Well done Your Maj!

Isn't it 'doff' the cap btw?

You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx

You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx

Why the shock?
You are constantly out of touch with any subject you post on

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx'" Agreed. The way the Queen has conducted herself is why I'm not too bothered about having a monarch despite ideologically being opposed to it. I think there are far bigger factors in the oppression of people in this country than having a monarchy. The ever increasing concentration of wealth, the public school elite, the rich media and the demonisation of the working class etc etc. None of that has anything to do with the monarchy. Plus I don't know whether we'd particularly better off having some form of elected President to carry out the Head of State duties. It's just another opportunity for corruption. At least the monarchy has to be politically neutral.

Quote Ferocious Aardvark="Ferocious Aardvark"You can be as anti-Royal as you like, but to call the queen a "benefit scrounger" is about as lunatic as it gets. At 89, nearly 3 decades after retirement age, she continues to work full-time including any number of official visits up and down the country and internationally. You can have whatever views you want of the monarchy etc but any reasonable person must concede she works her metaphorical bollox off. Especially as doubtless she could have had a life of reasonable wealth and privilege doing absolutely feck all. Her work ethic and dedication are simply incredible. It is all recorded and if you are interested see this site: www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayI ... ngday.aspx For list of historical and future events: www.royal.gov.uk/LatestNewsandDi ... vents.aspx'" Agreed. The way the Queen has conducted herself is why I'm not too bothered about having a monarch despite ideologically being opposed to it. I think there are far bigger factors in the oppression of people in this country than having a monarchy. The ever increasing concentration of wealth, the public school elite, the rich media and the demonisation of the working class etc etc. None of that has anything to do with the monarchy. Plus I don't know whether we'd particularly better off having some form of elected President to carry out the Head of State duties. It's just another opportunity for corruption. At least the monarchy has to be politically neutral.

Quote everything they do is exaggeratedSee my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.'" Maybe that's an exaggeration.

Quote everything they do is exaggeratedSee my reference to "everything they do is exaggerated". Prince Andrew ? www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/th ... 54205.html Useless, overweight parasite.'" Maybe that's an exaggeration.

history may beg to differ on several areas of your post. As an example until the 60's the monarch had a say in who the Conservative party leader would be.

It's a measure of mainstream journalism in this country that so much can be said about the life and times of the Royal Family without even a vague inference written about the strange similarities in appearance of a certain prince and a certain "Cad"...

Wow, this got a bit messy – anyhow, well done Lizzie for living a long time



.

It won’t go down as a classic event in my lifetime, but that record will take some beating. But then again who knows, in another hundred years some poor buggers will be living to one fifty.

Its a shame Roy Castle and Norris McQuirter aren't still around. It'd be great to see her on Record Breakers in between the woman with the world's longest fingernails and the geek who holds the world record for the Rubik's cube. She could even ask Norris a question (he'd probably point out that her record is only British, not world, and that she has some way to go to (20+ years in fact, and that's assuming the Thai king doesn't outstay her).

I just don't understand how anyone with a vaguely rational mind can countenance a royal family (and all it stands for) in the 21st century.

I guess it depends on what you think the royal family actually is and stands for.

If you see it as a monarch who is the ultimate power in the state and there only through birth and is the leader of her subjects etc etc, then yes I agree with you.

However I see the royal family as a link to our nations history (both good and bad), fulfills a ceremonial role for the nation and allows us to have some of the patriotic flag waving that happens in all countries from time to time, without it getting too xenophobic.
I also think it takes that ceremonial role away from the alternative, which would have to be some form of elected President. I don't necessarily think that that is any better. Especially as despite being a monarch, she's only there because the people allow her to be.

So for me its not a major issue and I think there are far, far bigger issues that threaten British people's lives and freedoms than the royal family.