nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Queen

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

Does anyone still watch her 3pm Christmas broadcast? She's been doing it for 60 years!

We watch her every year. Love the way she says 'fire' - 'faaawr'.

For clarity I'm talking about Queen Elizabeth II, 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Avatar MIA

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Another Brit bashing thread. Anyway what time are Liverpool and united playing tomorrow?

British, have you seen the nationality of the players on those teams. British is a bit of a stretch. :pac:

Vladimir Poontang

It is a pity Philip doesn't give an alternative message.

The man doesn't give a flying **** about anything.

Berserker

steddyeddy wrote: »

Your best bet is Board's resident unionists but they seem to have gone missing since the Brexit embarrassment.

Hello, there!!! Haven't gone missing at all. We tend to take a break on days like this spend some time with our families.

Clonmel1000 wrote: »

Another Brit bashing thread. Anyway what time are Liverpool and united playing tomorrow?

It just wouldn't be Christmas without one. The posters in questions are probably bored silly because "we" are not playing until 17:30 and 15:00 respectively, as you noted above.

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

It is a pity Philip doesn't give an alternative message.

The man doesn't give a flying **** about anything.

He is 96. Most people don't at that age.

Junkyard Tom

Who?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I'm always amazed how the head of state of a foreign country making an address to her subjects on a foreign television channel can annoy anybody in this country who is free to watch RTE all day long if they wish.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

biko

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Who?

I think he's on about Mrs Windsor

Junkyard Tom

biko wrote: »

I think he's on about Mrs Windsor

Ah I get it now, Betty Saxe-Coburg.

splinter65

mikemac2 wrote: »

That was done last week

Michael D has refugees as his theme

That’s just a message released like any other statement
Should he not appear on the TV wishing the citizens the compliments of the season?

splinter65

Patww79 wrote: »

Her making the speech isn't the problem, it's irish people watching it. Should be hanging their heads for even turning it on.

As long as you watch nothing else but TG4 yourself.

Alf Veedersane

Patww79 wrote: »

Her making the speech isn't the problem, it's irish people watching it. Should be hanging their heads for even turning it on.

I don't get why anyone British would watch it but I guess it's a curiosity. Nobody really cares what she's saying but that someone that's really irrelevant still gets to have an annual speech listened to is a bit mad.

But hanging their heads for turning it on? Stop ta fúck.

tomwaterford

splinter65 wrote: »

That’s just a message released like any other statement
Should he not appear on the TV wishing the citizens the compliments of the season?

Who'd bother watching it??

Imagine having a grand xmas watching cartoons netflix etc and then interupt to throw on abit of Mikey d talking through his hole

buried

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Have always been a great admirer of Queen Elizabeth. She's had a great reign.

I'd worry about of the direction of the family after her Majesty goes. Charles and William are good men but they don't come across as leader types to me.

Why? Jayzus I wouldn't loose any sleep over it man. They ain't loosing any over you. You may as well be worried about the x factor not getting another season next year. It's not going to effect your life in any way shape or form. The notion of a Royal family is completely redundant in today's age. Kings and Queens, they only exist because of a title from hundreds of years ago that deemed that they be the head of a combat army. That means when combat occured, they were at the front line leading the charge. They did do that but that does not exist anymore. They are celebrities now. They don't lead nothing except a shiny image.
It is no accident that most of the modern European Royal houses still left are marrying glamorous looking people. Celebrities. That's been going on since Grace Kelly. But the age of celebrity is also doomed. The 20th Century overloaded on it and now appears dated and tired. And it is. The age of paying good looking people vast amounts of money to do nothing will not be able to continue in a society and age where the money and the resources are running out.

njs030

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Ah I get it now, Betty Saxe-Coburg.

This always amuses me. No she would be Mountbatten....married women of her generation take their husbands name.

Tsipras

Bunch of ****

dudara

notjustsweet wrote: »

This always amuses me. No she would be Mountbatten....married women of her generation take their husbands name.

that would be true, except for the queen. Etiquette dictates that she doesn’t take her husband’s surname. IIRC, her husband takes her name.

steddyeddy

They're an interesting family but the speech isn't to my tastes.

njs030

dudara wrote: »

that would be true, except for the queen. Etiquette dictates that she doesn’t take her husband’s surname. IIRC, her husband takes her name.

No they have no surnames at all as royalty, none of them do.
They can use the name of their fathers title if they want so William and Harry used Wales in the army and George uses Cambridge for playschool.

The point I was making is people think it's smart to call her Saxe-Coburg even though their name was legally changed.
If she or any royals had a surname it would be her husbands not her fathers anyway.

Beasty

Gawd bless 'er

dudara

Mixed bag of convention when it comes to surnames apparently

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/british-royal-family-surname-last-name-a7519901.html

njs030

dudara wrote: »

Mixed bag of convention when it comes to surnames apparently

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/british-royal-family-surname-last-name-a7519901.html

It's quite random!!
I look forward to the threads of disgust when Charles becomes king and changes his name!
I read he's considering King George (whatever number)

steddyeddy

To be honest I can't see them going much further than the current princes. Brexit is going to hit the UK like a tidal wave. People wil start questioning where their tax is going.

Before anyone says it I know it's said the monarchy generate revenue, but it's impossible to seperate that from the revenue Buckingham palace were to generate sans royalty.

twill

Odhinn wrote: »

There is something worse.
https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-features/inside-the-annual-sunday-independent-living-christmas-party-36430684.html

Does your one above Twink have her head photoshopped in? It's the oddest looking picture.

server down

notjustsweet wrote: »

It's quite random!!
I look forward to the threads of disgust when Charles becomes king and changes his name!
I read he's considering King George (whatever number)

Is that because all the Charles’s get killed?

Donald Trump

She's a Killer Queen
Gunpowder, gelatine
Dynamite with a laser beam
Guaranteed to blow your mind
Anytime

njs030

server down wrote: »

Is that because all the Charles’s get killed?

No...only king Charles the 1st was executed. The second died naturally.

It's because if he stayed as Charles he'd be King Charles the 3rd but there was a Scottish man called bonnie Prince Charlie who claimed to have rights to the English throne and would have been Charles the 3rd.
So to avoid annoying Scottish people Prince Charles will change his name.

Donald Trump

server down wrote: »

Is that because all the Charles’s get killed?

Forrest Gump spent a fair while looking for him over in the 'Nam

dublinman1990

I did watch The Queen's message for this year. I don't watch it every year though. It did include some good statements about the terror attacks in Manchester, London & for people who were affected by the Grenfell Tower fire earlier in the year. It included some nice sentiments for the emergency services working in the UK on Christmas Day. And today is her 60th year in doing this message. I would say well done to her as it's an incredible achievement to make it this far.

shaunr68

As an English bloke living in Ireland, no lover of Royalty but no malice for them as individuals, also not necessarily a republican either. Presidential systems in Italy, France and the US for example have provided us with some total buffoons as heads of state over recent years so I don't see it as perfect solution. I don't mind the idea of an unelected, entirely symbolic head of state paid a salary to carry out ceremonial duties, if that could be achieved minus all the hangers on. Have never watched the telly speech though and never will.