Queen Elizabeth marks 65 years on British throne

[samsensam]

30 minutes ago, saakura said:

Wow. You mean at 90yrs age, and being a Queen, she drives herself? Incredible if true!

 

it's true.

[Grouse]

6 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Okay, thanks for a logical response. However, she could stay on horseback or drive her Land Rovers as the queen-mother, could she not. I still don't see why any mother who loved her son would not want him to enjoy the family business before he got too old to do so.

It's not a family business; unlike the USA these days.

[Slip]

9 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Okay, thanks for a logical response. However, she could stay on horseback or drive her Land Rovers as the queen-mother, could she not. I still don't see why any mother who loved her son would not want him to enjoy the family business before he got too old to do so.

It's her duty- our German aristos take such things seriously gawd bless'em.

[Prbkk]

37 minutes ago, smotherb said:

Oh. please not the tower, I'd have to have really bad English food. Not pulling any discretionary tactic; just don't understand why she hasn't given the crown to Charles.

No need to go to the tower for bad food. It's everywhere. On the other hand , those great English dishes such as Spotted Dick and Toad in the Hole really are a treat. 

[7by7]

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

No doubt she has reasons for not abdicating in favor of her son.

 

59 minutes ago, smotherb said:

It is not my decision, it is hers, is it not? She has not handed over the reign--pun intended--to Charles. So, she must have a reason. Maybe the Queen just doesn't want Camilla nearer to the throne, maybe she doesn't trust Charles' decisions and is waiting for William, maybe she wants the power and refuses to give it up for anyone.

 

So, sorry, Grouse, can not spell it out, it is not my decision. It just seems to me any mother who trusts her son would hand over the family business to him before he gets too old to enjoy it.

As explained by myself and AndamanAl; it's because she takes her coronation oath seriously.

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, saakura said:

Wow. You mean at 90yrs age, and being a Queen, she drives herself? Incredible if true!

 

Here is a nice story about the Queen taking King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia for a drive in her land rover:

 

"Women are not - yet - allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, and Abdullah was not used to being driven by a woman, let alone a queen. His nervousness only increased as the Queen, an Army driver in wartime, accelerated the Land Rover along the narrow Scottish estate roads, talking all the time. Through his interpreter, the Crown Prince implored the Queen to slow down and concentrate on the road ahead."

[7by7]

There are, of course, those who will argue that a monarchy, even a constitutional one such as ours, has no place in the 21st century.

 

Well, there are pros and cons in everything

 

The two argument most often brought up by Republicans are that a monarch isn't democratic and the cost of running a monarchy.

 

Not democratic. Every state needs a head of state. In many republics, France, Italy for example, this is a president without executive power; in other words a ceremonial head of state, just like the monarch in a constitutional monarchy. This allows the political leader, e.g. prime minister, to get on with the business of running the country without the tedious hand shaking, ribbon cutting etc. they would otherwise have to do.

 

For those countries where the president does have executive power, the USA for example, that power can be, and often is, thwarted when they don't have a majority in parliament, congress or whatever. They also have to do all the hand shaking, ribbon cutting etc..

 

Cost. Think a republic would be cheaper than Monarchy? Think again!

Quote

In this past year, the British Monarchy cost taxpayers £35.7 million. That represents a cost of 56 pence per person in the United Kingdom............

 

The President of France, whose role is very similar to that of Her Majesty, cost French taxpayers a whopping £91 million.....The total cost works out at £1.43 per person in France...........

 

A little further south and we find the Italian Republic. Its president performs almost exactly the same constitutional function as The Queen, bar a few political powers, yet amazingly costs Italian taxpayers £181.5m per year! That’s £3.08 for every Italian.........

 

Additionally, if one were to go down the route of an executive president, the figures can reach eye-watering sums, with the estimated cost of the American presidency reportedly going into billions

 

Of course, those figures do not include additional costs; such as security. But whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, those costs would be at least the same.

 

If not more. For example, the US taxpayer not only provides security for the incumbent president and their family, but also for all living predecessors and their families. In election year for the candidates and then, after the election, the president elect as well.

[smotherb]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's not a family business; unlike the USA these days.

Well, really; then what is their business? Let's see, her father, his brother, their father, etc. back. And, her son, his son and his son will someday inherit it--sounds like a family business to me.

[smotherb]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 

As explained by myself and AndamanAl; it's because she takes her coronation oath seriously.

Sorry, but I fail to see where it says the monarch cannot abdicate, or simply retire, in favor of the next in line or anyone else. Could you point out that part to me so that I may better understand?

 

”Following is the text of the Oath taken by Queen Elizabeth II in 1953.

