The Visit of Queen Elizabeth

OhNoYouDidn't

Fo Real wrote: »

It's almost impossible to have discussions involving the Queen or the Royal Family as certain posters get over-emotional and let their primitive nationalistic urges prevent them from thinking clearly or logically.

Denerick is the only poster so far to go off the deep end.

The argument can be evenly applied to both sides of this debate.

People who want to move on are labelled west brit soup takers, those who have an objection, neanderthal nationalists.

Poccington

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are the British Royal Family the only group of people in the world entirely insulated from taking responsibility for any activity that occured in organisations they were in charge of?

Did I say such a thing?

It's one thing for Queen Elizabeth to come out and speak out against actions committed by her Armed Forces while she was in power, but trying to pin Bloody Sunday on Prince Charles when he had nothing to do with the Parachute Regiment at the time is a bit of a stretch.

Bottle_of_Smoke

The funny thing is she regularly visits the north. Surely a mass protest for her visiting this state but only little ones for when she visits north of the border is just a little eh...... partitionist?

Still I think it is a bad idea. At the end of the day the place will be torn apart by people who object to what her visiting symbolises. I think it can be put off for another while. Perhaps as other posters said wait until she as the head of state during the troubles is dead and have Charles visit when he becomes king- he already has and it went well so would take the sting out of it.

lugha wrote:

though I cannot see how anyone who supports democracy can object to British rule here as the vast majority of Irish people have accepted it

Operative word being accepted - it was accepted under duress, people only accept it because they don't want bombs and shootings. So I think it a bit melodramatic to suggest those who object to British rule in Ireland are undemocratic.

irishh_bob

deise go deo wrote: »

Its the visit of a head of state to a neighboring country, Its not rare, there is nothing wrong with it, its a signal of the normalizing of relations between Ireland and the UK. Personally It dosent really mean anything to me.

+1 , while i have no time whatsoever for anything to do with the entire concept of monarchy ( always loose a little respect for those who accept honours from the queen ) , its redicolous that a neighbouring head of state has not yet made an official visit here

im pretty sure the head of state in germany had visited poland since 1945 and vice versa

OhNoYouDidn't

Poccington wrote: »

In 1977.

Remind me again when Bloody Sunday happened?

Once again, he was Colonel in Chief. He never commanded the Parachute Regiment, he never even served in the Army.

No doubt you can direct me to his comments on the Saville enquiry findings into his regiment? There must be an apology out there from him somewhere? Mustn't there?

Poccington

danbohan wrote: »

terribly sorry , nit picking are we ? 1971 it was . were you around ?. hes wearing a parachute uniform and he was colonel in chief/commander /whatever you want to call it of that regiment

now perhaps you could answer my original question , how would you feel if some friends or relatives were murdered by that regiment in cold blood .?

It was 1972 actually.

Once again, he had nothing to do with the Parachute Regiment in 1972. I certainly wouldn't stop someone visiting the country when they had nothing to do with the Parachute Regiment at the time.

KeithAFC

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The funny thing is she regularly visits the north. Surely a mass protest for her visiting this state but only little ones for when she visits north of the border is just a little eh...... partitionist?

Still I think it is a bad idea. At the end of the day the place will be torn apart by people who object to what her visiting symbolises. I think it can be put off for another while. Perhaps as other posters said wait until she as the head of state during the troubles is dead and have Charles visit when he becomes king- he already has and it went well so would take the sting out of it.



Operative word being accepted - it was accepted under duress, people only accept it because they don't want bombs and shootings. So I think it a bit melodramatic to suggest those who object to British rule in Ireland are undemocratic.

That is because they recongise Northern Ireland as its own state, and a state which is part of the United Kingdom. So she is welcome to Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a different country though, so she isn't welcome. Seems pretty clear.

Poccington

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

No doubt you can direct me to his comments on the Saville enquiry findings into his regiment? There must be an apology out there from him somewhere? Mustn't there?

For what?

He was Colonel in Chief in 1977. He had nothing to do with Bloody Sunday, never commanded the Parachute Regiment, never served in the Army... What exactly is he apologising for? For being given a ceremonial title?

Lapin

Over one million people turned out in the Phoenix park and elsewhere to welcome the only absolute monarch in Europe to these shores in 1979. A monarch whose institution has inflicted greater harm and hindered further progress to the development of everyone on this island over the last century than the British have. I don't recall any protests then.

I see no problem in having the maturity to welcome to our shores, the Head of State of our nearest neighbour, closest ally, biggest trading partner and provider of a generous portion of our recent request for a loan to keep our country going.

I hope those who are advocating protests riots will bear in mind the opportunities generations of Irish people found in Britain when their own country was unable to support them. And given the state of our republic after almost ninety years of independence, it looks like generations more will be looking towards Britain for employment in the future.

Perhaps the potential rioters might think a little more about what we have in common with British people rather than our differences the next time they watch Coronation Street in their Manchester United jerseys.

We have welcomed monarchies to this country many times in the past and dictators including Robert Mugabe.

I don't think the little old lady from London with an interest in horseracing is going to do us any harm.

deise go deo

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Do you really think she would have been overthrown because she denounced what her armed forces where doing in a war which the vast majority of her subjects did not approve of?


She could still apologise.

Yes, she is not allowed to express her personal opinion on government policy, to put it simply it is not her place to apologizes, it is the British Governments. If she wants to apologize she would have to get the British Governments permission to do so.
If she were to denounce the Government for their actions in NI at the time or worse, try to do anything about it, then she would have sparked a very embarrassing constructional crisis in Britain.
The British monarch has no Right nor power to interferer in British Government business. That is the basis for her continuing as head of state.

OhNoYouDidn't

Poccington wrote: »

For what?

He was Colonel in Chief in 1977. He had nothing to do with Bloody Sunday, never commanded the Parachute Regiment, never served in the Army... What exactly is he apologising for? For being given a ceremonial title?

For the cold blooded murder carried out by his regiment. He might not have been there at the time, but he should have made some form of comment on the findings this year. He is, after all, the head of the regiment.

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

That is because they recongise Northern Ireland as its own state, and a state which is part of the United Kingdom. So she is welcome to Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is a different country though, so she isn't welcome. Seems pretty clear.

she is welcome by a certain % of the population of northern ireland , a diminishing %.

indioblack

Why should she go to the Republic?
She hasn't come to see me and I pay for her.
When you see her on tv wandering round this council estate, then she can visit you!

irishh_bob

mgmt wrote: »

Has Martin McGuinness as Deputy First Minister met/hosted Queen Elizabeth?

no and i think it would be an important gesture ( up north only ) if he did just as it would be equally important in a symbolic way if peter robinson had been big enough to have met the pope back in september of this year

the north is a funny place and theese things need to happen

irishh_bob

gizmo555 wrote: »

The Irish people, North and South, voted by a large majority in 1998 that a united Ireland will only ever come about by the consent of the peoples of both parts of the island.

How, exactly, is insulting the unionist community in Northern Ireland by telling them that their head of state is unwelcome to visit the country you'd like them to join likely to bring that consent closer?

+1 , we signed the contract , new dispensation and all that

OhNoYouDidn't

deise go deo wrote: »

Yes, she is not allowed to express her personal opinion on government policy, to put it simply it is not her place to apologizes, it is the British Governments. If she wants to apologize she would have to get the British Governments permission to do so.
If she were to denounce the Government for their actions in NI at the time or worse, try to do anything about it, then she would have sparked a very embarrassing constructional crisis in Britain.
The British monarch has no Right nor power to interferer in British Government business. That is the basis for her continuing as head of state.

She very much has the right to interfere in MILITARY matters, as she is the Commander in Chief of the British armed forces.

It must strike you as a bit odd that at no point in the troubles did she feel the need to comment in any way on it, even when her cousin went pop? Did she condemn loyalists committing sectarian carnage in her name?

KeithAFC

Over one million people turned out in the Phoenix park and elsewhere to welcome the only absolute monarch in Europe to these shores in 1979. A monarch whose institution has inflicted greater harm and hindered further progress to the development of everyone on this island over the last century than the British have. I don't recall any protests then.

Great point.

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

she is welcome by a certain % of the population of northern ireland , a diminishing %.

Yeah, more nonsense.

Biggins

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

For the cold blooded murder carried out by his regiment. He might not have been there at the time, but he should have made some form of comment on the findings this year. He is, after all, the head of the regiment.

