All Queen visit related discussion goes here.

steve9859

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I don't buy that. Everything done to this country by Britain was done in her and her families name - i.e. the Monarch.

And Cameron has already apologised anyway (well, for Blood Sunday). It's about time the biggest war-monger in the Western World apologised too (and before you point out that she's not a war-monger, keep in mind her Army cannot be deployed without her approval).

Oh yeh, that old chestnut - "chief war monger" and all that. Republicans love saying that the Queen is the head of the armed forces, as it makes her into something that she is not (in modern practice, rather than in antiquated tradition), and therefore gives them something to beat her up about. When she actually has no executive power. It is succesive governments that you have a problem with

I find it funny that republicans complain that she is un-elected, but then, at the same time, those same people complain that she doesnt get involved in politics!!! Surely given that she is unlected, it is entirely appropriate that she stays outside of politics (so therefore not saying sorry, and not getting involved in deciding whether or not to send in troops to Afganistan or wherever). Do you not see the contradiction????

(and I know I am using the term 'Republican' too generally, but you know what I mean)

Judgement Day

Wheelie King wrote: »

Indeed a great day for our nation.:rolleyes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Abi3hgIxtNM

The flag owner has a fine 'Irish' accent too. :rolleyes:

UglyBolloxFace

parker kent wrote: »

Surely saying that there are things that both sides regret is basically an apology? Do we seriously still need to continue all this BS about events that have happened (some well before any of us were born). Lets learn from the past and move on.

Well in my opinion, expressing regret is a cheap attempt at an apology - i.e. backing out of it and not bothering to offer a full and proper apology. This type of thing is common in politics and public relations. She may aswell have said "I am sorry that you felt offended by what you experienced at the hands of the British" - it's not an apology at all.

Her and McAleese are doing this to boost their own profiles - there is nothing here that will benefit our countries.

And to those of you who say that by her expressing her regret is the same, or more or less the same, as apologising - well if it's that simple, then why didn't she just come out and apologise?

I'm sure the majority of you are just going to blatantly ignore this post in order to suit your own point of view, so I don't know why I even bothered to write it tbh.

iamwhoiam

A great day today and I was delighted to see the past put behind us .Only blot on my day was seeing Brian Cowens mug once more on my teli , he makes my blood boil .

And as an aside was Mrs Reynolds dozing off during the queens speech ?

mike65

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I don't buy that. Everything done to this country by Britain was done in her and her families name - i.e. the Monarch.

And Cameron has already apologised anyway (well, for Blood Sunday). It's about time the biggest war-monger in the Western World apologised too (and before you point out that she's not a war-monger, keep in mind her Army cannot be deployed without her approval).

wiki says

As head of state, Queen Elizabeth II is nominally the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces.[56] Longstanding constitutional convention, however, has vested de facto executive authority in the office of Prime Minister and the Cabinet.[11] The Queen remains the "ultimate authority" of the military and retains the power to prevent its unconstitutional use.[57]

[57] refers to this BBC article which doesn't really butress your arguement.

If for arguments sake the UK decided to invade the ROI the monarch might be opposed to same but no way would she stop the government invading, if she did then her wishes would be overruled and the UK would have a constiutional crisis and that would not be in the interests of the monarchy. Ergo she/he would not oppose the elected governments wishes.

El Horseboxo

steve9859 wrote: »

Oh yeh, that old chestnut - "chief war monger" and all that. Republicans love saying that the Queen is the head of the armed forces, as it makes her into something that she is not (in modern practice, rather than in antiquated tradition), and therefore gives them something to beat her up about. When she actually has no executive power. It is succesive governments that you have a problem with

I find it funny that republicans complain that she is un-elected, but then, at the same time, those same people complain that she doesnt get involved in politics!!! Surely given that she is unlected, it is entirely appropriate that she stays outside of politics (so therefore not saying sorry, and not getting involved in deciding whether or not to send in troops to Afganistan or wherever). Do you not see the contradiction????

(and I know I am using the term 'Republican' too generally, but you know what I mean)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/21/uk.freedomofinformation

adomino

KINGVictor wrote: »

What exactly are you expecting as an apology? The PM of the UK issued one last year..i think! and the she expressed her nation's regret on the events of the past.

My take on this is even if the Queen shed tears and knelt down asking for forgiveness , some folks would never be 'pacified'.

