Is QEII now the G.O.A.T (Greatest Of All Time)?

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
Incestuous?





"Why don't you get off your ass and get me a COKE!"

--Tim Henman as barked to a ball boy on a changeover, during his annual Wimbledon meltdown, 2005.

.
I'm not defending incest. I was stating that our current conceptualisation of it doesn't mesh with our species in its "natural" state.

I also highly doubt that that was a genuine quote from Tim GOATman.

An educated and cultured British gent, such as our Timbo, wouldn't have used crass and Americanised vulgarisms, such as "ass". He would have opted for the far more elegant and sophisticated term: "arse".
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
How is she not is the more interesting question.
I'm talking in a more meaningful sense.

If the UK - or one of the Commonwealth realms which she is reigns over - became a republic, then any kind of political "power" would just be transferred to a president.

Her political influence is pretty much the same as any Head of State in other countries with a figurehead ruler.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
The Queen has real power unconstrained by explicit Constitutional law.

Her G-G in Australia communicated with her office directly about throwing the elected PM out of office and she concurred.

The Queen holds sovereign power. She is no mere figurehead. It's just that it's not often used and never publicly, but it happens more than you think.

I'm talking in a more meaningful sense.

If the UK - or one of the Commonwealth realms which she is reigns over - became a republic, then any kind of political "power" would just be transferred to a president.

Her political influence is pretty much the same as any Head of State in other countries with a figurehead ruler.
 

TimHenmanATG

Hall of Fame
The famous, here at least, dismissal of 1972.
I've wiki-researched this, and I can only assume that you're talking about the Australian PM in 1972, William McMahon.

I can't find any kind of evidence which suggests that he was removed because of external input from QEII or the Australian Governor General.

In fact, it looks like he got ousted the traditional way - at the polling booths.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I meant, of course, 1975. Start with the historian Jenny Hocking.

I've wiki-researched this, and I can only assume that you're talking about the Australian PM in 1972, William McMahon.

I can't find any kind of evidence which suggests that he was removed because of external input from QEII or the Australian Governor General.

In fact, it looks like he got ousted the traditional way - at the polling booths.
 
Last edited:

TheNachoMan

Legend
The British and their worship of rich “royals” who don’t even know nor care they exist :sick:

I guess the same could be said about athletes but eh, Liz hasn’t scored a three point buzzer beater or scored a goal in the 90th minute.
 

Novichok

Semi-Pro
LOL NO! Louis XIV is still the GOAT. Not even close. It is like comparing Henman and Federer.

 
Last edited:

Gizo

Hall of Fame
The fact that Prince Charles is so much less popular with the British public than both his mother / predecessor and his son and successor William, must really rankle him.

No-wonder he has talked up a ‘slimmed down monarchy’ for a long time, to try and win favour with people. I would imagine that most people in the UK (who care one way or another about the issue) are in favour of retaining the monarchy, but also don’t want ‘minor royals’ to receive public funding and want the number that do to be kept to a minimum.
 

Bartelby

Bionic Poster
I don't think Charles cares a jot about his relative lack of popularity as he prefers to keep in the background cultivating his garden.

Slimming down the monarchy also means slimming down the cost of it that is borne by the family itself. I wouldn't think that he's asking the state to cut his public funds!
 
Top