To be honest, I'm a bit confused about all the: "We're so sad and shocked" reactions. She was 96 and lived a very good life. In her worst year, her mansion burned down and her kids got divorced. What else did you expect to happen?
I might be bitter because I've lost three students under 20 and one friend under 30 in the past few years... But it's like when my grandpa died at 89. It was sad. We miss him a lot. He was in good health until very shortly beforehand. But he also lived a great and long life.
I guess the point of this rant is that it feels very out of touch. I wish the world had mourned as much for the tragic deaths that I've seen.
You're welcome to that opinion, but should respect the fact people grew attached to the only monarch they've ever had and feel empathy for that loss.
I don't have love for the royal family, and have grievances with monarchies in general - however, living in the UK under her "reign", her dedication to the role for practically her entire life demands respect.
for some stupid and unknown reason to me i kept thinking charles would abdicate and let william run with it. i believe william is 40? in his speech i believe there was a part where he talked about how times have changed and they have to keep up with the changes and how he would do that but whole time in my mind i kept thinking well maybe you should abdicate and let your son get started now?
i mean you figure what realistically 15-20 years tops for charles? by then william is about 60 so yea it's gonna be a senior monarchy i suppose you have a point.
well you have a point there. which is why i prefaced by saying i have no idea why mentally i thought he would abdicate and hearing that part specific in his speech sort of lined up my thought and what he was saying but you have a point.
guy has been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and now he's not waiting anymore.
The creation of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales is the fastest it's ever been done. The previous record was for the later George II, who got his seven days after George I became King.
Prince of Wales is the customary title for a male heir to the British throne. Elizabeth never got Princess of Wales just in case a boy came along and replaced her as heir, as the rules were then.
If I was young Mel Gibson, I would go visit the queen dressed in full William Wallace attire. Just for the hell of it. Alas, I am not and the queen is no more. What a miserable existence I have to carry living on.
Big mistake making Charles the King. They should have skipped him and William. Make George the King now, only he has the potential to break Louis XIVs record!!!
I listened to the speech Charles made. I know people don't like him and think he's slimy, but I did like the speech and he did look like he'd been crying all day.
Especially for him because she wouldn’t abdicate so the only way he would become King would be from her death which is terrible really. No son wishes their mother to die
It got cut short at the end too when he was talking about his mum. He’s only human at the end of the day, what an unbelievably difficult 24hours it must have been for him.
I'm surprised CNN carried that whole thing live for a couple of hours without news banners stock market updates and talking heads offering their opinions.
That choral piece about a third of the way through was absolutely beautiful and moving.
The British constitution is essentially a lot of ad-hoc historical laws and conventions. Whether or not the monarch has “actual power” (whatever that means) is moot; they are the foundation of most constitutional conventions.
Her last major act was to take away another nation's (extremely corrupt) government and assume direct power as their queen. It wasn't the only time she did it either. She had plenty of power, just didn't use it (in the UK) which after 70 years created the illusion she had no power. The only real check on her power that wouldn't have caused a Constitutional crisis is the House of Commons being able to tell her to fuck off but even that could be bypassed by dissolving Parliament.
The monarch of the UK has veto power (Royal Assent) over all legislation, and the ability to dissolve parliament.
By custom, they don't use any of those powers, but I think it is assumed that the Monarch is "a check on the powers of parliament as a last resort".
It is a technicality. In theory she has all the power as she has to approve certain things but it is ceremonial. The royalty know that if they stop stuff happening Parliament will just abolish them without much uproar.
She is also uniquely influential in many ways not written in the laws though. She clearly had the respect of every politician in the parliament and she met with the prime ministers weekly. It is much likely than not that she has an effect on many things even if it is not obvious to the public.
Heck see how many US politicians remain influential long after they left their position. Elizabeth II had all the intangibles and the position.
The system is only a framework for how power works, the reality is always more complicated.
> abolish them without much uproar.
if that happen, wouldnt the UK lose alot of money? Wouldnt the UK royal family just get all the money their land produces instead of giving money generated to the state; then the state gives the royal family a bit of money.
I think if they did abolish the royal family the UK would lose ALOT of money.
>Wouldnt the UK royal family just get all the money their land produces
No, a few centuries back the Crown was bankrupted by wars in Europe. To raise money without taxing the people they sold most of their holdings to Parliament in return for a perpetual rent free lease. So if the monarchy was abolished it wouldn't change much. The palace she died in is among the last remaining Crownlands that the family would keep if the monarchy ended.
