Queen Elizabeth II to visit Ireland.

sceptre · 28-06-2010 2:37pm

Guys, I don't care why you voted for the 19th amendment or why you voted against it. Or particularly what you think it means and I don't even care about the wackiness posted about supposed renewals by the Dail or an out strategy. Mostly because it's only got relevance to the thread inside some of your heads and with all due respect, this place isn't designed as your idiocy ground (or playground, if one chooses to be more diplomatic).

This isn't an asylum, despite what some of you think. And if you have problems with other posts, report them. Do not indulge in personal attacks or personalisation of the discussion or you will no longer have access to the asylum.

See the people who are actually discussing the point of the thread? They're the reason the thread is still open. They're the only reason the thread is still open.

/mod

livingtargets · 28-06-2010 2:54pm

getz wrote: »

if the people of the UK did not want a royal family they would have removed it, they did it once before,or they would have voted for the republican party[yes there is one] so she has a mandate,the queen did not send people to afg/iraq,but in the case of afghanistan the irish goverment voted in the UN for them to go.

So,if they don't want a royal they should get rid of them?They should lead a revolt against the British Army?It's happened before:the Great Mutiny of 1797 when the Royal Navy rebelled against King George and ran up the red flag.And 1798 when Wolfe Tone led the United Irishmen against the forces of the monarchy.And the countless peasant revolts.The point is,that kind of thing usually ends up with anti-royalists with their heads on poles.

Or else they should vote for some minnow party nobody has heard of?

So the queen has a mandate because no one has voted for some minnow,one man and his dog Republican Party?Maybe people haven't voted for them because of their other policies.I don't think the failure of a joke shop party can be seen as a resounding cry of support for the queen.

"the queen did not send people to afg/iraq"
Yeah,she begged them to stop.She's only the bloody Queen,what could she do?....:rolleyes:

livingtargets · 28-06-2010 3:05pm

Hang on a bloody minute.
The "Republican Party Uk" is a one issue campaigning group!

It says on their site:

"Republic is a campaigning pressure group. Everything we do is aimed at persuading ordinary people - and our politicians - to support a republican constitution in place of the monarchy. "

I went searching for their site when you first mentioned them,but their site was down.I searched it again just there,and found not a "minnow political party",as I assumed they were as I've never heard of them,but a bloody campaigning group who don't actually run candidates!

So,no.The Queen doesn't have a mandate.Why are we welcoming an unelected toff who belongs in the middle-ages to our shores?

Lemegeton · 28-06-2010 3:18pm

i normally would not care but we are footing the bill for this trip so i am outgraded. the same goes for the Obama visit too

Denerick · 28-06-2010 3:43pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Please. They were a shower of bigots and cranks with links to terrorism who are banned from marching in the 6 counties. It was an idiotic idea to allow them to march in Dublin full stop and wasn't an attack on the 'loyal tribe'. If it was an Orange march there wouldn't have been half the fuss.

But I do take your broad point that Mrs Windsor getting hit with an egg or whathave you will not go down well with the loyalist community.

Bigots they may be, but our constitution protects the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble in public areas in support of whatever cause they deem appropriate. A tiny minority prevented natives of this island from exercising what should be their constitutional right. Ireland will never be united if we insist on forcing Unionists to conform to what some very small minded people who have never read a history book perceive to be their 'Irish' identity.

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 3:45pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

But I do take your broad point that Mrs Windsor getting hit with an egg or whathave you will not go down well with the loyalist community.

Ok this is getting on my nerves and I'm going to devote this post to address only this.

Mrs. is the title given to a married women who lacks any other title. Just like Ms. and Mr. are given to un-married women and men respectively who also lack any other title. The Queen has numerous titles to her name so she isn't given the title Mrs.

I know that you're trying to act tough and show that you care nothing about the monarch of out closest neighbour but really it only makes you look ignorant.

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 3:50pm

In future could people refer to the inbred relic as The Queen of England.

Nodin · 28-06-2010 3:53pm

Denerick wrote: »

Bigots they may be, but our constitution protects the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble in public areas in support of whatever cause they deem appropriate.

....I'm not sure about that, to be honest.

getz · 28-06-2010 3:56pm

two big visits the queen of england and the pope of rome,you takes your pick,one will be greeted with fanaticism the other with indifference,both accused of being head of a army/religion that abused its citizens,

junder · 28-06-2010 3:56pm

fontanalis wrote: »

In future could people refer to the inbred relic as The Queen of England.

Why? When she is the queen of the united kingdom and not just england

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 3:58pm

junder wrote: »

Why? When she is the queen of the united kingdom and not just england

But she's not the queen of ireland and referring to her as the queen kind of implies she is, still inbred and a relic though.

