[Geneve]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

What I loved were the valiant efforts of the presenters (both of Olympic and Jubilee coverage) to insist that the Queen was loving every minute of it - before cutting to shots of her with a face like a pug dog being given a prostate exam. On the comedy value of the juxtaposition alone, I could almost turn monarchist!

If I was 87 and cold, staying up till 12am to watch opening ceremony etc etc Id have a face like a slapped arse too!

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Geneve

If I was 87 and cold, staying up till 12am to watch opening ceremony etc etc Id have a face like a slapped arse too!

So would I, and because of that, I don't think it right that we still have a system which insists that an octogenarian does it by virtue of being Head of State until her death.

[Nosnikrapl]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

So would I, and because of that, I don't think it right that we still have a system which insists that an octogenarian does it by virtue of being Head of State until her death.

For someone who hates the monarchy as much you do you don't half spend a hell of a lot of time posting about them on a silly forum. Change that you advocate endlessly isn't achieved by being a warrior on a keyboard.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Again - you acknowledge how awful this life (even with its army of servants and aides) is, but you're all too happy for an 86 year old to do the job with no option of retirement?

If she's happy to do the job till she shuffles off the old mortal coil, then who are we to say otherwise? She has a deeply held Christian faith and her Coronation vows are something she doesn't take lightly. i.e - she reigns until she dies, unless something happens to prevent it.

Originally Posted by bookaddict

We are denied the chance to vote for our Head of State. The Queen is the head of state, not the Prime Minister. We can vote for whatever political party we want, but we have no say over who our Head of State is. I think that's wrong, although I have no issue with any of the Royals on a personal level. I certainly wouldn't want to swap places with them.

It seems to be a system which has served us OK for nearly 1000 years. For all it's faults I really don't see that any other system is better, and as the majority of the people haven't started clamouring for a republic, it seems most of us are quite happy with the system as it stands

Originally Posted by Sambda

She didn't do it occasionally - she was doing it every time a shot was shown of her. I can reasonably conclude from that she was looking like that for most, if not all, of the time she was there.

Face it, that scowl is not a once-or-twice-only thing; it has become her de rigueur public expression.

You can 'reasonably conclude'? Were you there? The camera wasn't on her for the whole event, so I expect there were times when she was smiling, but the cameras just happened to focus on her when she wasn't. Even the most miserable sod has to crack a smile sometime. I've seen her smiling many times so perhaps it's just you that wants to make her out to be a misery.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Nosnikrapl

For someone who hates the monarchy as much you do you don't half spend a hell of a lot of time posting about them on a silly forum. Change that you advocate endlessly isn't achieved by being a warrior on a keyboard.

Ah, so you've slightly tweaked your futile attempt at claiming that I shouldn't be interested in the monarchy at all? It must have somewhat confounded you that one can hold strong opinions about (and therefore show an interest in) our political and governmental set-up without actually liking or supporting it. By your logic, shouldn't you be standing outside Buck House waving a flag 24/7 rather than wasting your time on this 'silly forum'? You have absolutely no idea what I do or do not do to advocate change beyond the DS forums, incidentally.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

It seems to be a system which has served us OK for nearly 1000 years. For all it's faults I really don't see that any other system is better, and as the majority of the people haven't started clamouring for a republic, it seems most of us are quite happy with the system as it stands

Clearly untrue, or we would have never have had the Magna Carta or the Civil War or the Glorious Revolution or the Great Reform Act. In fact, in the past, 'monarchy' has served us so badly we've had centuries upon centuries of eroding its power and attempting to erode its mystique more and more, to the extent that the dynasty which has occupied the throne for the last couple of hundred years has only done so by Act of Parliament.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Clearly untrue, or we would have never have had the Magna Carta or the Civil War or the Glorious Revolution or the Great Reform Act. In fact, in the past, 'monarchy' has served us so badly we've had centuries upon centuries of eroding its power and attempting to erode its mystique more and more, to the extent that the dynasty which has occupied the throne for the last couple of hundred years has only done so by Act of Parliament.

Of course, no system is totally without its faults, but you're talking about hundreds of years ago when the Monarchy ruled by Divine Right and change by the people was almost impossible. Magna Carta wasn't the wonderful thing it's made out to be anyway as it did very little for the ordinary people and a lot for the aristocracy.

It's surely a good thing that monarchy has its mystique eroded in any case. It wouldn't be a good thing these days if Liz thought she only ruled because 'God' said she should.

[Semierotic]

The UK has a fetish for a romanticised past and the traditions that entails. It's a sentimental mindset that is good for the monarchy's continued existence.

[woot_whoo]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

Of course, no system is totally without its faults, but you're talking about hundreds of years ago when the Monarchy ruled by Divine Right and change by the people was almost impossible. Magna Carta wasn't the wonderful thing it's made out to be anyway as it did very little for the ordinary people and a lot for the aristocracy.

It's surely a good thing that monarchy has its mystique eroded in any case. It wouldn't be a good thing these days if Liz thought she only ruled because 'God' said she should.

Nevetheless, the Magna Carta was the foundation upon which the tenets of English (later British) republicanism were founded.

I would say it's a very good thing that monarchy has had its mystique eroded, but do believe that this mystique hasn't been dispelled for everyone. Heck, I'd even point out that the more we can expose the royals as real people (nude Harry notwithstanding), the more apt it becomes to question their primacy: after all, why the need for this one, Parliament-chosen bloodline to reign? The main reason (IMO) that Britain (and other countries with constitutional monarchies) retain their royals is because they did not go through the turmoil of having a republic forced by bloody revolution; rather, our histories coincided with increasing reform and gradual reductions in the powers of the monarch by democratic or parliamentary means. However, whilst some might see the monarchy we have left (and the resultant abdication of executive power to central government) as the 'ideal' (or at least the best out of the alternatives), I tend to see it simply as a residual element of the past which our historical tendency towards maturity and progression will eventually erode completely. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but I do think the celebrity-monarchy we have at the moment is pretty pointless, and serves itself and the political elite (who after all, benefit from its lack of visible power) more than the people. It's interesting (to me, anyway) that Charles plans on a semi-Presidential Kingship (without people being allowed to vote, of course) in which he can speak out politically and jettison the ideal of neutrality in a way the current Queen has been careful not to do.

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

Nevetheless, the Magna Carta was the foundation upon which the tenets of English (later British) republicanism were founded.

I would say it's a very good thing that monarchy has had its mystique eroded, but do believe that this mystique hasn't been dispelled for everyone. Heck, I'd even point out that the more we can expose the royals as real people (nude Harry notwithstanding), the more apt it becomes to question their primacy: after all, why the need for this one, Parliament-chosen bloodline to reign? The main reason (IMO) that Britain (and other countries with constitutional monarchies) retain their royals is because they did not go through the turmoil of having a republic forced by bloody revolution; rather, our histories coincided with increasing reform and gradual reductions in the powers of the monarch by democratic or parliamentary means. However, whilst some might see the monarchy we have left (and the resultant abdication of executive power to central government) as the 'ideal' (or at least the best out of the alternatives), I tend to see it simply as a residual element of the past which our historical tendency towards maturity and progression will eventually erode completely. Perhaps not in my lifetime, but I do think the celebrity-monarchy we have at the moment is pretty pointless, and serves itself and the political elite (who after all, benefit from its lack of visible power) more than the people. It's interesting (to me, anyway) that Charles plans on a semi-Presidential Kingship (without people being allowed to vote, of course) in which he can speak out politically and jettison the ideal of neutrality in a way the current Queen has been careful not to do.

That's something that might well come in time, but tbh, I can't see Charles having anything less than what his mother has now. It's all well him saying let's have a semi-presidential Kingship, where he can speak out, but actually putting it into action is another thing. At heart I think he's all hot air and in reality he's just as much a traditionalist as his mother, and nothing much will change when and if he becomes King.

Any real change might happen with William, but as I won't be around to see it I'll never know.

[Becky Sharpe]

To bring the tone of the thread back down again: "My wild night with naked Harry": Vegas party girl tells all about her "drunken fumble" with the crown jewels http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-vegas-1296671

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by Becky Sharpe

To bring the tone of the thread back down again: "My wild night with naked Harry": Vegas party girl tells all about her "drunken fumble" with the crown jewels http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...-vegas-1296671

Doesn't sound as if he had the wherewithal to play hide the sausage as he was too pi$$ed, so no paternity suits to come!

[Fashion]

Bit disgraceful of Harry, if he was a girl he'd be called every name under the sun. But just because he's a guy and doesn't have as much equal standing as William, people should see it as boys will be boys...no chance

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by Sambda

She didn't do it occasionally - she was doing it every time a shot was shown of her. I can reasonably conclude from that she was looking like that for most, if not all, of the time she was there.

Face it, that scowl is not a once-or-twice-only thing; it has become her de rigueur public expression.

Shock, horror! Queen smiles!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...and-Games.html

[Becky Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

Shock, horror! Queen smiles!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...and-Games.html

Maybe she's taken a tip[ple] from her late mother

[Saltydog1955]

Originally Posted by Becky Sharpe

Maybe she's taken a tip[ple] from her late mother

Yep.
Harry may have had a bottle or four that night too.

[Sambda]

Originally Posted by Saltydog1955

Shock, horror! Queen smiles!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...and-Games.html

I think Prince Philip has just let out a fart and found he's followed through.

[katmobile]

Originally Posted by woot_whoo

What I loved were the valiant efforts of the presenters (both of Olympic and Jubilee coverage) to insist that the Queen was loving every minute of it - before cutting to shots of her with a face like a pug dog being given a prostate exam. On the comedy value of the juxtaposition alone, I could almost turn monarchist!

I agree - I don't know if she's worried about Phil the Greek who seems to have been unwell a lot this year but she doesn't seem to have joined any of the special events this year - neither the Jubilee events or the Olympics much. Admitttedly most of the music probably isn't her cup of tea but she has looked a bit grumpy a lot of time. I keep joking that old Phil is faking illness to get out of going to things or at least is relived that he has to go into hospital rather than face them.

[spooked]

This made me chuckle

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/838/harryri.jpg/

[Stockingfiller]

At least Harry is carrying on the royal tradition of wandering willyness. He'll probably get a medal for it.