|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 24, 2020 13:14:04 GMT
Does the spoof one matter?
Will some ( older?) people find it " offensive"?
Or is it totally irrelevant?
The Queen seems to have won a unique place in the heart and structure of the nation, even republicans finding it inappropriate to criticise.
Or is it simply another aspect of our great country that we take for granted....nothing and no one is above our sense of humour....the ability to laugh at yourself.....it is only a joke?
( I think this is just a clip)
|
|
|
|
Post by Little Gary Patel on Dec 24, 2020 16:48:47 GMT
I thought the main point of it was to highlight the propensity of "fake news", (hate that term because it's become the norm for something someone doesn't agree with), especially with the ability to deep fake her face & move to dubbed words.
|
|
|
|
Post by bigjohnritchie on Dec 24, 2020 17:59:11 GMT
I thought the main point of it was to highlight the propensity of "fake news", (hate that term because it's become the norm for something someone doesn't agree with), especially with the ability to deep fake her face & move to dubbed words. Maybe Gary, I don't really know. The " deep faking" is really impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by mattyd2 on Dec 24, 2020 19:52:53 GMT
For me The Queens Speach is a bit of a tradition.
I'm a massive royalist, and the fact that all the lefties on here deride it so much makes it that little bit more special.
God Bless Ya Maam.
|
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Dec 24, 2020 20:03:54 GMT
God Save The Queen
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2020 20:24:06 GMT
Never ever heard one to be honest. I expect Chris Biggins to be on it as on every bloody show today
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Dec 24, 2020 20:25:54 GMT
For me The Queens Speach is a bit of a tradition. I'm a massive royalist, and the fact that all the lefties on here deride it so much makes it that little bit more special. God Bless Ya Maam. I'm really interested in people who call themselves royalists. What does that mean to you? If you were on a plane with 100 people, you crash landed on a remote island and had to start a new civilisation, and a few people seized power over the rest and declared themselves royalty, would you still be a royalist and worship their very existence? I'm not taking the piss by the way, I'm genuinely intrigued. I like the Queen (based on what limited stuff I know about her) and appreciate the misdemeanors of her ancestors were not her doing, but I find the concept of Monarchy archaic and wonder what place it has in a world where inequalities are so stark. |
|
|
|
Post by mattyd2 on Dec 24, 2020 21:02:16 GMT
For me The Queens Speach is a bit of a tradition. I'm a massive royalist, and the fact that all the lefties on here deride it so much makes it that little bit more special. God Bless Ya Maam. I'm really interested in people who call themselves royalists. What does that mean to you? If you were on a plane with 100 people, you crash landed on a remote island and had to start a new civilisation, and a few people seized power over the rest and declared themselves royalty, would you still be a royalist and worship their very existence? I'm not taking the piss by the way, I'm genuinely intrigued. I like the Queen (based on what limited stuff I know about her) and appreciate the misdemeanors of her ancestors were not her doing, but I find the concept of Monarchy archaic and wonder what place it has in a world where inequalities are so stark. Are you ex military by any chance. I am. And served with pride, and distinction. Merry Christmas |
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Dec 24, 2020 21:11:54 GMT
I'm really interested in people who call themselves royalists. What does that mean to you? If you were on a plane with 100 people, you crash landed on a remote island and had to start a new civilisation, and a few people seized power over the rest and declared themselves royalty, would you still be a royalist and worship their very existence? I'm not taking the piss by the way, I'm genuinely intrigued. I like the Queen (based on what limited stuff I know about her) and appreciate the misdemeanors of her ancestors were not her doing, but I find the concept of Monarchy archaic and wonder what place it has in a world where inequalities are so stark. Are you ex military by any chance. I am. And served with pride, and distinction. Merry Christmas No, but my brother and best friend are. It's a topic we manage to discuss despite them being ex military. Not sure why that's relevant to the question I asked you? |
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Dec 25, 2020 4:09:21 GMT
Are you ex military by any chance. I am. And served with pride, and distinction. Merry Christmas No, but my brother and best friend are. It's a topic we manage to discuss despite them being ex military. Not sure why that's relevant to the question I asked you? It was quite a strange response. I also happen to be ex-military and whilst I have a very fond affection towards our current monarch, like everything, it garners positives and negatives. QEII and her personal conduct are intrinsically linked to what I would consider my homeland and the global affect she has internationally I still find a sense of pride in. When she inevitably passes, I'm not sure that more deep rooted affection will pass go Charles/William as there doesn't feel the same comfort factor there. The ongoing Prince Andrew saga also troubles me and the closing of ranks around him doesn't leave a great taste. Overall I think the overriding affection is more towards QEII than the monarchy itself, but the level of income having a Royal Family generates for the country is a positive and I wouldn't want to see it removed, but it might need a bit of tweaking. |
|
|
|
Post by mattyd2 on Dec 25, 2020 6:14:55 GMT
No, but my brother and best friend are. It's a topic we manage to discuss despite them being ex military. Not sure why that's relevant to the question I asked you? It was quite a strange response. I also happen to be ex-military and whilst I have a very fond affection towards our current monarch, like everything, it garners positives and negatives. QEII and her personal conduct are intrinsically linked to what I would consider my homeland and the global affect she has internationally I still find a sense of pride in. When she inevitably passes, I'm not sure that more deep rooted affection will pass go Charles/William as there doesn't feel the same comfort factor there. The ongoing Prince Andrew saga also troubles me and the closing of ranks around him doesn't leave a great taste. Overall I think the overriding affection is more towards QEII than the monarchy itself, but the level of income having a Royal Family generates for the country is a positive and I wouldn't want to see it removed, but it might need a bit of tweaking. Totally agree regarding the affection towards Her Maj. Also a huge fan of Charles, and to a lesser degree Anne, but the other 2, esp Andrew are non entities to me. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 26, 2020 9:21:03 GMT
I spent over 34 years in HM's Senior Service and have great admiration for her. She came to the throne the year I was born. Charlie lost it for me with his disastrous marriage to Diana and his relationship with Parker Bowles and he will never be the statesman QE11 has been in my eyes. I would not be at all disappointed if William took the mantle and Charlie left to talk to his trees.
|
|
|
|
Post by cobhamstokey on Dec 26, 2020 10:45:59 GMT
I spent over 34 years in HM's Senior Service and have great admiration for her. She came to the throne the year I was born. Charlie lost it for me with his disastrous marriage to Diana and his relationship with Parker Bowles and he will never be the statesman QE11 has been in my eyes. I would not be at all disappointed if William took the mantle and Charlie left to talk to his trees. This. William is far more befitting of the role of King. He does little wrong and is a far better ambassador than his father who comes accross as a buffoon. Kate too would be an excellent queen. The queens speech was excellent yesterday and for a lady of her age was incredible. I used to like Harry but he’s become a bit of an embarrassment in the way he’s sold out for the big buck. Andrew is a disgrace and loathed by pretty much everyone. I know a few that have met him and he’s every bit as arrogant as we saw. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 26, 2020 11:20:05 GMT
I find ex service men's stance slightly disturbing.
Should be fighting for your country full stop, no extra motivation should be required.
If we didn't have a monarchy would you not fight?
Just putting it out there.
At the end of the day anyone prepared to put their lives on the line for others you have to respect that
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 26, 2020 11:26:29 GMT
For me The Queens Speach is a bit of a tradition. I'm a massive royalist, and the fact that all the lefties on here deride it so much makes it that little bit more special. God Bless Ya Maam. I'm really interested in people who call themselves royalists. What does that mean to you? If you were on a plane with 100 people, you crash landed on a remote island and had to start a new civilisation, and a few people seized power over the rest and declared themselves royalty, would you still be a royalist and worship their very existence? I'm not taking the piss by the way, I'm genuinely intrigued. I like the Queen (based on what limited stuff I know about her) and appreciate the misdemeanors of her ancestors were not her doing, but I find the concept of Monarchy archaic and wonder what place it has in a world where inequalities are so stark. The monarchy ceased to have any real power generations ago, and has become purely a figurehead. I would much rather have a head of state who is above politics and curtailed from making any political viewpoint. That I believe is much better than having a politician. Can you imagine having Johnson as a President representing this country. He does not represent this country, the monarch does, the PM represents the government of the country, and has rightly been put in his place by the judges over paroging parliament. I would hate to have a head of state whose politics I detested, like Corbyn, the friend of terrorists and anti-semites. Surely even a communist can see the benefit in having a monarch head of state instead of an arch capitalist pandering to international corporations? Another important aspect of monarchy is that although it has no power in itself, it denies power and allegiance to others. The armed forces give their allegiance to the monarch as do judges. Far better thanagiving allegiance to a politician or "the state" whatever that means. As with all institutions, the monarch needs to evolve with time any keep aligned to modern thinking which it can struggle to do. We are blessed with the Queen who swore to give life long service to the country, probably prompted by the behaviour of her uncle. Charles will have a lot to live up to and may not be there very long. William is shaping up well and gives every indication of eventually being a good "modern" monarch. The further a person is away from being in line to the throne, the more they should be marginalised, deprived of privilege, and expected to earn a living. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 26, 2020 11:35:08 GMT
I spent over 34 years in HM's Senior Service and have great admiration for her. She came to the throne the year I was born. Charlie lost it for me with his disastrous marriage to Diana and his relationship with Parker Bowles and he will never be the statesman QE11 has been in my eyes. I would not be at all disappointed if William took the mantle and Charlie left to talk to his trees. This. William is far more befitting of the role of King. He does little wrong and is a far better ambassador than his father who comes accross as a buffoon. Kate too would be an excellent queen. The queens speech was excellent yesterday and for a lady of her age was incredible. I used to like Harry but he’s become a bit of an embarrassment in the way he’s sold out for the big buck. Andrew is a disgrace and loathed by pretty much everyone. I know a few that have met him and he’s every bit as arrogant as we saw. Can concur with your comments on Andrew. An incident springs to mind when I was on the Frigate HMS Antelope in refit at Devonport in 1981. Prince Andrew was undertaking a short engineering familiarisation course that all RN officers had to undertake during training and came onboard us in dry dock for a tour of the engineering departments of the ship. Bear in mind that Antelope had gas turbine propulsion along with most of the new frigates and destroyers of that era. He came down my engine room for a look around and his only question was where do we store the gas for the engines. This was after he had been in the classroom for a couple of weeks learning about marine and weapon engineering in the RN. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 26, 2020 11:39:20 GMT
I'm really interested in people who call themselves royalists. What does that mean to you? If you were on a plane with 100 people, you crash landed on a remote island and had to start a new civilisation, and a few people seized power over the rest and declared themselves royalty, would you still be a royalist and worship their very existence? I'm not taking the piss by the way, I'm genuinely intrigued. I like the Queen (based on what limited stuff I know about her) and appreciate the misdemeanors of her ancestors were not her doing, but I find the concept of Monarchy archaic and wonder what place it has in a world where inequalities are so stark. The monarchy ceased to have any real power generations ago, and has become purely a figurehead. I would much rather have a head of state who is above politics and curtailed from making any political viewpoint. That I believe is much better than having a politician. Can you imagine having Johnson as a President representing this country. He does not represent this country, the monarch does, the PM represents the government of the country, and has rightly been put in his place by the judges over paroging parliament. I would hate to have a head of state whose politics I detested, like Corbyn, the friend of terrorists and anti-semites. Surely even a communist can see the benefit in having a monarch head of state instead of an arch capitalist pandering to international corporations? Another important aspect of monarchy is that although it has no power in itself, it denies power and allegiance to others. The armed forces give their allegiance to the monarch as do judges. Far better thanagiving allegiance to a politician or "the state" whatever that means. As with all institutions, the monarch needs to evolve with time any keep aligned to modern thinking which it can struggle to do. We are blessed with the Queen who swore to give life long service to the country, probably prompted by the behaviour of her uncle. Charles will have a lot to live up to and may not be there very long. William is shaping up well and gives every indication of eventually being a good "modern" monarch. The further a person is away from being in line to the throne, the more they should be marginalised, deprived of privilege, and expected to earn a living. Very important that the head of state and the head of government are separate. You don't have to have someone born into the role though. The Irish elect their president who essentially just smiles and waves without any of the putrid nonsense we get with having a royal family. |
|
|
|
Post by lawrieleslie on Dec 26, 2020 11:50:05 GMT
I find ex service men's stance slightly disturbing. Should be fighting for your country full stop, no extra motivation should be required. If we didn't have a monarchy would you not fight? Just putting it out there. At the end of the day anyone prepared to put their lives on the line for others you have to respect that The notion of servicemen fighting for Queen and Country just was not that relevant during my time in the RN. The training and indoctrination always instilled in you the support of your unit or ship and I bet pound to a penny that any serviceman who has been in combat would say that their CO, comrades and fighting capability of their units were uppermost in their minds. Queen and Country just didn't come into it possibly because it was so obvious a notion and irrelevant when you’re trying to save your ship or continuing to press an attack when people are falling around you. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 26, 2020 12:09:43 GMT
I find ex service men's stance slightly disturbing. Should be fighting for your country full stop, no extra motivation should be required. If we didn't have a monarchy would you not fight? Just putting it out there. At the end of the day anyone prepared to put their lives on the line for others you have to respect that The notion of servicemen fighting for Queen and Country just was not that relevant during my time in the RN. The training and indoctrination always instilled in you the support of your unit or ship and I bet pound to a penny that any serviceman who has been in combat would say that their CO, comrades and fighting capability of their units were uppermost in their minds. Queen and Country just didn't come into it possibly because it was so obvious a notion and irrelevant when you’re trying to save your ship or continuing to press an attack when people are falling around you. I think you have nailed it. |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Dec 26, 2020 13:11:29 GMT