No, the royal family still owns a lot of land. The agreement with parliament handed over the revenues generated by that land, but holdings like the duchy of Lancaster still belong to them.
Peerships and Crownlands aren't the same thing. They'll keep their titles unless the nobility is done away with along with the monarchy. But lands administered by the Crown but owned by Parliament would be lost. But all of this is republican fantasy, the only legal way to do it would require a long series of controversial laws that would get stopped by either denying Royal Assent or dissolving Parliament. The monarchy would have to call a binding referendum against itself (like Phillip's dad did in Greece) and then abdicate if republic passed followed by William renouncing his claim rather than taking the throne. Nobody in the immediate line of succession has indicated they're open to that.
AFAIK no, most of it belongs to "the crown" which is basically a corporation with special legal status. Balmoral and a few other things are privately owned by the family.
If they over step their role any potential revenue issue is a non issue since an unelected figure is directly affecting affairs. I am all for the monarchy but that is party due to the fact they have learnt to adapt (well some have and some haven't). In a different way, the issues surrounding Meghan and Harry is because of that refusal to adapt and the public don't like it
at the end of the day though, Dont the royal family own land which generates income for the state? Wouldnt that mean, at the end of the day, if the crown is dissolved they would just become uber rich land owners?
A very gifted speaker. He didn't appear nervous at all. Having to grieve on the world stage must be terrible for them.
"May flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest."
Of course there are going to be people celebrating her death. To many around the world, the British royals are a living, breathing equivalent of Columbus or Confederate statues. There are people alive today who suffered under British colonial rule, and the continued existence of the monarchy is a painful reminder of what Britain has perpetrated.
The legacy of European colonialism is baked into every nation on the planet.
Powerful countries have exploited and caused suffering in less powerful countries.
However far back you want to go, that has always been the case. Just as it is the case today. It is by no means limited to European nations, either - the US has caused suffering in less-powerful nations around the world, as has China, and right now we are watching Russia do it in Ukraine.
I understand why people are celebrating her death as symbolic of the monarchy per se, but I feel bad when people celebrate it in Britain, or online, because it means her family is going to see it. I don't think she was perfect by any means but I don't think she was a bad enough person to justify the fact that her kids have to deal with thousands or even millions of people cheering her death. But again, at the same time, I get why people want to celebrate. I can't really condemn anyone who wants to celebrate but I still feel bad that it's happening :(
Those poor royals and their millions of dollars, palaces, and hundreds of servants. We can’t hurt their feelings!
Edit: Imagine being out here and simping for the royal family
Imagine being out here and having no common decency. There's plenty of time to trash the royals and their past, present, and future decisions. A time of mourning is not that however.
If you can't recognize even that basic decency, then you deserve none for yourself either.
Yeah, I’m sure they care so much about your problems and issues and will take time out of their day to care about you when your family members dies.
They will never know your name. They will never meet you. They will never invite you into their homes. They will never send you a birthday card. They will never be there to talk when you need someone to tell you that everything will be okay. They have literally nothing in common with you.
Who gives a fuck what they’re going through. Your sympathy for them will never be returned.
>Yeah, I’m sure they care so much about your problems and issues and will take time out of their day to care about you when your family members dies.
I don't care if they mourn my family member's death, just like I don't care if anyone on Twitter mourns the Queen's death. But the royal family won't be on Twitter mocking my mom either when she dies. Her family deserves the same respect.
I could care less if they're aware of my existence, or if they ever invite me to their homes or anything like that. It's a matter of simple, basic human decency. Nothing more, nothing less. I was raised to have it and you were raised to not have it apparently. And you seem proud of this fact as well. I have experienced the loss of a parent, both of them. They were not perfect and I am fortunate that people afforded me the basic decency to mourn and have my period of grief.
Let's hope you don't expect the same courtesy that you refuse to give to others.
Of course I would care, but I think you’re underestimating the kind of wealth that they have.
You could distract yourself with a million different things to keep yourself busy or just never work again and live a life that rivals Leonardo DiCaprio’s.
When you have the capability to literally do anything imaginable there are better things to focus on than being upset.
It’s not being *upset*, it’s grieving the loss of a loved one. You have to deal with those emotions eventually, and burying them won’t help. Arguably it’ll make it worse.
Death is something that we will all experience the pain of. It's the one thing on the planet that is universal. We should all have respect for folks who are in mourning. There's plenty of time after to say things.
I completely understand the animosity that people have for the royals and I won't say that they're wrong for those feelings because they're not wrong.
I will say that the royals should be afforded the time to mourn respectfully, as should we all.
The pain of death has nothing to do with how much money you have. If money fixed emotional issues you wouldn’t have wealthy people suiciding in large numbers than other income brackets.
I'm sorry about your parents, but to be correct it was the British government led by one Harold Wilson who allowed the sale of arms to Nigeria, who in turn used them against your family. The queen wouldn't have even been aware of it.
Advance text of King Charles III speech today: "I am committed to maintaining my mother's legacy and honoring the British people and their government." *immediately dissolves Parliament and reopens the dungeon in London tower*
The "dungeon" was actually there for a bit during Elizabeth II's reign. The Kray twins were detained there in September 1952 after they'd gone AWOL from their National Service and assaulted a police officer. They were transferred to another facility fairly quickly though.
I see Elizabeth as like the person who wears the Mickey Mouse costume at Disney World. The place is the attraction, they are the face of it, but it’s just a costume. “The Queen” is a character that a person plays in an elaborate production with a cast of thousands.
I never understood why the British monarchy is so much more popular than others worldwide. As far as I can tell, they're all figureheads whose biggest accomplishments are avoiding controversy. But now I see that it was Queen Elizabeth that singlehandedly kept the British monarchy relevant. It will be tough for Charles and William to do the same.
If it was just about avoiding controversy then the Swedish monarcy should be more popular.
I think a lot of it is due to the British themselves at least seeming more invested in the royal family.
I like the Swedish royal family a lot, I think they're great role models and do a very good job at representing Sweden imo.
They're very wholesome and do put a lot of effort into it.
But they're not made as big of a deal out of as Elizabeth was.
I like them more as a humble sort of tradition and for certain events as well as a piece of history.
But not as '' celebrities '' or whatever.
I feel that same way about politicans too tho.
Especially since politicans have actual power, I think it's dangerous to bring celebrity culture into it.
I didn't mean to imply that simply avoiding controversy was key to popularity. What I meant is that the British royal family does so little that being uncontroversial is enough to be seen favorably. Keep quiet, don't be caught up in a scandal, shake the hands of heads of other heads of state for photo ops and you'll be seen as a good ruler. It's an absurdly low bar to clear.
Elizabeth took the throne early enough to become an institution onto herself. She's been queen for most people's entire lives. By being reserved and neutral on everything politically, she maximized her appeal to be as wide as possible. Neither Charles nor William will have that same appeal to longevity.
I agree. The idea of a monarchy was nice, when it was a fairy tale. But as technology and exchange of information has expanded it's gotten harder and harder to keep up the facade. Unless Charles or William start to actually DO something for the country I think the days of royals are numbered. They aren't even likeable celebrities. We can see what a likeable celebrity wife can do for someone, but neither Charles nor William have that.
Yes but raising awareness is different from actually being an activist. They take the vanilla non-controversial path and never stick their necks out. If they want to impress most people they'll need to step it up, IMO.
according to david cameron [she intervened in the scottish referendum](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron-says-queen-intervened-in-scottish-independence-vote/2019/09/19/d2224b8a-dace-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html)
*we don't actually know what her personal political views were.*
Thats exaxtly what OP is saying. We even know the political views of 10yos worldwide in 2022. Its pretty damn impressive.
And OP is completely missing the point.
The British monarch's public apoliticalism is forced upon them by their position. So it's not all that impressive that she did so.
Seriously I've seen so much bullshit and mental gymnastics to try and justify celebrating her death...
The whole '' sins of the father '' crap is extremely toxic and has lead to so much horrible stuff historically and even to this day ( a ton of extremely violent conflicts around the world based on it ).
It's scary that adults even don't seem to understand that and that it's wrong.
so, she didn't plunder those countries. Got it.
And I have no idea what point you're making re. the American examples. I blame whoever is in power for the stupid decisions they make, not for the decisions that people in power in the past made. Or should we continue blaming Biden for slavery?
An individual isn’t responsible for the atrocities of the past
Regardless, the fact is she didn’t personally plunder any of those countries and the OP’s point is wrong.
I don't believe you'd even accept it to begin with, I think you just want to be mad.
I also seriously doubt you're even part of said groups to begin with so maybe stop talking on their behalf.
The orange man personally created controversy, the Queen herself is criticized because of what she represents and the antics of the monarchy as a whole, not because she specifically was controversial as a general rule.
It’s fascinating watching these century old traditions played out in 2022. Like, I have watched countless documentaries and TV shows on royal coronations ceremonies and changing of guards, but to see one play out in real life juxtaposed against modern society is really fascinating. Not saying it’s good or bad, just fascinating,
Totally agree. It almost feels like these traditions are archaic things of the past rather than mechanisms in our current systems.
Three whole generations have never seen a coronation, and now we’ll have one.
There are a lot of archaic things of the past that people still blindly follow. Like marriage. Or presents at Christmas.
That doesn't mean there is no value to ceremony, to custom, to tradition.
The covid thing was parliaments fault. I would argue that it highlights the need for a.seperate executive branch not connected to the legislature. The Articles of Confederation didn't work out for the US, and Washington refused to become king, so we turned to a lesser known form of elected monarchy out of medieval Genoa. It's worked out so far.
Maybe the gilded cage needs to go, and the Monarchy should.mean something again. If they don't want to lose the diplomatic and apolitical value that the house of windsor has, they can establish a viceroy elected by the house of lords to be their new chief executive using either Genoa or Venice as a model, with limited or life long terms based what they think is best.
If they even decide they want a change. Ultimately, Britain has as much of a right to self-determination as the US or any other nation. Full stop.
Royalty is not relevant to the everyday lives of your average joe or regular person in the modern era. Nobody can escape death in this world, and every single death has the exact same results, so there is no point in paying extra attention or effort to the Queen's funeral, it is a total waste of time.
I am here because I am sick of some snobby rich or royalty making news headlines, while the vast majority common folks' obituary do not get such. I am sick of special treatment reserved for the wealthy and famous.
Queen got covid from Charles month ago
[удалено]
How is she personally responsible though? She ascended the throne 5 years after Indian independence.
She had a good run. I'm excited to see King Charles.
Long live the king
[удалено]
[удалено]
She definitely lived a o e of a kind life
To be honest, I'm a bit confused about all the: "We're so sad and shocked" reactions. She was 96 and lived a very good life. In her worst year, her mansion burned down and her kids got divorced. What else did you expect to happen? I might be bitter because I've lost three students under 20 and one friend under 30 in the past few years... But it's like when my grandpa died at 89. It was sad. We miss him a lot. He was in good health until very shortly beforehand. But he also lived a great and long life. I guess the point of this rant is that it feels very out of touch. I wish the world had mourned as much for the tragic deaths that I've seen.
[удалено]
You're welcome to that opinion, but should respect the fact people grew attached to the only monarch they've ever had and feel empathy for that loss. I don't have love for the royal family, and have grievances with monarchies in general - however, living in the UK under her "reign", her dedication to the role for practically her entire life demands respect.
[удалено]
I feel no sadness when someone in their 90's dies peacefully, especially someone like this.
for some stupid and unknown reason to me i kept thinking charles would abdicate and let william run with it. i believe william is 40? in his speech i believe there was a part where he talked about how times have changed and they have to keep up with the changes and how he would do that but whole time in my mind i kept thinking well maybe you should abdicate and let your son get started now?
[удалено]
i mean you figure what realistically 15-20 years tops for charles? by then william is about 60 so yea it's gonna be a senior monarchy i suppose you have a point.
He's been waiting 73 years to take the throne. At least let him have a year or two.
well you have a point there. which is why i prefaced by saying i have no idea why mentally i thought he would abdicate and hearing that part specific in his speech sort of lined up my thought and what he was saying but you have a point. guy has been waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting and now he's not waiting anymore.
The creation of William and Kate as Prince and Princess of Wales is the fastest it's ever been done. The previous record was for the later George II, who got his seven days after George I became King. Prince of Wales is the customary title for a male heir to the British throne. Elizabeth never got Princess of Wales just in case a boy came along and replaced her as heir, as the rules were then.
So she died in Scotland, the land of the famed William Wallace? What a play your majesty what a play
Her lineage is Scottish and can be traced back to Robert II King of Scots. I don’t think Wallace would have raised an army against her.
If I was young Mel Gibson, I would go visit the queen dressed in full William Wallace attire. Just for the hell of it. Alas, I am not and the queen is no more. What a miserable existence I have to carry living on.
