Become an expert in pussy licking! She'll Beg You For More! | Find local men to exchange blowjobs | Laughably Small Penis? Enlarge it At Home Using Just Your Hands! | Stay Hard as Steel!!! |
Started by DJS at 08,Sep,22 14:53  other posts of DJS
Similar topics: 1.KING and QUEEN of the site 2.Can we get a new king?(or a queen like cum4steffi) 3.Mi-lips "Queen" of the site 4.QUEEN ELIZABETH II 5.King and queen New CommentComments: |
Are you able to explain why Queen Elizabeth II husband, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, was just a prince yet when Prince Charles ascended to the throne and became King Charles III, Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, became Queen Consort?
Royal tradition which dictates that women do not transfer their Royal titles to their husband.
So the Queen needed to make sure the public recognised her authority as the Head of State.& not him..
By the way, thank you for that information, DJS.
Like you've stated others have said the same thing,ok she looked frail(but she hasn't been seen as regular has were use to),missed events on quite a few things that close to her,
Queen Elizabeth II died of "old age", according to her death certificate, which has been released by the National Records of Scotland.
The certificate records the Queen died at 15:10 on 8 September in Balmoral Castle, at the age of 96.
The advice from coroners is that "old age" can be given as the sole cause of death in some "very limited circumstances".
This would be where the certifying doctor has personally cared for someone over a long period; where a "gradual decline" has been observed and where a doctor is not aware of "any identifiable disease or
injury" contributing to a death.
I listened to something on YouTube with regard to death taking place in Scotland.
If memory serves me correctly, I understood that if you die in Scotland, cause of death would have to be determined and paperwork filed within a certain amount of days. Had HM Queen Elizabeth II died elsewhere in the UK, cause of death might never be known.
Also time of death & when the news broke( has I said previously newsreaders sort of give it away everyone changed to wearing black) was almost 3hrs but there saying it was till her family got to her, which by reports some didn't arrive in time,
I don't know if it's all protocol or if they are exaggerating to maximize her positive effect
on the monarchy, because they fear it's decline. However, she has been devoted to the institution all her life, so I think she would be OK to add to the popularity of the monarchy a bit more. It's not like she's doing any work now and her future is quite uneventful.
Time to ditch that crap.
Charly is worth 2 BILLION dollars now. Any expenses for his living requirement should come out of that instead of the taxes the citizens pay.
America paid for 400 secret police. For him being there..... Not The Queen ...was not protected by Bidets onterage. lol
It's called the MI5... Think it has updated to MI6..
No funds were paid by the UK to America for her safe passage.
Black lives matters has nothing to do with this.... Google and links can be your own worst enemy.
Believe none of what you hear and half of what you see, or just become a Sheep and count bodies to the rythem of war drums
Two billion is a lot, but if you compare that with the wealthy in the US, many of whom acquired that wealth by selling cigarettes, unhealthy drinks or unhealthy food, or by scamming customers or just by crushing the competition and creating monopolies,
by exploiting their workers and bribing politicians, it's not that much money and it's
not that damaging to society.
Try iknoweverything.org where you can politicize everything from why some have a hairy ass to stinky wristwatch bands.
This is NOT a political thread ya fuckin monkey 🐒🐵
But at least you are consistent and you reprimanded phart for making it political too.
I apologize for taking the bait and running with it. No more politics in my posts in this topic about the queen, I promise. (Only if the queen pops up in other topics)
I really did like and respect the Queen though. She was great!
But, if you have good information about their wealth being more (or less),
I would be interested. I didn't even check if Charly is actually worth 2 BILLION dollars. Maybe he does, maybe not. I would want it to be 100% transparent though.
The amount of money the monarch has is less important than how they got it and what they are doing with it, to me. I care about how much 'drips down the food chain' and how the cake is shared between all the people involved in baking it.
But let me not make it too political, because I promised not to.
Sure, if the Queen isn't the elite, than who is?
If one of your powers is giving people titles of nobility,... you might be an elite.
It's like when you die, people ain't worried about your net worth..... And there would be a reason for that. just the fuckin idiot you are. So you would be remembered I guess.
Better a smartass than a dumb cunt.
