I am confused........

I think mar76 is talking to a different Maddy, maddyone. The one you’ve just replied to.

Oh dear Volver you do go on!!

Oh I understand. Apologies mar76. I misunderstood your post

Thanks for pointing it out maggie

You’re welcome, maddyone.

Chestnut

Nannarose

Many communities are trying to make a nice day for people who have little to spare. Our local foodbank has picnic parcels to take to a local free open air concert.
I too am a republican, and wish that we did this all differently. But after the last 2 years, and the current state, I'm for a community celebration.

Hear hear! After the last two years we deserve something to lift our spirits, and a joyous occasion like this is just perfect. It's a HUGE achievement to have dedicated 70 years to serving the country. And yes, the Queen may not be slaving away in a shop or factory but she has endless paperwork to do and events to attend. Imagine being dressed and preened to perfection all the time, with important people to meet and places to go, no matter how you feel. You have to make conversation, give speeches, always be the perfect hostess and be on show. I would find it exhausting, and I imagine it requires a great deal of mental effort and stamina.

When you see the beautiful icing on a cake you don't see all the work that has gone into making it.

Very well said. ? to all you miserable people, republicans and all and ? to our beautiful Monarch. Someone said she had never done a day's work in her life......really!! If any of you miserable moaners are still working at the age of ninety six good on you.

Well OmaforMaya There’s work and “work” isn’t there?
I don’t think there’s many 96 year olds putting in a hospital shift for example, which is what most of us consider “work” to be (even if they could be chauffeured there and back).
There’s just no comparison with the Royals so called work at whatever age.

Farzanah the term 'work' can involve almost anything not just a hospital shift. There is mental work as well as physical, and this can be just as arduous. An endless round of official engagements, with all the mental stress involved, must be exhausting whatever your age. Focus and concentration are essential, as they are with paperwork and official documents. Maybe you can't understand this type of 'work' but that doesn't make it any less real.

Out and out Republican here too though I admit to a certain admiration for the queen on a personal level. I don't agree with the institution but she's led a fairly exemplary life within it and has done her duty as monarchists see it without complaint.
As for the future, never will I ever refer to the tampon prince as king nor acknowledge him as such. I won't ever rise to my feet for the national anthem as I have done on formal occasions for the sake of form for her majesty's sake. He and horse face can go to the devil. He and the younger generation want it all, they want to be accepted as normal human beings and yet reap the benefits of their titles and positions. Not on, Can't have it every which way. You want to be a monarch? You knuckle down and live an exemplary life with constraints the normal person doesn't have to think about. That's the price you pay. You want to have public affairs, drag the family name through the mud, and still feast on your cake? On yer bikes the lot of you!

What a nasty post. Charles has been a good person who led the environmental campaign long before it became popular and has helped countless disaffected young people through the Prince's Trust. As for his personal life, well no-one is perfect and if he had been able to marry Camilla at the start then there would not have been any scandal for you to jump on. He paid a heavy price over the years and I'm glad he found happiness in his later years.

Spot on Chestnut.

Well said

Too true, Toscalily.

A republican here as well, but I can still admire the Queen for the way that she has conducted herself over the past 70 years. She has simply done the job with no controversy (apart from the minor comment during the Scottish referendum), and kept her personnal thoughts to herself. Unlike Charles who used to comment on all kinds of subjects. It's not the role of royalty to offer personnal comments.
I wonder how the public will view the royal family when Charles takes over.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

I'm not for or against royalty, (neutral?) just totally bored by the big fuss. Still, any excuse for a celebration and street party is fine by me.

It's just like when the football/horse racing/tennis is on - I'm ignoring it as far as possible. I like watching people enjoying themselves, and yes, I'll be out there for the bbq - but I don't think I'm a misery for not decorating my house (don't do that at Christmas either) as only three houses on my street have.

But the fact remains * volver* that those who call themselves republicans are wanting an elected head of state. BJ is our elected prime minister so would therefore be an example of who you would get.
Repeating an opinion that still hasn't been addressed is no reason for your rudeness.

