I meant RULED by a monarchy, and you all knew that.
I don’t think she does cost us anything in every day terms. In the event of a Royal Visit, she costs us something probably equivalent to, say, our hosting the President of the United States.
I believe it is argued that her existence doesn’t cost UK taxpayers anything either, due th her large personal wealth. I don’t know how true this is, and it’s a debate I’m not really interested in.
I’m sorry I called you a tosser. I still want a beer though.
Nope - I honestly thought you were woefully uninformed.
Sorry bout that!
Maybe you just didn’t realise that some of us don’t see monarchy as an insult.
Been there, done that, bought the farm (courtesy of a rump parliament and a large axe).
Well, that sort of thing can happen or not either way.
I would argue that the English monarchy (as distinct from the British monarchy) has been operational since 826-828[sup]1[/sup], when Ecgbert of Wessex became Bretwalda of all seven kingdoms of the Heptarchy. (Apart from the aforementioned unpleasantness with Mr. Cromwell.) But that’s just me.
[sup]1[/sup]I would check those dates, but my copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in the other room …
Excuse me STEVE WRIGHT if it hadn’t have been for the ‘unpleasantness’ with Oliver Cromwell then the UK could very well have been ruled with an iron fist by the monarchy to this day.
I have a great deal of respect for what Ollie and the new model army did for my country, what my country did to Ollie after his death was disgraceful.
Incidentally did you know that the Queen has never been heard to fart, well not in public anyway.
It’s just a matter of time and a realllllly powerful microphone placed strategically. Someone should get on that tout suite.
Have you ever read what Ollie did in this country (Ireland). I suggest you find out. It may change your opinion.
Cromwell had his good and his bad points - the bad ones being fairly noticeable from Ireland, certainly. It’s definitely possible that, without the New Model Army, Charles I could have won the Civil War and gone on to be a British equivalent to Louis XIV, which would have been a bad thing … on the other hand, I think we could have done without the religious intolerance, the iconoclasts, the Major-Generals, and other less charming manifestations of the Cromwell regime.
And, when it comes to curbing the power of the monarchy, we mustn’t forget the Glorious Revolution and its aftermath. Not to mention all the unspectacular, but necessary, work done by successive Parliaments in the eighteenth century. (Of course, none of that might have been possible if Charles I had put down the Parliamentarians, so … )
Okay, Steve needs a beer! Stat!
And i agree, the events of the Glorious revolution are often overlooked. But then if you really want to point to the “birth” of the PM-icy and death of the monarchy then we shouldn’t be overlooking ol’ Horace Walpole who was, you know, the very first one.
[sub] i went to university in his house don’tcha know :)[/sub]
I guess for me it was during the reigns of George I and Farmer George that the Monarchy really started to wane.
I am fully aware of the things that Cromwell did in Ireland and whilst I may not agree with the extremes he went to this does not lessen my admiration of the man.
I’m sorry if this offends you jjimm but I have my opinions and you have yours.
[hijack] I just want to give my two cents here and say that it does offend me. Cromwell was a f****** monster [/hijack]
by the way, who’s next to ascend the throne? Will it be Charles, or will he pass it on to one of his sons? Also, will the next monarch also be recognised in Australia and all the other Commonwealth territories?
Not offended - my opinion is that he and his followers were a revolutionary movement that, like most revolutionary movements, got out of hand when in power - IMO they turned into a Puritan version of the Taliban, with a bit of massacre and ethnic cleansing in Ireland thrown in for good measure. If he had some beneficial effect on the constitution, I’d see that as a side-effect of something pretty nasty (he banned the theatre and Christmas for example). Having said that, the alternative wasn’t much better at the time, so maybe you have a point.
Cromwell was not a F****** monster, he was a man who realised that the monarchy had, when push came to shove, shoved to hard and knew that this state of affairs could not be allowed to continue if an elected parliament was to function without interference from king or queen.
As regards your question, will Charles be the next to ascend, I certainly hope not, the man is a disgrace and don’t get me started on that horse faced cow he is rogering, Camilla Farter-Bowels…sheesh, face like a blind cobblers thumb, what a fucking horror bag that one is. I kid you not, if she was the last woman on earth I’d go looking for a tree with a knot hole in it.
Will you accept that he was a f****** monster in Ireland - though it’s debatable that he was one in England?
JJIMM: I will accept that Cromwells extremes in Ireland were deplorable.
Will you accept that Farter-Bowels is a fow faced old bat?
I gladly accept that the Farter-Bowels is a bet-down horse-hybrid filthy kicked weapon of an old bat