At least when I stare at the sun I get a result. Listening to your wrongaganda is like broken record. White fuckin noise... Fuckin keyboard correspondent
--------------------------------------- added after 4 minutes
They would never hire a socialist like me, only corporate neo-liberals.
I am only worried about people's net worth, when they got it from exploitation.
I'm surprised that this post annoyed you that much, I was much less outspoken than usual.
may the Mechanic-Queen rest in peace.
The fact that this funeral was very costly for The US tax payers and we should not have had to foot the bill for 400 secret service to cover for your "leader" to be 1 of the very few world leaders to use his own car,while the rest rode a bus may offend you,but the the fact is,it was STUPID and unessasary
But all people taking part in the procession would off been getting paid anyway military police ambulances etc. Just like USA personnel involved.
Sometimes I think the USA overkill protection,but as far way back as I can remember its been like that always,
Seeing that the UK is suppose to be USA closes allies,the people who run the presidential budget,put in place what they deemed sufficient for the president to come overhere to pay respects to HM..
Yes, I agree that they have been lugging her around way too much.
I don't know if it's all protocol or if they are exaggerating to maximize her positive effect
on the monarchy, because they fear it's decline. However, she has been devoted to the institution all her life, so I think she would be OK to add to the popularity of the monarchy a bit more. It's not like she's doing any work now and her future is quite uneventful.
PARADED Operations London Bridge/ Operation Unicorn,,unicorn took preference seeing she died in Scotland,preparations in place to transfer her to England via northolt then to the palace were she lay in state,till her funeral..
So as for parading/lugging her around,is completely BS,
Losing a parent or grandparent is emotionally difficult for so many people however losing a parent or grandparent that was a public figure like that of Queen Elizabeth II and having your grief put on public display has to be super rough!
Edit below
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
ADMIRE, not adnire, doh. Apologies for typing error.
--------------------------------------- added after 50 seconds
ADMIRE, NOT adnire and PRIVELEGE NOT privelge, doh, Apologies for typing errors.
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes
I've no idea why this came out TWICE, I only clicked SEND once but more apologies anyway.
To me (as to very many I am again sure) she represented the very best of Britain, unstinting and unwavering in carrying out her public duties. The photo's of her sitting alone at her husband's funeral were particularly moving - in a time of Covid and restrictions on everybodies lives, she would not break the rules even in a moment of great personal grief. Instead, she chose to and demonstrated by example the 'right' way to behave.
In some ways she represented a Britain of the past and values of decency that are far less evident across society than they were. In this sense, with her passing we are all diminished.
Yesterday, at the cricket we heard for the first time in most of our lives 'God Save the King'
The majority of people living in the UK today have only ever known one monarch Queen Elizabeth II.
Whatever you view on monarchies she has been the most incredible Head of State and not put one foot out of place throughout her long reign.
When she does eventually pass away it really will be the end of an era.
I agree with your sentiments but I dont think it be just the UK but around the world have ever known HM in their lifetime
only registered users can see external links
If we're then, also, supposed to admire and venerate them - you'll have to excuse this Brit.
I would have thought that someone from a Nation that threw off the yoke of Royal rule would be less myopic. Do you really think that EVERYONE in the UK feels like they've lost a family member today? I never met the woman and, frankly, my life is unaffected by her passing.
The only royal news I want to hear is that the monarchy has been abolished. The chink of light is that, now someone who undoubtedly had a sense of public service has died, people will see that the Institution itself is rotten to the core. I strongly suspect that dim-witted Charles will help that cause.
Seriously, man. How does it feel when reasonable, intelligent members of this community point out that you lack compassion, lack empathy, are racist and fucking stupid?
Does it even make you pause for a second and wonder whether you've got it wrong?
seriously though,I have often said I see no need for all that royalty stuff,has no real power,all just glitz and glamour and the parliment does all the work.
For the first point: yeah, I probably am. Her dying is no more tragic than your Mom dying. All this shite about her being godlike makes me want to weep.
For the second: even a broken clock is right twice a day.
only registered users can see external links
The difference between HM & them they were voted in by the people of the UK,yet still screw them,Yet Blair & the party had media adverts ask working class folk,to grass someone up who delivering pizzas for cash in hand,whilst individuals & big corporations get a free reign..
Nevertheless, it's classic "whataboutism", (and excludes other political parties, who are just as venal) so fuck off.
Praise the queen, for her life long dedication.
True that a lot of it has become symbolic and the Monarch rarely exercises all the powers he/she has. But he/she still has those powers.
All polls tend to show I'm in a minority. Hey ho!
"Purely protocol and formalities" leaves a shitload of wriggle room if the shit ever really hits the fan. You don't mention The Privy Council, Royal Commissions, Prerogative powers, appointments of Prime Ministers (remember Lord Melbourne?), proroguing Parliament, Lascelles Principles, Royal Assent, Sovereign Immunity and all the other anachronistic bollocks that reminds us all that we are NOT citizens, we ARE subjects.
If you want a "modern" example of how Royalty can trump democratically-elected representatives, check out the 1975 affair below:
only registered users can see external links
I would argue that what type of Nation you live in does, or at least can, have a massive effect on our lives. I'd prefer a Republic, if you hadn't already guessed. The current hagiography surrounding the House of Saxe Cobourg Gotha (or Windsor, if you prefer) does not sit easily with me.
The King consults weekly with the Prime Minister and regularly speaks with ministers and state secretaries. The King signs all laws and royal decrees and ratifies international treaties. The Constitution provides that the King appoints and dismisses ministers and secretaries of state and that they are sworn in before the head of state. By virtue of this constitutional role and at the request of the House of Representatives, the head of state can be regularly informed about the state of affairs during cabinet formations. The King is formally chairman of the Council of State. This presidency has grown historically and is ceremonial in nature. He delivers the Speech from the Throne on Prince's Day.
Unlike most socialists, I'm not in favor of ending our monarchy. Some members of the Socialist Party would like to have a referendum about the continuation of the monarchy or have an election for who should be the head of state. They realize that our monarchy would most likely be continued and that Willem-Alexander would probably win the election in a massive landslide over anyone else (except Maxima), but they would be fine with that, because for them it's just the democratic principle that counts.
Personally, I like it that our King is the head of state and that the Prime Minister has to answer to him. Our Queens and King of my lifetime have always been neutral and objective and honestly concerned with the people. They have never been openly critical of the government, but it has been revealed that they have corrected Prime Ministers of the past, when they were prioritizing party politics over unity or their own popularity over doing what was necessary.
Our king has made some mistakes, like going on vacation to Greece during the pandemic. He had to go deep in his apologies. I see he now has a favorability score
of 44%, which is much lower than a while ago. Queen Maxima is still more popular,
like she has always been, but she has declined in popularity a bit too, from the same mistakes. Still 57% of Dutch people support the monarchy. I'm one of them, but mostly because I prefer it over the alternatives.
only registered users can see external links
And with that said, I believe that is the way the world viewed Queen Elizabeth II.
only registered users can see external links
German family anyway (oh, the irony) who changed their name during World War 1. House of Windsor, my arse - House of Saxe Cobourg Gotha.
As I said,"I'm not a Brit" but, she was there to serve BECAUSE you Brits wanted her to, and she dedicate her life to you. No one stays in the public eye for the 90 some years of her life without some pecadillos but, when you add it up, she was good. May she rest in peace.
Put it this way (and I mean no disrespect to a dead old queen): if her Uncle hadn't fallen for an American divorcee we would, in all likelihood, had surrendered to the Nazis. He was a fascist, Hitler-sympathiser and should have been tried for treason for what he did during WW2.
Alternatively, imagine Charles had died as a toddler. Then we would have Andrew (the ****phile befriender) as our next King.
See anything wrong with a hereditary monarchy yet? At least you lot get to choose your Head of State.
We didn't "want" her to serve. We had no fucking choice. I'll leave it there, but reserve the right to challenge any further hagiography.
I'm excluding losing the Crown through battles, which is pretty rare these days!
"How would the UK become a Republic?"
"Do the public have a say about who becomes the next monarch?"
"What alternative claims are there to the British throne?"
"Who would be the British King now, if it wasn't for the Glorious Revolution?"
