Why isn&#x27;t the Queen clapping the D-Day veterans? WTF!?

Original post by gladders

Everyone has troubles, but I put it to you you are expecting far too much of her. Even the most cheerful person has to change their expression in order to stretch face muscles - I doubt very much you could manage to look happy, engaged and enthusiastic all the time, even if you were constantly doing something you enjoy.

See also: bitchy resting face.

see: the queen of denmark. old lady, but pretty smiley from all I've seen, especially compared to our "jolly old" queen

You have no basis on which to make these claims. The fact that she is in Normandy doing the D-Day memorial is something which she does not delegate, don't you think?

I can't believe you're assuming that the queen actually has any capacity or practical discretion for civil service-esque duties; she didn't go to university and has no mandate whatsoever to actual participate or exercise any choice or creativity in her "job"; she's a walking figure head, I thought you'd know that. whatever she does, she does as she's instructed to, but what a hell of a deal for all that cash

Reply 42

Davij038

13

Original post by gladders

We have to base it on what's been said of her by people who have interacted with her and seen her in person. And generally, those are positive. You're free to privately fantasize about her being the Wicked Witch of the West, but in terms of debating how good she is as Head of State, it's actively unhelpful.
[\quote]

Yeah and Hitler was great with kids and loved animal...regardless of whether or not she's any good at her job or not it should be based on merit not on privilege.

She is already one of the greatest charitable contributors in the country, in both deeds and money supplied. You haven't given many specifics here.[\quote]

You mean she gives a fraction of her tax funded wealth on whatever causes she feels relevant? Wow how selfless...

She must go where the Government direct her; in any case, if you want there to be fewer despots and dictators, sometimes you have to speak to them.[\quote]

So not wine and dine them then?

In any case I doubt she's going to the Saudis "you should bloody well get
Elected!"

It's pretty definitively established that Diana's death was a genuine accident. Honestly, if she wanted to do away with someone she disliked, it was a pretty sloppy way of it, given how much of a negative reaction the monarchy endured immediately after.

And media in the pocket? Give me a break. There's plenty of republican media, or at the very least newspapers who would love to grab a scoop like that. The fact that nothing has been revealed about it is because there is nothing to reveal.

The vast majority of newspapers are royalist ... What ones are republican?

The family are easily powerful enough for a cover up. Maybe prince Charles told some of those MPs about it!! I'm joking but that highlights a tiny bit of that we can't know for sure.

Reply 43

Original post by zippity.doodah

she doesn't actually do most of those responsibilities; her staff do it for her. she's not anywhere near educated enough to actually do it.

60 years worth of work experience, plus growing up knowing exactly what her job would be, what it entailed and how to do it would dispute that.

How would someone become educated enough for such a role, anyway? We don't ask MPs to prove their education by jumping through hoops before they get elected, nor before becoming party leader or PM. And nor should we.

Reply 44

Original post by zippity.doodah

see: the queen of denmark. old lady, but pretty smiley from all I've seen, especially compared to our "jolly old" queen

As I said, not everyone's the same and nobody, absolutely nobody, can keep a happy cheerful face all the time. Given that she is in the public eye so much (and on a far more international scale than the Queen of Denmark), it's remarkable that she smiles as much as she does. She's only human!

I can't believe you're assuming that the queen actually has any capacity or practical discretion for civil service-esque duties; she didn't go to university and has no mandate whatsoever to actual participate or exercise any choice or creativity in her "job"; she's a walking figure head, I thought you'd know that. whatever she does, she does as she's instructed to, but what a hell of a deal for all that cash

She is Head of State. She carries out the same duties as (for example) the President of Germany. The Wiki article I linked you to has a good breakdown of the typical functions of such a role. Which ones, precisely, are you claiming she does not do?

Reply 45

Original post by Drewski

60 years worth of work experience, plus growing up knowing exactly what her job would be, what it entailed and how to do it would dispute that.

How would someone become educated enough for such a role, anyway? We don't ask MPs to prove their education by jumping through hoops before they get elected, nor before becoming party leader or PM. And nor should we.

so basically a child could do her job?
60 years of experience doing child-like work?
wow, what a resume we're talking about here

Reply 46

Original post by zippity.doodah

I can't believe you're assuming that the queen actually has any capacity or practical discretion for civil service-esque duties; she didn't go to university

Neither did Churchill. Was he unqualified to lead?

Reply 47

Original post by zippity.doodah

so basically a child could do her job?
60 years of experience doing child-like work?
wow, what a resume we're talking about here

Yes, I can tell you're interested in a factual, reasoned debate :rolleyes:

You know full well I never said that, yet are acting like a fool to try and score some ridiculous point.

If you're not going to act sensible, then neither am I. Cabbage.

Reply 48

Original post by gladders

As I said, not everyone's the same and nobody, absolutely nobody, can keep a happy cheerful face all the time. Given that she is in the public eye so much (and on a far more international scale than the Queen of Denmark), it's remarkable that she smiles as much as she does. She's only human!

but come on, I know the queen does sometimes smile but when she doesn't she looks so incredibly aggressive

She is Head of State. She carries out the same duties as (for example) the President of Germany. The Wiki article I linked you to has a good breakdown of the typical functions of such a role. Which ones, precisely, are you claiming she does not do?

and he was elected. that's the thing about this - germany is a republic. if anything the president in the system they have has more legitimacy than their prime minister even though the president is not directly elected like in ireland, iceland, portugal etc so I don't see the issue. sure it would be better to have a direct election but it's better than a monarchical selection. for such offices you need neutral and skill, and you don't get the latter half from being born.

Reply 49

Original post by Davij038

Yeah and Hitler was great with kids and loved animal...regardless of whether or not she's any good at her job or not it should be based on merit not on privilege.

A marvelous idea! I take it you are therefore against elected Head of State, then?

You mean she gives a fraction of her tax funded wealth on whatever causes she feels relevant? Wow how selfless...

Her wealth is entirely her own and is not based on taxpayer's money. And I don't remember that being charitable is some kind of competition. Given that she does more than simply giving money, but is also involved in the prosecution of many of these causes, she's a step up from many ordinary people.

So not wine and dine them then?

That's part and parcel of diplomacy.

In any case I doubt she's going to the Saudis "you should bloody well get
Elected!"

She might not, but she may play a vital role in giving them a perspective that is different from a temporary official - a familiar face of the past few decades.

The vast majority of newspapers are royalist ... What ones are republican?

Try the Guardian, and the Independent on its off days.

Anyway, I object to the claim that any particular paper, nowadays, is explicitly royalist. It's not a party issue, and I've seen all the papers take a pop at the monarchy or acknowledge its value from time to time.

The family are easily powerful enough for a cover up. Maybe prince Charles told some of those MPs about it!! I'm joking but that highlights a tiny bit of that we can't know for sure.

That's circular logic. We don't know, therefore it must have been hidden. You allow no possibility for it being actually untrue.

Reply 50

Original post by Drewski

Neither did Churchill. Was he unqualified to lead?

...really? :s-smilie:

where does it say that?

Reply 51

Original post by zippity.doodah

but come on, I know the queen does sometimes smile but when she doesn't she looks so incredibly aggressive

Look up bitchy resting face. Some people just look like that. They can't help it. And the rest of the time, when she's smiling, she looks perfectly fine.

and he was elected.

Nope. Chosen by an assembly. They deliberately avoid electing him.

that's the thing about this - germany is a republic. if anything the president in the system they have has more legitimacy than their prime minister even though the president is not directly elected like in ireland, iceland, portugal etc so I don't see the issue. sure it would be better to have a direct election but it's better than a monarchical selection. for such offices you need neutral and skill, and you don't get the latter half from being born.

Actually no; it's better to avoid having the office elected at all. The monarchy occupies a sweet spot in our constitutional framework - it carries all kinds of positive, traditional and charismatic legitimacy, but lacks the political, electoral legitimacy that would make it an active political player.

Reply 52

Original post by zippity.doodah

but come on, I know the queen does sometimes smile but when she doesn't she looks so incredibly aggressive

That's just her face. My grandmother (coincidentally almost the exact same age, give or take a couple of weeks) has a similar scowl. The old Pope looked genuinely evil when his face was relaxed.

Are we now so consumed by the cosmetics of someone that we ignore other features? Who cares what they look like? It's actions that matter.

Reply 53

Original post by zippity.doodah

...really? :s-smilie:

where does it say that?

Churchill was well known for being atrocious at school. He hated education. He was incredibly smart, but essentially, he was self-taught, either by his own hobbies or by being given a job and learning about it as he went along.

Reply 54

Original post by zippity.doodah

...really? :s-smilie:

where does it say that?

In every biography of him ever. He went straight from Harrow to the Army and to RMA Sandhurst. His only degrees were honorary.

Reply 55

Original post by gladders

Look up bitchy resting face. Some people just look like that. They can't help it. And the rest of the time, when she's smiling, she looks perfectly fine.

she should make more of an effort seeing as it's so terrible, then - she's got a role to fill

Nope. Chosen by an assembly. They deliberately avoid electing him.

Actually no; it's better to avoid having the office elected at all. The monarchy occupies a sweet spot in our constitutional framework - it carries all kinds of positive, traditional and charismatic legitimacy, but lacks the political, electoral legitimacy that would make it an active political player.

by "election" I meant by the (federal) assembly by, what was when I last checked a larger majority than usual. it is an election just like the prime minister of this country, except it's not chamber-specific for obvious reasons. "traditional legitimacy"? that doesn't make any sense. and, again, all sorts of democracies have directly elected parliamentary presidents and they aren't political players in the sense that the prime minister is.

Reply 56

Original post by Drewski

In every biography of him ever. He went straight from Harrow to the Army and to RMA Sandhurst. His only degrees were honorary.

wow, my respect for him has suddenly taken a dramatic plummet then :lol:

he must have bought his way into politics the same way ed miliband did

Reply 57

username402722

Even the French appear to respect the Queen, given a market is being named after her. Now, how many places in the UK are named after any French leader, even de Gaulle?

Reply 58

Original post by zippity.doodah

she should make more of an effort seeing as it's so terrible, then - she's got a role to fill

I think she's doing fine, given her overwhelming popularity :wink:

by "election" I meant by the (federal) assembly by, what was when I last checked a larger majority than usual. it is an election just like the prime minister of this country, except it's not chamber-specific for obvious reasons. "traditional legitimacy"? that doesn't make any sense. and, again, all sorts of democracies have directly elected parliamentary presidents and they aren't political players in the sense that the prime minister is.

This is pretty elementary stuff...Types of Legitimacy

Almost all countries with ceremonial Heads of State have unelected or indirectly elected incumbents. There is no requirement, none at all, for the office to be elected. It's pretty much just an option. We remain as democratic as Germany.

Reply 59