Archbishop. Will you solemnly promise and swear to govern the Peoples of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon, and of your Possessions and the other Territories to any of them belonging or pertaining, according to their respective laws and customs?

Queen. I solemnly promise so to do.

Archbishop. Will you to your power cause Law and Justice, in Mercy, to be executed in all your judgements?

Queen. I will.

Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?

Queen. All this I promise to do.

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.[3]”

http://www.conservapedia.com/English_coronation_oath

[Grouse]

The following is a partial list of Queen Elizabeth’s Royal Prerogative Powers:

- The Queen alone, as Head of the Armed Forces, may declare war or peace

- The Queen alone may conclude treaties

- The Queen (as commander-in-chief) may choose and appoint officers of all ranks

- The Queen may convoke, adjourn, remove, and dissolve Parliament

- The Queen may appoint a Prime Minister of her own choosing

- The Queen may dismiss the Prime Minister and his Government

- The Queen can choose and appoint all judges, councillors, officers of state, etc.

- The Queen may initiate criminal proceedings, and she alone can bestow a pardon

- The Queen may refuse the Royal Assent

- The Queen may refuse to dissolve Parliament when requested by the Prime Minister

- The Queen can choose and appoint all Archbishops, Bishops, and ecclesiastical dignitaries

- The Queen may exercise the refusal of the “Queen’s Consent” (direct Monarchical assent is required for a bill affecting the prerogative, hereditary revenues or the personal property or interests of the Crown to be heard in Parliament).

- Since the Sovereign is “first in honour, dignity and in power--and the seat and fountain of all three,'' the Queen may bestow all public honours, including creating peerages or bestowing Orders of Chivalry

The Queen’s non-political (ceremonial) roles include the following:

- Perform the ceremonial and official duties of Head of State

- Represent Britain to the rest of the world

- Provide a focus for national identity and unity

- Provide stability and continuity in times of change

- Recognise achievement and excellence (by means of awards, medals or orders)

- Encourage public and voluntary service

- Support charities and foundations and highlight their causes

 

After all that she can put her feet up and have s cup of tea or go for a spin in the Land Rover.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

Sorry, but I fail to see where it says the monarch cannot abdicate, or simply retire, in favor of the next in line or anyone else. Could you point out that part to me so that I may better understand?

 It's in the last bit:

 

1 hour ago, smotherb said:

Then the Queen arising out of her Chair, supported as before, the Sword of State being carried before her, shall go to the Altar, and make her solemn Oath in the sight of all the people to observe the premisses: laying her right hand upon the Holy Gospel in the great Bible (which was before carried in the procession and is now brought from the Altar by the Arch-bishop, and tendered to her as she kneels upon the steps), and saying these words:

The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God.

 

"The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."

 

Not "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep; until I get fed up and want to retire...........!"

 

In addition, in 1947 the young Princess Elizabeth promised that “my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service."

 

Maybe you believe that promises are made to be broken, maybe you believe sacred oaths need not be kept; but Her Majesty believes otherwise.

[chickenslegs]

3 hours ago, smotherb said:

Oh. please not the tower, I'd have to have really bad English food. Not pulling any discretionary tactic; just don't understand why she hasn't given the crown to Charles.

In the British monarchy there is no tradition of voluntary abdication (retiring) in favour of the next in line. Monarchs serve until they die or are removed from the throne by force. Edward 7 was an exception. Even George 3 (the mad one) did not abdicate, nor was he removed from the throne.

 

Queen Elizabeth is expected to serve until her death. I believe that Charles will do the same, and William too (barring any unfortunate accidents/illnesses). If I am still around when George takes over (unlikely) I will be very happy indeed.

 

 

[lvr181]

13 hours ago, Prbkk said:

Norman Hartnell's been dead for decades but she seems to have an unlimited collection of his dreadful hats.

With a remark like that, just as well there is no les majeste in the UK (but then again they are not a third world county either).

[Khon Kaen Dave]

hdkane

Our Queen, is our head of state.She is much loved among the majority of the British people.When you say"what does a queen do"The Queen is the main representative of the UK.When you consider the history of her family,An history that has survived,accusations of homosexuality,in former and latter years,accusations of one of her earlier relatives being Jack The Ripper, the stress of having to admit that her son's marriage was a complete failure due to his incompetence,and complete lack of love. .The embarrassment of having seen her offspring tangled up with seriously unfit paramour's.The embarrassment of her sisters behaviour  in the west Indies. The embarrassment of having the world convinced that her grandson is illegitimate.All this and more,our Queen has survived and kept her head high.Even her parents,who were WW11 monarch's refused to leave London,for a safer haven during the Blitz when the morale in London was at its lowest.They endured the bombing and showed our people that they would stick by them.The Queen mother even remarked "now we can look the East End in the face"the strength of her father,who was betrayed by his brother,who was a coward and left his brother to be war time king,for which he was not suited,all over a woman of dubious reputation.Who also took some of the jewelry with her when she and the should be king ran away.Which she never returned,because she had no sense of decency.

Our Queen is our figurehead and represents our country and our monarchy and its Royal traditions are the envy of the world.that is why The American High society dearly wanted a royal family.That is why George Washington was offered the position of 'king of America' which he refused.There are no lords,ladies,princes or princesses in the USA.You Ask what a queen does. She just Is.She is our religious leader,our support in times of conflict and our light in times of our countries darkness.

you ask what does a Queen Do? well now you know,that's what our queen does.and she does it with the greatest of dignity.

I no longer live in the UK,But i still hold my Queen in the highest esteem,and,as with many  other expats all over the world,woe betide any man who tries to insult or malign this wonderful woman who has shown our nation her very personal life,and love and respect for her people.

happy birthday ma'am,long may you Reign.

Ps,if any posters here think it would be humorous to bait me with an attempt to test my loyalty,I will not get into Virtual fisticuffs.

[smotherb]

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 It's in the last bit:

 

 

"The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep. So help me God."

 

Not "The things which I have here before promised, I will perform and keep; until I get fed up and want to retire...........!"

 

In addition, in 1947 the young Princess Elizabeth promised that “my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service."

 

Maybe you believe that promises are made to be broken, maybe you believe sacred oaths need not be kept; but Her Majesty believes otherwise.

You are reading your interpretation into those words--she made no promise to stay until she died

[smotherb]

9 hours ago, chickenslegs said:

In the British monarchy there is no tradition of voluntary abdication (retiring) in favour of the next in line. Monarchs serve until they die or are removed from the throne by force. Edward 7 was an exception. Even George 3 (the mad one) did not abdicate, nor was he removed from the throne.

 

Queen Elizabeth is expected to serve until her death. I believe that Charles will do the same, and William too (barring any unfortunate accidents/illnesses). If I am still around when George takes over (unlikely) I will be very happy indeed.

 

 

Thank you; that is the most sensible response I've heard.

[jayboy]

17 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

It is her choice; there is no constitutional reason why she could not abdicate and retire from public life completely.

 

But she wont.

 

She is a devout Christian, and in her Coronation Oath she swore before her God to serve for the rest of her life. She wont break that oath.

 

Today must bring mixed feelings for Her Majesty. Not only is it the anniversary of her ascension to the throne; it is also the anniversary of her beloved father's death.

Completely correct.I would also add that there is absolutely no tradition of abdication in Britain unlike some of the European monarchies.Having said that, even allowing for those remarkable long life genes her workload will be cut right back with long (perhaps all?) foreign trips off the agenda.

 

How frustrating to be an anti monarchist or republican in the UK now - as the Brits look across the Atlantic to the alternative.

[Ace of Pop]

Recon Good Old Phill would get a Ban here in no time,he won't encourage any abdication he's too honest and wonderfully Non PC


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[evadgib]

56 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

happy birthday ma'am,long may you Reign.

Ps,if any posters here think it would be humorous to bait me with an attempt to test my loyalty,I will not get into Virtual fisticuffs.

She has two birthdays per year, neither of which are in February.

 

@Chickenlegs It was Edward viii :)

Edited February 7, 2017 by evadgib

[humqdpf]

23 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

She will work till she drops.

 

Of her own choice.

 

 

In no other profession would that be allowed. I rest my case!

[brewsterbudgen]

Although I believe the whole concept of a monarchy is anachronistic in this day & age, the thought of a President Blair/May/Farage is truly terrifying! When Charles ascends people might start considering a republic more seriously.

[Prbkk]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

 

 

@Chickenlegs It was Edward viii :)

And played by Edward Fox IIRC, in one of those rather good pieces from the late70s/early 80s

[Khon Kaen Dave]

evadgib

As far as i am concerned,my Queen is celebrating 65 years on the throne.I see that as a birthday/anniversary.   You can see it as you see fit.Leave me to see it the way i see fit.Whom am i offending?

[Prbkk]

5 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

evadgib

As far as i am concerned,my Queen is celebrating 65 years on the throne.I see that as a birthday/anniversary.   You can see it as you see fit.Leave me to see it the way i see fit.Whom am i offending?

In Australia her birthday is celebrated as a long weekend in June, just before the solstice. It was always welcomed.

