Elizabeth II has died

[lpetrich]

• Queen Elizabeth II told to rest for at least two weeks - CNN
• Buckingham Palace Just Issued an Update on Queen Elizabeth's Health - "She's been advised to rest for two more weeks."
• The royal we: subtle transition as ageing Queen devolves more duties | The Queen | The Guardian - "Other royals are stepping up, including at Cop26, as a monarch who doesn’t like to say no has to reduce her workload"

While Prince Charles steps up to welcome world leaders to the Cop26 climate summit next week, the Queen will appear in a recorded video from Windsor to address delegates in Glasgow. It could well be a defining moment.

With the Queen’s advanced years, there has been a gradual devolving of some of the more arduous public engagements to younger members of the royal family. The Duke of Edinburgh’s death in April at 99 and the Queen’s recent cancellation of public engagements to rest on medical advice after undisclosed tests, which necessitated an overnight hospital stay, have focused attention on the inevitable transition – and what it entails.

Buckingham Palace announced on Friday that she had been advised by doctors to rest for at least the next two weeks and refrain from undertaking any official visits. She will be restricted to light duties only, including some virtual audiences.

Fewer engagements and more time spent at Windsor Castle seem likely in the future. She prefers it there, and it’s where she keeps budgerigars.

She is now 95 years old. She has been slowing down over recent years and other royals have been doing more of what she does, like Prince Charles and Prince William, ages 72 and 39.

Some earlier threads:

• Prince Philip has died aged 99, Buckingham Palace announces | Internet Infidels Discussion Board
• Who wants to abolish their country's monarchy? | Internet Infidels Discussion Board

 

[Rhea]

I often wonder at the, what seems like hubris to me, of ruling into your 80s and 90s and refusing to provide sucessors with the opportunity to transition into ruling with you as an advisor. It seems to indicate they would be so bad at it, you can’t bear to hand it over. And then - it means you only hand it over when you are no longer around to advise and assist.

 

[lpetrich]

Yes, QE2 could have gone the way of the members of  List of monarchs who abdicated

The champion over the last century is likely Holland, with three abdications in sequence:  Wilhelmina of the Netherlands in 1948 at 68,  Juliana of the Netherlands in 1980 at 71, and  Beatrix of the Netherlands in 2013 at 75.

Other recent abdications from old age are of  Albert II of Belgium in 2013 at 79 and  Akihito of Japan in 2019 at 86.

 

[ZiprHead]

It's not like she does any actual "ruling".

I heard her doctors told her to stop drinking. She's 95, let the old gal drink.

 

[lpetrich]

I don't know if this is worth a separate thread, but the Caribbean-island nation of Barbados is becoming a republic, with a purely local head of state.

•  Republicanism in Barbados
• Barbados elects its 1st president in a step towards shedding its colonial past : NPR
• Barbados’s Long-drawn-out Promise of a Republic | ConstitutionNet

From WIkipedia,

In September 2020, the Barbados Labour Party government of Prime Minister Mia Mottley announced in their Throne Speech that Barbados would become a republic by November 2021. ...

In the 2020 Throne Speech, the Governor-General of Barbados Sandra Mason stated that "The time has come to fully leave our colonial past behind. Barbadians want a Barbadian head of state." ...

On 27 July 2021, the Day of National Significance in Barbados, Mottley announced that Barbados's cabinet had decided that Barbados would become a parliamentary republic by 30 November, ...

A set of amendments to make the nation a republic was introduced in its parliament on 20 September 2021, Bill 2021.

The Governor-General would become the President, and would take the place of the British monarch. The President would be elected by the Parliament, and would serve a five-year term. The nation would join the British Commonwealth.

On 28 September 2021, the House of Assembly of Barbados passed the bill (25–0).[30] On 6 October 2021, the Senate of Barbados passed the bill.[31]

First president

On 12 October 2021, incumbent Governor-General of Barbados Dame Sandra Mason was jointly nominated by the prime minister and leader of the opposition as candidate for the first president of Barbados,[32] and was subsequently elected on 20 October.[33] Mason will take office on 30 November 2021.[30]

 

[thebeave]

Not at all a fan of English royalty, but it is going to be the end of an era when she finally steps down. I frequently watch old TV shows from the early '60's when I was just a toddler and Queen Elizabeth (Prince Phillip, too) is often mentioned. Now I'm 60 and she's still there doing the same job. Its just kinda weird. Its like the old movie, "The Thing That Wouldn't Die". Sorry, morbid joke there.

 

[steve_bank]

From reporting the royals are a significant tourist draw, meaning money for business. Part of the English popular image.

God save Prince Chuck just doesn't quite carry the weight of God Save The Queen.

 

[bilby]

I am not sure why "95 year old woman is increasingly frail" is supposed to be news.

What does amuse me is the idea many people seem to have that popular opinion matters in the question of royal succession. The whole point of a monarchy is that the people don't get a say in who is king (or queen).

As to 'God Save the King', it's only been seventy five years since that was the normal version of the phrase, with 'God Save the Queen' as the less common variant.

As there are no gods, and should be no kings (or queens), I don't see the value in the phrase or the song that goes with it, but it's certainly daft to suggest that the current version carries more weight.

The monarchy in question has been around for 1,094 years. This particular incumbent is the longest serving, and has still only been in the throne for 6.4% of its existence.

The throne of England (and subsequently Britain) has been occupied by a king (rather than a queen) for about 82% of its existence.

The current Prince of Wales will be the next king, unless he predeceases his mother. Nobody gets much of a say in that; It's irrelevant whether he is qualified, competent, or popular.

 

[Metaphor]

I am not sure why "95 year old woman is increasingly frail" is supposed to be news.

What does amuse me is the idea many people seem to have that popular opinion matters in the question of royal succession. The whole point of a monarchy is that the people don't get a say in who is king (or queen).

As to 'God Save the King', it's only been seventy five years since that was the normal version of the phrase, with 'God Save the Queen' as the less common variant.

As there are no gods, and should be no kings (or queens), I don't see the value in the phrase or the song that goes with it, but it's certainly daft to suggest that the current version carries more weight.

The monarchy in question has been around for 1,094 years. This particular incumbent is the longest serving, and has still only been in the throne for 6.4% of its existence.

The throne of England (and subsequently Britain) has been occupied by a king (rather than a queen) for about 82% of its existence.

The current Prince of Wales will be the next king, unless he predeceases his mother. Nobody gets much of a say in that; It's irrelevant whether he is qualified, competent, or popular.

Actually, the British people do get a say who holds the Crown. The next monarch (if there is indeed a next monarch) could be decided by a new Act of Succession.

The Australian people can also choose who their next head of State will be, because it is Australia who decides who the current head of State's heirs and successors shall be.

I do not wish any harm on the Queen of Australia but I don't believe a 95 year old Englishwoman is the best choice for Australia's head of state.

 

[Politesse]

The monarchy in question has been around for 1,094 years.

More like 361, surely? The Cromwells were no kings.

 

[Tigers!]

If I can get to 80 let alone 95 and be as active as her I will be pleased

 

[steve_bank]

If I can get to 80 let alone 95 and be as active as her I will be pleased

A hereditary aristocratic fat cat who never held a job and lived in isolation in absolute luxury?

I would not want that even if it was handed to me.

 

[steve_bank]

The king and queen do not hold any real power do they?

 

[Politesse]

The king and queen do not hold any real power do they?

Pragmatically, it is a fairly limited power, somewhat equivalent to that of the Vice President in the United States. Technically, the monarch is woven into British Law in many and complex ways; they hold many powers on paper (vellum?) that would cause considerable controversy if they tried to exercise them in a manner not approved by the Parliament. For instance, the Queen has Right of Royal Assent over any Act passed by the Parliament and could in theory withhold that assent, but no British monarch has dared to try and use this implied veto power in more than three centuries, so it is effectively a rubber-stamp affair. Socially, they hold a key position within the British aristocracy and can be quite influential on matters not directly political in nature.

 

[bilby]

The monarchy in question has been around for 1,094 years.

More like 361, surely? The Cromwells were no kings.

The royalists claim unbroken succession from Charles I to Charles II. That he was in exile and his kingdom under the rule of the Lord Protectors doesn't change his status as king, at least in the view of his supporters.

 

[bilby]

The king and queen do not hold any real power do they?

Pragmatically, it is a fairly limited power, somewhat equivalent to that of the Vice President in the United States. Technically, the monarch is woven into British Law in many and complex ways; they hold many powers on paper (vellum?) that would cause considerable controversy if they tried to exercise them in a manner not approved by the Parliament. For instance, the Queen has Right of Royal Assent over any Act passed by the Parliament and could in theory withhold that assent, but no British monarch has dared to try and use this implied veto power in more than three centuries, so it is effectively a rubber-stamp affair. Socially, they hold a key position within the British aristocracy and can be quite influential on matters not directly political in nature.

The last monarch to assert his primacy over parliament had his head chooped off for his trouble.

 

[Swammerdami]

Her reign is the longest of any British monarch ever, the longest of any female monarch ever, and the longest of any now-living monarch. She has many years to go before she can surpass the 82-year reign of Sobhuza II, Ngwenyama of Swaziland (who died just 39 years ago) or the allegedly longer reign of Pepy, Pharaoh of Egypt (who died more than 4200 years ago); but if she can just hold out until May she will become the 2nd-longest reigning European monarch ever, passing Johann II `der Gute', Prince of Liechtenstein.

How accustomed is Britain to having a Queen instead of a King? I have a Brit friend in his 40's now. Once our conversation turned to national anthems and he suddenly stopped, looking bewildered. "When the Queen dies, what will England do for a national anthem? They can't sing 'God Save the Queen'."

Elizabeth has to hold out until 2024 without dying or abdicating before surpassing Louis XIV `the Sun King' of France to become longest-reigning European monarch ever, but there is a very recent King who reigned longer than Elizabeth, but whom she may pass next June. When Bhumibol Adulyadej `the Great' King of Siam passed away five years ago, millions in the Kingdom bought tee-shirts saying "I was born during the reign of King Rama IX." I almost bought a tee-shirt myself: I'm no spring chicken, but he'd already been King for years when I was born.

 

[lpetrich]

 List of longest-reigning monarchs has

1. Monarchs of sovereign states with verifiable reigns by exact date
2. Monarchs of dependent or constituent states with verifiable reigns by exact date
3. Monarchs whose exact dates of rule are unknown

The second category includes a lot of rulers of parts of the Holy Roman Empire, a loose confederation that was notable for being none of the things in its name.

Pepi II is in the third category.

A potential problem is that great age can give bragging rights, thus  Longevity myths The champions of these are in the  Sumerian King List - The Sumerian king list: translation

 

[lpetrich]

 Elizabeth II lists what she is sovereign over. I've reordered the list by the end of her reign, then by either the beginning of her reign (1952*) or by the beginning of the territory's independence from colonial status.

• Canada 1952*–present
• Australia 1952*–present
• New Zealand 1952*–present
• Jamaica 1962–present
• The Bahamas 1973–present
• Grenada 1974–present
• Papua New Guinea 1975–present
• Solomon Islands 1978–present
• Tuvalu 1978–present
• St Lucia 1979–present
• St Vincent and the Grenadines 1979–present
• Belize 1981–present
• Antigua and Barbuda 1981–present
• St Kitts and Nevis 1983–present
• Barbados 1966–2021
• Mauritius 1968–1992
• Fiji 1970–1987
• Trinidad and Tobago 1962–1976
• Malta 1964–1974
• Ceylon 1952*–1972
• Sierra Leone 1961–1971
• Guyana 1966–1970
• The Gambia 1965–1970
• Malawi 1964–1966
• Kenya 1963–1964
• Uganda 1962–1963
• Nigeria 1960–1963
• Tanganyika 1961–1962
• South Africa 1952*–1961
• Ghana 1957–1960
• Pakistan 1952*–1956

Independent before her reign:

• Canada 1867-present
• Australia 1901-present
• New Zealand 1907-present
• Ceylon 1948-1972
• South Africa 1910-1961
• Pakistan 1947-1956
• India 1947-1950
• Ireland 1922-1949
• United States 1776 (asserted) 1783 (agreed) - independent before the British Commonwealth emerged

 

[Politesse]

The monarchy in question has been around for 1,094 years.

More like 361, surely? The Cromwells were no kings.

The royalists claim unbroken succession from Charles I to Charles II. That he was in exile and his kingdom under the rule of the Lord Protectors doesn't change his status as king, at least in the view of his supporters.

Fanciful, if you ask me. A king with no crown isn't a king either. The UK is really keen on pretending that all of their civil wars, usurpations, and foreign invasions were temporary diversions guided by divine providence or what have you, but I don't get why we all play along with the game. The declaration of a monarchy inevitably invites strife and violence.