Jump to content


Photo

24. Queen Elizabeth I IQueen


  • Please log in to reply
1198 replies to this topic

#1 Jimh

Jimh

    Hatchet man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 60 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 06:33 AM

Shameless cut and paste from the Popbitch mailout this morning:

* Queen Elizabeth II
According to rumours going round British
newsrooms, the Queen has got a serious illness
and may not be long for this world - hence the
rushed Charles-Camilla marriage to prepare him
for the throne. But we hope that, like her
gin-pickled Mum, Liz continues to defy the
Grim Reaper for another few decades.

Don't believe a word of it myself.

#2 Death Watch Beatle

Death Watch Beatle

    I Need To Get A Life!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1596 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 06:35 AM

Now, JimH, why would you not believe a word of it on this day of all days?

DWB :)

#3 Josco

Josco

    I Need To Get A Life!

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 06:38 AM

If it is a 'poisson rouge', I would have thought it is in poor taste.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves".
William Pitt, 1783


Shaw's Principle: "Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."


#4 Guest_Guest_*

Guest_Guest_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2005 - 08:43 AM

forget liz, the sooner that twot charlie is bumped off the better!

#5 Anubis the Jackal

Anubis the Jackal

    Twunt Master

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3114 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 08:52 AM

Clarence House issues clarification on Prince Charles's "bloody people"
1 Apr 2005 by Malcolm Drury
Following the latest gaffe from a member of the House of Battenberg-Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, alias Windsor, Clarence House has issued a statement of clarification on whom the Prince of Wales likes and dislikes.

The gaffe was made by Prince Charles, who was overheard referring to reporters as "bloody people" and noting, in particular, that he could not bear the "awful" Nicholas Witchell, the BBC's royal correspondent. The remarks were made during a photo session during the Prince's latest holiday at Klosters with his sons.

Speaking at a press conference this morning Douglas Ramsbottom, Charles's Third Deputy Principal Assistant Communications Secretary (Acting), said that the "bloody people" referred to were actually the paparazzi who had annoyed the princely trio the previous day.

"Prince Charles had still not become fully acclimatised to the altitude," he said, "and was a bit confused because of the lack of oxygen. He did not realise that it was a bona fide pre-arranged photo opportunity."

He went on to provide lists of those who are in Charles's favour and those who are not. On the "in" list, he said, are Cliff Richard, organic farmers, acupuncturists, herbal healers, potted plants, other royals, servants, and... "well that's about it, really".

The extensive "out" list includes BBC reporters, architects, supporters of the ban on hunting with hounds, scientists, engineers, rock stars, Tony Blair and "the rest of his band of bloody commies", and the new Dr Who. Mr Ramsbottom explained that with regard to the latter, Prince Charles was deeply distressed at the changes made to the character, particularly his "dreadful northern accent", which he likened to a "monstrous audible carbuncle".

Asked about Nicholas Witchell, Mr Ramsbottom conceded that Prince Charles really could not bear him.

Prince Philip, the Family's expert in diplomacy, is reported to be delighted with his eldest son. A Buckingham Palace insider, speaking on condition of anonymity, told our reporter that Philip had more or less given Charles up as a wimp long ago but was gladdened to see his son finally lashing out at "those buggers in the press". The insider said that Philip had actually become very agitated and had had to be restrained from going out onto the balcony and taking a few pot shots at reporters who were milling about outside the Palace gates.

Upon hearing the news that his Dr Who was not among the "in" list, a devastated Christopher Eccleston, the actor who plays the current doctor, announced that he no longer has the heart to continue in the role.



with thanks
Pardon me but I got to run<br />The fact's uncommonly clear<br />I got to find who's now the number one<br />And why my angel eyes ain't here<br /><br />Excuse me while I disappear

#6 Rotten Ali

Rotten Ali

    Value for money

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2849 posts

Posted 01 April 2005 - 10:12 AM

Speaking at a press conference this morning Douglas Ramsbottom, Charles's Third Deputy Principal Assistant Communications Secretary (Acting), said that the "bloody people" referred to were actually the paparazzi who had annoyed the princely trio the previous day.

