Looks like a typical DAPS (Dog And Pony Show) to me, and with the Queen being the colonel-in-chief of so may regiments and corps, I don’t doubt that she attends a lot of them.
My caption would be “Don’t f*ck with my former commander in chief”, but one from the comments at the Telegraph also caught my eye: “I know what one is thinking, punk, did one fire 30 rounds or only 29? The question one has to ask oneself is, does one feel lucky? WELL DOES ONE, PUNK?””
“No, Your Majesty, I’m afraid the Prime Minister couldn’t be here today. But if adjust your windage just slightly to the right, you’ll have a clear shot at The Duchess of Cornwall.”
Wearing a military uniform and being automatically made an officer isn’t “serving in the military”. We all know that they’re not yelled at the way normal grunts are and that they’re never put within 20 miles (probably way farther out than that) from combat.
Actually, Prince Harry served in Afghanistan in 2007 as a forward air controller in Helmand province and saw actual combat time. He has since moved on to become an Apache pilot.
Prince Andrew, his uncle, co-piloted Sea Kings in the Falklands War.
By tradition, every male in the line of succession is supposed to volunteer for the Royal Marines. And they are real soldiers.
Prince Harry wanted to serve out his commitment, but once he was “outed” as serving at the front by one of the despicable media scumbags, he became a special focus of the Taliban and was withdrawn from the field. Prince Charles was also a Royal Marine, and he was not a desk jockey.
Traditionally, British “royals,” at least the men, were soldiers. There’s a lot that’s absurd about the monarchy, but give credit where credit is due.
Traditionally is not the same as currently.
Seriously, Greg & Ralph, do you really think that the Queen and Prince Charles would let them get anywhere close to being ACTUALLY harmed? You can claim to be “on the front lines” without seeing combat and you can claim to be in “combat” but still be far away from actual shooting.
but once he was “outed” as serving at the front by one of the despicable media scumbags
And thank you for proving exactly why I said what I did, Ralph. You, like the Queen, place a higher value on the little princeling’s lives than on the expendable peasants who are actually doing it for a job instead of just for show while taxing the living shit out of those same peasants to fund their life of luxury.
You miss the point entirely TG. We’re not sticking up for the royals nor are we enamored by all of the royal business. We’re merely pointing out the truth of the matter; whether you care to accept the facts is your business, not ours.
Personally, I place no greater value on any mortal’s life save for the lives of me and mine. How you could come up with that idea out of what was written escapes me.
May I politely suggest that before you go off half coked again and further expose the chip on your shoulder, you might want to do a little research, in a fair and balanced way of course. From my looking into the matter of Harry’s service in Afghanistan it fully appears that he served well and honorably, in actual combat, right along side his comrades. The fact that he was yanked from that particular deployment early, as Ralph pointed out, has to do with politics, diplomacy, and the security of his comrades, with Harry being an insanely high value target for the Taliban. I’m fairly sure that you can extrapolate the possible ramifications were he to be killed or captured. Is he different from the great unwashed masses? Why yes, in fact, he is; life isn’t about fairness. That said, I’m pretty confident that if the decision were solely up to him, which it clearly wasn’t, he would have served out his full deployment along side his mates. Judge not lest you be judged, walk a mile in a man’s shoes, and as Ralph said, give credit where credit is due.
And before you give me another misguided beat down on being some kind of a royal lover, I’m not. I’m second generation Irish and I have dual US and Irish citizenship. I’m no fan of their silly monarchy nor many other things British. I’m just a guy trying to be clear eyed, fair and open minded.
Good day, sir.
Once Harry had a special target on his back, he couldn’t stay there. Putting his own safety to the side, it meant extra risk for the guys in his squad. William is the heir, and so he’s not going to be allowed on the front lines. Harry, like his uncle Andrew, is a “spare”, and so he has a lot more freedom to take risks. Prince Edward quit the Royal Marine training – he couldn’t hack it, which I think shows that the Royals don’t get an automatic pass. For the next while, off duty Royal Marines were sporting T-shirts which read “I couldn’t make it as a Prince, so I became a Marine”.
