Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   For the first time since Queen Victoria, England's queen has attended a cabinet meeting. And apparently someone decided her place needed a name tag. "Hey, who's that dame in the middle? Oh, her name tag says Queen. Jolly well then"   (twitter.com) divider line 55
    More: Amusing, cabinet ministers  
•       •       •

7070 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Dec 2012 at 11:49 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-18 11:51:26 AM  
It might help keep someone from taking her chair.
 
2012-12-18 11:52:12 AM  
It's a conspiracy, I bet. The monarchy is seizing control again!!! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!!

Or maybe she was just bored. Whatever.
 
2012-12-18 11:53:55 AM  

NotMyAlt: It might help keep someone from taking her chair.


encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
2012-12-18 11:54:06 AM  
Whoa, who has the big fancy chair? If you guys don't want it, I'm calling dibs. *sits down* Hey, why are you all snickering? Oh, hello your majesty!
 
das
2012-12-18 11:54:42 AM  
I think it says Her Magesty
 
2012-12-18 11:54:46 AM  
More likely, it's so that everyone, including HRM, knows where to sit. It's bad enough peers and commoners have to share a table; can you imagine if the Duke of Cambridge had to sit next to someone as churlish as the Shadow Under-Secretary for the Social Security? The sheer outrage. It's enough to make one drop his monocle!
 
2012-12-18 11:56:35 AM  
Since so many nameplates are titular ("Prime Minister", "Her Royal Majesty"), I'd think they'd be proper brass nameplates and not cardstock. But maybe some MP would complain if his isn't as fancy as the Queen's.
 
2012-12-18 11:57:26 AM  

NotMyAlt: It might help keep someone from taking her chair.


www.meh.ro
 
2012-12-18 11:58:01 AM  
Don't be surprised if it turns out two Australian radio DJs were sitting in her chair.
 
2012-12-18 11:58:15 AM  

Fabric_Man: More likely, it's so that everyone, including HRM, knows where to sit. It's bad enough peers and commoners have to share a table; can you imagine if the Duke of Cambridge had to sit next to someone as churlish as the Shadow Under-Secretary for the Social Security? The sheer outrage. It's enough to make one drop his monocle!


ninjamonkey.us
 
2012-12-18 11:59:34 AM  
Does the Queen of England still have a throne? They should just tote that around for her to sit in.
 
2012-12-18 12:00:00 PM  

Gig103: Since so many nameplates are titular ("Prime Minister", "Her Royal Majesty"), I'd think they'd be proper brass nameplates and not cardstock. But maybe some MP would complain if his isn't as fancy as the Queen's.


Cardstock? Those are hand polished human bone plates made from the skeletons of Hitler, Stalin and Charlie Chaplin, engraved and the lettering painted in with the black ink made from the burnt ashes of the placenta of the Queen's first born.
 
2012-12-18 12:05:06 PM  
"Hey, who's that Pole standing next to Joe?"
 
2012-12-18 12:05:47 PM  

stonicus: Gig103: Since so many nameplates are titular ("Prime Minister", "Her Royal Majesty"), I'd think they'd be proper brass nameplates and not cardstock. But maybe some MP would complain if his isn't as fancy as the Queen's.

Cardstock? Those are hand polished human bone plates made from the skeletons of Hitler, Stalin and Charlie Chaplin, engraved and the lettering painted in with the black ink made from the burnt ashes of the placenta of the Queen's first born.


I thought they used the burnt remains of dianas foetus?
 
2012-12-18 12:09:42 PM  
Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things
 
2012-12-18 12:11:41 PM  
Fitting "Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of this Realm and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" would have been tougher.
 
2012-12-18 12:12:32 PM  

stonicus: Gig103: Since so many nameplates are titular ("Prime Minister", "Her Royal Majesty"), I'd think they'd be proper brass nameplates and not cardstock. But maybe some MP would complain if his isn't as fancy as the Queen's.

Cardstock? Those are hand polished human bone plates made from the skeletons of Hitler, Stalin and Charlie Chaplin, engraved and the lettering painted in with the black ink made from the burnt ashes of the placenta of the Queen's first born.


I LOL'ed.
 
2012-12-18 12:12:32 PM  
Carry on loyal subjects...
 
2012-12-18 12:17:44 PM  

xen0blue: Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things


Most of us just really don't care.
 
2012-12-18 12:21:21 PM  

xen0blue: Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things


She's the Queen of Canada to me, thank you very much.

/buddy
 
2012-12-18 12:21:49 PM  

stonicus: Cardstock? Those are hand polished human bone plates made from the skeletons of Hitler, Stalin and Charlie Chaplin, engraved and the lettering painted in with the black ink made from the burnt ashes of the placenta of the Queen's first born.


I thought the monarch's name-plate was made from the skull of Oliver Cromwell.
 
2012-12-18 12:29:30 PM  
img819.imageshack.us
 
2012-12-18 12:29:45 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: xen0blue: Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things

She's the Queen of Canada to me, thank you very much.

/buddy


She's the Queen of Jamaica too.

// mon
 
2012-12-18 12:36:01 PM  
My mom looks alot like Elizabeth.
 
2012-12-18 12:36:22 PM  

xen0blue: Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things


The difference between the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and England
 
2012-12-18 12:43:15 PM  

Tr0mBoNe: xen0blue: Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things

She's the Queen of Canada to me, thank you very much.

/buddy


How's her French?
 
2012-12-18 12:44:09 PM  

The Larch: Tr0mBoNe: xen0blue: Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things

She's the Queen of Canada to me, thank you very much.

/buddy

She's the Queen of Jamaica too.

// mon


As well as the Queen of Australia

///mate

As well as all of these:
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-12-18 12:46:33 PM  
I know she is a figurehead at this point, but if the Queen called the PM to talk policy, how closely would he have to follow her wishes? Practically, not legally.
 
2012-12-18 12:57:39 PM  
I thought the queen left small matters to the small council?
 
2012-12-18 12:59:21 PM  

dustygrimp: I know she is a figurehead at this point, but if the Queen called the PM to talk policy, how closely would he have to follow her wishes? Practically, not legally.


The Crown has lots of unexercised power so the PM would be more in a legal jam in some cases than a social one. That aside, it probably would depend on how popular the issue was with the public. If she was pressing an issue that was popular, there would be lots of pressure from the public to be respectful of the monarchy, "it's our heritage", and all that jazz. If it was something unpopular, you'd see cries of "those useless royals mucking about again".

/Fun fact: discrimination on the basis of gender or religion is illegal in Canada so it is possible that some time in the future that the monarch of Canada could be different than the monarch of the UK since they can't skip over women, Catholics, Jews, etc in the line of succession like they do in the UK.
//Most of that unexercised power would quickly be taken away if she ever really did try to use it
 
2012-12-18 12:59:47 PM  

dustygrimp: I know she is a figurehead at this point, but if the Queen called the PM to talk policy, how closely would he have to follow her wishes? Practically, not legally.


The government can not form without her consent and she can dissolve it at her pleasure. She's more than a figurehead.

The monarchy is an anachronism and should be done away with by any free people. The notion that some are chosen by God above others to rule them should, even if it were just symbolic, be anathema to them.
 
2012-12-18 12:59:49 PM  

oakleym82: Tr0mBoNe: xen0blue: Queen of the UNITED KINGDOM, not ENGLAND

I can't believe people who are seemingly educated still don't know these seemingly basic things

She's the Queen of Canada to me, thank you very much.

/buddy

How's her French?


Apparently pretty good.
 
2012-12-18 01:06:56 PM  
There is no evidence that Queen Victoria ever attended a Cabinet meeting. George III is the last monarch known to have attended one.
 
2012-12-18 01:15:36 PM  
What's the big deal? She's a woman, she should be all over those kitchen cabinets...
 
2012-12-18 01:19:33 PM  

dustygrimp: I know she is a figurehead at this point, but if the Queen called the PM to talk policy, how closely would he have to follow her wishes? Practically, not legally.


He doesn't have to follow her wishes at all. However, he would be suicidal, politically speaking, to do so publicly. There is a reason the monarch never goes to cabinet meeting nor meets with the PM in a public setting. In private the two can disagree, scream, throw things, or whathaveyou, yet show a united front in public. This was just a ceremonial visit for her Jubilee, but if she showed up at a cabinet meeting 'just cause' - and especially if she did it without announcement - that would be the monarch expressly calling out the PM. Since she can call elections at her whim, the next step would be to do so, and the opposition parties would pretty much accuse the PM of being Cromwell's reincarnation. What would happen to the monarchy as a result is an open question.

The thing about the British government is that is has virtually nothing written down in permanant form. They do what they do because it works - right up until they change it because it doesn't work anymore ( for instance, Parliament in its present form is younger than the US Civil War; it has had several forms and procedure changes over the centuries, while still being Parliament). In many ways, the British government is a dictatorship of the PM from a purely mechanistic perspective. But it also has lots of brinksmanship built into the system, where the PM may be dictator, but he only gets to do so as long as he doesn't really do anything obviously evil with that power. Think of the UK as a bunch of factions all sitting around a table, all very politely _not_ shooting each other.
 
2012-12-18 01:35:01 PM  

EngineerAU: Fun fact: discrimination on the basis of gender or religion is illegal in Canada so it is possible that some time in the future that the monarch of Canada could be different than the monarch of the UK since they can't skip over women, Catholics, Jews, etc in the line of succession like they do in the UK.


Fun fact: they recently changed the Acts of Succession.
 
2012-12-18 01:53:12 PM  
The queen has attended cabinet meetings before. In 1992 she attended the china cabinet where there was a meeting between the tea cups and the saucers. They were discussing an overthrow of the sugar bowl.
 
2012-12-18 02:07:10 PM  
/Fun fact: discrimination on the basis of gender or religion is illegal in Canada so it is possible that some time in the future that the monarch of Canada could be different than the monarch of the UK since they can't skip over women, Catholics, Jews, etc in the line of succession like they do in the UK.//

Canadian law for succession is exactly the same as that as the United Kingdom's since it is the same bills passed by Parliament before Canada became independent. Mainly the Act of Settlement of 1701. The only way what your describing above could happen is if one or both changed their law and this bill introduced Dec 13. will change any such Canadian shenanigans based on supposed gender discrimination. That is if Canada agrees to it. If the U.K. changes the law there Canada does not have to follow so its possible a female child of William could inherit the U.K. throne and a younger male the Canadian if they don't change their law also. All the Prime Ministers involved agreed in Perth this year to change their respective laws so that not likely.
 
2012-12-18 02:14:54 PM  

Rent Party: The monarchy is an anachronism and should be done away with by any free people. The notion that some are chosen by God above others to rule them should, even if it were just symbolic, be anathema to them.


Are you suggesting we should become an anarcho-syndaclistic commune? Where each member of the country takes it in turns to become a sort of 'executive officer' of the week? Where matters are discussed and ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, needing a simple majority on internal affairs, but a two thirds majority on external ones?

Honestly...it's people like you that want repressing...
 
2012-12-18 02:16:21 PM  
Bloody wankers.

i1151.photobucket.com
 
2012-12-18 03:35:24 PM  

Rent Party: The monarchy is an anachronism and should be done away with by any free people. The notion that some are chosen by God above others to rule them should, even if it were just symbolic, be anathema to them.




Begs to differ on the chosen by God....

no2obama.com
 
2012-12-18 04:00:50 PM  

JohnCarter: Rent Party: The monarchy is an anachronism and should be done away with by any free people. The notion that some are chosen by God above others to rule them should, even if it were just symbolic, be anathema to them.



Begs to differ on the chosen by God....

[no2obama.com image 417x332]


if you mean, elected by a majority of the people, from whence all just power is derived, you'd be right.

The last guy we had that wasn't elected in that manner looked like this.

minutillo.com
 
2012-12-18 04:02:10 PM  
Why the "Amusing" tag? "Mildly interesting", perhaps.
 
2012-12-18 05:37:07 PM  

phalamir: dustygrimp: I know she is a figurehead at this point, but if the Queen called the PM to talk policy, how closely would he have to follow her wishes? Practically, not legally.


It's a question that would never arise as she knows her role and would not do this.

I think Prince Charles fairly recently has written to politicians with his ideas and suggestions on political issues. He really shouldn't be trying to get involved with politics, and I hope his letters were politely discarded.

He doesn't have to follow her wishes at all. However, he would be suicidal, politically speaking, to do so publicly. There is a reason the monarch never goes to cabinet meeting nor meets with the PM in a public setting. In private the two can disagree, scream, throw things, or whathaveyou, yet show a united front in public. This was just a ceremonial visit for her Jubilee, but if she showed up at a cabinet meeting 'just cause' - and especially if she did it without announcement - that would be the monarch expressly calling out the PM. Since she can call elections at her whim, the next step would be to do so, and the opposition parties would pretty much accuse the PM of being Cromwell's reincarnation. What would happen to the monarchy as a result is an open question.

Again, there's no chance of that happening. The Monarchy in the UK exists to represent the country, and is allowed to do so by elected officials and the public. It's great that you mention Cromwell, as it reminds us of England's last experiment at being a republic.

The thing about the British government is that is has virtually nothing written down in permanant form.

Not really true. The difference between the Constitutions of younger countries and the UK's constitution is that younger countries have a single document called "the Constitution"; the UK's constitution is spread across multiple documents and the history of Common Law.

I'm thinking Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights (which served as a quite important inspiration to the US Bill of Rights), the Human Rights Act etc.

Realistically, I think most of Magna Carta, for example, has been repealed, but the document stands as a reminder of the evolution of democracy in the UK from the divine rights of Kings to our modern Constitutional Monarchy.

They do what they do because it works - right up until they change it because it doesn't work anymore ( for instance, Parliament in its present form is younger than the US Civil War; it has had several forms and procedure changes over the centuries, while still being Parliament). In many ways, the British government is a dictatorship of the PM from a purely mechanistic perspective. But it also has lots of brinksmanship built into the system, where the PM may be dictator, but he only gets to do so as long as he doesn't really do anything obviously evil with that power.

I'm really not sure what you're driving at with all that dictator talk.

The prime minister is chosen by the parties. It's a key difference between US and UK politics. In the UK, the Monarch is the head of state and is unelected. That's fine by me, by the way. She represents the country, it's an essential post, and I fear that replacing it may lead to politicians consolidating more power among themselves. In the US, the President is the head of state, and is indirectly (via the Electoral College) voted for by all citizens.

In general elections, we vote for our local constituents; the only people who can vote for the PM are residents of the constituency in which he or she stands. The PM is chosen by the party winning the most seats in the House of Commons.

If the PM tries to do something unpopular, MPs can table a vote of no confidence, trigger a general election and have that PM removed.

It doesn't happen frequently, though; last time was 1979, and before that 1924.

Think of the UK as a bunch of factions all sitting around a table, all very politely _not_ shooting each other.

It's an aspect of American politics that I just can't fathom. 300+ million people, and only 2 political parties, both right-wing. Well, centre-right at best for the Democratic party.

At the 2010 general election in the UK, at every level of government in the UK (from local councils up to Westminster), there were 9 political parties in various positions of power in the UK, and prior to the Lib-Dem/Conservative coalition, a reasonably strong 3rd party in Westminster. But I guess it's just the way of the US political system that discourages the formation of 3rd parties.
 
2012-12-18 05:47:04 PM  
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

my name is

QUEEN
 
2012-12-18 05:51:51 PM  
img.youtube.com

We can identify the queen, because she's the only one who's not covered in shiat
 
2012-12-18 07:48:31 PM  

iron de havilland: Not really true. The difference between the Constitutions of younger countries and the UK's constitution is that younger countries have a single document called "the Constitution"; the UK's constitution is spread across multiple documents and the history of Common Law.

I'm thinking Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights (which served as a quite important inspiration to the US Bill of Rights), the Human Rights Act etc.

Realistically, I think most of Magna Carta, for example, has been repealed, but the document stands as a reminder of the evolution of democracy in the UK from the divine rights of Kings to our modern Constitutional Monarchy.


All of those are about some rights of the citizenry. But I cannot think of a foundational document that lays out how Parliament and the Crown (both as headwear and bureaucracy) function. It is all Acts and tradition. Which means it is all easily changeable. It works for you, and I think that is great. But explaining it to Americans where separation of powers and responsibilities is laid out in stark terms is often problematic. I have been doing it for most of my adult life (wife is Restoration historian, so I get a contact high), and i still think y'all are nuts, but it works, so I stare bemusedly and shrug.

iron de havilland: I'm really not sure what you're driving at with all that dictator talk.


The PM is (in American terms), the President as Chief Executive, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House (our version, not yours). Short of pissing off his own backbenchers, he can pretty much do as he pleases - Francis Urquhart doing a banana republic turn is possible without breaking a single law - not at all possible in the US. You lot may be appalled that anyone would consider it possible - and I am eternally agog that you retain the sense of "that would never happen" as if convention was physical law - but the simple fact is that the Prime Minister is only not-Stalin mainly because he/she is British

iron de havilland: But I guess it's just the way of the US political system that discourages the formation of 3rd parties.


Actually, it is not. The Constitution doesn't have any reference to parties. In a technical sense, there are no parties in American government; they are add-on mods. In fact, the Founding Fathers intended that there would be dozens of small factions constantly making and breaking alliances in Congress to forestall monolithic parties. that they were so far off the mark is one of those ironic miscalculations of history.

iron de havilland: It's an aspect of American politics that I just can't fathom. 300+ million people, and only 2 political parties, both right-wing.


That is probably based more on the artificial power of the small states, based on the Senate and the limited House (we are the least representational democracy on the planet - if we had an congress-critter for every X citizens, where X is the number of Brits represented by 1 MP, the House would have about 2000 members). And the Senate is less democratic than Lords was back when the overriding prerequisite for being in Lords was that you came from a long line of murdering-rapists, i.e the nobility. Since the Electoral College is based off those two, it even scews the Presidency. As a result, cock-riding the chuckle-farker brigade is a necessary part of even the liberal wing of the Democrats to actually win office
 
2012-12-18 08:37:15 PM  

phalamir: iron de havilland: Not really true. The difference between the Constitutions of younger countries and the UK's constitution is that younger countries have a single document called "the Constitution"; the UK's constitution is spread across multiple documents and the history of Common Law.

I'm thinking Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights (which served as a quite important inspiration to the US Bill of Rights), the Human Rights Act etc.

Realistically, I think most of Magna Carta, for example, has been repealed, but the document stands as a reminder of the evolution of democracy in the UK from the divine rights of Kings to our modern Constitutional Monarchy.

All of those are about some rights of the citizenry. But I cannot think of a foundational document that lays out how Parliament and the Crown (both as headwear and bureaucracy) function. It is all Acts and tradition.</i>

 
I think we're both singing from the same hymn sheet here - agreeing that there is no single document that can be called the UK Constitution, it's simply a matter of previous history.
 
<i>Which means it is all easily changeable. It works for you, and I think that is great. But explaining it to Americans where separation of powers and responsibilities is laid out in stark terms is often problematic. I have been doing it for most of my adult life (wife is Restoration historian, so I get a contact high), and i still think y'all are nuts, but it works, so I stare bemusedly and shrug.</i>
 
For me, the greatest feature of the UK's democracy is the separation between the head of state and head of government. There's no compulsion to support the PM out of patriotic fervour.
 

<i>iron de havilland: I'm really not sure what you're driving at with all that dictator talk.

The PM is (in American terms), the President as Chief Executive, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House (our version, not yours). Short of pissing off his own backbenchers, he can pretty much do as he pleases - Francis Urquhart doing a banana republic turn is possible without breaking a single law - not at all possible in the US. You lot may be appalled that anyone would consider it possible - and I am eternally agog that you retain the sense of "that would never happen" as if convention was physical law - but the simple fact is that the Prime Minister is only not-Stalin mainly because he/she is British ...</i>

 
Hmm. Is it worth pointing out that a lot of American freedoms are amendments? Even if you have a single document, it can still be changed.
 
And both our countries have had some awful intrusions in freedom in our recent histories. I'm thinking Gitmo for the US, and the attempt to introduce control orders allowing the holding of individuals for up to 90 days without charge in the UK. And both our countries have been involved in extraordinary rendition.
 
Make of that what you will.
 
/Thanks for a pleasant conversation on fark :)
 
2012-12-18 08:45:43 PM  
Her majesty's a pretty nice girl
but she doesn't have a lot to say.
Her majesty's a pretty nice girl
but she changes from day to day.

I wanna tell her that I love her a lot,
but I gotta get a belly full of wine.
Her majesty's a pretty nice girl,
someday I'm gonna make her mine.
Oh yeah, someday I'm gonna make her mine.
 
2012-12-18 11:09:03 PM  

phalamir: . Since she can call elections at her whim....


Given the current coalition government in the UK and a multi-party system, another possibility is that she refuses to dissolve Parliament should the PM request it and asks 1 of the other party leaders to try and form a government without an election. AFAIK the last time this happened was in Canada - a.k.a. the King-Byng Affair (involving the Governor General - the Queen's representative in Canada).

Probably unlikely in practice, but an interesting possibility none the less.
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report