Diamond Jubilee

KeithAFC

Batsy wrote: »

Yeah. How silly the British are for wanting the Head of the Church of England to be a member of the Church of England. I think they've got that seriously wrong.

And if the British monarchy is sectarian then what does that make your beloved Pope? I find it sickening that in this day and age Protestants are not allowed to become Pope. It's just discrimination.

It is a point I have not and never will understand when people raise such a point which lacks any sort of logic and sense to it.

Bullseye1

My beloved Pope

Batsy wrote: »

Yeah. How silly the British are for wanting the Head of the Church of England to be a member of the Church of England. I think they've got that seriously wrong.

And if the British monarchy is sectarian then what does that make your beloved Pope? I find it sickening that in this day and age Protestants are not allowed to become Pope. It's just discrimination.

Shea O'Meara

Batsy wrote: »

The Diamond Jubilee is not her birthday. The Diamond Jubilee celebrates the fact that Elizabeth II has been Head of State for 60 years. It celebrates the lovely continuity that our constitutional monarchy brings, such as the fact that since 1952 Britain has had just the one Head of State whereas Ireland has had eight. It celebrates the fact that your Head of State was just 11 years old when our Head of State came to the throne.

So being there for a long time is worthy of merit? Does the fact that it's not elected and chooses when it steps down not a factor?
"I kept my sweet job and various castles and such for six decades, sort me out with a fancy window already!"

Batsy wrote: »

And I suppose that your ceremonial Head of State comes free?

No, but we elect ours they are not born to it. This thread is regarding the 60 years of a monarch, different thing to a democratic head of state/ambassador.

Batsy wrote: »

Yeah. How silly the British are for wanting the Head of the Church of England to be a member of the Church of England. I think they've got that seriously wrong.
And if the British monarchy is sectarian then what does that make your beloved Pope? I find it sickening that in this day and age Protestants are not allowed to become Pope. It's just discrimination.

Roman Catholic Protestants could
Any road, it's a figure head celebrating it's still doing what it chooses to do.....big whoop. You bemused loyalists enjoy your walking talking money sponging cake decoration, we are amused.

timesnap

Look it is when Countries refuse to accept each others traditions that causes the most strife.
We Irish are as guilty of that now as the UK ever was about us.
some people just like to live in the past and never forgive,let alone accept other peoples points of view.
Then people wonder why there is no end to wars.

deise go deo

Batsy wrote: »

The Diamond Jubilee is not her birthday. The Diamond Jubilee celebrates the fact that Elizabeth II has been Head of State for 60 years. It celebrates the lovely continuity that our constitutional monarchy brings, such as the fact that since 1952 Britain has had just the one Head of State whereas Ireland has had eight. It celebrates the fact that your Head of State was just 11 years old when our Head of State came to the throne.

Ok, Can someone explain:

-Why I should care that the UK has had the same head of state for 60 years
-What the benefit of having the same head of state for 60 years is
-Why having eight heads of state over a 60 year period instead of one is a bad thing
-The relevance of how old Michael D was when the current British Monarch inherited the Crown



To be perfectly honnest, I don't know why the British would care about this, let alone why we should.

timesnap

deise go deo wrote: »

Ok, Can someone explain:
To be perfectly honnest, I don't know why the British would care about this, let alone why we should.

Why are you looking for an explanation of something you do not care about,come to think of it why are you posting about something you think is not worth caring about?

sarumite

Batsy wrote: »

The Diamond Jubilee is not her birthday. The Diamond Jubilee celebrates the fact that Elizabeth II has been Head of State for 60 years. It celebrates the lovely continuity that our constitutional monarchy brings, such as the fact that since 1952 Britain has had just the one Head of State whereas Ireland has had eight. It celebrates the fact that your Head of State was just 11 years old when our Head of State came to the throne.

Very strange thing to celebrate if you ask me. Personally I like the idea of having a head of state that changes with the times. If we are going to have someone representing the people, I would much rather have one of the people do it. I am all for fresh ideas, reinvigoration etc. I look at other monarchic type institutions such as the catholic church and wonder about how lovely the continuity really is.

sarumite

Batsy wrote: »

Yeah. How silly the British are for wanting the Head of the Church of England to be a member of the Church of England. I think they've got that seriously wrong.

And if the British monarchy is sectarian then what does that make your beloved Pope? I find it sickening that in this day and age Protestants are not allowed to become Pope. It's just discrimination.

As someone who isn't Catholic, I can say I don't care. Honestly not sure how a protestant could become a pope any more than a catholic becoming archbishop. Afterall, every member of the catholic church is by definition a catholic. The problem is that not everyone in state CofE. Though I am probably not the best person to ask about matters of religion. I personally think the silly thing is not the British wanting the head of CofE to be CofE, but mixing up religion and politics in that the of head of state is also the head of a religion.

LordSutch

There has always been a tradition of affection for the Monarchy here in Ireland, QEII being the latest in a long line of Monarchs who have been very welcome here, the recent visit by Her Majesty QEII is proof that the fondness 'for her in particular' still exists in abundance in the ROI.

Sometimes we talk about "The UK" as if its some far flung alien place with totally foreign traditions & customs, totally forgetting of course (deliberately or otherwise) that part of this island is itself part of that Monarchy. The Queen & all the Royals visit the North on a regular basis, and I am sure the North will embrace the Queen's Diamond Jubilee with gusto in June of this year, so maybe in this new climate of friendship (with Britain & the North) we will also allow ourselves to watch and enjoy 'as spectators' the Diamond Jubilee, without actually getting involved, not forgetting of course the tens of thousands of Irish people in Britain who will love the Jubilee, and who will get totally absorbed into all manner of celebrations.

On a related note, I hear that the London Olympic torch will be run through the streets of Dublin on the 6th June, with thousands expected out on the streets of Dublin to witness this historic event, yet again highlighting our deep and inherrent connections with the UK and their (our)? Olympic games.

deise go deo

timesnap wrote: »

Why are you looking for an explanation of something you do not care about,come to think of it why are you posting about something you think is not worth caring about?

I am posting because it is being suggested that we do/should care and I don't understand why.

The Poster said that the Jublee celebrates that the UK has only had one Head of state while Ireland has had eight and that it celebrates the fact that our Head of State was just 11 years old when their Head of State came to the throne, I have no idea why this is something to celebrate and am looking for reasons why they might be as to me in my (possible) ignorence, this seems something compleatly bizarre to celebrate.

timesnap

deise go deo wrote: »

I am posting because it is being suggested that we do/should care and I don't understand why.

The Poster said that the Jublee celebrates that the UK has only had one Head of state while Ireland has had eight and that it celebrates the fact that our Head of State was just 11 years old when their Head of State came to the throne, I have no idea why this is something to celebrate and am looking for reasons why they might be as to me in my (possible) ignorence, this seems something compleatly bizarre to celebrate.

(possible) is the operative word there,unless you have not read the OP!

MadsL

deise go deo wrote: »

To be perfectly honnest, I don't know why the British would care about this, let alone why we should.

Careful with that brush of tar...I'm British, and could not give a rats arse. Didn't even know when the Jubilee was until I read it here.

gurramok

MadsL wrote: »

Careful with that brush of tar...I'm British, and could not give a rats arse. Didn't even know when the Jubilee was until I read it here.

Good to hear

Seemed to be so far that only posters that were celebrating the jubilee were those who are from Britain or loyalist from NI.

It just seems very odd celebrating a leaders reign, like something out of North Korea tbh.

Fratton Fred

gurramok wrote: »

Good to hear

Seemed to be so far that only posters that were celebrating the jubilee were those who are from Britain or loyalist from NI.

It just seems very odd celebrating a leaders reign, like something out of North Korea tbh.

She's done a good job for the country for 60 years, it is worth showing some recognition for that.

I have to see a man about a dog the day the celebrations take place, so I won't be there, but I'm sure those that will be will enjoy it.

Batsy

KeithAFC wrote: »

It is a point I have not and never will understand when people raise such a point which lacks any sort of logic and sense to it.

Someone referred to the fact that the British monarch is "sectarian."

And I pointed out that so is the Pope. But you never hear anybody whingeing about that.

Batsy

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

So being there for a long time is worthy of merit?

A monarchy gives continuity, something which a republic lacks.

Does the fact that it's not elected and chooses when it steps down not a factor?

The British, unlike the Irish, aren't daft enough to waste money on elections for ceremonial Heads of State. You lot spend money holding election campaigns lasting weeks just so that you can decide which person will be best at doing nothing.

No, but we elect ours

You elect a ceremonial head of state. How daft is that?

This thread is regarding the 60 years of a monarch, different thing to a democratic head of state/ambassador.

The British monarch is democratic. She reigns with the consent of the people.

You bemused loyalists enjoy your walking talking money sponging cake decoration, we are amused.

Our monarchy is probably cheaper per person than your republic.