The monarchy ceased to have any real power generations ago, and has become purely a figurehead. I would much rather have a head of state who is above politics and curtailed from making any political viewpoint. That I believe is much better than having a politician. Can you imagine having Johnson as a President representing this country. He does not represent this country, the monarch does, the PM represents the government of the country, and has rightly been put in his place by the judges over paroging parliament. I would hate to have a head of state whose politics I detested, like Corbyn, the friend of terrorists and anti-semites. Surely even a communist can see the benefit in having a monarch head of state instead of an arch capitalist pandering to international corporations? Another important aspect of monarchy is that although it has no power in itself, it denies power and allegiance to others. The armed forces give their allegiance to the monarch as do judges. Far better thanagiving allegiance to a politician or "the state" whatever that means. As with all institutions, the monarch needs to evolve with time any keep aligned to modern thinking which it can struggle to do. We are blessed with the Queen who swore to give life long service to the country, probably prompted by the behaviour of her uncle. Charles will have a lot to live up to and may not be there very long. William is shaping up well and gives every indication of eventually being a good "modern" monarch. The further a person is away from being in line to the throne, the more they should be marginalised, deprived of privilege, and expected to earn a living. Very important that the head of state and the head of government are separate. You don't have to have someone born into the role though. The Irish elect their president who essentially just smiles and waves without any of the putrid nonsense we get with having a royal family. I understand exactly where you are coming from, and pondered this. But I think you hit the nail on the head when you say the Irish President is just smiles and waves, and carries little gravitas. Our monarchy brings a heritage, pomp and ceremony, is a huge foreign exchange earner in terms of tourism, TV programmes/films sold abroad, etc. I could understand if the Aussies let the monarchy go as it must be a bit distant to them, but I think it would be a massive loss to this country to lose our monarch which is the envy of many. It is one of the things that makes us British. I see little point in many of the European mainland monarchies, and don't have a clue on who many of they are!. The Irish do seem to "use" theirs a lot more and better. The "Royal family" should be curtailed to just the immediate relatives of the monarch. I don't like the Princess Royal much but think she has done a good job being involved in over 300 organizations, whereas some of the others......well??? Charles is not the nut case some seem to think. I have met him, found him very well briefed, which he retained, and genuinely interested and concerned about people, particularly the disadvantaged, and about the environment (which he quizzed me well on, felt like I was in a job interview!). I have recently been meeting with a young man who is undergoing a Prince's Trust project; what a tremendous organization that is. I'm aware you can have such organizations without royal patronage, but I'm sure it adds a lot of support to them having royalty involved, which can only be for the good. |
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Dec 26, 2020 13:31:15 GMT
I find ex service men's stance slightly disturbing. Should be fighting for your country full stop, no extra motivation should be required. If we didn't have a monarchy would you not fight? Just putting it out there. At the end of the day anyone prepared to put their lives on the line for others you have to respect that I'm ex service, no strong feelings on the Royal family either way but the thought of the queen and her family had absolutely nothing to do with me doing my job while I was in. And I've never knowingly listened to a single Queens speech, I've usually been in the pub at that time on Xmas day  |
|
|
|
Post by cerebralstokie on Dec 27, 2020 17:08:40 GMT
I am a fan of the Queen, but her extended family does include a few renegades. Anti Royalists need to think carefully about what they really want and what the alternatives might be. The Queen does an excellent job in representing our country and is well respected abroad. The fact that she carries no political baggage (other than the status quo) is a huge advantage. I wonder what she really thinks of the likes of Blair, Johnson and others - the mind boggles. I am old enough to remember the days of media deference to Royalty. Quite a lot of what, today, would be called scandal would be published in continental newspapers but would be embargoed by the British press. Things began to change in the 60's when any target was good enough for the satirists. The Royals got off fairly lightly at the time but now we know much of what goes on in the world is common knowledge and the only thing that seems to matter is "will it sell copy?" The Royals do not have the right to reply and in a world where integrity seems to be a thing of the past I think we are very lucky to have the Queen as our representative on the world stage even if only symbolically.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 27, 2020 17:26:56 GMT
I am a fan of the Queen, but her extended family does include a few renegades. Anti Royalists need to think carefully about what they really want and what the alternatives might be. The Queen does an excellent job in representing our country and is well respected abroad. The fact that she carries no political baggage (other than the status quo) is a huge advantage. I wonder what she really thinks of the likes of Blair, Johnson and others - the mind boggles. I am old enough to remember the days of media deference to Royalty. Quite a lot of what, today, would be called scandal would be published in continental newspapers but would be embargoed by the British press. Things began to change in the 60's when any target was good enough for the satirists. The Royals got off fairly lightly at the time but now we know much of what goes on in the world is common knowledge and the only thing that seems to matter is "will it sell copy?" The Royals do not have the right to reply and in a world where integrity seems to be a thing of the past I think we are very lucky to have the Queen as our representative on the world stage even if only symbolically. Luck shouldn't play any part. |
|
|
|
Post by cerebralstokie on Dec 27, 2020 22:06:13 GMT
I am a fan of the Queen, but her extended family does include a few renegades. Anti Royalists need to think carefully about what they really want and what the alternatives might be. The Queen does an excellent job in representing our country and is well respected abroad. The fact that she carries no political baggage (other than the status quo) is a huge advantage. I wonder what she really thinks of the likes of Blair, Johnson and others - the mind boggles. I am old enough to remember the days of media deference to Royalty. Quite a lot of what, today, would be called scandal would be published in continental newspapers but would be embargoed by the British press. Things began to change in the 60's when any target was good enough for the satirists. The Royals got off fairly lightly at the time but now we know much of what goes on in the world is common knowledge and the only thing that seems to matter is "will it sell copy?" The Royals do not have the right to reply and in a world where integrity seems to be a thing of the past I think we are very lucky to have the Queen as our representative on the world stage even if only symbolically. Luck shouldn't play any part. I don't think you will find any references to luck in my post - I was merely expressing the view that I thought the Queen was doing a pretty good job. I also think that, if any member of her extended family is guilty of serious misconduct, then they should be held to account, as any ordinary citizen would, rather than being protected by the "system". On a presidential system there are both good and bad examples out there. I certainly would not want the interests of big business and wealth to influence the outcome and have us end up with a Trump like figure as a result. |
|
|
|
Post by xchpotter on Dec 27, 2020 22:12:59 GMT
I know we will never get to see them, but can you imagine reading her memoirs? She has done an excellent job in maintaining her impartiality (lessons that many could learn from), but she must have scratched her head at some of the pricks we’ve had who’ve managed to turn this country into the state it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Dec 27, 2020 22:17:52 GMT
Luck shouldn't play any part. I don't think you will find any references to luck in my post - I was merely expressing the view that I thought the Queen was doing a pretty good job. I also think that, if any member of her extended family is guilty of serious misconduct, then they should be held to account, as any ordinary citizen would, rather than being protected by the "system". On a presidential system there are both good and bad examples out there. I certainly would not want the interests of big business and wealth to influence the outcome and have us end up with a Trump like figure as a result. Luck is clearly a huge part of having a monarchy. To avoid a Trump like figure is really easy. Do what the Irish elect a head of state who is separate to the head of the government.dont rely on accident if birth. Just wait till Charles his King, he'll cause a constitutional crisis within 18 months. |
|
|
|
Post by cerebralstokie on Dec 28, 2020 10:04:05 GMT
I don't think you will find any references to luck in my post - I was merely expressing the view that I thought the Queen was doing a pretty good job. I also think that, if any member of her extended family is guilty of serious misconduct, then they should be held to account, as any ordinary citizen would, rather than being protected by the "system". On a presidential system there are both good and bad examples out there. I certainly would not want the interests of big business and wealth to influence the outcome and have us end up with a Trump like figure as a result. Luck is clearly a huge part of having a monarchy. To avoid a Trump like figure is really easy. Do what the Irish elect a head of state who is separate to the head of the government.dont rely on accident if birth. Just wait till Charles his King, he'll cause a constitutional crisis within 18 months. I take your points on board lordb. However I think the Irish are very fortunate in having a "non political" Head of State. I just worry that, if we went down that road, the very Act of choosing suitable candidates would become politicised. |
|
|
|
Post by Dave the Rave on Jan 2, 2021 22:19:06 GMT
Did anybody watch the alternative speech on Channel 4?
Very funny I thought. Delivered the message beautifully about the dangers of online content and it's authenticity.
I find myself researching more stuff than ever before in the battle against 'fake news'.
Quite scary just how much of it is out there and how the studies suggest that older people are more likely to believe and share it.
|
|
