The Queen's Jubilee 2022
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
One grandfather was a fireman in the East End. The other died at Arnhem. Which one earned ‘it’ more?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heights good,
The current incumbent as our sovereign cannot be faulted and has been let down over the years by several of her kith and kin.
I venture to suggest that a monarchy such as we have is probably a better solution to the head of state question than any sort of elected/appointed arrangement. Perhaps you could offer your solution to the matter - it would prove an interesting 'Thread Drift' to my original question at Post 1.
Old Duffer
The current incumbent as our sovereign cannot be faulted and has been let down over the years by several of her kith and kin.
I venture to suggest that a monarchy such as we have is probably a better solution to the head of state question than any sort of elected/appointed arrangement. Perhaps you could offer your solution to the matter - it would prove an interesting 'Thread Drift' to my original question at Post 1.
Old Duffer
It is an archaic, pointless and eye-wateringly expensive endeavour to keep the royal family going.
To remind those of the history of the monarchy, going back centuries the person on the throne, that the Queen is decemded from, was basically the most brutal murderer who kept the populace in check and killed rivals.
Why in a modern era do we keep such nonsense going is beyond me.
The royals are totally symbolic and provide nothing in the big (or small) scheme of things.
Having met a few Royals over the decades, some are 1,000% 'me' centric and care not a jot about anyone but themselves and what they can get from the system.
The very definition of a protection racket!
And to be clear, I am in no way advocating an overthrow or anything of that nature.
I am merely voicing confusion at why we end up in arms about 16 year old Tiffany getting a free council house for her 2 kids, yes we praise and glorify the expense and absurdity of the royals?
Intellectual inconsistency.
As for a solution, a lack of royal family will change zero in how the country is run.
HMQ actually does nothing and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
I think having something similar to the (original) US Constitution would be an excellent start and would codify in law the limits of government.
It could be a document used to hold all politicians to a higher standard than the sorry bunch of criminals, fraudsters and puppets we have now.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
Having been the largest recipient of welfare benefits in the history of the UK, HM can most definitely be faulted.
It is an archaic, pointless and eye-wateringly expensive endeavour to keep the royal family going.
To remind those of the history of the monarchy, going back centuries the person on the throne, that the Queen is decemded from, was basically the most brutal murderer who kept the populace in check and killed rivals.
Why in a modern era do we keep such nonsense going is beyond me.
The royals are totally symbolic and provide nothing in the big (or small) scheme of things.
Having met a few Royals over the decades, some are 1,000% 'me' centric and care not a jot about anyone but themselves and what they can get from the system.
The very definition of a protection racket!
And to be clear, I am in no way advocating an overthrow or anything of that nature.
I am merely voicing confusion at why we end up in arms about 16 year old Tiffany getting a free council house for her 2 kids, yes we praise and glorify the expense and absurdity of the royals?
Intellectual inconsistency.
As for a solution, a lack of royal family will change zero in how the country is run.
HMQ actually does nothing and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
I think having something similar to the (original) US Constitution would be an excellent start and would codify in law the limits of government.
It could be a document used to hold all politicians to a higher standard than the sorry bunch of criminals, fraudsters and puppets we have now.
It is an archaic, pointless and eye-wateringly expensive endeavour to keep the royal family going.
To remind those of the history of the monarchy, going back centuries the person on the throne, that the Queen is decemded from, was basically the most brutal murderer who kept the populace in check and killed rivals.
Why in a modern era do we keep such nonsense going is beyond me.
The royals are totally symbolic and provide nothing in the big (or small) scheme of things.
Having met a few Royals over the decades, some are 1,000% 'me' centric and care not a jot about anyone but themselves and what they can get from the system.
The very definition of a protection racket!
And to be clear, I am in no way advocating an overthrow or anything of that nature.
I am merely voicing confusion at why we end up in arms about 16 year old Tiffany getting a free council house for her 2 kids, yes we praise and glorify the expense and absurdity of the royals?
Intellectual inconsistency.
As for a solution, a lack of royal family will change zero in how the country is run.
HMQ actually does nothing and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
I think having something similar to the (original) US Constitution would be an excellent start and would codify in law the limits of government.
It could be a document used to hold all politicians to a higher standard than the sorry bunch of criminals, fraudsters and puppets we have now.
So you are trying to compare the current UK Head of State with the US Head of State??? Looking at the previous POTUS, can you actually prefer the US system (the election of whom cost way way more than the Cost of the Monarchy to the UK)? Oh dear.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US election costs so much because it has a population 5.5x larger than the UK.
Your argument makes no sense, we have an election that results in a PM, regardless of the royals.
Last edited by heights good; 21st Feb 2021 at 02:17. Reason: Wensleydale's ego
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,555
Likes: 0
Received 42 Likes
on
29 Posts
Not so. We have an election for Parliament and the head of the winning party becomes PM. No separate election at all, unlike the American system.
And another twerp hits the Ignore list, for cr$pping on a thread... heights DEFINITELY bad.
Having been the largest recipient of welfare benefits in the history of the UK, HM can most definitely be faulted.
It is an archaic, pointless and eye-wateringly expensive endeavour to keep the royal family going.
To remind those of the history of the monarchy, going back centuries the person on the throne, that the Queen is decemded from, was basically the most brutal murderer who kept the populace in check and killed rivals.
Why in a modern era do we keep such nonsense going is beyond me.
The royals are totally symbolic and provide nothing in the big (or small) scheme of things.
Having met a few Royals over the decades, some are 1,000% 'me' centric and care not a jot about anyone but themselves and what they can get from the system.
The very definition of a protection racket!
And to be clear, I am in no way advocating an overthrow or anything of that nature.
I am merely voicing confusion at why we end up in arms about 16 year old Tiffany getting a free council house for her 2 kids, yes we praise and glorify the expense and absurdity of the royals?
Intellectual inconsistency.
As for a solution, a lack of royal family will change zero in how the country is run.
HMQ actually does nothing and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
I think having something similar to the (original) US Constitution would be an excellent start and would codify in law the limits of government.
It could be a document used to hold all politicians to a higher standard than the sorry bunch of criminals, fraudsters and puppets we have now.
It is an archaic, pointless and eye-wateringly expensive endeavour to keep the royal family going.
To remind those of the history of the monarchy, going back centuries the person on the throne, that the Queen is decemded from, was basically the most brutal murderer who kept the populace in check and killed rivals.
Why in a modern era do we keep such nonsense going is beyond me.
The royals are totally symbolic and provide nothing in the big (or small) scheme of things.
Having met a few Royals over the decades, some are 1,000% 'me' centric and care not a jot about anyone but themselves and what they can get from the system.
The very definition of a protection racket!
And to be clear, I am in no way advocating an overthrow or anything of that nature.
I am merely voicing confusion at why we end up in arms about 16 year old Tiffany getting a free council house for her 2 kids, yes we praise and glorify the expense and absurdity of the royals?
Intellectual inconsistency.
As for a solution, a lack of royal family will change zero in how the country is run.
HMQ actually does nothing and is merely a symbolic figurehead.
I think having something similar to the (original) US Constitution would be an excellent start and would codify in law the limits of government.
It could be a document used to hold all politicians to a higher standard than the sorry bunch of criminals, fraudsters and puppets we have now.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wanted to join the military to fly and do cool stuff, saying a few sentences to make it happen was the process. If I could have done the same thing as a civilian, I would have.
How many pilots joined to be an officer? Or, like 95%, having a commission was just the game that had to be played.
Did attesting mean anything to me on a deep level, not really. Have I dug out blind and done everything that was asked of me over many deployments, exercises and day-to-day sqn life, 100%.
I have never done anything because of a duty to the Queen. It has always been a duty to the guy or gal next to me and because it is what I chose as a career and what I feel I am morally obligated to do.
I think if a lot of people actually stopped and thought about their service on a deep level they would feel broadly similar.
I dont know many who would continue to uphold their oath if they were no longer paid.
That would suggest to me, that like everyone else, it is duty to paying the bills that is important, not allegiance to HM in a way you would have expected 300 yrs ago.
And just to be clear, I am in no way suggestion ill against HM or the royals.
I am merely suggesting that a royal family has no place in a modern society and they offer nothing tangible to the country as a whole as the show is run by politicians.
Last edited by heights good; 21st Feb 2021 at 05:26.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of a General Election we have a PM.
I have edited my quoted post accordingly.
Last edited by heights good; 21st Feb 2021 at 05:23.
Every Country has a Head of State and it's generally felt that it better if they are to some degree above the day to day politics required to run a country.
They "represent" the country at major occasions (good & bad) and are a symbol , as is the national flag and anthem. The UK has a hereditary Head of State - which removes a lot of arguments but it means it's a bit of a lucky dip as to the capabilities of the incumbent. In the case of Queen Elizabeth she'll have done the job as best she could for 70 years and that , surely, is worth remembering next year.
Sure her own family are a bit of a mess, and occasionally she hasn't reacted to events as many might have wished but she's never wavered, never been found doing dodgy deals with Lockheed, or living in palace in Bavaria, or playing the tables in Monaco while claiming to live a life of religious austerity.