It's remarkable stuff, trust me!
The monarch is head of state
only registered users can see external links
The Queen reigns, but she does not rule. Ruling is done by her government, and as head of state in the UK the Queen is constitutionally obliged to follow the government’s advice. Her main functions as head of state are to appoint the Prime Minister, and all the other ministers; to open new sessions of parliament; and to give royal assent to bills passed by parliament, signifying that they have become law.
The Queen also chairs monthly meetings of the Privy Council, to approve Orders in Council; she receives incoming and outgoing ambassadors; she makes a host of other appointments, such as the senior judges, but in all this she acts on the advice of the government. She has a weekly audience with the Prime Minister, and receives daily boxes of state papers for her signature, and for information. She also has regular meetings with senior officials of all kinds.
This sound to me like the US with a president and Congress minus the hassle of elections for president every four years.
I know it's not that simple, but, tell me it doesn't work. Didn't you guys just get a new Prime Minister?
And wether you like it or not, ending the monarchy does start in Parliament. Anyone with an ounce of smarts would accept that the PUBLIC would have to be involved and many, many hurdles would have to be jumped, but, you have a short fuse and an impatient manner.
Would you also accept that asserting that "Parliament can make it happen" is a gross over-simplification?
Up to you - post semi-literate tripe, and get criticised, or don't post BEFORE you've done your cursory research.
I would bet the house that you didn't check out that link until AFTER I mocked you.
In an interview by Oprah Winfrey of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex that was aired in the UK on Monday 8th March 2021, 43% said Britain’s future would be worse should the monarchy be abolished, and after the interview 41% said the same. Only 1 in 5 (19%) now believe abolishing the monarchy would be good for the country’s future, a similar proportion to before the interview (17%).
only registered users can see external links
"Parliament can make it happen" is an over-simplification. This is a forum and not a think tank trying to resolve a problem. The statement stands. Anyone with an ounce of logic would understand that the whole UK would have to be involved. I just didn't think you needed chapter and verse from me to back up my point.
And you are right that it's up to me to post semi-literate tripe and, if I do, I should expect to be criticized. However, first, it has to be established that my statement is "semi-literate tripe". You, sir, as far as I can see, don't come close to being able to be that person with that knowledge. BTW, you lost your house.
I have already posted that I'm in a minority, and I'm perfectly happy with that.
"Read and heard" huh? Seems conclusive to me (sarcasm alert).
Still seems to me like you're doing your research to defend an already declared position, rather than doing your research first but I'll concede that point if it makes you happy.
Semi-literate is my analysis, "wether" (sic) you like it or not. A wether is a castrated ram, you fuckwit.
"Yeah, I remember that asshole. He was so full of himself: I bet he got off looking in the mirror."
You're welcome, shitkicker.
"We post trying not to offend"? Really? I see you copping plenty of flak for the way YOU address other members of the site. People in glasshouses ...
If you're deeply hurt by a stranger posting his thoughts on the Internet, can I suggest you fuck off and join a macrame group?
--------------------------------------- added after 10 minutes
On that note, perhaps we can continue arguing in another thread. This is meant to be a thread honoring your departed Queen. Let's keep it so.
This thread isn't titled "In honour of .." and I think it might be informative, especially, for non-Brits to see that the current fawning over the Royal Family isn't universally popular. It may be because of the circles I mix in, but a lot of my friends and acquaintances have already moaned about the coverage on mainstream media. If you hear "A Nation united in grief" I can tell you, from my own personal observations, that is another gross over-simplification.
Bullshit on the auto-correct by the way. "Whether" is such a common word that you must read it multiple times every day, so you can fuck off on that one too. I could believe it from dgraff or phart - the "Two Towers" of stupidity can barely string a coherent sentence together, between them. Have a fabulous weekend.
I have to say though: "bravo" for spelling every word correctly. Pity about the confusion on whether to employ "use" or "used", but nobody's perfect. Now go to the top of the class, and jump the fuck off.
Shitkicker.
only registered users can see external links
Queen Elizabeth visited Calgary, where I lived at the time, and I saw her give a speech.
It's 1:39 pm in Miami. I just got the news RIP