Batsy

deise go deo wrote: »

Ok, Can someone explain:
-Why I should care that the UK has had the same head of state for 60 years

You don't have to care. Although there are people in Ireland who care enough to start threads on it.

-What the benefit of having the same head of state for 60 years is

Continuity. Whereas we've had the same head of state for 60 years, one person who is a continual presence in the lives of the people for all that time, you in Ireland chop and change head of state every few years. And because of the long length of time that monarchs reign it gives the British people a proper national figurehead to rally around in times of crisis or celebration, whereas a president isn't in the job long enough to become a proper national figurehead.

who the fug

Batsy wrote: »

Continuity. Whereas we've had the same head of state for 60 years, one person who is a continual presence in the lives of the people for all that time, you in Ireland chop and change head of state every few years. And because of the long length of time that monarchs reign it gives the British people a proper national figurehead to rally around in times of crisis or celebration, whereas a president isn't in the job long enough to become a proper national figurehead.

Look it stops us having El Presidente Tony Blair, this is the only sane reason I have ever heard for keeping it. (Mind you Tony Blair v Charles would be a tough call)


God bless you mam for the day off

Batsy

sarumite wrote: »

Personally I like the idea of having a head of state that changes with the times.

And Britain DOESN'T have a head of state that changes with the times?

Also, the Irish have just got rid of one president who is 60 and elected another who is 70 but who looks more like 170 and is old enough to be David Cameron's father. That hardly seems to be changing with the times.

Batsy

gurramok wrote: »

It just seems very odd celebrating a leaders reign, like something out of North Korea tbh.

Don't be silly.

In North Korea people are FORCED to celebrate their leader's rule or they'll be shot. In Britain (in which the monarch reigns, not rules) they are not.

Also, what kind of system does North Korea have? Yep, it's a republic.

sarumite

Batsy wrote: »

And Britain DOESN'T have a head of state that changes with the times?

Britain's head of state is chosen from a small group of people, from the same background etc. Its entrenched in its conservative traditions. Having the same person at the helm for 60 years is not exactly the definition of progressive.

Also, the Irish have just got rid of one president who is 60 and elected another who is 70 but who looks more like 170 and is old enough to be David Cameron's father. That hardly seems to be changing with the times.

He is new to the position, bringing new ideas and fresh approach. Age isn't the only metric I was judging it by.

sarumite

Batsy wrote: »

Someone referred to the fact that the British monarch is "sectarian."

And I pointed out that so is the Pope. But you never hear anybody whingeing about that.

The pope has nothing to do with Ireland regarding our head of state. The position of the Catholic church in Ireland was even removed form the constitution. Though I agree, mixing a head of state (Be it the Vatican or the UK) with the Head of a religion (CofE or Catholic) does give the former title a slight whiff of sectarianism.

tfitzgerald

She's being there for 60 years and she has being good for Britain . I think she deserves a party or two . In saying that I think it's time she stood down and let a bit of new blood take over . Charles should also step aside and let William be king I think he would be good for everyone

Fratton Fred

sarumite wrote: »

Britain's head of state is chosen from a small group of people, from the same background etc. Its entrenched in its conservative traditions. Having the same person at the helm for 60 years is not exactly the definition of progressive.

No, much better to elect people based on which side their family were in during the civil war ;-)

tfitzgerald

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, much better to elect people based on which side their family were in during the civil war ;-)

Or better still what religion they are.

sarumite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, much better to elect people based on which side their family were in during the civil war ;-)

I wasn't aware that was the official policy of Irelands Presidential nomination process? Of course try and explain that situation to Mary Robinson who's ancestors come from both sides of the divide, religious and political.

MadsL

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, much better to elect people based on which side their family were in during the civil war ;-)

That actually made me lol.

I'm not a fan of trying to derive cultural heritage from ethnicity, but I am however, suprised that no one has brought up the fact that Lizzie and Phil's families are not how shall we put it; the longest resident in the UK.

The Saxe-Coburg and Gotha clan are a sort of royalty outsourcing organisation, finding thrones in UK, Belgium, Portugal, and Bulgaria. As they say “Doing well is not as good as marrying well”

As for Phil, whilst often known as "Phil the Greek" it appears he considers himself Danish.

In 1922, his parents, Prince and Princess Andrew, were obliged to leave Greece in a hurry. On the ship that sailed them away, young Philip was put into a cot made from an orange box. After that, he was stateless until his distant cousin the King of Denmark provided him with a Danish passport.

http://www.britannia.com/history/biographies/philip.html

woodoo

Do the Germans celebrate their British Queen Elizabeth too.