The thought came to mind that if one is willing to accept such a high position, one is willing to take on and be accountable for the action of those supposedly under you and the said bodies history!

...Its just a thought.

phantom_lord

Do the republicans in this thread think opposing and possibly protesting at this visit is conducive towards achieving a united ireland?

Poccington

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

For the cold blooded murder carried out by his regiment. He might not have been there at the time, but he should have made some form of comment on the findings this year. He is, after all, the head of the regiment.

While I see your point, I just can't agree with it. Shall we bar any former CO of the Parachute Regiment as well as any former Battalion Commanders from visiting Ireland unless they all apologise for what the Regiment did in '72?

So while your point does have merit in that it'd be a good gesture, personally I wouldn't expect an apology from someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the Regiment at the time, or in fact never even served in the Army, let alone the Para's.

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

Great point.

were the vatican guards killing irish people for fun in 1970s 1980s , dont think so

Denerick

phantom_lord wrote: »

Do the republicans in this thread think opposing and possibly protesting at this visit is conducive towards achieving a united ireland?

I always wonder about this too. Most of them don't seem to want a United Ireland, their tactics just aren't very clever.

OhNoYouDidn't

Lapin wrote: »

Over one million people turned out in the Phoenix park and elsewhere to welcome the only absolute monarch in Europe to these shores in 1979. A monarch whose institution has inflicted greater harm and hindered further progress to the development of everyone on this island over the last century than the British have. I don't recall any protests then.

I see no problem in having the maturity to welcome to our shores, the Head of State of our nearest neighbour, closest ally, biggest trading partner and provider of a generous portion of our recent request for a loan to keep our country going.

I hope those who are advocating protests riots will bear in mind the opportunities generations of Irish people found in Britain when their own country was unable to support them. And given the state of our republic after almost ninety years of independence, it looks like generations more will be looking towards Britain for employment in the future.

Perhaps the potential rioters might think a little more about what we have in common with British people rather than our differences the next time they watch Coronation Street in their Manchester United jerseys.

We have welcomed monarchies to this country many times in the past and dictators including Robert Mugabe.

I don't think the little old lady from London with an interest in horseracing is going to do us any harm.

1: There were protests in 1979 from the left, but they were ignored by the media.

2: Would a million show up for the Pope today?

3: Who is 'advocating protest riots', whatever that means?

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yeah, more nonsense.

fact keith , you just dont like them

irishh_bob

Lapin wrote: »

Over one million people turned out in the Phoenix park and elsewhere to welcome the only absolute monarch in Europe to these shores in 1979. A monarch whose institution has inflicted greater harm and hindered further progress to the development of everyone on this island over the last century than the British have. I don't recall any protests then.

I see no problem in having the maturity to welcome to our shores, the Head of State of our nearest neighbour, closest ally, biggest trading partner and provider of a generous portion of our recent request for a loan to keep our country going.

I hope those who are advocating protests riots will bear in mind the opportunities generations of Irish people found in Britain when their own country was unable to support them. And given the state of our republic after almost ninety years of independence, it looks like generations more will be looking towards Britain for employment in the future.

Perhaps the potential rioters might think a little more about what we have in common with British people rather than our differences the next time they watch Coronation Street in their Manchester United jerseys.

We have welcomed monarchies to this country many times in the past and dictators including Robert Mugabe.

I don't think the little old lady from London with an interest in horseracing is going to do us any harm.

lets not go overboard now , the british are loaning us money for the same reason as the rest of the eu is bailing us out , to prevent contagion throughout the european banking system

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

fact keith , you just dont like them

I think i would fall asleep with this argument again. Nonsense is what it is.

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

were the vatican guards killing irish people for fun in 1970s 1980s , dont think so

No. They were too busy abusing kids and Irish kids at that. Or should i say, getting Irish priests to do that.

danbohan

phantom_lord wrote: »

Do the republicans in this thread think opposing and possibly protesting at this visit is conducive towards achieving a united ireland?

no , i think she should come . she should then use her visit apologize to the Irish people for the bloody history her country imposed on us .

OhNoYouDidn't

Poccington wrote: »

While I see your point, I just can't agree with it. Shall we bar any former CO of the Parachute Regiment as well as any former Battalion Commanders from visiting Ireland unless they all apologise for what the Regiment did in '72?

So while your point does have merit in that it'd be a good gesture, personally I wouldn't expect an apology from someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the Regiment at the time, or in fact never even served in the Army, let alone the Para's.

Then he shouldn't have accepted the position....

I would assume Charles Windsor is a person who at a personal level would find the behaviour of the Para's in Derry in 1972 abhorrant. So if his role involves him sitting on his hands when they are found guilty of cold blooded murder of his mothers subjects, he should walk away.

You can't take a military rank and absolve yourself of the responsibilities that come with.

danbohan

KeithAFC wrote: »

No. They were too busy abusing kids and Irish kids at that. Or should i say, getting Irish priests to do that.

and kincora, keith , that was irish priests/vatican guards too was it ?

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

No. They were too busy abusing kids and Irish kids at that. Or should i say, getting Irish priests to do that.

And the Pope pointedly didn't get an invite when he was next door earlier in the year....

KeithAFC

danbohan wrote: »

no , i think she should come . she should then use her visit apologize to the Irish people for the bloody history her country imposed on us .

Why should she do that? What an odd thing to say.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

Why should she do that? What an odd thing to say.

Because she is the commander in chief of an army that committed numerous massacres and civilian atrocities, including within the 26 county state.

Keep up.

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

And the Pope pointedly didn't get an invite when he was next door earlier in the year....

Yeah, most people have woken up to what the RCC is all about now.

Denerick

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because she is the commander in chief of an army that committed numerous massacres and civilian atrocities, including within the 26 county state.

Keep up.

Build a bridge.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

Yeah, most people have woken up to what the RCC is all about now.

Which is?

Plenty of abuse in Protestant institutions too. But some of us have a line in the sand that we don't cross to score points.

Anonymous1987

I don't see the need for the Queen in the UK in the same way I don't see the need for the President in Ireland. Both are highly paid ambassadors and chief rubber stampers with not a whole lot of difference aside from the Irish President being elected.

Regardless it's a decision for the people of the UK to have a constitutional monarchy and they seem to like it. That's their business with zero implications for Ireland and I think we should treat the Queen like we would any high level ambassador.

What strikes me is the extent people take the symbolism of the Queen as embodying the worst aspects of our history with Britain. The royal family seem to be held in greater contempt than the Prime Minister or parliament by many republicans. The irony is there is at least some evidence that royal family members were in favour of a united Ireland, see here.

Denerick

danbohan wrote: »

no , i think she should come . she should then use her visit apologize to the Irish people for the bloody history her country imposed on us .

Face it, without the Brits the likes of you would have nothing to complain about and hence no-one to blame for the inevitable shortcomings and failures.

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Because she is the commander in chief of an army that committed numerous massacres and civilian atrocities, including within the 26 county state.

Keep up.

You will be waiting a while then. No way is the Queen going to apologise.

Seth Brundle

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

As long as her forces are on this island she is not welcome.

Are you speaking for all Irish people here or just assuming that everyone actually gives a f**k?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yeah, and as long as it does, in my mind, she aint welcome.

Oh so you were assuming that everyone actually gave a f**k. Actually I couldn't give a toss on whether or not she comes. It will not make a blind bit of difference to me or my life whatsoever. Furthermore, if you wish to protest against those who have damaged this country then maybe vent your anger towards the traitors within Fianna Fáil!

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Not a republican, I'm quite neutral on the subject, but allowing the Queen of the UK to visit the Republic will bring nothing positive.
It will cost us money.
It will increase paramilitary activity.
It could possibly see another 2006 Dublin Riots.

On a personal note, I would not feel comfortable with the head of an army that has devastated this country arriving on this Island without offering an apology.

LOL
It will not increase any activity except by bigots who want hassle.
As for a repeat of the 2006 riots, do you really think that the gardai won't be fully prepared this time?
As for the cost, this may be televised and shown across the UK. If we are able to show how welcoming we are to her, might more people travel from the UK (or elsewhere) and spend their money here? Would they come here if they saw idiots fighting on TV over some oul one who had no idea of the aggrao going on?

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

By indulging the English in fawning over their heredetary queen?

Nobody is asking anyone to fawn over the queen or any other head of state that visits here.
I will presumably be working when she is here. Hopefully I won't get caught up in any traffic mess as a result.
Do I need to hoover my house because she is coming? No? Grand, then I don't care whether she comes or not, no more than I would if Sarkozy or Merkel or anyone else came. Why should I? And before you go back over the British Army stuff (for which I ideally would like to see full justice) don't forget that she (to our knowledge) didn't sanction any attacks whereas we had a leader that was involved in the importation of arms that would be used by the IRA.

OhNoYouDidn't

Denerick wrote: »

Build a bridge.

You have nothing to contribute to this debate other than bile. For the good of the thread, can you do us all a favour and not post

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

You will be waiting a while then. No way is the Queen going to apologise.

Which is one of the many problems people have with her visit.

That is not the behaviour of a party to a 'normailsed' or 'mature' relationship. It works both ways.

indioblack

irishh_bob wrote: »

lets not go overboard now , the british are loaning us money for the same reason as the rest of the eu is bailing us out , to prevent contagion throughout the european banking system

Contagion! - have you got something unpleasant that others in Europe
wish to avoid.

danbohan

Denerick wrote: »

Face it, without the Brits the likes of you would have nothing to complain about and hence no-one to blame for the inevitable shortcomings and failures.

what shortcomings and failures are you on about , and seen that you love england / royality so much why are you still here and dont say its because you love Ireland you obviously dont

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which is one of the many problems people have with her visit.

That is not the behaviour of a party to a 'normailsed' or 'mature' relationship. It works both ways.

The Queen only has to look at the people in politics now and people like Gerry Adams and say to herself, why should i apologise? Gerry won't even admit the obvious and his part in the murder of hundereds of protestant unionists.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which is one of the many problems people have with her visit.

That is not the behaviour of a party to a 'normailsed' or 'mature' relationship. It works both ways.

We have to move beyond expressions of sorrow. We are living in a different time,w ith different circumstance prevailing.

Further, the likes of Gerry Adams have refused to apologise or express remorse for deaths like that of Gerry McCabe. Equally, O Bradaigh openly expressed sorrow only for the civilian deaths in the Mountbatten case, but refused to apologise for other "legitimate targets".

It is time for all sides to put aside what has gone on before and move forward. Simples.

OhNoYouDidn't

KeithAFC wrote: »

The Queen only has to look at the people in politics now and people like Gerry Adams and say to herself, why should i apologise? Gerry won't even admit the obvious and his part in the murder of hundereds of protestant unionists.

So the benchmark of how Mrs Windsor should behave is Gerry Adams?

Its quite simple. We will be bombarded with media comment that anyone who has any qualms about the visit is a politically immature nationalist bigot. We have moved on we will be told and are into a new relationship with the British and this is the symbolic cementing of that. And there is an element of truth in all that, but reconciliation works both ways, and if the woman is deemed too 'apolitical' to be held to account for the behaviour of her army, take the role off her.

KeithAFC

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So the benchmark of how Mrs Windsor should behave is Gerry Adams?

Its quite simple. We will be bombarded with media comment that anyone who has any qualms about the visit is a politically immature nationalist bigot. We have moved on we will be told and are into a new relationship with the British and this is the symbolic cementing of that. And there is an element of truth in all that, but reconciliation works both ways, and if the woman is deemed too 'apolitical' to be held to account for the behaviour of her army, take the role off her.

No. You know rightly the Queen is not going to apologise for incidents like Bloody Sunday and so on. There has been many things which took place during the Troubles which got no apology.

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

We have to move beyond expressions of sorrow. We are living in a different time,w ith different circumstance prevailing.

Further, the likes of Gerry Adams have refused to apologise or express remorse for deaths like that of Gerry McCabe. Equally, O Bradaigh openly expressed sorrow only for the civilian deaths in the Mountbatten case, but refused to apologise for other "legitimate targets".

Meanwhile the British state have only apologised for a small fraction of the civilian deaths, and the COS of their army has never uttered a word on the topic.

Het-Field wrote: »

It is time for all sides to put aside what has gone on before and move forward. Simples.

I don't disagree, but my point that this 'reconciliation' seems to be very one way.