For those who didn’t know / didn’t care.

On the 9th September Her Royal Highness becomes the longest serving monarch is British history!

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not big on the Royal stuff (well I actually detest it) however, I’m big on witnessing defining events in my lifetime. The Moon landing etc., etc. but when Lizzie beats the record I’ll raise a glass.

I believe there’s not going to be a big fuss made of it, but I think it comes higher than whatever that river pageant was all about.

I just hope a I raise a toast, that she’s doing the same with her crown on, singing Campione, Campione…

As the great Sir Francis Urquhart said (in that episode when you realise there are worse monsters in life than Urquhart):

[i"Not at all, sir. Don't you understand what I'm telling you? I have no wish to. It is you I want to destroy, not the Monarchy. My family came south with James I. We were defenders of the English throne before your family was ever heard of. It is to preserve the ideal of a constitutional monarchy that I now demand your abdication."[/i

Benefits scroungers the lot of them, living off the state, with housing provided, breeding like rabbits, and from illegal immigrants. Take everything and give nothing.

That about sums it up doesn't it?

Ah but what about all the money they generate from tourism we keeping getting told about?

As long as the monarch doesn't embarrass the nation or interfere in any way in politics then, despite ideologically being opposed to a monarchy, I think the one we currently have works very well.

it should be ....
doff the cap, you pleb!
Yours
HRH

Just think how high profile Rugby League could now be if Jamie Jones Buchanan had married one of Her Majesty's grand daughters. The other code hasn't looked back since Tindall got in there. Another opportunity missed by RL? I blame the RFL and Nigel Woods.

Naw , it's Silverwoods fault all the way

Remarkable achievement - God Save The Queen

Which "God" and which queen?

and what's so remarkable about being a benefits scrounger for so long?

That IDS hasn't assessed her for a fortune in "bedroom tax" - must have hundreds of spare ones around this sceptre isle.

For some reason I used to respect the royal family. Now I realise they are a bunch of Reptilians with dubious morals. Obviously they are handy for the economy with all the tourists who come here to see all things Windsor but is it really worth living under their oppressive, exploitative regime?

Remarkable that her father died relatively young so she could take over in her twenties and live to an age just above the average for women?

It's more luck than anything. Now if she lived another 20 years that would be remarkable.

Everything they do or say is massively exaggerated. They offer a molecule of sympathy and they are beyond generous, anything less than open cowardice is noble and heroic, avoid total stupidity and they are wise and intelligent.
They are a bunch of big eared, buck toothed, balding f*****wits who rely on a baffling, misguided sense of duty from people too tiny and afraid to give up serving and indulging them.

They mean nothing to me other than a perpetuation of a class system that allows the less capable to dominate and control their betters. The thought of celebrating an old woman drenched in the most obscene levels of privilege and wealth managing - with all the odds in her favour - to live a long time makes me cringe.

Still, it's a free country, isn't it.

Did the ginger one not do a spell in the desert, and the one who married the ginger one not do his bit in the South Atlantic?

I recognise they are not the Queen but given the hatred of the Royals spouted on here maybe a couple of notable contributions.

When Corbs gets his chance they can opt out of the armed forces tax with you lot.

And they are different to the others who were in the desert and South Atlantic in what way?

Who would have thought that the lovely posters of the Sin Bin would be out of touch with public opinion on the monarchy

Quote ="Exiled down south"Did the ginger one not do a spell in the desert, and the one who married the ginger one not do his bit in the South Atlantic.'" See my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.

Quote ="Exiled down south"Did the ginger one not do a spell in the desert, and the one who married the ginger one not do his bit in the South Atlantic.'" See my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.

There are times when a monarchy is a good thing. The Roman Empire was repeatedly rocked by internal strife precisely because Augustus and his successor emperors never managed to solve the problem of succession. If there is no clear and unambiguous mechanism by which power transfers from a dying emperor to his successor then it's a free-for-all with myriad factions all competing for the throne. Before long violence breaks out and the matter is invariably settled by the candidate with the most soldiers behind him.

IIRC the people of Rome once witnessed power transfer through five emperors in a single year.

Part of the reason America is currently going down such a worrying route is precisely because they've never had any kind of monarchical system which, in conjunction with its supportive class, forms The Establishment. As contemptible as it is - you need such a power bloc to function as a bullwark against the excesses of the business and military classes.

In the United States these special interest groups have really grown out of all control and this is why it's currently teetering right on the edge of fascism. Of course, the Americans didn't help themselves when they foolishly threw open their doors to thousands of card-carrying Nazis (whose crimes are unspeakable) after WWII. In their haste to use these people against the new Russian menace they never once stopped to think what effect they might have on the nation ...

Well done Your Maj!

Isn't it 'doff' the cap btw?

You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx

You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx

Why the shock?
You are constantly out of touch with any subject you post on

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx'" Agreed. The way the Queen has conducted herself is why I'm not too bothered about having a monarch despite ideologically being opposed to it. I think there are far bigger factors in the oppression of people in this country than having a monarchy. The ever increasing concentration of wealth, the public school elite, the rich media and the demonisation of the working class etc etc. None of that has anything to do with the monarchy. Plus I don't know whether we'd particularly better off having some form of elected President to carry out the Head of State duties. It's just another opportunity for corruption. At least the monarchy has to be politically neutral.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx'" Agreed. The way the Queen has conducted herself is why I'm not too bothered about having a monarch despite ideologically being opposed to it. I think there are far bigger factors in the oppression of people in this country than having a monarchy. The ever increasing concentration of wealth, the public school elite, the rich media and the demonisation of the working class etc etc. None of that has anything to do with the monarchy. Plus I don't know whether we'd particularly better off having some form of elected President to carry out the Head of State duties. It's just another opportunity for corruption. At least the monarchy has to be politically neutral.

Quote See my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.'" Maybe that's an exaggeration.

Quote See my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.'" Maybe that's an exaggeration.

history may beg to differ on several areas of your post. As an example until the 60's the monarch had a say in who the Conservative party leader would be.