Fratton Fred

sarumite wrote: »

I wasn't aware that was the official policy of Irelands Presidential nomination process? Of course try and explain that situation to Mary Robinson who's ancestors come from both sides of the divide, religious and political.

No, it isn't, but let's face it, the last presidential race was the best advert for constitutional monarchy I have seen.

Madam

I've met the Queen a couple of times(through the work I do), she's a nice wee woman and wish her no ill will, hope she has a nice time and all that(although I suspect she'd rather be up at Balmoral with her feet up on something she or Phillip shot that morning:rolleyes:)! I'm anti monarchy so I wish to hell I was out of the country when celebrations commence! Then again I live in Scotland so maybe it won't be too bad as were not as slavish as our NI neighbours:p

joseph brand

Originally Posted by Batsy And if the British monarchy is sectarian then what does that make your beloved Pope? I find it sickening that in this day and age Protestants are not allowed to become Pope. It's just discrimination.

KeithAFC wrote: »

It is a point I have not and never will understand when people raise such a point which lacks any sort of logic and sense to it.

There is NO logic or sense to religion.

Some posters have said that KeithAFC is trolling, but . . . .

sarumite

Fratton Fred wrote: »

No, it isn't, but let's face it, the last presidential race was the best advert for constitutional monarchy I have seen.

I think it was actually the best advert for an absolute monarchy to be honest. I tend to find elections bring out the worst parts of the democratic process. We only have to look at the current Republican primary to see how divisive they get. As your man Churchill once quipped "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." . It's easy to pick individual events and use them as a cynical codgel against broader arguments. Afterall, if our president were to ever insult Chinese people by commenting on their slanty eyes, at least we get the option to reconsider their suitability at the next election .

MadsL

Gotta love Phil. Endless entertainment.

HRH wrote:

"I would like to go to Russia very much – although the bastards murdered half my family."

In 1967, asked if he would like to visit the Soviet Union.

Fill your boots here...

http://irish-ayes.blogspot.com/2011/05/phil-greeks-90-gaffes-in-90-years.html

sarumite

this was my favourite

"It looks as though it was put in by an Indian." The Prince's verdict of a fuse box during a tour of a Scottish factory in August 1999. He later clarified his comment: "I meant to say cowboys. "I just got my cowboys and Indians mixed up."

joseph brand

deise go deo wrote: »

Ok, Can someone explain:

-Why I should care that the UK has had the same head of state for 60 years
-What the benefit of having the same head of state for 60 years is
-Why having eight heads of state over a 60 year period instead of one is a bad thing
-The relevance of how old Michael D was when the current British Monarch inherited the Crown



To be perfectly honnest, I don't know why the British would care about this, let alone why we should.

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in England, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple, in a house that smells of must. Over the mantelpiece hangs a pic of Lizzie Von Queenie. Lots of other royal family paraphernalia adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

That's how a lot of their 'fans' live. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

The 'royals' past their palace, in golden chariots, wearing crowns of precious stones, while their subjects line the streets waving flags. It's the 21st century ffs.

BTW, what IS a royal family?

sarumite

joseph brand wrote: »

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in England, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple, in a house that smells of must. Over the mantelpiece hangs a pic of Lizzie Von Queenie. Lots of other royal family paraphernalia adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

A jaysus, its not the 19th century anymore. I spent many years living in the south of England and personally I never encountered the pitiful sight you are describing.

Fratton Fred

joseph brand wrote: »

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in England, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple, in a house that smells of must. Over the mantelpiece hangs a pic of Lizzie Von Queenie. Lots of other royal family paraphernalia adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

That's how a lot of their 'fans' live. It woiuld be funny if it weren't so tragic.

The 'royals' past their palace, in golden chariots, wearing crowns of precious stones, while their subjects line the streets waving flags. It's the 21st century ffs.

BTW, what IS a royal family?

exactly, its the 21st century, you might want to try and catch up.

MadsL

joseph brand wrote: »

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in England, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple, in a house that smells of must. Over the mantelpiece hangs a pic of Lizzie Von Queenie. Lots of other royal family paraphernalia adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

House! You were lucky to live in a house! We used to live in one room, all twenty-six of us, no furniture, 'alf the floor was missing, and we were all 'uddled together in one corner for fear of falling.

murphaph

To be honest with the release of the Mahon Tribunal today we have much bigger things to worry about than Her Majesty's Jubilee, though I wish her well on it Keith. You may or may not have noticed that we have other issues to deal with and will understand that celebrating the Jubilee of a foreign monarch, albeit the monarch of our next door neighbours', is not really that high on our list of priorities. I hope she and her people enjoy it nonetheless though from what I know of QEII, she doesn't really go in for a big fuss.