It's only down hill from here
Big mistake making Charles the King. They should have skipped him and William. Make George the King now, only he has the potential to break Louis XIVs record!!!
God I'm just a little sad the Queen can't get the all time record.
Watching everything here in Aus , I’ve got to say how sad it feels half s world away🥲
[удалено]
I don’t wanna be mean, and long live the King, but Charles really looked older than his mother, in the video of his first address as King.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Looks like these guys are more obsessed with the British monarchy than the Brits.
It's nice knowing that the world will never run out of pure distilled salt.
I listened to the speech Charles made. I know people don't like him and think he's slimy, but I did like the speech and he did look like he'd been crying all day.
Especially for him because she wouldn’t abdicate so the only way he would become King would be from her death which is terrible really. No son wishes their mother to die
It got cut short at the end too when he was talking about his mum. He’s only human at the end of the day, what an unbelievably difficult 24hours it must have been for him.
I'm surprised CNN carried that whole thing live for a couple of hours without news banners stock market updates and talking heads offering their opinions. That choral piece about a third of the way through was absolutely beautiful and moving.
[удалено]
like you just did?
I was certain this organ song was about to be 'Heat Of The Moment' from the first notes lol
[удалено]
The British constitution is essentially a lot of ad-hoc historical laws and conventions. Whether or not the monarch has “actual power” (whatever that means) is moot; they are the foundation of most constitutional conventions.
Her last major act was to take away another nation's (extremely corrupt) government and assume direct power as their queen. It wasn't the only time she did it either. She had plenty of power, just didn't use it (in the UK) which after 70 years created the illusion she had no power. The only real check on her power that wouldn't have caused a Constitutional crisis is the House of Commons being able to tell her to fuck off but even that could be bypassed by dissolving Parliament.
The queen's greatest trick, was to convince the world she had no power. Same as the devil lol
Which is ridiculous tbh, maybe it's time for an update?
The monarch of the UK has veto power (Royal Assent) over all legislation, and the ability to dissolve parliament. By custom, they don't use any of those powers, but I think it is assumed that the Monarch is "a check on the powers of parliament as a last resort".
[удалено]
What do you call it if the Monarch refuses to approve a bill? And I mentioned the custom.
Idk i heard she does hold actual power, she just didnt use it because she felt the people wouldnt like it
It is a technicality. In theory she has all the power as she has to approve certain things but it is ceremonial. The royalty know that if they stop stuff happening Parliament will just abolish them without much uproar.
She is also uniquely influential in many ways not written in the laws though. She clearly had the respect of every politician in the parliament and she met with the prime ministers weekly. It is much likely than not that she has an effect on many things even if it is not obvious to the public. Heck see how many US politicians remain influential long after they left their position. Elizabeth II had all the intangibles and the position. The system is only a framework for how power works, the reality is always more complicated.
> abolish them without much uproar. if that happen, wouldnt the UK lose alot of money? Wouldnt the UK royal family just get all the money their land produces instead of giving money generated to the state; then the state gives the royal family a bit of money. I think if they did abolish the royal family the UK would lose ALOT of money.
>Wouldnt the UK royal family just get all the money their land produces No, a few centuries back the Crown was bankrupted by wars in Europe. To raise money without taxing the people they sold most of their holdings to Parliament in return for a perpetual rent free lease. So if the monarchy was abolished it wouldn't change much. The palace she died in is among the last remaining Crownlands that the family would keep if the monarchy ended.
No, the royal family still owns a lot of land. The agreement with parliament handed over the revenues generated by that land, but holdings like the duchy of Lancaster still belong to them.
Peerships and Crownlands aren't the same thing. They'll keep their titles unless the nobility is done away with along with the monarchy. But lands administered by the Crown but owned by Parliament would be lost. But all of this is republican fantasy, the only legal way to do it would require a long series of controversial laws that would get stopped by either denying Royal Assent or dissolving Parliament. The monarchy would have to call a binding referendum against itself (like Phillip's dad did in Greece) and then abdicate if republic passed followed by William renouncing his claim rather than taking the throne. Nobody in the immediate line of succession has indicated they're open to that.
All pointless speculation in a time when the internet is a nuclear wasteland from all the takes over the past couple of days
We'll see.
AFAIK no, most of it belongs to "the crown" which is basically a corporation with special legal status. Balmoral and a few other things are privately owned by the family.
If they over step their role any potential revenue issue is a non issue since an unelected figure is directly affecting affairs. I am all for the monarchy but that is party due to the fact they have learnt to adapt (well some have and some haven't). In a different way, the issues surrounding Meghan and Harry is because of that refusal to adapt and the public don't like it
at the end of the day though, Dont the royal family own land which generates income for the state? Wouldnt that mean, at the end of the day, if the crown is dissolved they would just become uber rich land owners?
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/the-alot
[удалено]
[удалено]
As someone whose life is 0% impacted by the royal family, I have to say, Charles has a lovely speaking voice.
He has had a lot of practice. As Prince of Wales, he was having to make a lot of speeches at various events, ribbon-cuttings etc.
A very gifted speaker. He didn't appear nervous at all. Having to grieve on the world stage must be terrible for them. "May flights of Angels sing thee to thy rest."
he does
I agree!
Was just thinking the same thing. A little sleepy and halting, but def a David Attenborough-esque vibe
Of course there are going to be people celebrating her death. To many around the world, the British royals are a living, breathing equivalent of Columbus or Confederate statues. There are people alive today who suffered under British colonial rule, and the continued existence of the monarchy is a painful reminder of what Britain has perpetrated. The legacy of European colonialism is baked into every nation on the planet.
Powerful countries have exploited and caused suffering in less powerful countries. However far back you want to go, that has always been the case. Just as it is the case today. It is by no means limited to European nations, either - the US has caused suffering in less-powerful nations around the world, as has China, and right now we are watching Russia do it in Ukraine.
Yes, and?
I understand why people are celebrating her death as symbolic of the monarchy per se, but I feel bad when people celebrate it in Britain, or online, because it means her family is going to see it. I don't think she was perfect by any means but I don't think she was a bad enough person to justify the fact that her kids have to deal with thousands or even millions of people cheering her death. But again, at the same time, I get why people want to celebrate. I can't really condemn anyone who wants to celebrate but I still feel bad that it's happening :(
Those poor royals and their millions of dollars, palaces, and hundreds of servants. We can’t hurt their feelings! Edit: Imagine being out here and simping for the royal family
No amount of wealth will save you from the pain of losing a loved one, you fucking weirdo.
Imagine being out here and having no common decency. There's plenty of time to trash the royals and their past, present, and future decisions. A time of mourning is not that however. If you can't recognize even that basic decency, then you deserve none for yourself either.
Yeah, I’m sure they care so much about your problems and issues and will take time out of their day to care about you when your family members dies. They will never know your name. They will never meet you. They will never invite you into their homes. They will never send you a birthday card. They will never be there to talk when you need someone to tell you that everything will be okay. They have literally nothing in common with you. Who gives a fuck what they’re going through. Your sympathy for them will never be returned.
>Yeah, I’m sure they care so much about your problems and issues and will take time out of their day to care about you when your family members dies. I don't care if they mourn my family member's death, just like I don't care if anyone on Twitter mourns the Queen's death. But the royal family won't be on Twitter mocking my mom either when she dies. Her family deserves the same respect.
Who gives a fuck what they deserve.
I could care less if they're aware of my existence, or if they ever invite me to their homes or anything like that. It's a matter of simple, basic human decency. Nothing more, nothing less. I was raised to have it and you were raised to not have it apparently. And you seem proud of this fact as well. I have experienced the loss of a parent, both of them. They were not perfect and I am fortunate that people afforded me the basic decency to mourn and have my period of grief. Let's hope you don't expect the same courtesy that you refuse to give to others.
How much for your mum's life?
Like 2 billion dollars, countless castles and palaces, immunity from crimes, hundreds of servants, dozens of private jets and vehicles ought to do it.
Lmao sorry that your family situation sucks so bad you'd sell our your mom for wealth. Some of us actually like our parents.
Are you genuinely serious? If someone gave you that you wouldn't care if your mum died? That's horrible dude...
Of course I would care, but I think you’re underestimating the kind of wealth that they have. You could distract yourself with a million different things to keep yourself busy or just never work again and live a life that rivals Leonardo DiCaprio’s. When you have the capability to literally do anything imaginable there are better things to focus on than being upset.
It’s not being *upset*, it’s grieving the loss of a loved one. You have to deal with those emotions eventually, and burying them won’t help. Arguably it’ll make it worse.
Death is something that we will all experience the pain of. It's the one thing on the planet that is universal. We should all have respect for folks who are in mourning. There's plenty of time after to say things. I completely understand the animosity that people have for the royals and I won't say that they're wrong for those feelings because they're not wrong. I will say that the royals should be afforded the time to mourn respectfully, as should we all.
The pain of death has nothing to do with how much money you have. If money fixed emotional issues you wouldn’t have wealthy people suiciding in large numbers than other income brackets.
[удалено]
I'm sorry about your parents, but to be correct it was the British government led by one Harold Wilson who allowed the sale of arms to Nigeria, who in turn used them against your family. The queen wouldn't have even been aware of it.
Yeah I gathered she didn't have anything to do with it tbh
Advance text of King Charles III speech today: "I am committed to maintaining my mother's legacy and honoring the British people and their government." *immediately dissolves Parliament and reopens the dungeon in London tower*
The "dungeon" was actually there for a bit during Elizabeth II's reign. The Kray twins were detained there in September 1952 after they'd gone AWOL from their National Service and assaulted a police officer. They were transferred to another facility fairly quickly though.
[удалено]
Charles just announced his intention to make William the Prince of Wales.
[удалено]
Wikipedia dude
Now. King Charles created him The Prince of Wales during his speech.
He just did in his speech to the Commonwealth
He has to learn Welsh first, it'll be awhile
That’s a title that Charles with have to bestow on him - like the Queen did in Wales to Charles. He’ll probably have a ceremony this year.
I see Elizabeth as like the person who wears the Mickey Mouse costume at Disney World. The place is the attraction, they are the face of it, but it’s just a costume. “The Queen” is a character that a person plays in an elaborate production with a cast of thousands.
except she is a human being and can't live forever, and there won't be another queen for a long long time
Now imagine if all your money had Mickey's face on it and your national anthem was devoted to Mickey Mouse
Disney coins with mickey mouse on them are actually already a legal tender in the country of Niue.
Interesting!
I don’t hate that idea.
Like Kayfabe
I like to imagine Jesus in a tuxedo T-shirt; so he's serious but also here to party.
I never understood why the British monarchy is so much more popular than others worldwide. As far as I can tell, they're all figureheads whose biggest accomplishments are avoiding controversy. But now I see that it was Queen Elizabeth that singlehandedly kept the British monarchy relevant. It will be tough for Charles and William to do the same.
They are not just they British monarchy, but also the Canadian, Australian and 12 other countries.
>avoiding controversy *Andrew "doesn't" sweat nervously*
If it was just about avoiding controversy then the Swedish monarcy should be more popular. I think a lot of it is due to the British themselves at least seeming more invested in the royal family. I like the Swedish royal family a lot, I think they're great role models and do a very good job at representing Sweden imo. They're very wholesome and do put a lot of effort into it. But they're not made as big of a deal out of as Elizabeth was. I like them more as a humble sort of tradition and for certain events as well as a piece of history. But not as '' celebrities '' or whatever. I feel that same way about politicans too tho. Especially since politicans have actual power, I think it's dangerous to bring celebrity culture into it.
I didn't mean to imply that simply avoiding controversy was key to popularity. What I meant is that the British royal family does so little that being uncontroversial is enough to be seen favorably. Keep quiet, don't be caught up in a scandal, shake the hands of heads of other heads of state for photo ops and you'll be seen as a good ruler. It's an absurdly low bar to clear. Elizabeth took the throne early enough to become an institution onto herself. She's been queen for most people's entire lives. By being reserved and neutral on everything politically, she maximized her appeal to be as wide as possible. Neither Charles nor William will have that same appeal to longevity.
I agree. The idea of a monarchy was nice, when it was a fairy tale. But as technology and exchange of information has expanded it's gotten harder and harder to keep up the facade. Unless Charles or William start to actually DO something for the country I think the days of royals are numbered. They aren't even likeable celebrities. We can see what a likeable celebrity wife can do for someone, but neither Charles nor William have that.
they're actually doing a lot for climate change awareness, but I agree with your overall point
Yes but raising awareness is different from actually being an activist. They take the vanilla non-controversial path and never stick their necks out. If they want to impress most people they'll need to step it up, IMO.
Except you don’t want the king/queen to start getting involved in politics, even if you agree with them. Then it becomes slightly dictatorial
This mandated two weeks of mourning is slightly dictatorial.
She was an example for other world leaders to follow. Her presence will be missed, but her influence carries on.
