The Queen

Beasty

Gawd bless 'er

dudara

Mixed bag of convention when it comes to surnames apparently

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/british-royal-family-surname-last-name-a7519901.html

njs030

dudara wrote: »

Mixed bag of convention when it comes to surnames apparently

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/british-royal-family-surname-last-name-a7519901.html

It's quite random!!
I look forward to the threads of disgust when Charles becomes king and changes his name!
I read he's considering King George (whatever number)

steddyeddy

To be honest I can't see them going much further than the current princes. Brexit is going to hit the UK like a tidal wave. People wil start questioning where their tax is going.

Before anyone says it I know it's said the monarchy generate revenue, but it's impossible to seperate that from the revenue Buckingham palace were to generate sans royalty.

twill

Odhinn wrote: »

There is something worse.
https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-features/inside-the-annual-sunday-independent-living-christmas-party-36430684.html

Does your one above Twink have her head photoshopped in? It's the oddest looking picture.

server down

notjustsweet wrote: »

It's quite random!!
I look forward to the threads of disgust when Charles becomes king and changes his name!
I read he's considering King George (whatever number)

Is that because all the Charles’s get killed?

Donald Trump

She's a Killer Queen
Gunpowder, gelatine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to blow your mind
Anytime

njs030

server down wrote: »

Is that because all the Charles’s get killed?

No...only king Charles the 1st was executed. The second died naturally.

It's because if he stayed as Charles he'd be King Charles the 3rd but there was a Scottish man called bonnie Prince Charlie who claimed to have rights to the English throne and would have been Charles the 3rd.
So to avoid annoying Scottish people Prince Charles will change his name.

Donald Trump

server down wrote: »

Is that because all the Charles’s get killed?

Forrest Gump spent a fair while looking for him over in the 'Nam

dublinman1990

I did watch The Queen's message for this year. I don't watch it every year though. It did include some good statements about the terror attacks in Manchester, London & for people who were affected by the Grenfell Tower fire earlier in the year. It included some nice sentiments for the emergency services working in the UK on Christmas Day. And today is her 60th year in doing this message. I would say well done to her as it's an incredible achievement to make it this far.

shaunr68

As an English bloke living in Ireland, no lover of Royalty but no malice for them as individuals, also not necessarily a republican either. Presidential systems in Italy, France and the US for example have provided us with some total buffoons as heads of state over recent years so I don't see it as perfect solution. I don't mind the idea of an unelected, entirely symbolic head of state paid a salary to carry out ceremonial duties, if that could be achieved minus all the hangers on. Have never watched the telly speech though and never will.

sightband

Yer one from suits that’s getting up on that ginger tosser looks like a right ditz, she has this stupid puppy dog looking up to her master look in every picture that’s been in our faces the last few weeks. Seems the poor lass has no clue what she’s let herself in for.

uch

She's a lovely old lady god bless her, but not loved much by people in my area

splinter65

splinter65 wrote: »

Why don’t we have something similar with Michael D?

splinter65 wrote: »

That’s just a message released like any other statement
Should he not appear on the TV wishing the citizens the compliments of the season?

Yes, of course he should because if the thick Paddies aren't aping practices and fashions in Mother England they're nothing. Those Irish have no fúcking traditions or history of their own of course, old chap.

For fúck sake, the anglocentric slaveen mentality of the Oirish types here knows no bounds. Thanks be to fúck Brexit is going to bring that whole blinkered jingoistic anti-Irish world and all its cultural cringe hangers-on and their delusional 19th-century timewarp understanding of Britain's actual power in 2017 crashing down. Hallelujah.

prinzeugen

notjustsweet wrote: »

No...only king Charles the 1st was executed. The second died naturally.

It's because if he stayed as Charles he'd be King Charles the 3rd but there was a Scottish man called bonnie Prince Charlie who claimed to have rights to the English throne and would have been Charles the 3rd.
So to avoid annoying Scottish people Prince Charles will change his name.

Rubbish. Bonnie Prince Charlie was Italian born and claimed to have rights to the British (not English as it did not exist then, post 1707) and French thrones.

Also if us Scottish had an issue then the current British queen would have to change her name as she is Queen Elizabeth the first of Scotland not QE2.

However you wont see E II R on a post box or Royal Mail van in Scotland for the same reason.

Also George the 6th first name was Albert.

Galwayguy35

I think quite a few of her own people dislike her a lot more than any Irish person, they see the Royals as freeloaders their taxes have to pay for.

And yet prods north of the border like the DUP nearly cream themselves with excitement every time she is mentioned and she probably couldn't care less about them.

begbysback

Haven't watched the speech, but I'm glad she lived long enough to see some sort of peace between uk and Ireland, her visit to Ireland was mostly welcomed, with the exception of a minority.

Good on ya missus - may your year ahead be prosperous

njs030

prinzeugen wrote: »

Rubbish. Bonnie Prince Charlie was Italian born and claimed to have rights to the British (not English as it did not exist then, post 1707) and French thrones.

Also if us Scottish had an issue then the current British queen would have to change her name as she is Queen Elizabeth the first of Scotland not QE2.

However you wont see E II R on a post box or Royal Mail van in Scotland for the same reason.

Also George the 6th first name was Albert.

Why are you saying it's rubbish? Perhaps you should read up about why Charles has chosen not to be Charles 3rd before telling other people they are wrong.

Dakota Dan

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

Does anyone still watch her 3pm Christmas broadcast? She's been doing it for 60 years!

We watch her every year. Love the way she says 'fire' - 'faaawr'.

For clarity I'm talking about Queen Elizabeth II, 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

Wasn't she in hiding last Christmas, no speech and people were beginning to think that she had died and were delaying the news. I just saw a bit of it on sky news, couldn't be arsed otherwise.

McCrack

I respect her, shes been pretty solid and does good service. She represents an institution that's pretty important not only in GB but throughout the world.

Galwayguy35

McCrack wrote: »

I respect her, shes been pretty solid and does good service. She represents an institution that's pretty important not only in GB but throughout the world.

How is the British Royal Family important throughout the world?

Agricola

I liked the bit about how Philip was deciding to "slow down" as he had "done his bit"!

Yeah, he's been a ceremonial plus-one and hand shaker for 60 odd years. Beats working for a living. How many of us would trade a life of wage slavery to spend their days jetting around the world, staying in 5* hotels and literally being treated like royalty everywhere they go. No wonder he's knocking 100!

McCrack

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

How is the British Royal Family important throughout the world?

Commonwealth

server down

Agricola wrote: »

I liked the bit about how Philip was deciding to "slow down" as he had "done his bit"!

Yeah, he's been a ceremonial plus-one and hand shaker for 60 odd years. Beats working for a living. How many of us would trade a life of wage slavery to spend their days jetting around the world, staying in 5* hotels and literally being treated like royalty everywhere they go. No wonder he's knocking 100!

No way would I like that role.

kravmaga

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

Does anyone still watch her 3pm Christmas broadcast? She's been doing it for 60 years!

We watch her every year. Love the way she says 'fire' - 'faaawr'.

For clarity I'm talking about Queen Elizabeth II, 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

Why would you watch her, you English

splinter65

kravmaga wrote: »

Why would you watch her, you English

Me Irish, you English.

Berserker

begbysback wrote: »

Haven't watched the speech, but I'm glad she lived long enough to see some sort of peace between uk and Ireland, her visit to Ireland was mostly welcomed, with the exception of a minority.

Incredible to think about the change that she has lived through. It's a great shame that she couldn't have an open visit to the RoI, with the exception of Cork of course.