The issue seems to be more than just asking for an apology!

be nice to get ALL that rent money back our fathers illegally gave her, it pretty much has her in style. god knows we could do with it.

anyways, whatever about the scumbags 'trying' to protest, theyve got al qaeda to worry about next, rather them than us to be honest.

ejmaztec

Frankies wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P59f8rQTIhM

She actually said "I've got a wrinkly arse".

UglyBolloxFace

steve9859 wrote: »

Oh yeh, that old chestnut - "chief war monger" and all that. Republicans love saying that the Queen is the head of the armed forces, as it makes her into something that she is not (in modern practice, rather than in antiquated tradition), and therefore gives them something to beat her up about. When she actually has no executive power. It is succesive governments that you have a problem with

I find it funny that republicans complain that she is un-elected, but then, at the same time, those same people complain that she doesnt get involved in politics!!! Surely given that she is unlected, it is entirely appropriate that she stays outside of politics (so therefore not saying sorry, and not getting involved in deciding whether or not to send in troops to Afganistan or wherever). Do you not see the contradiction????

(and I know I am using the term 'Republican' too generally, but you know what I mean)

I am sick of people who say she has no real power.
I refer you below to a post I made awhile back about my opposition to monarchies (keep in mind, I despise all monarchies).

This topic is something I am really interested in and at present I am involved with Anti-Monarchy organisations here in Scotland.
Monarchies disgust me. It is disgusting and morally wrong that in this day and age there is still an unelected Head of State for the United Kingdom and it's overseas 'dominions' such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand etc.

Why should your family position, and that alone, entitle you to become head of state of the Commonwealth?
What about those citizens who aspire to become President/Head of State? - They cannot accomplish this because of this stupidly, backward, archaic institute that is the Monarchy.

It is an absolute insult to the people of Britain that they are still the 'subjects' of a Monarch. It may offend some people, but in my opinion monarchies are insulting and immoral.

‎To those who say the British Queen has no real power and that she is Head of State 'In name only'...how certain of that are you?

By no means is it just a title - it is frightening the actual power the Monarch has.

I will list them here for you, and then you will see that by no means is the Monarch 'powerless':

- The Monarch is the Head of State, Head of the Church of England, and, most worryingly, Head of the Armed Forces. Now, to me, that seems like a lot of power.
--> what this effectively means is that the Monarch is the only person who can declare when the country is at war and when war is over. Does that not seem like real power to you?

Here, in this link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...mofinformation) are some more of the Monarch's powers. To those who are pro-monarchy, when you have viewed these, come back and see if you can honestly say that it is 'just a title' and that the Monarch has 'no real power'.

The Monarch may bring in a lot of money for the British economy, but this is at the ultimate price of a fully democratic nation. I find it exasperating how countless British Prime Ministers harp on about 'democracy this, democracy that' when the UK itself doesn't even have a written constitution! - this is the height of hypocrisy in my opinion.

I would like you to have a read of this when you have the time, and get back to me. Please don't just brush it under the carpet.

LondonIrish90

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Well in my opinion, expressing regret is a cheap attempt at an apology - i.e. backing out of it and not bothering to offer a full and proper apology. This type of thing is common in politics and public relations. She may aswell have said "I am sorry that you felt offended by what you experienced at the hands of the British" - it's not an apology at all.

Her and McAleese are doing this to boost their own profiles - there is nothing here that will benefit our countries.

And to those of you who say that by her expressing her regret is the same, or more or less the same, as apologising - well if it's that simple, then why didn't she just come out and apologise?

I'm sure the majority of you are just going to blatantly ignore this post in order to suit your own point of view, so I don't know why I even bothered to write it tbh.

Yes, the Queen of England, one of the most powerful and influential women in the world (according to Forbes) is just desperate for a bit more media exposure .

Imhof Tank

Just listening to the sky news commentary to hear their take on proceedings and their ignorance (or maybe provocativeness) is truly SHOCKING.