We’re merely pointing out the truth of the matter
Greg, you’re pointing out what was released to the media. Given how carefully they normally craft anything that has media exposure, why do you think this is different?
I never said that you valued his life more than others, I said that Ralph did (and I clearly used Ralph’s name in the sentence too). Again, all you keep referring to is what the Royals publicly released about Henry. I’m simply pointing out that the odds of those things being true are slim. If you want to believe that a spoiled brat who literally had everything handed to him on a silver platter would risk his life for no reason or that his father / grandmother would actually LET him come in range of flying bullets, I can’t do anything about that but wonder what other fantastic stories you believe.
This photo is not recent. Back when Charles & Diana were divorcing, Punch or Spy or some British humor magazine ran it on the cover with the caption, “I don’t think a divorce will be necessary.”
I love it – an image of someone who has not achieved anything through merit, who fights tirelessly to disarm “her” people, racing around doing things that would land the typical commoner in prison. Off with her head.
Actually the Queen doesn’t really do anything, the one reason she is so popular. She doesn’t declare wars or set income tax, and it’s our government that keep us disarmed.
“We have these and still you had to turn Helmond Province over to the Americans to pacify?”
When asked what protections the English had against the euro, Queen Mum responded with a simple demonstration.
“That’s all you’ve got? I’ve got more recoil twixt my nethers!”
After dismal performances in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the British armed forces reveal their latest secret weapon. Early reports are promising, showing at least two Taliban leaders died of heart failure during fits of laughter.
“Now that Argentina has a woman president I’m ready to settle that whole Falklands Islands issue once and for all, woman to woman.”
…Yes, because voting will change the monarchy or the anti-gun stranglehold in Britain. Learn something from the Colonies – muskets & machineguns for everyone then you could toss the queen for good 🙂
“Your Majesty, I must remind you that the cameras are for the Royal PR Department. Top Shot is on Hiatus and is not accepting any contestant applications.”
The ‘City of London’, legally an independent city with its own mayor, police force etc, is located within London. It is also the center of the financial service industry. Supposedly the Germans never bombed it during WWII. The queen and her royal monarchy are the protectors of the City of London.
PS While I do not know if it is true I have read that when the queen visits the City of London (about a one square block area where 300,000 work) she is not technically the queen or ruler of the place. It is located in the very heart of London. Historically, it is also the oldest part of greater London itself and where the Romans built their forts.
I guess I can’t tell her that her position is way off, she is the queen after all!
If that was a real picture, I’d have a whole different level of respect for her majesty.
According to the Telegraph:
“It’s from 1993 and it features Her Majesty firing a gun at the National Shooting Centre at Bisley, Surrey.”
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100162037/queen-with-a-gun-try-abolishing-this-republicans/
Looks like a typical DAPS (Dog And Pony Show) to me, and with the Queen being the colonel-in-chief of so may regiments and corps, I don’t doubt that she attends a lot of them.
My caption would be “Don’t f*ck with my former commander in chief”, but one from the comments at the Telegraph also caught my eye: “I know what one is thinking, punk, did one fire 30 rounds or only 29? The question one has to ask oneself is, does one feel lucky? WELL DOES ONE, PUNK?””
“No, Your Majesty, I’m afraid the Prime Minister couldn’t be here today. But if adjust your windage just slightly to the right, you’ll have a clear shot at The Duchess of Cornwall.”
“We shall most definitely need to keep something this dangerous out of the hands of the rabble.”
Let them eat LEAD!
I got your tea and crumpets be-yotch!
A few million more of these, and we’ll get those colonies back.
Abdicate, Charles? Abdicate this!!!
This should certainly help keep knives and cricket bats out of the hands of commoners.
God save (us from) the Queen!
Dude you stole my thunder!!!!!!!!
So this is the rifle we will be using to take back the Colonies?
Take that, Helen Mirren!
After some testing the British determined their royalty would still be just as utterly useless even if somehow conscripted.
Both princes have served in the military. Long-running British tradition.
Wearing a military uniform and being automatically made an officer isn’t “serving in the military”. We all know that they’re not yelled at the way normal grunts are and that they’re never put within 20 miles (probably way farther out than that) from combat.
Actually, Prince Harry served in Afghanistan in 2007 as a forward air controller in Helmand province and saw actual combat time. He has since moved on to become an Apache pilot.
Prince Andrew, his uncle, co-piloted Sea Kings in the Falklands War.
By tradition, every male in the line of succession is supposed to volunteer for the Royal Marines. And they are real soldiers.
Prince Harry wanted to serve out his commitment, but once he was “outed” as serving at the front by one of the despicable media scumbags, he became a special focus of the Taliban and was withdrawn from the field. Prince Charles was also a Royal Marine, and he was not a desk jockey.
Traditionally, British “royals,” at least the men, were soldiers. There’s a lot that’s absurd about the monarchy, but give credit where credit is due.
Traditionally is not the same as currently.
Seriously, Greg & Ralph, do you really think that the Queen and Prince Charles would let them get anywhere close to being ACTUALLY harmed? You can claim to be “on the front lines” without seeing combat and you can claim to be in “combat” but still be far away from actual shooting.
but once he was “outed” as serving at the front by one of the despicable media scumbags
And thank you for proving exactly why I said what I did, Ralph. You, like the Queen, place a higher value on the little princeling’s lives than on the expendable peasants who are actually doing it for a job instead of just for show while taxing the living shit out of those same peasants to fund their life of luxury.
You miss the point entirely TG. We’re not sticking up for the royals nor are we enamored by all of the royal business. We’re merely pointing out the truth of the matter; whether you care to accept the facts is your business, not ours.
Personally, I place no greater value on any mortal’s life save for the lives of me and mine. How you could come up with that idea out of what was written escapes me.
May I politely suggest that before you go off half coked again and further expose the chip on your shoulder, you might want to do a little research, in a fair and balanced way of course. From my looking into the matter of Harry’s service in Afghanistan it fully appears that he served well and honorably, in actual combat, right along side his comrades. The fact that he was yanked from that particular deployment early, as Ralph pointed out, has to do with politics, diplomacy, and the security of his comrades, with Harry being an insanely high value target for the Taliban. I’m fairly sure that you can extrapolate the possible ramifications were he to be killed or captured. Is he different from the great unwashed masses? Why yes, in fact, he is; life isn’t about fairness. That said, I’m pretty confident that if the decision were solely up to him, which it clearly wasn’t, he would have served out his full deployment along side his mates. Judge not lest you be judged, walk a mile in a man’s shoes, and as Ralph said, give credit where credit is due.
And before you give me another misguided beat down on being some kind of a royal lover, I’m not. I’m second generation Irish and I have dual US and Irish citizenship. I’m no fan of their silly monarchy nor many other things British. I’m just a guy trying to be clear eyed, fair and open minded.
Good day, sir.
Once Harry had a special target on his back, he couldn’t stay there. Putting his own safety to the side, it meant extra risk for the guys in his squad. William is the heir, and so he’s not going to be allowed on the front lines. Harry, like his uncle Andrew, is a “spare”, and so he has a lot more freedom to take risks. Prince Edward quit the Royal Marine training – he couldn’t hack it, which I think shows that the Royals don’t get an automatic pass. For the next while, off duty Royal Marines were sporting T-shirts which read “I couldn’t make it as a Prince, so I became a Marine”.
We’re merely pointing out the truth of the matter
Greg, you’re pointing out what was released to the media. Given how carefully they normally craft anything that has media exposure, why do you think this is different?
I never said that you valued his life more than others, I said that Ralph did (and I clearly used Ralph’s name in the sentence too). Again, all you keep referring to is what the Royals publicly released about Henry. I’m simply pointing out that the odds of those things being true are slim. If you want to believe that a spoiled brat who literally had everything handed to him on a silver platter would risk his life for no reason or that his father / grandmother would actually LET him come in range of flying bullets, I can’t do anything about that but wonder what other fantastic stories you believe.
“OFF WITH THEIR HEADS” is so old hat!
Alright you Primitive Screwheads, listen up! You see this? This… is my boomstick!
Nice Evil Dead reference. Shop smart, shop S-Mart.
Someone’s learned from Louis XVI’s administration……
This photo is not recent. Back when Charles & Diana were divorcing, Punch or Spy or some British humor magazine ran it on the cover with the caption, “I don’t think a divorce will be necessary.”
She’s one tough lady.
Here’s another, clearly faked but funny all the same: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_XBcVB7CTPCM/TOzR0_QUhgI/AAAAAAAADx8/f6ikBlMJdWY/s1600/queen+with+a+gun.jpg
I love it – an image of someone who has not achieved anything through merit, who fights tirelessly to disarm “her” people, racing around doing things that would land the typical commoner in prison. Off with her head.
Are your referring to our very own Supreme Leader?
Our Supreme Leader is a her? I suspected as much.
Whatever parts Loki has, he must have.
Actually the Queen doesn’t really do anything, the one reason she is so popular. She doesn’t declare wars or set income tax, and it’s our government that keep us disarmed.
“We have these and still you had to turn Helmond Province over to the Americans to pacify?”
When asked what protections the English had against the euro, Queen Mum responded with a simple demonstration.
“That’s all you’ve got? I’ve got more recoil twixt my nethers!”
After dismal performances in both Iraq and Afghanistan, the British armed forces reveal their latest secret weapon. Early reports are promising, showing at least two Taliban leaders died of heart failure during fits of laughter.
“Now that Argentina has a woman president I’m ready to settle that whole Falklands Islands issue once and for all, woman to woman.”
She can have one, but you can’t because you’ll kill somebody you lunatic.
Vote Labour Party.
…Yes, because voting will change the monarchy or the anti-gun stranglehold in Britain. Learn something from the Colonies – muskets & machineguns for everyone then you could toss the queen for good 🙂
After so much neutering I wonder how long it will take for the British populace to take a cue from us.
I’ve got you now MikeB
“Get off my lawn… my very large, extremely well manicured and 100% peasant funded lawn!”
“Your Majesty, I must remind you that the cameras are for the Royal PR Department. Top Shot is on Hiatus and is not accepting any contestant applications.”
It’s good to be the queen
“I’d like to get that arrogant snot with the audacity to give me an i-Pod loaded with his speeches in the sights of this baby!”
Tottenham…hear. me. ROAR!!
I-Pod my ass!
The worst export of American culture…
Damn, forgot to log in a mikeb
Its good to be the queen
An SA-80 variant? Churchill would weep.
“Although personally I am quite content with existing explosives, I feel we must not stand in the path of improvement.”
“No, Ma’am. The Argies aren’t coming again. It was actually the other way around.”
As part of the new austerity measures, Her Majesty will now be responsible for Her own security.
”
This should fit in my pocketbook nicely.”
The ‘City of London’, legally an independent city with its own mayor, police force etc, is located within London. It is also the center of the financial service industry. Supposedly the Germans never bombed it during WWII. The queen and her royal monarchy are the protectors of the City of London.
PS While I do not know if it is true I have read that when the queen visits the City of London (about a one square block area where 300,000 work) she is not technically the queen or ruler of the place. It is located in the very heart of London. Historically, it is also the oldest part of greater London itself and where the Romans built their forts.
commander…. wheres the full auto switch???
Bloody peasants!
Why you gave this murdering wench any publicity is beyond me..
Queen-Up
Very nice, but what do you have in a .338 Lapua?
So nice the peasants can’t own these anymore.
We are amused
hmmm, shots a little to the left I’d say.
Oops!!! Sorry Charles!!! Well at least your other ear is big enough for a skin graft to replace that one!!!!!