Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

It's The Queens Birthday Day.

Options
13567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Galwayguy35
    Registered Users Posts: 16,511 ✭✭✭✭Galwayguy35


    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    She's probably been working harder than most octogenarians.

    Yeah right.

    Most people still alive in their 80s did the kind of work the present generation of softies wouldn't last a day at and lived through times that were a lot tougher than we will ever know.

    So to compare them to someone who was waited on hand and foot all her life is ridiculous.


  • Options
    #63
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    Who exactly is "The Queen" there are numrous Queens around the world so can thread titles please be more specific in future.


  • Options
    #64
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    I think its fair to say that if you were starting a country today you wouldn't go down the route of a Monarchy as head of state. I'm sure we can all agree on that. But I think there are far more important democratic issues in the UK than whether the role of figurehead is one which has been voted on or not.

    Democracy shouldn't mandate that every role needs to be elected. Elections are a tool of democracy. If you want to fix democracy in Britain (as I do...) then you start with the sham that is the UK Parliament. Focusing on a beloved family fulfilling a role that the public are happy with is a waste of effort.

    Indeed.

    An English parliament, or banning non English MPs from matters that relate only to England is far more pressing.


  • Options
    #65
    Cortina_MK_IV
    Registered Users Posts: 2,350 ✭✭✭Cortina_MK_IV


    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.

    She just wasn't cut out for that job.


  • Options
    #66
    Edward Hopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 713 ✭✭✭Edward Hopper


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    It was 56p in 2014 if you take their figures at face value

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-family-value-for-money-not-worth-tuppence

    Quite like this quote from that article
    In reality, of course, the calculation is fatuous, the true cost of running an extended royal family being multiples of £35.7m , and the number of forced contributors to wee George's rompers and the Duchess of Cambridge's heavily subsidised thongs being 29.9, not 64.1 million taxpayers. But given the widespread readiness to accept the palace maths and the role of a surging population in making such figures ever more impressive, it is remarkable, really, that many unpopular public expenses are not similarly disguised.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Fratton Fred
    Closed Accounts Posts: 26,567 ✭✭✭✭Fratton Fred


    Edward Hopper wrote: »
    It was 56p in 2014 if you take their figures at face value

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/28/royal-family-value-for-money-not-worth-tuppence

    Quite like this quote from that article

    What is the alternative? Replace the monarch with a president, as the Italians did? That costs them €282m per year.


  • Options
    #68
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What is the alternative? Replace the monarch with a president, as the Italians did? That costs them €282m per year.

    Yeah, crucially however the president is not earmarked from birth to a position of privilege.


  • Options
    #69
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    These threads are great for the identifying the posters that would be completely insufferable bores if you were unfortunate enough to meet them on a barstool somewhere.


  • Options
    #70
    Edward Hopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 713 ✭✭✭Edward Hopper


    Fratton Fred wrote: »
    What is the alternative? Replace the monarch with a president, as the Italians did? That costs them €282m per year.

    I'd presumed the president would be from the UK, but sure, we can share the Italian president and split the costs. Get a few other countries in, jobs a good'un.


  • Options
    #71
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Yeah, crucially however the president is not earmarked from birth to a position of privilege.

    Why is that crucial? On what possible metric would President Alan Sugar or Tony Blair be preferable to HRH Queen Elizabeth II in the role of powerless figurehead?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    kneemos
    Registered Users Posts: 20,417 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    Who exactly is "The Queen" there are numrous Queens around the world so can thread titles please be more specific in future.


    There is only one The Queen.


  • Options
    #73
    Edward Hopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 713 ✭✭✭Edward Hopper


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    Why is that crucial? On what possible metric would President Alan Sugar be preferable to HRH Queen Elizabeth II in the role of powerless figurehead?

    Democracy.


  • Options
    #74
    Dirty Dingus McGee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,631 ✭✭✭Dirty Dingus McGee


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    These threads are great for the identifying the posters that would be completely insufferable bores if you were unfortunate enough to meet them on a barstool somewhere.


    I think people have viewed your contributions to this forum in much the same way and hoped they didn't encounter you in real life.


  • Options
    #75
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    Why is that crucial? On what possible metric would President Alan Sugar or Tony Blair be preferable to HRH Queen Elizabeth II in the role of powerless figurehead?

    The metric of equality??? That you actually have a say in who it is.

    Why not earmark everyone from birth for their job based on their family.


  • Options
    #76
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Edward Hopper wrote: »
    Democracy.

    That's a bit wishy-washy. The vast majority of jobs in the UK are not elected, there's no decent reason why Head of State needs to be an elected position. Having lots of elections is not a sign of democracy and it's the elected institutions in the UK which are its biggest democratic problems.


  • Options
    #77
    The Backwards Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,299 ✭✭✭✭The Backwards Man


    Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »
    I think people have viewed your contributions to this forum in much the same way and hoped they didn't encounter you in real life.

    Ah, all water off a duck's back to me, the Queen has built more houses and fed more wains in Donegal than any Republican Yahoo ever has, she's not our Queen nor do we want her as our Queen, but a wee bit of cop on doesn't go amiss.


