Royal welcome

I WENT to see the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh on April 30 at Penallta Industrial site. Many people and children turned out to see the monarch and were thrilled to see the royal couple. The sun was shining, the school children sang beautifully and a good Welsh welcome was given to them. The royal motorcade did not cause any problems and the police did a wonderful job. It was a great morning and it was thoroughly enjoyed by many. Thank you your majesty for coming to Wales.

Carol Churcher Treowen Newbridge

Comments (25)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:51am Fri 23 May 14

Mervyn James says...

Who ?
Who ? Mervyn James
  • Score: -2

9:09am Fri 23 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
[quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 3

9:39am Fri 23 May 14

cymruambyth says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people. cymruambyth
  • Score: -1

10:22am Fri 23 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
Just what this country needs. Yet another bl**dy politician. Blair riding around in a limo perhaps. Lovely.
[quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]Just what this country needs. Yet another bl**dy politician. Blair riding around in a limo perhaps. Lovely. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 0

10:38am Fri 23 May 14

Howie' says...

Personally I would not cross the road to see them. As a fully paid up Republican I believe that the French had the right idea.

Martin, Blair would have to be voted in to that position, as would anyone else, and as he is universally despised do you honestly think that he would even stand let alone win? I think with a population of over 60mill that we could find several good candidates and not just leave the head of State as someone who is born in to that position and does not answer to the Electorate.
Personally I would not cross the road to see them. As a fully paid up Republican I believe that the French had the right idea. Martin, Blair would have to be voted in to that position, as would anyone else, and as he is universally despised do you honestly think that he would even stand let alone win? I think with a population of over 60mill that we could find several good candidates and not just leave the head of State as someone who is born in to that position and does not answer to the Electorate. Howie'
  • Score: 2

11:10am Fri 23 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Howie' wrote:
Personally I would not cross the road to see them. As a fully paid up Republican I believe that the French had the right idea.

Martin, Blair would have to be voted in to that position, as would anyone else, and as he is universally despised do you honestly think that he would even stand let alone win? I think with a population of over 60mill that we could find several good candidates and not just leave the head of State as someone who is born in to that position and does not answer to the Electorate.
Wasn't really my point. Doing away with something for no good reason to replace with something no-one would want is just daft. All countries have a head of state. A large number are slime-balls despite being elected. Some were downright criminals like Haughey (Eire) and a few notable French crooks, like Chiraq. There is ample evidence that, whilst you might not cross the road to see them, as the Wedding and Jubilee proved, millions would, and a lot of those were paying tourists. It fascinates me that people think someone being 'elected' gives them a legitimacy that doesn't belong to someone with massive experience. Blair was elected three times and is, as you rightly say, reviled by most.
[quote][p][bold]Howie'[/bold] wrote: Personally I would not cross the road to see them. As a fully paid up Republican I believe that the French had the right idea. Martin, Blair would have to be voted in to that position, as would anyone else, and as he is universally despised do you honestly think that he would even stand let alone win? I think with a population of over 60mill that we could find several good candidates and not just leave the head of State as someone who is born in to that position and does not answer to the Electorate.[/p][/quote]Wasn't really my point. Doing away with something for no good reason to replace with something no-one would want is just daft. All countries have a head of state. A large number are slime-balls despite being elected. Some were downright criminals like Haughey (Eire) and a few notable French crooks, like Chiraq. There is ample evidence that, whilst you might not cross the road to see them, as the Wedding and Jubilee proved, millions would, and a lot of those were paying tourists. It fascinates me that people think someone being 'elected' gives them a legitimacy that doesn't belong to someone with massive experience. Blair was elected three times and is, as you rightly say, reviled by most. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -1

11:12am Fri 23 May 14

cymruambyth says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
Just what this country needs. Yet another bl**dy politician. Blair riding around in a limo perhaps. Lovely.
I wouldn't be too happy with Mr Blair either, but if the long overdue changes to the system were made, the people would still have the opportunity to vote for Prince Charles or William if they wanted too. I don't believe they would though, do you?
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]Just what this country needs. Yet another bl**dy politician. Blair riding around in a limo perhaps. Lovely.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't be too happy with Mr Blair either, but if the long overdue changes to the system were made, the people would still have the opportunity to vote for Prince Charles or William if they wanted too. I don't believe they would though, do you? cymruambyth
  • Score: 0

11:34am Fri 23 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
Just what this country needs. Yet another bl**dy politician. Blair riding around in a limo perhaps. Lovely.
I wouldn't be too happy with Mr Blair either, but if the long overdue changes to the system were made, the people would still have the opportunity to vote for Prince Charles or William if they wanted too. I don't believe they would though, do you?
I genuinely don't know who'd get in. I suspect though that no British elected official could ever get people onto the streets in foreign countries and the attention of (still royalist it seems) Australia would suggest that their value as a marketing tool shouldn't be underestimated. One other point, I noticed that, in the last ten years, the Prince's Trust has raised £1 Billion. Can you imagine ANY of the perceived 'great and good' of these fair isles being able to match that? Just a thought.
[quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]Just what this country needs. Yet another bl**dy politician. Blair riding around in a limo perhaps. Lovely.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't be too happy with Mr Blair either, but if the long overdue changes to the system were made, the people would still have the opportunity to vote for Prince Charles or William if they wanted too. I don't believe they would though, do you?[/p][/quote]I genuinely don't know who'd get in. I suspect though that no British elected official could ever get people onto the streets in foreign countries and the attention of (still royalist it seems) Australia would suggest that their value as a marketing tool shouldn't be underestimated. One other point, I noticed that, in the last ten years, the Prince's Trust has raised £1 Billion. Can you imagine ANY of the perceived 'great and good' of these fair isles being able to match that? Just a thought. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 2

1:06pm Fri 23 May 14

Stevenboy says...

cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
[quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve. Stevenboy
  • Score: 4

1:11pm Fri 23 May 14

cymruambyth says...

Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought.
Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought. cymruambyth
  • Score: 2

1:31pm Fri 23 May 14

cymruambyth says...

Stevenboy wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
I've nothing against the family at all. My concern is simply that the current system isn't democratic.
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.[/p][/quote]I've nothing against the family at all. My concern is simply that the current system isn't democratic. cymruambyth
  • Score: 11

1:40pm Fri 23 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

cymruambyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought.
'Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they?'

Lot's of things are 'outdated remnants'. Some people would bulldoze the pyramids, flatten castles and no doubt consider Da Vinci's works dull, but one man or woman's 'silly' is another persons joy, like the author of the letter. You seem to be advocating taking away something that seems extremely popular (and not just with the UK), and replacing it with something mostly reviled and without explaining why. A bit like wearing denim because everyone else is doing it. It'd be a pretty awful world if we all did the same. One thing you could guarantee is that, the moment we elected a president, as a country we would be as grey as most that already have them. The 'royal' issue is an emotional one for both sides. Logic is unlikely to prevail or be accepted by either side.
[quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought.[/p][/quote]'Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they?' Lot's of things are 'outdated remnants'. Some people would bulldoze the pyramids, flatten castles and no doubt consider Da Vinci's works dull, but one man or woman's 'silly' is another persons joy, like the author of the letter. You seem to be advocating taking away something that seems extremely popular (and not just with the UK), and replacing it with something mostly reviled and without explaining why. A bit like wearing denim because everyone else is doing it. It'd be a pretty awful world if we all did the same. One thing you could guarantee is that, the moment we elected a president, as a country we would be as grey as most that already have them. The 'royal' issue is an emotional one for both sides. Logic is unlikely to prevail or be accepted by either side. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -3

2:03pm Fri 23 May 14

-trigg- says...

Although the Queen herself is little more than a figurehead, the hereditary peers within the House of Lords acct to provide a useful balance to the purely populist House of Commons.

By its very nature, modern politics requires politicians to follow a policy that is supported by the majority of the people, however what is popular is not always the same as what is right.

I have said many times that the system of democracy is fundamentally flawed and while hereditary titles and roles may not be the ideal solution, they do have an important part to play
Although the Queen herself is little more than a figurehead, the hereditary peers within the House of Lords acct to provide a useful balance to the purely populist House of Commons. By its very nature, modern politics requires politicians to follow a policy that is supported by the majority of the people, however what is popular is not always the same as what is right. I have said many times that the system of democracy is fundamentally flawed and while hereditary titles and roles may not be the ideal solution, they do have an important part to play -trigg-
  • Score: -11

2:33pm Fri 23 May 14

cymruambyth says...

Llanmartinangel wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought.
'Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they?'

