In China 🤔😂😂😂😂😂
Keep trying!
Jackie Chan's face is more recognisable across the world because the post office doesn't deliver letters to China?
Well it sounds like a weird conclusion but okay.
Personally I reckon Donald Trump's face is probably more instantly recognisable across the world than either the Queen's or Jackie Chan's.
Although I'm not entirely sure how face recognition became an important issue in what appears to have turned into a rather angry debate on whether there should be jubilee celebrations.
And whether people attending them is a justifiable reason for some people to get 'really annoyed'.
Well it sounds like a weird conclusion but okay.
Someone give the AI a kick.
This Jackie Chan subplot thing- do I have to understand it ?
Not at all.
A distraction...
Sorry for derailing the thread with Jackie Chan 😂 Both my kids recognise him (four and eight). Neither of them know who the Queen is unless they see her with a crown because that’s obvious!
Bored so looking through lists on Google. It would appear The Rock is the most famous person in the world in 2022. Neither the Queen or Jackie are in the top 20! As you were. Weird Jubilee Fight
Recommences in 3,2,1
Sorry for derailing the thread with Jackie Chan 😂
FFS it was you!
And I can see the problem with regards to the Queen not wearing the crown btw. Personally I have always thought that the Queen should wear her crown whilst at work, in the same way as many people have to wear a hardhat at work. It just comes with the job.
A distraction
That's brilliant!!!
It would appear The Rock is the most famous person in the world in 2022.
I saw that, but then in earnie style I thought it must be wrong as I have never seen a film with him in and he's not on any stamps or money 😜😄
I would have thought Chairman Mao would be the most recognisable person in the world
Nah, Adolf Hitler.
he’s a cultural icon… I find it weird that anyone wouldn’t recognise him
TBH that’s what the queen is.
(Like Jeremy Clarkson 😉
Jackie Chan was welcome light relief, thanks FMP! Though STW even managed to turn 'Weird Jubilee Fight' into Weird Jackie Chan Fight' for a while. I don't think the subject actually matters, handbags at 10 paces whatever!
Personally I have always thought that the Queen should wear her crown whilst at work
I’d go further and make her wear a big robe and have a court Jester (other than her sons) with her at all times.
Did we have a winner for the most sycophantic speech ? 🙂
,I think I have more of a problem with that rather than the queen, I wonder if she finds it cringeworthy.
It’s a pity she never wrote any books tbh as she must have as many anecdotes about famous people as the people who have anecdotes about her and she has had a interesting life.
Why Billy certainly wins the biggest hypocrite speech. All his pretending to care about the environment when he’s not out shooting it it going private jet to go and look at it.
i think his dads speech was pretty sycophantic and nauseating
Any speech in which a 70 yd old bloke refers to his mother as 'mummy' - and is broadcast around the world - is vomit inducing and beyond cringeworthy.
I’d go further and make her wear a big robe and have a court Jester (other than her sons) with her at all times.
Be fair. Once a week is quite enough for her.
BTW - both the queen and charlie boy regularly interfere in the democratic process. Here are details of one such instance
And others
I put the crankiness from the usual quarters down to Putin's escapades meaning they can wear their favourite t-shirts so have to do something to prove their still against the establishment.
Chin up comrades, when he's back in his box usual service can resume.
Once a week is quite enough for her.
A round of applause for that one! But it’s got me wondering how frequently they do meet now… we know other PMs met with her weekly, but I really can’t seem him getting around to it.
This one probably meets with her weakly.
regularly interfere in the democratic process. Here are details of one such instance
Blimey, Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP really are matey with Mrs Windsor:
"The documents also suggest Nicola Sturgeon’s government failed to disclose the monarch’s lobbying this year when a Scottish politician used a parliamentary debate to query why the Queen was securing an exemption from the green energy bill".
Although I somehow doubt that this was personally instigated by the Queen herself. I can't imagine that a 95 year old financially secure woman with a very busy routine worries about trivial stuff like that.
I suspect that at best she was possibly informed by her lawyers of their intentions and merely requested to grant her approval. I doubt that she often rejects advice which she is given.
Quite how hands-on a woman of that age is expected to be I'm not sure. Especially as this occurred at a time when it had become apparent that her 99 year old husband was close to death.
I think it does raise questions but perhaps more directed at the Scottish government. You would expect lawyers to act in the interests of their clients but not necessarily for governments to always respond positively to lobbying.
I can’t imagine that a 95 year old financially secure woman with a very busy routine worries about trivial stuff like that.
You do realise it dates back decades dont you?
Its just rarely gets out since it would damage the royals alleged political neutrality if their interference became known.
A good example being how the publically recorded wills, unlike everyone elses, are routinely kept secret. Started with them wanting to keep secret an embarrassing gift to a mistress but now, who knows?
It's widely accepted - but maybe not on this thread - that Muhammad Ali is is the best known person in the world.
You do realise it dates back decades dont you?
No I don't. The article I was quoting from with reference to Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish government refers to events occurring the first half of last year. It is quite specific.
The monarchy as an institution is difficult to defend in the 21st, and all the more so as the monarch has no meaningful political power.
Any privileges that they might enjoy is merely bestowed upon them by those who feel that the continuation of the monarchy is beneficial to them.
Any criticism of what is considered to be unacceptable with regards to the monarchy should be directed at politicians, not some woman born into a job which gives her no actual power.
The Queen is no more responsible for what is done in her name than she is for the Queen's speech. She does what politicians tell her to do.
Obviously she could personally embrace a more left-wing revolutionary less conservative attitude and rebel against the system, but I am happy to focus on the monarchy as an institution rather than the individual.
I’m still marvelling at the 70 glorious years thing.
Do I have to go back to work now ?
No I don’t. The article I was quoting from with reference to Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish government refers to events occurring the first half of last year. It is quite specific.
Thats a bit like saying Johnson only attended a party for five minutes whilst ignoring all the other parties. Rather blinkered and shows absolutely no understanding of the subject.
and all the more so as the monarch has no meaningful political power.
Aside from, as covered above, we dont actually know that. We know the veto is used as a threat to change laws to suit her and her families personal interests but we dont know the extent since apparently that might put people off them.
A bit of a red flag really.
Chin up comrades, when he’s back in his box usual service can resume.
Odd statement considering the monarchy are Putin and his oligarches made good. When they have managed to get themselves so embedded into the political system over a few hundred years you have people defending them whilst attacking their modern variants.
Rather blinkered and shows absolutely no understanding of the subject.
I am happy to concede that I have no expertise whatsoever with regards to the monarchy, the royal family, and what they get up to. As I have said previously I have absolutely no interest in them and struggle to even know the names of half of them.
My comments were purely with regards to the link provided by TJ and the information it provided.
Yet despite knowing nothing about the subject I am nevertheless still confident that under a constitutional monarchy the monarch has no meaningful power and all constitutional and legislative power is in the hands of politicians**
And on that basis I would direct criticism towards politicians not at the monarch. After all I tend to blame the Prime Minister if I'm not happy with the contents of the Queen's speech, not the Queen.
**Unless you can provide evidence to suggest the contrary in which case I would be genuinely interested.
If the monarch meets the pm once a week they must talk about something? Who knows. Should be declared imo. If anyone else was meeting the pm regularly we should know why imo.
I'm firmly with ernie on this - the idea that the Queen is meddling in government policy seems to be the thin end of the paranoid Lizard Overlord conspiracy wedge.
You'd hope the constitutional monarch would be interested in what the PM tells her the government is planning every Tuesday. With 70 years experience and 14 PMs you'd hope she might offer an opinion or experience that few others can.
you’d hope she might offer an opinion or experience that few others can.
That's the point
It’s widely accepted – but maybe not on this thread – that Muhammad Ali is is the best known person in the world.
Thought it was Ronnie Pickering?
There is plenty of evidence of the queen interfering in the political process and its been going on for a long time. Yes her power is limited but it is there and she has used it on many occasions
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent
My Jubilee sentiment plummeted this morning - I think everyone forgot how to drive! Two close passes, a near left hook and a SMIDSY - I think that is usually the total for a year, let alone a single morning's ride of 5 miles to work...
the idea that the Queen is meddling in government policy seems to be the thin end of the paranoid Lizard Overlord conspiracy wedge.
Yes it must be that. Not that you and Ernie are ill informed and willing to buy into the myth of the glorious monarchy who are purely self sacrificing and noble servers of the nation.
The fact is she gets to vet laws which might impact her and there is clear evidence that on occasion those laws have been changed to suit her personal whims and profit.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consentblockquote >With 70 years experience and 14 PMs you’d hope she might offer an opinion or experience that few others can.
This assumes she actually has the intelligence to provide useful input. Something not demonstrated by her children. Admittedly we could have regression to the mean but considering her only qualification is being the offspring of someone it doesnt bode well.
both the queen and charlie boy regularly interfere in the democratic process
But not in a way that is exclusive to them being royal? I mean lots of lobbying goes on, doesn't it?
Note the question marks here.
Odd statement considering the monarchy are Putin and his oligarches made good. When they have managed to get themselves so embedded into the political system over a few hundred years you have people defending them whilst attacking their modern variants
Yep,it’s what I find quite weird they both quack like a duck but ones bad and ones good 🙂
But not in a way that is exclusive to them being royal? I mean lots of lobbying goes on, doesn’t it?
Wrong. They have explicit veto rights on laws (Crown land and then for the Duchy of Cornwall and Duchy of Lancaster).
They also have specific exemptions from us finding out about their lobbying.
But not in a way that is exclusive to them being royal? I mean lots of lobbying goes on, doesn’t it?
Nope - its built into the process. Royal consent. Read the articles. No one else gets to consent on bills that affect them. Basically what she does is threaten to delay bills unless its changed in her favour.
My take away from the weekend is that a man in his 70's who still says "mummy" is going to be the next head of state, and we don't get a say in it but are expected to wave a wee plastic flag while he goes past in a golden horse drawn carriage.
Who the **** is Ronnie Pickering?
Not that you and Ernie are ill informed and willing to buy into the myth of the glorious monarchy who are purely self sacrificing and noble servers of the nation.
When we have clearly stated that its outdated and needs sorting?
Thanks for sharing the link on consent - clearly one of those areas that need sorting.
Though as molgrips post hinted, and I may be twisting his words, in terms of damage to the nation and it's citizens, plenty of other vested interests have done more damage than the Queen. She's the dead cat to distract us all. How many years of the civil list equate to the billions wasted on PPE?
the royal family cost the country 350 million a year.
plenty of other vested interests have done more damage than the Queen.
But in lots of ways, she's the embodiment of a system of vested interests that act in a particular and largely invisible way. The UK banks and finance houses work they way they do because of the fact that we hang on to "Overseas Territories" as a remnant of Empire, that some schools are patronised by the Royal Family means they get special treatment, that the City of London has representation in the HOC, is a throw back. That lands and titles are held because of connections to Royalty. The fact that we have a heredity head of state has implications away from just who is on the throne. The fact that MPs cannot stand as republicans. It goes on and on, in ways that are so tangled and "established" that we fail to see how damaging they are.