[chickenslegs]

1 hour ago, brewsterbudgen said:

Although I believe the whole concept of a monarchy is anachronistic in this day & age, the thought of a President Blair/May/Farage is truly terrifying! When Charles ascends people might start considering a republic more seriously.

He will certainly have a lot to live up to, but he has had many years of training.

 

I don't think there will be much support for the idea of a UK republic.

 

[Khon Kaen Dave]

I know that most of you guys also love and revere the Queen.She is mine yours and Canada's Queen.This reflected in the Australian vote to keep the union Jack as part of your flag.It is also reflected in the Canadians still having 'the Canadian Royal Mounted Police.I will not prattle on about 'Empire' because i believe that ,that particular course of events was the result of upper class greed and a way of giving some very evil people the chance to make inordinate amounts of money in a world that had the people of the  colonized countries been better educated,would never allowed them or their families to obtain the power,wealth,and titles to which they have fraudulently aspired.Also we are lucky that we do not have the crime of Lesse Mageste.Allowing us free speech without fear of arrest.I know that a lot of the rest of the world,profess not to  like the British,that is their prerogative.Sometimes i am not particularly proud of what my country has been responsible for.But i believe that our love for our Queen of the time,freedom and protection of our way of life and our,sheer stubbornness, allowed us and our allies to win 2 world wars.People forget that we are a tough Island race and often find that out,to their regret.

[nontabury]

1 hour ago, humqdpf said:

In no other profession would that be allowed. I rest my case!

 Wrong, in one of today's UK papers, there is an article about a man still working,I think in a supermarket, with an age of 91. Many more examples I'm sure. Thankfully I saw the light at 55.

[Khon Kaen Dave]

brewsterbudgen

I doubt very much that Charles will ascend to the throne. he is now an old man and completely out of touch with the people.Also there is the question of Camilla to think about.I don't ever see her as being Queen Camilla.If Charles did get the throne,she could be made 'Kings consort' as she is a divorced woman.Regardless of the ascension,the affair of Charles and Camilla is still a bitter taste in the mouths of the British people.Dont forget,some people still hold Charles responsible for Diana's death.In this modern world 21st century.The country needs a modern monarch with new ideas and new ways. i think that Andrew is being groomed for the throne and when the Queen dies, it isn't automatic that Charles would succeed her.It could be that Charles would graciously refuse the throne to make way for Andrew and his young,modern family.I am not sure that the Queen would rest easily, knowing that the crown would be left in the possession of a king, that the country is not happy with.Charles would retire gracefully and go quietly into inactivity,with Camilla.I dont think that the throne is not something that Charles really wants,anyway.But as in all things,time will tell.It would be good for Britain to have a king with a modern attitude, Instead of a country controlled by old men with Victorian attitudes that wear Ermine and still consider the working classes as scum

[rott]

30 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 Wrong, in one of today's UK papers, there is an article about a man still working,I think in a supermarket, with an age of 91. Many more examples I'm sure. Thankfully I saw the light at 55.

When the newspapers were still being produced in Fleet Street there were always a fair few nonagenarians employed there amongst the printing staff.

[Humberstone]

 

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

There are, of course, those who will argue that a monarchy, even a constitutional one such as ours, has no place in the 21st century.

 

Well, there are pros and cons in everything

 

The two argument most often brought up by Republicans are that a monarch isn't democratic and the cost of running a monarchy.

 

Not democratic. Every state needs a head of state. In many republics, France, Italy for example, this is a president without executive power; in other words a ceremonial head of state, just like the monarch in a constitutional monarchy. This allows the political leader, e.g. prime minister, to get on with the business of running the country without the tedious hand shaking, ribbon cutting etc. they would otherwise have to do.

 

For those countries where the president does have executive power, the USA for example, that power can be, and often is, thwarted when they don't have a majority in parliament, congress or whatever. They also have to do all the hand shaking, ribbon cutting etc..

 

Cost. Think a republic would be cheaper than Monarchy? Think again!

 

Of course, those figures do not include additional costs; such as security. But whether the head of state is a monarch or a president, those costs would be at least the same.

 

If not more. For example, the US taxpayer not only provides security for the incumbent president and their family, but also for all living predecessors and their families. In election year for the candidates and then, after the election, the president elect as well.

 

You missed one - genetics. You don't get to choose a monarch.If one isn't up to the job it can cause a civil war (Henry VI and James II). If one overreaches he becomes a tyrant (Henry VIII) etc, etc. Admittedly these are examples from a long time before the Bill of Rights and the establishment of what in the UK is now known as a constitutional Monarch, but I think you know what I mean.