With over 50 years on the throne Elizabeth 2nd is one of our longest reigning monarchs, but what do people really think of her.

Do you like her both as a person and as a monarch?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
With over 50 on the throne

It must be very cramped up there, with 50 monarchs on the throne

Watch she doesn't fall off :loopy:

Thanks for the correction.:suspect:

I'm only glad you didn't question which throne:heyhey:

Originally posted by Abdul
It must be very cramped up there, with 50 monarchs on the throne

Watch she doesn't fall off :loopy:

PMSL! :lol:

I think the original poster means over 50 YEARS on the Throne... Anyone think she might be constipated being sat on the "Throne" for that long? :hihi:

Originally posted by slimsid2000

Do you like her both as a person and as a monarch?


I doubt anyone on this forum knows her "as a person" so the poll is a bit flawed really.

Originally posted by t020
I doubt anyone on this forum knows her "as a person" so the poll is a bit flawed really.

Not true. We went clubbing at Kingdom last weekend :thumbsup:

She's a bit of a party animal

Neither like her as a person (don't know her personally to express an opinion) or as a monarch (I'm just a pleb).

Voted no because I'm a republican. Off with their heads - or at least off to a council estate in Coventry with them all :hihi:

For once I agree with t020.

I don't know the lady on a personal basis, so it's hard for me to make a judgement.

However, as a symbol of state I have no really strong feelings one way or another. She's done her duty by the country, something that her eldest son seems to have had difficulty in doing.

I believe that she's been a good Queen, but what her legacy will be I have no idea.

Joe

I agree it is hard to judge her as a person but you can just decide by what you have seen and heard of her from the media.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I agree it is hard to judge her as a person but you can just decide by what you have seen and heard of her from the media.

I don't know....

We don't get a clear view of anyone through the media. We get the view that the PR people and the media managers want us to have.

If the media wish us to have a negative view of a person, then it's easy to manipulate what we see and hear to reflect that view. Similarly, PR people will ensure that their person gets the best coverage possible.

I'd have to sit and have a good long natter with Lizzie Windsor on numerous occasions to get a fair impression. :)

Or get her an account on SF!

Joe

How do you know she isn't already a member under an assumed name. If so who is she???:confused: :confused:

I am never away from Buck House. She will insist on inviting me to every gala function, every state opening [ooer]. 'Timo', she will say, huddling up to me like a conspiratorial schoolgirl, all giggles, 'What do you REALLY think of Camilla? giggle giggle'.

What do I think of the Queen? I am in favour of the monarchy, and the continuity of institutions. Her Majesty herself? On a personal basis? How in blue blazes should I ruddy well know? I have never met the woman, nor am I likely to. What are we supposed to say, 'Well, she is a really close personal friend, and always buys me Thornton's Diabetic Toffee at Xmas', or perhaps, 'No, the wretched woman snubbed me in T.J.Hughes' ? The Queen, may God bless her, is a mystery and must remain one. She is not to like or to dislike, she is just 'there'- a symbol of Englishness, even though her real name is Betty Saxe-Coberg-Gotha, which isn't.

Please do not listen to Abdul's pathetic boast about 'clubbing at Kingdom' with the Queen last Saturday. Abdul was at home in Firth Park watching Ant and Dec. I know so, because Prince Phillip texted me.

Yes i'm all for the Monarchy in England, the queen is a mystery and she sould stay that way.

I agree with poppins, I am a royalist and will always remain so.

I think what she stands for is our history and I am proud of my history.

There have been other royals that have made mistakes like Charles and they will remain making the mistakes, they are only human.

The queen makes a profit.
From a purely business purspective, the tax drawn from tourism from the queen is greater than her upkeep costs.

So she is good for the state financially.

She represents an unbribable oversight to parlement, I mean look at the US sumpreme court?

So she is good politically

She trys to boost the morale of the country in times of crisis

So she is good as a leader or coach

She stays in London in times of crisis, unlike the President of the US who runs away.

So she is loyal.

Originally posted by rosie
I agree with poppins, I am a royalist and will always remain so.

I think what she stands for is our history and I am proud of my history.

There have been other royals that have made mistakes like Charles and they will remain making the mistakes, they are only human.

I think you need to take a look at the royal family history and how they got to be "royal" :suspect:

no....I have heard she also smells of wee as does Buckingham Palace............glorified old folks home!!!!!!!!!

Personally I voted yes. Interesting that it is such a close vote.

The Queen has great affection for both the Anglican church and the Commonwealth (perhaps the only person in the country who does.)

She dislikes tennis and cats - so if Buckingham Palace is over run by mice she really only has herself to blame.

:hihi:

I think Freddie Mercury was overrated, and as for Brian May playing guitar on the top of Buck House................

whoops, sorry, wrong Queen.

I'm a Royalist too, I think the Royal family do a lot for this country. Much of their work involves promoting this country and businesses.

From what I have heard/read/seen on tv etc I think she works extremely hard and very long hours and has to put up with a lot of stuff I couldn't do (even state banquets must get pretty boring after a while)!

Can't see Charles being as effective as a King.

I think the Queen has been very astute by keeping herself above public opinion. She will not bow to our whims...

Great to think that no matter how much we debate her suitability/relevance in our world, she will remain unmoved.

Wish the same could be said of her 1st child!!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by slimsid2000
[B]With over 50 years on the throne Elizabeth 2nd is one of our longest reigning monarchs, but what do people really think of her.Do you like her as a Monarch and as a person?

Our Queen has done her duty over a lifetime, and is respected for her loyalty and devotion to duty, yes, I respect and admire her as a person !!! - colour red.

Do you feel that Her Majesty is a useful source of stability and continuity in a changing world or is she out of touch and irrelevent to the modern world?

I certainly do like the Queen for the following reasons:

- She is as independent Head of State as we will ever possibly have. While there is a small republican movement in this country, the vast majority of people cannot be said to object to The Queen per se - compare an elected President who, by default, cannot represent anywhere near the majority of any given population (less than 50% in the US).

- Politically, The Queen is an inluable advisor and confidant of the elected PM. The Queen has had a weekly audience with every Prime Minister from Churchill to Blair and has been party to every major decision this country has taken for 53 years. She is also discreet. If I were Prime Minister, the opporunity to talk to someone other than a cabinet minister (who may be after my job) or a civil servant (who may be working for my opponent in 4 years time or may leak info) would be refereshing.

- Legally, the monarch protects a number of our fundmental rights. Although her powers are now (quite rightly) limited, the few she does retain are essential in maintaining our democracy and personal liberties.

- Although not the best reason, financially the country benfits. Obviously there is income from tourism. And The Queen and co are also incredibly cheap to run compared to other heads of state, just 61p per person per year. As for the cost of the Civil List (£7.9m), this pales into significance when compared to the income from the Crown Estate (£130m) which is the income The Queen surrendered in the 1952 Crown Estates Act.

- Other than that, we should be proud of our history and of having the most stable western democracy of the past 300 years. The Royal Family have been central to that stability, provided assurance in times of conflict and are a focal point at times of national celebration (remember the scenes at Buckingham Palace for the Golden Jubilee).

For all these reasons, and more, The Queen gets my vote today (!).

Originally posted by redrobbo

Voted no because I'm a republican. Off with their heads - or at least off to a council estate in Coventry with them all :hihi:

Isn't George W Bush a republican ?? ...think I'll stick with the Queen thank you ;)

Originally posted by timo
Please do not listen to Abdul's pathetic boast about 'clubbing at Kingdom' with the Queen last Saturday. Abdul was at home in Firth Park watching Ant and Dec. I know so, because Prince Phillip texted me.

The bit about Abdul could well be true, - but I doubt PP knows how to send text messages on a mobile phone.....he's older than me !! :rolleyes: , - semaphore perhaps ?

....and is 'to text' a verb already ? - the past participle sounds very awkward ;)

Originally posted by rosie

There have been other royals that have made mistakes like Charles and they will remain making the mistakes, they are only human.

You're right there Rosie !! - the first Charles got his head chopped off for throwing his weight about, and the second was a noted philanderer :D

As a staunch royalist, I voted yes.

What is the alternative, I much prefer to swear loyalty to the queen other than to our President Tony, I mean prime minister!

dunno, i voted no, they dont seem to do much IMO,
theyre all a waste of space.
(thats me hung drawn and quatered by SF MOB)

I think the queen is something of the past. She does nothing at all. Just takes the taxes. All the royal family should be axed. I mean way way down the line who decided they were better than anyone else?!?! :rant:

that is all :thumbsup:

Originally posted by steelcitybab
I think the queen is something of the past. She does nothing at all. Just takes the taxes. All the royal family should be axed. I mean way way down the line who decided they were better than anyone else?!?! :rant:

that is all :thumbsup:


See my post 4 post up re. taxes.

As for who decided, I don't think 1000 years of history can be construed as a single decision...

And as for saying The Queen does nothing, I suggest you look at her daily list of engagements and see if many other women her age would still be working so hard.

I like the Queen - she has some lovely hats and shoes.

yes and I get a day off for her birthday:clap:

I wonder, sometimes, just how the Queen views Prince Charles. She will have a mother's love for her son, that is perfectly natural. However, does she secretly see him as a liability, a loose cannon who simply is not fit to be King? I wonder. She shows no signs whatsoever of abdicating, and the Prince grows older, and some would say, more eccentric. Certainly, his taste in women is eccentric. Does Her Majesty ever gaze at photographs of the 'wacky', jug-eared Prince, and sadly wonder where it all went wrong?

I personally blame the malign influence of the Goons, with their 'wacky', subversive and surrealistic humour, and Spike Milligan in particular, for the development of an absurd side to Charles' personality. Witness his notorious admission of conversations with plantlife, and the embarrassing musings upon the possibilities of life in distant galaxies, unseemly lubricity about tampons etc.

Her Majesty, one suspects, knows exactly where she made her biggest mistake. That perhaps lies in her insistence that the gauche Prince had a Navy career. Far from developing the kind of qualities his uncle, Lord Mountbatten had in abundance, Charles appears to have emerged the worse for it. When he should have been learning about duty, tradition and honour, the 'wacky' Prince was being taught how to make bread and butter pudding by rough and tough sailors. As I revealed recently on a related thread, cruel rumours abound that the naive, young Charles was coerced into a most unsavoury and secretive tradition of the Royal Navy. There are whispers that he, 'took his turn in the barrel'. Should this vile rumour prove true, it would provide an answer to a good many questions. Perhaps Her Majesty knows the truth of her boy's time amongst the jolly jack-tars, and midshipmen?

Originally posted by ShefSoul05
See my post 4 post up re. taxes.

As for who decided, I don't think 1000 years of history can be construed as a single decision...

And as for saying The Queen does nothing, I suggest you look at her daily list of engagements and see if many other women her age would still be working so hard.

yes but she is still over rated... and as for her engagements, im sure parliament would be more than happy to do that.
We should be more like America.... have a President!