On Jun 4, 4:05*pm, Clive wrote:
In message , Bruce
writesI sincerely hope that, when you reach the age of 86 (like Her Majesty
the Queen) or even a week short of your 91st birthday (like the Duke
of Edinburgh),

Do you have the same medical care and pampering you are every bit as able as they were yesterday to
stand for many hours in the rain,

What rain, she had a brolly held over her head. eat and drink precisely nothing,
retain your composure and still manage a smile here and there.

99% of the time she looked sour as if she were eating a lemonI am 33 years younger than the Duke of Edinburgh and I could not have
managed what he did. *It was nice to be able to stay at home and watch
the spectacle on an HD TV from a warm and dry 'vantage point' with
ample supplies of hot drinks and food. *;-)

They cost each person the price of a loaf a bread a day, I'm sure a lot
of pensioners and people suffering under the credit crunch could have
done with that loaf, rather than give it to someone who has ample of
everything already.

Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
..

Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.

In message
,
e27002 writes
Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for
it.
--
Clive

allantracy wrote:


Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.


I agree, the thought of a President Bliar or Cameron is chilling, as
history shows they can be bought. But other countries have made a
great success of having only apolitical Presidents.

On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:20:19 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

allantracy wrote:


Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.


I agree, the thought of a President Bliar or Cameron is chilling, as
history shows they can be bought.

Even worse if you wind back a few years to Old Iron Knickers who had
she been president would probably have tried her damnedest to
out-supreme any past royals of any country.

But other countries have made a
great success of having only apolitical Presidents.

On 04/06/2012 21:57, Clive wrote:
In message
,
e27002 writes
Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for it.

When are we going to stop living in the past? I believe it stems from
1979. It was not merely a political and economic counterrevolution, but
a cultural one, a revolt against modernity.

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On 05/06/2012 02:06, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Mon, 04 Jun 2012 23:20:19 +0100,
wrote:

wrote:


Take a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.
.

The argument for replacing the monarchy kind of falls apart when you
mention a possible alternative of say President Tony Blair.


I agree, the thought of a President Bliar or Cameron is chilling, as
history shows they can be bought.

Even worse if you wind back a few years to Old Iron Knickers who had
she been president would probably have tried her damnedest to
out-supreme any past royals of any country.


What do you mean "would have", she did! We are a grandmother!

Like Charlie my disagreement with the continuation of the monarchy is on
humanitarian grounds.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail

On Jun 4, 9:57*pm, Clive wrote:
In message
,
e27002 writesTake a good look at the Heads of State of the various nations. *None
compare with Her Majesty, none come even close to comparing with her.
She is irreplaceable at any price.

I don't mind, if that is what you want, all I want is that you pay for
it.

Firstly, I strongly doubt the accuracy of your "Loaf of Bread a Day"
statement. Secondly, how about you pay my taxpayer share of
supporting the UK's losers, no hopers, and deadbeats? They give us
nothing but graffiti and vandalism, but cost a great deal more than
our beloved monarch.

On Jun 4, 11:14*pm, Dave Jackson wrote:
On 04/06/2012 21:36, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

Do you think so? Whatever you may think of Mr. Blair (or any other politician), the fact
is he was democratically elected to serve in public office, whereas we get no say in
appointing the monarch*whatsoever*.

How long would a directly elected president last before being in total
disagreement with the directly elected Prime Minister.

France encounter this from time to time.

Sounds like a
recipe for disaster to me. Likewise, reforming the House of Lords and
having elected peers is heading for problems eventually.

You "get" it.

On Jun 4, 11:05*pm, "Peter Masson" wrote:
"Charlie Hulme" wrote in message

... On 04/06/2012 22:11, Railsigns.co.uk wrote:

It seems to me that the monarchy's role today is as a kind of
state-sponsored soap opera cum tourist attraction that we all
subsidise generously with our taxes. Right-wing nutters'
fervent support for it doesn't sit well with their small
state/low taxation ideology or their hatred of
state-subsidised monopolies.

It seems to me to be a form of slavery. A horrible job that you can't
leave.

Her uncle ducked out.

It seems to me that there are advantages in separating the Head of State
from the Head of Government, and in the Head of State being above politics.
You might achieve that with an elected Head of State, if the constitution
provided that no-one who had ever stood for political office could stand for
election as Head of State. But then you'd probably get a pop star, a
television celebrity, or a footballer. I prefer the current arrangement.

Thank you Peter. I could not have said it better.