|
Queen makes Duke of Edinburgh head of the Navy as 90th birthday gift :-)
|
Whatever floats your boat...:-)
He's still remarkably active for his age.
|
|
What navy? There are many private motor yachts (as in ships) that are bigger and better equipped than some of our navy kit. When I left there were more Admirals than ships, I don't think much has improved.
|
|
Lord High Admiral - that just guarantees him a role in some Gilbert & Sullivan, doesn't it ?
|
...Lord High Admiral - that just guarantees him a role in some Gilbert & Sullivan, doesn't it ?...
Wouldn't require much acting on the Duke's part.
Although it seems to me he's created this curmudgeonly outspoken politically incorrect persona, and he now feels he has to live up to it.
I did a job with the Duke, among the crowds were some Durham University students who had a banner promoting their college.
It had a missing apostrophe.
The Duke bounded straight over to them and gave them a (genuine) royal ticking off for their grammatical incompetence.
They were delighted.
And the Duke had given us hacks what he knew we all wanted - a Duke of Edinburgh moment.
|
I cant find it in my heart to dislike the fella, his interview last night was fantastic - ask a question and he gives a straight answer.
His sense of duty and getting on with it is from another age, love it. He was playing second fiddle to his wife long before being a house husband became fashionable.
|
>> I cant find it in my heart to dislike the fella, his interview last night
>> was fantastic - ask a question and he gives a straight answer.
>>
Yes, he tells it like it is and is pretty astute, he would never make it as a politician.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 10 Jun 11 at 16:18
|
I can't bring myself to dislike him either. Despite the kind of woefully limited view of the world that tends to come from a life of perpetual privilege, I find his straight talking, no-nonsense honesty quite refreshing. What you see is what you get, warts n' all. There aren't enough people in public life like that at the moment.
And it takes a very cold sense of humour not to be even slightly tickled by many of his gaffes, however inappropriate or offensive.
|
|
I admit the highlight was when asked if he wanted to do the interview - since you ask, not really. Classic.
|
|
Any sense the DofE has sadly seems to have skipped a generation with the buffoons he has for sons.
|
>> Any sense the DofE has sadly seems to have skipped a generation with the buffoons
>> he has for sons.
Yup the older lad is a chip of the old block. Trouble is that all he is - a chip.
|
A bit misunderstood the Old Duke.
I think most of his "gaffs" stem from a deeply wicked sense of humor.
For example, on meeting Alfredo Stroessener, the Paraguay dictator, he said "Its so nice to be in a country that isnt ruled by its people"
Of course the liberal do gooders couldn't see the calculated insult in there at all assuming it was approval of his role"
Hes the kind of bloke you would like to get to chat to down the pub. Bit like Lud.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 13 Jun 11 at 13:53
|
>> Hes the kind of bloke you would like to get to chat to down the
>> pub. Bit like Lud.
>>
No... he couldn't be - could he?????
By the way Z.... its He's NOT Hes ;-)
|
Just woke up from a Bombardier!! Best thread for yonks..............or is it yonk's?
Who gives a fork anyway?
|
I don't really care for any of them, to be honest. It's hardly surprising that he's sprightly, or whatever: no meals to cook, kids to raise, bills to pay, etc etc.
|
Oh dear, another sad Republican...
Try living in some 95 per cent of Republics in the world - you'll be glad to get back to Blighty...:-)
|
|
You've lived in them all, have you? Bowing, scraping and fawning by one human being to another: makes me want to vom.
|
...Bowing, scraping and fawning by one human being to another...
If you met the Queen, that is the last thing she would want - or expect - you to do.
"Hi Liz" might not go down too well, but I was brought up to use a courtesy title when first meeting anybody.
In other words, were we to meet, I would address you as "Mr Boolean".
That is not bowing, scraping or fawning, it is simple good manners.
Should you ever be lucky enough to meet the Queen, the correct form of address is "Ma'm".
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 11 Jun 11 at 09:46
|
And in business, one uses the first name.
There is no way on gods earth, when charlie boy becomes king, I would call him "Sir" or "your majesty"
The courtesy needs to be earned. He hasnt.
|
...And in business, one uses the first name...
You must be a lot younger than you appear.
|
|
Not at all, just that you are living in the dark ages.
|
...Not at all, just that you are living in the dark ages...
And you, as so often, are being argumentative purely for the sake of it.
|
NOt at all Iffy, the fact is that in Business, if someone is introduced to you as "Bruce Forthsyth", you take is hand and say "bruce"
Only If someone is introduced to you as MR Bruce Forsythe, would you reply "Sir"
|
"Only If someone is introduced to you as MR Bruce Forsythe, would you reply 'Sir'."
More likely to be introduced as Sir Bruce Forsyth, actually. And presumably you would call him "Sir Bruce", along the lines of "Sir Alan" (or should that be "Suralan"?)
|
Well he is now, yes. I meant before.
Anyway, he is not SIR yet. Not been invested yet.
|
|
Surely the point of courtesy title is that they are not earned, they are courtesies. Mr is a courtesy title as is Sir. If you go in a garage they might say "Yes Sir, how can I help".. Would you object on the ground that you had not earned the title "Sir"?
|
>> Surely the point of courtesy title is that they are not earned, they are courtesies.
>> Mr is a courtesy title as is Sir. If you go in a garage they
>> might say "Yes Sir, how can I help".. Would you object on the ground that
>> you had not earned the title "Sir"?
When it comes to peasantry, the title "sir" is less a courtesy and more of a "I don't know your name" We have had this before where some people demand to be called "sir" Me I am happy being called chief, or guv, or mate, or squire or any other "I don't know your name" title.
As for royalty the courtesy title , which iffy got wrong by the way, you don't call the queen "Ma'am" on first meeting, but on subsequent references to her you do. Unless she has been introduced "en mass" to the assembled peasants. Its "your majesty" on first meeting and "ma'am thereafter
Anyway, royal courtesy titles were earned by beheading those who didn't use them. They cant do that now. As for not calling Charlie "sir" or "your majesty"? Its a deliberate snub, He deserves that. Pompous useless little git.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 11 Jun 11 at 10:12
|
>> The courtesy needs to be earned. He hasnt.
Er, princes don't have the sort of latitude they used to have Zeddo. The Prince of Wales's options for 'earning respect' are circumscribed and what he does do is reported by an often malevolent set of mass media.
In the old days he might have 'earned your respect' by having his parents and siblings murdered and appointing a field brothel keeper Lord Chancellor and making him a duke.
Somehow I don't think you've quite got the point of constitutional monarchy. And actually, Zeddo, I think upbringing might prevail were you ever to meet the poor aunt sally, and you would use the conventional courtesy.
|
>> >> The courtesy needs to be earned. He hasnt.
>>
>> Er, princes don't have the sort of latitude they used to have Zeddo. The Prince
>> of Wales's options for 'earning respect' are circumscribed
Trying to be less of a complete useless buffoon with a brain from the 1880s might help in that respect.
>> In the old days he might have 'earned your respect' by having his parents and
>> siblings murdered and appointing a field brothel keeper Lord Chancellor and making him a duke.
HE couldn't even do his sexual peccadilloes properly, let alone murder his kith and kin standing in his way.
>>
>> Somehow I don't think you've quite got the point of constitutional monarchy. And actually, Zeddo,
Nothing constitutional about inherited monarchy.
>> I think upbringing might prevail were you ever to meet the poor aunt sally, and
>> you would use the conventional courtesy.
For queeny? yes I would observe the proprieties. For charlie? Nah it would be no bow, no nod, a handshake and "Charlie"
|
>> Nothing constitutional about inherited monarchy.
Honestly Zeddo... if it isn't inherited it isn't monarchy but something else. Perhaps some of the primal hordes had forms of elected monarchy, but that would have been a while back.
>> Nah it would be no bow, no nod, a handshake and "Charlie"
He's probably used to it poor fellow. But let me tell you something Zeddo: I still don't believe you. It's a whole lot easier to say these things than to do them.
Even if you did behave in that boorish manner, you wouldn't enjoy the experience of being looked at down a couple of dozen long noses like something the cat had brought in. You would end up wishing you had tried to strangle the heir to the throne and gone out in a blaze of glory and Heckler & Koch dumdums.
|
>> >> Nothing constitutional about inherited monarchy.
>>
>> Honestly Zeddo... if it isn't inherited it isn't monarchy but something else.
Dont tell me, I didnt use the phrase "constitutional monarchy"
>> >> Nah it would be no bow, no nod, a handshake and "Charlie"
>>
>> He's probably used to it poor fellow. But let me tell you something Zeddo: I
>> still don't believe you. It's a whole lot easier to say these things than to
>> do them.
>>
>> Even if you did behave in that boorish manner, you wouldn't enjoy the experience of
>> being looked at down a couple of dozen long noses like something the cat had
>> brought in. You would end up wishing you had tried to strangle the heir to
>> the throne and gone out in a blaze of glory and Heckler & Koch dumdums.
I seem to think, that somehow, you still haven't grasped my dislike of charlie.
|
>> somehow, you still haven't grasped my dislike of charlie.
Clearly, you think you know what he's like. And you think you have feelings about him.
That means that the battle has been three-quarters won in your case, by the institution and not by you. However you may struggle and squirm, monarchy has a firm grip on your imagination. End of, as you sometimes say.
As for PU's contention that there's nothing special about the monarchy but money and snootiness, I am surprised to hear that from someone like him. The same would apply to all sorts of jumped-up twits and big thieves, Donald Trump and Fred Goodwin included. 'Money' indeed! What crap!
Listen, both of you actually: like an old and valuable piece of jewellery, it's all a matter of setting and provenance. The object in the middle may be a bit of glass really, but so what? The thing that counts is the general effect and the fact that it once belonged to Hereward the Wake or Clara Bow. Whether you think it's pretty or not is neither here nor there. It is meant to dazzle and concentrate the gaze of the unwashed multitudes. And if it does that, it works.
Enough already. I am always trying to explain this sort of thing here and it never works.
|
>> Enough already. I am always trying to explain this sort of thing here and it
>> never works.
Does that not indicate your argument has no basis?
|
>> Does that not indicate your argument has no basis?
No. But kindness and courtesy deter me from trying to explain what it probably does indicate.
|
Dont blame the pupil. One has to admire your veracity in trying to convince us tho.
AT the end of the day, they are inbred mid European thieves who have set up home here as a refuge.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 11 Jun 11 at 16:02
|
|
OFFS Zeddo. Stop mucking about.
|
AC:>> >> Enough already. I am always trying to explain this sort of thing here and
>> it
>> >> never works.
Zero: >> Does that not indicate your argument has no basis?
>>
This reminds me of an argument between an Apple salesman and an unconvinced prospective customer that was reported to me.
Customer - "Well I've listened to all your talk about the 'experience' but I still don't see why I should pay twice as much for a Macbook when I could get an ordinary laptop with a higher hardware spec for half the money".
Salesman - "Don't worry about it - you're just not there yet".
|
|
I'm with Zeddo on this - what makes them special ? Nothing other than money and the knack of looking down their noses at their subjects who look back with adoring puppy eyes.. I'm a citizen of my country and not subjugated to anyone.
|
>>what makes them special <<
History.
|
>> >>what makes them special <<
>>
>> History.
Pol Pot is history. Thats rather like saying the east end of london is the east end because of jack the ripper. (or the other way round if you like)
|
|
I mean, as you well know, history of this country, not of an individual. This country didnt become GREAT Britain by democracy but by the single-minded ambitions of the absolute rulers of the day.
|
|
And the resources to use and abuse. Not available any more. They now depend on those resources for survival.
|
>> >>what makes them special <<
>>
>> History.
>>
I share a common ancestor with Prince Charles and The Queen. William the Conqueror's grandfather. That family line then traces back through the Jarls of Orkney, to the Norse Kings of Finland as far as the second century AD.
It does not make me special. My family titles became extinct a couple of centuries ago. Even if they had not, I would not consider myself special.
We all have "History", we are none of us special. Including the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha family. There is no convincing argument for maintaining their extensive privileges.
|
...There is no convincing argument for maintaining their extensive privileges...
There is, it's just not one you accept.
In any case, there doesn't need to be an argument, convincing or otherwise.
The overwhelming majority of the population want and like the monarchy.
While that situation remains, so will they.
|
>> In any case, there doesn't need to be an argument, convincing or otherwise.
And I'm called a Communist.
If AC will allow me to borrow one of this catchphrases - Tchah.
|
...If AC will allow me to borrow one of this catchphrases - Tchah...
Eh?
It's a simple statement of fact:
While the monarchy has overwhelming public support, we will always have a monarchy.
If you anti fellas thought a bit more clearly about what you see as the problem, you might have more chance of achieving what you seek.
But happily for us monarchists, you continue to aim what little ammunition you have in the wrong direction.
Rule Britannia.
|
"There doesn't need to be an argument" is not a statement of fact.
It's a statement of arrogance and a denial of free expression of opinion.
The lack of votes for women once had overwhelming public support. But there still needed to be an argument.
|
..."There doesn't need to be an argument" is not a statement of fact...
It's merely a practical view, and certainly no denial of free expression.
If at the next royal wedding there are 750,000 protestors and only 60 people throwing confetti, that will be an end to the monarchy.
If that's what you seek, I advise you to think more deeply as to how you might achieve it.
|
Iffy,
I'm not trying to achieve anything. I have a point of view, which I accept is not a majority view. I don't intend to change my point of view any more than I expect you to change yours. All I ask is a rationalist question why does a modern democracy need a Monarchy ? - it's not for me.
|
...All I ask is a rationalist question why does a modern democracy need a Monarchy ?...
The short answer is a modern democracy does not need a monarchy.
But it appears the majority of people want to have one.
Then there's the inertia factor, a much smaller number of people are ambivalent towards the monarchy, but are certainly not going to take to the streets to get rid of it.
It makes the abolitionists task a hard one.
"You do not need a monarchy."
"No, we don't, but we are still having one."
|
>> All I ask is a rationalist question why does a modern democracy need a Monarchy ? - it's not for me.
Obviously anyone is entitled to hold republican views, although they now seem strangely old-fashioned to me. If the monarchy doesn't hold executive power - and it doesn't - then strictly speaking its overthrow or replacement is a matter of secondary importance: what a reformist or revolutionary really wants to change is something else.
And I would point out gently that (setting aside the question of whether what we have is a democracy at all) it most certainly isn't a 'modern' democracy but an old one.
I understand and sympathize with the desire for a lovely clean new rational egalitarian just non-superstitious pollyannaish utopia. But I realized some time back that there can be no such thing in a degenerate, shifting coalition of evolved former primal hordes like a West European nation. Efforts to bring such things into being usually get nowhere. If they are serious efforts involving many energetic people, and do get somewhere, they cause widespread pain and disruption, sometimes lasting trauma and disaster, without improving anything.
That's why I can no longer go along with republicanism or revolution. They are naive. Reformism is the way to go.
|
>> If they are serious efforts involving many energetic people, and do get somewhere, they cause widespread pain and disruption, sometimes lasting trauma and disaster, without improving anything.
In fact they are worse than that. To take fascism and Bolshevism as examples, what start out as versions of rationalist political philosophy, worship of the leader, persecution of perceived internal enemies and a swift punch in the nose for dissidents in one case, worship of the leader, persecution of perceived internal enemies and the Gulag for dissidents in the other, are quickly erected into vile stinking half-witted religions, all the more vile and stinking because they claim to be rationalist and yet involve cringing self-delusion and pathetic superstition as well as a corrupted psychology that dehumanizes the Other.
We are a bunch of damn monkeys and there's nothing to be done about it.
|
>>We all have "History", we are none of us special<<
As and when you can provide some proof of how your family shaped this country, rather than just their own lives, then come here and state that everyones history is equal.
Whether you like it or not, the concept of Royalty has steered this country since its inception and been pivotal in its development as a nation.
Are they relevant today? Nope, but then we have this thing called democracy which allows us to be a part of choosing our idiots rather than having them thrust upon us.
I rather wish there had been someone to curb illegal socialist wars, but alas we must just watch while they try to engineer the world in their image.
|
>> As and when you can provide some proof of how your family shaped this country,
>> rather than just their own lives, then come here and state that everyones history is
>> equal.
We all shape the country, day to day. Me, you, everyone. To greater or lesser extents.
>> Whether you like it or not, the concept of Royalty has steered this country since
>> its inception and been pivotal in its development as a nation.
I couldn't acer less about the concpet of Royalty in teh past, it is absolutely no argument for its continuation. Which you seem to agree with below:
>> Are they relevant today? Nope, but then we have this thing called democracy which allows
>> us to be a part of choosing our idiots rather than having them thrust upon
>> us.
Are you contradicting yourself here? Are the Monarchy not "thrust" (your word) upon us?
>> I rather wish there had been someone to curb illegal socialist wars, but alas we
>> must just watch while they try to engineer the world in their image.
Not sure you understand the word "socialist" if you think that concept has got any traction with our, or the American, governments of the past decade, but I agree with your main principle on that point.
|
>>Are you contradicting yourself here? Are the Monarchy not "thrust" (your word) upon us<<
If something is thrust upon you, its something you dont have a choice about. If there was a choice, you wouldnt have anything to take issue with.
Im saying that while the principle of democracy is sound, we actually get the same power hungry, wealth seeking folk using the position of power to further their own ends. That was traditionally what monarchy was about, power.
Just because Blair or Cameron arent from royal blood lines ( well call me Dave actually is if I recall ), it doesnt make much difference to the end result. Only difference is we the adoring public vote these cretins in, so we are part of the process by which they get power.
I actually wonder sometimes if old Lillybet would do a better job. Not Charles granted, he is insane, but King William - yeah why not, be nice to see all these expenses cheats in The Tower :-)
|
Should you ever be lucky enough to meet the Queen, the correct form of address is "Ma'm".
I wouldn't consider myself particularly lucky. Why would I ?
|
>> I wouldn't consider myself particularly lucky. Why would I ?
I would. Why wouldn't I?
;-)
|
I would not consider myself lucky to meet the Queen, particularly. However, if Mr Boolean's good enough for me, Mrs Windsor's fine for the Queen, I'm sure.
Ma'm, Your Royal Highness, bowing, courtseying, all that tosh, should in my opinion be consigned to the history books.
|
>> Ma'm, Your Royal Highness, bowing, courtseying, all that tosh, should in my opinion be consigned
>> to the history books.
It's conventional. It doesn't define the relationship. A shopkeeper who calls you sir isn't saying you are better than he is.
Getting rid of it all would make the world more grey, nothing else. A bit like making everybody wear Chairman Mao suits.
In my opinion of course.
|
>> Getting rid of it all would make the world more grey, nothing else. A bit
>> like making everybody wear Chairman Mao suits.
But isnt calling everyone "sir" exactly that?
|
>>
>> >> Getting rid of it all would make the world more grey, nothing else. A
>> bit
>> >> like making everybody wear Chairman Mao suits.
>>
>> But isnt calling everyone "sir" exactly that?
I can't quite put my finger on the type of fallacial argument you have invoked there, but I'm not going to engage with it!
|
>>
>> Should you ever be lucky enough to meet the Queen, the correct form of address
>> is "Ma'm".
>>
Not forgetting that Ma'am should be pronounced as in jam.
One wouldn't want to look an ass, would one?
|
>> By the way Z.... its He's NOT Hes ;-)
Face? Bothered?
|
|
The British Legion is also 90 this year, and has contributed far more to the life of the country than than the monarchy can ever hope to do.
|
To be fair, old dukie did his bit during the war, He has genuine battle experience gained in the thick of the stuff in the med. His gongs include
1939–1945 Star
Atlantic Star
Africa Star
Burma Star
Italy Star
1939-45 War Medal, with Mentioned in Despatches oak leaf
Greek War Cross
Croix de Guerre with Palm
All legitimately earned war medals.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 10 Jun 11 at 22:33
|
For my fiftieth birthday I am hoping for head of the army or airforce as a present from the queen. If she's around then.