They say:

1. there will be tension in the unionist community in NI because Dubliners are not lining the streets waving the union jacks and not showing the appropriate enthusiasm and respect - as if :rolleyes:;

and conversely

2. there will be tension in the unionist community in NI when they see the cosy direction the UK ROI relationship is going in, and will have concerns of an imminent sell out - Sky tv would have their viewers believe that the 2 governments would be prepared to scrap the whole Belfast agreement, the principle of consent, drop the whole peace process:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Really, they are 10 years at least out of date in their analysis

LondonIrish90

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I am sick of people who say she has no real power.
I refer you below to a post I made awhile back about my opposition to monarchies (keep in mind, I despise all monarchies).

Not a great believer in self determination and the will of the people then? If a foreign population want a monarchy, why would you despise that monarch?

Judgement Day

adomino wrote: »

it most certainly is her name Saxe-Coburg

Wrong.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheRoyalFamilyname/Overview.aspx

ISDW

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I am sick of people who say she has no real power.
I refer you below to a post I made awhile back about my opposition to monarchies (keep in mind, I despise all monarchies).



I would like you to have a read of this when you have the time, and get back to me. Please don't just brush it under the carpet.

Why should I waste my time on that, its got nothing to do with me, its about someone from another country. My country has a President, how another country decides to run itself is entirely up to them.

ejmaztec

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I am sick of people who say she has no real power.
I refer you below to a post I made awhile back about my opposition to monarchies (keep in mind, I despise all monarchies).



I would like you to have a read of this when you have the time, and get back to me. Please don't just brush it under the carpet.

Guardian link - no info.

Dyr

Imhof Tank wrote: »

Just listening to the sky news commentary to hear their take on proceedings and their ignorance (or maybe provocativeness) is truly SHOCKING.

They say:

1. there will be tension in the unionist community in NI because Dubliners are not lining the streets waving the union jacks and not showing the appropriate enthusiasm and respect - as if :rolleyes:;

and conversely

2. there will be tension in the unionist community in NI when they see the cosy direction the UK ROI relationship is going in, and will have concerns of an imminent sell out - Sky tv would have their viewers believe that the 2 governments would be prepared to scrap the whole Belfast agreement, the principle of consent, drop the whole peace process:rolleyes::rolleyes:.

Really, they are 10 years at least out of date in their analysis

Unionists tend to be quite tense in general, which is why they need brisk walks every once in a while

steve9859

El Horseboxo wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2003/oct/21/uk.freedomofinformation

Yes, she gives her full powers to parliament, as it should be in a democracy. You didnt answer my point about the contradiction. On one hand you want her to be political and take full responsibility for the actions of the government. But at the same time you point out that she is unelected, in which case, as a republcan, you surely think it appropriate that she stays completely outside of politics.

To Uglybolloxface: would you care to comment??

El Horseboxo

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Well in my opinion, expressing regret is a cheap attempt at an apology - i.e. backing out of it and not bothering to offer a full and proper apology. This type of thing is common in politics and public relations. She may aswell have said "I am sorry that you felt offended by what you experienced at the hands of the British" - it's not an apology at all.

Her and McAleese are doing this to boost their own profiles - there is nothing here that will benefit our countries.

And to those of you who say that by her expressing her regret is the same, or more or less the same, as apologising - well if it's that simple, then why didn't she just come out and apologise?

I'm sure the majority of you are just going to blatantly ignore this post in order to suit your own point of view, so I don't know why I even bothered to write it tbh.

If you say anything bad about this visit you are instantly branded an anti brit, anti royalist celtic jersey wearing republican. There seems to be only one acceptable opinion in any of these queen threads. To me it was a half assed apology and a speech carefully written by pr writers. From some posts you'd think she sat down and wrote it from the bottom of her heart. The whole thing doesn't really bother me as i'm not Irish. So i'm looking from the outside in. And to me the whole thing just seems like one big pointless expensive show. Then again i am completely anti royalist (any royalty of the world) so maybe i'm biased.

Aldebaran

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

I am sick of people who say she has no real power.
I refer you below to a post I made awhile back about my opposition to monarchies (keep in mind, I despise all monarchies).



I would like you to have a read of this when you have the time, and get back to me. Please don't just brush it under the carpet.

Yes, but she never is in reality going to exercise any of those powers, if she did you can bet the monarchy would not last for long afterwards.

Also, I think that Guardian link may be broken.

El Horseboxo

steve9859 wrote: »

Yes, she gives her full powers to parliament, as it should be in a democracy. You didnt answer my point about the contradiction. On one hand you want her to be political and take full responsibility for the actions of the government. But at the same time you point out that she is unelected, in which case, as a republcan, you surely think it appropriate that she stays completely outside of politics.

