Page 3 of 4

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:03 am
by assfly
Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:23 am How can she be a world leader in any meaningful sense when she's not involved in any world leadership decisions?
Whether it's meaningful is a matter of opinion and debate, but there is no denying she is a world leader. Otherwise why would she open the British Parliament every year? Why would she be invited to make a speech at Cop26? Why is being hosted by the Queen such a significant achievement for so many heads of state? Why has she traditionally opened the CHOGM meetings? When she speaks on a topic, the world listens due to her ability to influence debate. She is the very definition of soft power that so many other countries strive to achieve.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:32 am
by Gumboot
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:03 am
Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:23 am How can she be a world leader in any meaningful sense when she's not involved in any world leadership decisions?
Whether it's meaningful is a matter of opinion and debate, but there is no denying she is a world leader. Otherwise why would she open the British Parliament every year? Why would she be invited to make a speech at Cop26? Why is being hosted by the Queen such a significant achievement for so many heads of state? Why has she traditionally opened the CHOGM meetings? When she speaks on a topic, the world listens due to her ability to influence debate. She is the very definition of soft power that so many other countries strive to achieve.
Speeches and openings and hosting dignitaries are the very definition of ceremonial fluff.

Soft power sounds like a cycle on a washing machine.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:37 am
by assfly
Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:32 am Soft power sounds like a cycle on a washing machine.
It isn't. It's a theory of international relations that carries a lot of weight. Look up Joseph Nye if you'd like read more about it.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:40 am
by Gumboot
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:37 am
Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:32 am Soft power sounds like a cycle on a washing machine.
It isn't. It's a theory of international relations that carries a lot of weight. Look up Joseph Nye if you'd like read more about it.
Thanks. :thumbup:

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:57 am
by Calculon
Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:23 am Her role is purely ceremonial.

How can she be a world leader in any meaningful sense when she's not involved in any world leadership decisions?

Please don't let your emotions get in the way of a sincere answer this time.
This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:20 am
by assfly
Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:57 am This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.
She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:21 am
by Big Nipper
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:20 am
Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:57 am This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.
She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.
:lol: :lol:

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:12 am
by Sandstorm
Couple of guys in here clearly failed modern history in high school. :oops:

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am
by Calculon
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:20 am
Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:57 am This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.
She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.
Her global influence is because she's a ceremonial figurehead who represents the British state. And her opening of parliament doesn't have anything to do with being a world leader, at this stage it's probably more to do with keeping the masses entertained with a bit of theater.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am
by sturginho
Chilli wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:56 am Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.
an awful lot of projection going on in this post

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:26 am
by assfly
Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am Her global influence is because she's a ceremonial figurehead who represents the British state. And her opening of parliament doesn't have anything to do with being a world leader, at this stage it's probably more to do with keeping the masses entertained with a bit of theater.
I think you're oversimplifying it a bit, but we seem to be in agreement that she has global influence.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:27 am
by inactionman
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:20 am
Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:57 am This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.
She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.
Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:36 am
by Calculon
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:26 am
Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am Her global influence is because she's a ceremonial figurehead who represents the British state. And her opening of parliament doesn't have anything to do with being a world leader, at this stage it's probably more to do with keeping the masses entertained with a bit of theater.
I think you're oversimplifying it a bit, but we seem to be in agreement that she has global influence.
Sure, but to repeat myself, her influence is interchangeable with that of the British state, it's nothing to do with being a world leader.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:38 am
by Calculon
Sandstorm wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:12 am Couple of guys in here clearly failed modern history in high school. :oops:
What is it with you souties and your fawning over the monarchy?

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:39 am
by assfly
inactionman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:27 am Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.
Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:
In August 1979, she went to Zambia for a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government despite Thatcher’s advice not to do so. It was that conference that gave impetus to Southern Rhodesia’s independence as Zimbabwe under a system of one-person-one-vote. Later in 1985, when Thatcher was firmly against my preference for sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, so steadfast was the Queen to the antiapartheid cause – the most acute global struggle against racism on black-white lines – that, once again, she stood firm against the position of Thatcher.
Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:40 am
by Openside
sturginho wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am
Chilli wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:56 am Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.
an awful lot of projection going on in this post
Nah he is spot on!!

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:54 am
by fishfoodie
Gumboot wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:06 am In what way is she a world leader? Phoning in a "Good luck, chaps" to COP26? Her Xmas speech? Get real.
I think her, aside comment, which magically got picked up by a reporter; was what put ScoMo on a plane to COP26; when he wasn't looking like attending at all. Being shamed by her is still a weapon that Politicians in her orbit fear.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:54 am
by inactionman
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:39 am
inactionman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:27 am Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.
Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:
In August 1979, she went to Zambia for a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government despite Thatcher’s advice not to do so. It was that conference that gave impetus to Southern Rhodesia’s independence as Zimbabwe under a system of one-person-one-vote. Later in 1985, when Thatcher was firmly against my preference for sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, so steadfast was the Queen to the antiapartheid cause – the most acute global struggle against racism on black-white lines – that, once again, she stood firm against the position of Thatcher.
Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.
I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 10:42 am
by Tichtheid
Openside wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:40 am
sturginho wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:22 am
Chilli wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:56 am Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.
an awful lot of projection going on in this post
Nah he is spot on!!

Nope, absolutely 100% not.
republic
/rɪˈpʌblɪk/

noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

This is a perfectly reasonable position to hold, absolutely nothing to do with fashion or narcissism, and frankly it is very insulting to suggest that it is.

I can respect the view that people want to continue to have a monarch, I completely disagree with it as I don't particularly believe that God has chosen certain people for that role and I don't see the point in a modern democracy, but I can respect their right to hold their view and to debate it

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 11:04 am
by JM2K6
inactionman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:27 am
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 8:20 am
Calculon wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:57 am This, she's not even supposed to have any influence on political decisions, to be completely apolitical. To then compare her to political leaders is pretty odd.
She's not supposed to have any influence on British political decisions. But her global influence is considerable.
Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan ... veto-bills

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:46 pm
by NeilOJism
inactionman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:54 am
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:39 am
inactionman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:27 am Well, she sort of does to a limited extent - Royal assent turns bills taken through parliament into acts. It's a required step, although generally a formality.

The monarch essentially has a veto, it's really just a nicety although my understanding is that it is active - the Queen can refuse to accept a bill into an Act of Parliament. I'm not aware of it happening, but I gather it was a consideration in WWII when invasion seemed likely - the King would refuse to recognise any parliament and would subsequently refuse any royal assent, with the net effect that any government would be illegitimate and no British citizen could therefor be bound by it or be found guilty of treason if acting against it. Sounds nice in theory, and some small comfort to any potential, hypothetical resistance just as they were about to be shot, I'm sure.
Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:
In August 1979, she went to Zambia for a meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government despite Thatcher’s advice not to do so. It was that conference that gave impetus to Southern Rhodesia’s independence as Zimbabwe under a system of one-person-one-vote. Later in 1985, when Thatcher was firmly against my preference for sanctions on the apartheid regime in South Africa, so steadfast was the Queen to the antiapartheid cause – the most acute global struggle against racism on black-white lines – that, once again, she stood firm against the position of Thatcher.
Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.
I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.
Nail on head.

Something unelected has to provide a backstop/framework/context for the whole democratic exercise, to avoid either a) supreme, unchecked power in the hands of someone as monstrous as a politician, or b) an infinite regress of the bastards.

You either make it a random person, or you leave it to a representative of a dynasty laboratory-developed for just such a function.

It’s something the shrill VIth formers often miss - between moaning that this privileged (care to swap?) person has too much power, or has too little, and is therefore an expensive bauble.

But as you say, it’s monarch dependent. Liz & Phil got the balance - and graft - spot on.

Chuck - and I speak from a tiny bit of personal experience - is dense as fuck. And crucially, world leaders think he is, too.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:58 pm
by fishfoodie
Only Anne seems remotely capable of being a useful Monarch; but the system puts the thicko, eldest son, on the throne.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:02 pm
by sturginho
NeilOJism wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:46 pm
inactionman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:54 am
assfly wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:39 am

Yes, that's what I meant by supposedly not influencing British political decisions. But I'm sure we'd all like to know exactly goes on during her private meetings with the PM.

I guess at the moment we're in a quiet period when I don't think she feels the need to step in where she shouldn't. But there has been precedent during more volatile times:



Those are the words of Sir Shridath Ramphal.
I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.
Nail on head.

Something unelected has to provide a backstop/framework/context for the whole democratic exercise, to avoid either a) supreme, unchecked power in the hands of someone as monstrous as a politician, or b) an infinite regress of the bastards.

You either make it a random person, or you leave it to a representative of a dynasty laboratory-developed for just such a function.

It’s something the shrill VIth formers often miss - between moaning that this privileged (care to swap?) person has too much power, or has too little, and is therefore an expensive bauble.

But as you say, it’s monarch dependent. Liz & Phil got the balance - and graft - spot on.

Chuck - and I speak from a tiny bit of personal experience - is dense as fuck. And crucially, world leaders think he is, too.
oh dear oh dear oh dear

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:06 pm
by Biffer

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:13 pm
by Big Nipper
Biffer wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:06 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59322086
Image

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:33 pm
by sturginho
Biffer wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:06 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59322086
Has ASMO turned into Jake? Has our world been rocked??

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:51 pm
by tabascoboy
fishfoodie wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:58 pm Only Anne seems remotely capable of being a useful Monarch; but the system puts the thicko, eldest son, on the throne.
Maybe we need a 'Royalty's Got Talent' competition where they go up against each other for votes

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:52 pm
by Marylandolorian
sturginho wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:33 pm
Biffer wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:06 pm https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59322086
Has ASMO turned into Jake? Has our world been rocked??
This deserves a good
Image

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:05 pm
by NeilOJism
sturginho wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:02 pm
NeilOJism wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:46 pm
inactionman wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 9:54 am

I'm not a monarchist by any means, but having the correcting influence of an apolitical monarch seems a useful feature to retain - avoids the adversarial contention between parties and also doesn't need to play to the voters.

Depends upon the monarch, of course.
Nail on head.

Something unelected has to provide a backstop/framework/context for the whole democratic exercise, to avoid either a) supreme, unchecked power in the hands of someone as monstrous as a politician, or b) an infinite regress of the bastards.

You either make it a random person, or you leave it to a representative of a dynasty laboratory-developed for just such a function.

It’s something the shrill VIth formers often miss - between moaning that this privileged (care to swap?) person has too much power, or has too little, and is therefore an expensive bauble.

But as you say, it’s monarch dependent. Liz & Phil got the balance - and graft - spot on.

Chuck - and I speak from a tiny bit of personal experience - is dense as fuck. And crucially, world leaders think he is, too.
oh dear oh dear oh dear
Have you and Thomas Hobbes even been seen in the same room, at the same time? Hmmmm..? :think:

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:12 pm
by ScarfaceClaw
tabascoboy wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 3:51 pm
fishfoodie wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 2:58 pm Only Anne seems remotely capable of being a useful Monarch; but the system puts the thicko, eldest son, on the throne.
Maybe we need a 'Royalty's Got Talent' competition where they go up against each other for votes
It’s already been done.


Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:13 pm
by NeilOJism
Actually, the best argument I can think of for the current monarch’s value is.... could you imagine Prime Minister Trump??

Admittedly, he’d fück a Corgi, wipe his dick on a Beefeater and generally be a disaster the moment he set foot in the Palace for his weeklies, but I reckon 1:1 Liz would twist his nipples (probably literally...) until she broke the chaotic bell-end.

He’d slope back to Downing Towers like a rape victim...

“I, er, *cough*, just need to have a shower and a lie down *whimper*”

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:07 pm
by GogLais
NeilOJism wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:13 pm Actually, the best argument I can think of for the current monarch’s value is.... could you imagine Prime Minister Trump??

Admittedly, he’d fück a Corgi, wipe his dick on a Beefeater and generally be a disaster the moment he set foot in the Palace for his weeklies, but I reckon 1:1 Liz would twist his nipples (probably literally...) until she broke the chaotic bell-end.

He’d slope back to Downing Towers like a rape victim...

“I, er, *cough*, just need to have a shower and a lie down *whimper*”
With the major difference that rape victims don’t deserve what’s happened to them.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 5:35 pm
by NeilOJism
No arguments here, petal

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:23 pm
by JM2K6
NeilOJism wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:13 pm Actually, the best argument I can think of for the current monarch’s value is.... could you imagine Prime Minister Trump??

Admittedly, he’d fück a Corgi, wipe his dick on a Beefeater and generally be a disaster the moment he set foot in the Palace for his weeklies, but I reckon 1:1 Liz would twist his nipples (probably literally...) until she broke the chaotic bell-end.

He’d slope back to Downing Towers like a rape victim...

“I, er, *cough*, just need to have a shower and a lie down *whimper*”
Because this has worked out so well with Boris?

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:24 pm
by Tichtheid
How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:34 pm
by SaintK
Tichtheid wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:24 pm How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid
There would be a huge queue lining up to be the assassin!

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:38 pm
by Tichtheid
SaintK wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:34 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:24 pm How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid
There would be a huge queue lining up to be the assassin!

The point is that the current monarch can’t be used as an argument for the continuation of the “office”, just suppose it was Chaz in that car in Paris, next in line would be Andy.

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:58 pm
by SaintK
Tichtheid wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:38 pm
SaintK wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:34 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 6:24 pm How about imagining King Donald?

with no set term, no way of getting rid
There would be a huge queue lining up to be the assassin!

The point is that the current monarch can’t be used as an argument for the continuation of the “office”, just suppose it was Chaz in that car in Paris, next in line would be Andy.
Would it not have been William even at his age then?

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:05 pm
by Uncle fester
Chilli wrote: Wed Nov 17, 2021 4:56 am Strange how people who claim to to care, don't support, couldn't care less, will celebrate her passing care so much that they post, repost and post again.

It seems to have become fashionable to hate or dislike the Royal Family. So fashionable that these people attention whore themselves all over the place.

"Look at me, look at me I dislike the Monarchy"

Just be quiet and move on with your lives.
Nah, we're just goading you.

Was it OS who got his knickers in a twist on the old bored when somebody wished ill on his beloved Bojo?

Re: Queen may be a gonner already, or very close to it

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2021 7:05 pm
by Calculon
Is Betty also as thick as fuck? Or maybe Prince Philip was? You don't get to be born as thick as fuck unless one parent, usually both, share the condition.