The Queen Has Died

[Saracen999]

I haven't commented until now, not for lack of wanting to, but 'cos my broadband died. Partly, something outside effecting quite a few people, but at the same time, my old VM modem croaked. The external problem now fixed, and days later, new modem arrived and installed.

Like you Trig I'm neither for or against the royal family, but like many others I had enormous respect for her majesty personally.

....

That, exactly. Not a huge fan or a hater, per se, of the royal family but I do feel Her Maj was, overall, a large if very subtle to the point of near invisibility, net asset to the UK and, probably, the Commonwealth as a whole. So, during her reign, would I (if given a chance) have voted for abolition? No.

But now?

I am not a fan of Charles. Oh, he's done some really great stuff, not least the Prince's Trust but the caveat there is that with huge levels of wealth, influence, prestige and at least soft power, you can do stuff like that, and therefore should. I, for instance, couldn't, even if I wanted to and had the energy, inclination and the idea.

Not that everybody with huge wealth and influence, etc, exactly shines as Humanitarian of the Year. I'm sure we could all come up with a substantial list, very quickly, of those that don't.

However .... Charles lost any respect from me over how he treated Diana. Everything I saw at the time suggested utter contempt for his marriage vows and while i'm not exactly a Di-fanboi either, she got dumped on by him, and the system.

So no, I haven't forgiven that and never will. Ignoring whatever the legal status, he isn't and never will be 'my king'. Merely the bloke currently holding the title. William? Dunno, and won't know until/if it happens and I see it but much rather that than what we now have.

To my mind, the argument in favour of staying a constitutional monarchy is much the same as that for democracy itself - better than all the alternatives (that have been tried), provided the monarch is a good one (Liz was, Charlie may be, in the competence sense) and I probably still wouldn't vote for abolition (if given a chance) unless I was convinced the alternative was better. If someone could come up with a better way, and a candidate for a better Head of State, I'd go for it.

But some years back, the suggestion was President Blair. It made me shudder. How about President BoJo? Give me strength.

We wouldn't be tha stupid??? No? My answer to that is "President Trump". That notion make Prez BoJo positively appealing .... once I stop puking. Inevitably, IMHO, any President is going to be a ceremonial figurehead (and therefore, pretty pointless) like some countries, or just another damn politician and we already have way too many of them.

Back to the direct topic.

RIP, Liz, and thanks for being there, in the background, as a stabilising factor, for my entire life to date, and some. Utter respect. I just wish you were still there.

[Jonj1611]

For many they won't have known another Queen but depending on your age we could potentially see a couple of changes over the next 20 years.

The Queen was only 27 years of age when crowned. Charles is already 73

[Saracen999]

Poor thing though, her last job was having to meet Truss. Not exactly how I'd want to spend my last day.

Well, yeah, but think back to the long list of foreign dignitaries (and some home-grown), more than a few of which were entirely contemptible dictators, and I'd suspect she was well used to mediocrity, and sadly, far, far worse. It's a bit like getting a cucumber sandwich on supermarket budget white bread for you last meal .... not exactly choice, but it could have been so much less appealing.

[Saracen999]

For many they won't have known another Queen but depending on your age we could potentially see a couple of changes over the next 20 years.

The Queen was only 27 years of age when crowned. Charles is already 73

I might see a replacement for Charles. After all, nobody knows what the future holds. If so, probaby William but again, nobody knows for sure. But I doubt I'll see another monarch crowned. I'm gonna have to get used to Charlie, like it or not.

[[GSV]Trig]

For many they won't have known another Queen but depending on your age we could potentially see a couple of changes over the next 20 years.

The Queen was only 27 years of age when crowned. Charles is already 73

The last Queen died in 1901 so finding anyone that was alive when the last actual Queen was around would be pretty hard at this point...

But yes, we're going to see a few Kings now in the rest of our lifetime..
I don't think we'll see 20 years out of Charles, so William is probably going to be mid 50's by the time it's his turn, probably the same again with George, thas if they don't change the Monarchy by then or someone abdicates and moves the timeline around.

[Iota]

the Commonwealth as a whole.

I think as a British citizen even I tend to forget how much of a stabilizing influence Queen Elizabeth II had on holding the Commonwealth together. Everything else aside, I think that King Charles III certainly will find this aspect of his new role the hardest. I guess time will tell, but I do wish him the best of luck for the future. Similar to yourself, my own personal opinion has shades of that era of his life entrenched, however I'm always open to changing my opinion based on how well he fulfils his new role.

Considering how many monarchies are left in the world, and how ours is the only well established constitutional monarchy that I can think of, I think the world would become poorer for a more narrowed democracy if the people of our country ever decided that had to go. I certainly couldn't see myself ever voting to abolish the current system in favour of some of the other models of democracy such as America or France. However that view would certainly change should the monarchy decided it wanted to become entrenched in politics publicly.

