FabSwingers.com > Forums > Scotland > The Queens Speech
The Queens Speech
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Haven't watched it in years. It's never been important to me.
I do feel a bit sorry for her in many ways. She's in her 90s, her husband is very ill, her family are in coahos and her parliament are laughable.
Whatever she says or does is under scrutiny and has been for all of her life. She didn't have an option it was just thrust upon her.
Yes, she doesn't struggle financially but I imagine she is probably quite lonely at times. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hav02Man
over a year ago
Glasgow/London |
"Haven't watched it in years. It's never been important to me.
I do feel a bit sorry for her in many ways. She's in her 90s, her husband is very ill, her family are in coahos and her parliament are laughable.
Whatever she says or does is under scrutiny and has been for all of her life. She didn't have an option it was just thrust upon her.
Yes, she doesn't struggle financially but I imagine she is probably quite lonely at times. "
Even if it was filmed several weeks ago, I thought she looked quite depressed. Poor her, her Kingdom is crumbling and her corgis are probably better behaved than the whips and peers in Westminster that run our country! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gag001Couple
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Absolute pish.
I associate the Queen's speech with a stampede in the living room to turn the tele off."
I think your first quote is very disrespectful to someone who has spent their life trying to represent this country to the best of their ability.
The second, that's your prerogative.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Every year. Sad not to see harry and Meghan's photo on her table, regardless of the family fall out "
We noticed that, made us think about family members we don’t speak to anymore.
Watch the speech every year, it’s a great British tradition for us. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Haven't watched it in years. It's never been important to me.
I do feel a bit sorry for her in many ways. She's in her 90s, her husband is very ill, her family are in coahos and her parliament are laughable.
Whatever she says or does is under scrutiny and has been for all of her life. She didn't have an option it was just thrust upon her.
Yes, she doesn't struggle financially but I imagine she is probably quite lonely at times. "
My feelings too Sinderella  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dlilbumCouple
over a year ago
Aviemore and regularly visit Glasgow |
I don’t believe in the idea of Monarchy, we live in a democracy and one family should not be above everyone else. Our head of state should be elected not decided on the monopoly of birth.
So funnily enough I have never watched it. 
D |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don’t believe in the idea of Monarchy, we live in a democracy and one family should not be above everyone else. Our head of state should be elected not decided on the monopoly of birth.
So funnily enough I have never watched it.
D "
they stole the crown.
An yeh I agree with you there on the monarchy... Its over rated. They get rich doing practical nout |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Absolute pish.
I associate the Queen's speech with a stampede in the living room to turn the tele off.
I think your first quote is very disrespectful to someone who has spent their life trying to represent this country to the best of their ability.
The second, that's your prerogative...."
I couldn't care less  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though."
What has she done for the country??
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hav02Man
over a year ago
Glasgow/London |
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country?? "
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country??
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties
"
Yes all of this, except the queen does have constitutional power.. The monarchy is our failsafe, the reason we will never have a dictatorship or a military coup on behalf of any politician. The pm might ask her to ratify legislation, but she doesn't have to. Legislation is not passed until it has the royal assent. Now as it s_ands, she never refuses. But she could. So no crackpot pm can suddenly abolish elections (sorry bojo!) or anything nefarious like that. And the armed forces serve the Queen, not parliament. So they can't be hijacked to hijack the nation. It's important. It might seem far fetched that such fail safes are necessary. But after the last year of craziness in politics, I'm glad the monarchy is there lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Haven't watched it in years. It's never been important to me.
I do feel a bit sorry for her in many ways. She's in her 90s, her husband is very ill, her family are in coahos and her parliament are laughable.
Whatever she says or does is under scrutiny and has been for all of her life. She didn't have an option it was just thrust upon her.
Yes, she doesn't struggle financially but I imagine she is probably quite lonely at times. "
I've just said very similar on the other thread. I would not want her life at all |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dlilbumCouple
over a year ago
Aviemore and regularly visit Glasgow |
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country??
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties
Yes all of this, except the queen does have constitutional power.. The monarchy is our failsafe, the reason we will never have a dictatorship or a military coup on behalf of any politician. The pm might ask her to ratify legislation, but she doesn't have to. Legislation is not passed until it has the royal assent. Now as it s_ands, she never refuses. But she could. So no crackpot pm can suddenly abolish elections (sorry bojo!) or anything nefarious like that. And the armed forces serve the Queen, not parliament. So they can't be hijacked to hijack the nation. It's important. It might seem far fetched that such fail safes are necessary. But after the last year of craziness in politics, I'm glad the monarchy is there lol"
I’m afraid that’s just not true. The Queen as British Monarch has no democratic legitimacy and so cannot act independently of government or scrutinise what they are asking her to do, she must keep her head down and do as she is told. As was shown when she prorogued parliament recently only for the judiciary to rule that it was illegal. The unelected House of Lords has more power than her to hold government to account.
Our democracy would actually be much stronger with an elected head of state that had the democratic mandate to hold government to account.
D |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country??
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties
Yes all of this, except the queen does have constitutional power.. The monarchy is our failsafe, the reason we will never have a dictatorship or a military coup on behalf of any politician. The pm might ask her to ratify legislation, but she doesn't have to. Legislation is not passed until it has the royal assent. Now as it s_ands, she never refuses. But she could. So no crackpot pm can suddenly abolish elections (sorry bojo!) or anything nefarious like that. And the armed forces serve the Queen, not parliament. So they can't be hijacked to hijack the nation. It's important. It might seem far fetched that such fail safes are necessary. But after the last year of craziness in politics, I'm glad the monarchy is there lol
I’m afraid that’s just not true. The Queen as British Monarch has no democratic legitimacy and so cannot act independently of government or scrutinise what they are asking her to do, she must keep her head down and do as she is told. As was shown when she prorogued parliament recently only for the judiciary to rule that it was illegal. The unelected House of Lords has more power than her to hold government to account.
Our democracy would actually be much stronger with an elected head of state that had the democratic mandate to hold government to account.
D "
I never said she could do anything illegal. She has the power to prorogue parliament, on advice of the privy council. To do so must still be within the terms of legislation, and so the judiciary had scope to rule it illegal. But she absolutely has the power to stop any new act of legislation. It cannot become law until she approves it. This is seen as ceremonial today, no act has been refused since Queen Anne's time in like the 1700's. But it still exists. If the Queen decided not to approve a new act of legislation, the court could not stop that. Of course doing that would put the monarchy in the firing line, and booster the republican cause. But the fact remains. It can be done |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dlilbumCouple
over a year ago
Aviemore and regularly visit Glasgow |
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country??
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties
Yes all of this, except the queen does have constitutional power.. The monarchy is our failsafe, the reason we will never have a dictatorship or a military coup on behalf of any politician. The pm might ask her to ratify legislation, but she doesn't have to. Legislation is not passed until it has the royal assent. Now as it s_ands, she never refuses. But she could. So no crackpot pm can suddenly abolish elections (sorry bojo!) or anything nefarious like that. And the armed forces serve the Queen, not parliament. So they can't be hijacked to hijack the nation. It's important. It might seem far fetched that such fail safes are necessary. But after the last year of craziness in politics, I'm glad the monarchy is there lol
I’m afraid that’s just not true. The Queen as British Monarch has no democratic legitimacy and so cannot act independently of government or scrutinise what they are asking her to do, she must keep her head down and do as she is told. As was shown when she prorogued parliament recently only for the judiciary to rule that it was illegal. The unelected House of Lords has more power than her to hold government to account.
Our democracy would actually be much stronger with an elected head of state that had the democratic mandate to hold government to account.
D
I never said she could do anything illegal. She has the power to prorogue parliament, on advice of the privy council. To do so must still be within the terms of legislation, and so the judiciary had scope to rule it illegal. But she absolutely has the power to stop any new act of legislation. It cannot become law until she approves it. This is seen as ceremonial today, no act has been refused since Queen Anne's time in like the 1700's. But it still exists. If the Queen decided not to approve a new act of legislation, the court could not stop that. Of course doing that would put the monarchy in the firing line, and booster the republican cause. But the fact remains. It can be done"
That’s the point though, she would not do it and because of the UK’s lack of written constitution and the lack of a precedence she legally couldn’t. Your point that the monarchy serves as a fail safe just isn’t true I’m afraid, she is a mute puppet pure and simple.
A written constitution and an elected head of state would be much more robust protection against a crackpot seizing power.
D |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *uietbloke67Man
over a year ago
outside your bedroom window ;-) |
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country??
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties
Yes all of this, except the queen does have constitutional power.. The monarchy is our failsafe, the reason we will never have a dictatorship or a military coup on behalf of any politician. The pm might ask her to ratify legislation, but she doesn't have to. Legislation is not passed until it has the royal assent. Now as it s_ands, she never refuses. But she could. So no crackpot pm can suddenly abolish elections (sorry bojo!) or anything nefarious like that. And the armed forces serve the Queen, not parliament. So they can't be hijacked to hijack the nation. It's important. It might seem far fetched that such fail safes are necessary. But after the last year of craziness in politics, I'm glad the monarchy is there lol
I’m afraid that’s just not true. The Queen as British Monarch has no democratic legitimacy and so cannot act independently of government or scrutinise what they are asking her to do, she must keep her head down and do as she is told. As was shown when she prorogued parliament recently only for the judiciary to rule that it was illegal. The unelected House of Lords has more power than her to hold government to account.
Our democracy would actually be much stronger with an elected head of state that had the democratic mandate to hold government to account.
D
I never said she could do anything illegal. She has the power to prorogue parliament, on advice of the privy council. To do so must still be within the terms of legislation, and so the judiciary had scope to rule it illegal. But she absolutely has the power to stop any new act of legislation. It cannot become law until she approves it. This is seen as ceremonial today, no act has been refused since Queen Anne's time in like the 1700's. But it still exists. If the Queen decided not to approve a new act of legislation, the court could not stop that. Of course doing that would put the monarchy in the firing line, and booster the republican cause. But the fact remains. It can be done
That’s the point though, she would not do it and because of the UK’s lack of written constitution and the lack of a precedence she legally couldn’t. Your point that the monarchy serves as a fail safe just isn’t true I’m afraid, she is a mute puppet pure and simple.
A written constitution and an elected head of state would be much more robust protection against a crackpot seizing power.
A crackpot has seized power..
.ladies and gentleman I give yo BOJO the dancing right wing puppet.
D "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dlilbumCouple
over a year ago
Aviemore and regularly visit Glasgow |
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country??
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties
Yes all of this, except the queen does have constitutional power.. The monarchy is our failsafe, the reason we will never have a dictatorship or a military coup on behalf of any politician. The pm might ask her to ratify legislation, but she doesn't have to. Legislation is not passed until it has the royal assent. Now as it s_ands, she never refuses. But she could. So no crackpot pm can suddenly abolish elections (sorry bojo!) or anything nefarious like that. And the armed forces serve the Queen, not parliament. So they can't be hijacked to hijack the nation. It's important. It might seem far fetched that such fail safes are necessary. But after the last year of craziness in politics, I'm glad the monarchy is there lol
I’m afraid that’s just not true. The Queen as British Monarch has no democratic legitimacy and so cannot act independently of government or scrutinise what they are asking her to do, she must keep her head down and do as she is told. As was shown when she prorogued parliament recently only for the judiciary to rule that it was illegal. The unelected House of Lords has more power than her to hold government to account.
Our democracy would actually be much stronger with an elected head of state that had the democratic mandate to hold government to account.
D
I never said she could do anything illegal. She has the power to prorogue parliament, on advice of the privy council. To do so must still be within the terms of legislation, and so the judiciary had scope to rule it illegal. But she absolutely has the power to stop any new act of legislation. It cannot become law until she approves it. This is seen as ceremonial today, no act has been refused since Queen Anne's time in like the 1700's. But it still exists. If the Queen decided not to approve a new act of legislation, the court could not stop that. Of course doing that would put the monarchy in the firing line, and booster the republican cause. But the fact remains. It can be done
That’s the point though, she would not do it and because of the UK’s lack of written constitution and the lack of a precedence she legally couldn’t. Your point that the monarchy serves as a fail safe just isn’t true I’m afraid, she is a mute puppet pure and simple.
A written constitution and an elected head of state would be much more robust protection against a crackpot seizing power.
D
A crackpot has seized power..
.ladies and gentleman I give yo BOJO the dancing right wing puppet.
"
Unfortunately he has seized power democratically, if he decided to abolish elections though it would be the House of Lords and the judiciary that would save us though and not the queen.
D |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If i'm at home and it's on, I'll watch. Always thought the Queen does a great job for the country. Not really bothered about the other royal hangers on though.What has she done for the country??
(Feel free to correct...)
The monarchy as it s_ands now is constitutional, meaning she has no legislative power over the running of the country. However, she represents the third house of parliament (lords and commons being the other two) and must sign any bill before it can be made law. She can refuse a bill, but often doesn't.
She is overall head of the armed forces.
However, her main duties reside as international engagements, national representation & identity.