You’re beginning to sound like a broken record sazzl.

And equally, offering up an example of an unsuitable leader Nanny27, when countless other posters have done the same thing, countless times, in countless threads, not a valid argument. It has been addressed countless times in GN, but every time it comes up the poster saying it thinks they've found the perfect answer to sticking with a monarchy. But I'll address it again.

An elected President would not be a direct replacement for a monarch, or a prime minister. It's an opportunity to reframe the role of a UK Head of State to represent the people of this country and to take responsibility for defending their rights. This is what Heads of State do in other countries. Presidents are not all in the mould of those in the US or France, this is important to understand.

Perhaps we would vote for another Johnson. If that's what the country wants, that's what we get. Or perhaps we could find someone like Zelensky. In democracies, you get who you vote for. Then if the population later think that person isn't good at the job you vote for another person next time. And next time is 5 or 7 years later, not 70 and we don't have to wait for someone to die, and we don't expect someone to do the job until they are 96 years old.

If you use the argument that we might end up with someone you don't want, basically you are saying you don't think we should have a democracy and people shouldn't be allowed to choose what they want.

I think the Monarchy is outdated and that it is wrong that at 96 the Queen is still required to fulfill her role as Head of State. I remember watching the Queen and the D of E standing in the freezing cold and rain whilst the flotilla sailed down the Thames in 2012 to celebrate the 60th year of her rein. (that was in the summer!) I felt very sad that such an old couple had to do that, I certainly wouldn't have wanted it for my parents or parents in law! However, if there was a referendum I very much doubt that we would vote to remove the Monarchy.

Money could be better spent

Who says how money should be spent? If I and my neighbours and friends want to splurge on a jubilee celebration then we will - and have!

I have nothing against the RF,except for those 2 idiots Harry and Andrew.Quite fancied Anne when I was 20.My problem is with the fawning BBC,which has taken the art of patronising to the next level.Looks like a Netflix afternoon today,and thank goodness I have a 12 mile walk.booked for tomorrow.

foxie48 you are in danger of making that worst of mistakes and thinking that because the Wueen and her late spouse are elderly their children, or those their childrens age , know what is best for them.

The Queen and Prince Philip would have been where they were, inspecting the fleet in the cold and the wet, because they wanted to be there and wanted to continue to be there.

Otherwise the Queen would either have abdicated like Dutch Queens did, or planned a descent into old age that allowed her to stop attending such events. It is easy to talk about her sense of duty and to think as a result that she does what she does because she feels she has to, but, her sense of duty is what she is and it has been the driving force of her life.

We have seen in recent months, that when she cannot do something she doesn't. I am happy for her to make her own decisions, and not have lots of well wishers trying, for the best of reasons protect her when she does not want protecting.

MOnica I think you are putting words into my mouth. This is what I wrote.
"I remember watching the Queen and the D of E standing in the freezing cold and rain whilst the flotilla sailed down the Thames in 2012 to celebrate the 60th year of her rein. (that was in the summer!) I felt very sad that such an old couple had to do that, I certainly wouldn't have wanted it for my parents or parents in law! "
Neither my parents or my parents in law would have listened to my opinion but I am still entitled to it. The duke was ill after that trip on the river! My lovely MIL came to my daughter's graduation as a doctor, it was the hottest day of the year, it was a long trip and a long day but it was what she wanted to do and at 94 I felt she was entitled to do what she wanted. I admit I was worried about her but the uni was fantastic, they recognised that she was very old and gave us different seats so she didn't have to climb stairs. She was able to have a very quiet day or two afterwards and we had some lovely photos of the day. She died at home with us aged 101. Would I have been happy about her standing in the cold and rain, no I would not, would I have stopped her, no I would not if that what what she wanted to do. It wouldn't have made me less concerned for her though. Thankfully she didn't have to because she wasn't head of state