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

[Daniel_Doyce | 475]

"The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery. They would have religion thrown aside, morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint." - QE2, 1957 Christmas Broadcast

Pretty much sums up the thinking of folks who want to tear down all of our institutions without thinking about what happens next.

RIP to a great woman, with grace and a sense of duty and responsibility that many know-nothings in England have scorned and turn their backs on, to the great detriment of England and its allies.

[Estil | 1,265]

22 hours ago, Tulpa said:

*Charles and William glare at Estil*

Why would they be glaring at me?  I only had the sad face part for if something bad were to happen to little Prince George...as that's the only way we'd have another queen.  Interestingly, we wouldn't have had QE2 had it not been for her uncle abdicating by choosing his heart over duty.

[Estil | 1,265]

22 hours ago, Brickman said:

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.

Well her mum lived to be 101 but I guess it just reminds all of us that no matter how long our lives get to be, at the end we do have to check out sometime.

[Estil | 1,265]

16 hours ago, Link said:

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.

In a constitutional monarchy the Monarch is above politics (or at least is supposed to be), and QE2 most definitely was just that.

[Estil | 1,265]

3 hours 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.

You mean, a constitutional monarch doesn't just get dressed up and wave?  

1:01 -- Sed: Stupid colonial money...  

Edited September 9, 2022 by Estil

[Link | 2,725]

1 hour ago, Estil said:

In a constitutional monarchy the Monarch is above politics (or at least is supposed to be), and QE2 most definitely was just that.

What I meant was, while they are ostensibly "in charge" there, the doings of the royal family are not of interest to me. 

[Link | 2,725]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Doyce said:

Pretty much sums up the thinking of folks who want to tear down all of our institutions without thinking about what happens next.

 

What consequences do you forsee here?

What causes would you note as far as why things are, in your consideration, worse than they were 65 years ago? 

[Daniel_Doyce | 475]

45 minutes ago, Link said:

What consequences do you forsee here?

What causes would you note as far as why things are, in your consideration, worse than they were 65 years ago? 

I didn't mention the word "worse." We've already seen some of the consequences, though. When one empire declines, others take its place. Is the present-day Chinese colonialist empire in HK and the African warlords like Idi Amin and Mugabe and the Middle Eastern theocrats that took over former British colonies better? The British colonies in Southeast Asia got a real good taste of Japanese empire during WWII.

But the bigger point is that those who are unhappy that we don't live in utopia and want to tear everything down don't even stop to consider the possible consequences, or don't care.

[Daniel_Doyce | 475]

Anyway, I don't want to turn this political. It's just annoying to see so many people with no knowledge of history or deep understanding of centuries of broader historical context going on TV and talking smack about someone who served her country and proudly and gracefully represented England for all of her life.

[Tulpa | 3,529]

4 hours ago, Estil said:

Why would they be glaring at me?  I only had the sad face part for if something bad were to happen to little Prince George...as that's the only way we'd have another queen.  Interestingly, we wouldn't have had QE2 had it not been for her uncle abdicating by choosing his heart over duty.

It came across like "Charles and William can be hit by a London bus tomorrow as long as little George is okay."

[Tabonga | 2,327]

39 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

It came across like "Charles and William can be hit by a London bus tomorrow as long as little George is okay."

 

[Estil | 1,265]

1 hour ago, Tulpa said:

It came across like "Charles and William can be hit by a London bus tomorrow as long as little George is okay."

No no no no no, I just mean the only way we could have another queen is AFTER Charlies and Williams, and that's only if (God forbid) something happened to George and thus his little sis would take over.

Hence what I meant by that it's a near certainty it'll be God Save The King for the remainder of my lifetime.

[Estil | 1,265]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Doyce said:

Anyway, I don't want to turn this political. It's just annoying to see so many people with no knowledge of history or deep understanding of centuries of broader historical context going on TV and talking smack about someone who served her country and proudly and gracefully represented England for all of her life.

Indeed, the whole point of a constitutional monarch is to (ideally) be above politics...let parliament and the PM do all that political stuff.  Though...the monarch is in fact Commander-In-Chief of His/Her Majesty's Army/Navy/etc.

So does this mean in fact their nuclear football has now passed to King Charles III?    Can you imagine that His Majesty's first ever task is to get a briefing from his Prime Minister and Minister of Defence that goes something like this?

PS: In real life, in the case of the US, an officer of the military, not a Secret Service agent has football duty. 

Edited September 10, 2022 by Estil

[Estil | 1,265]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Doyce said:

Anyway, I don't want to turn this political. It's just annoying to see so many people with no knowledge of history or deep understanding of centuries of broader historical context going on TV and talking smack about someone who served her country and proudly and gracefully represented England for all of her life.

I know, it was bad enough that was done when Thatcher passed away...way too many people really need to show more respect and class for the deceased.  I mean how would any of you like it if people had that kind of 'tude regarding your own death?

[Estil | 1,265]

2 hours ago, Daniel_Doyce said:

I didn't mention the word "worse." We've already seen some of the consequences, though. When one empire declines, others take its place. Is the present-day Chinese colonialist empire in HK...

Well in that case what were they supposed to do?  I mean the UK did agree to lease Hong Kong/New Territories for 99 years back in 1898 and China made very plain that when the UK's time is up at the stroke of midnight on July 1, 1997, their time is UP!

God Save British Hong Kong!

 

[phart010 | 1,708]

@Daniel_Doyce

I say this with objective analysis only, I do not intend to be disrespectful to the Queen. But it is actually pretty difficult to state what I am reading between the lines in her statement without sounding disrespectful. That is just the nature of critical feedback:

"The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery. They would have religion thrown aside, morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint." - QE2, 1957 Christmas Broadcast

What I see here is a privileged person speaking in their own self interest to hopefully preserve their families privileges for a few more generations by calling me unthinking (ignorant) and questioning my morality simply for the egregious offense of having questioned whether their position/authority is still needed in the modern world.

A big irony is that “self interest” was actually mentioned in this statement.

Now… with that said, the Queen was living during a time when monarchs probably did some actual work and maybe even some decision making within the government. Respect to her for that. Nobody is insulting her and may she Rest In Peace.. But “Real democracy” happened during her lifetime meaning that a mature representative model of government was finally established.  

Today, the “monarchy” are expensive cheerleaders. And worse, they are unelected. It’s pure nepotism, which is the opposite of a merit based system of promotion.  I wouldn’t say insults are being hurled as much as the role of figurehead monarchs in the world of today is being put to question.. you know since we now have democratic processes for making the decisions. Sorry, the monarchy is precisely the old outworn machinery she mentioned and should probably be gracefully dismantled. And no, that does not mean we have to now discard religion, morality and ethics

Edited September 10, 2022 by phart010

[Tulpa | 3,529]

53 minutes ago, Estil said:

No no no no no, I just mean the only way we could have another queen is AFTER Charlies and Williams, and that's only if (God forbid) something happened to George and thus his little sis would take over.

Hence what I meant by that it's a near certainty it'll be God Save The King for the remainder of my lifetime.

I know what you meant. It's just funnier to think that you only care about George.

[OptOut | 8,891]

@Daniel_Doyce appealing to the authority of the Queen to defend the institution of the monarchy, followed up by a full-blooded defence of Imperial colonialism?

Um. Cool. 

[Daniel_Doyce | 475]

55 minutes ago, OptOut said:

@Daniel_Doyce appealing to the authority of the Queen to defend the institution of the monarchy, followed up by a full-blooded defence of Imperial colonialism?

Um. Cool. 

Basically the complete opposite of what I said, but sure. Acknowledging that imperial colonialism has always existed since the beginning of civilization and still currently exists is not a defense of it at all. Let's see how the next few decades play out and we can contextually compare Russia, China, and the practices of the rest of the benevolent colonialists of today to the British Empire.

[OptOut | 8,891]

46 minutes ago, Daniel_Doyce said:

Basically the complete opposite of what I said, but sure. Acknowledging that imperial colonialism has always existed since the beginning of civilization and still currently exists is not a defense of it at all. Let's see how the next few decades play out and we can contextually compare Russia, China, and the practices of the rest of the benevolent colonialists of today to the British Empire.

China is currently following the modern neo-colonial method of ensnaring weaker countries with debt, and taking over resources and infrastructure in the target countries as repayment on defaulted loans.

It's very similar to the way the US and other countries have exploited the third world throughout the latter half of the twentieth century and into this one, using debts issued by the IMF and World Bank.

This colonial strategy is obviously abusive and exploitative, whether committed by Western powers, or indeed China. But it's hardly a patch on the brutality and genocide committed by European colonial powers in centuries prior.

What we're looking at today is a slow strangulation and retardation of the potential of developing economies, as opposed to the wholesale slaughter and destruction of entire societies and civilizations we saw in the past.

Two distinctly different flavours and characters of evil, and I would say that as bad as modern neo-colonialism is, I'd say it IS progress compared to what we saw in the past.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you lump Russia in with China, as these countries have completely different colonial strategies. Russian colonialism, as we have seen in Georgia, Chechnya and Ukraine, takes on a far more old-fashioned brutal military invasion sort of flavour.

[Link | 2,725]

12 hours ago, Estil said:

Indeed, the whole point of a constitutional monarch is to (ideally) be above politics...let parliament and the PM do all that political stuff. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

14 hours ago, Daniel_Doyce said:

I didn't mention the word "worse."

Pardon my pithiness. 

Relating to the original quote, organized religion has caused a great deal of harm over the centuries, and morality is subjective in many contexts. There are ways to make things better, without necessarily tearing everything down. (Sorry if I misquote you again)

[LeatherRebel5150 | 1,056]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2022/09/08/who-inherits-queen-elizabeth-net-worth-will-fortune-will/amp/

[Estil | 1,265]

4 hours ago, LeatherRebel5150 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fortune.com/2022/09/08/who-inherits-queen-elizabeth-net-worth-will-fortune-will/amp/

Not bad for someone who (as that guy from King Ralph said) "doesn't get a salary...as such..."

[Daniel_Doyce | 475]

Man I saw King Ralph at the $2 theater back in 1991. Kinda want to watch it again, but Amazon's asking $3.99 to rent and I can't locate it via "other" means.

I hope Charles III has a more auspicious reign than his two earlier namesakes. At least the monarchy will continue and always remind England that England's greatness requires a sense of stability and honoring of tradition that can be so easily forgotten.

[Estil | 1,265]

1 hour ago, Daniel_Doyce said:

Man I saw King Ralph at the $2 theater back in 1991. Kinda want to watch it again, but Amazon's asking $3.99 to rent and I can't locate it via "other" means.

I hope Charles III has a more auspicious reign than his two earlier namesakes. At least the monarchy will continue and always remind England that England's greatness requires a sense of stability and honoring of tradition that can be so easily forgotten.

Scotland, Wales, Northern Island: Hey, who are we, chopped liver?