She is a source of income due to foreign tourism.
She hosts tea parties
Yes all of this, except the queen does have constitutional power.. The monarchy is our failsafe, the reason we will never have a dictatorship or a military coup on behalf of any politician. The pm might ask her to ratify legislation, but she doesn't have to. Legislation is not passed until it has the royal assent. Now as it s_ands, she never refuses. But she could. So no crackpot pm can suddenly abolish elections (sorry bojo!) or anything nefarious like that. And the armed forces serve the Queen, not parliament. So they can't be hijacked to hijack the nation. It's important. It might seem far fetched that such fail safes are necessary. But after the last year of craziness in politics, I'm glad the monarchy is there lol
I’m afraid that’s just not true. The Queen as British Monarch has no democratic legitimacy and so cannot act independently of government or scrutinise what they are asking her to do, she must keep her head down and do as she is told. As was shown when she prorogued parliament recently only for the judiciary to rule that it was illegal. The unelected House of Lords has more power than her to hold government to account.
Our democracy would actually be much stronger with an elected head of state that had the democratic mandate to hold government to account.
D
I never said she could do anything illegal. She has the power to prorogue parliament, on advice of the privy council. To do so must still be within the terms of legislation, and so the judiciary had scope to rule it illegal. But she absolutely has the power to stop any new act of legislation. It cannot become law until she approves it. This is seen as ceremonial today, no act has been refused since Queen Anne's time in like the 1700's. But it still exists. If the Queen decided not to approve a new act of legislation, the court could not stop that. Of course doing that would put the monarchy in the firing line, and booster the republican cause. But the fact remains. It can be done
That’s the point though, she would not do it and because of the UK’s lack of written constitution and the lack of a precedence she legally couldn’t. Your point that the monarchy serves as a fail safe just isn’t true I’m afraid, she is a mute puppet pure and simple.
A written constitution and an elected head of state would be much more robust protection against a crackpot seizing power.
D
A crackpot has seized power..
.ladies and gentleman I give yo BOJO the dancing right wing puppet.
Unfortunately he has seized power democratically, if he decided to abolish elections though it would be the House of Lords and the judiciary that would save us though and not the queen.
D "
I disagree. But such is life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Royal family and the queen don’t live in our world where we face reality on a financial level as well as personal level
They have struggles yes but not in the same way as the ordinary joe or jess does so far out of touch and from people.
There will come a day in another life time they will not be needed or wanted or serve any purpose to us especially to scotland they do fuck all for us or our country and i am half english before some arsehole onhere thinks am anti english defo not i visit chelsea every second month and also other parts of england have family and friends
It is time foe them to go and let the new nation come forward as there is a new generation coming up and they are modern and don’t give a ducks fuck about them
our nation is changing and they should change with it move out and retire a waste of space like her speech |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The Royal family and the queen don’t live in our world where we face reality on a financial level as well as personal level
They have struggles yes but not in the same way as the ordinary joe or jess does so far out of touch and from people.
There will come a day in another life time they will not be needed or wanted or serve any purpose to us especially to scotland they do fuck all for us or our country and i am half english before some arsehole onhere thinks am anti english defo not i visit chelsea every second month and also other parts of england have family and friends
It is time foe them to go and let the new nation come forward as there is a new generation coming up and they are modern and don’t give a ducks fuck about them
our nation is changing and they should change with it move out and retire a waste of space like her speech |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Have never and will never watch it.
Old rich lady telling it how hard the country is yeah you sit there in 1 of your many castles and tell us ordinary folk to keep our chins up.
I think not.
Out dated and hopefully dying out tradition. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have never and will never watch it.
Old rich lady telling it how hard the country is yeah you sit there in 1 of your many castles and tell us ordinary folk to keep our chins up.
I think not.
Out dated and hopefully dying out tradition."
I do believe you dont watch it as she never preaches she is a voice of reason in a country riven with so many factions...very few things can unify us , She may not be to your taste but you have to admire her sense of duty.. I wont be working into my 90s and neither would any of us want to. Oh and who wants to have to meet Boris every week for the next 5years ...Or worse have to invite the Blessed Nicola along on your summer holidays... No i dont envy her position at all....my life is a breeze in comparison |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sense of duty?
Oh please!
She was born into a life of privilege what else was she to do chuck it?
I think not.
I actually think shes ok as a figurehead.a tourist attraction nothing more.but pay her own way.the family has it's own money.scale it back no need for multiple houses and the kids/grandkids hanger ons do not need taxpayers money. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have never and will never watch it.
Old rich lady telling it how hard the country is yeah you sit there in 1 of your many castles and tell us ordinary folk to keep our chins up.
I think not.
Out dated and hopefully dying out tradition.
I do believe you dont watch it as she never preaches she is a voice of reason in a country riven with so many factions...very few things can unify us , She may not be to your taste but you have to admire her sense of duty.. I wont be working into my 90s and neither would any of us want to. Oh and who wants to have to meet Boris every week for the next 5years ...Or worse have to invite the Blessed Nicola along on your summer holidays... No i dont envy her position at all....my life is a breeze in comparison "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *dlilbumCouple
over a year ago
Aviemore and regularly visit Glasgow |
"Have never and will never watch it.
Old rich lady telling it how hard the country is yeah you sit there in 1 of your many castles and tell us ordinary folk to keep our chins up.
I think not.
Out dated and hopefully dying out tradition.
I do believe you dont watch it as she never preaches she is a voice of reason in a country riven with so many factions...very few things can unify us , She may not be to your taste but you have to admire her sense of duty.. I wont be working into my 90s and neither would any of us want to. Oh and who wants to have to meet Boris every week for the next 5years ...Or worse have to invite the Blessed Nicola along on your summer holidays... No i dont envy her position at all....my life is a breeze in comparison "
The notion that she does enough “work” to justify the numerous palaces and decadent lifestyle that her and her extended family enjoy is absolutely laughable.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Have never and will never watch it.
Old rich lady telling it how hard the country is yeah you sit there in 1 of your many castles and tell us ordinary folk to keep our chins up.
I think not.
Out dated and hopefully dying out tradition.
I do believe you dont watch it as she never preaches she is a voice of reason in a country riven with so many factions...very few things can unify us , She may not be to your taste but you have to admire her sense of duty.. I wont be working into my 90s and neither would any of us want to. Oh and who wants to have to meet Boris every week for the next 5years ...Or worse have to invite the Blessed Nicola along on your summer holidays... No i dont envy her position at all....my life is a breeze in comparison
The notion that she does enough “work” to justify the numerous palaces and decadent lifestyle that her and her extended family enjoy is absolutely laughable.
"
she hasn't done any |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hav02Man
over a year ago
Glasgow/London |
"Sense of duty?
Oh please!
She was born into a life of privilege what else was she to do chuck it?
I think not.
I actually think shes ok as a figurehead.a tourist attraction nothing more.but pay her own way.the family has it's own money.scale it back no need for multiple houses and the kids/grandkids hanger ons do not need taxpayers money."
Well, she could associate with a pedophile and give up her royal position  #princeandrew
However, the family do seem to provide a lot of charitable work, nature conservation programmes...possibly at taxpayers expense...? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Haven't watched it in years. It's never been important to me.
I do feel a bit sorry for her in many ways. She's in her 90s, her husband is very ill, her family are in coahos and her parliament are laughable.
Whatever she says or does is under scrutiny and has been for all of her life. She didn't have an option it was just thrust upon her.
Yes, she doesn't struggle financially but I imagine she is probably quite lonely at times. "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Every year. Sad not to see harry and Meghan's photo on her table, regardless of the family fall out
We noticed that, made us think about family members we don’t speak to anymore.
Watch the speech every year, it’s a great British tradition for us. "
Only photos show the line of succession. Queens father, Charles, William. Nothing to do with family rifts! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think we need a royal family now it's a thing of the oast, as for all the houses they have like the old palaces and castles they went built for this family but they do use them I think they should give one to me to live in I'll turn it into a swingers club  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hav02Man
over a year ago
Glasgow/London |
"I don't think we need a royal family now it's a thing of the oast, as for all the houses they have like the old palaces and castles they went built for this family but they do use them I think they should give one to me to live in I'll turn it into a swingers club "
Balmoral the new Fabmoral  it's the perfect location too!
But would you really want to be having sex with a portrait of Prince Charles hanging above your head ?? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't think we need a royal family now it's a thing of the oast, as for all the houses they have like the old palaces and castles they went built for this family but they do use them I think they should give one to me to live in I'll turn it into a swingers club
Balmoral the new Fabmoral it's the perfect location too!
But would you really want to be having sex with a portrait of Prince Charles hanging above your head ??"
Haha nah they would be auctioned off to fund the refurbishment and equipment |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
