[Closed] God save the queen

This "extra" bank holiday is just today's bank holiday shifted to next week.

We had to sing the Peruvian national anthem when I was in school there. At least god save the queen is short!

This "extra" bank holiday is just today's bank holiday shifted to next week

Incorrect. Next Monday *and* Tuesday off, i.e. extra Bank Holiday

Ah, but it's not "extra" is it. We had 9 last year as well 😉
Who's going to start grumbling next year about "losing" a b/h?

Success/principles aren't mutually exclusive, Fugazi for example

I don't think I said they were. I'm pretty sure that what I said was that if you ask me to pay you for something I have the right to an opinion on the item and the right not to buy it. That in no way effects the artists principles, or necessarily success. What I did say is if the artists principles in essence preclude success thats also fine, but don't flounce about moaning about either principles and/or lack of success.

I'm pretty sure that what I said was that if you ask me to pay you for something I have the right to an opinion on the item and the right not to buy it

You seem to be changing your argument as you go along. The point I made that you seemed to take a weirdly aggressive objection to, was that some artists/musicians/whatever would not advertise any old sh*te just for money. Lifer very aptly mentioned Fugazi who sell their records at reasonable prices and refuse to flog merchandise. There's a huge difference between selling your records to make a living and prostituting yourself to any two-bit corporate marketeer. You might subscribe to that breadhead "every man has his price" tosh, but not all of us do.

And in response to this

may I suggest you shut the **** up and keep it to yourself

may I suggest that if you don't want other people's opinions, don't spend your time looking on chat forums.

Read what I said. All consistent no change of tack or argument, and not at all incompatible with Fugazi or anyone else other than the occasional pretentious pontificator. That apart may I suggest that in respect of posting on forum, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I'm perfectly comfortable with your right to state whatever view you wish, (albeit that its completely wrong), what I read or write is likewise my right, and not one for you to lecture me on. In fact I'd go as far as to say thats exactly the patronising attitude that leads me to my view on pretentiousness in art.

I'd rather not read what you've said anymore. You're one of those infuriating people who use a lot of words but say nothing.

zimbo - Member
Not my queen.
'Fraid she is bud, if you live in the UK. Like it or not. Same as that p***k Cameron is my Prime Minister. Which I don't like.

hmmm.. not so sure about this statement

It's very possible to live outside society whilst remaining a part of society if you tailor your lifestyle appropriately and adjust your expectations accordingly..

if you are able and willing to adjust your perception slightly

just a thought

Mind you, free day off next Tuesday.

I love how one sodding day off is meant to make up for the enormous cost they put us to. And we're meant to be grateful.

I shall take the day off. Possibly to build one of these:

[img] [/img]

Yeah, I was being sarcastic. I'm with you on the guillotine. Metaphorically, at least. Like a colleague of mine says, if you heard of a country where homeless people beg on the streets, but the ruler rides around in a gold coach, you'd think it was mediaeval. But here we are....

Is it uncool on here to admit I quite like our Queen and the national anthem for that matter?

Yes.

if you heard of a country where homeless people beg on the streets, but the ruler rides around in a gold coach, you'd think it was mediaeval.

No, I'd think it was normal. There seem to be fewer beggars on the street here than in many other countries though. SEEM to be at least.

Is it uncool on here

yes or perhaps, no.. seeing as there are no arbiters of cool available to comment on this forum..

There seem to be fewer beggars on the street here than in many other countries

LOL.. well that makes it OK then..

[whining schoolchild]'but she said it too sir'!![/whining schoolchild]

yoshimi - Member
Is it uncool on here to admit I quite like our Queen

[i]Yes[/i]

How about not being bothered about the royals in the slightest? Seeing as it's not something we'll ever be able to do anything about. (Except whinge, of course)

no arbiters of cool except DezB of course.. 😳

I'm so pleased that our monarch has been on the throne for 60 years. It makes so much difference to me and this country that she is there.

Oh, hang on a minute, it makes no difference to me or to this country at all.

It's not about money (costs or benefits), but about the whole concept of superiority by accident of birth (and a (in)conveniently abdicating uncle) and the strange deference that goes along with it.

Really, what is the point?

ps. The national anthem is a miserable dirge.

LOL.. well that makes it OK then..

Is that what you thought I meant? Really?

