It's The Queens Birthday Day.

kneemos

Ninety today God love her,not looking bad whatever she's on.
Happy birthday day The Queen.

gerrybbadd

*grabs popcorn

Mr.Crinklewood

Happy Birthday Ma'am.

Frogscotch

Who's going to send her a telegram in 10 years?

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Edward Hopper

"Work" for Royals is going to grand dinners and having expensive holidays, getting waited on 24 hours a day. Not hard to see how they tend to live to a ripe old age.

An English Republic can't come soon enough (the realist in me knows it'll probably never come).

monkeysnapper

Frogscotch wrote: »

Who's going to send her a telegram in 10 years?

I could see her stand down over next year or so so Charles would be sending it .

She's some lady , saw a bit of a documentary of her before she was queen and a car herself and the king were in had broken down and she got out and rolled her sleeves up and fixed it . very old footage granted .

Happy birthday Queen Elizabeth.

**** I forgot to send card , I'll get straight onto moonpig

Panthro

Aww Queen...Thinking about it, its a Miracle really isn't it.
It's a kind a magic (magic!)

Badly Drunk Boy

Yet, there was no thread yesterday for Hitler Day. It would have been Adolf's 127th birthday.

Nekarsulm

Edward Hopper wrote: »

An English Republic can't come soon enough (the realist in me knows it'll probably never come).

They had one once, but we Irish resisted it royally.

Jawgap

Christ, not another thread about Panti Bliss :rolleyes:

seamus

monkeysnapper wrote: »

Frogscotch wrote: »

Who's going to send her a telegram in 10 years?

She's some lady , saw a bit of a documentary of her before she was queen and a car herself and the king were in had broken down and she got out and rolled her sleeves up and fixed it . very old footage granted .

She was a mechanic in the British Army IIRC.

As someone else said, it's not hard to live to 90 years of age when you have everything looked after by the most expensive people money can buy. She's had to deal with plenty of big stresses in her life, but all of the small ones are taken care of by her staff. And it's the small stresses that kill you, not the big ones.

diomed

Happy Birthday.
She waved to me at Epsom very year, and I waved back.

beertons

You'd be wrecked giving her 90 bumps.

Jawgap

beertons wrote: »

You'd be wrecked giving her 90 bumps.

I doubt she's that heavy

Eugene Norman

Edward Hopper wrote: »

"Work" for Royals is going to grand dinners and having expensive holidays, getting waited on 24 hours a day. Not hard to see how they tend to live to a ripe old age.

An English Republic can't come soon enough (the realist in me knows it'll probably never come).

She's probably been working harder than most octogenarians.

Jawgap

monkeysnapper wrote: »

I could see her stand down over next year or so so Charles would be sending it .

She's some lady , saw a bit of a documentary of her before she was queen and a car herself and the king were in had broken down and she got out and rolled her sleeves up and fixed it . very old footage granted .

Happy birthday Queen Elizabeth.

**** I forgot to send card , I'll get straight onto moonpig

There's more recent footage of her parachuting.......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1AS-dCdYZbo

jester77

Badly Drunk Boy wrote: »

Yet, there was no thread yesterday for Hitler Day. It would have been Adolf's 127th birthday.

Well, he's already with the angels so you can't exactly send him a card

Edward Hopper

Eugene Norman wrote: »

She's probably been working harder than most octogenarians.

I don't see much work involved in her life, or the rest of the hanger on spongers. If the "work" was paid on an hour by hour basis she'd need to sign on to cover her corgi food bill.

Old people go on holiday, just most use Saga or the like, their holidays don't come courtesy of tax payers.

seamus

Edward Hopper wrote: »

I don't see much work involved in her life, or the rest of the hanger on spongers. If the "work" was paid on an hour by hour basis she'd need to sign on to cover her corgi food bill.

To be fair, if you asked me whether I'd prefer my life or hers, I'd pick mine. And I think most people would be the same.

No, she doesn't do a lot of work really. But at the same time I imagine she hasn't had a single day where she just said "**** it", got out of bed and spent six hours wandering between the couch and the kitchen before even thinking about getting dressed or having a shower.

How many times do you think she's sat in front of the telly with no pants on, a roaring fire, a dirty chinese in front of her and a vegged out watching sh1te TV.

I mention she's had no small stresses in her life. But she probably has very few of the small pleasures either. She still has to get dressed in her finery just to go see her grandchildren and great grandchildren.

BBDBB

I doubt the uk economy could afford to pay the Queen on an hourly rate for the job she does, an endless round of travelling to 3 or 4 venues every day to meet a load of obsequious strangers, having to feign interest in their new factory/ bandstand/ basket weaving community centre and ask them questions before hearing yet another school choir murder a medley of beige classics. Trying to ensure her husband doesn't say something offensive again as they wander down some dreary high street accepting bunches of flowers from snot nosed children before getting back in the car to do the same again 30 miles down the road. And then at the end of the day she can't kick her shoes off and put on her sweat pants she has to get dolled up and meet some visiting dignitaries and exchange polite small talk so that they will trade with her country.

**** job

corner of hells

Nobody's drunk yet , not a chance of any outrage.
No to foreign games etc.

Eugene Norman

Edward Hopper wrote: »

I don't see much work involved in her life, or the rest of the hanger on spongers. If the "work" was paid on an hour by hour basis she'd need to sign on to cover her corgi food bill.

Old people go on holiday, just most use Saga or the like, their holidays don't come courtesy of tax payers.

A dinner isn't necessarily time off if you have to make a speech. Speaking is work in fact. It has to be prepared for.

And all those engagements are work. Sure she travels but so do businessmen.

I'd get rid of royalty but they do work.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

conorhal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well I firmy believe that those in free social housing living off the state's teat should have to contribute some form of comunity service until the find a real job....

The Young Wan

The original Lizard Queen

maudgonner

conorhal wrote: »

Well I firmy believe that those in free social housing living off the state's teat should have to contribute some form of comunity service until the find a real job....

I believe she was offered a 3-bed semi in Hounslow but she turned it down. Said there wasn't enough room in the garden for a trampoline, so she held out for better and eventually got offered Buck Palace.

It's scandalous.

La_Gordy

I work in London and there's a larger-than-life size (unless she is 6'2) cardboard Queen in the lunchroom today.

stimpson

BBDBB wrote: »

I doubt the uk economy could afford to pay the Queen on an hourly rate for the job she does

Well the "Soverign Grant" is 40 million. There are 8760 hours in a year, so that's about 4.5 grand an hour (including sleepytime). Get someone off Jobbridge to do it. Be grand.

xabi

La_Gordy wrote: »

I work in London and there's a larger-than-life size (unless she is 6'2) cardboard Queen in the lunchroom today.

Thats crying out for a cock&balls to be drawn on it.

FTA69

The whole concept of a monarchy in this day and age is ridiculous and outdated; similarly forking out millions of actual working people's money to fund a shower of parasites is a joke considering the austerity the rest of the country is being subjected to.

The Royal Family embodies the worst of British society to be honest; undemocratic, militaristic and hereditary privilege.

kneemos

xabi wrote: »

Thats crying out for a cock&balls to be drawn on it.

You'd be thrown in The Tower and fed gruel with little beatles .

maudgonner

kneemos wrote: »

You'd be thrown in The Tower and fed gruel with little beatles .

Which ones? John, George or Ringo would be good company (even if two of them are dead). But Paul annoys the hell out of me.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Was Hitler's birthday yesterday Always thought it would have been mildly amusing if they had the same birhtday....

SEPT 23 1989

FTA69 wrote: »

The whole concept of a monarchy in this day and age is ridiculous and outdated; similarly forking out millions of actual working people's money to fund a shower of parasites is a joke considering the austerity the rest of the country is being subjected to.

The Royal Family embodies the worst of British society to be honest; undemocratic, militaristic and hereditary privilege.

they earn more for the country than it costs to keep them

FTA69

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

they earn more for the country than it costs to keep them

Unquantifiable and probably untrue. Britain's history and heritage draws huge amounts of tourists, not the presence of an extend family of wasters. The likes of London, Windsor Castle etc will always be profitable tourist assets. Similarly the UK spends untold amounts on these f*ckers while Cameron et al simultaneously berate the unemployed and disabled as scroungers.

