splinter65 wrote: » Why don’t we have something similar with Michael D?
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?
notjustsweet wrote: » 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.
prinzeugen wrote: » Rubbish. Bonnie Prince Charlie was Italian born and claimed to have rights to the British (not English as it did not exist then, post 1707) and French thrones. Also if us Scottish had an issue then the current British queen would have to change her name as she is Queen Elizabeth the first of Scotland not QE2. However you wont see E II R on a post box or Royal Mail van in Scotland for the same reason. Also George the 6th first name was Albert.
Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: » 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'.
McCrack wrote: » I respect her, shes been pretty solid and does good service. She represents an institution that's pretty important not only in GB but throughout the world.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » How is the British Royal Family important throughout the world?
Agricola wrote: » I liked the bit about how Philip was deciding to "slow down" as he had "done his bit"! Yeah, he's been a ceremonial plus-one and hand shaker for 60 odd years. Beats working for a living. How many of us would trade a life of wage slavery to spend their days jetting around the world, staying in 5* hotels and literally being treated like royalty everywhere they go. No wonder he's knocking 100!
kravmaga wrote: » Why would you watch her, you English
begbysback wrote: » Haven't watched the speech, but I'm glad she lived long enough to see some sort of peace between uk and Ireland, her visit to Ireland was mostly welcomed, with the exception of a minority.
Odhinn wrote: » There is something worse.https://www.independent.ie/style/celebrity/celebrity-features/inside-the-annual-sunday-independent-living-christmas-party-36430684.html
shaunr68 wrote: » 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.
indioblack wrote: » There's a marvelous story about the Queen and Philip being driven through cheering crowds, when a voice bellowed "B*****ds"! "I quite agree", Philip called back. "What did he say?", asked the Queen.
Avatar MIA wrote: » Arrggggh, that's only half a story!!! :mad::p
Berserker wrote: » Incredible to think about the change that she has lived through. It's a great shame that she couldn't have an open visit to the RoI, with the exception of Cork of course.
dudara wrote: » ... an American divorceé.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Patww79 wrote: » Why would he go to see them for you? She shouldn't have been let set foot in Cork or anywhere else in Ireland anyway.
server down wrote: » Free country.
Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: » For clarity I'm talking about Queen Elizabeth II, 'Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England'.