Keep an eye on the Royals
Printable View
Keep an eye on the Royals
Yeah Hecky and Official Hibs twitte r just tweeted it too :greengrin :confused: :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by Borderlands
What's this then?
The code for when the Queen dies is 'London Bridge has fallen'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torto7
My guess is a rumour that she is ill. Nothing coming up on social media that I can see though. I believe if it happens after a certain time in the evening nothing is reported until 8am.
Thanks mate. I've never heard of that before. I'm no fan of the monarchy but I do think the current Queen carries out her role extremely well. I'd be sad to hear of her passing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
I take it this is just a wind up.
Don’t think they haveQuote:
Originally Posted by Sammy7nil
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torto7
What's that ? Being a moody faced auld (so-and-so) and lording it over us lesser mortals?
The only thing I could find on twitter was some conspiracy stuff about London Bridge has fallen down and the Epstein case. Some seem to think something big will happen to try and distract people. Sounds like pish to me.
Her way with people and her professionalism, she's quite charismatic imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
I'm no fan of the monarchy btw. I'd be quite happy for Scotland to be republican.
If the queen dies, all the terrestrial television channels have to stop broadcasting immediately and go to an emergency news bulletin.
The rest of the immediate royals have to go to a bulletin after the programme has ended I think.
I’d imagine if she was unwell then the news channels would’ve picked up on it by now
As an aside looking at twitter it's amazing how many people don't know what London Bridge is or what it looks like.
Every other picture is someone standing next to Tower Bridge with the caption 'London Bridge'.
She's been unwell for some time. Her mind is deteriorating rapidly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
Mine anaw...
Ring a roses is better as they all fall down.
If the worst happens will we still have Netflix, or should I start recording programmes, to get me through the period of mourning?
How do you know?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
I can’t wait to see monarchists debating who should be next. Like they get to choose.
I always love pointing that out to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by steakbake
'Oh I'd like it to be William next, Charles is just too weird/old/unsuitable'
Sorry that's not how it works. If you support a system of hereditary privilege then you don't get to choose. You take what you are given.
I’ve already bought my copy of Candle In The Wind to play on repeat if their is bad bewsQuote:
Originally Posted by Cataplana
Hah, tell that to Charles I :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
As part of my duty as a dedicated republican I have felt the need now and again to troll, sorry I mean monitor, the odd royal family fans web page and it is truly astonishing how they don't see the contradiction. It is an absolute fact that female royalists especially want to see Charles binned and succession pass directly to darling Wills.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
They don't seem to be able to grasp that if you subscribe to inherited status and position as a concept you don't get to choose the next in line as if it was big brother or love island :faf:
Unless Charles has an important meeting involving a drunk driver and paparazzi in a Paris tunnel or something...oh wait, they've already used that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
A sentiment echoed by the media endlessly and by people who wouldn't claim to be particularly royalist as well. From my point of view I couldn't give a toss how good a job she has done or does … The fact is that the 'job' she has shouldn't exist in a modern democratic society … I dare say there are slum landlords out there who are very good at what they do, that doesn't mean their existence should be encouraged.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torto7
Having said that. The current incumbent at the top of Royal Family Ltd undoubtedly enjoys unparalleled personal popularity, even with folk who are at best ambivalent to the idea of the royals, that popularity has buffered the institution from a rise in republican sentiment. Once Charles takes over the 'job' that will no longer be the case, as popular as she is he isn't and perhaps hopefully that will enable a proper discussion as to why we have the utterly ridiculous situation where the position of head of state is dependant on an accident of birth.
Not to mention the utter contradiction of the fact that the king or queen is not only head of state of a secular country but also the head of the Church of England, leading to a situation where the prime minister ( lets leave aside who he is for the moment ) is put in a position where he cant take his partner to Balmoral because the head of the C of E cant be seen to sanction two unmarried but consenting adults sharing a bed under her roof.
Which also brings to mind of course the ridiculous situation that the head of state of this secular country by virtue of the fact that he or she is also head of the church of England must subscribe to and perpetuate a situation which bars 10% of the country's population from the position of head of state, if they were to convert to Catholicism or marry a Catholic …. By having a member of the royal family as head of state a country which purports to abhor discrimination and bigotry enshrines it in law.
Including American oil tycoon Robert P McCulloch who bought the original London Bridge, had shipped to Arizona piece by piece, rebuilt it then realised it was the wrong bridge!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
For a lot of baby boomers the Queen holds a special meaning. She was in situ when we were born and she's still there, giving many of us some sense of permanence in these turbulent times.
There's every chance she'll be there after some of us have gone too if she lives as long as her mother!
I don't really know much about the family or how it works, but I was under the impression that there was a reasonable chance Charles would pass on the opportunity to be king given his age. :dunno:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
He can make that decision but only he can. None of us subjects get a say.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
I watched the documentary about him on his 70th birthday and he seemed very sure then that he still had a duty to do and would be taking up his position.
Anyway it's after 8am so London Bridge obviously survived the night.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fife-Hibee
She agreed with one of his posts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
I was maybe thinking of someone else (Philip if he was ever in line maybe? He's older so would make sense) or just getting confused with something else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
People don't get a say, but I can understand why they'd still have a preference if there's a chance it won't be him. It's like wanting Hibs to sign someone or play 2 upfront despite having no say on the matter.
:hilariousQuote:
Originally Posted by Future17
😂Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
:top marksQuote:
Originally Posted by Future17
One would assume that one would bag a days holiday for one's national Day of one's mourning?
One would certainly hope so. One will also expect one to bag another days holiday when ones new king is crowned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy
Sod that. I don’t get paid for holidays!Quote:
Originally Posted by lord bunberry
Neither do I, but any excuse for a day off :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
There was a big article maybe last year in I think the guardian about what will happen when she leaves. Week of mourning, how money will be phased out, funeral plans, what the radios will all play before the announcement etc. Was very interesting, I'll see if I can find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzzywuzzy
Not to forget the fact that the Queen could go out, rob a bank with a shotgun and go on a shooting spree and there is no way to prosecute her.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
People in this country are prosecuted in her name - The Crown vs.
She is literally above the Law.
This is an affront to democracy. Nobody should be above the law.
J
She's not the type to go out and do that surely? Not at her age.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
:faf:Quote:
Originally Posted by Future17
I've read that before but it's quite fascinating to read again. It really will be a monumental event. In my lifetime I can only think of Princess Diana and John Paul II as being remotely comparable in terms of scale.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
There has always been contingency planning for the deaths of senior royals but for obvious reasons, it has been stepped up in recent years.
I was involved (in a very small way) last summer with a project should a senior Royal pass whilst in Scotland. At the time, it was suggested by an unknown suit that the Queen would be carrying out less official duties (which has been on the cards for a while now) and would be practically retiring to Sandringham & Balmoral. That being the case, the odds of a royal death on Scottish soil would be greater.
When the day comes, the infrastructure is already in place to receive the body at Edinburgh and send it on its way to London, along with all the media links that'll be necessary for the world to ogle at, live, online and in catch-up!
Will they pop her in that new salmon pipe that's been all the rage the last few days?Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
she's not really the type though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bristolhibby
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I've always found this sort of thing fascinating.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
The plans that are in place to deal with all sorts of eventuality are incredible. I remember speaking to someone who was involved in disaster planning for the city of Edinburgh and he had just finished a major piece of work when the SNP first came to power. They weren't mad on what had been produced so he had to go back to the drawing board and come up with another, whole new plan.
The bit that I found morbidly fascinating was the role of Murrayfield, which is to be one of the main centres. The fields outside the stadium can be used for helicopters to fly in and out and the ice rink is to be used as a mortuary.
I've also been to a talk from the forensic dentist who was involved following the Lockerbie crash. There was some images in that presentation that I'll never be able to un-see and there were some stories that I'll never be able to un-hear.
When London Bridge does fall, you can bet that the whole episode will be the opposite of what is intended - it will deeply undignified, and there will be a horrible, predictable amount of gawping whilst pitiful specimens try to outdo each other in the grief stakes. Attention seekers from the other side of the fence will also try to outdo each other in the needlessly insensitive and offensive stakes.
Are you too young to remember the time Darren Jackson joined Celtic?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
She was the people's Queen.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Modfather
Too soon?
Surely all currency with the queen's head on it will become illegal tender from the moment she pegged it. That's what we have been told about day one for Scottish independence after all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
Quote:
Originally Posted by heretoday
I'm not so sure.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-robbery-suspect-mobility-scooter-flee-scene-crime-a7322936.html
Not me mate, even though I am very much on the other side of the fence. I am a member of a couple of anti royalist / republican pages on Facebook and it absolutely does my head in when I see folk posting personal attacks on the members of the royal family as people. This is a fundamental disagreement over the concept of inherited social status and position in a modern democratic society and any attacks on that should be aimed at the institutions themselves, not against whoever happens to be queen, king or whatever at any given point in time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Smartie
As I never tire of pointing out to the sometimes hard of thinking on those pages, making the argument personal and especially against the queen who like it or not enjoys massive personal respect / popularity is utterly counter productive.
Anyway …. Citizen not subject :aok:
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
When MPs and MSPs take office, they have to officially declare an oath of allegiance to Queen Betty and make a vow to serve her.
How utterly idiotic is that.
I think I'll switch to being German, as they don't officially have a monarchy (though they are obsessed with the Saxe-Coburgs)
I agree, it’s the system not the individuals that I’m against.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
It is fascinating how much prep is involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
What, as a mark of respect to her because she never carries any, we won't carry any either? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
as do the forces and police in England and Wales. often the desire to serve the public is greater than a few token words to something someone doesn't believe it as a concept even if they respect tradition etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
He doesn’t.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiber-nation
Money with her face on it I meant :greengrin. The mint has Charles and William etc already ready to print.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Possibly. It'll certainly become collectable!Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Oh aye. Stamps anaw. Not sure if pillarboxes (aye real pillarboxes, not Johnsonian analogies) still have monarch's initials on, but in any case that would only be for new boxes, not existing ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by Haymaker
There's a pillar box near my parents house that still has GR as the monarchs initials. Apparently that dates to George V as the GR for George VI has a smaller VI in between the main letters. There must be folk who are into that kind of thing as there are occasionally people taking photos of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by lapsedhibee
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
From Wiki
In 1952, a number of post boxes were attacked in Scotland in a dispute over the regnal number adopted by Queen Elizabeth II, which was displayed as the EIIR cypher on the boxes. This included at least one which was damaged in Edinburgh with a home made explosive device.
The compromise was to put the Scottish crown on Scottish pillar boxes, without any reference to the particular reigning monarch
There's still a few Queen Victoria ones on the go like this one on Arran:Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
https://s0.geograph.org.uk/photos/17...8_bed7a1c3.jpg
When I was a kid in the 70s you still saw George VI and even George V coins knocking about. The shillings became worth 5p and the 2 shilling florins became worth 10p. So Lizzy coins may be on the go for a good bit after she's gone.
It is this perpetuation of the myth that loyalty to ones country and loyalty to the monarchy are one and the same and indivisible, that you cannot be patriotic about your country if you don't believe it is embodied in the persona of the monarch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
Its a bloody nonsense and forcing democratically elected representatives of the people to swear an oath to an unelected figurehead in that position by virtue of the fact that their ancestors were better at robbing, pillaging and murder than everybody else's, on pain of being barred from taking their seat in parliament if they don't, is as I say an absolute bloody nonsense and an affront to the very concept of a fair and equal society.
Any oath required of anyone who is a servant of the people should be to those people, not some ridiculous figurehead whose position is the very embodiment of the feudalism and despotic power our hard earned democratic rights were supposed to do away with.
So you're on the fence then. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
I would guess a lot of people are ambivalent or neutral towards the monarchy as while alot of what you say may be true and seem needless/unjust in theory - none of it really matters.
Swearing an oath to the queen, anyone, or no-one when MPs take office is nothing more than a formality and a bit of pomp. Same with any technicality of her being "above the law" - it would be interesting to see it tested out in practice, but the reality is that it makes no difference.
Whilst not entirely relevant to the Queen actually being put on trial there was a bit of a 'crisis' during the Paul Burrell case when it was suggested the Queen could be a crucial witness due to a private meeting she had held with him some years earlier. It had already been decided Prince Charles and Prince William wouldn't be called as witnesses.Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
As it turned out the Queen, Price Charles and Prince Philip had a 'private' conversation in the back of a car that was very conveniently overheard and 'brought to the attention' of the Police and subsequently the case collapsed.
Where do you stand on the matter of swearing an oath to the Almighty?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Boy
It was an impossible position Burrell put her in.
In England the prosecutor is R ie Rex or Regina. She would have had to defend herself against herself, so to speak.
Burell was a knave, in the true sense of the word. An utter cad.
For me an oath is more than just empty words and I would not swear allegiance to any person or organisation I fundamentally disagree with, no matter how purely ceremonial it was purported to be. The following is a quote from parliament's own web site … hardly ceremonial is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
"Oaths of allegiance to the Crown are common in British public life. They are similar to a declaration of loyalty to the state.
Members of both Houses of Parliament are required by law to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown.
MPs cannot take their seat, speak in debates, vote or receive a salary until taking the oath or affirmation. They could also be fined £500 and have their seat declared vacant “as if they were dead” if they attempted to do so.
The same rule applies to Members of the Lords"
MPs can 'affirm' rather than take an oath … but that affirmation still involves basically submitting to an acknowledgment that they owe allegiance and loyalty to the queen and her successors, so its no different, as the following quote from the same website shows:
"I (name of Member) do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law".
That should be personal choice. AFAIK in court a person can choose to 'affirm' rather than swear on the bible for example, lets face it the majority of people in this country are either atheist or at best agnostics and many people who are religious don't follow Christian religions. As I posted in reply to Danhibees1875 MPs can choose to 'affirm' but that oath still involves swearing loyalty to the queen which renders it pointless.Quote:
Originally Posted by speedy_gonzales
I wouldn't expect them to say that "the oath is relatively meaningless and just a nice jolly for the MPs to celebrate their election with finger sandwiches and scones while reciting some words."Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
They paint it up to be important but at the end of the day it doesn't change anything. Have there been any elected MPs decide they'd rather not have the chance to affect change because they don't want to say the oath?
At least 6 in Northern Ireland .. though I appreciate that is only part of a wider issue of declaring allegiance to the UK at all :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
Anyway, it doesn't matter .. people are being in effect forced to go against their principles and if they don't they will be denied their right as elected representatives of 'the people' to sit in parliament and represent the folk who elected them. That my friend is an affront to democracy no matter how you slice it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
Thanks for this, I’ve occasionally wondered what happened with people who followed a non Christian faith or atheist when in court. Cheers :aok:
It's an affirmation and you solemly swear to tell the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by McD
They are being forced to do something yes, and it's something I'd do away with/make optional personally. If there's any mandatory oath it should be to their constituents as you said. I just don't think it would get in the way of anyone doing their job or make them do it differently.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
Anyway, this thread ruined my viewing of The Lion King. :rolleyes: :greengrin
I've taken 2 oaths. The first one to the queen where I had my fingers crossed: :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by danhibees1875
"I... swear by Almighty God*(do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm)*that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty*Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, and of the*(admirals / generals/ air officers)*and officers set over me."
and the 2nd one:
"I solemnly declare that I will respect and observe the Basic Law and the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany, and that I will refrain from any activity which might cause it harm."
Oaths are really meaningless unless you actually believe what you're buying into. How many people have taken marriage vows but end up breaking them.
Indeed. Lest we forget those "vows" from 2014. A "vow" is utterly meaningless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg
Can't we just guillotine them already? :devil: