and Her Heirs and Successors.
The insults in this message board are deplorable. Expected, but deplorable.
Still, we have the right to make our comments so there is mine, defending Her Majesty as I swore I would do.
An ex-commissioned officer of the British Army.
Bring on the backlash.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Sure, I'll play.
Where's your argument to disprove her Maj's cold unfeeling bitchery?
We all saw the right side of Liz's face when Di died. Record speaks for itself.
As to Chuck, the tampon quote comes directly from his own lips. As we all know, he said he wanted to be Camilla's tampon in a telephone call which ended up being recorded, and the recording released.
Let's hear your defense, or are you too stupid?
[deleted]
You're living in a dream world inspired by asinine press releases from Buckingham Palace.
The Queen's interviews (and she really isn't interviewed often if you check your facts - which I'm sure you can't be arsed to do) and even her record attest only to the fact that she believes in tradition and "doing her duty" as she sees it. This she has done for many years.
That however has nothing to do with being a caring, feeling or real person. When the former Princess of Wales died, the Queen had no idea how to respond "as a person". She responded as a Queen by maintaining silence until forced by the population to do otherwise. Her old-school code of conduct (which had served her well in the past) suddenly created a crisis for the Royal Family. She refused to fly the Royal Standard at half mast (although the people wished this as a sign of respect for the Princess)because it is not proscribed by protocol. Her vision is very narrow and she is utterly unequipt to respond as a normal feeling human would do. For her, protocol is more important than sentiment. Thus her initial refusal to lower the standard, address the nation or show that she gave a damn about her former daughter in law, as a mere human being would do. This has not served her well. She is a relic of a time when aristocrats and members of the royal family were raised by nannies and governesses. Natural family warmth (as mere mortals experience it) is unknown to her. She would find such behaviour "distasteful". She is completely out of touch. A true dinosaur from another epoch.
As for Prince Charles - it would be amusing to hear you enumerate all these marvelous things he has done for his country. He is more well-known for expressing his wish to be Camilla's tampon than anything he may actually have done. We mere mortals know nothing of any meaningful accomplishments he has achieved. By all means, do enlighten us.
[deleted]
People who have a negative reaction to the monarchy generally don't understand what the Queen does for this country.
Bless the Queen ( I don't believe in God so ummm...Science bless the Queen ?!, nahh doesn't have the same ring )
People who have a negative reaction to the monarchy generally don't understand what the Queen does for this country.
You're a full time apologist.
shareAs a former member of the Air Training Corps and a (hopefully) future member of the Royal Air Force, I agree with the OP and the majority of the posters on this thread. The Queen may not have obvious responsibilities (although she has more than most people think), but she is a figure of standard that very few people care about these days, which I find incredibly unfortunate. I pledged my allegiance to her once, and I am willing to do it again when, and if, I am enrolled as an officer into the RAF. I am willing to do so for any monarch, even Prince Charles (he is, as you have all said, human, and is a lot more genuinely passionate than most of these PR-hungry politicians we see going to Afghanistan to see the troops, or getting involved in other PR-related situations).
Long live the Queen. Long live the House of Windsor
Long live the Queen. Long live the House of Windsor
While it is true that Charles certainly did not behave like a gentleman with Diana, he has done many important things for his country. He established and has run The Prince's Trust for many years. This trust has distributed a great deal of money to young people in the United Kingdom. He has also made the Duchy of Cornwall self-sufficient; he takes no money from the Civil List. I think he will make an admirable, forward-thinking kind if he ever gets the chance.
shareThen you're not a monarchist. Support of the monarchy is support of an institution, not an individual. The whole point is that the dumbass populace don't get a say in who comes out of the womb - they have to accept and support blindly.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
Ok well, i dont get the royalty thing ,
they dont rule the country so whats the point.
i thought the prime minister was their president.
"So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey"share
As a Yank of British, Scots and Canadian heritage, I proudly say "GOD SAVE THE QUEEN!"
JS
God bless the Queen from an American commoner. I long for the days when people valued education & family. People from the Queens's era were more dignified, civilized, respectful, & the list goes on.
While Diana supported worthy important causes, she was as into the media as they were into her; perhaps not in her last days, but definitely during her marriage to Charles. It was if she used the media & charities to battle the monarchy.
To her supporters, no offense, but it was your support that ultimately killed her. Your over interest in her personal life for lack of your own. Diana was an over-hyped celebrity.
Did people hound Mother Teresa? (Who coincidentally died one month later). Where was her paraded televised funeral & memorial? Where were the rock stars & celebrities & people mourning her death? Her death was a footnote in comparison to Diana's & that is ludicrous. Lots of people are charitable, they just don't alert the press whenever they do a charitable deed. Diana was a human being first & foremost, & the spectacle after her death was bordering insanity.
Good grief! I had no idea - I never look - so many had posted replies (not all of them terribly kind) to my original.
I read your comments with interest and much agreement*.
Re "charitable deeds", yes, far too many want to be seen to be doing something for their own sake. Some, however, (and I write as someone now a PR whizz and with some charity work under my belt) might be public about their activities to garner more interest for the cause. Ultimately, I feel, it is all spin and however much they believe in what they support, they know, too, that it won't hurt the TV ratings, book sales, record sales & c.
"...the spectacle after her death was bordering insanity."
Succinctly and accurately put. It was mass hysteria and more damaging than many might have predicted. Barely a death (helps if the deceased is female, white and pretty, naturally), especially an accident or a criminal act, occurs without the (once) Great British Public joining in with the grief of the family, without feeling itself a "victim" and without finding it seemingly absolutely necessary to post "RIP" on social media sites for someone either unknown to them or known only through the dead person's celebrity status.
It is not compassion or empathy that drives people to mourn so much for an unknown person. It is, perhaps:
Fundamental dissatisfaction with their lives
Absence of a religion, or rather, one that they find "satisfactory", thereby putting rather ordinary (although not necessarily terribly nice) celebs, designers, musicians, political leaders into a position of being worshipped
Media hype
Still, it makes good business for local florists when a death occurs.
The reaction many had to the death of Steve Jobs was similar to the reaction many had to the death of Michael Jackson.
Jobs was, above all else, a hard-nosed capitalist who wanted to make pots of money. He was not a lovey-dovey hippy who only wanted to make the world happy. Michael Jackson was at best weird and at worst a paedophile. And, subjectively, his music was crap.
We have Jobs.
We have Jackson.
We have Jong. Kim Jong Il, of course.
We laugh or watch bemused the scenes of grief that the North Koreans displayed to the death of KJI. Was this outpouring of sorrow really any different to that given to Steve Jobs or Michael Jackson? Not really, and in many ways more understandable. One would not be shot/sent to prison for failing to mourn sufficiently for a computer designer or a rather creepy singer...
*Diana and Mother Theresa died eight days apart. Jeffrey Bernard, the (in)famous English journo and drinker once remarked words to this effect:
"No one will notice when I pop off; it will be just my luck to die a few days after the Queen Mother and a few days before Mother Theresa."
Well, he died a week after Diana and a day before Mother Theresa.
[deleted]
You are actually going to point out to me the time difference, when it was me who posted it? Diana died in August, Mother Teresa died in September. I posted a general time difference; You should have noticed I did not mention specific dates. The irony here, is you replying & attempting to correct me, when I seriously doubt you even realized Mother Teresa's death was in such close proximity to Diana's, if you even knew she had died at all, or thought she died a century ago. The main point was Diana's death overshadowed Mother Teresa's. I can't wrap my head around you taking what I stated as it being Diana's (a dead woman's) fault, as opposed to people over-reacting to Diana's death, while barely noticing one (if not THE) greatest philanthropists of our time, Mother Teresa. I mean for heaven's sake, I even stated as much. For future reference, when being petty, for the sake of being petty (not offering anything new or pertinent), be correct; It's dying not dieing (unless you are referring to cutting something). why am I even replying to you.
share[deleted]
Hear Him! Hear Him!
God Save the Queen! And to her heirs and Successors. I hope the Throne be preserved in all the Commonwealth.
~Sworn to bear true allegiance.
"I am the equal and opposite reaction!" -Unknowntyper-
Vive la republique.
The queen and her successors are part and parcel of a corrupt system which costs an exorbitant amount (in both money and democratic reform) and gives back nothing but smokescreen PR events for the hard of thinking.
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
Sometimes only "*beep* off, *beep* will do. Bet you wouldn't have the balls to say your written words to my face, coward.
I look forward to your reply and a place, date and time to meet.
To whom are you speaking, you odd, aggressive little person?
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.
Hard to tell. It goes by the moniker of "The_Scranton_Strangler". Disturbing sort of title; probably has multiple psychological and social issues.
shareThis from someone who makes threats over the internet. Rather proves my 'hard of thinking' point. Whom else do you blindly support, I wonder? Do you go around saying 'God Save my Mother'? 'God Save my Father'? Have you any idea what a sad little sheep you sound like? Why, rather than invoke a deity to protect someone who cares nothing about you, do you not actually articulate some genuine reasons for your support of monarchy? Could you do that, or does your support exist simply because you've been told to support the monarchy and therefore do, because you lack a strong and questioning mind of your own?
Your name is of no importance and you live in the pipe in the upstairs water closet.