Royal Visit

HotBulge

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
2,331
Media
108
Likes
17,264
Points
518
Age
34
Location
Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
Gender
Male
I'm not impressed.

All these accomplishments and war, poverty, and unrest still plagues the world. I fail to see the good in such a lengthy rule if she has allowed Blair to get involved with the so-called U.S. war on "Terror".
That's a specious response if ever there was one. The Queen is just as guilty of "failing to control" the country's CEO as the Congress is guilty for "failing to control" GW Bush. Both the Queen and the Congress are acting within their constitutional mandate. In the Queen's case, she is primarily restricted to advising the Prime Minister of England. It's the Prime Minister's own political neck if he is successful or not in carrying out the will of the nation under the advisement of The Queen.

England only acknowledges the colonies of the U.S. because we are a superpower allied with them in what is a modern-day crusades for oil and dominance. What do they say: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"
I think that two world wars, a common language, intricate business economic ties, and blood relations account far more for the historical Anglo-American alliance. Your view of "the modern-day crusade for oil" is just that - a cynical modern day view that doesn't take much history into account

Enjoy your Pomp and Circumstance while you all can.
It's the only thing you have to cling to. The future of one the last empires will soon be in the hands of a man who desired to be a tampon within his mistress' underpants.

Don't under-estimate the power of symbolism :smile:

And I still believe the U.S./Monarchy had something to do with the circumstances surrounding Diana's untimely demise.

When all foundational assumptions are true, the simplest explanation is the best one. Let's just rest with the prevailing view that her death was the result of a tragic accident in a highway tunnel along the Seine in Paris. No one pretends that the monarchy was fond of Diana in her last few years, but her behavior was not a strong motive for organized, conspiratorial murder. Even the Queen would probably want her grandsons to have a mother and to have been spared the gried early in life.
 

Lordpendragon

Experimental Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Posts
3,814
Media
0
Likes
18
Points
258
Sexuality
No Response
I was fortunate to meet the Queen Mother a few years before she died. And even though she was a very old lady, she had one of the most humanly engaging smiles I have ever seen. She had crystal clear blue eyes with a sexy sparkle. Princess Anne has this same sexiness and elegance in person and her daughter Zara is a serious babe.

The point I am trying to make is that though they may appear like distant figureheads they are actually attractive, strong, independently minded women who don't suffer fools gladly.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know them, I have just been formally introduced for various reasons like many thousands of others, and these were my impressions of the "real" people. Though obviously no super model, I thought Princess Anne was definitely a sensual woman.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Now that there is a Commonweath of Nations, is the term British Empire still used in official functions, awards etc. as in The "Whatever" Award of the Realm of the British Empire? Or was the term British Empire an unoffical term like The States or Yankees? Some one who knows fill me in on the transtion from 1945 when the British Empire covered a fourth of the world to now when it is in reality now the United Kingdom a modern nation in Europe.
 

Hryblkone

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2005
Posts
160
Media
0
Likes
53
Points
163
Age
34
Why bother to argue my point? Those of you who dissent are all sentimental anglophiles who fail to realize the world has changed and will continue to do so. You all speak of her as if she were your own beloved great-grandmother come back to visit for fucking tea and crumpets. Get a grip, her royal highness doesn't care about you or anyone on this side of the pond. She's just protecting her country's interests through ceremony and diplomacy. Plus, I think the idea of someone appointing themselves leader through divine right is ludicrous.

Orcabomber said it best:
While the Queen may be representative of the British Empire she isn't the lord of me.
You're all just sheeple who have found comfort in ritual and tradition.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Charles, on the other hand, will probably have the lifespan of a typical male, perhaps longer.. He's ~ 60 years old now. Two decades from now, he'll be 80 when the monarchy passes to him. He'll probably have 2 to 10 years on the throne at least. That leaves William to rise to the throne at at 45 or 50.

I think a lot of people have their fingers crossed that Elizabeth lives long enough to pass the throne to William directly. Charles has been pretty much an embarassment for some time.

Of course, William's young, and he will no doubt become an embarassment when he matures.
 

michael_3165

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Posts
1,414
Media
9
Likes
3,232
Points
468
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I'm not impressed.

All these accomplishments and war, poverty, and unrest still plagues the world. I fail to see the good in such a lengthy rule if she has allowed Blair to get involved with the so-called U.S. war on "Terror".

England only acknowledges the colonies of the U.S. because we are a superpower allied with them in what is a modern-day crusades for oil and dominance. What do they say: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

Enjoy your Pomp and Circumstance while you all can.
It's the only thing you have to cling to. The future of one the last empires will soon be in the hands of a man who desired to be a tampon within his mistress' underpants.



And I still believe the U.S./Monarchy had something to do with the circumstances surrounding Diana's untimely demise.

Why does everything HAVE to include the U.S? (to that statement about Diana) It has nothing to do with them! As do most things until people stick their noses in!

Oh and U.S may be a 'superpower' but if China come calling for their money back they are screwed.

Anyway! I like the Queen. I aint a royalist at all but I think she has had more pressure than anyone can ever imagine! Hell she got rid of her own sister for a while!

Queen Elizabeth II > bumbling idiot who cant piece a proper sentence together (aka Bush)

BTW I am not anti U.S at all. I just think people go overboard with the whole 'XXX country is so amazing and wonderful' not JUST U.S but anywhere!
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
Like you said before, anglophiles. That woman hasn't seen the things we all have. I bet she hasn't even taken a ride on a public bus before.

Well I'd wager she has seen a good many things you (and I) have not or wouldn't wish to. As for 'bus rides' well you have been corrected on this already. Better google better next time eh.

You sheeple love following self-appointed "leaders" blindly.

Well I don't know who you mean by 'you sheeple' I assume the British nation? Well, you're wrong on all counts not least in that she was not 'self appointed' any more than say, Bush was. Nor is she a leader in a political sphere. She is head of state, not quite the same thing.

I'm not impressed.

No one asked you to be, so I'd say it's equally likely no one cares that you're not.

I don't think she has anything much to say about it, short of dissolving Parliament. Though that is usually done with the cooperation of the PM.

Yes, in the normal course of events. Constitutionally however, the PM requires the consent of the Monarch to form or dissolve parliament.

All these accomplishments and war, poverty, and unrest still plagues the world. I fail to see the good in such a lengthy rule if she has allowed Blair to get involved with the so-called U.S. war on "Terror".

Well, not even you can hardly blame her for that, or maybe you can. As for stopping Blair; maybe read about the Royal Prerogative and the constitutional underpinnings of parliamentary democracy before making yourself seem stupid. Blair needs no one's consent to take the country to war. Elizabeth (as Monarch) could, in extremis have dissolved parliament to stop him but these days it's almost unimaginable for the Monarch to intervene so directly in politics.

England only acknowledges the colonies of the U.S. because we are a superpower allied with them in what is a modern-day crusades for oil and dominance. What do they say: "the enemy of my enemy is my friend?"

Huh? Last time I checked the US is no longer a British colony. It's been that way for a while now, have you been away? As for the oil, Britain is bit player. I think the US leads the pack in using any means necessary to feed it's squalid hunger for both.

Enjoy your Pomp and Circumstance while you all can. It's the only thing you have to cling to. The future of one the last empires will soon be in the hands of a man who desired to be a tampon within his mistress' underpants.

What a laugh. Did you learn about Britain in a book aimed at those of pre-school age? Britain was an established, democratic nation with a functional goverment centuries before the US was a twinkle in Bush's eye. That power was wrested from the Monarchy over centuries for good reason.

It will probably be so long after the US has been supplanted. While that probably means nothing to you be very aware that:
  1. Pride comes before a fall (Britain learned that one)
  2. The US' golden age is over
  3. Denial of the inevitablilty of geopolitical power shifts is futile, Britain learned that one too.
And I still believe the U.S./Monarchy had something to do with the circumstances surrounding Diana's untimely demise.

Sure they were Hryblkone, whatever you say. NIC, seems we found another conspiracy nut for ya.:rolleyes:
 

D_Gunther Snotpole

Account Disabled
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
Posts
13,632
Media
0
Likes
73
Points
193
The Queen appears in excellent health and if she is like her mother could reign another 20 years. The Queen Mother was still doing royal functions at age 101.

The Queen Mum (Elizabeth's mother) lived to be 101 or 102 years old - that's even with the gin and chocolates that she had every night before bed. Assuming Elizabeth is equally well-maintained and getting plenty of exercise, she'll live to be about the same age or longer. That gives Elizabeth an additional 20+ years on the throne.

I wish the Queen well, but as fine as her form seems for a woman of 81, I don't believe she is in anything like the shape her mother was in at the same age.

In her early 80s, the Queen Mother had perfect posture and a still girlish energy and enthusiasm.

The Queen could equally well have her father's genes. And Geo VI was only 56 when he died -- of, to be sure, lung cancer, no doubt caused by his smoking, a vice the Queen herself does not indulge in, making her odds better than his.

But 20 years more? One can only hope.
 

B_big dirigible

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2005
Posts
2,672
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
The Womens' Auxiliary Territorial Service, trained to drive and repair.

All known publicity photos of that era show her doing some repair or other; or just standing around with her sister, who was - obviously for deliberate contrast - not clad in official maintenance attire.

Haven't seen any of her driving, which would have been an obvious photo op, though not as obvious as maintaining.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Why bother to argue my point? Those of you who dissent are all sentimental anglophiles who fail to realize the world has changed and will continue to do so. You all speak of her as if she were your own beloved great-grandmother come back to visit for fucking tea and crumpets. Get a grip, her royal highness doesn't care about you or anyone on this side of the pond. She's just protecting her country's interests through ceremony and diplomacy. Plus, I think the idea of someone appointing themselves leader through divine right is ludicrous.

Orcabomber said it best:
You're all just sheeple who have found comfort in ritual and tradition.
What?Who made you ruler of the LPSG? I jolly will debate any subject that comes up without getting your permission. You made your point. Fine. I have a right to make mine as well. And I suspect most of the members will make their decisions as well and I suspect many of them will make statements contrary to what you and I both said. I personally am glad that people are expressing themselves. I really don't want to have censorship here, not even for you, though some of your opinions are quite suspect.