To Uglybolloxface: would you care to comment??

I didn't point out anything. I just posted that link.

Anyways from the anthem to their army everything is done for queen and country. She obviously has no problem with it since she never complains about it.

Like if i'm the leader of something and i hand powers over to somebody else and then they do something horrible and i don't condemn it. Isn't my silence some sort of approval? I really don't get why people don't understand that people can be pissed off at her for what happened in Ireland or indeed Afghanistan or Iraq.

mike65

Full list of those powers

/snip

Foreign Affairs

The making of treaties;

Declaration of war;

Deployment of armed forces overseas;

Recognition of foreign states;

Accreditation and reception of diplomats.

Are you suggesting QE2 is ordering troops to be deployed or merely that she gives the royal nod, if its the former yer mad if its the latter I refer you to my post above.

El Horseboxo

Aldebaran wrote: »

Yes, but she never is in reality going to exercise any of those powers, if she did you can bet the monarchy would not last for long afterwards.

Also, I think that Guardian link may be broken.

So for the sake of maintaining her own status and wealth she'll choose to let her government do whatever the fook they like?

ragg

El Horseboxo wrote: »

If you say anything bad about this visit you are instantly branded an anti brit, anti royalist celtic jersey wearing republican. There seems to be only one acceptable opinion in any of these queen threads. To me it was a half assed apology and a speech carefully written by pr writers. From some posts you'd think she sat down and wrote it from the bottom of her heart.

hmm, something tells me you missed the point, she is "speaking" for the nation of England, her personal opinions are only ever a secondary concern.

Judgement Day

It's about that time when the sane amongst go to bed and leave the lunatics to take over the asylum thread. See you all tomorrow on the new thread.

K-9

El Horseboxo wrote: »

If you say anything bad about this visit you are instantly branded an anti brit, anti royalist celtic jersey wearing republican. There seems to be only one acceptable opinion in any of these queen threads. To me it was a half assed apology and a speech carefully written by pr writers. From some posts you'd think she sat down and wrote it from the bottom of her heart. The whole thing doesn't really bother me as i'm not Irish. So i'm looking from the outside in. And to me the whole thing just seems like one big pointless expensive show. Then again i am completely anti royalist (any royalty of the world) so maybe i'm biased.

It was actually very cleverly worded, hinting at her own personal loss and things that happened under her "watch" and things long before it.

It isn't really her watch though as Governments make decisions on wars and armies and police are answerable to Ministers and officials, not the Queen. She can't sack Ministers and in many ways is more restricted than our President.

It has to be balanced and equal handed because of the many different representatives present and watching.

Balanced and even handed to all sides doesn't go down well with some, so it's a waste of time debating it.

No doubt you'll not even consider this post and complain that nobody is listening to post after post from hardline Republican posters.

Dyr

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

They were there together, Im sure she could have got the a ok then or even before she left Britain

You actually got as much of an apology as a british monarch is ever going to be able to give. The only laudable thing about this whole fiasco is that its fairly apparent that she wants to do her bit to bring some sort of resolution to whats gone before she pops her tiara.

It aint closure but it kicks things a good bit up the road.

ISDW

El Horseboxo wrote: »

So for the sake of maintaining her own status and wealth she'll choose to let her government do whatever the fook they like?

Or maybe, as she is unelected, and the government has the mandate of the people, being elected and all, she views it as democracy?

El Horseboxo

ragg wrote: »

hmm, something tells me you missed the point, she is "speaking" for the nation of England, her personal opinions are only ever a secondary concern.

She's unelected. How is she speaking for people that didn't put her in a position to speak for them?

tightropetom

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's about that time when the sane amongst go to bed and leave the lunatics to take over the asylum thread. See you all tomorrow on the new thread.

Well there IS a full moon at present! Yeeeehawwww!

cosmicfart

I was really enjoying the TV coverage about the queen till I saw Bertie Ahern and that other fookwit Cowen on the box. Why arent they been whipped through the street of Dublin is beyond me? all these dumb people setting fires to bins should be lighting fires under these two clowns houses instead. i mean the queen did nothing compared to the damage these two **** expletive **** fookers did