Batsy

sarumite wrote: »

Having the same person at the helm for 60 years is not exactly the definition of progressive.

I find it preferable having a Head of State in the position for a long time. Being in that position for a long time gives continuity and, as the person has been Head of state for so long, they become a proper national figurehead at which to rally around in times of national crisis or celebration. A president who is only in the job for five years has no time to become a proper national figurehead.

But the main reason why being a monarchy is better than being a republic is because we don't have a politician as our Head of State. We, thankfully, will never be ruled by a President Sarkozy, a President Obama or a President Blair.

bringing new ideas and fresh approach.

Yeah, sure he is.

Batsy

sarumite wrote: »

The pope has nothing to do with Ireland regarding our head of state.

I never said it does.

But those numpties on here who complain about the British Head of State being "sectarian" seem to have no problems with the position of Pope being sectarian.

Last year there were people on here saying that they were going to protest against the Queen's visit to Ireland. When they were accused of being anti-British many of them came up with the excuse that they are not protesting because the visit is by a British Head of State but because that Head of State is sectarian.

So, if that's the case, I also assume that they protested against the Pope's visit.

Batsy

tfitzgerald wrote: »

She's being there for 60 years and she has being good for Britain . I think she deserves a party or two . In saying that I think it's time she stood down and let a bit of new blood take over . Charles should also step aside and let William be king I think he would be good for everyone

Why should the Queen step down when she's doing a perfectly good job?

Defiler Of The Coffin

Batsy wrote: »

Why should the Queen step down when she's doing a perfectly good job?

Well isn't it fantastic that she's doing a perfectly good job, because if she wasn't it would be just tough sh1t and you would still be stuck with her.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Batsy wrote: »

But those numpties on here who complain about the British Head of State being "sectarian" seem to have no problems with the position of Pope being sectarian

Why do you keep going on about the Pope? He's not the head of state in Ireland.

Batsy

joseph brand wrote: »

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in England, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple, in a house that smells of must. Over the mantelpiece hangs a pic of Lizzie Von Queenie. Lots of other royal family paraphernalia adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

That's how a lot of their 'fans' live. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic.

The 'royals' past their palace, in golden chariots, wearing crowns of precious stones, while their subjects line the streets waving flags. It's the 21st century ffs.

BTW, what IS a royal family?

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in Cork, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple in a house that smells of must. Over the mantlepiece hangs a picture of Creaky D Higgins, the President of Ireland. Lots of other paraphernalia celebrating Ireland's Republic adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

But, whilst these people are living in squalor, their President 160 miles away in Dublin is living in a lavish palace that could put Buckingham Palace to shame, a large, extravagant building of 92 rooms set in a park that is almost 2,000 acres in size.

Yet, whilst living in this scrumptious palace, many of his people live in poverty and misery. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

Batsy

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Why do you keep going on about the Pope? He's not the head of state in Ireland.

He's still sectarian, though.

deise go deo

Batsy wrote: »

He's still sectarian, though.

As is the leader of any world religion I suppose, but your not banging on about the rest of them, why is that?

deise go deo

Batsy wrote: »

Just picture a tiny little terraced home in Cork, where the occupants earn a pittance. An older couple in a house that smells of must. Over the mantlepiece hangs a picture of Creaky D Higgins, the President of Ireland. Lots of other paraphernalia celebrating Ireland's Republic adorns the walls and coffee table in the 6ft squared living space.

But, whilst these people are living in squalor, their President 160 miles away in Dublin is living in a lavish palace that could put Buckingham Palace to shame, a large, extravagant building of 92 rooms set in a park that is almost 2,000 acres in size.

Yet, whilst living in this scrumptious palace, many of his people live in poverty and misery. It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

The difference being that in this country you have to earn it.

joseph brand

Batsy wrote: »

I find it preferable having a Head of State in the position for a long time. Being in that position for a long time gives continuity and, as the person has been Head of state for so long, they become a proper national figurehead

Mubarak?

Defiler Of The Coffin

Batsy wrote: »

He's still sectarian, though.

This isn't a discussion about the Pope or religious organisations, we're discussing the Monarchy here. You seem to be arguing that just because the head of the Catholic Church is sectarian it's ok for the position of British Head of State to be sectarian also. Do you think this is acceptable and if so why?