your oppinions as brittish subjects

[brandy]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

now i find the poitrait lovley, if a bit lonley.
you can see that it is indeed lonley at the top. i think the pic has loads of character, but im not a pro. crittic so what do i know?

[golach]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe...eut/index.html

now i find the poitrait lovley, if a bit lonley.
you can see that it is indeed lonley at the top. i think the pic has loads of character, but im not a pro. crittic so what do i know?

Not bad for an old wifie

[j4bberw0ck]

It's a work of genius. Technically and on every other level.

[scorrie]

This photograph captures the complete repression that comes with the role of the Monarch. Wear this, sit there, go here, do that. The Queen of the land but, ultimately, the puppet of the State. No character or soul is on show in this portrait.

My favourite memory of The Queen was a film about her at The Derby in 1991. The Queen had drawn Generous in the private sweep in the Royal Box. As the horse romped to victory there was genuine excitement from The Queen and she delightedly asked her Equerry "How much has one won?" to which the arid response was "One has won £8 Madam". A nice glimpse of the person shackled to the Crown.

[emb123]

I like it. I've got a lot of respect for the Queen, she stands for decency and wholesomeness and concern for the people. She has very little authority now but she has dignity in abundance. She does look like she misses someone or something in the photo, a bit wistful and slightly sad like she's looking for someone who's not there any more - maybe her mum, or maybe for memories of happier times.

Long may she rule.

[Rheghead]

I like the photo as well. I am glad the SNP will constitutionally keep the monarchy in an Independent Scotland.

[Boozeburglar]

About time the irrelevant anachronism departed. Her and her sappy cohort.

Except Camilla, let us keep her for the entertainment value, and Charles can come out once he is no longer a Royal.

[emb123]

About time the irrelevant anachronism departed. Her and her sappy cohort.

Except Camilla, let us keep her for the entertainment value, and Charles can come out once he is no longer a Royal.

I believe that discussion about scrapping the monarchy is moot anyway. From what I recall about British law, such a move is almost impossible. A bill to this effect would need to be passed by both houses of the UK parliament (for which there is way too little popular support) and then be submitted to the Queen for approval and entry into law.

[Boozeburglar]

I believe that discussion about scrapping the monarchy is moot anyway.

Are not all subjects worthy of discussion moot?

[emb123]

C'est la vie!

Not sure if you follow my meaning...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot

moot n.1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.
2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire.

tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1.

2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.

adj.1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

--

Although I'm a low-key fan of the monarchy, I agree that it's an interesting subject for discussion but only hypothetically as we can't do anything about it.

[Sporran]

I like the photo, and I think there's a lot of meaning behind it. Here the Queen sits cloistered within the traditional splendour of Buckingham Palace, dressed in her regal finery, and bedecked by royal jewels. Yet, despite her life of privilege, there is definitely a sense of loneliness and wistful contemplation in this photo. The open windows represent a big wide world beyond the palace - a modern world that is ever changing, and beyond the Queen's control. It's as if she is wondering what the future holds for her, and the British monarchy as a whole. There is a sense of foreboding in the ominous grey clouds outside......

[obiron]

its a nice pic. she does look like she would rather be outside though.

[NickInTheNorth]

As portraits go it's a portrait I for one have no real opinion about it.

I believe that discussion about scrapping the monarchy is moot anyway. From what I recall about British law, such a move is almost impossible. A bill to this effect would need to be passed by both houses of the UK parliament (for which there is way too little popular support) and then be submitted to the Queen for approval and entry into law.

But parliament is more than capable of getting rid of the monarchy if they choose to do so.

The approval by the Crown is in actual fact delegated to a committee, and they approve whatever parliament puts before them

[Boozeburglar]

C'est la vie!

Not sure if you follow my meaning...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot

moot n.1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.
2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire.

tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots 1. a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1.

2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.

adj.1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2. a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

--

Although I'm a low-key fan of the monarchy, I agree that it's an interesting subject for discussion but only hypothetically as we can't do anything about it.

I am none the wiser, could you point out exactly what you meant for us thickies at the back of the class?

[emb123]

I am none the wiser, could you point out exactly what you meant for us thickies at the back of the class?

With respect to you, are you being serious ?
To answer your original question; no, I don't feel that all subjects worthy of discussion are moot, but whilst I think that discussion about the merits of keeping or scrapping the monarchy might lead to an interesting discussion I believe that it would be moot - i.e. that it's a discussion about something that won't happen because to all practical purpose it cannot happen.

As it was explained to me by my history teacher (some time ago), the Queen has to approve proposed new laws that have been agreed by parliament. The language and the 'form' for this happening has a formal language and ceremony to it. In practise the Queen has negligible or no involvement whatsoever and as NickInTheNorth points out it is usually handled by a separate committee, but unless the law has changed since this was explained to me, the fact that the royal approval is handled by a committee does not mean that the monarch could not decide to handle a proposed law in person if they so chose, and the monarch still retains the right to say 'no'.

I vaguely recall a bit of a to do a good few years back where the Queen made it abundantly clear that she was not happy about a new law that the then government wanted to bring in and there was a lot of discussion in parliament and the media about removing the monarchs last remaining right of veto. It may have been regarding Poll Tax, I'm just too hazy about the details, or I believe it was something that was brought in a couple of years after Poll Tax.

The last I heard, the Queen does most definitely retain the right to veto a proposed law, but it is a right which has not been exercised in hundreds of years, if ever, and it was always expected that if the right of veto were used that it would result in civil war

[brandy]

saying that bush just finsished veto'ing a bill that would infuse money into our troops in iraq.. but veto'd it because there was a condition that we would have the majority of our troops withdrawn by 2008.
he refused by saying that it would be a sign of weakness and that it would be putting teh white flag up..
all i can say is.. IDIOT!