I shall miss our Queen, she was a shining example of diplomacy amongst many other things.

[Saracen999]

... However that view would certainly change should the monarchy decided it wanted to become entrenched in politics publicly.

...

I could be wrong but I think that an unelected monarch overtly and publicly interfering in modern politics in this country would be the harbinger of doom for that monarchy. I am of the opinion that the queen knew that full well, and that so does Charlie.

As for the Commonwealth, there have long been rumblings in some countries at least, towards going full republic, and in some it seems quite possible that respect for Liz as a person and for her selfless devotion to her duty, was about the only thing holding them at bay. I'd guess it is pretty much certain that those already inclined that way will see the change in monarch as a golden opportunity but it remains to be seen, in those countries, whether the populations go along with it. I don't know enough about public sentiment in any of them to hazard much of a guess.

Were it to be put to a vote here, even with someone in whom I place little trust, I'd still want to know how and why anything we intended to replace it with would actually be an improvement. Given that it would very likely involve another politician, and I think we've already got WAY too many of them, it'd pretty much have to be a non-political option for me to vote for it. Which pretty much means we'd effectively be voting for a toothless wonder of a ceremonial figure, and arguably it'd put even more power (in a constitutional sense if not a political one) in the hands of the Prime Minister .... who we, the people, also have no direct role in selecting as has just been cleary demonstrated.

My head hurts ....

[ik9000]

Were it to be put to a vote here, even with someone in whom I place little trust, I'd still want to know how and why anything we intended to replace it with would actually be an improvement.

sadly brexit tells us the populus at large will not be so discerning, and the politicians, seeing an opportunity for self-aggrandisement, will lead people on a merry dance if it suits their own egocentric agenda, particularly if it creates a new rung to greedily grasp for on their greasy pole.

[Saracen999]

sadly brexit tells us the populus at large will not be so discerning, and the politicians, seeing an opportunity for self-aggrandisement, will lead people on a merry dance if it suits their own egocentric agenda, particularly if it creates a new rung to greedily grasp for on their greasy pole.

Yeah ..... not taking the Brexit bait, mate. Nope, not. No way.


Except to say .....

Nah, just kidding.

[cheesemp]

I'm against the idea of a monarchy in the same way I'm against the idea of public schools - It just doesn't sit with my values of being fair. However personally the queen did a good job while head of state so I was happy with the status quo as it was but now does seem like a chance to modernise things. Rather than bring a new politician into the fold how about shrinking the size of it for a start? (Does a king really need hundreds of staff, to own vast parts of the country and be able to pass it on with no inheritance tax?)

(To be honest I know nothing will change for Charles but made by the time William gets the crown things can move on)

[Unique]

I'm against the idea of a monarchy in the same way I'm against the idea of public schools - It just doesn't sit with my values of being fair. However personally the queen did a good job while head of state so I was happy with the status quo as it was but now does seem like a chance to modernise things. Rather than bring a new politician into the fold how about shrinking the size of it for a start? (Does a king really need hundreds of staff, to own vast parts of the country and be able to pass it on with no inheritance tax?)

(To be honest I know nothing will change for Charles but made by the time William gets the crown things can move on)

he doesn't need 100s of staff to "own" parts of the country, but probably more like thousands to adequately look after it all properly - man of whom would be part time workers. the estates they own with vast acres of land take a lot of work to look after, and some of the properties are visited by hundreds of thousands of people each year, so varies staff are required to look after them and of course provide security for the valuables, staff and royal family, plus of course the visitors/tourists to the properties

as well as the properties themselves providing work/income for many people, there's a large knock on effect from businesses nearby who will benefit from tourism and the workers at the properties (ie. shopping/catering) plus the businesses supplying goods and services to the properties (ie. merchandise and catering for the tourist side, work on the upkeep/repair of properties)

obviously there's a massive interest in the royal family and that will probably boost tourism for a while


regarading modernism comments, the one thing that stuck out to me in particular when seeing bits of the last few days on the news is how much they hold onto all the old traditions, and personally i think it looks daft and outdated, with bagpipes and kilts and those big furry hats and elderly people walking along holding sticks in a particular way. obviously there are a lot of people who like that stuff, according to comments in the news some love it and that's part of the appeal, but on the flip side to those who are anti monarchists, that stuff probably all looks daft and pointless. and then theres all the tourist tat merch for the jubilee and stuff, but obviously that makes money, and builds good business partners with china who must make a considerable volume of the stuff

i'd imagine harry more than wills would modernise things, but the weird way they choose next in line means he's way down the list after harry. another weird ancient tradition as far as i'm concerned. first born, then next born and so on and then first, next grandson or whatever in birth order would make more sense to me, before you start branching out of course so it's a less close relative that's king/queen because their parents had a kid before someone else

[Saracen999]

I'm against the idea of a monarchy in the same way I'm against the idea of public schools - It just doesn't sit with my values of being fair. However personally the queen did a good job while head of state so I was happy with the status quo as it was but now does seem like a chance to modernise things. Rather than bring a new politician into the fold how about shrinking the size of it for a start? (Does a king really need hundreds of staff, to own vast parts of the country and be able to pass it on with no inheritance tax?)

(To be honest I know nothing will change for Charles but made by the time William gets the crown things can move on)

I have no problem with shrinking the size of the poitical class. I have long wondered why we need (last time I looked, and in rough figures) 650 MPs and about 900 "Lords" (and Ladies, of course, never mind the offensiveness of them 'lording it' over the rest of us). We have, what, 66m-ish population and the US manages with (IIRC) 100 US senators and 435 Congressmen (and women). So, 535 for 300m population in the Us, an 1500+ for 67m here? It seems a bit excessive.

Before starting with the monarchy, and I'd still want too see a better alternative before voting for that, how about dumping the bulk of the 'old boys an girls club' that is the Lords, emphatically including every single one of the previously elected ones that we, the people, saw fit to boot out of the Commons.

Have a revising house by all means, and have experts and even some 'common' people that got it by virtue of years of thankless public service, but dump the celebs, sports elites and ex-politicians. That strikes me as a good start.

[cheesemp]

I have no problem with shrinking the size of the poitical class. I have long wondered why we need (last time I looked, and in rouh figures) 650 MPs and about 900 "Lords" (and Ladies, of course, never mind the offensiveness of them 'lording it' over the rest of us). We have, what, 66m-ish population and the US manages with (IIRC) 100 US senators and 435 Congressmen (and women). So, 535for 300m in the Us, an 1500+ for67m here? It seems a bit excessive.

Before starting with the monarchy, ad I'd still want too see a better alternative before voting for that, how about dumping the bulk of the 'old boys an gils club' that is the Lords, emphatically including every single one of the previously elected ones that we, the people, saw fit to boot out of te Commons.

Havve a revising house by all means, and have experts and even some 'common' people that got it by virtue of years of thankless public service, but dump the celebs, sports elites and ex-politicians. That strikes me as a good start.

You won't here me complain. It also comes under the 'not fair' rule (with the added pain of creating laws!) however as with everything British it seems as if the 'it was good enough in 1800's its good enough now' mindset creeps in (I'd add first past the post voting here too - no one else uses it anymore apart from Belarus!). I think in the scale of stuff I want modernised the monarchy is lower than the above but if we never consider it, it just becomes more and more obsolete.

(@Unique My comment above was not about staff for maintaining property, more the staff to manage/support the king - does he need X butlers for example)

[Unique]

(@Unique My comment above was not about staff for maintaining property, more the staff to manage/support the king - does he need X butlers for example)

i'm sure he won't have more butlers than necessary. for privacy and security reasons, the number of people who have any kind of access to the king/queen in paricular is very limited. there are various levels of security/access amongst staff. many staff work part time, such as cleaners, so once you calculate the FTE's the figures will appear lower. if there are functions that require looking after many guests, the staffing levels increase accordingly. i understand the royals do far more events than most people would be aware of, and some of these cater for considerable numbers of attendees. i was surprised to find out how much time the queen took to see people and talk to them in private chats. to do all the things they do in high numbers there is a lot of planning that goes on, which requires a lot of staffing. people meeting the queen were security vetted and details taken about them, and when large numbers attend say the palance, they need to go through security, settle in one room, their guests settling in another room (ie. the main person is meeting the queen they may take guests but they are seperated), and before they meet the queen, she has an assistant to let her know how she's about to meet and why she's meeting them and what they do, so when the person meets the queen she's not sitting there with no idea who they are, and instead usually makes the person feel welcome and hohnoured that the queen knows who they are and what they do, and thats probably why there are so many people in the recent news talking favourably about her, as it's all planned well. whilst you'll see the new years hohnours list in the news mention pop stars and football players, they only make up a small amount of the people getting honours and most of the people getting them are pretty regular people, most of which have been put forward for honour as they do a lot of work for charity, and i mean real people like old ladies that have done proper charity stuff for years, and not celebrities who've put their name to something for 5 minutes to get more publicity. so when they have events like that they need to get extra staff compared to days when no one is attending. they don't have teams of 20 butlers round the clock to service any whim, they do generally take royal duties seriously, which is why harry isn't a member of the proper royal family and why some of them had to wear suits at certain funeral things whilst others wore the army uniforms. if they aren't doing proper duties, they can't keep the name. i presume considering she did so much for 70 years the queen must have enjoyed doing it, as surely she could have just taken in easy and passed duties to charles or whoever. even at 73, he's well past retirement age, but he's spent basically all his life waiting for the moment to be king, so i expect he'll get stuck in with duties so he isn't accussed of slacking it