  • Options
    #78
    Edward Hopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 713 ✭✭✭Edward Hopper


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    That's a bit wishy-washy. The vast majority of jobs in the UK are not elected, there's no decent reason why Head of State needs to be an elected position. Having lots of elections is not a sign of democracy and it's the elected institutions in the UK which are its biggest democratic problems.

    The vast majority of jobs are usually awarded on merit, not a blood test? Usually when someone is employed, the contract doesn't state you also pay their children, children's children, and brothers and sisters.


  • Options
    #79
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Ush1 wrote: »
    The metric of equality??? That you actually have a say in who it is.

    Why not earmark everyone from birth for their job based on their family.

    I don't have a say in who my bin man is. Or the person who processes my TV License. Or who is driving the number nine bus to work this morning. As I said, barely any jobs are decided by putting them to a vote and having jobs assigned by vote - particularly one as meaningless as Head of State - isn't a sign that your country or system is democratic.


  • Options
    #80
    Arghus
    Registered Users Posts: 14,402 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I'd be slightly suspicious of statements claiming value for money, considering that they come from Buckingham Palace itself.


  • Options
    #81
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    I don't have a say in who my bin man is. Or the person who processes my TV License. Or who is driving the number nine bus to work this morning. As I said, barely any jobs are decided by putting them to a vote and having jobs assigned by vote - particularly one as meaningless as Head of State - isn't a sign that your country or system is democratic.

    This is a whole different slant on the communist manifesto.

    I genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are you confusing public, private, elected etc?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Alun
    Registered Users Posts: 21,444 ✭✭✭✭Alun


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    He left the military a few years ago. He's now a full-time helicopter pilot with the East Anglian Air Ambulance in Cambridge.


  • Options
    #83
    Edward Hopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 713 ✭✭✭Edward Hopper


    Alun wrote: »
    He left the military a few years ago. He's now a full-time helicopter pilot with the East Anglian Air Ambulance in Cambridge.

    20 hours a week, not bad, but not full time.


  • Options
    #84
    reggiegates
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3 ✭reggiegates


    I like the queen- shes hot.


  • Options
    #85
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #86
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Ush1 wrote: »
    This is a whole different slant on the communist manifesto.

    I genuinely don't have a clue what you're talking about. Are you confusing public, private, elected etc?

    No.... I'm saying that almost all jobs have zero requirement for election into the role. And that, IMO, Head of State - as an entirely powerless role - is one of them.

    I get your point about people being born into jobs and already said that if you were starting from scratch you wouldn't choose a Monarchy. But that isn't reason to change by itself if what you've got works as it does for the bulk of British people.

    The key point relating to democracy is that until such time as 51% of UK citizens want to see the UK become a Republic then the whole point is moot.

    FWIW, I don't see any advantage in having the extra bureaucracy, extra career-opportunities for career politicians and what I suspect would be massively increased cost attached to running a Presidency and there's not a Presidency in the World - including Ireland's - that I look at as a British person and think "that's much better than what we do".

    There's so many things that utterly depress me about democracy in my country but HRH isn't one of them.


  • Options
    #87
    Edward Hopper
    Closed Accounts Posts: 713 ✭✭✭Edward Hopper


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    So he's not a full time pilot as was stated. To which my reply that he worked 20 hours a week in that job was factually correct. No idea what the rest is, a strawman?


  • Options
    #88
    Ush1
    Registered Users Posts: 11,466 ✭✭✭✭Ush1


    Beefy78 wrote: »
    No.... I'm saying that almost all jobs have zero requirement for election into the role. And that, IMO, Head of State - as an entirely powerless role - is one of them.

    I get your point about people being born into jobs and already said that if you were starting from scratch you wouldn't choose a Monarchy. But that isn't reason to change by itself if what you've got works as it does for the bulk of British people.

    That is the salient point unfortunately when this thread is to do with the Queen.
    Beefy78 wrote: »
    The key point relating to democracy is that until such time as 51% of UK citizens want to see the UK become a Republic then the whole point is moot.

    FWIW, I don't see any advantage in having the extra bureaucracy, extra career-opportunities for career politicians and what I suspect would be massively increased cost attached to running a Presidency and there's not a Presidency in the World - including Ireland's - that I look at as a British person and think "that's much better than what we do".

    There's so many things that utterly depress me about democracy in my country but HRH isn't one of them.

    Why not go the French route and behead them? Probably cheaper.


  • Options
    #89
    Beefy78
    Registered Users Posts: 8,163 ✭✭✭Beefy78


    Ush1 wrote: »
    Why not go the French route and behead them? Probably cheaper.

    That's hardly conduct befitting a birthday celebration :)


  • Options
    #90
    FTA69
    Registered Users Posts: 9,252 ✭✭✭FTA69


    The Backwards Man wrote: »
    Ah, all water off a duck's back to me, the Queen has built more houses and fed more wains in Donegal than any Republican Yahoo ever has, she's not our Queen nor do we want her as our Queen, but a wee bit of cop on doesn't go amiss.

    The Queen has built houses in Donegal? Does she do a bit of chippying on top of the royal engagements she does?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    La_Gordy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,767 ✭✭✭La_Gordy


    xabi wrote: »
    Thats crying out for a cock&balls to be drawn on it.


    Tellin' me.


Advertisement