Happy Diamond Jubilee Your Majesty

37 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
May I wish all my fellow subjects an enjoyable and safe weekend as we celebrate the sixty year reign of the greatest head of state in the world.

May God Bless Our Queen for many more years.
  • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
    Why do you regard her as the greatest head of state in the world?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6357008].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AnniePot
      Originally Posted by Young Samurai View Post

      May I wish all my fellow subjects an enjoyable and safe weekend as we celebrate the sixty year reign of the greatest head of state in the world.
      May God Bless Our Queen for many more years.
      Forelock tugging at its finest!!

      They're all a bunch of leeches, and I'm an ex-pat Brit. :rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6357322].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
      Originally Posted by Daniel Evans View Post

      Why do you regard her as the greatest head of state in the world?
      Not getting into the pros and cons about The Royal Family but who would you say was the greatest Head of State?

      I mean, 60 years, I can't see who else can compete for this title. Pretty much the whole world respect her.

      Dan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6358255].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
        I wasn't neccesarily suggesting there was a greater head of state in contrast. I was merely interested in why a person might assume the queen to be a productive and "greatest head of state" and the reasons a person might have for that viewpoint.

        Personally, I think the greatest people in the world are those who think for themselves and aren't introctrinated by the dictatorship of tradition.

        I suppose the ultimate question might be; What has the queen done for those 60 years which defines that time period on the throne as being as monumental as it's depicted?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6358363].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
          [DELETED]
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6358391].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author curly sue
            she represents the country, you need to go to other commonwealth countries in Africa, Asia, Canada to appreciate how much she is adored and flies the flag well for Britain.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373552].message }}
            • FYI: Jon Stewart does an astonishingly spot-on voice impression of QE II...:rolleyes:

              I have always had affection for "Lillibet", because my own Mum bore a striking resemblance to young Queen Elizabeth II, and I have had a coronation tin bearing her likeness my entire life - it is the only possession I can think of offhand I have always had. It was my 'treasure box' when I was a very little, and I actually thought it was a picture of my Mum wearing a crown...hence, I always treated her like a Queen. (except for a few times when I was thrown in the dungeon, or came close to being beheaded...:rolleyes
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373611].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
          Originally Posted by Daniel Evans View Post

          Personally, I think the greatest people in the world are those who think for themselves and aren't introctrinated by the dictatorship of tradition.
          I would agree with that. And if you'd have said the same thing about the worst people in the world, I'd agree with that too.
          Signature

          Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6362353].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    As I've said before, you Brits really know how to put on a show.


    Does the British Monarchy have any real political power at all or is it purely ceremonial?

    Does the "Privy Council" still exist?


    All The Best!!


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6361940].message }}
    • Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      As I've said before, you Brits really know how to put on a show.


      Does the British Monarchy have any real political power at all or is it purely ceremonial?

      Does the "Privy Council" still exist?


      All The Best!!


      TL
      Yeah, ya know...if you're going to be a King or Queen - it would be nice to still be able to lop off somebody's head when you bloody well feel like it - :p (within reason, of course :rolleyes
      I mean, what's the tower being used for these days anyway? :rolleyes:

      And she did drive an ambulance in WWII, and has always been very popular with the populous...

      But I have always chuckled at the fact that she frequently is seen carrying a purse - I mean, you're a Queen...do you really need a purse? :p :rolleyes:
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6362395].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author myob
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Does the "Privy Council" still exist?
      Yes, it's actually now called "Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council", but commoners must handle their own privies while sitting on the throne.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6367797].message }}
      • Little piece of trivia: It could be regarded an act of treason to place a postage stamp bearing the British king or queen's image upside-down :rolleyes:

        So if you're mailing the Queen a Birthday card...make sure you put it on right :p


        Another little piece of trivia:
        The Queen is the only person in the UK who is allowed to drive a car without license or registration.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6368951].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Tunnah
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      As I've said before, you Brits really know how to put on a show.


      Does the British Monarchy have any real political power at all or is it purely ceremonial?

      Does the "Privy Council" still exist?


      All The Best!!


      TL
      She has no polital power apart from offering her personal view on matters (if asked) raised in her private one to one weekly meeting with the british prime minister. It is part of legislation that anything discussed between them is never revealed.

      Rich
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373459].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author MissTerraK
        Originally Posted by Richard Tunnah View Post

        She has no polital power apart from offering her personal view on matters (if asked) raised in her private one to one weekly meeting with the british prime minister. It is part of legislation that anything discussed between them is never revealed.

        Rich
        Does this mean in simple terms she has been stripped of her powers?

        Terra
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373628].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
      Banned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      As I've said before, you Brits really know how to put on a show.


      Does the British Monarchy have any real political power at all or is it purely ceremonial?

      Does the "Privy Council" still exist?


      All The Best!!


      TL
      As you know we can't discuss politics here however, I'll attempt to answer this for you...

      The Queen has no direct input into the politics in the United Kingdom. Although the Government is in effect 'owned' by her for want of a better expression.

      The Prime Minister will meet with the Queen on a weekly basis to discuss political affairs and offer counsel where needed especially if tough decisions need to be made. But as for a direct input into the political affairs of this country or to countries in the Commonwealth, she will not participate directly.

      Btw the Commonwealth is made up of these countries... (more info)

      Commonwealth of Nations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Warmest regards,


      Mark Andrews
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6380107].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Andrews
        Banned
        As regards the Privy Council, more info here...

        Privy Council

        Privy Council of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Incidentally, the Queen is not to my knowledge the Head of State within the Square Mile in central London (correct me if I'm wrong on this fellow Brits).

        The Square Mile is an independent sovereign state, there are two other similar sovereign states in the world which you may be familiar with but I'm not going into this here.

        As regards the Square Mile the Head of State for this 677 acre area of central London the Head of State is The Lord Mayor. And The Queen is his subject within this area of central London. Indeed, she has to seek permission to enter this area of London from the Lord Mayor himself at the Temple Bar which is the symbolic gate of the Square Mile which is referred to as The City.

        It gets a little complicated as you can imagine lol.

        Just Google "The City London Sovereign State" or something similar and you'll undoubtedly find some further background info.

        Suffice to say, The City is not a part of England even though it's bang in the middle of the capital city of the country.

        I hope you find this info interesting if not a little fascinating as you start to dig a little deeper.

        Warmest regards,


        Mark Andrews
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6380171].message }}
        • Originally Posted by Mark Andrews View Post

          As regards the Privy Council, more info here...

          Privy Council

          Privy Council of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

          Incidentally, the Queen is not to my knowledge the Head of State within the Square Mile in central London (correct me if I'm wrong on this fellow Brits).

          The Square Mile is an independent sovereign state, there are two other similar sovereign states in the world which you may be familiar with but I'm not going into this here.

          As regards the Square Mile the Head of State for this 677 acre area of central London the Head of State is The Lord Mayor. And The Queen is his subject within this area of central London. Indeed, she has to seek permission to enter this area of London from the Lord Mayor himself at the Temple Bar which is the symbolic gate of the Square Mile which is referred to as The City.

          It gets a little complicated as you can imagine lol.

          Just Google "The City London Sovereign State" or something similar and you'll undoubtedly find some further background info.

          Suffice to say, The City is not a part of England even though it's bang in the middle of the capital city of the country.

          I hope you find this info interesting if not a little fascinating as you start to dig a little deeper.

          Warmest regards,


          Mark Andrews
          I did...did not realize this info to this extent...and thanks for the interesting sidebar -

          Henk Ruyssenaars' article on July 10th 2006 drew attention to the book "Descent into Slavery" by Des Griffin in which the real meaning of the term "City of London" is explained. The following is an excerpt from that article.

          "To the majority of people the words "Crown" and "City" in reference to London refer to the queen or the capital of England.

          This is not the truth. The "City" is in fact a privately owned Corporation - or Sovereign State - occupying an irregular rectangle of 677 acres and located right in the heart of the 610 square mile 'Greater London' area. The population of 'The City' is listed at just over four thousand, whereas the population of 'Greater London' (32 boroughs) is approximately seven and a half million.

          "The Crown" is a committee of twelve to fourteen men who rule the independent sovereign state known as London or 'The City.' 'The City' is not part of England. It is not subject to the Sovereign. It is not under the rule of the British parliament. Like the Vatican in Rome, it is a separate, independent state.

          "The City", which is often called "the wealthiest square mile on earth," is ruled over by a Lord Mayor. Here are grouped together Britain's great financial and commercial institutions: Wealthy banks, dominated by the privately-owned (Rothschild controlled) Bank of England, Lloyd's of London, the London Stock Exchange, and the offices of most of the leading international trading concerns. Here, also, is located Fleet Street, the heart and core of the newspaper and publishing worlds.

          The Lord Mayor, who is elected for a one year stint, is the monarch in the City. As Aubrey Menen says in "London", Time-Life, 1976, p. 16:
          "The relation of this monarch of the City to the monarch of the realm [Queen] is curious and tells much."
          It certainly is and certainly does!


          When the Queen of England goes to visit the City she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple Bar, the symbolic gate of the City. She bows and asks for permission to enter his private, sovereign State. During such State visits
          "the Lord Mayor in his robes and chain, and his entourage in medieval costume, outshines the royal party, which can dress up no further than service uniforms."
          The Lord Mayor leads the queen into his city.


          The symbolism is clear. The Lord Mayor is the monarch. The Queen is his subject.

          The small clique who rule the City dictate to the British Parliament. It tells them what to do, and when. In theory Britain is ruled by a Prime Minister and a Cabinet of close advisers. These 'fronts' go to great lengths to create the impression that they are running the show but, in reality, they are mere puppets whose strings are pulled by the shadowy characters who dominate behind the scenes. As the former British Prime Minister of England during the late 1800s Benjamin D'Israeli wrote:
          "So you see... the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes"
          (Coningsby, The Century Co., N.Y., 1907, p. 233).


          This fact is further demonstrated by another passage from Menen's book:
          "The Prime Minister, a busy politician, is not expected to understand the mysteries of high finance, while the Chancellor of the Exchequer is only expected to understand them when he introduces the budget. Both are advised by the permanenet officials of the Treasury, and these listen to the City. If they suspect that some policy of the government will back-fire, it is of no use their calling up British ambassadors to ask if it is so; they can find out more quickly from the City. As one ambassador said: "Diplomats are nowadays no more than office boys, and slow ones at that. The City will know. They will tell the Treasury and the Treasury will tell the Prime Minister."


          Woe betide him if he does not listen. The most striking instance of this happened in recent history. In 1956 the then Prime Minister, Sir Anthony Eden... launched a war to regain the Suez Canal. It had scarcely begun when the City let it be known that in a few days he would have no more money to fight it; the Pound would collapse. He stopped the war and was turned out of office by his party. When the Prime Minister rises to address the Lord Mayor's banquet, he hopes that the City will put more behind him than the gold plate lavishly displayed on the sideboards."


          The British government is the bond slave of the "invisible and inaudible" force centred in the City. The City calls the tune. The "visible and audible leaders" are mere puppets who dance to that tune on command. They have no power. They have no authority. In spite of the outward show they are mere pawns in the game being played by the financial elite.

          It is important to recognise the fact that two separate empires were operating under the guise of the British Empire. One was the Crown Empire and the other the British Empire.

          The colonial possessions that were white were under the sovereign - i.e. under the authority of the British government. Such nations as the Union of South Africa, Australia, New Zealand and Canada were governed under British law. These only represented thirteen percent of the people who made up the inhabitants of the Britsh Empire.

          All the other parts of the British Empire - nations like India, Egypt, Bermuda, Malta, Cyprus and colonies in Central Africa, Singapore, Hong Kong and Gibraltar were all Crown Colonies. These were not under British rule. The British parliament had no authority over them.

          As the Crown owned the committee known as the British government there was no problem getting the British taxpayer to pay for naval and military forces to maintain the Crown's supremacy in these areas.

          The City reaped fantastic profits from its operations conducted under the protection of the British armed forces. This wasn't British commerce and British wealth. The international bankers, prosperous merchants and those members of the aristocracy who were part of the "City" machine accumulated vast fortunes .

          About seventy years ago Vincent Cartwright Vickers stated that :
          ...."financiers in reality took upon themselves, perhaps not the responsibility, but certainly the power of controlling the markets of the world and therefore the numerous relationships between one nation and another, involving international friendship and mistrusts... Loans to foreign countries are organised and arranged by the City of London with no thought whatsoever of the nation's welfare but solely in order to increase indebtedness upon which the City thrives and grows rich..."

          In "Empire of the City" E. C. Knuth said:
          " This national and mainly international dictatorship of money which plays off one country against another and which, through ownership of a large portion of the press converts the advertisement of its own private opinion into a semblance of general public opinion, cannot for much longer be permitted to render Democratic Government a mere nickname. Today we see through a glass darkly: for there is so much which it would not be in the public interest to divulge."...
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6381841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Bewley
    Originally Posted by Chris Kent View Post

    I don't care much for her. She signed away our sovereignty to Europe with the Lisbon Treaty and society has gone downhill under her reign. The latter obviously isn't her doing but she didn't do anything about the treacherous politicians who served under her. The former is a violation of the oath that she took and makes her a traitor too.

    The sooner we get rid of the monarchy, the better.
    I assume you are either not a residential UK national or have no understanding of the UK constitution?

    The Queen is a-political, she has no constitutional powers, she has no powers to interfere with her government (she cannot fire ministers, MPs etc.) All bills that pass through the parliamentary process have to have the convention of royal assent (the Queens signs them off) to enable them to become law. Whatever the political persuasion of her government of the day. So you can hardly blame her for the former (in your quote.)

    I don't care much for the extended Royal family - but like millions of others, I have a strong affection for the Queen. She has been a constant for the last 60 years - survived 13 Prime Ministers. Yes, she is privileged - but has served our country, carried out her duties & devoted her life as our monarch.

    Tugging of forelocks, bowing & scraping are pretty much things of the past. And what is wrong for us to be different as regards to having a Queen, in this ever increasing homogenised world that we live in.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6362878].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Young Samurai
      I was returning this afternoon - in between jubilee celebrations - to respond to comments above, but Bewley has said it all and better than I could.

      The constitutional position the Queen holds is truly peculiar and unparalleled worldwide. It's a product of hundreds of years of history. I'm not sure "outsiders" can fully grasp the concept. Nor, can they appreciate the affection with which the vast majority of British folk view Her. She has no political or real constitutional power and yet is adored by 95% of her subjects. I don't suppose any other head of state can make such a claim.

      Thank you all for your contributions & now I'm away again - this time a street party.

      Originally Posted by Bewley View Post

      I assume you are either not a residential UK national or have no understanding of the UK constitution?

      The Queen is a-political, she has no constitutional powers, she has no powers to interfere with her government (she cannot fire ministers, MPs etc.) All bills that pass through the parliamentary process have to have the convention of royal assent (the Queens signs them off) to enable them to become law. Whatever the political persuasion of her government of the day. So you can hardly blame her for the former (in your quote.)

      I don't care much for the extended Royal family - but like millions of others, I have a strong affection for the Queen. She has been a constant for the last 60 years - survived 13 Prime Ministers. Yes, she is privileged - but has served our country, carried out her duties & devoted her life as our monarch.

      Tugging of forelocks, bowing & scraping are pretty much things of the past. And what is wrong for us to be different as regards to having a Queen, in this ever increasing homogenised world that we live in.
      Signature
      Kyle
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365402].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
        I'm not sure "outsiders" can fully grasp the concept.
        I don't think many "insiders" can neither beyond "do as the people do".

        Nor, can they appreciate the affection with which the vast majority of British folk view Her. She has no political or real constitutional power and yet is adored by 95% of her subjects. I don't suppose any other head of state can make such a claim.
        What's to dislike about an endearing elder lady who does nothing, or appears to do nothing that would ever frustrate anyone?

        It's only those who tend to do things, or appear to be doing things that might make the next person react negatively in response to their actions.

        Maybe if she had a more prominent role then not only would it justify her position, it would also give an insight into how people might otherwise react to her.

        Food for thought (and drink!) - and every Brit loves a bit of that!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365480].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author alistair
          Originally Posted by Daniel Evans View Post

          I don't think many "insiders" can neither beyond "do as the people do".

          What's to dislike about an endearing elder lady who does nothing, or appears to do nothing that would ever frustrate anyone?

          It's only those who tend to do things, or appear to be doing things that might make the next person react negatively in response to their actions.

          Maybe if she had a more prominent role then not only would it justify her position, it would also give an insight into how people might otherwise react to her.

          Food for thought (and drink!) - and every Brit loves a bit of that!
          This has wound me up a little bit, have to be honest.

          I think it's a bit of a silly thing to say that the Queen does nothing. I do agree sort of with what you say that she may appear to not do a lot but that's because not everything shes does appears on the 10 o'clock news, and who would want it to anyway?

          What would you describe as a more prominent role, and how can somebody justify being the Queen? She didn't ask to be Queen. She didn't get elected to be Queen. She didn't win a competition.

          Still that's your opinion and that's fair enough. I myself think the Queen and the royal family are very important to this country. They lift the countries spirits. The only other thing that does that is when Englands in the world cup, or we win the Ashes maybe.

          You only have to see the news over the last few days to see the effect the Queen has on the country. This elder lady that does nothing.

          Hitler said he considered the Queen Mother as the most dangerous woman in Europe because of her positive effect on the British morale. This is what they can do.

          I'm proud of being English and I'm proud of our history. I would think this is probably the case for most people, wherever they come from, but how many people would die for their President or Prime Minister? I guarantee you more people would die for the Queen, and not only British people either.

          The fact is this country will have a King or Queen for many years yet, and the longer the better as far as I'm concerned, and believe it or not they are human just like the rest of us.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373835].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author highhopes
            The Crown Estate, the royal lands dating back to 1066, generate around £110 million a year which is handed back to the Government in return for a £40 million payment to cover the cost of running the monarchy.
            things have changed as they have virtually handed the wealth to the state. Her wealth has been exaggerated recently.
            Signature

            Ways to grow your online business. Earning online tips for the home worker and essential steps to take to earn money online.
            http://wwwtheearninghub.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6379205].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
            Originally Posted by alistair View Post

            This has wound me up a little bit, have to be honest.

            I think it's a bit of a silly thing to say that the Queen does nothing. I do agree sort of with what you say that she may appear to not do a lot but that's because not everything shes does appears on the 10 o'clock news, and who would want it to anyway?
            It's actually the opinion of others too.

            What would you describe as a more prominent role, and how can somebody justify being the Queen? She didn't ask to be Queen. She didn't get elected to be Queen. She didn't win a competition.
            Possibly anything beyond that of her current role that might yield a positive response from someone in the high street who's asked "Do you know what the Queen does?".

            An answer could be given for almost anyone else who's in the public eye.


            Still that's your opinion and that's fair enough. I myself think the Queen and the royal family are very important to this country. They lift the countries spirits. The only other thing that does that is when Englands in the world cup, or we win the Ashes maybe.
            None of those things are of the slightest bit of importance to our country - the latter in particular which is based upon ego feeding. The former indoctrinated adoremment.

            You only have to see the news over the last few days to see the effect the Queen has on the country. This elder lady that does nothing.
            Wasn't that from a bias viewpoint in the sense that only those who support her were present?

            People who are were at home or work doing what they usually do who were completely dissinterested - not present.

            I can see that people do indeed get in a little giddy in her presence but I'm still now convinced what's she's actually doing for the country beyond that.

            Hitler said he considered the Queen Mother as the most dangerous woman in Europe because of her positive effect on the British morale. This is what they can do.
            People are only a danger to themselves if they place their own wellbeing in the hands of someone else - particularly someone who can't share the feeling mutually.

            I'm proud of being English and I'm proud of our history. I would think this is probably the case for most people, wherever they come from, but how many people would die for their President or Prime Minister? I guarantee you more people would die for the Queen, and not only British people either.
            Would you die for the Queen?

            The fact is this country will have a King or Queen for many years yet, and the longer the better as far as I'm concerned, and believe it or not they are human just like the rest of us.
            Indeed they are, hence my continuing bewilderment...

            I vented my frustration at an activist who protested against the existance of the royals at the recent wedding, only for the fact that a young guy is being distracted from having pleasure in marrying someone he loves and potentially going on to lead a great life after the hell of having lost his mother.

            Nothing more.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6380045].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Bewley
              Originally Posted by Daniel Evans View Post

              Would you die for the Queen?
              Sadly, many have. Oath of Allegiance(United_Kingdom)
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6388355].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
                Originally Posted by Bewley View Post

                Not exactly. That's why I directed the question personally to avoid that response.

                The term is fighting for "Queen and country".

                Armed forces are arguably protecting a population of 63 million people under the Queen.

                There is no person in the world as far as I am aware who has directly and willingly given up their life in exchange for the current Queen to live and no circumstance has arisen which would test a persons willingness to do exactly that.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6391337].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author salegurus
    Originally Posted by Chris Kent View Post

    I don't care much for her. She signed away our sovereignty to Europe with the Lisbon Treaty and society has gone downhill under her reign.
    Dude get the facts straight, the prime minister signed the treaty not the Queen...
    Signature
    Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.

    ― George Carlin
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6363497].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    From what I understand the position of the royals is now simply honorary and if the British people are cool with it then so am I.

    I think support for a monarchy is in the 70's among the British people.

    I heard about a deal in which King George ( I think ) lent the nation money to fight WW1 and in return the royal family did not have to pay income taxes.

    This arrangement was recently ended and they pay taxes on income just like everyone else.

    Is the Queen etc., receiving any tax dollars for anything?

    I wonder who paid for yesterday's festivities?

    Last I heard, the Queen was worth at least 11 bill.


    All The Best!!


    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365529].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Bewley
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      I wonder who paid for yesterday's festivities?
      TL
      "The costs for the River Pageant will be covered by the Thames Diamond Jubilee Foundation. The Foundation is a privately funded charitable trust which aims to raise funds for charitable projects that have a link to The Queen and her Diamond Jubilee, with a particular focus on areas such as the Commonwealth, youth and education, as well as supporting the wider charitable sector."

      Source: Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365692].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Richard Tunnah
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      From what I understand the position of the royals is now simply honorary and if the British people are cool with it then so am I.

      I think support for a monarchy is in the 70's among the British people.

      I heard about a deal in which King George ( I think ) lent the nation money to fight WW1 and in return the royal family did not have to pay income taxes.

      This arrangement was recently ended and they pay taxes on income just like everyone else.

      Is the Queen etc., receiving any tax dollars for anything?

      I wonder who paid for yesterday's festivities?

      Last I heard, the Queen was worth at least 11 bill.


      All The Best!!


      TL
      Good questions TL.

      The Queen is no longer worth billions - the suggested personal worth is £350m ($500m). This is due to the royal family deciding to split up her personal wealth and the assets of the state (which made up most of the estimated billion wealth). Things like Palace's apart from 1 all belong to the UK people as do a lot of priceless artwork.
      They now publish yearly accounts where British tax payers money goes towards. I believe the cost to each british tax payer is approximately a $1 per year to maintain the monarchy. This goes towards the upkeep of the state palaces and any official trips.
      I believe she brings in many times this amount.

      Rich
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373400].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Manda
    Aside from the range of issues, actual or perceived, with the royal family, I personally think Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth deserves respect and congratulations for her years of service.

    She is not the longest reigning monarch however, that honour goes to His Majesty King Bhumipol Adulyadej of Thailand. His diamond jubilee was in 2006.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6365997].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Gradle
    I hear that we might give Royal women the right to succession, first born gets to be king/ Queen not just the men before the women. Progress I guess!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373476].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jimbo13
      Originally Posted by Gradle View Post

      I hear that we might give Royal women the right to succession, first born gets to be king/ Queen not just the men before the women. Progress I guess!
      The law has been changed now but it wont come into effect until William is dead because if it came into effect now neither Charles or William will be King.

      Assuming each ascended and then promptly died, in order of succession it would be:

      Queen Anne, King Peter and his wife Queen Autumn , Queen Savannah , Queen Isla , Queen Zara, King Charles then King William.

      So William would actually be 7th in line which is as good as nothing. And as Savannah, Isla and Zara have more kids Charles and William would go further down the order.

      In fact we would hardly know who they are just like Peter Phillips can walk down the street now and hardly anybody would know who he is.

      Dan
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6379735].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author curly sue
    hep hep to our 'mummy' isnt she lovely, may she live for the next 15 years to see her platinum jubliee and centinum (if i can spell it)
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6373518].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kentah
    There was a celebration here in Kenya, in the hotel where she recieved the news about her fathers death.

    Happy Diamond jubilee.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6380071].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Chris Worner
    Long live the Queen! And Prince Phillip (Dudes a freakin legend)

    -Chris
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6381703].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PatrickDownes
    good on her for lasting that long
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[6388726].message }}

Trending Topics