Congratulate Queen Elizabeth II on her Diamond Jubilee

The Official Website of the Queen's Diamond Jubilee ^

[the scotsman]

Then you believe wrongly.

‘We fight this revolution to gain our rights as true Englishmen’—Jefferson.

[PfromHoGro]

And misdate your registry.

LOL!

[bmwcyle]

God told the Jews they did not need a king. That message was for the whole world. He put it in the Bible. Before Saul, God warned his people not to have a King. God said, I am your King. It is still true today. Following fallen man or woman is the mistake we make over and over.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Constitutionally, the Queen can only act on the advice of her ministers. Her ministers, in turn. must command the support of a majority of the House of Commons in order to form a government.

The Royal Veto, while it exists in theory, hasn’t been used since 1708.

If you don’t like what happened in Rhodesia, at minimum you would need to blame Margaret Thatcher, who in turn was trying to clean up a mess handed to her by Ian Smith, Harold Wilson, Edward Heath, and James Callaghan.

The one person you can’t blame for that situation is the Queen.

[ex91B10]

"Let’s also remember that Her Majesty is a member of the generation that gave Britain its “finest hour” during World War II..." it's bloated welfare state, unchecked immigration and the introduction of sharia law and the rise of islamic enclaves all over Britain.

The "hour" may have been fine, but the rest of the "day" sure s**ks.

[gandalftb]

The royals have many fine qualities and seem to be decent and caring people.

I admire them personally, those that have have served in war and peace for the good of all the world’s people.

My problem is not with them personally, it is with the idea of inheriting political power by right of birth.

Celebrating the presence of any king or queen in Britain, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc. is an obscenity.

The difference with Britain is that they have had a ringside seat to the primacy and dominance of a Republic form of government and yet sully themselves with royalty.

American “commoners” will always stand taller than anyone’s royalty. To all Brit commoners: you can do better, the sorriest Irishman has more dignity.

[Winniesboy]

My problem is not with them personally,it is with the idea of inheriting political power by right of birth.

Aversion to inherited political power is not inconsistent with admiration for the British model of constitutional monarchy, since the monarchy has no political power, inherited or otherwise.

[ladyjane]

It’s amazing to me how much anger and resentment there is on this forum. Almost as much as one would hear at a welfare office.

Imagine being angry at something that happened 200 years ago. And from many whose ancestors weren’t even here at the time.

The queen and her family work very hard and their presence brings a lot of money into the country. In any event, it’s their choice to have it that way so why would non-English folks even care?

[miss marmelstein]

Yeah, I don’t get it either. The Queen and most of her family work very hard for the “firm.” They had a rough time during the death of Diana (whom I adored) but managed to tamp down that potentially explosive situation.

I hope the Queen lives to one hundred. I am one of those people who do not relish a King Charles. I’ve known at least 7 people (mostly connected with the theatre, ballet, and opera world of GB), who do not like him personally.

[Huskrrrr]

I have a problem with his liberal positions on global warming and the environment, for the most part. Who he shares a bed with is of no interest to me. We in California are reaping the consequences of over regulation and outrageous energy taxes on small businesses. I have very low regard for limosine liberals in general.

[Oztrich Boy]

I’ve known at least 7 people (mostly connected with the theatre, ballet, and opera world of GB), who do not like him personally

Now that's a solid recommendation.

[newzjunkey]

I wish her well and many more years.

[rmlew]

Was the queen vocal about Rhodesia (and South Africa) or not? Did she take position ahead of Thatcher or not? If she did, Queen Elizabeth II pushed Thatcher, not the other way around.

[rmlew]

Scotsman, go visit London. It isn't English or British anymore. You are correct that Muslims are a minority, although I have heard that the figure is closer to 10% and higher yet among children. The number of non-whites in London is astounding and the fact is that there are plenty of Europeans settling Britain legally and illegally. You have a political class of Vortigerns, acting at least with the tacit approval of your imported royal family, and you serfs face prosecution if you speak up. The replacement of indigenous Britons, while Britain becomes a mere province of Brussels is a huge problem. The kerfuffle caused by a patriotic monarch speaking truth and nationalist to such treason is not a problem, but his or her responsibility.

[gandalftb]

Every time I comment on the obscenity of royalty some apologist has to say they have no political influence, ornamental only, quaint little tourist draws.

Then I post the annual Queen’s Speech to Parliament:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/may/09/full-list-queens-speech-measures

and no response.......

Care to get to round two?

[ladyjane]

Why do you care? You’re not a citizen there, are you?

[Winniesboy]

Again, an example of how the role of the monarchy can so easily be misread. That the monarch traditionally reads out a speech at the opening of each parliament which sets out the government’s legislative intentions is just one of those anachronistic oddities which can indeed readily confuse an uninformed observer. But what she reads is not written by her, it does not represent her views or wishes, and she’s not even consulted about its contents. It’s possible, even probable, that she’s metaphorically crossing her fingers behind her back at some of the things she has to say. But it’s just one of those things she has to do.