I read a piece that said Elizabeth has actually been quite useful diplomatically for the UK and her allies because of this. She is apparently a fairly shrewd woman and her longevity and the number of Heads of State she’s met had her able to get a read on people very quickly. There aren’t very many people with her length and depth of experience in international politics (frankly, none ever, due to the advantage of communications and transportation of the 20th century), and since she is widely regarded as a mere figurehead, she gets sort of a stealth role.
Here’s a good slideshow on a year in the life of the Queen: A date with the queen: How the queen spends her year
Tomato tomahto. The point was he was advocating death.
Clearly not, because…
… this is not true. The income from the Royal Estates goes to you, the taxpayer, and vastly exceeds the civil list income which they receive in exchange for it.
This Brit. I’m one, and you categorically do not speak for me.
How obnoxious. Your debating skills seem to revolve around saying stuff that isn’t true (I won’t presume to guess whether that’s actual ignorance or just dishonesty) and calling people names.
I reiterate, you do not speak for me.
LOL, if the Tower of London was being used as her prison cell prior to execution, it is an official act.
Just saying that a country can always try and execute someone if they really want to push it. Cromwell managed, the French managed to kill off most of their nobility and a heck of a lot of other citoyens, Russia managed to off most of their nobility as well.
At least we didn’t execute any royalty, we kicked them out [and I am a she not a he]
Yes. These are bad things. We don’t do that any more. Because they’re bad things. Advocating it is also a bad thing.
In Canada we get the Queen as the embodiment of the Crown (the state) pretty much paid for by England. How nice of them to pay the bill.
One of the nice things about going to school in the 60s was having a photo of a babe with ever so bodacious ta-tas looking down on you.
That comparison only works if you assume that before George III made that “exchange,” the Crown Estate went solely to pay for the upkeep of the royal household. IIRC, it just went into a big pot of money, and many other non-military expenses came out of it, and George III basically just allowed it to all be put on one set of books.
I don’t understand what you just said.
In other news, the light show and fireworks at the Jubilee Concert were very impressive.
So the tiara didn’t diminish your ardour?
To be honest, I am just not overly fond of diamonds [I need to turn in my girl card, I guess] I would prefer opals. But that is a lovely portrait of her. I have seen much worse formal portraits of people. She was quite the looker when young. So, what happened with Charles:confused:
I always figured that she was a bit too much of a horse fancier, so one day when that Greek fellow wasn’t looking . . .
No, that was in February.
No, that was in February.
[/QUOTE]
As was the OP…?
I recall, as an elementary school student, that we had a photo portrait of the Queen in every classroom. I still see her portrait when I enter the local courthouse.
Perhaps I should thank the UK for footing the bill for our head of state. Thanks UK! 
The projection onto Buck House when Madness were playing Our House was genuinely stunning.
Like this?: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--l9_T69LaRw/TbsaprEQUsI/AAAAAAAAGX4/yvl0f-Gyofw/s1600/P1010017+%25282%2529.JPG
Like this:
Ooo, cool - thanks!