« Perez Hilton: The Queer Eye for your body.. mind and soul | Main | Friday »

April 22, 2009

Comments

Nice picture of Our Dear Queen. I remember a cartoon in Punch years ago: A matchstick woman attending a parents' evening. The headmistress, drawn in fully, extends a hand and says "Good evening. You must be Mummy".

LOL. Brilliant.

You really liked the "Qeen." Love the drawing! I think the Queen is a firecracker. That's a compliment by the way. We need more firecracker women in the world.

Yeah we really do.

It's weird. I can still remember how I felt trying to spell the word Queen. It made no sense to me at all that q which is pronounced "queue" would also need a u to follow it in the word Queen. It's weird (and boring?) that I can remember getting muddled over that as a kid with my pen in my hand drawing a stick queen. BIZARRE!!

Elizabeth has gotten it right.

Kiss your Good Queen, for me Alison. Long may she live!

You know I love that drawing - brilliant.

Henry VIII was a monster, he belongs in the Chamber of Horrors alongside Jack the Ripper. I know we can't apply today's standards to figures from the past, but even so, he had his wife's head cut off - not once but twice!

Daphne, I'd trade our Queen for your Constitutional Republic in a flash (but you can keep Obama).

P.S. I like the picture - very sweet.

Thanks Daphne. Those were the days - we actually enjoyed our country and learned some stuff at school.

Oh that's so schoolbook Trooper ;) Yes he cut his wife's head off - they were a violent bunch back then. If you read what she said as she went to the block, you might wonder why...I did. She certainly didn't call him a tyrant.

Obama is nothing more than an elected monarch who serves noone but himself and with far greater powers given to him through an election. Self serving unchecked politicians corrupt everything in the end. They were always going to. No to a republic!

Alison,

Yes, Anne did not blame the King on her way to the scaffold, but that says more about her saintly dignity than Henry's blamelessness. Remember why she died; because she didn't produce a living male heir. Surely you don't wish to condone such attitudes? :)

"Obama is nothing more than an elected monarch who serves noone but himself"

I reckon he's a puppet of Wall Street.

"Self serving unchecked politicians corrupt everything in the end"

And how exactly does dear old Queenie provide a check against such people?

Before republicans, socialists and libertarians reduced her position by handing over more power to self serving politicians determined to trivialise her role, our Queen, who serves US, not herself - was in a position to get rid of any government that failed to serve the best interests of the country. She still is. But the British are so ignorant of their constitution and the benefits of a consitutional monarchy they fail to see that subjects under such a system are freer than citizens. Pleeeeease don't call her Queenie. I won't trivialise your namesake as no doubt his historical position is of importance to you! ;)

Actually re Anne I think it says more about her understanding of country. She knew what position she was in, an extreme one, when she insisted the King married her. Remember he initially asked for her to be his maitresse en titre. Her daughter, Elizabeth was not so foolish. Not that Anne was stupid at all. She was just incredibly political.

A system that relies on the virtue and wisdom of one person is not a good system.

I have no idea what goes on between the Queen and her government, because we, the common people, are not privy to such things.

Yes, she can get rid of the government, but this is the nuclear option, and the last time any such thing was attempted led to civil war.

Ask an American about their constitution and they can show it to you, and you can read it. Where's our constitution? Where might I find it? What's the first line of it? Who wrote it? When was it written? When was it approved?

To all intents and purposes their is no British constitution, not in any meaningful, modern sense of the word. Sure, many will say this is my ignorance speaking, to which I respond: Show me the constitution, let me read it, and then we can discuss it, article by article, as we can do with the US Constitution, or the French or the German.

We may be freer as subjects, but only in the same way that children are freer than adults - free from responsibility.

You need a written constitution to make you freer?

It's great business for lawyers and tying yourself up in knots but that's about it. Lawyers don't make you free. They do the exact opposite. Look no further than the Human Rights Act for something similar to the Americans for that.

We have done a terrific job of preserving our historic constitutional liberties throughout time. I don't need a piece of paper to prove otherwise.

Besides and re freedoms as adults or kids, its all republican romantic nonsense. To borrow from someone who put it sublimely:

"Yes, the individual's influence is immense in a mass democracy. Go and pour a bucket of water in Lake Superior and watch the water level rise".

You complain that we English/British don't know the constitution and then deride me for complaining that I can't read it or even see it! It's not an irrational thing to want to see the Law that governs the country.

How can we preserve constitutional liberties if we don't know what they are? If I asked you to list them, I reckon you'd struggle.

Our constitution is represented physically by a Parliament. I can see it, touch it, attend to it, listen to and read it's laws. I can vote into it a representative to act for of and by me.

Direct constructs like laws which govern the country and so the people who live in it are also written down. I can get access to those in a second. Others which are not codified allow deliberately for flexibility and change to occur without too many problems - which in and of itself can be a huge benefit to a people over time.

In what way have we not preserved our constitutional liberties in such a way as to make us unfree all of a sudden.

It's not about a system that relies on the virtue and wisdom of one person as you describe so much as whether that person uniquely serves the country - not their ego or fashionable causes - and acts to check Parliament. An English monarch is there also by the good grace of the people. Check our history to see how we keep an eye on monarchs and they twitch when we do. Victoria found that out pretty damn quick.

At the end of the day you still pay taxes and you are still governed by laws whether you are a subject or a citizen, whether codified into one document or not.

It's all about the SIZE of the state at the end of the day and funnily enough that has increased the more we are prone to put so much belief in self styled republican politicians and move away from what we were.

Anyway cheers Trooper. It's Saturday night, I'm broke right now and living low and this has been a fascinating and unexpected pub styled debate! I wasn't deriding you for complaining by the way - but I don't get the republican argument at all. I may have done in 1776 and all that, not sure which side I would have been on over tea taxes - but having seen how that all panned out I don't feel any less free.

Je vous emprie, glad to be able to provide some free entertainment!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photography