Citius Altius Fortius Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) That is just a horrible picture of Merkel. Don't feel to bad. On the inside I think Germany has a better deal. Lust auf eine neue Frisur? / Mieten Sie sich ein Cabrio. (Don't you like a new hair do? / Rent a convertible car.) Before Merkel became German chancellor she was known as "wallflower" in German politics - therewith sixt, the car rental, made a very popular advertisment with her - on the left side Mrs. Merkel was shown with her normal hair-do (which she had in that time) and on the right side Mrs. Merkel is shown with a hair-do after she rented a convertible car from sixt... On a side note, would the German president do something if Germany every gets the Games again? Gustav Heinemann, the German president in the seventies, opened the Munich Olympics in 1972 - I think it is common sense that any future Olympic Games will be opened by the German president. Edited March 25, 2009 by Citius Altius Fortius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 As far as the Queen goes she fulfills her role and holds the country together as a figure to rally around in tough times. She leaves the country to democratically govern itself and make its own decisions... without the distractions of having constitutional upheaval....what more could you ask for? She doesn't exactly 'leave the country to democratically govern itself'.You make it sound like she has a choice in the matter! The Queen reigns solely by will of Parliament.It is Parliament who leaves her to fulfil her ceremonial duties as Head of State while it gets on with the business of running the country,not the other way round! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 Sorry to be pedantic, but that's not correct. Prince Charles (King George VII) wants to become 'Defender of Faith' rather than 'Defender of the Faith' Okay okay.But that's what he meant presumably otherwise I guess he's off talking gibberish again! By the way,what makes you think he will reign as 'King George VII'? I've never heard him declare any intention other than to reign under his own name! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 (edited) THE Prince of Wales has discussed rejecting the title Charles III when he becomes King to avoid unhappy associations with some of the bloodiest periods in the monarchy’s history. The Prince’s favourite alternative name is George VII, in honour of his grandfather — one of the best-loved monarchs of the past century. Times article However, a bit of further Googling reveals 'denials' from the Royals who will only say that a decision on his name will be made at the time. We'll have to wait and see I guess... Edited March 25, 2009 by Rob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 We all know he will reign has King Grosseohren I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 THE Prince of Wales has discussed rejecting the title Charles III when he becomes King to avoid unhappy associations with some of the bloodiest periods in the monarchy’s history.The Prince’s favourite alternative name is George VII, in honour of his grandfather — one of the best-loved monarchs of the past century. Times article However, a bit of further Googling reveals 'denials' from the Royals who will only say that a decision on his name will be made at the time. We'll have to wait and see I guess... Hmmm.if they don't like the historical associations of the name Charles,why did his parents give him the name in the first place? Sounds like typical newspaper gossip to me! We all know him as Charles and I think people expect him to reign as King Charles III (if he ever makes it that far).I think it would be too bizarre and confusing if he suddenly decided to call himself 'George'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ripley Posted March 25, 2009 Report Share Posted March 25, 2009 She doesn't exactly 'leave the country to democratically govern itself'.You make it sound like she has a choice in the matter! The Queen reigns solely by will of Parliament.It is Parliament who leaves her to fulfil her ceremonial duties as Head of State while it gets on with the business of running the country,not the other way round! I see what your saying, but she does "actually" leave the country to govern itself in the sense that she is head of the police and armed forces and if she had a crazy notion to overthrow parliament "in theory" the Queen could get the privy council to take control of the country by force. The key to parliament's power is that it holds the purse strings and makes the laws which make the Queen the legitimate head of state...its a balance of power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainad Posted March 26, 2009 Report Share Posted March 26, 2009 I see what your saying, but she does "actually" leave the country to govern itself in the sense that she is head of the police and armed forces and if she had a crazy notion to overthrow parliament "in theory" the Queen could get the privy council to take control of the country by force. The key to parliament's power is that it holds the purse strings and makes the laws which make the Queen the legitimate head of state...its a balance of power. The Queen acts only on the advice of the Prime minister who exercises her prerogatives on her behalf.The Privy Council has no power or authority to subvert the will of Parliament.It could only possibly act if Parliament somehow failed to function (eg.it was being controlled by a bunch of terrorists).If the Queen ever attempted to act without the consent of Parliament,other than in the case mentioned,she would be mounting a form of coup d'etat and she would be removed in a trice and the monarchy almost certainly abolished.It would be a non-starter.So long as Parliament is functioning and the Prime minister is free to act,she must abide by their will.Her right to occupy the throne is governed by Act of Parliament (the 1701 Act of Succession).If Parliament ever chose