Entire Queen's household is called to 'highly unusual' emergency meeting at Buckingham Palace tod

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: SeaWorthy
Ah but the important point, Is she a Good Person?

She did her duty without complaint

She neither sought largess nor took advantage of it.

Can the same be said of other heads of state around the world over the past 60 years? From Peron to Bush to Mugabe to Marcos and many, many more.

Well, I did my job in the same way throughout my life, so I guess in that we are equals. As far as whether a Person is good enough to cry over I would have to KNOW THEM, not their job.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Behave with your silliness, there will always be political parties, or are you advocating banning them?
No need at all for a head of state when parliament is sovereign.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

He's not dead.
He retired.

Does it say he died in my post? I was referring to the possible person who was the underlying cause of the event. My post did not rule out death or illness though. It was actually a little vague.

originally posted by: grainofsand
What's the point of a head of state by accident of birth who can't refuse to sign without creating a constitutional crisis?

Isn't that the point? Normally she (the monarch) cannot interfere with or compromise the normal working of democratic process, so signs Acts of Parliament (etc) into law. However, the monarch could refuse to sign, for example, an act that was fundamentally against the common good. For example, if a party had an outright majority and decided to extend their term of office etc.

An impartial Head of State with the power to stop things happening is a key role in UK politics.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: uncommitted

You deflect instead of defending your unelected monarch.
I also have passion for the issues which affect the majority, but this thread is not about that, I'm asking do you support a head of state anointed through accident of birth?
If so I'd be interested in your argument regarding democracy questions.

It's our monarchy, not specifically mine, but yours as well even if it does make you sulk. I'm neither pro nor anti royalty - is that the question you are trying to ask? It's just I can actually see that economically having a monarchy brings a net gain, not loss to the UK, so on balance I see no reason to lose it.

I don't see any more question about democracy than that really - it's like me asking why I've paid tax and NI for 30+ years with little or no financial support from the state, yet (until very recently) someone who was my neighbour has never had a job, has two kids from different fathers and lives in relative comfort - is that democracy?

For the unelected part - I don't have an issue with that. I also don't have an issue with the House of Lords being unelected, but I do think the Lords shouldn't be swayed by thinking in party political terms. Unelected means they are free to consider what is best for the country, not a particular element of it. As neither you nor I are privy to discussions between a monarch and the PM, it's best not to try and assume views aren't exchanged. Certainly previous PMs have stated she made her views extremely clear on many subjects.

a reply to: uncommitted

Why the childish line about sulking?
Your style of debate is one I cannot take seriously so I shall refrain from engaging further with you.

a reply to: grainofsand

Sorry, responded to your previous post as for some reason ATS showed that one as your most recent.

To repeat though, it's you calling me a Royalist, I'm just not an anti Royalist.

Oh, and if you think I'm deflecting by asking why you are so vexed, why do you continue to ask me my opinion when yours is obviously one you don't want to delve into.

To call yourself parliamentarian is a bit sad, it's not been used in an anti royalist manner since the civil war, but well done, very nice, I hope you got a badge.

originally posted by: JanAmosComenius
a reply to: uncommitted

Believe it or not many kingdoms voted kings.

Hi, yes, I'm aware, I still find it a weird concept, but that's just me.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: uncommitted

Why the childish line about sulking?
Your style of debate is one I cannot take seriously so I shall refrain from engaging further with you.

Your style of debate is to call any question a deflection, bit childish really so no loss.

a reply to: dianajune


It is a fact the Queen is very Old... the Senile factor is much more than just a likely future, perhaps the gracious woman is in the grips of Parkinsons' Disease or that other malady, Alzheimer's Disease


the 'staff' would be alerted as to her condition and to not spill-the-beans to the public about any embarrassing events





I did go back to read the first 8 pages... the Prince (95 years young) stepping down from public engagements was the reason for the collective anxiety...

but, i'm glad I posted my idea before discovering the actual reason for the 'highly unusual' activities among the staff at the various Royal haunts & residences




11+ pages... that seems extreme to me

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes. Vague.
"So it appears to be Prince Philip. I suppose the queen isn't going to be too far behind him."
Pardon my error. I guess i didn't think being too far behind him meant retiring.

a reply to: dianajune

I really don't understand this rooting for royal family

If one of them is dying
I say good, good for all of us including the person dying

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

Yes. Vague.
"So it appears to be Prince Philip. I suppose the queen isn't going to be too far behind him."
Pardon my error. I guess i didn't think being too far behind him meant retiring.

Actually, I was thinking about dementia. Note the last part of that original quote.

I heard the same thing last night that Phillip was retiring . Maybe she kicked him to the curb and was telling everybody he is no longer welcome there. The guy needs to retire and take a break. I think she should too. That has got to be an exhaustive schedule she has to keep at her age. It's time for both of them to kick back and enjoy what they have. Bless her heart either way.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Agit8dChop

A non main stream outlet was reporting Phillip was retiring from all public activities effective immediately. Not sure if its accurate info and im not sure if they would call such a meeting like they did for that.

If Phillips health is in question it might make sense.

The call the Prime Minister does not want is where the voice on the other end of the line says "London bridge is down" which is their notification Her Majesty the Queen has passed (according to a documentary anyways).

a reply to: dianajune

As for abdication I doubt it. She has made it clear she will serve until the very end. A "promise" she made when she at 21.

On her 21st birthday, in 1947, Princess Elizabeth promised, in famous words, that “my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service”.

a reply to: rjbaggins

Yeah the entire issue revolved around Prince Phillip's retirement from public duties. The guy is almost 96 years old.. I would say he is entitled to some downtime at his age.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

legalise cannabis in the UK and it will make more money in one year than the queen can make in revenue in on year

so why are we keeping her again ?

, its cheaper to grow mary jane and sell it legally in the UK and makes more money for our coffers than the queen does !
and will increase tourism

what does that say about the queen as a tourist attraction when some coffee shops will make more cash than her

get her tae #!

a reply to: sapien82

Lol!
...could have a massive grow operation in Buckingham palace, market it as 'Royal Herb' or something, chill out lounges in a banquet room, maybe guided tours of the grow rooms.
Hell that would make a fortune.

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: grainofsand
What's the point of a head of state by accident of birth who can't refuse to sign without creating a constitutional crisis?

However, the monarch could refuse to sign, for example, an act that was fundamentally against the common good.

I know right , like forcing people into poverty , taking away their benefits, forcing them to feed from food banks , allowing banks to take child care benefits ,cutting disability living allowance, forcing the disabled or terminally ill or infirm to work like those things which are fundamentally against the common good!

But oh no , not our loving , caring , benevolent Elizabeth Regina !
she is all sunshine and lollipops , rainbows and sugar treats !

So apart from throwing some money into our pockets from tourism, which we never see!
what does the queen do for us again ?

OFF with her head

a reply to: grainofsand

hahahahah aye know man

at 77,000m2 buckingham palace would make more money in 5 months , that's one grow and sale
than the queen does in a year

for sure