The UK could have done a lot worse
They "represent" the country at major occasions (good & bad) and are a symbol , as is the national flag and anthem. The UK has a hereditary Head of State - which removes a lot of arguments but it means it's a bit of a lucky dip as to the capabilities of the incumbent. In the case of Queen Elizabeth she'll have done the job as best she could for 70 years and that , surely, is worth remembering next year.
Sure her own family are a bit of a mess, and occasionally she hasn't reacted to events as many might have wished but she's never wavered, never been found doing dodgy deals with Lockheed, or living in palace in Bavaria, or playing the tables in Monaco while claiming to live a life of religious austerity.
The UK could have done a lot worse
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Scotland
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We risk a closed Thread when we stray into Republicanism and alternative forms of misgovernment.
It would be really nice if we avoid such deviations.
It would be really nice if we avoid such deviations.
Like HG I'm a dyed-in-the-wool republican...although I would take issue with much of what he/she has posted. I have immense respect for HM who has done great service to this country and been an exemplary monarch. I have largely sympathy for the rest of the family who are born into lives they do not ask for and live a surreal existence in some sort of opague gold fish bowl. I'm pretty sure I'd go off the rails if it were me in their shoes.
I'm not a republican because of any antipathy towards the monarchy; I'm a republican because I think we can govern and lead the people better than we do at the moment. I'm also a realist, so I'm not holding my breath
A couple of points...
Comparing the UK and US political systems is pointless. They are apples and oranges; chalk and cheese. They have to be...the autonmy and suffrage of all fifty states is enshrined in the constitution. We are nothing like them...maybe if we had stayed in the EU we might have "gone there", but that really is a derail
Describing medieval monarchs as "brutal murderers" is a bit sixth form. Anybody who was in charge of anything had to have "brutal murderer" on their CV. Monarchs, popes, archbishops, lords (and not forgetting the fairer sex, Queens and the Ladies) they were all chopping off heads with gay abandon and often in the cause of peace. Pacifist, peaceful monarchs usually had the reverse effect (Henry VI would be a "arguable" example) arguable because all history is arguable
Serious question now. Can I assume you served in the armed forces? So you would have sworn an oath of allegiance, right? How did that feel then? Genuinely curious.
In any event, it is a 100% symbolic position. As a member of the Armed Forces in the UK you are a public servant. Your true bosses are the people of the UK. And if that gives anybody discomfort then they are the ones with a problem....and quite a serious one at that (think about it).
BTW, nobody has to swear an oath of allegiance; you can "affirm" your allegiance on religious grounds.
I understand a discussion on republicanism is a controversial topic on a military forum; I don't understand why it has to be conducted in such a hostile (and fairly uninformed) manner amongst presumably intelligent, educated people.
And why on earth would a discussion about republicanism on a military forum need to be locked? I'm pretty certain the Queen is not going to complain.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: manchester uk
Age: 69
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preferably by making the whole bunch of Royals and their hangers-on, board an Imperial Airways flying boat and send them into outer space! Who cares? Only the little Englanders. A complete irrelevance designed to give the British delusions of grandeur about their declining, unprogressive, and increasingly impoverished country.
You might wish to look at the RBL page and that from the MoD. Tankertashnav knows a lot about medals and may be able to advise; my take from the MoD page is that the decision to bury the medals with your grandfather would preclude replacement by the MoD, and that you'd instead need to find out the medals to which he was entitled and obtain a set privately. I'm sure someone who has far more knowledge will be along presently, but if not...
Forgive the pedantry, but you're asking for a duplicate set rather than getting them back - as well as offering some twonk the opportunity for an insensitive and inappropriate suggestion, it might imply to someone in officialdom that they might be in a position to be retrieved, which, of course, they're not. They are, in effect 'lost', even though you know exactly where they are (if that makes sense).
Forgive the pedantry, but you're asking for a duplicate set rather than getting them back - as well as offering some twonk the opportunity for an insensitive and inappropriate suggestion, it might imply to someone in officialdom that they might be in a position to be retrieved, which, of course, they're not. They are, in effect 'lost', even though you know exactly where they are (if that makes sense).
I was told I was getting one as a J/T, then they discovered I was getting a CinC award, so they give it to somebody else on the Squadron!
Unless there are any gallantry awards, WW2 medals are not named, a replacement set should be quite easy to source from a popular internet auction site. Expect about £25 for 39-45, Defence, Victory then £30-35 for Atlantic, France and Germany, Africa. A bit more for Burma, more again for Pacific and then £60+ for Aircrew Europe. The price would rise with documented provenance. If he was entitled to the Arctic Star and it hadn’t been issued, he (you) may be able to get that from the Medal Office.
Last edited by dctyke; 21st Feb 2021 at 10:07.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,763
Received 2,749 Likes
on
1,171 Posts
A lot of medals from ww2 will be nameless as said, good luck with your search and one hopes you can give your mum some comfort in holding a set again.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every Country has a Head of State and it's generally felt that it better if they are to some degree above the day to day politics required to run a country.
They "represent" the country at major occasions (good & bad) and are a symbol , as is the national flag and anthem. The UK has a hereditary Head of State - which removes a lot of arguments but it means it's a bit of a lucky dip as to the capabilities of the incumbent. In the case of Queen Elizabeth she'll have done the job as best she could for 70 years and that , surely, is worth remembering next year.
Sure her own family are a bit of a mess, and occasionally she hasn't reacted to events as many might have wished but she's never wavered, never been found doing dodgy deals with Lockheed, or living in palace in Bavaria, or playing the tables in Monaco while claiming to live a life of religious austerity.
The UK could have done a lot worse
They "represent" the country at major occasions (good & bad) and are a symbol , as is the national flag and anthem. The UK has a hereditary Head of State - which removes a lot of arguments but it means it's a bit of a lucky dip as to the capabilities of the incumbent. In the case of Queen Elizabeth she'll have done the job as best she could for 70 years and that , surely, is worth remembering next year.
Sure her own family are a bit of a mess, and occasionally she hasn't reacted to events as many might have wished but she's never wavered, never been found doing dodgy deals with Lockheed, or living in palace in Bavaria, or playing the tables in Monaco while claiming to live a life of religious austerity.
The UK could have done a lot worse
Edward VIII abdicated to marry a divorced American, numerous divorces, adultery by Margaret, Charles, Andrew, Anne, Diana, Fergie, dodgy business interests, accepting bribes, naked parties in Vegas, possible involvement with sex trafficking, Nazi costumes, racist comments, questionable parentage (Harry), "stepping back from royal life"....
This ignores my point about the utility of the royals.
Regardless of whether HM "could have done a lot worse", it is still an eye-wateringly expensive and largely pointless institution.
The royals cost a fortune, provides nothing of substance and if they were no longer here, have zero effect on the UK other than some old stuffy pensioners complaining.
Other than 'I like the royals' or 'they bring in millions in visitors every year' (not true) or 'they help UK PLC' (negligible at best), I have never heard a compelling and logical argument as to why we should continue.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the United Kingdom, an extra bank holiday will be created and the traditional May bank holiday weekend will be moved to the start of June, to create a special four-day Jubilee weekend, while a Platinum Jubilee medal will be created to mark the Jubilee. It will be awarded to people who work in public service, including representatives of the Armed Forces, the emergency services and the prison services
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We will have to agree to differ. The OP is boring...the drift is where the interest lies (IMO).
Comparing the UK and US political systems is pointless. They are apples and oranges; chalk and cheese. They have to be...the autonmy and suffrage of all fifty states is enshrined in the constitution. We are nothing like them...maybe if we had stayed in the EU we might have "gone there", but that really is a derail
Describing medieval monarchs as "brutal murderers" is a bit sixth form. Anybody who was in charge of anything had to have "brutal murderer" on their CV. Monarchs, popes, archbishops, lords (and not forgetting the fairer sex, Queens and the Ladies) they were all chopping off heads with gay abandon and often in the cause of peace. Pacifist, peaceful monarchs usually had the reverse effect (Henry VI would be a "arguable" example) arguable because all history is arguable
Comparing the UK and US political systems is pointless. They are apples and oranges; chalk and cheese. They have to be...the autonmy and suffrage of all fifty states is enshrined in the constitution. We are nothing like them...maybe if we had stayed in the EU we might have "gone there", but that really is a derail
Describing medieval monarchs as "brutal murderers" is a bit sixth form. Anybody who was in charge of anything had to have "brutal murderer" on their CV. Monarchs, popes, archbishops, lords (and not forgetting the fairer sex, Queens and the Ladies) they were all chopping off heads with gay abandon and often in the cause of peace. Pacifist, peaceful monarchs usually had the reverse effect (Henry VI would be a "arguable" example) arguable because all history is arguable
My point about "brutal murders" was meant to demonstrate that royals are nobodies, they were just descendants of whoever had the greatest luck in killing their way to the top and the greatest urge to be the boss.
No altruism, no service, no 'for the good of the people'.
Fast forward 1,000 years and we still have their descendants on the throne. We adorn them with an insane about of riches, privileges and treat them like they are special.
They are in no way special and have zero role
to play in a modern society.