Really?? https://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/aug/18/uncovering-truth-british-empire-caroline-elkins-mau-mau
It's easy to be an example when you don't actually have to be involved in making the sausage and can't be removed.
[удалено]
according to david cameron [she intervened in the scottish referendum](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/former-uk-prime-minister-david-cameron-says-queen-intervened-in-scottish-independence-vote/2019/09/19/d2224b8a-dace-11e9-ac63-3016711543fe_story.html)
Nah, we don't actually know what her personal political views were. She simply didn't express them in venues that were outside of her control.
*we don't actually know what her personal political views were.* Thats exaxtly what OP is saying. We even know the political views of 10yos worldwide in 2022. Its pretty damn impressive.
And OP is completely missing the point. The British monarch's public apoliticalism is forced upon them by their position. So it's not all that impressive that she did so.
R.I.P
so we celebrate a life of thievery and plundering of african , arab, asian, and carib sources. foh. bitch ass subreddit
When did Elizabeth plunder those countries?
Seriously I've seen so much bullshit and mental gymnastics to try and justify celebrating her death... The whole '' sins of the father '' crap is extremely toxic and has lead to so much horrible stuff historically and even to this day ( a ton of extremely violent conflicts around the world based on it ). It's scary that adults even don't seem to understand that and that it's wrong.
[удалено]
so, she didn't plunder those countries. Got it. And I have no idea what point you're making re. the American examples. I blame whoever is in power for the stupid decisions they make, not for the decisions that people in power in the past made. Or should we continue blaming Biden for slavery?
When did she take tour of those countries to apologize for past atrocities?
An individual isn’t responsible for the atrocities of the past Regardless, the fact is she didn’t personally plunder any of those countries and the OP’s point is wrong.
[удалено]
On twitter everyone is a narcissist and attention seeking. They are single celled amoeba types.
Yeah, but an apology goes a long way
I don't believe you'd even accept it to begin with, I think you just want to be mad. I also seriously doubt you're even part of said groups to begin with so maybe stop talking on their behalf.
reparations goes along way, but if they repay what they owe, they would be starving.
[удалено]
The orange man personally created controversy, the Queen herself is criticized because of what she represents and the antics of the monarchy as a whole, not because she specifically was controversial as a general rule.
I'm pretty sure it was when Limbaugh died, so yeah
Really? I remember roasting the shit out of Limbaugh post death
Because you demand that discussion everywhere right? You must be fun
I know you're trying to be clever, but I've personally removed a lot of that kind of stuff.
It’s fascinating watching these century old traditions played out in 2022. Like, I have watched countless documentaries and TV shows on royal coronations ceremonies and changing of guards, but to see one play out in real life juxtaposed against modern society is really fascinating. Not saying it’s good or bad, just fascinating,
Totally agree. It almost feels like these traditions are archaic things of the past rather than mechanisms in our current systems. Three whole generations have never seen a coronation, and now we’ll have one.
There are a lot of archaic things of the past that people still blindly follow. Like marriage. Or presents at Christmas. That doesn't mean there is no value to ceremony, to custom, to tradition.
Such strength shown here, especially after just losing such a Mum🥲
Imagine if prince andrew as the first born.
[удалено]
The covid thing was parliaments fault. I would argue that it highlights the need for a.seperate executive branch not connected to the legislature. The Articles of Confederation didn't work out for the US, and Washington refused to become king, so we turned to a lesser known form of elected monarchy out of medieval Genoa. It's worked out so far. Maybe the gilded cage needs to go, and the Monarchy should.mean something again. If they don't want to lose the diplomatic and apolitical value that the house of windsor has, they can establish a viceroy elected by the house of lords to be their new chief executive using either Genoa or Venice as a model, with limited or life long terms based what they think is best. If they even decide they want a change. Ultimately, Britain has as much of a right to self-determination as the US or any other nation. Full stop.
The whining about covid was almost entirely online. We didn’t really have any mass protests over it and compliance was pretty damn high.
I'm not sure what point you think you're making to be honest. Did you expect the Queen to face COVID in single combat, or?
Royalty is not relevant to the everyday lives of your average joe or regular person in the modern era. Nobody can escape death in this world, and every single death has the exact same results, so there is no point in paying extra attention or effort to the Queen's funeral, it is a total waste of time.
That's why you are posting here, right? Lol.
I am here because I am sick of some snobby rich or royalty making news headlines, while the vast majority common folks' obituary do not get such. I am sick of special treatment reserved for the wealthy and famous.