Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Nah, that's where Phil the Greek steps in with some of his trademark X rated banter.

He can sweet talk the tabard off of a checkout girl at 20 paces.

Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.

Appearantly you don't know, the Queen does have resposibilities.

One of which is that she repesents the people, the first citizen if you like. We are all entitled to go to a wedding and kick back with a few depth chrages, so is she. The difference is I bet the Queen's car was nicer that the wedded couples carriage!

Oh and the Queen would run rings round HH, out drink him, beat him in an arm wrestling contest and be better at the New York New York dancing at the end of the disco - FACT!

Isn't the Queens job basically to make British people feel better about themselves? Basically just a big morale booster?

I know there are some "real" responsibilities as well, but that seems like one of the biggest jobs of the royals.

d-usa wrote:Isn't the Queens job basically to make British people feel better about themselves? Basically just a big morale booster?
.

I think you're confusing her with Stephen Fry.

*insert obvious joke here*

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Quite busy really.

Fifty wrote:New plan - for the first time on any forum, anywhere on the internet, I am going to use the ignore function.

Be warned. Once you do it once, it gets easier and easier.

I never saw anyone ask this in the thread, so maybe I missed it in the article.

Did Her Majesty bring them a wedding gift?

The couple were reported to say that the Queen's visit was itself a gift. So I'm guessing they would have mentioned any actual gift had there been one. It's a little rude not to, anyway.

I think she brought them a Toilet Duck.



Edited for slightly less enormous Toilet Duck.

Toilet Duck, truely a king amoungst toilet cleaners.

Appropriate and useful, full marks M'amm.

rockerbikie wrote:

purplefood wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Arbeit, you are aware that Rocker is Dakka's resident Nazi right?

I thought he used the (Rather arbitrary) term White Supremacist?

National Socalist. You have not even asked about my ecomonic policies yet you think I am a Fascist. I disagree with some things Hitler said, I believe that Males and Females are equal for example but yes I am a clearly rascist person.

I think you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think...
I distinctly remember you espousing certain views on people of other ethnicity and race which were less than negative.

hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.

You are aware that she didn't go all the way to Manchester town hall just to go the wedding, aren't you? Y'know, for the first time, I'm not sure if I want the answer to that question to be 'yes' or 'no'...

Her majesty is touring the country because it's her Jubilee year.

That brings up another point Alby, 60 years in office. I can't think of any other current world leader that's been in power anywhere near as long. Surely she's allowed an afternoon off once in a while...

EDIT: Just checked Wikipedia - The king of Thailand has her beat by 5 years. When it comes to non-royal leaders she has them all beat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest_ruling_non-royal_national_leaders_since_1900

She also served in WWII, her son served in the Falklands, and her grandson has served in Afghanistan. How many other heads of state can say THAT?

I've always wondered why so many people object to the Queen being a celebrity, and little more. Heads of state, generally, are little more than celebrities and the British have, pretty much unarguably, the best one.

I don't know anyone, outside Britain, that hates the Queen. If they have an opinion at all it varies from fondness to love. That's a valuable asset.

Albatross wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.

You are aware that she didn't go all the way to Manchester town hall just to go the wedding, aren't you? Y'know, for the first time, I'm not sure if I want the answer to that question to be 'yes' or 'no'...

Her majesty is touring the country because it's her Jubilee year.

Im just saying. If an elected official did this, She/he would face so much scrutiny for being frivolous. She doesnt haave to worry about anything.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Elected officials usually have more time off than she does. I don't see why they'd be castigated for attending a wedding if one of their constituents invited them and they happened to be in town that weekend.

notprop wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:.......................I never stated that. That is an assumption. I want a stable system. National Socialism or a republic would meet my demands. We are in touch with modern Australia, we just choose to deny Liberal Social policies.

I'm curious, demands?

No I don't care to hear them, but I'm pretty sure most Aussies will not take kindly to your demanding anything of them certainly not if the varied sample I have met over the last 20 years is anything to go by.

I would suggest the only thing you are in touch with is yourself (while surrounded by pictures of good old Adolf perhaps?).

I'm pretty sure you are similar to the ingrates I sometimes see in East London who campaigning for the BNP, tied up in a dream world based upon films they idolise, BS history they have been spun and jealousy that immigrant that work harder than them and have the temerity to have more money/better jobs.

It's disppointing to see people still with these rather silly view points.

Just because I am not a trendy inner-city elitist does not mean I am not touch with the community. I may not agree with the community opinions but I know what is going on. Issues such as euthanasia and other important issues as stim cell research are taking a back seat to "Homosexual Marriage" because the LBGT is verbally active. I don't even campaign because it is worthless. It is pointless because everyone is ignorant is the most pure meaning of the word. All I want is a system that discourages crime and puts the community together as a whole. Is that too much to ask for? Are those demands that hard to meet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Albatross wrote:

hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know. The only reason she can do this is because she has no responsibilities as a leader. If a president/prime minister tried this they would get blasted frrom media for being irresponsibly....
And i just pointed out the obvious.
I think the queen should take it further. Go hang out with Hugh Hefner.

You are aware that she didn't go all the way to Manchester town hall just to go the wedding, aren't you? Y'know, for the first time, I'm not sure if I want the answer to that question to be 'yes' or 'no'...

Her majesty is touring the country because it's her Jubilee year.

Im just saying. If an elected official did this, She/he would face so much scrutiny for being frivolous. She doesnt haave to worry about anything.

You make a good point man.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

purplefood wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:

purplefood wrote:

mattyrm wrote: Arbeit, you are aware that Rocker is Dakka's resident Nazi right?

I thought he used the (Rather arbitrary) term White Supremacist?

National Socalist. You have not even asked about my ecomonic policies yet you think I am a Fascist. I disagree with some things Hitler said, I believe that Males and Females are equal for example but yes I am a clearly rascist person.

I think you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think...
I distinctly remember you espousing certain views on people of other ethnicity and race which were less than negative.

I could say the same for you, you are most likely liberally misguided. The main reason I don't enjoy hanging around with a majority of Australians.

rockerbikie wrote:

notprop wrote:

rockerbikie wrote:.......................I never stated that. That is an assumption. I want a stable system. National Socialism or a republic would meet my demands. We are in touch with modern Australia, we just choose to deny Liberal Social policies.

I'm curious, demands?

No I don't care to hear them, but I'm pretty sure most Aussies will not take kindly to your demanding anything of them certainly not if the varied sample I have met over the last 20 years is anything to go by.

I would suggest the only thing you are in touch with is yourself (while surrounded by pictures of good old Adolf perhaps?).

I'm pretty sure you are similar to the ingrates I sometimes see in East London who campaigning for the BNP, tied up in a dream world based upon films they idolise, BS history they have been spun and jealousy that immigrant that work harder than them and have the temerity to have more money/better jobs.

It's disppointing to see people still with these rather silly view points.

Just because I am not a trendy inner-city elitist does not mean I am not touch with the community. I may not agree with the community opinions but I know what is going on. Issues such as euthanasia and other important issues as stim cell research are taking a back seat to "Homosexual Marriage" because the LBGT is verbally active. I don't even campaign because it is worthless. It is pointless because everyone is ignorant is the most pure meaning of the word. All I want is a system that discourages crime and puts the community together as a whole. Is that too much to ask for? Are those demands that hard to meet?

And you suggest National Socialism could be the system to 'discourage crime and pull the community together'? The epitome of a 'Gangster' regime that pulls the 'community' together by turning elements of that community into pariahs and ultimately ash?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:http://www.royal.gov.uk/HMTheQueen/DayInTheLife/Queensworkingday.aspx

Elected officials usually have more time off than she does. I don't see why they'd be castigated for attending a wedding if one of their constituents invited them and they happened to be in town that weekend.

Our politicians regularly 'visit' places, whether we want them there or not. The Queen has been noted for using First Class rail carriages on regular trains, whilst our glorious Members of Parliament whine and cry about needing to use Ministerial cars at huge expense.

dogma wrote:
I don't know anyone, outside Britain, that hates the Queen. If they have an opinion at all it varies from fondness to love. That's a valuable asset.

Pretty much. I know a fair few people who disagree with the idea with royalty being the head of state, most of them supporting an Australian Republic. But I have never heard anyone here ridicule the Queen herself.

d-usa wrote:She shouldn't have to carry money. If it has her face on it, then she should be allowed to take it and spend it.

The Queen doesn't carry money. The Queen is money!

Kilkrazy wrote:

d-usa wrote:She shouldn't have to carry money. If it has her face on it, then she should be allowed to take it and spend it.

The Queen doesn't carry money. The Queen is money!

Can she just stick her head in a Xerox machine, write One Million Pounds on the paper, sing it, and then call it good?

She has people to do that for her.