
Looked like Helen Mirren to me :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Mon 6 Apr 11:49
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 6 Apr 11:56
"I'll give her that at least, she's probably human"
Not according to David Icke !!!
Mind you, he also thinks he's the Son of God !!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 6 Apr 14:26
Not according to David Icke !!!
Funnily enough he's the reason I changed "definitely a human" to "probably a human" :D
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Mon 6 Apr 15:03
Oh, dear. What donkeys some of you can be.
This is not an argument about royalty and all that tosh; on a personal basis, I have no time for them or their hangers-on.
When I started this thread, I wasn't discussing the obvious privilege she has enjoyed; that's a given.
What this is about is a woman in her nineties who has continued to play a pivotal role in British life for 80 years. That fact alone is quite remarkable and all the cheap shots in the world will not diminish her historical significance.
She won't be around too much longer and I very much doubt that Britain and the countries of the Commonwealth will have the same desire to retain The Crown once she's gone.
But, after being subjected to the drivel coming out of the mouths of Trump and Johnson and multiple other mediocre world leaders during this very real crisis, there was something quite settling in the words of the Queen.
Perhaps it is the knowledge that she had already lived through many world crises and had spoken similarly reassuring words to our parents and grandparents and even great-grandparents.
Love her or loath her, I believe she deserves our respect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: petrie_pants
Date: Mon 6 Apr 15:06
Agree completely Oz. You don't half get some bitter and twisted sad wee bods on here. The same kind mocking Boris Johnson over the past day or two. I've no time for either the Queen or BJ... but is it too hard to show a morsel of respect at times?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Mon 6 Apr 15:16
Respect does have to be earned though. If she really wanted to earn respect, so could have donated some of her vast personal wealth to help the NHS, rather than taking an extra £369,000,000 of tax payers money last year to give her Palace a bit of a refurbishment
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: veteraneastender
Date: Mon 6 Apr 15:50
Imagine (God Forbid) if she were to fall off the perch during this crisis - only immediate family at the service.
Save a fortune for the tax payer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: BigJPar
Date: Mon 6 Apr 17:42
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: PARrot
Date: Mon 6 Apr 18:35
I am neither for or against the idea of a monarchy. It makes no difference to my life. Millions of people throughout the Commonwealth appear to be happy with it and obviously draw something from it. If it wasn't so it would be gone by now. I dont know where the idea comes from that after the Queen they will lose interest. No they won't.
We have often had the argument on here whether it generates more income than it absorbs and I think it does. If so, and if so many people want it, I am happy to play along. As far as the Queen is concerned I think she has earned our respect. 80 years in the public eye and hardly put a foot wrong.
The idea she doesn't put a shift in is just wrong. Her work might look wonderful on the surface but the pressure she is constantly under is immense.
She deserves respect regardless of our views on the Monarchy.
On another note though, I wonder what the Glesca Loyal thought of her outfit!
Post Edited (Mon 06 Apr 18:36)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Mon 6 Apr 19:12
If it wasn't so it would be gone by now.
Hence all the propaganda and media manipulation.
hardly put a foot wrong
Not that we've been told at least. Apart from that time she disrespected her recently dead daughter in law.
The idea she doesn't put a shift in is just wrong. Her work might look wonderful on the surface but the pressure she is constantly under is immense.
For instance?
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Mon 6 Apr 20:45
Return some of your tax funded assets to the public or sit down on your golden throne and shut it Liz. Whole family and their 'assets' are nothing but a glorified tourist attraction
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Boomer
Date: Mon 6 Apr 21:36
I respect Her Majesty, totally don’t respect most of the comments on this thread but we are all entitled to our own opinions in our society. She imo has put a shift in over the past 80 years or so, yes she has been privileged in many ways but still on duty in her nineties. I am not a great loyalist but admire the lady.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: jake89
Date: Mon 6 Apr 22:25
Don't dislike the Royals but feel they are becoming increasingly irrelevant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 7 Apr 05:23
<<hardly put a foot wrong
Not that we've been told at least. Apart from that time she disrespected her recently dead daughter in law.>>
Just for a moment, Wotsit, imagine that you had been in her place. Diana was your divorced daughter-in-law and she had just been killed in a car smash with her latest boyfriend.
She had spent the past few years attacking your family in public, embarrassing you at every turn as she partied and shagged her way around the community. How would you respond?
It is human nature to instinctively go indoors and look after your grandchildren as best you can in the circumstances. It would have been a bitter pill for you to swallow if you had been forced to go out into the town and display your sorrow for the death of a woman you clearly had good reason to loathe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Tue 7 Apr 09:26
She also disrespeced her grandchildren now that you mention them, something which is still impacting them.
The minutae of their personal interactions are irrelevent though in all honesty. My issue with it all is the basic idea that we should believe that folk are worthy of great wealth, power and respect because of birth right. It's barbaric.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: red-star-par
Date: Tue 7 Apr 21:42
Quote:
OzPar, Tue 7 Apr 05:23
<<hardly put a foot wrong
Not that we've been told at least. Apart from that time she disrespected her recently dead daughter in law.>>
Just for a moment, Wotsit, imagine that you had been in her place. Diana was your divorced daughter-in-law and she had just been killed in a car smash with her latest boyfriend.
She had spent the past few years attacking your family in public, embarrassing you at every turn as she partied and shagged her way around the community. How would you respond?
It is human nature to instinctively go indoors and look after your grandchildren as best you can in the circumstances. It would have been a bitter pill for you to swallow if you had been forced to go out into the town and display your sorrow for the death of a woman you clearly had good reason to loathe.
I often wonder how much old queenie knew in advance about that particular hit. I don't think those responsible for the murder would have been able to do it without sign off from the very top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 7 Apr 22:20
Oh Ma'am please may we lick your butt please ma'am grovel shrlurp, shlurp..... 😂
She couldn't shelve her twisted jealousy and spite even to spare the boys!
Post Edited (Tue 07 Apr 22:45)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Tue 7 Apr 23:10
Ref: OzPar
Date: Mon 6 Apr 02:24
<<< Just been watching the Queen's broadcast to the Commonwealth. In it, she makes reference to her first broadcast to the nation from the same building in October 1940...It doesn't matter two hoots whether you are a royalist or not. That is ABSOLUTELY FECKING AWESOME! >>>
I think you've overstated it there Oz. Is it really awesome - far less 'Ab.. feckin awesome' to have done a wee bit o' broadcasting for eighty years?
What word would you use, for instance, for an atomic explosion, or the deeds undertaken by 'the Few', or the youngest premature baby survival?
Post Edited (Tue 07 Apr 23:26)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Grant
Date: Wed 8 Apr 07:39
When I lived in Windsor it was very evident what she brought to the economy, however just over the bridge in Slough you would never have known.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Wed 8 Apr 13:15
Has she ever been more irrelevant?
The same old hackneyed "we're in this together" garbage, sitting in front of opulence, hiding a nonce son , panama accounts etc...
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: average white par
Date: Wed 8 Apr 13:58
Was getting worried about your absence mate. Everything alright?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parsmad68
Date: Wed 8 Apr 14:03
Quote:
Durt Kobain, Wed 08 Apr 13:15
Has she ever been more irrelevant?
The same old hackneyed "we're in this together" garbage, sitting in front of opulence, hiding a nonce son , panama accounts etc...
You may or may not be correct with some of your comments, But the basic fact and truth of the matter is that we are in this together, whether we like it or not.
Post Edited (Wed 08 Apr 14:03)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Wed 8 Apr 14:20
Quote:
average white par, Wed 8 Apr 13:58
Was getting worried about your absence mate. Everything alright?
Aye man, lost my sign in and no access to the old e mail 😂
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: average white par
Date: Wed 8 Apr 15:10
Cool... welcome back to the jungle...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 8 Apr 15:31
<<I think you've overstated it there Oz. Is it really awesome - far less 'Ab.. feckin awesome' to have done a wee bit o' broadcasting for eighty years?
What word would you use, for instance, for an atomic explosion, or the deeds undertaken by 'the Few', or the youngest premature baby survival?>>
As a badge-wearing supporter of the movement for an Australian republic, I find it mildly amusing that I am sitting here defending the Queen. Nevertheless, that doesn't diminish my admiration for the manner in which she has generally conducted herself in the role of monarch.
As I alluded to in the opening post, this 93-year-old lady is almost certainly the only person on the planet to have broadcast over such an extensive period of time. So the short answer to your question is, yes. That's awesome, aye even fecking awesome when you include the context that Winston Churchill had just been appointed PM when she first did it.
Of course, this is in addition to multiple other considerable achievements in her lifetime; not least being that, since 1953, she has been consulted by every political leader on every major issue to have occurred in the 54 countries of the Commonwealth. These countries combined represent a third of the world's population.
Living in Britain it is so easy to view the monarchy through the narrow prism of self-interest, forgetting that the Queen plays a pivotal role in the constitutions of many nations around the world.
Until I moved to Australia, I was completely unaware of the fact that the Queen is the Head of State in Australia, not our prime minister.
Australia is what's known as a constitutional monarchy, which means that while the Queen doesn't have a say in the day-to-day running of the country, the Australian Constitution gives certain powers to the Queen, through her representative the Governor-General, including giving Royal Assent to all laws passed in the Australian Parliament and starting the process for a federal election.
In addition to the UK and Australia, there are 15 other countries where the Queen is constitutionally Head of State, so those of you arguing that she has nothing to do might want want to chew on that stark reality. Can you begin to imagine the degree of complexity involved in being at the head of all that?
As for the other achievements you cite... yes they too, in their own very different respects, are worthy of that overused adjective, awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 8 Apr 16:09
The Queen had a rather big say in the removal of Australia's Gough Whitlam from office around 1975.
All done through some unelected governor-general as I recall.
I agree with the paradox that although the Queen has limited political power herself, she may be- through longevity- one of the best informed people on the planet. I doubt if anyone in human history has met as many heads of state as she has, especially since she is essentially monolingual; I think she might speak passable French.
Ultimately, in the UK, she represents those who own vast tracts of land. (I think she personally owns chunks of New York herself.) That is why those who do not yet own vast tracts of land, like Prime Ministers, have to ask her permission to make new laws. The land belongs to the aristocracy. The business class are given permission to build companies on that land, for a price naturally. And the working people get to work in these companies, for not quite so fair a price. If that sounds fair enough, then the Queen is a good idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Wed 8 Apr 17:14
<<The Queen had a rather big say in the removal of Australia's Gough Whitlam from office around 1975. All done through some unelected governor-general as I recall. >>
This is one of the reasons I favour an Australian republic. There is much conjecture about the degree of the Queen's involvement in this scandalous affair. The general consensus is that the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, was the main figure behind the coup, but some people believe the blame lay elsewhere, perhaps even Buckingham Palace.
Kerr was a devious egocentric drunk and - much like Trump - was completely unsuitable for his role. Whitlam, in contrast, was a brilliant man, a natural orator with radical socialist plans for Australia. The public loved him; the establishment hated him and wanted him out before he could do them damage. So they to all intent and purpose staged a coup with the help of Kerr, who to everyone's surprise - especially Whitlam's - dismissed the Prime Minister.
All Australian Government papers pertaining to the 1975 dismissal are subject to the 100 years rule, so we are unlikely to learn in our lifetimes the true extent of the Queen's involvement.
As an aside, back in 2000, I was invited to a party up in Sydney to celebrate the retirement of John Coombs, the leader of the powerful Maritime Union of Australia. John had led the union in a long and bitter waterfront strike two years earlier that proved to be a major turning point in Australian industrial relations.
As I milled around the big space, I got called over to join a cluster of folk out on the balcony overlooking Darling Harbour and found to my surprise that I was being introduced to two former Australian Prime Ministers - Bob Hawke and the great Gough Whitlam.
Now there was a moment when I really would have loved a "selfie"...
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Wed 8 Apr 18:33
I’d forgive you for that weakness: I think Whitlam and Hawke were good men who really wanted to make their country a place where everyone could live happily. We’ve had a couple of British premiers who had that natural affinity with the voters- Callaghan and Major- but neither of them possessed much in the way of vision, which Whitlam did.
From the UK it seemed Kerr was effectively carrying out a coup d’etat yet the likes of Clive James saw it more as a source of comic material. Whitlam was disappointed, I think, by the failure of the Australian people to defend not just him as PM, but their independence from colonial oversight. I’m pretty sure the governor-general was appointed by the Queen so there can’t be much doubt that she was complicit in the coup d’etat to some degree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Wed 8 Apr 19:18
An elected president would have, on the other hand, been in a position to remove a head of government during a similar situation without it being much more than a footnote in history.
Such is the power of true legitimacy.
"Who you are and what you feel comes not just from inside you, but from where you are in the power structure"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Wed 8 Apr 19:51
Topic Originator: OzPar like | nolike
Date: Wed 8 Apr 15:31
<<< achievements >>>
Such as?
I googled 'achievements of the queen.'
Top article:"Queen Elizabeth 2: Ten major achievements"
quote:
"Her tenacity displayed during patchy years in the 80s and 90s"
What would that be about? Her own unpopularity? Oh yes a great achievement to improve the chances that her own position as a monarch willl continue to exist by taking lessons in PR !
"Elizabeth II never lets her people down when it comes to communicating heartfelt emotions. "
She's really good at communicating heartfelt emotions. Especially on the big occasion, e.g. death of the mother of her grandchildren. She clearly communicated her complete lack of magnanimity.
You can read the rest of the article if you want to. See if you can find anything in it that isn't self-serving, or is so far above the call of duty or ordinary achievement that it merits being called 'awesome'.
Achievements of Q. Eliz. 2nd
https://www.worldhistoryedu.com/queen-elizabeth-ii-10-major-achievements/
<<< consulted by every political leader on every major issue to have occurred in the 54 countries of the Commonwealth >>>
Consulted - what does that mean? Anything to do with the aristocrats and autocrats self-preservation and advancement society?
<<< a pivotal role in the constitutions of many nations >>>
Such as? Complying with our government's prorogation of our Parliament?
<<< In addition to the UK and Australia, there are 15 other countries where the Queen is constitutionally Head of State, so those of you arguing that she has nothing to do might want want to chew on that stark reality. Can you begin to imagine the degree of complexity involved in being at the head of all that? >>>
What has she, as a Head of State who merely accedes to the 'requests' of Prime Ministers and others who have executive powers, achieved?
<<< As for the other achievements you cite... yes they too, in their own very different respects, are worthy of that overused adjective, awesome. >>>
Overused? You don't say.
Post Edited (Thu 09 Apr 08:52)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Thu 9 Apr 08:32
Yeah, her 5alking about us ALL tightening our belts in front of a gold piano whilst booking a near half billion upgrade of her palace fair tugged at the heartstrings.
Willing to give paedophiles a second chance too, what a treat.
Carole Baskin fed Rasta to a tiger.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: onandupthepars
Date: Thu 9 Apr 10:20
"MOST FOREIGNERS SEE OUR ROYALS AS WE SEE THE KING OF SWAZILAND"
"The monarchy undermines our reputation abroad and is bad for business (even tourism)... The pomp and pageantry of Royalty [represent] Britain as a theme park of Beefeaters, castles and soldiers in bearskins. In short, most foreigners see our royals as we see the King of Swaziland. This is a public relations disaster for our (economically important) efforts to project Britain as a modern democracy, with commercial strengths in modern sectors such as financial services, biotech and new technologies. The Royal Family does not convey the brand that our high-tech exporters want to project."
"Mm Philip, we wonder if one has overdone the boot polish."
" Never mind Lizzie dear, they think we're absolutely feckin' awesome."
ON ACHIEVEMENTS:
"The Royal Family buttress their position with unearned symbols of achievement. They accept posts as Chancellors of universities, debasing the currency of academic merit. They appoint themselves to top military ranks and medals that they have not earned, belittling the work of true military professionals and the memory of those who made genuine sacrifices. They allow themselves to be nominated as patrons of charities, degrading the efforts of those who make genuine contributions and have real expertise."
That's not to mention how the Royal prerogative undermines Parliament etc.
(From 'Six Reasons to Abolish the Monarchy', published 2006, by Owen Barder, a Visiting Professor in Practice at the London School of Economics. Owen was a civil servant for a quarter of a century, working in Number 10, the Treasury and the Department for International Development.)
https://www.owen.org/blog/414/
Post Edited (Thu 09 Apr 10:34)
|
|
|
|
|
|
