Not looking good for Queenie

VimFuego

I find the idea that a monarch should stand aside because he "isn't popular enough for the masses" hilarious. The whole point about a monarchy is your opinion of the monarch isn't worth a wet fart. 

roberty

Quite literally the end of an era

Offset

goldtop said:

The Guardian's last what-happens-next summary (from 2017): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

I'm not sure why there has to be this faintly ridiculous code to convey this news.

bertie

 who's up for President ?     might be a case of "better the devil"

CavemanGrogg

VimFuego said:

I find the idea that a monarch should stand aside because he "isn't popular enough for the masses" hilarious. The whole point about a monarchy is your opinion of the monarch isn't worth a wet fart. 

In order to  be a monarch you need the support of the masses, they out number you by a factor of a few million to 1, and that's assuming that the monarch has the support of the police and military.  Being unpopular with the masses has brought down as many monarchs and dynasties as violence and military action has, if not more throughout history.

goldtop

VimFuego said:

I find the idea that a monarch should stand aside because he "isn't popular enough for the masses" hilarious. The whole point about a monarchy is your opinion of the monarch isn't worth a wet fart. 

Quite true, but monarchy is an anachronism. 

Charles will also face a hostile press from Day One, whereas the Queen started off with a completely docile press, which only later became openly critical. Even the Queen was pressured by public opinion into coming down to London after Diana's death.

bertie

I wish he was..................... fucking prick 

fretmeister

bertie said:

 who's up for President ?     might be a case of "better the devil"

Definitely.

I'm no monarchist but if the RF was replaced with a presidency you know damn well the PM of the day would either want it, or demand they get the single vote in picking it.

I'll take over-paid hereditary mundaneness over that sort of crap any day.

The Civil List could be reduced by about 70% though.

fretmeister

Offset said:

goldtop said:

The Guardian's last what-happens-next summary (from 2017): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/16/what-happens-when-queen-elizabeth-dies-london-bridge

I'm not sure why there has to be this faintly ridiculous code to convey this news.

To ensure the statements and the facts are released at the same time and not leaked and to ensure accuracy - or at least what they want to say.

octatonic

VimFuego

To my mind, there's no point having a conversation about replacing the monarchy unless you are also having a conversation about root and branch electoral and constitutional reform.

bertie

fretmeister said:

The Civil List could be reduced by about 70% though.

what about the uncivil list ?

Grumpyrocker

VimFuego said:

To my mind, there's no point having a conversation about replacing the monarchy unless you are also having a conversation about root and branch electoral and constitutional reform.

Exactly this. I want the monarchy to be abolished, but I don't want the current terrible voting system to be used to elect our head of state.

We need a full democratic system - with a form of proportional voting (I prefer STV) to select both houses of our government and our head of state. 

I want the UK to become a republic, but a democratic one. Not one using the same anti-democratic half-arsed system of Belarus. 

boogieman

Pretty much everything I would’ve posted has already been said. I don’t like the Monarchy as an institution but I wish Her Maj a peaceful death, as that looks like the way it’s heading. 

p90fool

Why is it always a given that with no monarch we'd have to have a president?

What crucial work would be left undone with no monarch exactly?

You only need a cardboard cutout with a wavy arm ffs, not Franklin D Roosevelt. 

Offset

p90fool said:

Why is it always a given that with no monarch we'd have to have a president?

What crucial work would be left undone with no monarch exactly?

You only need a cardboard cutout with a wavy arm ffs, not Franklin D Roosevelt. 

I haven't made up my mind if I agree, but the last sentence really made me laugh.

goldtop

^ In some democracies, the President is mostly symbolic. State dinners, handing out prizes, honours, etc.

But not nececelery.  For one, I think Presidents usually are given some position in accepting/rejecting ministerial appointments, etc. So, in the recent Austrian Presidential election, the far-right candidate (Strache, I think) said "You'd be surprised what a President can do" when asked about why he was bothering to stand for election.

scrumhalf

When she finally goes and Charles takes over, it'll be the end of the Elizabethan era and the beginning of the Charlesian? era? That assumes he takes the name of Charles and doesn't become George VII or Edward IX. 

octatonic

Has anyone here met her?

I did in 1981 or so, she came to the Rokeby Police Academy in Tasmania where my dad worked and we lived on base.
She spoke to me- complimented me on my green school jumper.

I did a bit of google-fu and found something remarkable.
There is a photograph here of her meeting one of my father's junior officers on the same day.
I haven't seen that face for a long time- I forget his first name, might be Tony or Ray, but his surname was Curran.
They lived on base, three doors up- his son was a little shit who lied about having a Pacman machine in his house that I wasn't allowed into.

In between those two houses were a couple of Japanese police (and their families) who had been brought in one an exchange.
Their names were Taka and Toshi.
Toshi was a huge man who taught me judo.
I haven't thought about any of this for 40 years- I'm surprised I remember it at all.




https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/the-queen-in-tasmania/image-gallery/31871150d8716818958125735cace91f

Dominic

I'm quite surprised at the anti-monarchy sentiment here ........I always thought that ,at most, one in 10 people were opposed .
I'm not especially a Royalist but I'm comfortable with having a King /Queen and quite like the pomp and majesty of the Royal Parades ......they are a lovely bit of anachronistic street theatre and the grandeur is entertaining .....even changing of the guard.         It's a shame they don't compete in Jousting Tournaments or lead troops into Battle surrounded by their Knights of the Round Table or modern equivalents ........those were the glorious days of their Ancestors but there is still some Medieval Pageantry about the whole thing . 
In short ,the Queen has been dutiful and excellent , they are an oddity in the modern world but a nice and innocuous bit of theatre ......they shouldn't have any power but merely be Ambassadors and Promotional tools but I wouldn't want to lose them or their pomp and see them like Belgian,Swedish or Spanish Royalty who are very uninteresting and pointless.; although I think certain offspring and some of their spouses are pretty vile.
 I actually suspect that HM has already passed away earlier this afternoon .....too much fuss,commotion and gathering of the Clans going on .......not their style . They are preparing statements , arrangements and putting on a homely united front to pretend they were all there at the time and it was a gentle ,fully attended passing of the baton.
 I bet when the announcement is officially made she will have been gone for some time .