Tawan Dok Krating Daeng Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 42 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said: 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. The fact that Australia has votes on issues such as removing the Monarchy or removing the Union Jack is an indication that the idea of its Head of State being a foreign sovereign does not have universal acclaim. Australia's very active participation in the Commonwealth is sufficient acknowledgement of its traditions. There is no place for the continuation of the role of Queen of Australia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Twan Dok Krating Daeng Wow!what a long name. That of course is your opinion.And one i agree with.As countries move with the times,things and demands change.And political idea's take on more modernised form.I am absolutely sure this will happen.Australia will in the future,perhaps they no longer owe any fielty to The UK monarchy.The same with Canada.It is done out of time aged custom,and times change. But not today,old sport,not today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 1 hour 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? None; however your attempts at fine detail are cause for a wry smile to any that may notice :) Edited February 7, 2017 by evadgib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humberstone Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 5 hours ago, jayboy said: 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. Edward VIII abdicated and so did James II (even if this was decided by Parliament). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 evadgib To whom,and maybe my attempts at fine detail are lost on you because you have no idea of fine detail.But then again,a person who spells their name backwards,has a mentality that has to be questioned.I suggest you go back to the bar and and have a damned good laugh at my expense.And by the way,if you want to do some serious reading,i think the Kadai resturaunt in Soi Lenkee,still keeps copies of the Daily Star Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said: evadgib To whom,and maybe my attempts at fine detail are lost on you because you have no idea of fine detail.But then again,a person who spells their name backwards,has a mentality that has to be questioned.I suggest you go back to the bar and and have a damned good laugh at my expense.And by the way,if you want to do some serious reading,i think the Kadai resturaunt in Soi Lenkee,still keeps copies of the Daily Star Do you really not get Banter? Edited February 7, 2017 by evadgib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Humberstone Dead right on that score,James the second was in fact deposed due to his ambition to return England to the Catholic faith,. Parliament decided that it was better if he gave up the throne willingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 evadgib yes,i do enjoy banter,and i appreciate a good exchange of sarcasm,wit and acidic humour.But you implied that i was a cause of mirth.I didn't know that you had the full informative attitudes of the forum as a collective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said: evadgib yes,i do enjoy banter,and i appreciate a good exchange of sarcasm,wit and acidic humour.But you implied that i was a cause of mirth.I didn't know that you had the full informative attitudes of the forum as a collective. You should have checked the edit... Edited February 7, 2017 by evadgib Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Allen Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 On 2/6/2017 at 2:56 PM, Prbkk said: Norman Hartnell's been dead for decades but she seems to have an unlimited collection of his dreadful hats. The old girl is one of the few people who can wear them with credibility. My respect to the Queen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 evadgib No,i did not,i did not see that you had edited it.The wry smile?who are these people that are making that facial expression? I can only assume that you are sitting in a bar somewhere,on your computer,nursing a beer, so you can make use of the wifi, and showing our conversation to your mates.Its ok,i do not take the reasoning of early boozers seriously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip Allen Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 3 hours 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. The monarchy brings many tourist dollars to the UK. If for no other reason, the institution should remain. Too bad that Americans don't get a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brewsterbudgen Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 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 scumYou might be right about Charles but you're wrong about Andrew. If Charles doesn't succeed it will be William. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Humberstone Good text about monarchy and democracy. Did you forget to mention the Civil war that caused us to be under a dictatorship for some 10 years? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 brewsterbudgen I am sorry about that,typo,i,of course ,meant William.A thousand Apologies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prbkk Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 2 minutes ago, brewsterbudgen said: You might be right about Charles but you're wrong about Andrew. If Charles doesn't succeed it will be William. Of course it has to be Charles. He is mildly eccentric= a perfect trait and in any case it's fairly benign and part of a long tradition. The current Queen is the exception , being so grounded and sane. Camilla will be fine...a bit on the large side and rather too horsey, but pleasant enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evadgib Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 13 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said: evadgib No,i did not,i did not see that you had edited it.The wry smile?who are these people that are making that facial expression? I can only assume that you are sitting in a bar somewhere,on your computer,nursing a beer, so you can make use of the wifi, and showing our conversation to your mates.Its ok,i do not take the reasoning of early boozers seriously. As previous stated you don't get Banter and instead resort to cheap steriotypical shots that are increasingly normal for this website of late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Humberstone Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 6 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said: Humberstone Good text about monarchy and democracy. Did you forget to mention the Civil war that caused us to be under a dictatorship for some 10 years? You're correct, being puritans also didn't help during the interregnum. Also, there wasn't just one English Civil War, the others just had different names (Wars of the Roses, Barons Wars, The Anarchy etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 evadgib I would comment on the amount of 'likes' i have received regarding my posts about the Queen.This would suggest that there are some poster's that actually do agree. In this case,i suggest that you,within 24 hours, report to the Beef eaters at the Tower of London and be remanded in custody until the headsman has honed his axe and will be pleased to attend to the task of removing your head from your shoulder's Nothing like a bit o'Banter,old chum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CGW Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 I have never understood peoples desire to want to be ruled by anyone! They want paying also! Anyone mention taxes!!! Being the richest women in the world must give them access to a health care system and clean sources of food that "us" her subjects cannot get! Fact is she is more German than British, they only changed their name due to the bad PA associated with Germany Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) CGW We are not ruled by Royalty.In fact the last autocratic ruler,had his head chopped off.That was in 1649.The parliament that was put in to make the laws for us to abide by were so disastrously corrupt and inept, that even they were dissolved by Oliver Cromwell. He took over and personally oversaw parliament for 8 years,and then his son ,Richard took over.The senior Cromwell described his son as "better off with a ham bone and a whore than to see over England" There wa a second civil war for two years and then came Charles the second,who was well tamed by Parliament and he had to accept their rules and relied upon them for his royal allowance. Were not ruled by ant monarch.Our laws are made by an elected parliament.No police man nor any military person is aloowed to enter the houses of parliament, unless invited. This is an old custom going back to the day when any parliament could be dissolved,or overturned by consent of the army or any other dictatorship. In many countries the ruling family is always the ones who had the biggest army and were able to fight off any disagreement by anybody else.We as a country have been invaded many times,Romans Saxons. Picts,French,Vikings,and over the 2000 years since the Romans came,out of all of it has arisen a Royal family that now is in a constant position of monarchy. You say about the Queen having the best of health care,but not others.That comment borders on Communism.And that is a type of rule that i would never want to live under.In the Uk and other countries,even the USA,there is a class system.Even that has changed over the last 100 years or so.The day of 'upstairs,downstairs' has gone So much so that even our once privileged classes are now feeling the pinch.Our Queen is our religious leader,the defender of our faith.She is loved by the majority of Brits and by others abroad.She is what makes Britain Great,many countries would like a free country such as ours,where any man can express his beliefs, anger or his rebellious wishes without fear of arrest.We have made it that way. And as for your remark,i would really hate to see the Queen sitting in the hospital waiting room,on the NHS. Edited February 7, 2017 by Khon Kaen Dave wrong spelling Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayboy Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Humberstone said: Edward VIII abdicated and so did James II (even if this was decided by Parliament). Both were forced out.Abdication as practiced by European monarchs means voluntarily giving way to a son or daughter. There is no such British tradition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 7 hours ago, smotherb said: You are reading your interpretation into those words--she made no promise to stay until she died Not my interpretation; Her Majesty's. She is not being forced to carry on; she chooses to because that is what she believes to be her duty and the solemn oath she made. If she made no promise to stay until she dies, what does “my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service" mean? In a poll last year, most respondents thought she should keep that promise; although the result did change when the question was changed:- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Humberstone said: 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. The power of the monarch in the UK has, over the years, been more and more restricted by Parliament such that, whilst in theory they have certain powers, in practice they have no real power; they have to do what Parliament tells them. If Parliament doesn't care for the monarch, they can get rid. It was pressure from the then Prime Minister and Parliament which meant Edward VIII to choose between being King or marrying Mrs. Simpson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lungbing Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 And the church, which was far more powerful then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lungbing Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 CGW Regarding HM the Queen's ancestry: on her mother's side she's Scottish. On her father's side her great-great grandfather was German. Hardly makes her more German than British does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 2 hours ago, 7by7 said: Not my interpretation; Her Majesty's. She is not being forced to carry on; she chooses to because that is what she believes to be her duty and the solemn oath she made. If she made no promise to stay until she dies, what does “my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service" mean? In a poll last year, most respondents thought she should keep that promise; although the result did change when the question was changed:- How do you presume to know her interpretation? You failed to show anywhere where she swore to stay until the end in her actual coronation oath from 1953; now you're posting the opinions of others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01322521959 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Long live the Queen!Sent from my i-mobile_i-STYLE_219 using Thaivisa Connect mobile app Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7by7 Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) 18 minutes ago, smotherb said: How do you presume to know her interpretation? You failed to show anywhere where she swore to stay until the end in her actual coronation oath from 1953; now you're posting the opinions of others. As I said, in her Coronation oath she swore to keep her promises; not keep them until she didn't want the job anymore. She also promised in 1947 to serve for the whole of her life. Her majesty would never comment directly, of course. But sources close to her have made it clear what her views are. Why the Queen is never going to abdicate 5 Reasons Why Queen Elizabeth II Won’t Abdicate Why are you so keen to force her into retirement? Edited February 7, 2017 by 7by7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smotherb Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 1 minute ago, 7by7 said: Her majesty would never comment directly, of course. But sources close to her have made it clear what her views are. Why the Queen is never going to abdicate 5 Reasons Why Queen Elizabeth II Won’t Abdicate Why are you so keen to force her into retirement? I am not keen on forcing her into retirement, but I am not sure her retiring would be a bad thing for her. However, as I have already stated, I wonder why she would not turn over the family business to her son before he gets too old to enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
(1).thumb.png.bbcb267af4aaf1122a444794828169f7.png)
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now