In spite of these austere time lets give the Queen a new yacht

44leto

timesnap wrote: »

I thought the Ark Royal was already gone?

if people stop to think about it would they like to have given up their lives at age 27 as she had to when her Father died?

Would anybody like to have lived Charles life where he could not just marry the woman he loved,and his own personal feelings took second place to being next in line all his life.?

It is more like a prison sentence to be born into royalty IMO

I absolutely agree, I would hate their lives it is one of duty whether you want it or not. I am just taking the piss, but really I'm a fan.

partyatmygaff

What a great idea. Why don't we copy it over here in Ireland?

I'll be King and i'll create titles for the rest of my family (And lesser titles for my friends). Once that's done, start giving me money on account of my mere existence and pay for me to live in extravagant wealth at your expense.

Millions of tourists will flock over from around the world in amazement at how stupid it is to take taxpayer's money to create a fictional "Royal Class" and then prop them up with money and extravagant possessions. Sure it might increase foreign interest in the country but there are better and much fairer ways of attracting tourism.

44leto

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What a great idea. Why don't we copy it over here in Ireland?

I'll be King and i'll create titles for the rest of my family (And lesser titles for my friends). Once that's done, start giving me money on account of my mere existence and pay for me to live in extravagant wealth at your expense.

Millions of tourists will flock over from around the world in amazement at how stupid it is to take people's money to create a fictional "Royal Class" and then prop them up with money and extravagant possessions. Sure it might increase foreign interest in the country but there are better and much fairer ways of attracting tourism.

That would have been a great proposal and post till the last bit:(

Yahew

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What a great idea. Why don't we copy it over here in Ireland?

I'll be King and i'll create titles for the rest of my family (And lesser titles for my friends). Once that's done, start giving me money on account of my mere existence and pay for me to live in extravagant wealth at your expense.

Millions of tourists will flock over from around the world in amazement at how stupid it is to take taxpayer's money to create a fictional "Royal Class" and then prop them up with money and extravagant possessions. Sure it might increase foreign interest in the country but there are better and much fairer ways of attracting tourism.

Cool it, Ozymandias

later12

Also, don't be overly convinced (I can't remember who said it) that irish viewership of the Royal wedding infers admiration of or support for the British monarchy.

I'm pretty sure if RTE played the tragic comedy of Kim Jong Il's funeral live on air with full commentary, you'd get a large viewership, interested only in the bizarre and peculiar spectacle that it was.

So you can imagine how a most singular and irrational spectacle by our near neighbours can attract a similar level of bemusement or curiosity, but I wouldn't say 'support'.

Richard Hillman

Probably the greatest representative her country has ever had. I think she deserves a new boat after her magnificent service to their country. It will probably be used as a tourist trap on the thames and make the money back within a decade.

later12

Richard Hillman wrote: »

I think she deserves a new boat after her magnificent service to their country.

Palaces, artwork jewellery, tiaras and estates altogether worth billions of euro not enough?

That's one Hell of a benefit to enjoy on top on such immense personal wealth.

Yahew

we could give her a toy yacht.

timesnap

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

I hear-by declare war on the speeling police. Take this as a last warning to everyone. Charter breach will = infracts/bans/beatings

You spelled spelling as speeling.i like a good beating in the bedroom,can i have one?:pac:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What a great idea. Why don't we copy it over here in Ireland?

I'll be King and i'll create titles for the rest of my family (And lesser titles for my friends).

Now you sound like a Boards Mod!:p

I'm pretty sure if RTE played the tragic comedy of Kim Jong Il's funeral live on air with full commentary, you'd get a large viewership, interested only in the bizarre and peculiar spectacle that it was.

but much less crying,well except in Ireland where we 'CRY' where is the nearest pub after a funeral.:)

So you can imagine how a most singular and irrational spectacle by our near neighbours can attract a similar level of bemusement or curiosity, but I wouldn't say 'support'.

well Ireland became fairly irrational during Italia 90 would'nt you say?
Who put the ball in the English net?:pac:.

when the Irish Republic came about and we left the commonwealth the Queens Father said to the emmisery "Oh must you leave the Family?"by all accounts in a very sad tone of voice.

The family might be aloof and way out of touch but they as people felt the Empire was a wonderful thing.
they were not allowed access to contrary views other than the propaganda machine that was fed to them by people who had a financial interest in said empire.

Fratton Fred

later10 wrote: »

Palaces, artwork jewellery, tiaras and estates altogether worth billions of euro not enough?

That's one Hell of a benefit to enjoy on top on such immense personal wealth.

But they aren't hers. Just like the castles and the planes etc.

She can't suddenly decide to flog them all and piss off to Vegas on a girls weekend.

For "Queen" think head of state, think state. She is simply the living symbol of the nations and what's hers is, pretty much, property of the state.

later12

timesnap wrote: »

but much less crying,well except in Ireland where we 'CRY' where is the nearest pub after a funeral.:)

This is a predominantly Irish message board. Surely you must be aware that such stereotypes are likely to be met with disdain; or is that what you're after?

well Ireland became fairly irrational during Italia 90 would'nt you say?
Who put the ball in the English net?:pac:.

Completely irrelevant. Lots of Irish people are irrational, that really doesn't detract from nor mitigate the stupidity of sustaining a constitutional role for the monarchy.

when the Irish Republic came about and we left the commonwealth the Queens Father said to the emmisery "Oh must you leave the Family?"by all accounts in a very sad tone of voice.

I really don't care for this sort of condescending anecdote from 'the good old days'. I don't give a damn about what the man said to his servants. I don't find the royal family particularly interesting nor honourable.

later12

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But they aren't hers. Just like the castles and the planes etc.

Yes, most of that wealth is not her personal wealth, That's why I referred to "one Hell of a benefit to enjoy on top on such immense personal wealth"

Fratton Fred

timesnap wrote: »

when the Irish Republic came about and we left the commonwealth the Queens Father said to the emmisery "Oh must you leave the Family?"by all accounts in a very sad tone of voice.

The family might be aloof and way out of touch but they as people felt the Empire was a wonderful thing.
they were not allowed access to contrary views other than the propaganda machine that was fed to them by people who had a financial interest in said empire.

I think you are being a bit unfair there.

When Liz came over, she chose the agenda, she picked where to go and what to see.

She could have come over, kissed a few babies, had lunch and pissed off again.

Instead, she observed a minutes silence in the hgarden of remembrance and visited croke park. She took the bull by the horns, looked it squarely in the eyes and kicked it in the bollocks.

She is a lot more switched on than people give her credit for.

Fratton Fred

later10 wrote: »

Yes, most of that wealth is not her personal wealth, That's why I referred to "one Hell of a benefit to enjoy on top on such immense personal wealth"

Personally I'd rather have the freedom to piss off to Vegas, but then I've never been one for Tiaras.

timesnap

later10 wrote: »

This is a predominantly Irish message board. Surely you must be aware that such stereotypes are likely to be met with disdain; or is that what you're after?[

and as i am Irish and live in Ireland i feel i belong here.
if you read my posts carefully you would realise i am trying to debunk stereotypes.

Completely irrelevant. Lots of Irish people are irrational, that really doesn't detract from nor mitigate the stupidity of sustaining a constitutional role for the monarchy

.

Lots of people are irrational from any Nation.
England does not have a written Constitution.
the Queen is the figurehead of many Countries including Australia.
it had a referendum to deny this role and lt was not passed.
i personally have no idea why,it seems irrational but that was the result.

I really don't care for this sort of condescending anecdote from 'the good old days'. I don't give a damn about what the man said to his servants. I don't find the royal family particularly interesting nor honourable.

it is neither condescending or an anecdote,it is exactly as the message came back when the thirty year papers were released.

CiaranC

We should buy it for her from the billions of euro in "tourism" her visit here generated. Oh wait

later12

timesnap wrote: »

Lots of people are irrational from any Nation.

Yes. But you are engaging in something called an appeal to hypocrisy, which is a form of logical fallacy. I'm pointing out something that is irrational (monarchy) and you're, bizzarely, replying by pointing out examples of Irish irrationality. Do you see the problem with that?

England does not have a written Constitution.

It doesn't have a directly written constitution. But it does have a constitution, and the monarchy has a constitutional role. This is pretty stupid.

timesnap

Fratton Fred wrote: »

I think you are being a bit unfair there.

When Liz came over, she chose the agenda, she picked where to go and what to see.

She could have come over, kissed a few babies, had lunch and pissed off again.

Instead, she observed a minutes silence in the hgarden of remembrance and visited croke park. She took the bull by the horns, looked it squarely in the eyes and kicked it in the bollocks.

She is a lot more switched on than people give her credit for.

Fratton i think you have misunderstood me,i agree She and our President of the time were a credit to their Nations.
No question about it.
i also thought the Queen done all she could to prove her Fathers sadness at the ROI leaving the commonwealth was shared by her.

timesnap

later10 wrote: »

Yes. But you are engaging in something called an appeal to hypocrisy, which is a form of logical fallacy. I'm pointing out something that is irrational (monarchy) and you're, bizzarely, replying by pointing out examples of Irish irrationality. Do you see the problem with that?

the who put the ball in the English net was just a bit of banter.
Irrational is subjective.

It doesn't have a directly written constitution. But it does have a constitution, and the monarchy has a constitutional role. This is pretty stupid.

try telling that to those who never put a constitution down on paper.
i suggest they knew what they were doing,look how bothersome it is to the political elite in Ireland that are forced to hold referenda to see if their electorate agree with hugh changes they would just introduce willy nilly.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What a great idea. Why don't we copy it over here in Ireland?

I'll be King and i'll create titles for the rest of my family (And lesser titles for my friends). Once that's done, start giving me money on account of my mere existence and pay for me to live in extravagant wealth at your expense.

I'll agree to you as king if only you dropped the religion bit as Supreme Governor of the Church of Partyatmygaff and became an atheist

Minstrel27

44leto wrote: »

I am so glad if only we could contribute.

I read a while ago during the queens visit when a magazine puts a royal on the cover proportionally the magazine will sell more here then in Britain. I am afraid we love the royals as well.

Now who here didn't watch the wedding last year.

You are deluded. Only a few women I know watched that wedding. I was food shopping at the time it was on and the place wasn't deserted. It was pretty busy for a Friday daytime

Who buys magazines about 'celebrities'? Idiots do.

We all love the royal family? In your own little fantasy world maybe.

ProudDUB

later10 wrote: »

Also, don't be overly convinced (I can't remember who said it) that irish viewership of the Royal wedding infers admiration of or support for the British monarchy.

I'm pretty sure if RTE played the tragic comedy of Kim Jong Il's funeral live on air with full commentary, you'd get a large viewership, interested only in the bizarre and peculiar spectacle that it was.

So you can imagine how a most singular and irrational spectacle by our near neighbours can attract a similar level of bemusement or curiosity, but I wouldn't say 'support'.

Agree 100%. Get pished off when peeps bring up Irish viewership numbers of Wills and Kate wedding as indicative of our "support" for the monarchy. We watched it coz it was a great big, humungously entertaining spectacle with lots of posh frocks and big jewbels. A bit like the Oscars really. Which we also watch in droves. Doesn't mean we are all going to go out and become actors now does it?

bwatson

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

Mod

I hear-by declare war on the speeling police. Take this as a last warning to everyone. Charter breach will = infracts/bans/beatings

So its not acceptable to help a friend with his spelling and that is pulled up by a mod with startling speed, but you completely overlook the fact he has called me a "pompus asshole" due to a difference of opinion on a political matter? I would say I'm shocked, but I'm not.

Freddie59

bwatson wrote: »

I don't want to come across as pompous, but it is spelt pompous.

I take it that as you clearly don't know how to spell it, you don't know its meaning either? You would describe Elizabeth II as arrogant?

What is it with the Irish and that toothy green smiley? Just say "I disagree" instead of trying to give it all the condescending nonsense before spelling an incredibly basic word incorrectly.

There's a difference between a spelling error and a typo.........:D

I actually pride myself in grammar and punctuation, and try - at all times - to ensure correctness. But hey - no-one's prefect.

Now, back to that other cnut Liz.

I can assure you neither I - nor none of my family members - watched that gaudy, tacky, spectacle that was termed a "wedding".

Solair

Don't forget that the UK remains a slightly reformed feudal state. They have to occasionally pay tribute to their unelected, highly privileged, billionaire, head of state, who was apparently appointed by God.

It's a daft anachronistic system and I think this kind of stuff clearly demonstrates why we are far better off without it.

She attracts tourists because it is a quirky, daft anachronism.

Interestingly, more tourists visit Paris to see the old places of their long ousted monarchs. At least those buildings are now used for public purposes.

To me it would indicate that people want to see amazing buildings, whether the monarchy still lives in them is largely irrelevant.

KeithAFC

I think the Queen would love this. This is a fantastic idea in my opinion. I hope it happens because it will prove that respect is growing a bit between both countries. She is a great woman and I can't wait until the diamond jubilee comes around.

Freddie59

Fratton Fred wrote: »

But they aren't hers. Just like the castles and the planes etc.

She can't suddenly decide to flog them all and piss off to Vegas on a girls weekend.

For "Queen" think head of state, think state. She is simply the living symbol of the nations and what's hers is, pretty much, property of the state.

And pocketing millions in the process. Nice scam though.

Fratton Fred

Freddie59 wrote: »

And pocketing millions in the process. Nice scam though.

Does she? Where? When? How?

getz

Solair wrote: »

Don't forget that the UK remains a slightly reformed feudal state. They have to occasionally pay tribute to their unelected, highly privileged, billionaire, head of state, who was apparently appointed by God.

It's a daft anachronistic system and I think this kind of stuff clearly demonstrates why we are far better off without it.

She attracts tourists because it is a quirky, daft anachronism.

Interestingly, more tourists visit Paris to see the old places of their long ousted monarchs. At least those buildings are now used for public purposes.

To me it would indicate that people want to see amazing buildings, whether the monarchy still lives in them is largely irrelevant.

ups foot in mouth ,

bwatson

Freddie59 wrote: »

There's a difference between a spelling error and a typo.........:D

I actually pride myself in grammar and punctuation, and try - at all times - to ensure correctness. But hey - no-one's prefect.

Now, back to that other cnut Liz.

I can assure you neither I - nor none of my family members - watched that gaudy, tacky, spectacle that was termed a "wedding".

You complain of something as being gaudy and tacky just moments after referrent to Elizabeth II as a "cnut". I shall assume that wasn't simply another mistake but a way around the swear filter. This is a lady who is monarch of 16 states and the head of the commonwealth, and the best you can do is call her a "cnut". You have no right to talk about others being tacky! Not doing anything to dismiss stereotypes there are you?

I'm sure the British nation are more than devastated that you and your most sophisticated, elegant of families didn't tune in to an event that in truth was nothing to do with you in the first place.