Gardai prepare plan for Queen's arrival

Fratton Fred

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They were Loyalists and Unionists not Monarchists. They were more interested in the country physically being part of England than swearing loyalty to the Queen.

Parliament set the monarchy up as a figure head of Britain. In the UK you don't pledge loyalty to a flag as you do in the US, or the State as in the UK, but to the Monarch. They are though, all pretty much the same thing.

If the British Monarch disappeared tomorrow, they loyalists would still be loyalists, they would just have to follow a different figurehead.

AudreyHepburn

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Parliament set the monarchy up as a figure head of Britain. In the UK you don't pledge loyalty to a flag as you do in the US, or the State as in the UK, but to the Monarch. They are though, all pretty much the same thing.

If the British Monarch disappeared tomorrow, they loyalists would still be loyalists, they would just have to follow a different figurehead.

Fair enough my mistake. I'd still imagine honouring the Queen was fairly low on their agenda though.

gurramok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They were Loyalists and Unionists not Monarchists. They were more interested in the country being part of England than swearing loyalty to the Queen.

And I hope you aren't comparing the Queen to Al-Qaeda.....people who drove two planes into the twin towers and killed 100s of thousands.

If you don't want her to visit fine but at least give us valid reasons instead of going on about a part of history that is long since over and from which most of us have moved on.

Can you read my posts properly please? Thats the 2nd time you pick up something wrong.

Its a comparison of Al-Qaeda to Loyalists gangs, both are fanatical followers of a figurehead, one been God and the other been the Monarch with a good bit of god thrown in(GSTQ).

A low key visit to the Presidents mansion with a renunciation of violence by her followers is fine, not a parade down the main street, no fecking way due to reasons already outlined.

Donkey Oaty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

errr, I think you are going a bit OTT now.

No one worships HRH.

This is true of the Queen, but not of the Duke of Edinburgh who is in fact worshipped by a tribe in Vanuatu.

Fratton Fred

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Fair enough my mistake. I'd still imagine honouring the Queen was fairly low on their agenda though.

yeah, it is. for "The Queen" read "Great Britain".

It is just patriotism, that's all.

Donkey Oaty wrote: »

This is true of the Queen, but not of the Duke of Edinburgh who is in fact worshipped by a tribe in Vanuatu.

And, I believe, is hero worshipped on After hours for his remarkable ability to put his foot firmly in his mouth:D

Donkey Oaty

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And, I believe, is hero worshipped on After hours for his remarkable ability to put his foot firmly in his mouth:D

Philip just likes putting people at ease by lightening the atmosphere with off-the-cuff quips that shouldn't be taken seriously! That's what his friends say.

He's been to Ireland before, but wasn't surrounded by microphones.

This visit should be good.

Einhard

MajorMax wrote: »

Just because some old German trout wants to do a bit of shopping in Grafton St is no skin off my nose. All tourists are welcome.

I don't know if you're being facetious with this, but this is exactly the kind of attitude we need in this country! A "who gives a shit" indifference, the kind of reaction we have to practically every other head of state in the world. Once we get to that stage, we'll well and truly achievced normalisation with the UK.

Einhard

gurramok wrote: »

She oversaw the Troubles in NI, thats enough responsibility there.

My God, and I thought the royal family were out of touch with reality!! You think the Queen Bess was in operational command of her armed forces in the North?! From a hi-tech situation room in some bunker deep under Buckingham Palace no doubt. The mind boggles. If this kind of nonsense represents the type of argument that will be presented against a visit, then I think it's fairly safe to say that we'll be seeing her within a a year or so.

KeithAFC

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just because something is planned doesn't mean that it's not an atrocity.

Two examples : September 11th & the Invasion of Iraq.

If you didn't support the IRA, it was not an atrocity.

Einhard

Notorious97 wrote: »

i don’t think she should be invited in an official capacity and the tax payer left to pay for her security when we have never received an official apology for everything this country went through.

We received one from the Government with regards to Blood Sunday which was fantastic.

Tony Blair apologised for the Famine, Cameron for Bloody Sunday, and still, almost a hundred years after independence, we're snivelling about not getting more apologies for all the Brits perpetrated. It's bloody embarassing, and doesn't exactly portray a mature, confident society, much as you'd try to argue otherwise.

Im only stating facts and how most republicans feel, again il say it so you don’t miss it that i havent once hinted at the thought i agree with harm coming to her. I think a peaceful protest raising valid objections to this visit it in order. I don’t and wont agree with any riots but im probably being stupid expecting the whole trip to pass off peacefully.

I'd have no problems with a peaceful protest. None whatsoever. But I do object to the notion that violence is somehow justified, or that the victims of such violence have somehow brought it upon themselves, as some have tried to argue here.

A peaceful protest is a mature response, a violent one is obviously no good for anybody concerned as people will be injured and the cost for the clean up will be alot higher.

That's a reasonable position. And just so the only pictures broadcast around the world aren't of sullen (hopefully) or rowdy (possibly) protests to the visit of the head of state of our nearest neighbour, I'll be there waving my little Union Jack.

Einhard

gurramok wrote: »

Why on earth would monarchists don't give a sh1t what their monarch says?

They worship her just like Al-Qaeda worship God.

This is just silly.

gurramok

Einhard wrote: »

My God, and I thought the royal family were out of touch with reality!! You think the Queen Bess was in operational command of her armed forces in the North?! From a hi-tech situation room in some bunker deep under Buckingham Palace no doubt. The mind boggles. If this kind of nonsense represents the type of argument that will be presented against a visit, then I think it's fairly safe to say that we'll be seeing her within a a year or so.

Can you read posts? Where did i say I oppose her visit?

Einhard wrote: »

This is just silly.

Great contribution.

dvpower

gurramok wrote: »

No it wouldn't have stopped the Troubles. It would have saved many lives by denouncing killing in her name by Loyalists who follow her.

Do you honestly believe that if the Queen had asked Loyalists to cease their activities they would have taken a blind bit of notice?

dvpower

gurramok wrote: »

Why on earth would monarchists don't give a sh1t what their monarch says?

They worship her just like Al-Qaeda worship God.

Not a great contribution.

who the fug

What did ye lot do before the QE2 is coming to Dublin threads started for fun

who the fug

dvpower wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that if the Queen had asked Loyalists to cease their activities they would have taken a blind bit of notice?

Well as much notice as the IRA did of John Paul 2

My name is URL

who the fug wrote: »

What did ye lot do before the QE2 is coming to Dublin threads started for fun

I for one pointed out the lack of punctuation in other people's posts, but have since given that hobby up

who the fug

My name is URL wrote: »

I for one pointed out the lack of punctuation in other people's posts, but have since given that hobby up

Sounds like more fun

gurramok

dvpower wrote: »

Do you honestly believe that if the Queen had asked Loyalists to cease their activities they would have taken a blind bit of notice?

Yes, a leader showing leadership if only she did.

dvpower wrote: »

Not a great contribution.

Super-Rush

So that completes part 4 of this debate/trainwreck.

We'll give it a few more months before the next chapter.

There are one or two posters who need to sort some issues out beforehand.