Elizabeth II has died

[bilby]

The British Empire did more to free and modernize the World than any political entity before or since. It’s not popular history, but the Brits used the force of their Empire to end slavery. Can’t think of any other empire which chose to risk treasure and lives to help outgroups.

After having slavery in it for some centuries.

Yanks should be careful when criticising other nations about their attitudes to slavery.

We fought a civil war and since then have continually addressed the consequences of slavery.

UK did not need a costly civil war to abolish slavery. The last payment to former slave owners in UK was done in 2015 https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/09/slavery-compensation-uk-questions/#:~:text=It's%20hard%20to%20believe%20but,of%20the%20abolition%20of%20slavery.

Though i do wonder why so much money was given to slavers in the first place?

Let me know when any commonwealth or UK state will entertain a biracial leader with a Nigerian father.

Since Nigeria is a member of the Commonwealth that issue is moot.

I rather suspect that several Commonweath nations have already had biracial leaders, though I frankly don't care enough to do the research.

Kenya and Nigeria would both be good candidates to look at for anyone less lazy than me; The Caribbean would be another good place to look.

 

[Hermit]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

 

[bilby]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

 

[Bomb#20]

of course, he is supposed to be a snob. He’s king after all.

Oh, king, eh, very nice. And 'ow'd he get that, eh? By exploiting the workers! By 'angin' on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic and social differences in our society.

The people, lulled into a false sense of egalitarianism by seventy years in which changes in government have been largely subject to democratic process, and always beholden to at least some degree to public opinion, are apparently expecting that their opinions will, at least to some tiny degree, be taken into account. They, likewise, are mistaken.
...
I suspect that the reason that republicanism is not more popular, is that most crown subjects genuinely don't grasp that they aren't living under it already.

- Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective

- You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship, A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes

- There you are, bringing class into it again

 

[steve_bank]

L

The British Empire did more to free and modernize the World than any political entity before or since. It’s not popular history, but the Brits used the force of their Empire to end slavery. Can’t think of any other empire which chose to risk treasure and lives to help outgroups.

After having slavery in it for some centuries.

Yanks should be careful when criticising other nations about their attitudes to slavery.

It's not a competition. All of the slave owning nations should be ashamed of that legacy.

It is intresting that there were Native American tribes who fr a time had balck captives.

Or the earlier Incas and Mayans.

Not that I am dismissing American history and the legacy of slavery, but I don't think you can single out one culture o nation.

How do you think black Africans were seected and brought out to the coast in Africa to the slave markets? Who do you think profited in Africa from the slave trade?

 

[steve_bank]

The British Empire did more to free and modernize the World than any political entity before or since. It’s not popular history, but the Brits used the force of their Empire to end slavery. Can’t think of any other empire which chose to risk treasure and lives to help outgroups.

After having slavery in it for some centuries.

Yanks should be careful when criticising other nations about their attitudes to slavery.

We fought a civil war and since then have continually addressed the consequences of slavery.

UK did not need a costly civil war to abolish slavery. The last payment to former slave owners in UK was done in 2015 https://taxjustice.net/2020/06/09/slavery-compensation-uk-questions/#:~:text=It's%20hard%20to%20believe%20but,of%20the%20abolition%20of%20slavery.

Though i do wonder why so much money was given to slavers in the first place?

Let me know when any commonwealth or UK state will entertain a biracial leader with a Nigerian father.

Since Nigeria is a member of the Commonwealth that issue is moot.

No kidding. The UK was an authoritarian state wit a largely homogeneous population. And then up through the 60s controlled and dominated colonies. Atrocities were commuted in India. I'd have to look up if the UK hand anythng to do with the brutal supression of Rhodesian rebels.

On the day COTUS, the second attempt at forming a government, there was a split over slavery. There would have been no constitution if the issue of slavery was forced.

We went from slavery to civil war, to Jim Crow, to the civil rights movement, to civil rights legislation leading to a black president.

As I said let me know wnen any commonwealth or UK state will consider a biracial man with a Nigerian father and white mother as a national leader. The royals were never going to accept Harry's wife and biracial kid.

 

[Hermit]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

Agreed, except for the bit you wrote in bold. Regardless of outcome, public opinion is relevant to monarchies every time a referendum is held on the issue. There have been dozens of them. Here is a list of 30.

 

[Politesse]

L

The British Empire did more to free and modernize the World than any political entity before or since. It’s not popular history, but the Brits used the force of their Empire to end slavery. Can’t think of any other empire which chose to risk treasure and lives to help outgroups.

After having slavery in it for some centuries.

Yanks should be careful when criticising other nations about their attitudes to slavery.

It's not a competition. All of the slave owning nations should be ashamed of that legacy.

It is intresting that there were Native American tribes who fr a time had balck captives.

Or the earlier Incas and Mayans.

Not that I am dismissing American history and the legacy of slavery, but I don't think you can single out one culture o nation.

How do you think black Africans were seected and brought out to the coast in Africa to the slave markets? Who do you think profited in Africa from the slave trade?

I repeat, all slave-owning nations should be ashamed of that legacy. Your crime does not become less just because someone else also commits it. I neither claimed nor believe that Great Britain was the only slave-owning world power, but that excuses nothing.

 

[jonatha]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

So in reading the Wikipedia article on Australia's Governor General I see that there are numerous explicit references in Australia's constitution to "the Queen".

Looks like y'all are gonna have to rewrite it anyway, so here's your chance...

 

[Politesse]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

So in reading the Wikipedia article on Australia's Governor General I see that there are numerous explicit references in Australia's constitution to "the Queen".

Looks like y'all are gonna have to rewrite it anyway, so here's your chance...

No, no, Charles is the new Queen.

 

[Jarhyn]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

So in reading the Wikipedia article on Australia's Governor General I see that there are numerous explicit references in Australia's constitution to "the Queen".

Looks like y'all are gonna have to rewrite it anyway, so here's your chance...

No, no, Charles is the new Queen.

I'm sorry, but Queen died with Freddy Mercury.

 

[Hermit]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

So in reading the Wikipedia article on Australia's Governor General I see that there are numerous explicit references in Australia's constitution to "the Queen".

Looks like y'all are gonna have to rewrite it anyway, so here's your chance...

We do not.

 

[jonatha]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

So in reading the Wikipedia article on Australia's Governor General I see that there are numerous explicit references in Australia's constitution to "the Queen".

Looks like y'all are gonna have to rewrite it anyway, so here's your chance...

We do not.

Must be one of those UK-US differences....

Point's moot (in the US sense :-D). Item 2 in the preamble: "The provisions of this Act referring to the Queen shall extend to Her Majesty's heirs and successors in the sovereignty of the United Kingdom." Figured someone would have thought of that... ("The Queen" at the time the constitution was adopted was Victoria...)

Guess you get to wait to rewrite it until the UK dissolves...

 

[Tigers!]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

Agreed, except for the bit you wrote in bold. Regardless of outcome, public opinion is relevant to monarchies every time a referendum is held on the issue. There have been dozens of them. Here is a list of 30.

I do like the turnout of 108% in the Vietnam referendum

And the freely chosed 98% in Iran

 

[Tigers!]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Yes I remember how the republic was to come in 1999.

 

[Bomb#20]

So in reading the Wikipedia article on Australia's Governor General I see that there are numerous explicit references in Australia's constitution to "the Queen".

Looks like y'all are gonna have to rewrite it anyway, so here's your chance...

We do not.

[Cue deeply inappropriate snarky reference to Camilla.]

 

[SLD]

Lawyer Informs Royal Family That Queen Has Left Throne To Overall-Wearing Alabama Resident

LONDON—Speaking to the bereaved in the hours after the monarch’s passing, Her Queen’s Counsel Frederick Dingnam reportedly informed the royal family Thursday that Queen Elizabeth II had left the throne to an overall-wearing Alabama cousin. “Her Majesty was quite clear that she wanted the crown...

www.theonion.com

It appears that I am the new King. As my first act, I demand the Bilby grovel before me.

ETA: and I really am related.

 

[bilby]

Bilby grovel before me.

Nah, it's all good, you can grovel first.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

You just listed the arguments for constitutional monarchy. Since non-royals are eligible it removes any attempts for normal citizens to try to elevate themselves to be a president. Which has historically led to greater political stability. I personally don't care. As far as I am concerned keeping monarchy in a democracy is like allowing a fox into the henhouse if they promise not to eat any chickens.

So on a pragmatic level I'm for monarchy. On a ideological level I am against it. So I'm cool either way.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Public opinion isn't relevant to monarchies.

Public opinion is the core of referendums. That is how we'll get rid of the monarchy in Australia the next time around. Charles III's conduct will help.

Australian public opinion has favoured disposing of the monarchy for some time.

But never as much as it has disfavoured the power-grab by the politicians who write the referendum questions.

If Australians were offered the chance to simply replace the King (and his proxy, the GG) with a directly elected president with the same powers, duties and responsibilities, I have no doubt we would be a republic post-haste.

But the PM always wants a president who is appointed by the PM; And the Representatives want one selected by the house; And the Senators want one selected by the senate; And the states want one chosen by the states...

It's not love of the crown or its current wearer that is holding us back. It's justified fear of our own political parties and systems. How popular the king might be doesn't really matter.

Agreed, except for the bit you wrote in bold. Regardless of outcome, public opinion is relevant to monarchies every time a referendum is held on the issue. There have been dozens of them. Here is a list of 30.

I do like the turnout of 108% in the Vietnam referendum
View attachment 40315
And the freely chosed 98% in Iran
View attachment 40316

Here's a fun fact about royalty. Simeon II, king of Bulgaria was removed as king after a referendum in 1946. He went into exile. Came back after the fall of the Soviet union and became a politician. His party managed to win the election in 2001, and ruled as prime minister until 2004. Pretty cool.

Even cooler is that he's still alive. He has the shared honour of, together with Dalai Lame, being the only reigning WW2 head of state still alive.

Simeon Saxe-Coburg-Gotha - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org