We get two days off work, so that's nice, but has she really been on the throne for 60 years? Some say she was never properly on the throne to start with, and others say that her reign lasted only 19 years.
The following are from my inbox:
And, from Robbie the Pict:
And now, a song:
I have made my position clear in the past: as Brenda has violated her oath more times than we can count, it stands to reason she is in error, and that being so, all those who swear an oath to her (the judiciary, parliament, the police, the armed forces etc) are also rendered powerless. This has enormous, almost unthinkable, ramifications.
If the monarchy is to be benign, a decoration, if you will, then that is fine by me. But what I cannot and will not stand for is a system that claims she is an intrinsic part of the way our nation is governed/ruled, and then acts, for all intents and purposes, ultra vires. The monarchy is either lawful or it isn't, there is no middle ground here. She is either monarch or European citizen. She cannot be both.
So which is it?
And you might want to read this article as well. It is rather timely.