Nodin · 28-06-2010 3:58pm

getz wrote: »

two big visits the queen of england and the pope of rome,you takes your pick,one will be greeted with fanaticism the other with indifference,both accused of being head of a army/religion that abused its citizens,

Both will be greeted with fanaticism and indifference, and all inbetween. Personally I don't think either have anything to add at the moment.

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 4:03pm

fontanalis wrote: »

But she's not the queen of ireland and referring to her as the queen kind of implies she is, still inbred and a relic though.

She's the Queen of Northern Ireland. And maintains the title "Queen of Northern Ireland" due to this fact.

Judgement Day · 28-06-2010 4:09pm

dlofnep wrote: »

So she would have no problem in ceremoniously removing the title of OBE from Derek Wilford, once would imagine.

I said I wouldn't post again but this is such crap. You know well the Queen has virtually no say in anything and a decision to go removing titles would be the down to David Cameron. If you that worried about it and not just a Brit-basher why don't you drop him a line. :mad:

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:11pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

She's the Queen of Northern Ireland. And maintains the title "Queen of Northern Ireland" due to this fact.

Well I suppsoe she deserves it, she worked hard enough for it.

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 4:24pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Well I suppsoe she deserves it, she worked hard enough for it.

If you don't mind me saying your attitude is very counter-productive. How can we ever see a United Ireland when this is the way people react to the North's head of state paying a visit.

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:25pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying your attitude is very counter-productive. How can we ever see a United Ireland when this is the way people react to the North's head of state paying a visit.

I'm indifferent ot the whole thing. I have absolutely no time for any monarchy. They are a relic, an embarassment to democracy and the human race.
Apart from the King of Tory island.

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 4:29pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I have absolutely no time for any monarchy. They are a relic, an embarassment to democracy and the human race.

How do you work that one out?

sensibleken · 28-06-2010 4:32pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I'm indifferent ot the whole thing. I have absolutely no time for any monarchy. They are a relic, an embarassment to democracy and the human race.
Apart from the King of Tory island.

who, Balor?

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:33pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How do you work that one out?

Why is she Queen?

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:34pm

sensibleken wrote: »

who, Balor?

Off with your head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kingoftory.jpg

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 4:37pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Why is she Queen?

She was the grand-daughter of the King. Now you have to answer my question.

Elmo · 28-06-2010 4:38pm

Denerick wrote: »

Bigots they may be, but our constitution protects the rights of citizens to peacefully assemble in public areas in support of whatever cause they deem appropriate. A tiny minority prevented natives of this island from exercising what should be their constitutional right. Ireland will never be united if we insist on forcing Unionists to conform to what some very small minded people who have never read a history book perceive to be their 'Irish' identity.

It is funny how you change your whole argument to suit yourself. I some how don't think that the Unionist involved in the "Love Ulster" parade where all that knowledgeable of "their" constitutional rights or that the even care.

Many people with this attitude seem to be just as bigoted and as backward as the people that you perceive to be bigoted and backward.

Anyway this whole argument is going around in circles, and in honour of circular threads let me repeat:-

Monarchs across Europe are an antiquated form of head of state. Ms. Windsor (she kept her maiden name her husband's is frightfully German) is welcome as any other monarch, if we are mature enough we won't make such a big deal of such state visits.

Imagine if she had House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg :rolleyes: but then she possibly isn't mature enough nor are the English for such names. (Windsor dates back to 1917)

IrishTonyO · 28-06-2010 4:41pm

fontanalis wrote: »

In future could people refer to the inbred relic as The Queen of England.

referring to her as the Queen is an abbreviation that we all understand, if you would prefer posters to use her full title then here it is, but I am sure you'll agree saying the Queen is a lot easier

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith,[2] Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich,[N 1] Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:41pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

She was the grand-daughter of the King. Now you have to answer my question.

Why was the king king, and his father king and so forth and the whole way back to woden etc?
I have no time for any monarchy as they are not elected and are relics of the middle ages.

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:44pm

Elmo wrote: »

It is funny how you change your whole argument to suit yourself. I some how don't think that the Unionist involved in the "Love Ulster" parade where all that knowledgeable of "their" constitutional rights or that the even care.

You seem to be just as bigoted and as backward as the people you perceive to be bigoted and backward.

Anyway this whole argument is going around in circles, and in honour of circular threads let me repeat:-

Monarchs across Europe are an antiquated form of head of state. Ms. Windsor (she kept her maiden name her husband's is frightfully German) is welcome as any other monarch, if we are mature enough we won't make such a big deal of such state visits.

Imagine if she had House of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg :rolleyes: but then she possibly isn't mature enough nor are the English for such names. (Windsor dates back to 1917)

Damn Angle Jutes; that's where trying to set themsleves up as seperate from the rest of the people on the isles as some noble race and the advent of World War 1 gets you!

Wolfe Tone · 28-06-2010 4:44pm

Il just call her Mrs Windsor, thanks very much.

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:45pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

referring to her as the Queen is an abbreviation that we all understand, if you would prefer posters to use her full title then here it is, but I am sure you'll agree saying the Queen is a lot easier

Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the Seas Queen, Defender of the Faith,[2] Duchess of Edinburgh, Countess of Merioneth, Baroness Greenwich,[N 1] Duke of Lancaster, Lord of Mann, Duke of Normandy, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Garter, Sovereign of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Sovereign of the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, Sovereign of the Most Illustrious Order of Saint Patrick, Sovereign of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Sovereign of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Sovereign of the Distinguished Service Order, Sovereign of the Imperial Service Order, Sovereign of the Most Exalted Order of the Star of India, Sovereign of the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire, Sovereign of the Order of British India, Sovereign of the Indian Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of Burma, Sovereign of the Royal Order of Victoria and Albert, Sovereign of the Royal Family Order of King Edward VII, Sovereign of the Order of Merit, Sovereign of the Order of the Companions of Honour, Sovereign of the Royal Victorian Order, Sovereign of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_titles_and_honours_of_Queen_Elizabeth_II

I see, Helen Mirrens name would never have got on the poster.

Judgement Day · 28-06-2010 4:47pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Il just call her Mrs Windsor, thanks very much.

I'm sure she's concerned what you call her - it doesn't make you appear clever -really.

ger vallely · 28-06-2010 4:47pm

Not too sure where I read it-possibly the Examiner but I read a quote of €8 million? Is that seriously possible? If that's the case she should definitely stay put.Actually maybe she should either way.

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 4:48pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Why was the king king, and his father king and so forth and the whole way back to woden etc?
I have no time for any monarchy as they are not elected and are relics of the middle ages.

And what is wrong with being a relic of the middle ages?

Elmo · 28-06-2010 4:53pm

IrishTonyO wrote: »

referring to her as the Queen is an abbreviation that we all understand, if you would prefer posters to use her full title then here it is, but I am sure you'll agree saying the Queen is a lot easier

There are other queens in Europe (possibly related to "the" Queen) but to me they are Queen Whatever rather than "The" Queen. Queen Elizabeth II, Queen Beatrice.

Elmo · 28-06-2010 4:55pm

fontanalis wrote: »

Damn Angle Jutes; that's where trying to set themsleves up as seperate from the rest of the people on the isles as some noble race and the advent of World War 1 gets you!

Yeah 'cause that make it so much more mature. :cool:

Wolfe Tone · 28-06-2010 4:55pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what is wrong with being a relic of the middle ages?

Wait, you claim that Republicans are living in the past yet you are heading this direction?

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 4:58pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Wait, you claim that Republicans are living in the past yet you are heading this direction?

What do you mean heading in this direction? I'm not heading anywhere.

Regardless the Queen is just a tradition for the people of Britain now. She has no powers and they have no desire to remove her.

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 4:59pm

Elmo wrote: »

Yeah 'cause that make it so much more mature. :cool:

I'm reading a book called Saxons, Viking and Celts by Bryan Sykes at the minute (looking at the populating of the British Isles). In it he gives a brief (very brief) overview of the English Monarchy.
He claims that the ruling classes tried to align themselves with "Saxon" Germany as a way of differentiating themselves from the Britons (scots, wels etc) and to show they were more pure etc
But this backfired with strained relations with Germany. It does tie in with what you said about the name change, doesn't it?

Elmo · 28-06-2010 5:00pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Regardless the Queen is just a tradition for the people of Britain now. She has no powers and they have no desire to remove her.

Have they been asked? But as I have being saying the most mature of us seem to forget how such a role is purely antiquated in this day and age of democracy.

Elmo · 28-06-2010 5:04pm

fontanalis wrote: »

I'm reading a book called Saxons, Viking and Celts by Bryan Sykes at the minute (looking at the populating of the British Isles). In it he gives a brief (very brief) overview of the English Monarchy.
He claims that the ruling classes tried to align themselves with "Saxon" Germany as a way of differentiating themselves from the Britons (scots, wels etc) and to show they were more pure etc
But this backfired with strained relations with Germany. It does tie in with what you said about the name change, doesn't it?

It certainly shows their immaturity. I now think PR is the oldest profession.

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 5:04pm

Elmo wrote: »

Have they been asked? But as I have being saying the most mature of us seem to forget how such a role is purely antiquated in this day and age of democracy.

