Whether she does or not has no bearing on my statement.
Indeed I was talking about the nature of hereditary monarchy; not the Queen or her work ethic.
I do think that most of the 'work' done by any head of state is unnecessary, wasteful and is invented to give the head of state the justification to exist.
Given that the Christmas message is pre-recorded several days in advance and seen by quite a number of people in the broadcasting world before it is transmitted, this doesn't seem a very likely way for any such announcement to be made.
You are correct, the speech is recorded, however, this year there have been no media previews!
Whether she does or not has no bearing on my statement.
Indeed I was talking about the nature of hereditary monarchy; not the Queen or her work ethic.
I do think that most of the 'work' done by any head of state is unnecessary, wasteful and is invented to give the head of state the justification to exist.
Are you suggesting that we should not have a head of state ?
The fact is that we do have a head of state and she carries out the duties of a head of state.
The Queen is only a figurehead and is already farming out most jobs to the others, so it doesn't really matter if she is bedridden on life support. She will be Queen until she doth snuff it.
She is farming out the jobs so that when the hand-over happens, there won't be much change. She is keeping the family firm going whether people want it or not.
Are you suggesting that we should not have a head of state ?
The fact is that we do have a head of state and she carries out the duties of a head of state.
What exactly does "Head of State" mean to you? Obviously a lot as you use it so many times in the above post.
All we actually need is an elected leader: Call that position what you like: Scaremongers like to call it a president and scream "REPUBLIC!" like it's a thing to be alarmed about. An elected leader is fully accountable and can be got rid of, so far better than a bunch of Royal freeloaders that we can't get rid of.
What exactly does "Head of State" mean to you? Obviously a lot as you use it so many times in the above post.
All we actually need is an elected leader: Call that position what you like: Scaremongers like to call it a president and scream "REPUBLIC!" like it's a thing to be alarmed about. An elected leader is fully accountable and can be got rid of, so far better than a bunch of Royal freeloaders that we can't get rid of.
Are you suggesting that we should not have a head of state ?
The fact is that we do have a head of state and she carries out the duties of a head of state.
Definitely. Name me one thing a head of state actually does that is vital let alone worth the money countries spend on them.
I guess we need some kind of Queen to welcome other countries heads of state when they come over on a beano but we could always hire Graham Norton; Eddie Izzard or Paul O'Grady by the hour for that. They would certainly be better value.
It featured on BBC NEWS TELETEXT as being in todays paper?
The BBC doesn't, and never did, have Teletext, it had Ceefax. ITV originally had Oracle, which it shared with Channel 4 until the end of 1992. In 1993 Teletext Ltd, started on ITV, with C4 having 4-Tel (until 2002) and then Four-Text (which ended in 2003).
The BBC now has BBC Red Button (although it was called BBCi until around 2008/9).
Definitely. Name me one thing a head of state actually does that is vital let alone worth the money countries spend on them.
I guess we need some kind of Queen to welcome other countries heads of state when they come over on a beano but we could always hire Graham Norton; Eddie Izzard or Paul O'Grady by the hour for that. They would certainly be better value.
I think Queen Matilda moved over in favour of her son Henry II.
I bet most of you Royalist plebs never even knew we had a Queen Matilda. :D;-):)
She didn't go that willingly and not directly in favour of her son. (She was never crowned apparently She wasn't called Queen but designated Lady of England and Normandy - she was already Empress from marriage )The final agreement was that she let Stephen keet the crown but her son Henry (II) would succeed when Stephen died.
i don't reckon she will abdicate during the message, but maybe give a timeline to stepping aside her health has been weakening in recent years and has reduced her duties passing them onto other members of the family.
She may just decide to say she will step aside in 5 years and gradually pass on ALL her public duties in those 5 years and in the final year just do private meetings with other heads of states etc.
She didn't go that willingly and not directly in favour of her son. (She was never crowned apparently She wasn't called Queen but designated Lady of England and Normandy - she was already Empress from marriage )The final agreement was that she let Stephen keet the crown but her son Henry (II) would succeed when Stephen died.
That's right. She never was officailly a Queen of England as there had never been a Queen of all England before that and they didn't want one then. The first Queen of England was Mary I, the daughter of Henry VIII.
Comments
Whether she does or not has no bearing on my statement.
Indeed I was talking about the nature of hereditary monarchy; not the Queen or her work ethic.
I do think that most of the 'work' done by any head of state is unnecessary, wasteful and is invented to give the head of state the justification to exist.
You are correct, the speech is recorded, however, this year there have been no media previews!
Are you suggesting that we should not have a head of state ?
The fact is that we do have a head of state and she carries out the duties of a head of state.
Having status and money does not make what she does any easier at the age of 88 and I would call what she does work.
She is farming out the jobs so that when the hand-over happens, there won't be much change. She is keeping the family firm going whether people want it or not.
What exactly does "Head of State" mean to you? Obviously a lot as you use it so many times in the above post.
All we actually need is an elected leader: Call that position what you like: Scaremongers like to call it a president and scream "REPUBLIC!" like it's a thing to be alarmed about. An elected leader is fully accountable and can be got rid of, so far better than a bunch of Royal freeloaders that we can't get rid of.
Head of state is Her Majesty.
Other Countries are not so fortunate.
Definitely. Name me one thing a head of state actually does that is vital let alone worth the money countries spend on them.
I guess we need some kind of Queen to welcome other countries heads of state when they come over on a beano but we could always hire Graham Norton; Eddie Izzard or Paul O'Grady by the hour for that. They would certainly be better value.
I think Queen Matilda moved over in favour of her son Henry II.
I bet most of you Royalist plebs never even knew we had a Queen Matilda. :D;-):)
The BBC now has BBC Red Button (although it was called BBCi until around 2008/9).
/pedant
You really do hate them don't you.
Hate who?
She didn't go that willingly and not directly in favour of her son. (She was never crowned apparently She wasn't called Queen but designated Lady of England and Normandy - she was already Empress from marriage )The final agreement was that she let Stephen keet the crown but her son Henry (II) would succeed when Stephen died.
I guess visiting people at christmas is going to be called work then...:D
If you go to the theatre it's time and a half !
It might be
Royalty.
She may just decide to say she will step aside in 5 years and gradually pass on ALL her public duties in those 5 years and in the final year just do private meetings with other heads of states etc.
Well I'm convinced. Thanks SULLA, another great contribution.
That's right. She never was officailly a Queen of England as there had never been a Queen of all England before that and they didn't want one then. The first Queen of England was Mary I, the daughter of Henry VIII.