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.

It's a measure of mainstream journalism in this country that so much can be said about the life and times of the Royal Family without even a vague inference written about the strange similarities in appearance of a certain prince and a certain "Cad"...

Wow, this got a bit messy – anyhow, well done Lizzie for living a long time



.

It won’t go down as a classic event in my lifetime, but that record will take some beating. But then again who knows, in another hundred years some poor buggers will be living to one fifty.

Its a shame Roy Castle and Norris McQuirter aren't still around. It'd be great to see her on Record Breakers in between the woman with the world's longest fingernails and the geek who holds the world record for the Rubik's cube. She could even ask Norris a question (he'd probably point out that her record is only British, not world, and that she has some way to go to (20+ years in fact, and that's assuming the Thai king doesn't outstay her).

I just don't understand how anyone with a vaguely rational mind can countenance a royal family (and all it stands for) in the 21st century.

I guess it depends on what you think the royal family actually is and stands for.

If you see it as a monarch who is the ultimate power in the state and there only through birth and is the leader of her subjects etc etc, then yes I agree with you.

However I see the royal family as a link to our nations history (both good and bad), fulfills a ceremonial role for the nation and allows us to have some of the patriotic flag waving that happens in all countries from time to time, without it getting too xenophobic.
I also think it takes that ceremonial role away from the alternative, which would have to be some form of elected President. I don't necessarily think that that is any better. Especially as despite being a monarch, she's only there because the people allow her to be.

So for me its not a major issue and I think there are far, far bigger issues that threaten British people's lives and freedoms than the royal family.

Those people who always seem to cheerlead for the Royals - you just KNOW they haven't the slightest clue about them. I mean, imagine if someone knew about the activities of the Royals during the Opium Wars - and yet STILL supported them!

That's [isocial dysfunction[/i - right there.

It wouldn't surprise me, her mam was ancient when she died. Plus it seems these reptilians tend to live longer than us humans anyway.

Ahhh Hatred based on assumption. Hang the editors.

Nope. I think the phrase you are looking for is [iobservational evidence[/i.