Jump to content

God Save The Queen


Lex

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

I am in no way a royalist and post this queen, I think the Royal family either needs to swiftly adapt or it will cease to exist, but what I would say is that the Queen has had a purpose more of late than probably any other time in last 25 years. Not by just being queen and whatever people take from that, but more by her actions during this pandemic. When the chips were down, she has been far more in tune with the people than the government of the day could ever dream to be. From a restricted funeral for her husband to the self isolations this Christmas, she has done what the vast majority of us have done. Does not excuse many other wrongs, but she could have, if she wanted to, not bothered and got away with it. I don't take much action from her lead, but a lot, particularly elderly, people in the country do and there will be some who will have acted as a result, which may have helped save people from very different Christmases. 

What it does for a lot of those in government who oppose such restrictions is put them in an awkward position. Either the queen is a weak sheep or they are at odds with her. 

Do I care what she says in her speech? Not really, do I care what she ate for Christmas Dinner? No. But do I think she has filled some of the void in leadership this last year on covid vacated by the government? Yes.

There were hundreds of military personnel tramping about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, btb said:

Spent the bulk of her reign protecting her own interest, she's used the "Queens Consent" to seek changes to proposed legislation over 1000 times - that's the hard truth.

Buttttt … sHe’S NeVeR pUt a FoOt WrOnG!!!!!

It’s easy to appear never to have to put a foot wrong when you have an enormous PR team mediating your every public performance, and when you have a veil of secrecy thrown over your every action, supported entirely by the legal system.

The greedy old b*****d became the first monarch to arrange a (secret) agreement with the PM (Churchill) to avoid paying tax. She wouldn’t start until the 90s, and then on a voluntary basis, when she was caught further trying to gouge money out of the public. It looks to me like, in the 50s, she was shitting herself that the people would one day see through the scam and boot her and her family out - and so she set about fleecing her subjects whilst she could. She must be pissing herself at the continued fawning from the more cretinous amongst us.

The old woman is and always has been an utter spiv, interested only in building up her personal assets. For a God-botherer, she seems unaware of Matthew 19:24) although probably God told her it doesn’t apply to her, because she is His special Lieutenant on Earth).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dunfermline Don said:

I personally have nothing against HM as she seems like a sweet old lady who has plenty of interesting stories to tell, just like my Gran was when she was alive and many other senior citizens in this country.
However I do object to all those who elevate her as some sort of superhero to be worshipped.
I am dreading her passing if the media frenzy when the DOE went is anything to go by. I would probably avoid social media for a month afterwards.
It would be nice to think the Monarchy will end with her and I am sure Charlie may do his best to ensure that happens. What would be interesting is if there was some disaster struck them and Harry somehow became next in line. It may be worth Megan and him taking the throne just to see the reaction from Daily Mail readers.

It couldn't be any worse than the reaction from P&B's anti-monarchists following yesterdays Queens speech! 🤣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Theyellowbox said:

I am in no way a royalist and post this queen, I think the Royal family either needs to swiftly adapt or it will cease to exist, but what I would say is that the Queen has had a purpose more of late than probably any other time in last 25 years. Not by just being queen and whatever people take from that, but more by her actions during this pandemic. When the chips were down, she has been far more in tune with the people than the government of the day could ever dream to be. From a restricted funeral for her husband to the self isolations this Christmas, she has done what the vast majority of us have done. Does not excuse many other wrongs, but she could have, if she wanted to, not bothered and got away with it. I don't take much action from her lead, but a lot, particularly elderly, people in the country do and there will be some who will have acted as a result, which may have helped save people from very different Christmases. 

What it does for a lot of those in government who oppose such restrictions is put them in an awkward position. Either the queen is a weak sheep or they are at odds with her. 

Do I care what she says in her speech? Not really, do I care what she ate for Christmas Dinner? No. But do I think she has filled some of the void in leadership this last year on covid vacated by the government? Yes

It is all a triumph of public relations.

Awe, bless 'er, she's wearing the same broach, she's got a wee electric bar heater, she sat alone like others, against tradition she has to stay at Windsor Castle (how many houses does she need?) etc etc.

None of it is leadership, it is all PR and they are masters of it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Lex said:

 

What a woman, she truly transcends politics and time. What a speech today. I would have hoped that brought a wee tear to even the most joyless of the hard nosed republicans.

We will lose her soon, and what a loss she will be. Let’s celebrate her twilight years.

Post your messages of tribute to our head of state on here.

Long to reign over us.

 

Interesting to see the the red and green dotters.  Here's yer 'good guys' vs 'wanks' in one easy post.

gstq.thumb.png.11f21a85012c58aba4e8d32ebf698b61.png

Edited by The_Kincardine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

Interesting to see the the red and green dotters.  Here's yer 'good guys' vs 'wanks' in one easy post.

gstq.thumb.png.11f21a85012c58aba4e8d32ebf698b61.png

Forgotten, in your bid to promote and champion fellow Brexity, far-right   ̶l̶o̶o̶n̶s̶ “good guys”, like Dawson Park Boy and Goomba, that you occasionally masquerade as an anti-Brexit anti-monarchist who hates these “good guys” as much as you hate those dashed Scotch Natters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Antlion said:

Forgotten, in your bid to promote and champion fellow Brexity, far-right   ̶l̶o̶o̶n̶s̶ “good guys”, like Dawson Park Boy and Goomba, that you occasionally masquerade as an anti-Brexit anti-monarchist who hates these “good guys” as much as you hate those dashed Scotch Natters?

 

I was on the verge of voting with the "good guys" until I saw Scott Steiner in there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott Steiner said:

It couldn't be any worse than the reaction from P&B's anti-monarchists following yesterdays Queens speech! 🤣

I think saying as I did that I have nothing personal against the Queen but that the monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. 

No "heids gone" there really. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, tamthebam said:

I think saying as I did that I have nothing personal against the Queen but that the monarchy belongs in the dustbin of history is a perfectly reasonable position to hold. 

No "heids gone" there really. 

Some of the reactions have been mental, Tam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Queen's broadcast was watched by 9 million viewers, which equates to 13.1% of the UK population, ie just over 1 in 10. 

In 1980 that figure was a record 28 million, and with many of yesterday's viewers probably watching back then you can see which way this is headed.  We're just not producing many new monarchists these days.

 

Edited by O'Kelly Isley III
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, O'Kelly Isley III said:

The Queen's broadcast was watched by 9 million viewers, which equates to 13.1% of the UK population, ie just over 1 in 10. 

In 1980 that figure was a record 28 million, and with many of yesterday's viewers probably watching back then you can see which way this is headed.  We're just not producing many new monarchists these days.

Mind you back then about 28 million would've watched Mike Yarwood or something too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can track Liz's right to rule much past some great great great uncle who pranced about some minor German province. Loads of Vikings like William invaded us anyway, and that other William, the Dutch thug invited in by traitors to murder and pillage. I'm not about to blame her for dodgy ancestors, but giving her default ownership of all the land in the UK is not on the cards either. 

Edited by welshbairn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...