What is all this "God save the Queen" pish anyway? It's the Duke of Barvaria who is King.

I'd rather not read what you've said anymore. You're one of those infuriating people who use a lot of words but say nothing.

LOL finding it difficult to make your point stick by any chance?

Thanks yunki 😉

LOL finding it difficult to make your point stick by any chance?

At least that one was short nonsense.

Anyway, you don't need my points at all, you just decide what you want me to have said and argue hysterically with that anyway.

And this detracts from the point of the thread, so I'll say no more, and let you have the last word. Don't forget to pat yourself on the back afterwards.

Had to look back to see what you 2 were on about. Glad I did, otherwise I would've missed this
[i]occasional pretentious pontificator.[/i]

Sexy!

Spot on, Aristotle, spot on.

argue hysterically with that anyway.

Occasional, pretentious and pontifciating probably, alongside overweight, sweaty and bored, but definitely not hysterical

failedengineer - Member

Spot on, Aristotle, spot on.

I fail to see how being "royalty" automatically results in superiority or how a fairly powerless, hereditary figurehead 'head of state' (and head of the 'established' minority church) who's family are provided with a very privileged existence for life is any way preferable to an elected/appointed one who is in post for a fixed term.

It does genuinely mystify me that so many people seem quite happy to defer to the monarchy. I can only assume that they've never really given it much thought.

ps. On a personal note, I find the peculiar tone adopted by BBC correspondents reporting "Royal" stories quite irritating 😐

I don't know if many people really think the royalty are actually superior or should be deferred to.

I think most royalists think that they are a nice harmless bit of tradition, and they do not believe that the cost to the country is significant.

There are a great many people in the world with high levels of privilege who inherited it rather than worked for it.

I think most royalists think

Your first error

The more I think about it, the more this weekend's "celebrations", with the barges down the Thames and so on, seem to be a tiny and insignificant throwback to medieval times when a sad little sideshow like this would have been considered a quite big and important display of power.

And there they are, in the press and on TV - a strange and seemingly minimally talented bunch of curios and oddities - the Royal family - smiling/waving/gurning/walking around.

And it's going to rain.

To echo a sentiment expressed here already - seriously, what IS the point?

As I and others have suggested above, I don't think that "Royalists" do give it much thought. If they did, they might see it slightly differently.

They are celebrating the life of somebody they don't know, who, unlike them, has a "God-given", life-long right to extreme privilege and funding by the state (had she had a brother it would have been him we were celebrating). What is this if not deference?

The arguments about the net financial gain/loss to the country are a distraction.

The royal family are a bunch of normal people who are unaccountable and (whether or not the current queen happens to "work" hard, is wise, dignified etc.) are not superior to rest of the population, although they are treated as such by large numbers of that population.

As the Queen said in a recent Christmas speech,
"It is at this time of the year that we should think of those less fortunate than ourselves" -That's a lot of people to think about!

Why hang out the flags because the queen has been on the throne for 60 years?

Why [b]not[/b] hang out the flags because the queen has been on the throne for 60 years?

Regardless of job, anyone who does it for 60 years gets a party, her job affects more people so gets a bigger party.

So, she has a "job", eh? And what does she do, in this "job", exactly?

Singlespeed_Shep
Regardless of job, anyone who does it for 60 years gets a party, her job affects more people so gets a bigger party.

great many people in the world with high levels of privilege who inherited it rather than worked for it.

Nail hit firmly on the head moley, but not in the way you intended. So what proprotion of the 7 billion odd on this planet do you reckon are enjoying a high level of privilige because they inherited it exactly?
The fact is that if you think about it the answer is a miniscule infinitesimally small proportion. No problem with enjoying high levels of worth, but personally I'd prefer them to earn it, and frankly I reckon it sets a really bad example of our nation to have the pinnicle of our society represented in this way.

So, she has a "job", eh? And what does she do, in this "job", exactly?

It's pretty extensive and it would be hard to know where to begin.

Of course you might think that it's a completely useless and pointless job, but that's a completely different issue. She definitely has a job.

Regardless of job, anyone who does it for 60 years gets a party, her job affects more people so gets a bigger party.

Would be interested to know what happened if the next incumbent decided "no, all that going on holidays and having to meet people is a bit taxing, not for me I'm afraid" presumably there would be a fair amount of coersion to do their "job" but if they refused would they be removed?

