White House Seeks a Proper Invitation for the Queen

Laila said:

Well ofc you would. It means more religion.
I'd rather we not get into a situation where we spend months trying to decide whether a PM is a Christian or a secret Muslim tyvm.

Click to expand...

If it means an end to current way I'd take it.

Oh yes, blame the media for the fact that people do not go Church.

Click to expand...

They are partly to blame certainly.

I suppose it's us liberals fault people are turning away from Christianity? Did we block their entry to the church perhaps?

Click to expand...

It is not completely but you cannot ignore the massive anti-religious bias of the media and establishment.

Face it, people are leaving religion because it has little to offer them.

Click to expand...

Rubbish, it has much to offer them. It is changes in society as well as the above that is doing most of this. Religion is a community thing, the rise of the overbearing state and decline of community cannot bea good thing for it.

It is religion that needs to evolve to make it relevant to 21st century brits. Not the Brits themselves.

Click to expand...

I cannot agree, we on the decline. I find it strange you call yourself a Muslim with views like these.

Why does morality come into it?

Click to expand...

Because it informs our decisions in a thoughtful, relevant way.

And you have morals without the baggage of religion you know. Run the country and run it well, it is us that should influence our MPs. Not a religion.

Click to expand...

Incorrect, we need MPs who are moral and MPs that are influenced by the ancient traditions of our land. That is the only way we will have stable, free gov't. I do remember you have a funny idea about "us", it seems to only count for left-liberals.

Slainte said:

Although I realize you are being facetious I still find this sentiment horrific. When the Monarchy did run the country they certainly did not act in the interests of ordinary British people.

Click to expand...

You need to research your history. It was often the monarch who acted against parliament and the nobility for the common people. In the civil war it was the Royalists who were more for the people, against the aristocrats in parliament. It was only when parliament got control that at last all restrictions on enclosures could be removed and the removal of restraints that helped the poor could come about.

So why doesn't she put her position on the line in an election to prove it? :lol:

Click to expand...

You don't think she would win a referendum? :lol:

The point is it degrades and destroys her position. We don't need to do that or to bow to the small amount republicans in Britain. We have tried republics they didn't take. No doubt you'll get your wish when we become Northern Europe province two anyway.

Slainte said:

Why?

At least politicians are there because someone decided they could do a better job than anyone else, if they do a bad job they will, in theory, lose it.

Frankly, the monarchy is just a relic of a less enlightened period of our history.

Click to expand...

Frankly she is not. She is a symbol of her heritage and tradition and a key part of our ancient institutions, bred to be head of state. I'd much rather her than some careerist politician or PR manager jumped up by the PM.

Look at the house of lords, it is a fiasco since the incorruptibles were replaced PR men, ex-MPs, PM's supporters and wannabe MPs.

If our head of state was someone who held that position on merit I would want them to be the first name on the list. As it is, I find it hard to get upset over the old women being treated like an average person, to me that is all she is.

Click to expand...

So? She isn't to most Brits. Most of us have respect for such an ancient institution. We feel no need to attack and destroy it to scratch some liberal universalist. A monarch can fulfill all the merits our head of state shall need, they have a stake - to give their estate to their posterity, they are bred for it from a family who has held the position for a thousand years and they answer to a ideational factor in British culture and heritage far more than some PR man or careerist politicians ever could.

God Save the Queen!

At the end of the day, it's just fun to sit back and watch the British fight each other. I do wish I could hear your voices though, as British accents make me swoon.

Redress said:

At the end of the day, it's just fun to sit back and watch the British fight each other. I do wish I could hear your voices though, as British accents make me swoon.

Click to expand...

The republican position is a small minority here. However there are those few who salivate over the idea of a political appointee or, heaven forbid, an American style president instead of an institution that has served us for a thousand years and is intertwined with our gov't and heritage and even culture.

Anyway you yanks have a very wrong stereotype of us Brits. I don't object to stereotypes, just that it is only one type of Brit, a South-East England toff, that you use for all of us rather than the very different stereotypes of all the different areas of Britain. Slainte's Scottish and I'm a Westcountryman so in reality, even if you stereotyped those areas, our argument would sound very different to what you are imagining.

Scorpion89 said:

Hey Scarecrow,

As I said in another post would you like me to break down the Countries that were part of Operation Overlord and Neptune.

Click to expand...

You didn't address that post to me, I'm already aware that Operation Overlord was a complete non-starter if the United States didn't want to play. Which was my point.

Scorpion89 said:

Also I suggest you might want to read up on the history of WWII

Click to expand...

Already have.

sazerac said:

Did anybody see that PBS show recently about the everyday work of Queen Elizabeth and her family.

I'd rather shovel ditches all day than go through what she has to go through. Every minute of every day is accounted for and planned. She has to visit each district every three years. She has to honor everybody who did something good for the community. She has to host dozens of receptions every year. She has to attend every opening of new buildings and stadiums. She has to meet with diplomats and on and on. Every word out of her mouth has to be exactly the right thing to say.

Oh she works alright!

Click to expand...

Yeah, but what does she do that's worth more than a good ditch?

Wessexman said:

Frankly she is not. She is a symbol of her heritage and tradition and a key part of our ancient institutions, bred to be head of state.

Click to expand...

So, you're saying she's something similar to a poodle.

That's good?

When King Chuckie is crowned, will that sad embarassment also be "specially bred" as key emblem of your ancient institutions?

Wessexman said:

Most of us have respect for such an ancient institution.

Click to expand...

Here in the colonies we ditched that "ancient institution" because it was outmoded and harmful. It still is, but we don't have it any more.

Wessexman said:

We feel no need to attack and destroy it to scratch some liberal universalist. A monarch can fulfill all the merits our head of state shall need, they have a stake - to give their estate to their posterity, they are bred for it from a family who has held the position for a thousand years and they answer to a ideational factor in British culture and heritage far more than some PR man or careerist politicians ever could.

God Save the Queen!

Click to expand...

So, since they're "bred" for it can you describe the board of eugenicists or the kennel club that arranged and supervised the special matings to produce this superior breed, and can you explain how the litters were culled to eliminate the undesirables, and, given your statement that the experiment has been in process for a millenia, can you explain Prince Chuckie?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

So, you're saying she's something similar to a poodle.

That's good?

When King Chuckie is crowned, will that sad embarassment also be "specially bred" as key emblem of your ancient institutions?

Click to expand...

Is this supposed to be an argument?

Here in the colonies we ditched that "ancient institution" because it was outmoded and harmful. It still is, but we don't have it any more.

Click to expand...

Not an argument.

So, since they're "bred" for it can you describe the board of eugenicists or the kennel club that arranged and supervised the special matings to produce this superior breed, and can you explain how the litters were culled to eliminate the undesirables, and, given your statement that the experiment has been in process for a millenia, can you explain Prince Chuckie?

Click to expand...

Again, this fails in the sense it does not contain a recognisable argument.

Slainte said:

So why doesn't she put her position on the line in an election to prove it? :lol:

Click to expand...

Absolutely, if it shuts people like you up on her merit
She would win any referedum in any of her commnonwealth if it was put to the vote, she is asset of this country and everyone knows it.

The Queen has been named Britain's most trusted public figure

The Queen is most trusted Briton - Telegraph