Thread: Britain Celebrates Queen's Jubilee

What a farce. Why would anyone celebrate for a family that never earnt a penny in their own right but just took from everyone over the last few centuries. The Royals have stolen peoples land to amass the fortune they have today. I for one will not be celebrating '60 glorious years.' Yeah, f**king glorious for the Queen but not for us.

Its funny but someone who takes handouts from the state is labelled a scrounger but its okay for the Queen to get state money. Is Buckingham palace a council house? I guess in a way it is.

Off with 'er 'ead!

Sixty years of service in the same job is commendable, and it's bread and circuses for the "In it together" masses.

She costs each person in the UK 66p per year far less than she used to! and for that she is still working at 86. Sure her situation belongs to a different time but as I noticed in a recent documentary she has always worked exceedingly hard particularly concerning the Commonwealth. She is a major tourist attraction for London and is able as Head of State with no powers to fulfil a position no one else can.

Royalty can have no claim to being superior. Mass media has filled us all in on that and yes it is old fashioned but for 66p per year and still working at 86 with the gennuine commitment she has put in to a job she did not choose, I think the UK gets it's money back. I have known two people who met her, one being my daughter, just a shake of the hand you know, but both were impressed.

I used to be anti royalty. I probably still am in some ways but I have mellowed

I think she has earned some respect.

I am anti royalist. Why UK should bother about dark age societies. It would be better slogan "Glory to anti royal". Sure some demonstrations anti monarchs, and all the rubish which is not that easy to get rid of. They are rules and we suffer.

Let's hope Czar Vladimir treats you as well...

Originally Posted by alexa

She costs each person in the UK 66p per year far less than she used to! and for that she is still working at 86. Sure her situation belongs to a different time but as I noticed in a recent documentary she has always worked exceedingly hard particularly concerning the Commonwealth. She is a major tourist attraction for London and is able as Head of State with no powers to fulfil a position no one else can.

Royalty can have no claim to being superior. Mass media has filled us all in on that and yes it is old fashioned but for 66p per year and still working at 86 with the gennuine commitment she has put in to a job she did not choose, I think the UK gets it's money back. I have known two people who met her, one being my daughter, just a shake of the hand you know, but both were impressed.

I used to be anti royalty. I probably still am in some ways but I have mellowed

I think she has earned some respect.

I'm a republican at heart......but I look at the arseholes who would likely be candidates in a republican UK....or a republican Scotland....and I think just what is the problem with a monarch who is only a figurehead with no real power. Seems to me much better than yet another sodding politician with no concept of real life for the plebs, but who thinks he does because he does theories and party policies, having any say in Government at all. We have big enough problems with the "not living in the same world as we do" politicians we have already.....a layer on top, who have a right to an opinion we have to take notice of, is a layer too far, imo.

Not in favour of subsidising anyone but the Queen, though....if Andrew thinks his daughters need a quarter of a million pounds to protect them, because he is so important...then he can pay for it....why should we? But then I'd be letting anyone with a gun loose on Tony Blair as well. If he hadn't been a complete arsehole as PM, he wouldn't be needing to worry about his security, would he?

Would kinda like to see, when the Queen goes, an election as to which Royal would take over as the public face of the UK, though..he/she could always be called President, after all, as long as their position in the scheme of things stays the same...ie no influence...the automatic succession allows self-important, arrogant numpties, like Charles and Andrew a foot in the door and a hand in our pockets.

If/when Scotland becomes Independent....I'd vote for Princess Anne as President.......she seems to be by far the most normal of the Royal Family..though that isn't saying a great deal...........but then, is there any such animal as a normal politician either?

Originally Posted by Oddquine

I'm a republican at heart......but I look at the arseholes who would likely be candidates in a republican UK....or a republican Scotland....and I think just what is the problem with a monarch who is only a figurehead with no real power. Seems to me much better than yet another sodding politician with no concept of real life for the plebs, but who thinks he does because he does theories and party policies, having any say in Government at all. We have big enough problems with the "not living in the same world as we do" politicians we have already.....a layer on top, who have a right to an opinion we have to take notice of, is a layer too far, imo.

Not in favour of subsidising anyone but the Queen, though....if Andrew thinks his daughters need a quarter of a million pounds to protect them, because he is so important...then he can pay for it....why should we? But then I'd be letting anyone with a gun loose on Tony Blair as well. If he hadn't been a complete arsehole as PM, he wouldn't be needing to worry about his security, would he?

Would kinda like to see, when the Queen goes, an election as to which Royal would take over as the public face of the UK, though..he/she could always be called President, after all, as long as their position in the scheme of things stays the same...ie no influence...the automatic succession allows self-important, arrogant numpties, like Charles and Andrew a foot in the door and a hand in our pockets.

If/when Scotland becomes Independent....I'd vote for Princess Anne as President.......she seems to be by far the most normal of the Royal Family..though that isn't saying a great deal...........but then, is there any such animal as a normal politician either?

You can see near the beginning of this Draft Constitution the obligations of a future Scottish Monarch http://www.constitutionalcommission....AND%281%29.pdf. I think they are roughly the same as at present with the UK but with a Scottish slant.

I think if Independence is voted for whether to be a Republic or maintain the Monarchy should be voted for in a later Referendum. Possibly at the same time as a referendum on acceptance of the Constitution.

I had never imagined that if we had one it would be any other than the one in the rUK. Charles is not popular there either. However Queen Victoria was not popular either and nor was her successor Edward V11 before he became king. He was always living it up and eating too much and doing nothing but being a playboy. However once he became King he became very popular. He apparently was the one who began to change the image from Ruler to Server of the people. I feel that if a Monarch continues it should be kept in line. If people are not happy with that then I think we are saying it is time to end it after the Queen dies. I understand what you are saying but I would have thought that one of the reasons for keeping a Monarchy would be recognising our historical relationship with the rUK.

Would not a president have more powers? I am not sure. Does Ireland's president have powers other than as merely ceremonial and representing the Irish?

(P.S. that draft Constitution may have changed since I last looked at it. I do not remember the sovereignty having so many duties and current inclusions like being head of the Church of Scotland and it being recognised as the 'leading National Church' but maybe all this is leading to having a discussion of the draft constitution? )