Queen to abdicate?

Fretwired

From the Telegraph:

The bookmaker Coral has suspended betting on the Queen announcing her abdication in this year's Christmas Day broadcast.

The betting firm said it had decided to close the market after an "unusual" rash of wagers which "instantly set alarm bells ringing".

At about midday today, Coral had several online inquiries for the odds it would offer on the Queen abdicating in her Christmas message. The bookmaker said the queries were "so specific" and so close together that it smelled a rat.

It had offered odds of 10-1 on the Queen abdicating during the Christmas message.

The speech to the nation is pre-recorded, leading to suspicions that people with inside knowledge, either from Buckingham Palace or the TV camera crew, might have acted on inside knowledge.

Nicola McGeady, a spokesman for Coral, said: "Throughout the year there has been major speculation about the Queen’s future but today’s gamble has really caught us by surprise.

“As far as we are concerned there’s no smoke without fire when bets like this come through all in succession, so we have decided to be safe rather than sorry and pull the plug on the market."


So in 2015 we could end up with Charles III and Ed Miliband as PM ... I'm emigrating .. :-)

frankus

the job titles are changing anyway...

Ed Milliband will be Caesar...

and Boris Jonhson will be Dr Zaius.

Gassage

Look, this is going to ignite hatred, but I find it utterly insulting that a Monarchy exists in the modern era. I simply cannot understand why, when people demand equal opportuity for all, that they can, hypocritically, support elitism by birth.

It is so so so wrong.

I will NOT sing the words to the national anthem. However, ever the pragmatist, I substitute the word team for queen during the rugby anthems, which does work quite well.

And I totally get the tourism and Brand UK thing too and agree it's huge and great.

But morally, is it right that we allow someone to 'be superior' through birth?

There is only one answer. Yes, it would take something away from the UK, but morally, it's the only right thing to do.

Oh and 'Prince' Harry- that's a fucking joke. You mean Harry Hewitt?

joeyowen

I love betting shops,

you can gamble as much as you want, but if we think there is risk...LEG IT (although I spose people don't have to bet if they feel the risk is too high)

but that is why house always wins... 

Hootsmon

what about Victoria's record?

Hootsmon

oh David....STFU

Gassage

hootsmon said:

what about Victoria's record?

Which one?

Let Your Head Go  or This Groove?

frankus

I've nothihng against the Royal Family ... now the Royale Family, ugh don't get me started - who the hell thought that was a good idea?

CabbageCat

Gassage said:

There is only one answer. Yes, it would take something away from the UK, but morally, it's the only right thing to do.

Morally? Right? This is pretty subjective territory. As is the supposition that one job is "superior" to another.

I have no problem with succession. If Frank Williams can hand of his F1 team to his daughter then Mrs Queenface can hand over her rod and sceptre to Charles.

Gassage

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

There is only one answer. Yes, it would take something away from the UK, but morally, it's the only right thing to do.

Morally? Right? This is pretty subjective territory. As is the supposition that one job is "superior" to another.

I have no problem with succession. If Frank Williams can hand of his F1 team to his daughter then Mrs Queenface can hand over her rod and sceptre to Charles.

Big difference to starting a business succesfully and handing it over, and being made head of state for no reason and without any democratic vote. You cannot compare them.

dafuzz

I don't mind them for tourism purposes, but they should have to work for their money (no, travelling the world getting entertained by dignitaries is not work, I mean get the fuckers to run a Greggs out of Buck Pal or something) and have no powers.

Hootsmon

oh mercy LOL   " Mrs Queenface" here, have a diamond Mr Cat

axisus

I'm pretty sure this is true. Apparently she has been shagging a german Baron on the side and they are going to run off together.

CabbageCat

Gassage said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

There is only one answer. Yes, it would take something away from the UK, but morally, it's the only right thing to do.

Morally? Right? This is pretty subjective territory. As is the supposition that one job is "superior" to another.

I have no problem with succession. If Frank Williams can hand of his F1 team to his daughter then Mrs Queenface can hand over her rod and sceptre to Charles.

Big difference to starting a business succesfully and handing it over, and being made head of state for no reason and without any democratic vote. You cannot compare them.

Why? Scale? Power? "Because there is"?

Charles and Kate William will both control parts of the lives of many people and both will only be there because of the efforts of their ancestors. Whoops - I compared them. Sorry.

Gassage

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

There is only one answer. Yes, it would take something away from the UK, but morally, it's the only right thing to do.

Morally? Right? This is pretty subjective territory. As is the supposition that one job is "superior" to another.

I have no problem with succession. If Frank Williams can hand of his F1 team to his daughter then Mrs Queenface can hand over her rod and sceptre to Charles.

Big difference to starting a business succesfully and handing it over, and being made head of state for no reason and without any democratic vote. You cannot compare them.

Why? Scale? Power? "Because there is"?

Charles and Kate William will both control parts of the lives of many people and both will only be there because of the efforts of their ancestors. Whoops - I compared them. Sorry.

So you have one of those globes where the whole world is pink, right?

Here's a thought: If we did what we did in the 1700's and 1800's we'd be seen as worse than the Taliban and Isis.

We are were we are; to suggest what we did was 'fair' in those days doesn't mean that things should change through humanitarian and intellectual process now.

equalsql

I don't know why people dislike them so much...

CabbageCat

Gassage said:

Here's a thought: If we did what we did in the 1700's and 1800's we'd be seen as worse than the Taliban and Isis.

Seen by who? I suspect the Taliban and Isis already think we're worse than them.

Gassage said:

We are were we are; to suggest what we did was 'fair' in those days doesn't mean that things shouldn't change through humanitarian and intellectual process now.

Indeed it doesn't. It doesn't mean it should either. I'm not suggesting that hereditary rule is right - indeed, I'm not suggesting that any sort of inheritance is right - I'm arguing that it isn't absolutely wrong as you seem to believe.

Gassage

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

Here's a thought: If we did what we did in the 1700's and 1800's we'd be seen as worse than the Taliban and Isis.

Seen by who? I suspect the Taliban and Isis already think we're worse than them.

Gassage said:

We are were we are; to suggest what we did was 'fair' in those days doesn't mean that things shouldn't change through humanitarian and intellectual process now.

Indeed it doesn't. It doesn't mean it should either. I'm not suggesting that hereditary rule is right - indeed, I'm not suggesting that any sort of inheritance is right - I'm arguing that it isn't absolutely wrong as you seem to believe.

I want to be clear on this.

I support equality and equal opportunity.

So, if the royal family were elected, I'd support it.

My gripe isn't actually with the pomp and ceremony, it's the concept of inequality.

And, paradoxically, the only royal I've ever met socially, Zara Phillips (through rugby- Mike Tindall's wife now) is as earthy and normal as the next girl. Although if it doesn't eat hay and shit manure she's not really that interested.

Hereditary kleptocraty would be an apt description.

FX_Munkee

CabbageCat said:

Gassage said:

There is only one answer. Yes, it would take something away from the UK, but morally, it's the only right thing to do.

Morally? Right? This is pretty subjective territory. As is the supposition that one job is "superior" to another.

I have no problem with succession. If Frank Williams can hand of his F1 team to his daughter then Mrs Queenface can hand over her rod and sceptre to Charles.

I was unaware that Williams F1 was bankrolled by the government/taxpayers!
Maybe we should have some sort or sponsorship logo on the car next year so more people can be made aware. HMRC logo perhaps?

Gassage

I just posted a pic of my MCC jumper gifted to me for representing MCC at Lord's in the 200 year celebration games.

The difference between my jumper and the crown is I earned mine through absolute merit and performance. That means everything to me.

So it's worth a lot more to me than anything the royal family have blagged or stolen.

Jalapeno

CabbageCat said:

Although if it doesn't eat hay and shit manure she's not really that interested.

That is pretty much as mainstream as a horse type gets !