to repeal that Act,she and her family would be without a job.There is no balance of power.Parliament rules and makes the laws and the Queen acts as ceremonial Head of State according to the prerogatives Parliament allows her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torchbearer AA Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 I love the British monarchy. If she goes to Canada to open the Games or not. Some of you said it's not possible to visit Canada twice in three years time.. well a look at the history: 2005 17–25 May Canada 2002 4–15 October Canada 1997 23 June – 2 July Canada 1994 13–22 August Canada 1992 30 June – 2 July Canada 1990 27 June – 1 July Canada Only the last two decages.. so I think it is possible. But I don't think se is going to open the Games. I hope she still lived in 2012 to celebrate the diamond jubilee and to open the London Olympics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krow Posted March 27, 2009 Report Share Posted March 27, 2009 We all know him as Charles and I think people expect him to reign as King Charles III (if he ever makes it that far).I think it would be too bizarre and confusing if he suddenly decided to call himself 'George'! exactly, it would be such bad PR. half the world would still be calling him charles anyway, and a far, far fewer percentage would know or care much about much about the follies of two 17th century kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.x Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Prime Minister Stephen Harper has arrived at the G20 Summit in London and he is expected to make an official visit to the Queen. According to CTV, Prime Minister Harper will be formally inviting Her Majesty to visit Canada next year.....perhaps, for the Vancouver 2010 Opening Ceremonies? http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...331?hub=QPeriod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 We are bound to invite her to open it and she is bound to politely decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mr.x Posted April 1, 2009 Report Share Posted April 1, 2009 Queen planning another royal visit to Canada, officials say 30 minutes ago LONDON — The Queen is planning another visit to Canada. Her Royal Highness hosted a lunch today for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and their wives at Buckingham Palace. Afterwards, Canadian officials said she would be making her 24th official visit to Canada sometime this year or next. No details were provided. The Queen, who turns 83 later this month, was last in Canada in 2005, when she and Prince Phillip visited Saskatchewan and Alberta for their provincial centennials. Harper is in London for the Group of 20 economic summit. Copyright © 2009 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Rols Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Back to the republican debate. Here's how even our Governor general sees it: G-G sees republican future for AustraliaThe Governor-General, Quentin Bryce, says she shares the Prime Minister's view that Australia will become a republic. Mr Rudd has said in London that although the issue is not a top priority, he believes Australia will become a republic. Ms Bryce, who is now flying back to Australia at the end of a three-week tour of Africa, says she agrees with the Prime Minister. "I think that that will happen in the future, yes," she said. "I think that it is part of the development of our democracy in future decades." Ms Bryce used part of her trip to help get African nations on side for Australia's bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council - a role the Federal Opposition has attacked as being overly political for the Governor-General, a position that is supposed to be impartial. But Ms Bryce rejects the concerns, saying she takes the "responsibility of the bipartisanship of the position very seriously". "I wasn't [concerned]. I think very deeply about these issues and I know how much Australian people value the bipartisanship of the Governor-General's role," she told NewsRadio. Ms Bryce would not be drawn on the success or otherwise of her lobbying efforts. "I had extensive meetings with many leaders here and it was an issue that I referred to in the meeting and that was it," she said. "I observed as best as a person I could that there was a polite and positive response." ABC News Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baron-pierreIV Posted April 2, 2009 Report Share Posted April 2, 2009 Speaking of the Queen, did anybody pick up the story on what US President and Mrs. Obama presented Her Majesty? http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politic...0,2851851.story Obama's gift of an iPod to Queen Elizabeth II loaded with 40 Broadway show tunes President Barack Obama's gift of an iPod to Queen Elizabeth II came loaded with 40 songs from popular Broadway productions, including "The King and I," ''West Side Story" and "Dreamgirls." The iPod was given to accompany a rare coffee table book of songs by composers Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart, which Obama also gave the queen. Songs on the iPod are: - "Oklahoma!" - "If I Loved You," Jan Clayton, "Carousel" - "You'll Never Walk Alone," Jan Clayton, "Carousel" - "There's No Business Like Show Business," Ethel Merman, "Annie Get Your Gun" - "Once in Love with Amy (Where's Charley?)," Ray Bolger - "Some Enchanted Evening," ''South Pacific" - "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend," Carol Channing, "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes" - "Getting to Know You," Gertrude Lawrence, "The King and I" - "Shall We Dance?" Gertrude Lawrence, "The King and I" - "I Could Have Danced All Night," Julie Andrews, "My Fair Lady" - "I've Grown Accustomed to Her Face," Rex Harrison, "My Fair Lady" - "The Party's Over (Bells Are Ringing)," Judy Holliday - "Maria," ''West Side Story" - "Tonight," ''West Side Story" - "Seventy Six Trombones," ''The Music Man" - "Everything's Coming up Roses," Ethel Merman, "Gypsy" - "The Sound of Music" - "Try to Remember," Jerry Orbach, "The Fantasticks" - "Camelot," Richard Burton - "If Ever I Would Leave You," Robert Goulet, "Camelot" - "Hello, Dolly!" Carol Channing - "If I Were a Rich Man," Zero Mostel, "Fiddler on the Roof" - "People," Barbra Streisand, "Funny Girl" - "On a Clear Day (You Can See Forever)," John Cullum - "The Impossible Dream," Richard Kiley, "Man of La Mancha" - "Mame," Charles Braswell - "Cabaret," Liza Minnelli - "Aquarius, Ronald Dyson, "Hair' - "Send in the Clowns," Judy Collins, "A Little Night Music" - "All That Jazz," Chita Rivera, "Chicago" - "One," ''A Chorus Line" - "Tomorrow," Andrea McArdle, "Annie" - "Don't Cry for Me Argentina," Patti LuPone, "Evita" - "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going," Jennifer Holliday, "Dreamgirls" - "Memory," Elaine Paige, "Cats" - "The Best of Times," George Hearn, "La Cage Aux Folles" - "I Dreamed a Dream," Aretha Franklin, "Les Miserables" - "The Music of the Night," Michael Crawford, "The Phantom of the Opera" - "As If We Never Said Goodbye," Elaine Paige, "Sunset Blvd." - Seasons of Love," ''Rent" How HIP IS THAT????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torchbearer AA Posted April 3, 2009 Report Share Posted April 3, 2009 At gamesbids.com we can read the Queen is going to attend the opening ceremonie on February 12th. What's the source they used? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineM Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 i heard that queen elizabeth II will host the winter games this 2010.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 What I find interesting between Canada and Australia is that while the two countries have very similar situations, they have acted as polar opposites in the matter. Canada barely ever discuss the future of the Monarchy. But in the 1960's, the country agonized about the flag. Canada finally eliminated the old Union Flag emblazoned red colonial banner for the Maple Leaf, one of the world's more distinctive flags. Australia seems to discuss the Monarch much more. Yet they appear to be afraid to deal with their flag. And Australia holds on to their Union Flag emblazoned blue colonial banner, despite the fact that it is almost identical to the flag of New Zealand and other former British territories. The Queen and the flag are both just symbols. But clearly, Canadians identify more with their red Maple Leaf than they do with the Queen. And Australians seem to identify more with their green and gold sports colours than they do with either symbol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 i heard that queen elizabeth II will host the winter games this 2010.. Vancouver, BC, and Canada (and the four local host first nations) are the hosts. If Liz wants in as host, then she'd better pony up some quid very fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruling Czar Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 But seriously, the Queen, as head of a 1000 year old racist institution, will not be caught with a different hairstyle and let Michelle Jean declare the games open. How dare a black woman represent the glory of the British Monarchy! She simply will not allow the prestige of her position to be tarnished by colour! I think that's the underlying reason why Harper extended an invitation to her first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob2012 Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 wtf, you are weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 Well, Harper is obliged to invite her according to both the IOC Charter and the Canadian Constitution. IOC protocol dictates that the Head of State or their designate opens the Olympics. Constitutionally, Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada and thus the head of state. Michaëlle Jean is the Queen's representative and thus defacto head of state. So, the Right Honourable Mr. Harper HAS to sent a note to Buckingham Palace to invite Her Majesty before he can go down the road to Rideau Hall to invite Her Excellency. Remember, Australia went through this debate in 2000: Queen's Role at Sydney Olympics? Now I can't remember how it all went down, but the Governor-General of Australia did the job. Was Her Majesty invited and then declined (knowing there were sensitivities)? Or was she by-passed all together by SOCOG and Prime Minister Howard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruling Czar Posted April 19, 2009 Report Share Posted April 19, 2009 well.....I can see that they don't call you ROB for nothing.....anyway Kendegra..thx for explaining but now the question is will Michelle open the games and who does Canada prefer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenadian Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 I've seen no polls on what Canadians think. It is an issue that hasn't been discussed much in the public forum. Judging from comments on Gamesbids, I'd say we're evenly split. Although it seems the more frequent posters are more inclined to go for Her Excellency and take pride in Canadian diversity and the more sporadic posters think that Her Majesty is a more prestigious option. Most people know where I stand on the issue. I just wish it would get more discussion in the public forum. That way, the Queen, the Prime Minister, the Premier, VANOC, and others will know which is the right choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faster Posted April 20, 2009 Report Share Posted April 20, 2009 Ken - you lived through the Constitutional Crisis, Meech Lake and Charlottetown, do you honestly think Canadians have any appetite for constitutional debate with the can of worms it would open? Anything to do with the Constitution is a non-starter politically or in the public forum in this country because the last time it was in the public forum Canada was nearly ripped apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts