• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Fingers crossed - still a few hours to go!

Darat

Lackey
Staff member
Darat
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
131,015
Location
South East, UK
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7153124.stm

...snip...
The Queen will reach a new milestone when she overtakes Queen Victoria to become the oldest British monarch.

...snip...

Buckingham Palace says the Queen will beat the record at about 1700 GMT, taking into account the times of their births and Victoria's death.


...snip...
Click to expand...

Still time for a fish bone to do its patriotic duty!
 
Last edited:
I wonder if this is right. Queen Victoria lived through twenty-one leap years (1820 to 1900) making her total life measured in days as 29,829. Lizzie has so far only notched up twenty leap-years (1928 to 2004) which makes her lifespan 29,828 as of close of business today.

Is this story a day early? Royal chroniclers goofed?
 
Last edited:
acuity said:
I wonder if this is right. Queen Victoria lived through twenty-one leap years (1820 to 1900) making her total life measured in days as 29,829. Lizzie has so far only notched up twenty leap-years (1928 to 2004) which makes her lifespan 29,828 as of close of business today.

Is this story a day early? Royal chroniclers goofed?
Click to expand...

The year 1900 is not a leap year. Years divisible by 100 are not leap years unless also divisible by 400.
 
I don't understand why you guys haven't staged a coup long ago. What the hell do you need a royal family for besides dedicating bridges and such?
 
The queens xmas message always has me thinking about the royals.

Each year I fervently pray that the tragic events affecting the Nepalese Royal Family in 2001 are repeated in Buck house. I will Charles to massacre his parents before turning the gun on himself.

However I have since seen proven the negative effects of praying. This year I will pray it does not happen and I invite you to join me.
 
Tricky said:
I don't understand why you guys haven't staged a coup long ago. What the hell do you need a royal family for besides dedicating bridges and such?
Click to expand...

Only because Americans have taught us that they would probably get replaced by "Celebrities".

It's already started in a small way, but having the equivalent of Tom Cruise, Britney or worse Oprah, instead is too horrible to contemplate.

I blame you Yanks as to why we still have a monarchy.

;)
.
 
Last edited:
H3LL said:
Only because Americans have taught us that they would probably get replaced by "Celebrities".

It's already started in a small way, but having the equivalent of Tom Cruise, Britney or worse Oprah, instead is too horrible to contemplate.

I blame you Yanks as to why we still have a monarchy.

;)
.
Click to expand...
Don't blame the Yankees. We warned against back in the sixth century:
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Clarence was with me as concerned the revolution, but in a modified way. His idea was a republic, without privileged orders, but with a hereditary royal family at the head of it instead of an elective chief magistrate. He believed that no nation that had ever known the joy of worshiping a royal family could ever be robbed of it and not fade away and die of melancholy. I urged that kings were dangerous. He said, then have cats. He was sure that a royal family of cats would answer every purpose. They would be as useful as any other royal family, they would know as much, they would have the same virtues and the same treacheries, the same disposition to get up shindies with other royal cats, they would be laughably vain and absurd and never know it, they would be wholly inexpensive; finally, they would have as sound a divine right as any other royal house, and "Tom VII., or Tom XI., or Tom XIV. by the grace of God King," would sound as well as it would when applied to the ordinary royal tomcat with tights on. "And as a rule," said he, in his neat modern English, "the character of these cats would be considerably above the character of the average king, and this would be an immense moral advantage to the nation, for the reason that a nation always models its morals after its monarch's. The worship of royalty being founded in unreason, these graceful and harmless cats would easily become as sacred as any other royalties, and indeed more so, because it would presently be noticed that they hanged nobody, beheaded nobody, imprisoned nobody, inflicted no cruelties or injustices of any sort, and so must be worthy of a deeper love and reverence than the customary human king, and would certainly get it. The eyes of the whole harried world would soon be fixed upon this humane and gentle system, and royal butchers would presently begin to disappear; their subjects would fill the vacancies with catlings from our own royal house; we should become a factory; we should supply the thrones of the world; within forty years all Europe would be governed by cats, and we should furnish the cats. The reign of universal peace would begin then, to end no more forever...... Me-e-e-yow-ow-ow-ow -- fzt! -- wow!" [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]​


[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Hang him, I supposed he was in earnest, and was beginning to be persuaded by him, until he exploded that cat-howl and startled me almost out of my clothes. But he never could be in earnest. He didn't know what it was. He had pictured a distinct and perfectly rational and feasible improvement upon constitutional monarchy, but he was too feather-headed to know it, or care anything about it, either.[/FONT]​

[/FONT]
Click to expand...
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
From A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court by Mark Twain​
[/FONT]
 
H3LL said:
Only because Americans have taught us that they would probably get replaced by "Celebrities".

It's already started in a small way, but having the equivalent of Tom Cruise, Britney or worse Oprah, instead is too horrible to contemplate.

I blame you Yanks as to why we still have a monarchy.

;)
.
Click to expand...

I thought you folks already worship Michael Jackson as a replacement queen?
 
Speaking as a New Zealander I am all in favour of the Monarchy. By sheer luck we have happened on a system that we would never have thought up on our own. Our Head Of State is not only completely politically neutral but actually lives on the other side of world. We dont even have to pay for her! Some other suckers take care of that for us. Oh, we'll put her up in a hotel for a few days if she comes to visit, but that's about it. She doesnt even have to sign our laws - or have the option not to, because we have a Governor General. This person is Her Majesty's personal representative- appointed by the elected government of NZ. It's absolutely perfect!

If we didnt have the monarchy, we would have to replace it with something else. No doubt some dire politician would end up being President, and need an executive mansion and a plane with a big seal on it. Probably we would end up with an Upper House of Parliament. That would suck, and cost silly money.

If the Royals were suddenly wiped out by freak fishbone and comet accidents, NZ should definately pick a new Royal Family immediately. It could be done more or less at random:

NZ Government: "Mr Bob Smith of Springfield, Illinois?
Smith: "Yes?"
NZG: " Fancy being King of New Zealand?"
Smith: " Er, I dunno, what would it involve? Would I have to move there?"
NZG: "Nope, in fact the job would require you not to live there. You would keep your current day job and your kinging duties would be to occasionally smile and wave for the cameras. You can make a speech at Christmas if you want but it's not mandatory."
Spatter: "Ok, I'll do it."
NZG: "Good on ya, mate!"

Until then our current Royals will be fine. In fact the loopier they are, the better. Hopefully they will forget we are here. :)
 
Carnivore said:
Speaking as a New Zealander I am all in favour of the Monarchy. By sheer luck we have happened on a system that we would never have thought up on our own. Our Head Of State is not only completely politically neutral but actually lives on the other side of world.
Click to expand...
Hm, you claim to be in Manchester, UK, so actually, she's not.

If the Royals were suddenly wiped out by freak fishbone and comet accidents, NZ should definately pick a new Royal Family immediately. It could be done more or less at random:

NZ Government: "Mr Bob Smith of Springfield, Illinois?
Smith: "Yes?"
NZG: " Fancy being King of New Zealand?"
Smith: " Er, I dunno, what would it involve? Would I have to move there?"
NZG: "Nope, in fact the job would require you not to live there. You would keep your current day job and your kinging duties would be to occasionally smile and wave for the cameras. You can make a speech at Christmas if you want but it's not mandatory."
Spatter: "Ok, I'll do it."
NZG: "Good on ya, mate!"

Until then our current Royals will be fine. In fact the loopier they are, the better. Hopefully they will forget we are here. :)
Click to expand...
I keep telling you - cats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom