Her Majesty the Queen Turns 91!

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Classic royalist arrogance.
You don't promote your cause very well but no matter, it pleases me that your queen was stripped of any real power long ago.
An unnecessary hereditary position which should have died out with lords of the manor.

As I tried to explain to you numerous times, I am not in the least bit concerned about trying to promote the cause to the likes of you. Your opinions on a constitutional monarchy and royalist bloodlines are a matter of complete indifference to me. If you want to have that discussion start a thread on the subject. Is that clear enough for you?

a reply to: grainofsand

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

It seems we are in agreement.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

I'll reply as I see fit thanks, wherever I wish.
I will criticise and mock royalists and our constitutional monarchy in any thread kneeling and fawning for the queen.
If you don't like it tough luck, you aren't a mod.

I am not getting through to you am I? Your opinions on the subject matter to you, they do not matter to me, and the same thing applies as to wether you express them or not.
a reply to: grainofsand

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Lol yet still you continue to reply.
Best thing for you to do is ignore me while lovingly stroking a picture of your hereditary monarch.
I'll happily reply to you all evening, your archaic royalist views amuse me.

a reply to: grainofsand

The reason I have kept replying to is because you consistently miss the point and it ignore it when I try to make it understandable for you. Wether you are being deliberately obstinate or are just not very bright is not clear. If you wish to take this to mean you are winning the argument, then ok, and let me to be the first to falsely congratulate you on your non-victory.

From this point on I will do as you suggest and ignore you. F. I.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Nope not obstinate, more like public mockery of royalists and the constitutional monarchy.
I'm actually disappointed that so few people have defended your monarch, probably because the institution is so difficult to defend with any reason or logic.
And yep, while you respond I'll continue to reply so I'd get back to carresing your portrait of the Queen if I were you.

originally posted by: Night Star
Swanne, I didn't know about the facts you listed. Interesting.

Happy Birthday your Majesty!

Thanks Night Star. For your contribution to this thread, Shakespeare's birthday thread, and the St George's day thread. It's been a great weekend to celebrate being English and proud.

I wouldn't be proud bowing and scraping to a hereditary monarch. I'd be ashamed.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I agree. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is much more fair and tolerant a ruler than HMQ Victoria ever was.

Those who don't read history have no idea how lenient HMQ Elizabeth II actually is compared to her predecessors.

She has been a credit to the United Kingdom which is much more than could ever be said about our current crop of politicians.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Yeah she's done a sterling job signing off every act of parliament presented to her by those politicians.
Pointless monarch meekly agreeing with everything from savage welfare cuts to foreign invasions.
Plenty of blood on her hands every time she puts pen to paper.

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

What a thoughtful, considerate, totally un-rude reply.

/sarc

Following your logic, George Burns was a reptilian BIG TIME.

Just ignore it. This thread has attracted the special element.

The reptilian thing is amusing but I've never bought into it myself.
I just stick to criticising the unelected head of state institution, something which really can't be argued against with any logical idea of democracy.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

oh yeah many of your precious knights "protectors of the common wealth" are child diddlers

your system is garbage and is a bane on society. i feel sorry for you and the rest of the queens groupis

a reply to: DocScurlock1774

It's a form of Stockholm syndrome, just on a grander scale.
Lol @ queen's groupies.

originally posted by: DocScurlock1774
a reply to: CulturalResilience

oh yeah many of your precious knights "protectors of the common wealth" are child diddlers

your system is garbage and is a bane on society. i feel sorry for you and the rest of the queens groupis

This asinine statement, and others like it are why you and others from your country are so often referred to as "ignorant Americans".

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Well I'm a UK citizen and fully understand the constitutional monarchy system we have.
Regarding knights and child sexual abuse I would hold judgement on 'many' of them committing such crimes, but the most famous knight abusing kids was Jimmy Saville.

The system is certainly undemocratic so I would argue it could easily be described as garbage and against general society, when looking at its democratic value.

If you assert the member is ignorant I'd love to read your rational arguments against their specific points.

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Cat got your royalist tongue?

a reply to: CulturalResilience

Defend your queen from us parliamentarians!
You know, those horrid people who do not love a constitutional monarchy. Lol
*edit*
Come on royalists, where are you?!