Atoms for Peace

Odhinn wrote: »

There is something worse.
https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-features/inside-the-annual-sunday-independent-living-christmas-party-36430684.html

Could somebody give the co-ordinates of that abomination to ISIS or Kim etc..

indioblack

shaunr68 wrote: »

As an English bloke living in Ireland, no lover of Royalty but no malice for them as individuals, also not necessarily a republican either. Presidential systems in Italy, France and the US for example have provided us with some total buffoons as heads of state over recent years so I don't see it as perfect solution. I don't mind the idea of an unelected, entirely symbolic head of state paid a salary to carry out ceremonial duties, if that could be achieved minus all the hangers on. Have never watched the telly speech though and never will.

There's a marvelous story about the Queen and Philip being driven through cheering crowds, when a voice bellowed "B*****ds"!
"I quite agree", Philip called back.
"What did he say?", asked the Queen.

Avatar MIA

indioblack wrote: »

There's a marvelous story about the Queen and Philip being driven through cheering crowds, when a voice bellowed "B*****ds"!
"I quite agree", Philip called back.
"What did he say?", asked the Queen.

Arrggggh, that's only half a story!!! :mad::p

indioblack

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Arrggggh, that's only half a story!!! :mad::p

Sorry, it's all I can remember!

Berserker

indioblack wrote: »

There's a marvelous story about the Queen and Philip being driven through cheering crowds, when a voice bellowed "B*****ds"!
"I quite agree", Philip called back.
"What did he say?", asked the Queen.

He has come out with some corkers in his time. My personal favourite is "When a man opens a car door for his wife, it's either a new car or a new wife."

indioblack

Berserker wrote: »

Incredible to think about the change that she has lived through. It's a great shame that she couldn't have an open visit to the RoI, with the exception of Cork of course.

When the Queen visited Cork, my brother lived just outside the city.
I phoned him before and asked if he was going to Cork to see the Queen.
"IF I go there it'll be with placards", he replied.
[He was a staunch republican, bless him.]
I told him to go anyway as he had a better chance of seeing the Queen than I did here.
He didn't go - none of my relis in Cork went - no surprise, really.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

dudara

What makes her interesting to me is that she’s lived, and reigned, through a huge amount of change. WWII, the gradual shrinking of the British Empire, the relaxation of society and so forth.

You could argue that your grandparents have lived during the same change, but they were not heads of state. She has met every PM for weekly updates and has met numerous other heads of state and political figures. During her lifetime, opinions have changed so much from the point where her uncle, King Edward VIII, had to abdicate because he wanted to marry an American divorceé, to the point where her grandson (albeit now 5th in line to throne) is engaged to marry an American divorceé.

I thought her visit to Ireland was nicely done. She was received as a guest and shown hospitality the Irish way. Not as a vassal state but as a free and independent country.

Avatar MIA

dudara wrote: »

... an American divorceé.

A mixed race American divorceé - can you just imagine that in her Uncle's time!

indioblack

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's ok. I'm no monarchist - but if she was nearby I'd take a look.

server down

Patww79 wrote: »

Why would he go to see them for you?

She shouldn't have been let set foot in Cork or anywhere else in Ireland anyway.

Free country.

Berserker

server down wrote: »

Free country.

It wouldn't be if he or she had their way.

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

For clarity I'm talking about Queen Elizabeth II, 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

Not rising to the bait here, just raising the point. You do realise that as such a member of every other world religion, plus atheists, are legally forbidden to become Head of State of their own country, right? And this is never challenged by the courts or parliament.

I just find it rather bizarre that if Ireland, or any other democracy for that matter, had a clause in the constitution saying only a catholic/man/caucasian can be elected to the presidency there would (rightly) be outrage.

But the UK prevents their head of state from a) coming from another religion, and b) choosing freely to change/abandon their religion. That's a bit odd to say the least in the 21st century, no?

Oh well, another country, I couldn't really care less what the UK public allow her majesty's government to squander their money on, but the horsey set definitely know how not to rock the boat and tempt people into a republic.

indioblack

indioblack wrote: »

There's a marvelous story about the Queen and Philip being driven through cheering crowds, when a voice bellowed "B*****ds"!
"I quite agree", Philip called back.
"What did he say?", asked the Queen.

Pfft! :rolleyes: That's hardly up there with someone emptying a public rubbish bin and chucking it into the back of Richard Nixon's open top limousine when he drove through the streets of Limerick on a state visit, circa 1970 :pac:

sightband

dudara wrote: »

What makes her interesting to me is that she’s lived, and reigned, through a huge amount of change. WWII, the gradual shrinking of the British Empire, the relaxation of society and so forth.

You could argue that your grandparents have lived during the same change, but they were not heads of state. She has met every PM for weekly updates and has met numerous other heads of state and political figures. During her lifetime, opinions have changed so much from the point where her uncle, King Edward VIII, had to abdicate because he wanted to marry an American divorceé, to the point where her grandson (albeit now 5th in line to throne) is engaged to marry an American divorceé.

I thought her visit to Ireland was nicely done. She was received as a guest and shown hospitality the Irish way. Not as a vassal state but as a free and independent country.

what exactly has she ever done throughout all those events, more to the point what kind of hardship has she ever endured throughout her entire life, aside from dealing with what you think is some kind of trauma involving normal family matters? divorce, imagine that in the most incestuous blood line there is. So what has she achieved aside from purring like a cat at the news that the Scots had rejected independence I can't actually recall anything the aul bag has gotten off her arse for except for visits/holidays here there and everywhere to countries that the UK have ravaged with colonialism only to be greeted with a warm welcome.

they are the most dysfunctional lunatic family on the planet behind the North Korean dynasty, at least the North Koreans know they are disliked by the majority of the world..the royals are delusional and believe they are loved by all.

dudara

dudara wrote: »

What makes her interesting to me is that she’s lived, and reigned, through a huge amount of change.

Which is considerably more than can be said of, to take one instance of very many, the tens of thousands of Kenyans murdered by her state (1952-1960), or the hundreds of thousands of victims of the mass concentration camps and torture chambers in Kenya whose victims waited for 60 years before her state admitted guilt. Indeed she personally honoured loads of the murdering bastards (just like she honoured those charmers in Derry). The crown forces, the crown government but she's allegedly "non-political" her royalist apologists claim in their attempts to defend the deity-like concept of royalty where a sovereign can do no wrong. All part of the royalist cult's defence of an anti-democratic, institutionally sectarian and profoundly anti-Irish institution.


Britain's colonial war in Kenya: how did they get away with it?

Odhinn

dudara wrote: »

What makes her interesting to me is that she’s lived, and reigned, through a huge amount of change. ........
.

As indeed did Willhelm II. However the people who drove his nation out of theirs had far more say than was the case with the house windsor and britain.

indioblack

Deleted User wrote: »

Pfft! :rolleyes: That's hardly up there with someone emptying a public rubbish bin and chucking it into the back of Richard Nixon's open top limousine when he drove through the streets of Limerick on a state visit, circa 1970 :pac:

Fair enough - any reason why that happened?

Odhinn

indioblack wrote: »

Fair enough - any reason why that happened?

Vietnam, I presume.

indioblack

Odhinn wrote: »

Vietnam, I presume.

Of course - I was thinking of Watergate - but that wasn't for a couple more years.

Odhinn

indioblack wrote: »

Of course - I was thinking of Watergate - but that wasn't for a couple more years.

Interesting guy, was tricky dicky. Very capable but deeply flawed. Convinced 'The Jews' were up to no good and out to get him.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/some-new-comments-richard-nixon-subject-jews-and-blacks/311870/

http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/07/us/in-1971-tapes-nixon-is-heard-blaming-jews-for-communist-plots.html

splinter65

Patww79 wrote: »

Why would he go to see them for you?

She shouldn't have been let set foot in Cork or anywhere else in Ireland anyway.

She’s evil personified all right.

Avatar MIA

Odhinn wrote: »

Interesting guy, was tricky dicky. Very capable but deeply flawed. Convinced 'The Jews' were up to no good and out to get him.

SOMEBODY got him... Just saying :eek: