RIP Queen Elizabeth Has Passed

The concept of a monarchy in 2022 seems absurd on its own, but when you read about all the title shuffling involved due to this death it becomes even more so.
 
Runs For Fun said:
RIP you Majesty. It was a sad day.
Click to expand...

The late queen did indeed keep her pledge to serve for her whole life. This photo was taken two days before she passed away, keeping to her obligation to ask any incoming prime minister to form a government in her name after he or she had been selected by the political process. LIz Truss was the 15th such British PM welcomed by Queen Elizabeth II. With a smile, at age 96.

kept the pledge.jpg
 
The monarch is separate from the political decisions and actions of the UK. Every sovereign nation runs its affairs as it sees fit. We don't have to like it but in the case of the British Empire's history it does seem a bit over the top to lay it all on the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II.

in modern times the British monarch is not expected even to express a political opinion in public, and Elizabeth II was not known ever to do so, much less advocate for this or that tack in either domestic or foreign affairs.

Even the incoming Charles III had acknowledged in public interviews that he was fully aware that his political activism as a prince was not going to fly when he eventually became king.

Remains to be seen how he manages that. One could think perhaps by promptly abdicating in favor of his son William, but then abdication is such a loaded word and concept in the UK thanks to the late Duke of Windsor. Abdicating might suggest to the British people well hell then maybe it is after all a good time to bin the whole thing, even if they may think it would be okay to see William ascend the throne.

The British are pretty clear on the fact that their own politics and the PM run the ship of state, so it comes down to whether they feel not having a monarch any more would deprive them of British identity, or just relieve them of the cost of the civil list.

I don't follow British public opinion on that very closely so I've no clue (and maybe they don't yet either) whether they'll like a King Charles III better than they have liked him as heir in waiting all these many decades, whether they'll yearn to see William take the throne sooner rather than later, or if they're really just ready to let the PM and Parliament be the whole package of BritGov.

Anyway it's ultimately up to the people (and not the American people) to decide if the UK wish to continue the traditional monarchy (or even the UK itself). And it's up to the remaining commonwealth nations if they wish to continue acknowledging the British monarch as their titular head of state. Several Caribbean countries have gone past independence to declare themselves republics in recent years, with more probably to follow. Again though: their choice.

It's pretty obvious what we Americans thought of monarchy ever since we invited George III to pack up and go home, even if we borrowed aspects of English common law and parliamentary structures as we formulated our own constitutional government.

Past that really the ongoing government of the UK is not our business... we have enough lingering post-colonial issues of our own to deal with. In fact England abolished slavery before the USA did, which is not to say they don't have post-colonial issues to deal with all over their former empire. But to lay them on the late Queen Elizabeth II seems... I don't know, rather petty and ill informed. If she'd had the power to do so, who knows, she might even have laid aside the crown for good, and saved her descendants the trouble they'll be in now, as King Charles III's subjects, the king himself and his first in line to the throne all consider their own and the kingdom's options.

Looking on the bright (or cynical?) side from media moguls' POV, papers around the world get to meet their payrolls more easily for awhile into future now, I mean there's still a royal funeral and a coronation in the offing...
 
lizkat said:
The monarch is separate from the political decisions and actions of the UK. Every sovereign nation runs its affairs as it sees fit. We don't have to like it but in the case of the British Empire's history it does seem a bit over the top to lay it all on the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II.

in modern times the British monarch is not expected even to express a political opinion in public, and Elizabeth II was not known ever to do so, much less advocate for this or that tack in either domestic or foreign affairs.

Even the incoming Charles III had acknowledged in public interviews that he was fully aware that his political activism as a prince was not going to fly when he eventually became king.

Remains to be seen how he manages that. One could think perhaps by promptly abdicating in favor of his son William, but then abdication is such a loaded word and concept in the UK thanks to the late Duke of Windsor. Abdicating might suggest to the British people well hell then maybe it is after all a good time to bin the whole thing, even if they may think it would be okay to see William ascend the throne.

The British are pretty clear on the fact that their own politics and the PM run the ship of state, so it comes down to whether they feel not having a monarch any more would deprive them of British identity, or just relieve them of the cost of the civil list.

I don't follow British public opinion on that very closely so I've no clue (and maybe they don't yet either) whether they'll like a King Charles III better than they have liked him as heir in waiting all these many decades, whether they'll yearn to see William take the throne sooner rather than later, or if they're really just ready to let the PM and Parliament be the whole package of BritGov.

Anyway it's ultimately up to the people (and not the American people) to decide if the UK wish to continue the traditional monarchy (or even the UK itself). And it's up to the remaining commonwealth nations if they wish to continue acknowledging the British monarch as their titular head of state. Several Caribbean countries have gone past independence to declare themselves republics in recent years, with more probably to follow. Again though: their choice.

It's pretty obvious what we Americans thought of monarchy ever since we invited George III to pack up and go home, even if we borrowed aspects of English common law and parliamentary structures as we formulated our own constitutional government.

Past that really the ongoing government of the UK is not our business... we have enough lingering post-colonial issues of our own to deal with. In fact England abolished slavery before the USA did, which is not to say they don't have post-colonial issues to deal with all over their former empire. But to lay them on the late Queen Elizabeth II seems... I don't know, rather petty and ill informed. If she'd had the power to do so, who knows, she might even have laid aside the crown for good, and saved her descendants the trouble they'll be in now, as King Charles III's subjects, the king himself and his first in line to the throne all consider their own and the kingdom's options.

Looking on the bright (or cynical?) side from media moguls' POV, papers around the world get to meet their payrolls more easily for awhile into future now, I mean there's still a royal funeral and a coronation in the offing...
Click to expand...

With the western press gushing over this as if she was queen of the planet, and knowing the royal family is fairly far removed from direct politics, I can't help but feel the press is paying tribute to a version of politics that isn't the complete shit show it is today.
 
Eric said:
I get not everyone supported her but if we could be respectful in this thread that would be great.
Click to expand...

My next-door neighbor's best friend's uncle's mistress died the other day, and even though no one has ever heard of her, I think she needs to be regarded respectfully (well, there was that one time she … oh, nevermind).
 
Yoused said:
My next-door neighbor's best friend's uncle's mistress died the other day, and even though no one has ever heard of her, I think she needs to be regarded respectfully (well, there was that one time she … oh, nevermind).
Click to expand...

Hah, right... some obituaries leave out more than others, most likely, ya think?

I often think of that around here when the obits (they are all paid notices nowadays) often start out with "So and so went to be with our Lord and Savior on August 18 yada yada" -- and yet I remember them as being rather more rambunctious than not when they were in the church hall, which was sometimes the ONLY time one ever saw them on that property, i.e. for the barbecued chicken or the pancake festival etc.

Still the old saw is likely true for all of us: that in our lifetimes we will have been better and of more worth to our neighbors on the planet than we have been when on our worst behavior, but not always anywhere near so wonderful as the wedding or family reunion pictures might have suggested.
 
Has Trump interrupted his daily Truth Social blather to remark on Elizabeth's passing? I imagine it would be something like this:

I once met Queen Elizabeth and she told me what a great president I am. The GREATEST that she ever knew. She told me that she didn't like Barack Hussein Obama and that my inauguration crowd was bigger than his, not like the fake news reported. And now Charles is king. At least their succession wasn't rigged like our 2020 election was. A lot of people are saying that I should be king of America and Melania should be queen. Our BEAUTIFUL country would be great again if I were king, not like how it's being destroyed by Sleepy Joe and the far left radical liberals with their corrupt FBI and DOJ. They raided my beautiful home and I did nothing wrong. Everyone takes work home. Just another witch hunt like Russia.
 
mac_in_tosh said:
Has Trump interrupted his daily Truth Social blather to remark on Elizabeth's passing?
Click to expand...

On Twitter in passing today I saw an alleged quote from Trump which I figure was likely invented, but it was so like something he might say that I laughed.

It was this: "I never told anyone, but she knighted me in secret."​

LOL ... no way! Also, Obama was the only US president the queen had liked well enough to invite to visit after he had left office.
 
Joe said:
View attachment 17450
Click to expand...

The queen came to power in 1953. Britain became a democracy in 1847. She has essentially no legitimate political power. Should the royal family return artifacts to their respective countries- probably yes but easier said than done. And it should have nothing to do with the value of then items but rather their cultural significance. Britain has a ton of artifacts in museums that aren’t owned by the royal family that were essentially looted. I imagine this is the case for most countries. The Netherlands for example has a ton of looted art.

Colonization and conquest was the norm for the majority of human history and surprise surprise continues today, granted to a lesser extent. Does that make such actions morally right, absolutely not, but you can’t judge history in the context of the modern day.

Many places in the world once belonged to someone else prior to being conquered by someone else. I guess all the Americans should return their land to the Native Americans. Australia should be returned to the indigenous people. Palestine should be returned to Israel. My family of German Jews should claim whatever property was stolen from then. Etc.

Unfortunately the world just doesn’t work that way and in reality is actually a very complicated issue. Let’s say Britain/the Royal Family returns stolen artifacts, who exactly gets them? If they were taken from private individuals hundreds of years ago, what right does any government have to them? And I suspect many of the valuables obtained probably weren’t fairly earned from whoever owned them first. And then you have things like Greek artwork, which has zero connection to the present day Greek government other than geography. And other examples where the history would have been otherwise destroyed.

Again, that’s not to say such imperial theft were or are justified. But as the old saying goes you can’t change history. And the answer isn’t always straightforward when you’re talking about things that occurred hundreds of years ago.

And for all the evils of the British Empire- which I’ll remind you were impressed upon what is the US today, there are many silver linings. Such as bringing stability and ultimately modernization and prosperity to many countries and their people around the world.
 
AG_PhamD said:
Should the royal family return artifacts to their respective countries- probably yes but easier said than done. And it should have nothing to do with the value of then items but rather their cultural significance. Britain has a ton of artifacts in museums that aren’t owned by the royal family that were essentially looted.
Click to expand...

Lizzy was coronated while seated upon the the sowething-something chair thing, under which there was a magical block of sandstone known in fiction and reality as the Stone of Scone.
Voice-is-Mightier-than-the-Sword.jpg
About a quarter century ago the stone carried back to Scotland, where is resides in a museum in Perth. It was stolen from fair Alba dozen centuries back and used as the English coronation stone for all the previous regents, so I am curious if they are going to cart it back down to do the coronation of Queen Charles or if he will take the crown bare-ass to the floor.

What? "King"? What the hell, England has never had a king. Not that I recall.
 
AG_PhamD said:
The queen came to power in 1953. Britain became a democracy in 1847. She has essentially no legitimate political power. Should the royal family return artifacts to their respective countries- probably yes but easier said than done. And it should have nothing to do with the value of then items but rather their cultural significance. Britain has a ton of artifacts in museums that aren’t owned by the royal family that were essentially looted. I imagine this is the case for most countries. The Netherlands for example has a ton of looted art.

Colonization and conquest was the norm for the majority of human history and surprise surprise continues today, granted to a lesser extent. Does that make such actions morally right, absolutely not, but you can’t judge history in the context of the modern day.

Many places in the world once belonged to someone else prior to being conquered by someone else. I guess all the Americans should return their land to the Native Americans. Australia should be returned to the indigenous people. Palestine should be returned to Israel. My family of German Jews should claim whatever property was stolen from then. Etc.

Unfortunately the world just doesn’t work that way and in reality is actually a very complicated issue. Let’s say Britain/the Royal Family returns stolen artifacts, who exactly gets them? If they were taken from private individuals hundreds of years ago, what right does any government have to them? And I suspect many of the valuables obtained probably weren’t fairly earned from whoever owned them first. And then you have things like Greek artwork, which has zero connection to the present day Greek government other than geography. And other examples where the history would have been otherwise destroyed.

Again, that’s not to say such imperial theft were or are justified. But as the old saying goes you can’t change history. And the answer isn’t always straightforward when you’re talking about things that occurred hundreds of years ago.

And for all the evils of the British Empire- which I’ll remind you were impressed upon what is the US today, there are many silver linings. Such as bringing stability and ultimately modernization and prosperity to many countries and their people around the world.
Click to expand...
@AG_PhamD: Ari: Elizabeth became queen the minute her father died, which happened in 1952. She was formally crowned as Queen, anointed as Queen, in 1953.

Thus, Charles became King once his mother died, and the various public Proclamations this week-end have served to formally confirm this fact.

His actual coronation - which will be the visible manifestation, or expression, of this - won't - and cannot, because of the planning it will entail - take place for months, possibly not until next year.

Now, 1847? "Britain became a democracy in 1847"?

What on Earth are you talking about?

I taught history at university, and none of the dates where the path of political, or parliamentary, reform - or towards some sort of democracy - occurred in the 19th century in the UK, (for example, the earlier "Glorious Revolution" of 1688, the Great Reform Act of 1832 (abolished many of the "rotten boroughs" and extended the franchise), Reform Act of 1867, (which enfranchised much of the male working class), Secret Ballot Act of 1872, Reform Act of 1884 ("one man one vote"), etc) fall in 1847.

lizkat said:
The monarch is separate from the political decisions and actions of the UK. Every sovereign nation runs its affairs as it sees fit. We don't have to like it but in the case of the British Empire's history it does seem a bit over the top to lay it all on the recently deceased Queen Elizabeth II.

in modern times the British monarch is not expected even to express a political opinion in public, and Elizabeth II was not known ever to do so, much less advocate for this or that tack in either domestic or foreign affairs.

Even the incoming Charles III had acknowledged in public interviews that he was fully aware that his political activism as a prince was not going to fly when he eventually became king.

Remains to be seen how he manages that. One could think perhaps by promptly abdicating in favor of his son William, but then abdication is such a loaded word and concept in the UK thanks to the late Duke of Windsor. Abdicating might suggest to the British people well hell then maybe it is after all a good time to bin the whole thing, even if they may think it would be okay to see William ascend the throne.

The British are pretty clear on the fact that their own politics and the PM run the ship of state, so it comes down to whether they feel not having a monarch any more would deprive them of British identity, or just relieve them of the cost of the civil list.

I don't follow British public opinion on that very closely so I've no clue (and maybe they don't yet either) whether they'll like a King Charles III better than they have liked him as heir in waiting all these many decades, whether they'll yearn to see William take the throne sooner rather than later, or if they're really just ready to let the PM and Parliament be the whole package of BritGov.

Anyway it's ultimately up to the people (and not the American people) to decide if the UK wish to continue the traditional monarchy (or even the UK itself). And it's up to the remaining commonwealth nations if they wish to continue acknowledging the British monarch as their titular head of state. Several Caribbean countries have gone past independence to declare themselves republics in recent years, with more probably to follow. Again though: their choice.

It's pretty obvious what we Americans thought of monarchy ever since we invited George III to pack up and go home, even if we borrowed aspects of English common law and parliamentary structures as we formulated our own constitutional government.

Past that really the ongoing government of the UK is not our business... we have enough lingering post-colonial issues of our own to deal with. In fact England abolished slavery before the USA did, which is not to say they don't have post-colonial issues to deal with all over their former empire. But to lay them on the late Queen Elizabeth II seems... I don't know, rather petty and ill informed. If she'd had the power to do so, who knows, she might even have laid aside the crown for good, and saved her descendants the trouble they'll be in now, as King Charles III's subjects, the king himself and his first in line to the throne all consider their own and the kingdom's options.

Looking on the bright (or cynical?) side from media moguls' POV, papers around the world get to meet their payrolls more easily for awhile into future now, I mean there's still a royal funeral and a coronation in the offing...
Click to expand...
Superb and thoughtful post.

Well said.
 
Last edited:
I watched some of the lead up to the late Queen's funeral, as well as portions of the events yesterday. What struck me most was the keen interest shown by thousands, including young people, who turned out and waited many hours to file past the coffin or lined the streets. No matter what one thinks of the monarchy and its role in British colonialism, there is no arguing with the strength of Elizabeth's devotion to her duties during her 70-year reign. She also served her country during WW II and, I'm certain, would have preferred to have remained a princess for many years before ascending to the throne.

The emotion was evident on Charles's face as he placed the Queen’s Company Camp Colour of the Grenadier Guards flag on his mother's coffin at the Committal Service. The telecast was accompanied by speech-to-text translation that may spawn some interesting conspiracy theories.

Coven.jpg
 
My reaction emoticon was about the wrap there. I didn't happen to notice that although I had watched some of the ceremonies.

Roller said:
The telecast was accompanied by speech-to-text translation that may spawn some interesting conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Oy. Coven, coffin - "close only counts in horseshoes"! And it had to be during placement of some obscure camp flag too, right. Murphy's law at work for sure.

As for reaction of both young and old, regardless of politics and history of colonialism, I'm sure a lot of the attention to the passing of the Queen and related ceremony was simply due to the fact that it's likely now to remain a one-off event in modern world history, in terms of how long a monarch will have reigned.

For most or all of our own lifetimes, the UK's Queen Elizabeth was at least an occasional fixture in the news all around the world for all that time. We all may have seen glimpses of her on TV or in photos at times like the opening of the British parliament or at Christmastime.

She became queen when I was just a child, was queen when some of my siblings were born, when my parents died, when I graduated college, got my first "real" job, found my own path as an adult, retired from the workforce. Meanwhile as an American I have lived under rule of 15 presidents and counting, while still there had been Queen Elizabeth "over there" --the photos evolving over time but essentially the same as always: the horses, the dogs, the hats, the smile, the welcoming of ambassadors and new prime ministers and devotion to other duties of the crown.

She represented stability even as the churn of British and Commonwealth and international politics made for change and her own prime ministers participated in that activity. I can see both why some now feel the monarchy should continue, and some feel it's high time to pull up anchor and see how the UK fares as a ship of state possibly more responsive to the people.

There's probably less urgency to the question of "whither the monarchy?" just now than the newspapers would like to suggest.

The queen's passing has been occasion for more than just another celebrity obituary. More like a tsunami of very different personal memories for the older generations, all around the world.

Sure the newspapers have seen it as revenue generation opportunity, but it has also been a presentation of hundreds, thousands of historical milestones during that queen's reign -- events that only some of us noticed when they happened, some of us were too busy then to have noticed, but a lot of us have found interesting in retrospect.
 
Back
Top