"Prince Charles had still not become fully acclimatised to the altitude," he said, "and was a bit confused because of the lack of oxygen. He did not realise that it was a bona fide pre-arranged photo opportunity."

Very funny Anubis, this April Fool message of yours - LOL as the penny dropped.

My take on all this April fool nonsense is all this news about the pope - gradually deing this morning - I'm half expecting the holly father to be going a song and dance act on his balcony this afternoon.
She Saw it Coming ... 
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, ExPope Benedict XVI, Chuck Blazer, Tony Booth, Ian Brady, George HW Bush, Glen Campbell, Lord Carrington, Errol Christie, Sean Connery, Tim Curry, Liz Dawn, Ed Doolan, Kirk Douglas, Doug Ellis, Harlan Ellison, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Rev Billy Graham, Jimmy Greaves, Hubert Green, Valerie Harper, Olivia deHavilland, Stephen Hawking, Clare Hollingworth, John Hurt, Bill Kenwright, Val Kilmer, Helmut Kohl, Lee Kun-hee (Samsung), Penny Marshall, John McVie, King Michael 1st of Romania, Frank Miller, Mary Tyler Moore, Robert Mugabe, Jim Nabors, Leslie Phillips, Sumner Redstone, Little Richard, Fernando Ricksen, Nick Robinson, David Rockafeller, Peter Sallis, Ian St John, Nobby Styles, Murray Walker, Joost van der Westhuizen, John Wetton, Gunther von Hagens & Jiang Zemin. 1/50.

#7 Guest_Paul_*

Guest_Paul_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2005 - 12:44 PM

I hope this is true this evil corrupt antiquity of a monarchy needs a jolt

#8 Simon I

Simon I

    Hatchet man

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 23 posts

Posted 03 April 2005 - 04:08 PM

How awful! The Queen must live for decades to come. The greatest monarch that this country has ever had must long reign over us. It's disgusting how people spread malicious rumours such as this and I feel that the Treason Act of 1351 should be enforced more rigourously in such cases. (which I would also condone the use of if ever this site had Her Majesty in the list...the Act clearly states that it is treason to "imagine the death of our Lord and Sovereign" or something to that effect!...sorry everyone :ph34r: )

forget liz, the sooner that twot charlie is bumped off the better!



I'm afraid I must disagree. Prince Charles will make a fine monarch. He is humorous, in touch with his people and dutiful. He has been well trained by his mother and grandmother and his duty, I am sure, will benefit the country. All this talk of him abdicating annoys me as well. The Daily Express constantly predicts that he will not reign. However the whole concept is ludicrous! He will know only too well (from Her Majesty and the late Queen Elizabeth) what effect Edward VIII's abdication had on the monarchy and would never conceivably denounce what has been given to him by God.

I hope this is true this evil corrupt antiquity of a monarchy needs a jolt


And this really angers me. How anyone can speak out against an institution that has served and protected this country and her people for over two millenia is beyond me. The current Queen is the greatest Sovereign we have ever had, and I personally am honoured to call myself her subject. The monarchy may take some privelleges but it deserves them, and more to the point who are we to deny the Queen, the head of state and appointee of God the rights that she gained on 12th June 1953?

God Save the Queen!

Simon

#9 Tuber Mirum

Tuber Mirum

    Relic of the Golden Age

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3199 posts

Posted 03 April 2005 - 10:45 PM

Well!

I'd like to see if anyone could possibly disagree with that!

#10 honez

honez

    I have no life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2721 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 10:05 AM

How anyone can speak out against an institution that has served and protected this country and her people for over two millenia is beyond me. The current Queen is the greatest Sovereign we have ever had, and I personally am honoured to call myself her subject.

Sorry to disagree old chap, but I couldn't disagree more on all counts. :D

The sooner the monarchy is done away with the better as far as I'm concerned.
The only possible excuse to keep them on in the job is the amount of money they bring in from the tourists, which sort of puts them in right in their correct context: They're nothing but a circus freak show. ;)

I just hope that this particular monarch is the last.

Bring on the Republic, the sooner the better I reckon.
  • Morbidkid likes this
Five zombies. Four bullets. Two zombies.

#11 Josco

Josco

    I Need To Get A Life!

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 10:21 AM

The sooner the monarchy is done away with the better as far as I'm concerned.
The only possible excuse to keep them on in the job is the amount of money they bring in from the tourists, which sort of puts them in right in their correct context: They're nothing but a circus freak show. ;)

I just hope that this particular monarch is the last.

Bring on the Republic, the sooner the better I reckon.

So a politician who climbs the greasy pole and then abuses his position (and our money) is better? I think not. The current system of inherited monarchy is far from perfect but in giving a country identity and a sense of continuity we have nothing better. I can appreciate your Antipodean feelings as part of the commonwealth and understand your desire for Republicanism, but I am not sure that the Home country is ready for it yet.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves".
William Pitt, 1783


Shaw's Principle: "Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."


#12 honez

honez

    I have no life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2721 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 11:06 AM

So a politician who climbs the greasy pole and then abuses his position (and our money) is better?  I think not.

At least the politicians are voted in (and out) by the people. If you don't like them you can get rid of them. Similarly, if you really don't like them, you can stand for election yourself. What better system is there than that? Brilliant!

You, on the other hand, appear to be suggesting that inheritence* and/or nepotism* by the family that, by some quirk of history, just happens to have one of their bums on the throne, is a better and fairer system all round than one of the tenets of modern western civilisation?



* (used to be through conquering, imprisonment or bloody murder in the days past)
Five zombies. Four bullets. Two zombies.

#13 Guest_One Man Jury_*

Guest_One Man Jury_*
  • Guests

Posted 15 April 2005 - 11:10 AM

So a politician who climbs the greasy pole and then abuses his position

AHMMMM!

Jeremy Thorpe and Michael Portillo perhaps?

#14 Josco

Josco

    I Need To Get A Life!

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1854 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 11:19 AM

At least the politicians are voted in (and out) by the people. If you don't like them you can get rid of them. Similarly, if you really don't like them, you can stand for election yourself. What better system is there than that? Brilliant!

Like Mr Mugabe.

You, on the other hand, appear to be suggesting that inheritence* and/or nepotism* by the family that, by some quirk of history, just happens to have one of their bums on the throne, is a better and fairer system all round than one of the tenets of modern western civilisation?



If the royal family had any real political power (and I know they have in theory) then your argument has some validity, but the point I was tring to make was the sense of belonging and history in an increasingly transient society.

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves".
William Pitt, 1783


Shaw's Principle: "Build a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will want to use it."


#15 Mortician

Mortician

    Bomber

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 201 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 11:26 AM

And this really angers me. How anyone can speak out against an institution that has served and protected this country and her people for over two millennia is beyond me. The current Queen is the greatest Sovereign we have ever had, and I personally am honoured to call myself her subject. The monarchy may take some privelleges but it deserves them, and more to the point who are we to deny the Queen, the head of state and appointee of God the rights that she gained on 12th June 1953?

God Save the Queen!

And I suspect you know all 4 verses of God Save the Queen as well!

The institution of monarchy has not kept us safe and free for 2 millenia. The robber barons didn't manage to unify under a single main bastard until about 800ad, the following 700 years resolved around families fighting each other to stay at the top of the greasy poll...

As such the Norman Conquest, Wars of the Roses, Civil War and Glorious Revolution could not be described as periods of peace brought about by the wonders of Monarchy.

You could actually state that the period since the Monarchy has been marginalised by constitutional role have been the most peaceful period in our history.

Mind you the thought of Bliar (or any of the other tossers) being el Presidente is so awful....

God Save the Queen

As for our Aussie cousins then I suggest you have Rolf Harris as head of state with little Kylie as Princess Consort; it'll get'em both out of England and give us a rest....

;)

Can't you tell what it is yet, it's another mindless ass whiggling irritating pop record that you can't get out of your feckinhg head

:D
plan to live forever or die in the attempt

#16 honez

honez

    I have no life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2721 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 12:13 PM

As for our Aussie cousins then I suggest you have Rolf Harris as head of state with little Kylie as Princess Consort; it'll get'em both out of England and give us a rest...

I'd gladly have an Australian as the head of state rather than the Queen of England and her duly appointed lacky, the Governor General.

And back to Josco's point...

If the royal family had any real political power (and I know they have in theory) then your argument has some validity

It certainly does wield political power here in Australia. In 1975, the Queen's duly appointed lacky, John Kerr, decided to solve a bit of a wrangle between the senate and the government, by dismissing the Whitlam Labor government, who still had a year of their term left.
The Queen and the Governor General do still have, and have previously wielded, enormous political power in Australia by dismissing the legally elected goverment of the Australian people.

And Poms wonder why Australians don't seem to like them much. ;) Duh.
Five zombies. Four bullets. Two zombies.

#17 lospalmas7

lospalmas7

    Shipman

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 334 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 12:29 PM

And Poms wonder why Australians don't seem to like them much. ;) Duh.

What's it got to do with us? She's your Queen, if you don't like her get rid of her. The fact is most Australians seem to want to keep her, which is a shame for you.

The republic/monarchy argument between a Brit and Australian doesn't really seem to be working to me. I doubt many Brits really care about the Australian situation, Josco's arguments seem to be about the monarchy in the UK. If either of you are trying to suggest who should be the head of state of someone else's country maybe you could discuss the legitimacy of King Harald of Norway!

#18 Terminator

Terminator

    Post-Twunt

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1052 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 01:21 PM

The Queen and the Governor General do still have, and have previously wielded, enormous political power in Australia by dismissing the legally elected goverment of the Australian people.

And Poms wonder why Australians don't seem to like them much. ;) Duh.

If you Aussies are only able to do is a good impression of cattle/sheep and simply accept that an overseas monarchy is 'just the way it is'....don't blame the British monarchy. As the saying goes..."put up, or shut up".

To be honest, I see the Aussie "pom" put-downs as a form of mass "personality projection" problem, ie projecting their own inadequacies onto those they recognise as being more enlightened etc....

It's sad...rather like little 13-year olds rebelling against their far wiser, more experienced parents. Ah, bless.. :D
Ad tabernam festino

#19 honez

honez

    I have no life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2721 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 02:13 PM

And Poms wonder why Australians don't seem to like them much. ;) Duh.

What's it got to do with us? She's your Queen, if you don't like her get rid of her. The fact is most Australians seem to want to keep her, which is a shame for you.

That's my point entirely. With her/her representative as head of state, there's no way to get rid of her. If we vote to put a government in that's got the guts to put legislature in to get her out, she has the political power to sack the lot of them and throw the legislation out.

The last time it was put to a referendum, the wording was such that it was a no-win situation. It was something along the lines of do you want to replace the current system with this particular model? (One that was deeply unpopular and totally unworkable.) No other options were offered. Some of the alternatives being discussd at the time were much better but not allowed. Of course the wording and option offered was decided upon by the PM who is a staunch monarchist and vetted and approved by the Governor General.

If the wording was couched in terms of something like do you want the Queen of England or an Australian as your head of state? It would have stormed in.
Five zombies. Four bullets. Two zombies.

#20 honez

honez

    I have no life

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2721 posts

Posted 15 April 2005 - 02:20 PM

To be honest, I see the Aussie "pom" put-downs as a form of mass "personality projection" problem, ie projecting their own inadequacies onto those they recognise as being more enlightened etc...

And if you truly believe that, then you are welcome to your "enlightened" opinion. Ignorance is bliss, as they say, so you'll be happy for many years to come no doubt.
Five zombies. Four bullets. Two zombies.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users