How Long Does a Queen Last?

Yeah, that was directed at USF. I missed the fact on her Wiki page that she had become Queen 1 1/2 years prior to her official coronation. Not exactly something that would yield a "WTF" when properly corrected.
 
General Chamberlain said:
Yeah, that was directed at USF. I missed the fact on her Wiki page that she had become Queen 1 1/2 years prior to her official coronation. Not exactly something that would yield a "WTF" when properly corrected.
Click to expand...

I doubt Grind will fess up to his mistake as readily, it's just not his style. As for USF, he is behaving like a spoilt brat and is just making shit up.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You are missing the point, I believe that the head of state should not be a political figure as well. Now whether it is a monarch or not is another question entirely.

By the way, I wonder if you knew that she is also the head of state for 18 other countries as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
Click to expand...
No, I do get your point Tom. I disagree with you is all. I believe that the head of state very much should be involved in politics.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
You are missing the point, I believe that the head of state should not be a political figure as well. Now whether it is a monarch or not is another question entirely.

By the way, I wonder if you knew that she is also the head of state for 18 other countries as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realm
Click to expand...

The idea that any country needs a head of state who isn't political is absurd. You pay approx 65 million a year for this ceremonial nonsense, and they never include the cost of security in those figures, which I've read would at least triple that number. For what? And the very idea that a head of state should be non-political. Everything's political. The family and home are political. That's a very naive statement, IMO.

But to each their own. We don't want it here though.
 
Darla said:
The idea that any country needs a head of state who isn't political is absurd. You pay approx 65 million a year for this ceremonial nonsense, and they never include the cost of security in those figures, which I've read would at least triple that number. For what? And the very idea that a head of state should be non-political. Everything's political. The family and home are political. That's a very naive statement, IMO.

But to each their own. We don't want it here though.
Click to expand...

There follows an extract from the work of one of your own:

Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.

Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.

Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.

And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.

After they’ve finished buying maple syrup and cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services and illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?

The United Kingdom.

Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.

And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.

The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.

It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.

Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.

12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million pounds.

Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.

But perhaps you don’t care than the monarchs are a perpetual GOLD MINE for the UK. You’re a Republican and you dislike like the royal family because of their political power. After all, the government gets all its right to rule through the crown, not the people.

And yes, I’ll grant you that back in the head-choppy days of yore, this was a legitimate concern, but the modern queen isn’t a dangerous political lion but a declawed kitten.

Her powers are limited to a kabuki theater act of approving what parliament wants to do anyway.

Remove the royal family from government and fundamentally nothing would be different except now you wouldn’t live in the magical United Kingdom but the rather dull United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A.K.A URESWNI for short. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

But, maybe I’m wrong – perhaps the queen is a political ticking time bomb, just waiting for her chance to declare random wars and devolve parliaments for the lulz.

But until that day comes.

God save the queen.
 
Darla said:
The idea that any country needs a head of state who isn't political is absurd. You pay approx 65 million a year for this ceremonial nonsense, and they never include the cost of security in those figures, which I've read would at least triple that number. For what? And the very idea that a head of state should be non-political. Everything's political. The family and home are political. That's a very naive statement, IMO.

But to each their own. We don't want it here though.
Click to expand...

That £65 million figure works out at just over a penny per person per year, how much does the president cost? The cost of Air Force One alone is probably more than that.
 
Lowaicue said:
There follows an extract from the work of one of your own:

Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.

Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.

Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.

And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.

After they’ve finished buying maple syrup and cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services and illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?

The United Kingdom.

Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.

And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.

The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.

It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.

Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.

12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million pounds.

Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.

But perhaps you don’t care than the monarchs are a perpetual GOLD MINE for the UK. You’re a Republican and you dislike like the royal family because of their political power. After all, the government gets all its right to rule through the crown, not the people.

And yes, I’ll grant you that back in the head-choppy days of yore, this was a legitimate concern, but the modern queen isn’t a dangerous political lion but a declawed kitten.

Her powers are limited to a kabuki theater act of approving what parliament wants to do anyway.

Remove the royal family from government and fundamentally nothing would be different except now you wouldn’t live in the magical United Kingdom but the rather dull United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A.K.A URESWNI for short. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

But, maybe I’m wrong – perhaps the queen is a political ticking time bomb, just waiting for her chance to declare random wars and devolve parliaments for the lulz.

But until that day comes.

God save the queen.
Click to expand...

Fuck me rigid Low, I never thought on God's green earth to see you use a word like lulz?
 
Darla said:
The idea that any country needs a head of state who isn't political is absurd. You pay approx 65 million a year for this ceremonial nonsense, and they never include the cost of security in those figures, which I've read would at least triple that number. For what? And the very idea that a head of state should be non-political. Everything's political. The family and home are political. That's a very naive statement, IMO.

But to each their own. We don't want it here though.
Click to expand...

Where do you draw the line? Would you want the Supreme Court to be political and be elected every four years?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
Fuck me rigid Low, I never thought on God's green earth to see you use a word like lulz?
Click to expand...

Fear not. As I explained at the top this was an extract from an American's writing, not mine. I put it up to show just how much money is brought in by Whisky Liz, Phil the Greek and their inbred progeny.
I'd rather have her and 7000 million quid (yanks would say seven billion... just shows they have no idea of the worth of money!) than a president in power because he came from corrupt riches and whitened teeth.
Choose Lizzie or Mitt the tit?
Somehow I can't see British tourists flocking to see any of their presidents let alone leaving their hard earned wages at American souvenir stalls.
 
Lowaicue said:
Fear not. As I explained at the top this was an extract from an American's writing, not mine. I put it up to show just how much money is brought in by Whisky Liz, Phil the Greek and their inbred progeny.
I'd rather have her and 7000 million quid (yanks would say seven billion... just shows they have no idea of the worth of money!) than a president in power because he came from corrupt riches and whitened teeth.
Choose Lizzie or Mitt the tit?
Somehow I can't see British tourists flocking to see any of their presidents let alone leaving their hard earned wages at American souvenir stalls.
Click to expand...

Thank God for that, I thought you had gone native!
 
Lowaicue said:
Fear not. As I explained at the top this was an extract from an American's writing, not mine. I put it up to show just how much money is brought in by Whisky Liz, Phil the Greek and their inbred progeny.
I'd rather have her and 7000 million quid (yanks would say seven billion... just shows they have no idea of the worth of money!) than a president in power because he came from corrupt riches and whitened teeth.
Choose Lizzie or Mitt the tit?
Somehow I can't see British tourists flocking to see any of their presidents let alone leaving their hard earned wages at American souvenir stalls.
Click to expand...
So you agree with the notion that your Royalty is, for some reason, superior to you legally, socially and culturally, by an accident of birth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top