The likes of Versailles and various former royal sites in France actually get more tourists than the British equivalents and they got rid of their royals over two hundred years ago.


http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-queen-and-the-uk-royal-family-contribution-to-the-uk-economy-2015-9

LordSutch

Happy Birthday Ma'am.

A Great Lady by all accounts, long may she reign .....

William & Kate to succeed (skipping Charles)?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mesrine65

kneemos wrote: »

You'd be thrown in The Tower and fed gruel with little beatles .

Ringo's in the Tower :eek:

FTA69

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Get up out of it you. You're a libertarian and you're forever on this moaning about your taxes being used for things like schooling and healthcare so you can at least be consistent and oppose thembeing used to fund a shower of people whose job is it is to do f*ck all and look down on everyone else.

Likewise a lot of the figures put forward about the trifling costs of the royals are unfairly skewed to leave out the real costs and that's before even getting into the wider argument of democracy and the foolishness of being a subject of some unaccountable monarch.

snubbleste

Fair play to the Queen.
She had no choice in her career. She excels at what she does.

Ush1

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Spoken like a true libertarian.

Shouldn't everybody be able to live like the Queen if it costs so little?

Beefy78

God bless her. Happy Birthday Your Majesty

BoJack Horseman

Ush1 wrote: »

Shouldn't everybody be able to live like the Queen if it costs so little?

Yes.

If I give you 53p.... And you give me 53p, we can both live like Queens.

Beefy78

FTA69 wrote: »

Get up out of it you. You're a libertarian and you're forever on this moaning about your taxes being used for things like schooling and healthcare so you can at least be consistent and oppose thembeing used to fund a shower of people whose job is it is to do f*ck all and look down on everyone else.

Likewise a lot of the figures put forward about the trifling costs of the royals are unfairly skewed to leave out the real costs and that's before even getting into the wider argument of democracy and the foolishness of being a subject of some unaccountable monarch.

I've never bought the 50p price tag as being accurate but I doubt the Monarchy is any more expensive than the cost of running a Republic. The bulk of the cost is upkeep on the various Palaces which would need to be spent anyway.

Living in London you must know that the majority of people in the UK want to keep the Royal Family. You talk about democracy yet you seem to be keen to discount the will of the people because it doesn't fit your World view.

Arghus

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not a lot indeed, but I'm sure there's many more deserving things that 53p a week could rather be spent on.

Personally, I think the Monarchy is a load of nonsense that helps to prop up outdated ideas of class and heredity privilege and because so much of it's function is now symbolic, it's highly insidious in how it goes about doing so.

Ush1

Beefy78 wrote: »

I've never bought the 50p price tag as being accurate but I doubt the Monarchy is any more expensive than the cost of running a Republic. The bulk of the cost is upkeep on the various Palaces which would need to be spent anyway.

Living in London you must know that the majority of people in the UK want to keep the Royal Family. You talk about democracy yet you seem to be keen to discount the will of the people because it doesn't fit your World view.

Democracy indeed, if 51% of the electorate wanted all black people deported would that happen?

FTA69

Beefy78 wrote: »

I've never bought the 50p price tag as being accurate but I doubt the Monarchy is any more expensive than the cost of running a Republic. The bulk of the cost is upkeep on the various Palaces which would need to be spent anyway.

Living in London you must know that the majority of people in the UK want to keep the Royal Family. You talk about democracy yet you seem to be keen to discount the will of the people because it doesn't fit your World view.

I do know that the majority of people support the Royal Family but that's not the point. A democratic system isn't simply equated with what the majority of people want in a given country; it's a system of government where power is explicitly supposed to lie in the hands of the populace and not in the hands of a sovereign, nominal or otherwise.

The majority of Russians were probably content under Stalin, likewise the majority of Libyans may well have supported Ghadaffi at one stage - it doesn't mean that ergo those systems were democratic.

As I said above, monarchy is an outdated and fundamentally wrong concept and it's abolishment is definitely something any democrat should support.

MRnotlob606

Brits out

Beefy78

Ush1 wrote: »

Democracy indeed, if 51% of the electorate wanted all black people deported would that happen?

No strawman, please

Permabear

This post has been deleted.