And what role would that be?

Elmo · 28-06-2010 5:05pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And what role would that be?

The role of Monarch as Head of State

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 5:06pm

Elmo wrote: »

The role of Monarch as Head of State

Ok, so how does having a Monarch as head of state impact on democracy as you claimed in your last post?

rovert · 28-06-2010 5:08pm

ger vallely wrote: »

Not too sure where I read it-possibly the Examiner but I read a quote of €8 million? Is that seriously possible? If that's the case she should definitely stay put.Actually maybe she should either way.

Versus all the money they pump into the country.

Denerick · 28-06-2010 5:10pm

Elmo wrote: »

It is funny how you change your whole argument to suit yourself. I some how don't think that the Unionist involved in the "Love Ulster" parade where all that knowledgeable of "their" constitutional rights or that the even care.

You seem to be just as bigoted and as backward as the people you perceive to be bigoted and backward.

Cop out. How do you expect to reconcile the unionist community when you won't even allow them to freely assemble in the nations capital? Republicans certainly have a lot of work to do, but until they allow the same liberties permitted to the Catholic majority, Ireland will be partitioned.

fontanalis · 28-06-2010 5:10pm

Elmo wrote: »

It certainly shows their immaturity. I now think PR is the oldest profession.

Apparently Charles middle name Arthur is also a way of linking them to the fabled Arthur who (I think) Edward 1 originally claimed ancestry/legitimacy.

dlofnep · 28-06-2010 5:11pm

rovert wrote: »

Versus all the money they pump into the country.

This is where you explain how her not visiting is going to affect our bi-lateral trade ties.

OhNoYouDidn't · 28-06-2010 5:19pm

Denerick wrote: »

Cop out. How do you expect to reconcile the unionist community when you won't even allow them to freely assemble in the nations capital? Republicans certainly have a lot of work to do, but until they allow the same liberties permitted to the Catholic majority, Ireland will be partitioned.

Those cranks, bigots and terrorists are not representitive of the unionists. Hence they are not allowed march in Belfast. Look at how many votes Willy Frasier got in the last election for his relevance.

The idea that they were milled because they were Protestant is so outrageously offensively incorrect I don't know where to begin.

Elmo · 28-06-2010 5:20pm

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ok, so how does having a Monarch as head of state impact on democracy as you claimed in your last post?

Yes. I know where you going. Why bother with a head of state so? That is another question entirely. Hence why I clearly stated, the role of Monarch as Head of State and added a smiley face.

Monarchs regardless of their role are antiquated. The bare no really connection to the people that they are supposed to represent because the come from a long family line and grew up in different circumstances to the majority of people that they represent. While you may pose the question should we (or any country) bother with a ceremonial president? that is an entirely different question.

Monarchs don't represent the people, how could they? So yes democracy is effected. Imagine giving a load of money to people purely because of their bloodline to represent you.

rovert · 28-06-2010 5:20pm

dlofnep wrote: »

This is where you explain how her not visiting is going to affect our bi-lateral trade ties.

Nah this is where I reply to a jumpy poster.

Elmo · 28-06-2010 5:25pm

Denerick wrote: »

Cop out. How do you expect to reconcile the unionist community when you won't even allow them to freely assemble in the nations capital? Republicans certainly have a lot of work to do, but until they allow the same liberties permitted to the Catholic majority, Ireland will be partitioned.

The same liberties of the Republic are extended to all people of the Island of Ireland should they so wish. I have no problem with a group of people marching on different issues however the love ulster parade was not taking into account the issues that effect all of the people of Northern Ireland, rather it was organised to show up the so called bigotry that so many unionist think is a live and well in the republic. Yet as I have stated before the marchers did not represent the whole community of Northern Ireland that died during the trouble rather it was a select view. I wonder if they even represent 5% of the Unionist tradition.

Iwasfrozen · 28-06-2010 5:26pm

Elmo wrote: »

Yes. I know where you going. Why bother with a head of state so? That is another question entirely. Hence why I clearly stated, the role of Monarch as Head of State and added a smiley face.

Monarchs regardless of their role are antiquated. The bare no really connection to the people that they are supposed to represent because the come from a long family line and grew up in different circumstances to the majority of people that they represent. While you may pose the question should we (or any country) bother with a ceremonial president? that is an entirely different question.

Monarchs don't represent the people, how could they? So yes democracy is effected. Imagine giving a load of money to people purely because of their bloodline to represent you.

I was never going to suggest why a country should go without a ceremonial head of state.

I still don't see how a head of state who has no powers and who is in position with the general support of their people can be considered anti-democratic.

Queen Elizabeth II to visit Ireland.

Comments