Would you rather have an elected head of state?

Cameron?
Miliband?
Blair?
Boris?

Maybe we could have phone voting instead?

Meet your new head of state

[img] [/img]

Any of the above.

Would you rather have an elected head of state?

Yes. They don't have to use the same system as the USA or France. The Irish one would be fine.

The UK government is elected by the population to run the country. The government is headed by the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister goes for weekly meetings with the unelected monarch-for-life,(who also signs off 'laws'). This sounds to me like yet another archaic, deferential part of the system

I reckon it sets a really bad example of our nation to have the pinnicle of our society represented in this way.

Exactly, but a lot of the population don't seem to see it that way.

Would you rather have an elected head of state?

my great great great great grandfather was an proper hard bard who got a massive gang together and took over this island, as a direct descendant of said bard I'll* expect you to bow and scrape before me.

*although TBH lots of people seem to want to bow and scrape for royalty without being asked. "Whoever had created humanity had left in a major design flaw. It was it's tendency to bend at the knees"

She's hardly a direct descendent of anyone, is she? Every so often over the centuries they've parachuted in a foreign 'monarch' to rule over these islands when the current bloodline dies out or goes too far in some way. Some of our rulers have had very tenuous royal links indeed.

my great great great great grandfather was an proper hard bard who got a massive gang together and took over this island, as a direct descendant of said bard I'll* expect you to bow and scrape before me.

Which sort of shows your lack of knowledge of the constitutional history of this great nation.

we tried letting politicians be in charge

it didn't work

That's the way I see, Donk.

Taking power by force in the dim and distant past, losing 'power', but remaining in a very privileged position, marrying 'royals' from other nations to keep it all in the family and occasionally scraping around Europe for successors.

Most of us are 'commoners'. Nice.

we tried letting politicians be in charge

it didn't work

Ah yes, it would never work for any country, would it? Those poor, ignorant republics around the world.

How much do you think that the monarch is in charge of in this country?

but if they refused would they be removed?

I think we can safely say that they would be forced to abdicate.

I'm not sure why anyone should assume that the monarch alone defines their own job and that they can simply do as they please - it's been almost 800 years since the British Monarchy was forced to sign Magna Carta.

For an example of what the job of the British Monarchy entails read the following, if your are genuinely interested of course, which you probably aren't.

The Queen's working day begins like many people's - at her desk.

After scanning the daily British newspapers, The Queen reviews her correspondence.

Every day, 200-300 (and sometimes many more) letters from the public arrive. The Queen chooses a selection to read herself and tells members of her staff how she would like them to be answered.

This enables Her Majesty personally to see a typical cross-section of her daily correspondence. Virtually every letter is answered by staff in her Private Secretary's office or by a lady-in-waiting.

The Queen will then see, separately, two of her Private Secretaries with the daily quota of official papers and documents. This process takes upwards of an hour.

Every day of every year, wherever she is, The Queen receives from government ministers, and from her representatives in the Commonwealth and foreign countries, information in the form of policy papers, Cabinet documents, telegrams, letters and other State papers.

These are sent up to her by the Private Secretaries in the famous 'red boxes'. All of these papers have to be read and, where necessary, approved and signed.

A series of official meetings or 'audiences' will often follow. The Queen will see a number of important people.

These include overseas ambassadors and high commissioners, newly appointed British ambassadors, senior members of the British and Commonwealth Armed Forces on their appointment and retirement, and English bishops and judges on their appointment.

Each meeting usually lasts 10 to 20 minutes, and usually The Queen and her visitor meet alone.

The Queen may also meet a number of people who have won prizes or awards in a variety of fields such as literature or science, to present them individually with their prize.

If there is an Investiture - a ceremony for the presentation of honours and decorations - it begins at 11.00am and lasts just over an hour. The Queen usually meets around 100 people at each Investiture to present Orders, decorations and medals.

The Queen will often lunch privately. Every few months, she and The Duke of Edinburgh will invite a dozen guests from a wide variety of backgrounds to an informal lunch. Occasionally, the guest list may consist of far fewer people, such as a newly appointed or retiring Governor-General and their guest.

If The Queen is spending the morning on engagements away from her desk and other commitments, she will visit up to three venues before lunch, either alone or jointly with The Duke of Edinburgh.

On a regional visit, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh lunch with a wide variety of people in places ranging from town halls to hospitals.

In the afternoons, The Queen often goes out on public engagements.

Such visits require meticulous planning beforehand to meet the hosts' requirements.

And The Queen prepares for each visit by briefing herself on whom she will be meeting and what she will be seeing and doing.

Royal engagements are carefully selected by The Queen from a large number of invitations sent to her each year, often by the Lord-Lieutenants (The Queen's representatives in counties throughout the United Kingdom).

This helps to ensure the widest possible spread and to make effective use of The Queen's time.

If the engagement is outside London, her journeys are often by air using a helicopter or an RAF aircraft.

The Queen carries out around 430 engagements (including audiences) a year, to meet people, open events and buildings, unveil plaques and make speeches.

Such engagements can include visits to schools, hospitals, factories, military units, art galleries, sheltered accommodation for elderly people, hostels for the homeless, local community schemes in inner city areas, and other British and Commonwealth organisations.

The Queen regularly goes out for the whole day to a particular region or city. If the visit is a busy one, or if it lasts more than a day, then The Queen will travel overnight on the Royal Train.

The Duke of Edinburgh will often accompany The Queen on such visits; when this happens, they will carry out some engagements jointly and others separately to ensure that the maximum number of people and organisations can be visited.

The Queen may end the afternoon seeing a number of Government ministers in a meeting of the Privy Council.

The Queen's working day does not stop at the end of the afternoon.

Early evening may see a meeting with the Prime Minister. The Queen has a weekly meeting alone with the Prime Minister, when they are both in London (in addition to other meetings throughout the year).

This usually takes place on Wednesdays at 6.30 pm. No written record is made of such meetings; neither The Queen nor the Prime Minister talk about what is discussed between them, as communications between The Queen and the Prime Minister always remains confidential.

At about 7.30 pm a report of the day's parliamentary proceedings, written by one of the Government's Whips, arrives. The Queen always reads this the same evening.

On some evenings, The Queen may attend a film première, a variety of concert performances in aid of a charitable cause, or a reception linked to organisations of which she is Patron.

The Queen also regularly hosts official receptions at Buckingham Palace (usually with other members of the Royal Family), such as those for the Diplomatic Corps and The Queen's Award for Industry.

Her Majesty may also hold receptions ahead of overseas visits. In 2007, prior to attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Uganda, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh gave a reception at Buckingham Palace for Commonwealth Africans living and working in the United Kingdom.

Other receptions mark the work of particular groups in the community, such as those recently given for members of the British design and music worlds.

The Queen has numerous private interests, which can coincide with her public work, to complete her working day.

Her Majesty also attends the Derby and the Summer Race Meeting at Ascot, a Royal occasion. As a keen owner and breeder of racehorses, she often sees her horses run at other meetings.

As owner of private estates at Balmoral and Sandringham, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh oversee the management of the estates which are run on a commercial basis. She takes a close interest in all aspects of estate life, particularly in the tenant farmers and employees who live and work on the estates.

Through her public and private work, The Queen is well-briefed and well-known. She has met many more people from all walks of life both in this country and overseas than her predecessors.

This takes time and effort. Often, one of the last lights on in the Palace at night is The Queen finishing her 'red box' of official papers.

Of course the Monarchy is an antiquated and archaic institution which is a hangover from the feudal days, in the same way as the nobility in the House of Lords is. Consequently it has no place at all in an advanced democracy, but as I say, that's a different issue altogether. And since we are still so far removed from an advanced democracy, and the role of the Monarchy is so unconnected with the real problems confronting ordinary working people, that it's not worth making an issue out of it.

Unless of course you want to do so for completely pointless vindictive reasons, or to distract attention away from the real issues of economic power and privileges, or you just want to bolster your "leftie" credentials.

The current queen does keep herself busy and does seem a very dignified lady (luckily), but just think, if the monarchy were dissolved, then the poor old queen wouldn't have to do any of that any more -60 years is a long time. That's yet another reason to do so.

Being so far removed from the people is part of the problem....

Dissolving the monarchy and hereditary peerages & removing bishops from the Lords would be moves in the right direction. I'm not sure I have any [i]leftie[/i] credentials.