Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace

africanspur said:
Do you think it's more likely that the queen ordered this or that the elected government of the UK did this as the British empire fell apart and they wanted to hide crimes both past and current which could implicate the country as a whole?
Click to expand...
I’m glad someone else is wondering that too
 
I'm sure they could be given one castle and estate and the rest of their holdings could be open to the public maybe as part of the national trust or sold off.

What modern precedent there is unfortunately for a peaceful removal of a monarchy in recent times though I'm not so sure.
 
neverdie said:
was more alluding to the idea of a socialist state which presupposes the death of all feudal institutions. that doesn't have to be a literal death, as in the russian example, but can be a practical death as in the chinese example.
Click to expand...
Ah okay, that’s fair then
 
Donaldo said:
Insane how blind servitude works.

A by all accounts racist, pedo supporting, genocide and massacre denying, colonizing, grifting family whose most influential figurehead of the last 70 years was a key part of covering those various crimes up is now suddenly blameless because they're not wasting oxygen. Got it.
Click to expand...
Isn’t that more to do with your Country than the actual Queen, how did the Queen go about covering it up do you think?
 
neverdie said:
i would just transfer it all to a proper national trust and buy them out at a minimal cost for some of their holdings. then set about rewriting the constitution which was already long overdue, monarchy aside.
Click to expand...
Now that’s a plan that could actually work.
 
Carolina Red said:
I understand where you’re coming from, I just feel it’ll be more complicated and messy than some seem to believe, and I also believe that if you actually want it done in modern Britain, campaigning to seize all their property isn’t the most likely way to get it done, politically speaking.
Click to expand...
I don't think it'll be easy but the more that eventually comes out about the country being ruled by the firm and gravy stained civil servants, Andrew and who else, it will be easier to take it all in lumps rather than bite sizes at a time. Charles won't be as popular, the oldies like myself will peg it and the ordinary GenZs etcs won't relate to 'Dieu Mon Droit' forever. My bits worth. That's if anyone is left by then.
 
Frosty said:
The Queen’s death is a precarious moment for some of Britain’s wider Commonwealth realm, 14 countries of which recognise the monarch as their head of state. In many cases their constitutions state that the Queen, specifically, is the head of state. In these countries, constitutions will need to be amended to refer to her successor. In countries such as Jamaica, where there is a strong republican movement, and Belize, these constitutional changes will also require a referendum, according to Commonwealth experts. This is expected to bring about a moment of political peril for the new monarch, who, after Barbados became a republic in 2021, could face the loss of another prominent part of the Caribbean Commonwealth.

Questions are also likely to arise in countries such as Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines over whether the new monarch could lawfully appoint a governor general, if the relevant country’s constitution has not been changed to refer to the King, and continues to refer to the Queen as head of state.

The Queen’s name is also stitched into myriad other laws that will require redrafting, neither an easy nor a cheap process, especially for smaller countries that do not employ their own legislative drafters.

Among the constitutional monarchies, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have measures in place so the new monarch automatically becomes head of state.

---

Nicked from The Guardian.

Those referendums will be interesting!
Click to expand...

@Fergies Gum @giggs-beckham well well well it turns out it could be momentous after all.
 
oates said:
That's 20,000 high yield forest and agriculture acres and 50,000 acres you can't do feck all but shoot things on it and above it. How the hell does one person own all of that and more when people in the UK are genuinely suffering or approaching it.

Let's be careful of being generous.
Click to expand...

I mean, if we’re serious about helping biodiversity and addressing climate change we need more land in that condition, not less.
 
Donaldo said:
Insane how blind servitude works.

A by all accounts racist, pedo supporting, genocide and massacre denying, colonizing, grifting family whose most influential figurehead of the last 70 years was a key part of covering those various crimes up is now suddenly blameless because they're not wasting oxygen. Got it.
Click to expand...
Donaldo said:
Insane how blind servitude works.

A by all accounts racist, pedo supporting, genocide and massacre denying, colonizing, grifting family whose most influential figurehead of the last 70 years was a key part of covering those various crimes up is now suddenly blameless because they're not wasting oxygen. Got it.
Click to expand...
Hasn't the queen only overseen colonies getting independence? Has she overseen more colonization? Aside from that, pedo supporting is a stretch. She has a son that's a pedo... doesn't mean she supports pedophilia. As for massacre denying...must say I'm not aware of her denying massacres personally but I could well be wrong.

Edit: to be clear, we should never have had an empire in the first place. Definitely not condoning that.
 
oates said:
I don't think it'll be easy but the more that eventually comes out about the country being ruled by the firm and gravy stained civil servants, Andrew and who else, it will be easier to take it all in lumps rather than bite sizes at a time. Charles won't be as popular, the oldies like myself will peg it and the ordinary GenZs etcs won't relate to 'Dieu Mon Droit' forever. My bits worth. That's if anyone is left by then.
Click to expand...
I’d say the worst case scenario for you all then is if Charles III has a short reign.
 
Pickle85 said:
Hasn't the queen only overseen colonies getting independence? Has she overseen more colonization? Aside from that, pedo supporting is a stretch. She has a son that's a pedo... doesn't mean she supports pedophilia. As for massacre denying...must say I'm not aware of her denying massacres personally but I could well be wrong.

Edit: to be clear, we should never have had an empire in the first place. Definitely not condoning that.
Click to expand...

Slightly pedantic point but he isn’t a pedophile. That’s an incorrect use of the word.
 
Carolina Red said:
I’d say the worst case scenario for you all then is if Charles III has a short reign.
Click to expand...
One pork chop away...


edit, someone will pop up and point out that he doesn't eat meat.
 
In many of the things the monarchy accuse of - racism, colonialism etc. it appears at times she was not an active contributer to, but she was most definitely a passive bystander to most, if not all, which in my eyes is just as equally as disturbing. Not to mention that she contributed money to Prince Andrew in the sexual abuse case. She is not to be absolved of personal shame or blame in many instances.
 
africanspur said:
I'm sure they could be given one castle and estate and the rest of their holdings could be open to the public maybe as part of the national trust or sold off.

What modern precedent there is unfortunately for a peaceful removal of a monarchy in recent times though I'm not so sure.
Click to expand...
Well, some European monarchies have reformed themselves and live very different lives. My own view is that nothing much will happen with Charles, but when William is King there will be changes.

As for their estates, a small but densely-populated island can't afford for all that land to be kept for one family. I actually feel more strongly about the landholdings of the hereditary peers, who basically do nothing at all for the nation but have sole access to many of the best bits.
 
SilentWitness said:
In many of the things the monarchy accuse of - racism, colonialism etc. it appears at times she was not an active contributer to, but she was most definitely a passive bystander to most, if not all, which in my eyes is just as equally as disturbing. Not to mention that she contributed money to Prince Andrew in the sexual abuse case. She is not to be absolved of personal shame or blame in many instances.
Click to expand...
I'm astounded this needs to be spelt out.
 
SilentWitness said:
In many of the things the monarchy accuse of - racism, colonialism etc. it appears at times she was not an active contributer to, but she was most definitely a passive bystander to most, if not all, which in my eyes is just as equally as disturbing. Not to mention that she contributed money to Prince Andrew in the sexual abuse case. She is not to be absolved of personal shame or blame in many instances.
Click to expand...
For my entire lifetime it's been "Her majesty's government".
 
SilentWitness said:
In many of the things the monarchy accuse of - racism, colonialism etc. it appears at times she was not an active contributer to, but she was most definitely a passive bystander to most, if not all, which in my eyes is just as equally as disturbing. Not to mention that she contributed money to Prince Andrew in the sexual abuse case. She is not to be absolved of personal shame or blame in many instances.
Click to expand...
In terms of colonialism, I struggle with this argument, though open to being educated. Wasnt all our colonizing done before her? Unless you think that ending colonialism is as simple as saying 'k, have it back'- a power that maybe she has in law (I don't know) but in practice couldn't exercise - I don't see how culpable she is. Her ancestors, absolutely, and it's a truly shameful part of our history.
 
Carolina Red said:
Like the Duke of Westminster?
Click to expand...
Yes, and all the others.
Half of England is owned by less than 1% of its population, according to new data shared with the Guardian that seeks to penetrate the secrecy that has traditionally surrounded land ownership.

The findings, described as “astonishingly unequal”, suggest that about 25,000 landowners – typically members of the aristocracy and corporations – have control of half of the country.

The figures show that if the land were distributed evenly across England’s population, each person would have just over half an acre – an area roughly half the size of Parliament Square in central London.

Major owners include the Duke of Buccleuch, the Queen, several large grouse moor estates, and the entrepreneur James Dyson.
Click to expand...
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/apr/17/who-owns-england-thousand-secret-landowners-author

You can't do much about the billionaires who've purchased their land, but the others haven't paid a penny.
 
I enjoy the self righteousness of people on here giving off about the actual fecking Queen, when she devoted 70 years to working for the Country right up to her final day at the age of 96, seriously take the log out your own eye before you take the spec out someone else’s.
 
V.O. said:
I don't see why it would be so impossible to have them keep Balmoral/Sandringham and whatever else they have some kind of legitimate claim to have private ownership of.

But even then, normal people are forced to sell their homes and feck off elsewhere when someone decides to build a train line through it - why should these cnuts have special treatment? Nice little Compulsory Purchase order at below market rate
Click to expand...
I believe that if it were to be done, that’s the surest way to accomplish it. The state retaining control of the crown holdings, buying them out of the duchies, and allowing them to keep their privately owned estates.
 
Deery said:
I enjoy the self righteousness of people on here giving off about the actual fecking Queen, when she devoted 70 years to working for the Country right up to her final day at the age of 96, seriously take the log out your own eye before you take the spec out someone else’s.
Click to expand...
is it not more to do with people having a problem with the idea that the monarchic institution implies some people are born to be better than others by virtue of noble birth right? i don't see many people having a go at the queen, as person, but at the institutionally defined role of "monarch" as concept.
 
neverdie said:
is it not more to do with people having a problem with the idea that the monarchic institution implies some people are born to be better than others by virtue of noble birth right? i don't see many people having a go at the queen, as person, but at the institutionally defined role of "monarch" as concept.
Click to expand...
No there are many having a go at the Queen. I’m Irish and not a monarchist but even I can see she was a pretty decent person and did a lot for the peace process here.
 
Deery said:
did a lot for the peace process here.
Click to expand...
did she? she went on a state visit which was symbolically important but how much say did she have in that? she typically had to meet with heads of state and all kinds of people as a matter of protocol. it's not like she was there with the major government and hume and the rest ironing out a power sharing agreement.
 
neverdie said:
did she? she went on a state visit which was symbolically important but how much say did she have in that? she typically had to meet with heads of state and all kinds of people as a matter of protocol. it's not like she was there with the major government and hume and the rest ironing out a power sharing agreement.
Click to expand...
Not directing this at you but it's a good example of some of the lines of argument.

Queen does something positive: 'ah she doesn't have a say in it, she's told what to do.

Queen doesn't immediately dismantle the 'empire': ' why is the queen not ending colonialism?'
 
Pickle85 said:
Queen does something positive: 'ah she doesn't have a say in it, she's told what to do.

Queen doesn't immediately dismantle the 'empire': ' why is the queen not ending colonialism?'
Click to expand...
yeah i get the contradiction. that's why i avoid charging the queen with much of any agency or personal responsibility. i take aim at the institution instead which seems a more practical target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.