Queen Elizabeth

251 posts in this topic

2 hours ago, Dembo said:

 

What are you talking about? It is left up to the politicians; the monarch doesn't control anything. I think the defining moment was in 2019 when Boris Johnson decided to suspend parliamentary democracy. If there was one argument for a monarchy it's that there should be somebody outside of politics, and not tainted by political baggage as you put it, who can do things like uphold the principles of democracy when faced with a tyrant in Number 10. But when it was put to the test she either wouldn't or couldn't do anything and in fact the courts took on that responsibility.

 

 

Indeed, and the fact the monarchy meddles in our political system behind the scenes makes Black Rod a charade.

The Crown with their wealth and influence still run this country, and Charles will probably be even worse.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, LeonG said:

Who is Harold? 

 

Could be he means Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex.

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Keleth said:

I do wonder how many of those queueing are doing it because it will be an "I was there" moment in the future

 

 A good few I reckon. And they're right to. It's an amazing thing.

 

We drove as near as we could to Stormont during the signing of Peace Agreement 2 (I think) for that historic buzz. It is cool to be able to say 'I woz there'. Our short comfortable drive is a rather small offering to History compared to the huge effort these guys are putting in ;).

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The man who disrupted the procedures was way out of order, and should be charged by the police accordingly.

However, this mother got her 7 year old up at 2.00 a.m. to go to London.

I expect the child wouldn't have even heard of The Queen before she died.

Performative grief in all its glory.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hooperski said:

The man who disrupted the procedures was way out of order, and should be charged by the police accordingly.

However, this mother got her 7 year old up at 2.00 a.m. to go to London.

I expect the child wouldn't have even heard of The Queen before she died.

Performative grief in all its glory.

 

 

I wouldn't now get a child up at 2 am to go to London or anywhere else. But maybe I would have when I was younger. Or for extreme circumstances.

 

Just look at the world.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-62940907

 

And I have been on enough flights early mornings with fellow tourists on cheap flights from Hamburg to eg Crete.I can't condemn this mother, though. Sure the child had heard of the Queen. Even I had when I was 7 and that way before the internet and SmartPhones and stuff!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Keleth said:

 

I do wonder how many of those queueing are doing it because it will be an "I was there" moment in the future rather than because of any feelings they have for the Queen.

 

Certainly possible!  i woke up on the beach in Rio as a 22/23 year old. Sleeping bag ok. No money. The cafe there was run by an old Portuguese man and his son said I could eat free when his dad wasn't around!

I had an Instamatic camera. Guess who was in range? Who was on the street about 100 yards away? General Pinochet of Chile! I had been told he was a fascist arsehole. That area around Sugar Loaf was military families! So I looked around carefully and took two pictures of him from afar! Dollar signs! Maybe I can sell them to someone?

Only problem was I had no money to develop the slides somewhere! 

So I didn't cash in!😂

But I was there!

Disclaimer: most  of those in the queue in London are probably genuinely in grief and respectful. And Queen Elizabeth was no Pinochet.

I read the other day she refused to visit South Africa for 40 years because of apartheid and was later twice invited to visit by Nelson Mandela.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/09/2022, 11:54:25, hooperski said:

makes Black Rod a charade.

Um, explain how what you said makes Black Rod a charade.

Also, the rest of your post belongs in the conspiracy theorist thread.

If you want to start talking about how the HoL is a problem for democracy then yer but believing the royal family meddles in politics is conspiracy stuff.

Are there people in power who don´t want to upset the royal family so tend to nudge decisions towards what they think they might want, yes

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Keleth said:

Um, explain how what you said makes Black Rod a charade.

Also, the rest of your post belongs in the conspiracy theorist thread.

If you want to start talking about how the HoL is a problem for democracy then yer but believing the royal family meddles in politics is conspiracy stuff.

Are there people in power who don´t want to upset the royal family so tend to nudge decisions towards what they think they might want, yes

 

 

 

I was under the impression that Black Rod was responsible for enforcing this.

 

The monarch is forbidden to enter the House of Commons as part of a parliamentary convention dating back to King Charles I in the 17th century. In January 1642, Charles I came to the Commons with several armed men to arrest five MPs for treason. Luckily for them, they had anticipated this and had already fled.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hooperski said:

 

I was under the impression that Black Rod was responsible for enforcing this.

 

The monarch is forbidden to enter the House of Commons as part of a parliamentary convention dating back to King Charles I in the 17th century. In January 1642, Charles I came to the Commons with several armed men to arrest five MPs for treason. Luckily for them, they had anticipated this and had already fled.

And once again,where in what you said makes Black Rod a charade?

I honestly can´t see the tie in there.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Google is your friend;

One of the reasons for slamming the door in the face of Black Rod is to just make the point – a little bit of theatre – of the elected Houses' chamber. The House of Commons' independence of the Crown and their political independence of the Crown

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was curious about 8 pallbearers.   Then I read the coffin is lead-lined and weighs 500 to 700 lbs.  So some part of their expressions were not just emotion.  Hard work, and worry of falling over.   BTW did anyone read about Queen Victoria and her funeral and what was in her coffin?  Wow.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were four candles around the coffin, as The queen was a big fan of The Two Ronnies.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hooperski said:

One of the reasons for slamming the door in the face of Black Rod is to just make the point – a little bit of theatre – of the elected Houses' chamber. The House of Commons' independence of the Crown and their political independence of the Crown

Black Rods job is restricting access to Parliament be it to strangers or royalty and maintaining discipline in the commons.

The King could from Buckingham Palace could try to command Parliament to dissolve or whatever and it would have nothing to do with Black Rod.

The slamming of the door you mentioned is as they say a bit of theatre but it´s the door slamming that's the point nothing to do with Black Rod.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/17/2022, 9:46:40, Dembo said:

 

What are you talking about? It is left up to the politicians; the monarch doesn't control anything. I think the defining moment was in 2019 when Boris Johnson decided to suspend parliamentary democracy. If there was one argument for a monarchy it's that there should be somebody outside of politics, and not tainted by political baggage as you put it, who can do things like uphold the principles of democracy when faced with a tyrant in Number 10. But when it was put to the test she either wouldn't or couldn't do anything and in fact the courts took on that responsibility.

 

 

What I'm saying is if instead of a monarch, you had say Tony Blair or Heseltine acting as state president it would never work. A president would only ever be someone with political baggage, and they would make things worse. Nearly all politicians are inherently divisive.  Maybe having a monarchy has helped the UK avoid having the rather bloody history of certain other European countries.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, hooperski said:

I'm truly sorry that the facts that I provided agree with your opinion.

Also care to show examples of them interfering in politics?

And no stuff like Charles saying we should bring in policies to help the environment is not them interfering.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now