Lot's of things are 'outdated remnants'. Some people would bulldoze the pyramids, flatten castles and no doubt consider Da Vinci's works dull, but one man or woman's 'silly' is another persons joy, like the author of the letter. You seem to be advocating taking away something that seems extremely popular (and not just with the UK), and replacing it with something mostly reviled and without explaining why. A bit like wearing denim because everyone else is doing it. It'd be a pretty awful world if we all did the same. One thing you could guarantee is that, the moment we elected a president, as a country we would be as grey as most that already have them. The 'royal' issue is an emotional one for both sides. Logic is unlikely to prevail or be accepted by either side.
Please rest assured, I'm not suggesting we bulldoze anything. I'm sure a museum for the artefacts concerned would prove most popular, especially with visitors from abroad, thus allowing the "royals" to further their contribution to an important industry I accept your point concerning logic here as I fail to understand why so few apply critical thought to the concept of our system of heredtary monarchy and consider workable, modern and (above all) democratic alternatives.
[quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought.[/p][/quote]'Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they?' Lot's of things are 'outdated remnants'. Some people would bulldoze the pyramids, flatten castles and no doubt consider Da Vinci's works dull, but one man or woman's 'silly' is another persons joy, like the author of the letter. You seem to be advocating taking away something that seems extremely popular (and not just with the UK), and replacing it with something mostly reviled and without explaining why. A bit like wearing denim because everyone else is doing it. It'd be a pretty awful world if we all did the same. One thing you could guarantee is that, the moment we elected a president, as a country we would be as grey as most that already have them. The 'royal' issue is an emotional one for both sides. Logic is unlikely to prevail or be accepted by either side.[/p][/quote]Please rest assured, I'm not suggesting we bulldoze anything. I'm sure a museum for the artefacts concerned would prove most popular, especially with visitors from abroad, thus allowing the "royals" to further their contribution to an important industry I accept your point concerning logic here as I fail to understand why so few apply critical thought to the concept of our system of heredtary monarchy and consider workable, modern and (above all) democratic alternatives. cymruambyth
  • Score: -1

3:09pm Fri 23 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought.
'Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they?'

Lot's of things are 'outdated remnants'. Some people would bulldoze the pyramids, flatten castles and no doubt consider Da Vinci's works dull, but one man or woman's 'silly' is another persons joy, like the author of the letter. You seem to be advocating taking away something that seems extremely popular (and not just with the UK), and replacing it with something mostly reviled and without explaining why. A bit like wearing denim because everyone else is doing it. It'd be a pretty awful world if we all did the same. One thing you could guarantee is that, the moment we elected a president, as a country we would be as grey as most that already have them. The 'royal' issue is an emotional one for both sides. Logic is unlikely to prevail or be accepted by either side.
Please rest assured, I'm not suggesting we bulldoze anything. I'm sure a museum for the artefacts concerned would prove most popular, especially with visitors from abroad, thus allowing the "royals" to further their contribution to an important industry I accept your point concerning logic here as I fail to understand why so few apply critical thought to the concept of our system of heredtary monarchy and consider workable, modern and (above all) democratic alternatives.
I was attuned to that post until you got to the 'workable, modern and democratic' bit. Modern politics hasn't served us very well, few believe that the 'democracy' works for anyone except career politicians and if it was 'workable' more than a handful of people would engage with it. They don't. Yet those same people will still stand fifty deep in the Mall and wave flags. Sometimes you just have to accept that 'democracy' takes many forms and people can vote with their feet. Faced with a pile of flawed, self-seeking politicians a mile high and a seemingly flawless Monarch, small wonder people gravitate away from the former toward the latter. Republicanism might be a perfectly acceptable academic theory for a number of British people but so was Marxism. Not enough to change anything anytime soon then.
[quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: Personally, I have no problem with any of the individuals, and neither do I doubt the good work or contributions made by the youth charity you mention. Although, having said that, I'm not sure if the role of the monarchy includes the promotion of tourism - clutching at straws springs to mind with that argument. What troubles me is that although this county is in many aspects progressive, we stick with the heredtary monarchy which is by definition undemocratic and an outdated remnant of times long, long gone. Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they? Just a thought.[/p][/quote]'Come on, kings, queens, princes, princesses, crowns, strange clothes and gold state coaches are all a bit on the silly side and look slightly daft in this day and age, don't they?' Lot's of things are 'outdated remnants'. Some people would bulldoze the pyramids, flatten castles and no doubt consider Da Vinci's works dull, but one man or woman's 'silly' is another persons joy, like the author of the letter. You seem to be advocating taking away something that seems extremely popular (and not just with the UK), and replacing it with something mostly reviled and without explaining why. A bit like wearing denim because everyone else is doing it. It'd be a pretty awful world if we all did the same. One thing you could guarantee is that, the moment we elected a president, as a country we would be as grey as most that already have them. The 'royal' issue is an emotional one for both sides. Logic is unlikely to prevail or be accepted by either side.[/p][/quote]Please rest assured, I'm not suggesting we bulldoze anything. I'm sure a museum for the artefacts concerned would prove most popular, especially with visitors from abroad, thus allowing the "royals" to further their contribution to an important industry I accept your point concerning logic here as I fail to understand why so few apply critical thought to the concept of our system of heredtary monarchy and consider workable, modern and (above all) democratic alternatives.[/p][/quote]I was attuned to that post until you got to the 'workable, modern and democratic' bit. Modern politics hasn't served us very well, few believe that the 'democracy' works for anyone except career politicians and if it was 'workable' more than a handful of people would engage with it. They don't. Yet those same people will still stand fifty deep in the Mall and wave flags. Sometimes you just have to accept that 'democracy' takes many forms and people can vote with their feet. Faced with a pile of flawed, self-seeking politicians a mile high and a seemingly flawless Monarch, small wonder people gravitate away from the former toward the latter. Republicanism might be a perfectly acceptable academic theory for a number of British people but so was Marxism. Not enough to change anything anytime soon then. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: 1

