Queen Elizabeth II (1926-2022) just passed away; reign covered 15 Prime Ministers, 14 Presidents, 7 Popes

[Estil | 1,265]

 

God Save The Queen!

Edited September 11, 2022 by Estil

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

I posted it in the memorial thread when I heard it. It wasn't much of a surprise given the news this morning that she wasn't well and all of her family was rushing in.

[Estil | 1,265]

So it's all but certain we'll be hearing "God Save The King" for the next three generations/reigns (and probably for the rest of my lifetime)...unless God forbid something were to happen to Prince George

[TrekMD | 1,431]

May she rest in peace.  

[Estil | 1,265]

Can you imagine how different it is the way news is reaching the world (don't be at all surprised it if crashes at least part of the Internet) as opposed to when her dad George VI died in 1952 when TV was just in its infancy?

[fox | 1,669]

[Tulpa | 3,529]

1 hour ago, Estil said:

So it's all but certain we'll be hearing "God Save The King" for the next three generations/reigns (and probably for the rest of my lifetime)...unless God forbid something were to happen to Prince George

*Charles and William glare at Estil*

I was hoping she'd last at least two more years. Then she'd have surpassed Louis XIV as longest reigning sovereign monarch (there's been a bunch of dependent states and non-national level monarchs that ruled longer.)

[Brickman | 4,008]

Sad news but obviously not surprising. Definitely achieved a lot during her reign. RIP  

Now I’m going to have to look at Charle’s face if I use cash. Luckily I don’t carry cash.

[Tenjikuronin | 1,742]

Loonies and Toonies will never be the same

[The Count | 530]

[Link | 2,725]

What effect will this have on UK? (the country, not the university!!!!!!!)

[Link | 2,725]

I don't really give a shit about this kind of politics, but I do find it amazing that she became queen at the age of 26, then "ruled" for 70 years. And her replacement is 73 years old.

[phart010 | 1,708]

Nothing personal against her, but if anyone deserves to be labeled as the overpriveledged elite class of society, it would be the royal family. People handed status and privelege for the mere act of being born. They don’t have to work hard for their wealth and status, it is simply given to them from birth and guaranteed for their children by some silly status quo that the common folk believe in… even some even promote religiously. 
 

Well I’m here to speak up against it, go ahead and challenge me for speaking up

Edited September 9, 2022 by phart010

[Dr. Morbis | 2,091]

48 minutes ago, phart010 said:

Nothing personal against her, but if anyone deserves to be labeled as the overpriveledged elite class of society, it would be the royal family. People handed status and privelege for the mere act of being born. They don’t have to work hard for their wealth and status, it is simply given to them from birth and guaranteed for their children by some silly status quo that the common folk believe in… even some even promote religiously.

You're not wrong, but I kinda feel like you're giving a "war is bad" speech.  I mean, is there anyone on the planet that doesn't already know this?  And isn't this the same situation for pretty much every single person who's ever been born to a "privileged" family and received a large inheritance they did not "earn" just because of who they were born to?  When you get your inheritance one day, will you be donating it all to charity?  Hmmm...

So yeah, you're right, but welcome to planet earth; this is how we've been doing things for about 20,000 years...

Edited September 9, 2022 by Dr. Morbis

[phart010 | 1,708]

8 hours ago, Dr. Morbis said:

You're not wrong, but I kinda feel like you're giving a "war is bad" speech.  I mean, is there anyone on the planet that doesn't already know this?  And isn't this the same situation for pretty much every single person who's ever been born to a "privileged" family and received a large inheritance they did not "earn" just because of who they were born to?  When you get your inheritance one day, will you be donating it all to charity?  Hmmm...

So yeah, you're right, but welcome to planet earth; this is how we've been doing things for about 20,000 years...

Giving your heirs some money for inheritance is one thing. Royal family’s are something else on a whole different level.
 

It essentially institutionalized nepotism at the highest levels of government. They live in a frikkin castle paid for and maintained with taxpayer revenue. All of their monarchy expenses are paid for by the peasantry. Their financial outcome has zero correlation with their competencies in life. There is no possibility for these folks to “fail” as the system uplifts them.

Yea they fly around the world in private jets and attend conferences on saving the world. This is just BS they use as a distraction so that the common folk might think something positive about them

[Hammerfestus | 3,880]

Bye Felicia 

[OptOut | 8,891]

Although this is certainly an interesting historical event, and I am intellectually curious about the royal family as a component of British society and history, I cannot say I am saddened by the death of the Queen. She was 96 years old, after all, and she had a good old go at life. I'm sure it's sad for her family, etc. But it's not really my business to be getting emotionally invested.

Honestly, I think now would probably be a good time to begin the process of dismantling large parts of the Crown estate, and returning it to the people. A lot of people don't realise there is a distinction between the private wealth of the royal family, and the wealth held in the Crown estate. I am happy to let them keep much of their private wealth as individuals and citizens, but their custody of publicly owned property needs to come to an end.

I would also support a substantial downsizing of the size and scope of the monarchy in the British political establishment, even further than the current status quo. I wouldn't support full republicanism, I would rather retain the King as the figurehead of state, rather than opening up that position to a partisan political figure.

But the Crown owns WAY too much land and related properties and associated rights that could be opened up to better and fairer use by the state and private sectors, and their role in the pageantry of Government is a significant stumbling block to sorely needed constitutional reform in the UK.

I welcome the new King Charles III as sovereign, he is a conscientious and caring man. I hope he uses his time in power to radically reform the system he has inherited, in conjunction with a wider set of governmental and civil reforms. Now is the perfect opportunity to get such work done, and I am sure the Duke of Cambridge will be keen to assist his father and continue this work when he comes to the throne himself.