I remember popping into the British Legion as a child with my dad. He like many did national service. It is easy to forget how important it is today. All to easy for me (and therefore others) to associate with the two great wars.
|
...The British Legion is also 90 this year, and has contributed far more to the life of the country than than the monarchy can ever hope to do...
Very bold statement which you cannot possibly prove.
It's also rubbish.
Which is another very bold...etc...etc.
|
|
I think husbands of famous wives are often quietly funny people. Dennis Thatcher was another.
|
I too think some of the DoE's gaffs were deliberate. From what I have heard a nice chap. And those I know who have met and know Charles, so is he. Despite what some of us might think.
Bounced the idea of head of the army by my wife earlier. Don't think it will happen. 40th present was to drive an Aston Martin and when arranged and turned up... it had broken down... so drove a Ferrari 360 instead. Here's hoping to command the army or failing that the air force.
|
>>I think husbands of famous wives are often quietly funny people<<
Eva Braun told a good'n, about lampshades, I hear.
|
>> Eva Braun told a good'n...
That is offensive in so many ways it's almost clever. I'm not going to dignify it with a face, but I hope you wish you hadn't said it.
I'll record my admiration for the Duke of Edinburgh while I'm at it; you made me realise how well judged his 'offensive' remarks actually are, whether by accident or design.
|
>>That is offensive in so many ways it's almost clever. I'm not going to dignify it with a face, but I hope you wish you hadn't said it<<
Pure TIC, M, I can assure you, no offense meant to anyone.
|
>> Pure TIC, M, I can assure you, no offense meant to anyone.
I don't doubt it. Sometimes the comedy response is hard to resist, and repartee isn't repartee if you think before you speak!
|
>> >>I think husbands of famous wives are often quietly funny people<<
>>
>> Eva Braun told a good'n, about lampshades, I hear.
Isn't that a bit of a myth, or at best unproven?
|
>>Isn't that a bit of a myth, or at best unproven?<<
Dunno Z, could be true, could be a myth - I take everything with a pinch of salt (sea) these days,
including stuff I hear on the bush/blair corporation.
|
|
Human skin is a "common" material for binding books.
|
|
wouldn't exactly call it "common"
|
|
. dup post removed
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 13 Jun 11 at 16:48
|
I met him once over 30 years ago now.The queen opened a new chemical plant at our site.
He is a character bushy eybrows and ready to take the micky.I saw the intervieuw he is a Dane by blood European inports zero.:)
I liked queen Juliana she used to mix with people and had conversations with ordinary folk when she felt like it.
|
>>Unproven. Fakes<<
Research the history of a woman named Ilse Koch the superintendent of Auschwitz concentration camp.
|
|
yeah that was unproven as well.
|
>>yeah that was unproven as well<<
Mere words friend, these are the facts ~
www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/skin.html
|
From that source I would say they are far from facts.
|
|
Well, the facts are that the murder of innocents took place on a massive scale, what could be worse than that?
|
Different issue perro, although one can only agree that it is the real issue.
Why anyone wants to get involved in this lampshade malarkey is a mystery to me. Seems to be a form of horror porn fascination.
|
>>Why anyone wants to get involved in this lampshade malarkey is a mystery to me. Seems to be a form of horror porn fascination<<
Well lets leave it there then shall we - I originally referred to it in an off the cuff TIC senior moment sort of way.
|
>>No-one disputes that<<
The deniers do.
|
What is there to be denied?Miljons of people died in concentration camps through gas or got shot.One of the largest concentration of camps where in Poland.
Auschwitz Birkenau one of the big camps.I have worked with people whith tattoes (numbers)on their arms who have been in camps and survived.
There where NSB ers in the Netherlands who betrayed people to the Germans.
Queen Wilhelmina told dutch people out of work.go to Germany there is plenty to do.
She couldn't care less about the population.I might offend some people but there is something about Royalty not quite right I can't put my finger on it no matter where they are from.
Sorry about Princess Diana she didn't fit in.
|
Cheap birthday present for the Duke of Edinburgh? - Stuartli