4:42pm Fri 23 May 14

Mike Roland says...

Stevenboy wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.[/p][/quote]I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example. Mike Roland
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Fri 23 May 14

endthelies says...

I have to say I do like Will and Kate. They seem more 'real' if anyone can be real that is born into the firm. I also enjoy all the pomp and ceremony of the Royal Weddings etc. I'm not a royalist but I do think they represent us in a good light to the rest of the world, unlike some of our politicians (and no not just Blair, there's a few other dubious political characters I could add to this list). I don't agree with all the royal hangers on who are paid for not doing anything, but the queen and those in line to the throne, in my opinion, are worth having.
I have to say I do like Will and Kate. They seem more 'real' if anyone can be real that is born into the firm. I also enjoy all the pomp and ceremony of the Royal Weddings etc. I'm not a royalist but I do think they represent us in a good light to the rest of the world, unlike some of our politicians (and no not just Blair, there's a few other dubious political characters I could add to this list). I don't agree with all the royal hangers on who are paid for not doing anything, but the queen and those in line to the throne, in my opinion, are worth having. endthelies
  • Score: 0

5:52pm Fri 23 May 14

Llanmartinangel says...

Mike Roland wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.
Well she's constitutionally prohibited from voicing opinions and good luck in asking the rest of the world who the duck Joachim Gauck is.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.[/p][/quote]I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.[/p][/quote]Well she's constitutionally prohibited from voicing opinions and good luck in asking the rest of the world who the duck Joachim Gauck is. Llanmartinangel
  • Score: -1

6:08pm Fri 23 May 14

Stevenboy says...

Mike Roland wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.
Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.[/p][/quote]I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.[/p][/quote]Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly. Stevenboy
  • Score: 0

8:44pm Fri 23 May 14

Mervyn James says...

I think its time the populace grew up. The days of Kings and Queens are over. Why would people enjoy playing the serf ? weird !!!
I think its time the populace grew up. The days of Kings and Queens are over. Why would people enjoy playing the serf ? weird !!! Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

7:58am Sat 24 May 14

snappersearch says...

Stevenboy wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.
Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly.
Nothing worng with keeping them in, they don't do much anyway and could still be a lure for tourists. The posters here who want a republic speak sense. Democratically elected head of state model 2014 not 1400. Those here saying that they can't accept democracy works might like to think about gnorth korea maybe.
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.[/p][/quote]I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.[/p][/quote]Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly.[/p][/quote]Nothing worng with keeping them in, they don't do much anyway and could still be a lure for tourists. The posters here who want a republic speak sense. Democratically elected head of state model 2014 not 1400. Those here saying that they can't accept democracy works might like to think about gnorth korea maybe. snappersearch
  • Score: 0

9:27am Sat 24 May 14

Mike Roland says...

Stevenboy wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.
Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly.
Farage, well fine if that's what turns you on.
[quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.[/p][/quote]I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.[/p][/quote]Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly.[/p][/quote]Farage, well fine if that's what turns you on. Mike Roland
  • Score: 0

12:30pm Sat 24 May 14

Stevenboy says...

Mike Roland wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
Mike Roland wrote:
Stevenboy wrote:
cymruambyth wrote:
Llanmartinangel wrote:
Mervyn James wrote:
Who ?
A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.
Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.
You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.
I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.
Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly.
Farage, well fine if that's what turns you on.
Well no, absolutely not. What I said was he makes speeches that rouse people. His rant to the EU parliament about bank seizures in Cyprus was great but would you want him in the Queen's place? Perhaps not. Careful then what you wish for.
[quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mike Roland[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Stevenboy[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]cymruambyth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Llanmartinangel[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mervyn James[/bold] wrote: Who ?[/p][/quote]A head of state who's instantly recognised just by her title in every country in the world. Only the US president could even get close to recognition on that scale.[/p][/quote]Yawn, yawn, .... . Time for the Queen to be replaced by a head of state who has been voted for by the people.[/p][/quote]You clearly haven't read the front page story and thread on yesterday's EU ballot. There's no appetite for the dross we already have or for electing them. Contrast that with the turnout for the recent Royal events. We don't know most politicians are scumbags (like Blair/Brown) until after they take office. Whatever you may think of our current head of state that isn't an epithet she'd deserve.[/p][/quote]I couldn't care less on the monarcy/republic issue but has the Queen's role ever been critically scrutinised? Other than launching ships, snipping ribbons, travelling, visiting and making those dreadfully stiff Christmas speeches, she doesn't appear to have done very much at all. Shouldn't we expect more from our head of state? I don't recall any rousing speeches in difficult times, not to mention her voicing criticism of or offering guidance for her government. Brilliant to see how Joachim Gauck does this in Germany, for example.[/p][/quote]Nigel Farage makes great speeches. I think you'd need a bit more gravitas frankly.[/p][/quote]Farage, well fine if that's what turns you on.[/p][/quote]Well no, absolutely not. What I said was he makes speeches that rouse people. His rant to the EU parliament about bank seizures in Cyprus was great but would you want him in the Queen's place? Perhaps not. Careful then what you wish for. Stevenboy
  • Score: 0

7:16pm Sat 24 May 14

Mervyn James says...

Farage relates to people's views and says what they think and fear they cannot. It is why he picked up votes from Politicians who are so divorced from their voters they are a danger to democracy. Milliband will have to go, Cameron too, and Clegg is already looking at Job Ads in Europe, he knows he is out. Worse he may well get one and do a Kinnock and make fortune too.

Then populace no longer believes in Policians, its a real opening for the e more extreme viewpoint, and for people looking for straight talking, even if it is contentious. The prime barrier is London a migrant stronghold and a major in the numbers game, they can outvote the rest of the country via the current system, hence why they don't care what wales thinks or anyone else..., madness, we need PR voting to put an end to London calling all the shots.
Farage relates to people's views and says what they think and fear they cannot. It is why he picked up votes from Politicians who are so divorced from their voters they are a danger to democracy. Milliband will have to go, Cameron too, and Clegg is already looking at Job Ads in Europe, he knows he is out. Worse he may well get one and do a Kinnock and make fortune too. Then populace no longer believes in Policians, its a real opening for the e more extreme viewpoint, and for people looking for straight talking, even if it is contentious. The prime barrier is London a migrant stronghold and a major in the numbers game, they can outvote the rest of the country via the current system, hence why they don't care what wales thinks or anyone else..., madness, we need PR voting to put an end to London calling all the shots. Mervyn James
  • Score: 0

2:06pm Tue 27 May 14

-trigg- says...

Something to consider:

MPs are often voted into office despite having no experience of how to run a company, let alone a whole country.

On the other hand, the Royal Family start learning from birth - Prince Charles has so far spent 65 years learning how to be king when the time comes.
Something to consider: MPs are often voted into office despite having no experience of how to run a company, let alone a whole country. On the other hand, the Royal Family start learning from birth - Prince Charles has so far spent 65 years learning how to be king when the time comes. -trigg-
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree