Elizabeth II has died

[Toni]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

Are monarchies an anachronism? For most of the world. There still are nations which are not yet prepared for representative forms of government and so live under monarchies or various forms of dictatorship. The workd will be a better place when peoples are prepared and ready to choose more representative forms of government.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

 

[Tigers!]

In the articles about the funeral I see mentions of that princes Andrew and Harry have stopped being "working royals". I wasn't aware that was an actual job. I know it used to be a job. But hasn't been for the last 150 years.

Does anyone know what concrete functions they perform? Like stuff they actually have to get out of bed in the morning for and do.

They do you something to comment upon.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In the articles about the funeral I see mentions of that princes Andrew and Harry have stopped being "working royals". I wasn't aware that was an actual job. I know it used to be a job. But hasn't been for the last 150 years.

Does anyone know what concrete functions they perform? Like stuff they actually have to get out of bed in the morning for and do.

They do you something to comment upon.

I don't think that requires getting out of bed in the morning. They can do that with Twitter

 

[steve_bank]

The primary function of the monarchy and royals are tourim and good will ambad sadors.

The royals are a British live action soap opera.

The continuous steam of plaltudes and elevating Liz to saintly status is ridiculous on the BBC show over here.

I would not be a bi surprised if miracles are attributed to hte queen.

 

[lpetrich]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

 

[bilby]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

 

[Toni]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Nope.

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Not even close.

Of course the modern British crown has far less power than the US POTUS. The British monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial.

 

[Toni]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

I think it is less that the crowned republics have an add on monarch as it is that these republics descended from monarchies and kept the figure head.

 

[bilby]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Nope.

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Not even close.

Of course the modern British crown has far less power than the US POTUS. The British monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial.

Sure, but it wasn't always, and back in the C18th, it had similar powers to those of the modern US Presidency.

Prior to the C17th it had the power of dictatorship, and prior the C11th, practically unlimited power.

Forgive me if I don't find "Not even close" a convincing and detailed rebuttal of my position.

 

[Toni]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Nope.

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Not even close.

Of course the modern British crown has far less power than the US POTUS. The British monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial.

Sure, but it wasn't always, and back in the C18th, it had similar powers to those of the modern US Presidency.

Prior to the C17th it had the power of dictatorship, and prior the C11th, practically unlimited power.

Forgive me if I don't find "Not even close" a convincing and detailed rebuttal of my position.

I was curious so I googled to see what powers 18th Century British monarchs had. You could do the same.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The British monarchy's powers got a major reining in with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the ascension of William of Orange as king of Britain.

 

[Tigers!]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Nope.

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Not even close.

Of course the modern British crown has far less power than the US POTUS. The British monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial.

Sure, but it wasn't always, and back in the C18th, it had similar powers to those of the modern US Presidency.

Prior to the C17th it had the power of dictatorship, and prior the C11th, practically unlimited power.

Forgive me if I don't find "Not even close" a convincing and detailed rebuttal of my position.

I was curious so I googled to see what powers 18th Century British monarchs had. You could do the same.

What did you discover?

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[marc]

Watching the funeral procession, what I kept thinking was all the troops in it, she was queen when these troops grandfathers were born.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Toni]

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Nope.

I’m personally glad that we ditched monarchy a couple of centuries ago and more and I strongly object to all attempts by various groups in the US to impose any vestige of monarchy in any form on any part of the USA.

Yes, it was an unusual decision for George Washington not to make himself King George I.

That said, I understand why the British are mourning Queen Elizabeth with such ceremony. She was queen for as long as almost any living Brit could remember, a fixture and symbol of stability.

She was also very likable, as far as I can tell, something that King Charles III isn't. KC3 is also very reckless. I'm sure that he must be familiar with happened to many of his fellow monarchs over the last few centuries. When they are deposed, their successors end monarchy outright.

Of course in Europe ( and the various territories) , monarchs are ceremonial, vestiges of a long history and actually represent stability rather than repression. The actual government is run by elected officials.

In republic-like fashion. Thus making those monarchies crowned republics, republics with add-on monarchs. John Adams in his "Defence of the Constitutions of the United States" (1787) referred to "monarchical republics", using the UK and Poland as examples.

The USA is cery much an eighteenth century monarchy, but with an elected King.

The powers of the US President are almost exactly those of a British King from the C18th.

Even extending to the bizarre hangover from the divine right of kings that is the ability to pardon criminals.

The modern British crown has FAR less power, having given it up to preserve its own existence.

Not even close.

Of course the modern British crown has far less power than the US POTUS. The British monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial.

Sure, but it wasn't always, and back in the C18th, it had similar powers to those of the modern US Presidency.

Prior to the C17th it had the power of dictatorship, and prior the C11th, practically unlimited power.

Forgive me if I don't find "Not even close" a convincing and detailed rebuttal of my position.

I was curious so I googled to see what powers 18th Century British monarchs had. You could do the same.

What did you discover?

That bilby was incorrect. I am certain that he knows more about Great Britain and the monarchy and the history of its powers but he has it demonstrated a very good grasp of how American government is structured.

US POTUS is more analogous to Great Britain’s prime minister in terms of powers but even that is not a particularly good comparison.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Trump is the comedy gift that keeps on giving.

Obviously the leader of a rebellious traitor nation isn't going to get better seats than the leaders of countries still in the commonwealth. No matter how much the countries have made up after the breakup.

 

[marc]

But Trump got his seat. It is right there in Mar a lago, because he wasn't fucking invited.

 

[Swammerdami]

Queen Elizabeth II was quite simply the most remarkable person I have ever met. I am sometimes asked who, among all the world leaders I met, was the most impressive. I have no hesitation in saying that of all the Heads of State and Government, the most impressive person I met was Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. She gave a lifetime of service, as she promised to do when she was 21. Her selfless devotion to duty was an inspiration and example to us all. She was respected and loved, not just here in the United Kingdom and in her other realms in the Commonwealth, but across the world. That love, respect and admiration was born not out of her position, but because of the person she was: a woman of dignity and grace, of compassion and warmth, of mischief and joy, of wisdom and experience, and of a deep understanding of her people.
. . .
Of course, for those of us who had the honour to serve as one of her Prime Ministers, those meetings were more frequent, with the weekly audiences. These were not meetings with a high and mighty monarch, but a conversation with a woman of experience, knowledge and immense wisdom. They were also the one meeting I went to that I knew would not be briefed out to the media. [Laughter.] What made those audiences so special was the understanding the Queen had of issues, which came from the work she put into her red boxes, combined with her years of experience. She knew many of the world leaders—in some cases, she had known their fathers—and she was a wise and adroit judge of people.

The Brits are lined up for for miles with a 9 hour wait to walk past a casket. Must be genetic.

I know, right??

She wasn't even an overweight singer with a prescription drug addiction.

Approximately 80,000 people bore witness as Elvis was taken to Forest Hill Cemetery Midtown, where he was to rest in peace next to his mother.

Elvis was a beacon of greatness compared with many people idolized by Americans. The next POTUS is likely to be one of the hate-filled lying criminals Trump or DeSantis. Tucker Carlson and Lauren Boebert are worshiped by millions of Americans. Kim Kardashisan is a top celebrity. The U.S. spends far more on the NFL than on the James Webb telescope.

It is absolutely laughable to hear Americans complain about the pomp shown for Her Late Majesty.

In the articles about the funeral I see mentions of that princes Andrew and Harry have stopped being "working royals". I wasn't aware that was an actual job. I know it used to be a job. But hasn't been for the last 150 years.

Does anyone know what concrete functions they perform? Like stuff they actually have to get out of bed in the morning for and do.

The Royals have many ceremonial duties; and some have "real jobs."

[As of 2017] As a team, the royal family has about 2,000 engagements, entertains 70,000 guests, and answers 100,000 letters every year.

And there are about 3,000 charitable organizations that list a member of the royal family as a patron. Many have established their own charities, too.
. . .
The most famous working royal is William, Duke of Cambridge, who is [2017] an air ambulance pilot for East Anglian Air Ambulance

In the articles about the funeral I see mentions of that princes Andrew and Harry have stopped being "working royals". I wasn't aware that was an actual job. I know it used to be a job. But hasn't been for the last 150 years.

Does anyone know what concrete functions they perform? Like stuff they actually have to get out of bed in the morning for and do.

It's not a job per se.

The 'royal brand' is a merchadising and brand name business in part.
. . .
Goes to show Liz was just another autocrat corrupted by welding personal power. It was reported the royals all refereed to her as majesty in person.

My guess is in personal relations she was a real prick.

Your "guess", hunh?

The Royal Collection Trust, which manages retail and commercial operations at the royals’ palaces, has reported that retail sales at its gift shops increased from £18.2 million ($22.8 million) in 2017 to £21.7 million ($27.3 million) in 2018 – a nearly 20% year-over-year jump. There was a “noticeable” spike in online sales, according to the RCT.

That Trust is a charity with 500 employees, charged with conserving and curating the Royal Collection. Did any of the profits from this, or the other "merchandising" Steve mentions, pass directly to a Royal? Cite? The Windsor family is rich, but much less so than America's Walton family. Or the Kochs. The Windsors would be multi-trillionaires of course if the estate of Bill the Bastard had been passed down untaxed, but the Monarchs have voluntarily ceded most of their possessions over the centuries.

 

[ZiprHead]

"Melted circus peanut" Gotta add that one to the list.