|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Apr 22, 2010 0:56:16 GMT
Queen Elizabeth II of England turned 84 today ... God save the queen She ain't no human being There is no future In England's dreaming God save the queen The fascist regime They made you a moron Potential H-bomb.. cheeerz .. yes i always thought of that "royal" family as a bunch of lazy parasite facist inbreds living on british taxpayers' money .. Gawd - fuck the Queen
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 22, 2010 7:24:12 GMT
what a delightful turn of phrase in conection with an old lady of 84 years... parasite facist inbreds.....mmmmmm i can think of worse things to be.
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 22, 2010 7:49:48 GMT
Well, it could have been put a little more delicately, but yes they are no different from the scroungers at the lower levels, they have a better PR team. Its time she and her brood took their leave.
Mrs Windsor has two birthdays. That's an 'official' birthday, and her, er, birthday. The truth is that this country resembles a mediaeval heritage museum, politically.
When I say [we have to tear it all up and start again..... A (written) constitution, wholly elected bi-cameral parliaments for each nation - England, where is your parliament? - and and a federal body for the islands as a whole. Fixed terms for institutions and office, recall, petition/referendum, and an elected HoS who can do something when parliament goes off the rails - as it clearly has done.]
Posters here proclaim their total allegiance to an anachronism and argue against the democratic alternative. Extraordinary.
The Queen they say has the power to act, and she does, but as an unelected figurehead she dare not move, it would be the Crown against the State all over again. Next up, Charles the Half-Wit. Now, how did he get to be next? He just happened to tumble out of the right womb. Will this Charles lose his head? Why doesn't Lizzie stand aside for him???
It's mediaeval, and the snouts in the trough at parliament like it that way. Only the Court of public opinion keeps them in check.
People here go along with it, democracy it ain't
So do us all a favour, Lizzie love, give it up.
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Apr 22, 2010 9:47:06 GMT
Fret 20 years ago I would have agreed with every word you wrote.
Now, I still agree with most of what you say about the need for reform (as you know, I disagree about the written constitution thing, but that's really not important. I'm not going to take up arms to defend an unwritten one.)
However, I DID change my mind over the monarchy. From being a fervent Republican I am now a lukewarm monarchist.
The main reason is that I believe it's better for armed forces to be fighting for the Crown rather than the state. Less divisive.
And having a Head of State who is hereditary but powerless might be preferable to having a political figure. Look at how Obama divides the USA.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 22, 2010 9:51:30 GMT
Well, it could have been put a little more delicately, i would say a great deal more delicately.... i am very much in favour of a huge shake up..but not to simply exchange one nasty corrupt system for another in fact i think i have made it abundently clear that short of an armed revolution i see no hope for this country what ever [mind you any country that carrys on the way this one did over dianna and then went on to elect blair for two more times really does deserve all it gets]rotton to the core and those who lead encourage the rottoness..anything goes and the sleasier the better.....when people act like carpets they shouldnt be suprised if they get walked on in bloody great dirty boots
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 22, 2010 9:54:37 GMT
having said the above i still prefer a monarchy to an elected dictatorship...for very much the same reasons as riot but when the queen goes to the palace in the sky who knows what will happen....
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 22, 2010 10:01:20 GMT
Fret 20 years ago I would have agreed with every word you wrote. Now, I still agree with most of what you say about the need for reform (as you know, I disagree about the written constitution thing, but that's really not important. I'm not going to take up arms to defend an unwritten one.) However, I DID change my mind over the monarchy. From being a fervent Republican I am now a lukewarm monarchist. The main reason is that I believe it's better for armed forces to be fighting for the Crown rather than the state. Less divisive. And having a Head of State who is hereditary but powerless might be preferable to having a political figure. Look at how Obama divides the USA. Riot, I respect your views on the form the constitution should take, but you know I'm going to disagree with you on that point. I guess that's one for a plebiscite. On the head of state I have to disagree. You agree that the HoS - as is - cannot move. Well, for my money, that is not a good thing at all. The Crown is socially divisive - it is the foundation of the so-called class system, a structure to which I am vehemently opposed. As far as I can see, most armed services do not have a problem fighting for their countries, and I think you've convinced yourself of the Queen and Country myth. Obama can be voted out.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 22, 2010 10:34:45 GMT
the class system is alive and well in countries who do not have a monarchy.....we call it class...all it really is is a series of social levels which make the aceptable norms for those levels.....class is a fairly fluid thing these days seems to depend on income rather than acident of birth
|
|
|
Post by firedancer on Apr 22, 2010 12:25:27 GMT
Like Riot I am a lukewarm monarchist. I cannot see how a constitutional figurehead is worse than electing some 'democratic' president with personal ambition and motives who will say whatever is necessary to be elected.
"Lazy parasite facist inbred"? Maybe.
She may live in grand palaces, have a skivvy run her bath and lay out her clothes and jump to her every whim.....but which of you would swap your life with hers?
Which of you at the age of 84 wants to be 'on duty' every day - carry out 400 official engagements all over the country and two overseas tours (2009) all the while under scrutiny, on best behaviour, being careful to say nothing wrong, permanently diplomatic, constantly entertaining people, unable to answer back when called a lazy parasite facist inbred, not to mention your life being under scrutiny from the media, the public and idiots like us on message boards.
As I said, I am a lukewarm monarchist - only posting this out of a sense of fairness.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 22, 2010 14:00:28 GMT
because that is not the way it works..you get crowned and take the oath and your stuck with it for life....and this queen has a sense of duty..a rare thing these days which one may or may not agree with....and that duty is to do ones duty from acession to death peronally i like the concepts of duty..loyalty..honesty..not running away when times get tough pity some of our politos have not more semce of duty..honour and loyalty..we would be a better country
|
|
|
Post by Mo-DAWG on Apr 22, 2010 19:36:16 GMT
well i might have to add that i have a strong antipathy to all kinds of so called "authority" .. im my own authority and live by my ow rules like "everything goes as long as non gets hurt .. besides i dont have any respect for authority figures .. i dont respect every asshole just for his/her status or cuz they "deserve respect" acc. to some public opinion .. i like to look "behind the veil" ..take the queen, take politicians.. they re doing what they're doing cuz it gives them a lot of advntages or is anyone stupid enough to believe they did it for the sake of it .. and of course they ll tell you they do it out of love for their country/the people .. its PR .. what else should they say??
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Apr 22, 2010 22:12:57 GMT
Well, I'm pretty much anti-authority on most levels myself.
Of course one common mistake people make is to imagine that the royals actually HAVE any kind of authority.
Baldwin (rightly, in my opinion, because of Edward VIII's pro-Nazi views) got rid of him by using his planned marriage to Wallis Simpson as an excuse.
Before that, the last British monarch to have any kind of political clout was William of Orange.
Arguing that the royals represent authority is just missing the mark.
I'm actually a supporter of the monarchy; I find the Queen herself out of touch and irritating though I think she MEANS well.
Charles I've always liked and I loved Diana. (I might post my poem about her at some point, written a day after she died.)
I don't mind if Camilla becomes Queen either.
Charles is one of the BEST representatives of the royal family, He does a LOT of good work and spends a LOT of money through the Princes' Trust helping young people.
Three cheers for Her Majesty - hip, hip, hooray!
(Bet THAT surprised a few people on this board!)
|
|
|
Post by chefmate on Apr 23, 2010 3:07:48 GMT
I like the monarchy but I have the advantage of living in the U.S. and not paying for it
I have read just about every book on the royal family and am utterly fascinated by them.
I think Wills will make a fine King and I think that girl he has been dating for years will be perfect as his wife.....I just forget her name.......Kate I think.
Anyway, like I mentioned on another board, I sent the Queen a valentine a few years ago and got a thank you from one of the ladies in waiting on official Buckingham palace paper so when I show people they ooh and awe over it; it is a special thing to me
I loved the hat Camilla wore on her wedding day; in fact, love alot of the hats the ladies wear over there
I've always liked Charles as I do think he does try to do good things for people
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 23, 2010 7:16:38 GMT
I like the monarchy but I have the advantage of living in the U.S. and not paying for it That's just bloody typical.... I thought the Bill and Monica show was good, though
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 7:58:30 GMT
i wouldnt mind betting she is the one person on the planet who does ""do it"" for the sake of it...simply because that was the role she was born to i can think of nothing more boreing..
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 8:01:08 GMT
I like the monarchy but I have the advantage of living in the U.S. and not paying for it the cost per person to pay for it is very little in fact it brings in via various ways more than it costs giving a proffit...and better the queen than the sleasy blair..cameron..brown..clegg mandleson etc etc
|
|
|
Post by jade on Apr 23, 2010 8:13:08 GMT
I like having a monarchy.
Just as I am relaxed about paying for a few people who do other things than work for a living, I am also relaxed about paying for a family to live in opulence. I still eat, take hoolidays, enjoy recreational pursuits. I might have the price of a pint more if htey went but I would lay odds someone somewhere would rip that from me some other way.
I like the "story" of the monarchy. Charles the Third could be Charles the Green (Like Ethelred the Unready, William the conquerer etc)
Wills is just gorgeous, his mum's looks raising the DNA stakes to Hollywood proportions.
Harry. Well, yes.
Its glamourous and historic and I would not want to lose it.
Yes, they are just people, but the story adds to the national capital in a way that nothing else could.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 8:48:08 GMT
I like the "story" of the monarchy. Charles the Third could be Charles the Green (Like Ethelred the Unready, William the conquerer etc) Wills is just gorgeous, his mum's looks raising the DNA stakes to Hollywood proportions. some how the thought of the spencer DNA does not thrill but certainly the history of the monarchy is writ large upon our nations story...henry the 7-8th the incomparable elizabeth edward longshanks even prinny and his brothers.....hollywood eat your heart out
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Apr 23, 2010 11:39:43 GMT
I like the "story" of the monarchy. Charles the Third could be Charles the Green (Like Ethelred the Unready, William the conquerer etc) Wills is just gorgeous, his mum's looks raising the DNA stakes to Hollywood proportions. some how the thought of the spencer DNA does not thrill but certainly the history of the monarchy is writ large upon our nations story...henry the 7-8th the incomparable elizabeth edward longshanks even prinny and his brothers.....hollywood eat your heart out It ain't just Spencer DNA, mouse..... Surely you've noticed that fly-boy Harry looks more like a certain soldier
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Apr 23, 2010 11:46:09 GMT
some how the thought of the spencer DNA does not thrill but certainly the history of the monarchy is writ large upon our nations story...henry the 7-8th the incomparable elizabeth edward longshanks even prinny and his brothers.....hollywood eat your heart out It ain't just Spencer DNA, mouse..... Surely you've noticed that fly-boy Harry looks more like a certain soldier nah he is the image of his aunty. and one of his cousins ..and very much like earl spencer round the chin /jaw unless they were all playing away.....which really wouldnt come as any suprise given spencer history....harry in skin and looks and behaviour is a spencer pitty wills got the windsor hair...
|
|