dead Queen Elizabeth II

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Royal Family/North Korea mash-up.

 

Well done!

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

Judging by her (banal and incredibly cliched) annual Christmas address, the old girl seems to be in fine health. In fact, she looked a lot better than she did when making last year's speech.

[Youwanticewiththat 611]

Judging by her (banal and incredibly cliched) annual Christmas address, the old girl seems to be in fine health. In fact, she looked a lot better than she did in lst year's speech.

 

I noticed however at The Christmas Morn Church service her ankles were rather swollen, particularly the right one...if this were an episode of Holby..what would the diagnosis be?

[JR976evil 906]

 

Judging by her (banal and incredibly cliched) annual Christmas address, the old girl seems to be in fine health. In fact, she looked a lot better than she did in lst year's speech.

 

I noticed however at The Christmas Morn Church service her ankles were rather swollen, particularly the right one...if this were an episode of Holby..what would the diagnosis be?

She's old

[Youwanticewiththat 611]

Mr Hansen wants to see you in his office JR

[Gooseberry Crumble 5,341]

I can see her living as long as her mother or even a bit longer say 102-103?

[time 8,599]

 

Judging by her (banal and incredibly cliched) annual Christmas address, the old girl seems to be in fine health. In fact, she looked a lot better than she did in lst year's speech.

 

I noticed however at The Christmas Morn Church service her ankles were rather swollen, particularly the right one...if this were an episode of Holby..what would the diagnosis be?

 

Disclaimer: Not a doctor (or any other time lord)

 

Possibly Oedema, which may or may not be serious, but as she has access to the best health care imaginable, probably tending towards the lower end of seriousness.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

The Peasant Revolt begins...

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-05/cleanforqueen-birthday-twitter-campaign-backfires/7067942

[Toast 16,136]

The Peasant Revolt begins...

 

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-05/cleanforqueen-birthday-twitter-campaign-backfires/7067942

 

Never heard anything about it.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

The old girl'll be 90 on April 21. Seems to be cruising comfortably towards it, which is more than can be said for the planned celebrations, which are turning into a PR disaster: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/at-150-a-head-the-queen-s-90th-birthday-party-is-turning-into-a-right-royal-pr-disaster-a6814941.html

 

Anyone want to be bold enough to bet that she won't make it?

[charon 4,943]

When's Easter fall this year ? The Centenary of the Rising might give the boot heart failure

[Deathray 2,940]

Can't fathom the queen allowing this. Took ill and Andrew spotted a great chance i'd wager.

[Phantom 2,533]

According to The Globe, she's dying and been going on a spending spree

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

The Republican movement is back with a vengeance! Not a nice 90th birthday present for the old girl: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/premiers-unite-for-an-australian-head-of-state/7110632

[RadGuy 1,614]

The Republican movement is back with a vengeance! Not a nice 90th birthday present for the old girl: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/premiers-unite-for-an-australian-head-of-state/7110632

Good. The Queen should head only the UK, imho.

 

I mean, FFS, I doubt she can even name more than 5 Australian cities.

[Davey Jones' Locker 1,324]

 

The Republican movement is back with a vengeance! Not a nice 90th birthday present for the old girl: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/premiers-unite-for-an-australian-head-of-state/7110632

Good. The Queen should head only the UK, imho.

 

I mean, FFS, I doubt she can even name more than 5 Australian cities.

 

Your Polish-American opinions on Anglo-Australian affairs are duly noted!

[En Passant 3,741]

 

The Republican movement is back with a vengeance! Not a nice 90th birthday present for the old girl: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/premiers-unite-for-an-australian-head-of-state/7110632

Good. The Queen should head only the UK, imho.

 

I mean, FFS, I doubt she can even name more than 5 Australian cities.

 

Some don't think she should head even that. Not that the old girl hasn't done a stirling job, but the very business of having an unelected head of state from a right of birth family is seen by many as perpetuating the absurd class system, which in this time of ever increasing disparity between the have's and the have nots is increasingly divisive. Up the workers!

[Magere Hein 1,400]

 

 

The Republican movement is back with a vengeance! Not a nice 90th birthday present for the old girl: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/premiers-unite-for-an-australian-head-of-state/7110632

Good. The Queen should head only the UK, imho.

 

I mean, FFS, I doubt she can even name more than 5 Australian cities.

 

Some don't think she should head even that. Not that the old girl hasn't done a stirling job, but the very business of having an unelected head of state from a right of birth family is seen by many as perpetuating the absurd class system, which in this time of ever increasing disparity between the have's and the have nots is increasingly divisive. Up the workers!

 

 

I'm afraid that many Brits don't share these eminently reasonable opinions. It seems this prime example of privilege by birth doesn't hit them as unfair. I prefer the democratic argument: all citizens are equally entitled to be appointed in any government position, which includes that of head of state. An argument can be made that the Queen is not a British citizen (she's certainly not a British subject), but that might just as well be used to argue that she can't be head of state.

 

BTW, all the above holds true for her distant cousin Willem-Alexander, who is a Dutch citizen. He even has the vote.

[En Passant 3,741]

As ever, there are arguments on both sides. Having an elected head of state isn't a panacea either. Whilst the principle that anyone can become head of state is entirely laudable and in my view is the very minimum a society that views itself as democratic should aspire to, you could take the example of the US (chosen because most have a reasonable idea of its constitution) where the president is in theory, just that. It could be anyone....

 

However...

 

In practice of course you only need to look at the net worth of most of the people who have become president (or are aiming to do so, yes, you, Trump) to see the difference between the theory and the reality. Exchanging direct right of birth for right of birth via being born extremely wealthy (most don't make it to be a billionaire from a standing start, despite the few examples that are forever paraded when this comes up) isn't perhaps the massive leap forward toward egalitarianism that we might wish.

 

At the end of the day though, to me at any rate, it's the principle that matters. The idea that one should doff one's cap to another because they had the right parents, and you did not, I find offensive.

 

Right, here's a picture of a cat playing in the snow...

[Cat O'Falk 3,290]

I've heard Jerry Springer joke that he left the U.K. for America when he found out he couldn't become king; he never mentioned he couldn't become POTUS though.

[Magere Hein 1,400]

In practice of course you only need to look at the net worth of most of the people who have become president (or are aiming to do so, yes, you, Trump) to see the difference between the theory and the reality. Exchanging direct right of birth for right of birth via being born extremely wealthy (most don't make it to be a billionaire from a standing start, despite the few examples that are forever paraded when this comes up) isn't perhaps the massive leap forward toward egalitarianism that we might wish.

Neither way of appointing a head of state assures that the appointed one is any good. In most modern monarchies and republics of the German and Italian model that doesn't matter much, since the job holds no political power, but in other cases it does. I rather like the idea that you get to vote away an unsatisfactory one, rather than wait till he/she/it dies or gets bumped.

[En Passant 3,741]

 

In practice of course you only need to look at the net worth of most of the people who have become president (or are aiming to do so, yes, you, Trump) to see the difference between the theory and the reality. Exchanging direct right of birth for right of birth via being born extremely wealthy (most don't make it to be a billionaire from a standing start, despite the few examples that are forever paraded when this comes up) isn't perhaps the massive leap forward toward egalitarianism that we might wish.

Neither way of appointing a head of state assures that the appointed one is any good. In most modern monarchies and republics of the German and Italian model that doesn't matter much, since the job holds no political power, but in other cases it does. I rather like the idea that you get to vote away an unsatisfactory one, rather than wait till he/she/it dies or gets bumped.

 

In the uk at least, the concern for those wishing for a little more equality is perhaps not so much the individuals concerned or the power they wield (none of any consequence), as the continuance of a figurehead for a system that should have been given the boot a long while back. It's the top of a class system that has no place in a modern democracy, and whilst the monarchy still exists we can never truly get rid of the idea of class. Possibly this doesn't apply to other countries as readily as it does here, i couldn't honestly say.

[Rotten Ali 600]

Here is an idea for a replacement republican system for us Brits.

We have a "Presidential" term limit of 12 months, no one can do the job twice. In alternating four year cycles the role stitches between the extended Royal Family (voted only by the family). In year two the head of the nation is drawn from a member of the House of Lords (only voted by the Lords). In year 3, a member of the House of Common (only voted by the Commons) does the job and fourthly a commoner citizen, only voted on by the public get the top job.

[charon 4,943]

 

The Republican movement is back with a vengeance! Not a nice 90th birthday present for the old girl: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-25/premiers-unite-for-an-australian-head-of-state/7110632

Good. The Queen should head only the UK, imho.

I mean, FFS, I doubt she can even name more than 5 Australian cities.

 

There's 5 ?

[Magere Hein 1,400]

Here is an idea for a replacement republican system for us Brits.

We have a "Presidential" term limit of 12 months, no one can do the job twice. In alternating four year cycles the role stitches between the extended Royal Family (voted only by the family). In year two the head of the nation is drawn from a member of the House of Lords (only voted by the Lords). In year 3, a member of the House of Common (only voted by the Commons) does the job and fourthly a commoner citizen, only voted on by the public get the top job.

Hmm, might even work. At least the system has the complexity Brits are so fond of.n