 

Obviously, none of that is actually going to happen, it'll be business as usual and the calcification and exploitation of the British political system to the benefit of the rich and upper class will continue unabated. But, it's fun to dream, eh?

[phart010 | 1,708]

1 hour ago, OptOut said:

I would also support a substantial downsizing of the size and scope of the monarchy in the British political establishment, even further than the current status quo. I wouldn't support full republicanism, I would rather retain the King as the figurehead of state, rather than opening up that position to a partisan political figure.

I’d take it a step further and just give them all a certificate recognizing that they were an important part of history and tell them all to go get real jobs and to pay their taxes

but hey, I’m in America.. the Brits can do whatever they want

Edited September 9, 2022 by phart010

[OptOut | 8,891]

48 minutes ago, phart010 said:

I’d take it a step further and just give them all a certificate recognizing that they were an important part of history and tell them all to go get real jobs and to pay their taxes

but hey, I’m in America.. the Brits can do whatever they want

Actually the royal family does pay tax like everyone else, that law was changed about a decade ago. Also, for whatever you may fault them, the royals are very hard workers, they do a lot of diplomatic, ceremonial and charitable work throughout the year. Until she was in her 80s the Queen would average over 300 engagements each year.

Obviously they aren't slaving away at 60 hour work weeks on minimum wage,and I'm not saying the work they do in anyway justifies their wealth or status, but they're not all just sitting around fiddling kids all day (apart from Prince Andrew).

[Tenjikuronin | 1,742]

[phart010 | 1,708]

38 minutes ago, OptOut said:

Actually the royal family does pay tax like everyone else, that law was changed about a decade ago. Also, for whatever you may fault them, the royals are very hard workers, they do a lot of diplomatic, ceremonial and charitable work throughout the year. Until she was in her 80s the Queen would average over 300 engagements each year.

Obviously they aren't slaving away at 60 hour work weeks on minimum wage,and I'm not saying the work they do in anyway justifies their wealth or status, but they're not all just sitting around fiddling kids all day (apart from Prince Andrew).

I get that they are already paying taxes, but seems a bit of a logical fallacy when your salary is guaranteed and is sourced from the very tax revenues that you are paying your taxes into. The government didn’t make them pay taxes, they volunteered to pay them, so seems more of a PR stunt than anything. 
 

I agree though, they do work hard. I would love the opportunity to work as hard as them.. where can I apply?

[OptOut | 8,891]

3 minutes ago, phart010 said:

 

I agree though, they do work hard. I would love the opportunity to work as hard as them.. where can I apply?

I think you need to raise an army of dudes on horseback and shoot Charles in the eye with an arrow. The rest sort of falls into place after that! 

[phart010 | 1,708]

To clarify the point for others reading (not you @OptOut, I’m sure you already get it) :

what good is it if Congress decides they’re going to pay their fair share by increasing the amount of taxes they pay by 10%, if they can also decide to increase their own salaries by 10% and their salaries come from tax revenues? It’s just optics

Or if your a gas station owner… do you really have to pay when you grab a can of soda from the gas station? The money goes right back to you.. 

Understood all of the UK tax revenues are not going to the royal family, but just trying to illustrate the concept 

[OptOut | 8,891]

2 minutes ago, phart010 said:

To clarify the point for others reading (not you @OptOut, I’m sure you already get it) :

what good is it if Congress decides they’re going to pay their fair share by increasing the amount of taxes they pay by 10%, if they can also decide to increase their own salaries by 10% and their salaries come from tax revenues? It’s just optics

Or if your a gas station owner… do you really have to pay when you grab a can of soda from the gas station? The money goes right back to you.. 

Understood all of the UK tax revenues are not going to the royal family, but just trying to illustrate the concept 

Well sure, but taxes need to levied on earnings regardless of where the money came from in the first place, it's kind of a one-size fits all system right?

A nurse being paid by the state is paying state taxes on her salary, despite the money paying her salary coming from the state, it's just the way the system works. Same goes for the congressmen in your example, and the guy running the gas station WOULD have to pay for his Coke, otherwise he'd be evading sales tax...

Going back to the original example of the royal family, they get a stipend from the government, which is taxed, but actually the vast majority of their earnings comes from rent, investment profits and business revenues from their private wealth, which is also taxed. They are still a net drain on the system, due to the fantastic expense of upkeep on the many enormous Crown estate properties they possess, which is one of the main reasons I feel they should relinquish control of these, seeing as we are paying for them anyway!

 

The point is though, the tax system is convoluted and overly complex, with too many loopholes and exploits for those able to pay fancy accountants and lawyers to help them do so. But, failing to tax public servants, whether they be Kings, congressmen, nurses or street cleaners would surely make the system even MORE complicated and easier to exploit wouldn't it?

I dunno, I do understand what you are saying, but the practicalities kinda necessitate a certain way of doing things even if it seems illogical upfront.

[phart010 | 1,708]

9 minutes ago, OptOut said:

A nurse being paid by the state is paying state taxes on her salary, despite the money paying her salary coming from the state, it's just the way the system works. Same goes for the congressmen in your example, and the guy running the gas station WOULD have to pay for his Coke, otherwise he'd be evading sales tax...

 

Not to be nit-picky but in the gas station analogy, the money he pays himself represents the taxes getting paid into the system, but since he owns the system and has authority to decide how the tax money is spent, in the end he’s just moving the bunnies around the farm. 
 

But your right, in the real world it is tax evasion