Yes, but missing off the naked dancing girls, human sacrifice and lizard skin shedding weakens your case.
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
Yes, but missing off the naked dancing girls, human sacrifice and lizard skin shedding weakens your case.
I don't think you are in the wrong, I just feel that anyone can feel and do about it the way they want to. With this last week a person may have felt chilled about it all at the beginning, but by the end feeling quite angry about the sheer opulence of it all. For example the graceless behaviour of displaying the examples and tools of power on the top of her coffin. £400 million plus in jewels and precious metals being marched past common people who in 3 or 4 months could be choosing to let their children and themselves go hungry or perpetually cold, and then ill. If I hadn't seen that I don't know whether I could feel that level of anger again. Those people, I'm not mocking them as ordinary folk, but again and again we're sold this 'Our Monarchy - aren't they amazing and so caring' to keep us 'feeling' a warmth towards these parasites. Will they remember this feeling of pride this Winter coming while all of the Monarchy, Lords, Ladies and the rest of the gentry nouveau and old toast themselves on the money they've made from our effort?
I feel you can do either, you can recharge that white cold anger or choose to hold it within and hope to maintain it. If we really want change we'll need people with both to do whatever is necessary. The discontent was already here but a lot of people will be thinking just how special their monarchy is, how it allowed them to stand out in the cold to watch some processions while the powerful were invited into the Abbey. Now it will take a fresh realisation with some that they are about to be bled white by bosses of Power companies and their shareholders, by the banks that have been bailed out again and again but never paid the money back and yet now the perfect time has arrived to put your mortgage interest rates up!
The processions that will really be important to the common man will be strikes, marches and protests, there won't be any opulence about those.
A good post as usual.
It is a very important vehicle for change and as I said, if we were having a conversation about it on the streets, on TV, or even a semi-civilised conversation about it on here (which in fairness, has happened at times), then great, I'm on board.
But watching something that you know is going to make you annoyed and with no prospect for immediate or even short/medium term change....what's the point?
There's something to be said in life about enjoying yourself and not constantly exposing yourself to shit that's going to make you angry, especially if you're not actually then going to try to do something about it. I've seen people who do that (and I've done it in the past) and it just leads to depression and sometimes a form of paralysis.
I choose to pick my poison and enjoy the time I have outside of those with my friends and family. Otherwise you can whip yourself into a frenzy all day every day about all manner of issues.
also, it is important to note that colonialism has done damage to countries that we still witness to this day. so it shouldn’t be surprising that a good section of the population finds the entire thing disgusting.
Isn't that exactly what you are doing in this thread!? (Actually taking it one step further than watching
).Isn't that exactly what you are doing in this thread!? (Actually taking it one step further than watching
No, because I'm not annoyed? I'm having a perfectly civil conversation with multiple other members on the forum, without insults or anger from anyone, about our views on the matter.
Ah, fair enough, I misinterpreted your posts then, sorry. They came across as if you were slightly annoyed by people being annoyed about it all.
Last edited:
Of course anyone can do what they want to. If people are genuinely watching and getting annoyed to hone their anger to bring about change, then superb. I have to say though, I'm not convinced that's actually what's happening!
Would hope such a realisation comes soon but again, not super optimistic about that.
You're right, but not all humans are that rational.
100%. The scars of colonialism are far from healed.
@2cents, that's fascinating. I haven't read it all yet, but I can recommend pages 17 to 20 of the PDF.
If anyone thinks Britain has a long and storied tradition of great pageantry, this absolutely dispels that myth. It's a relatively modern thing, during the last 130 years or so.
To my mind I don't have a preference, it's a destination not a holiday resort as such
I want to read that too. I've heard quite a few references to all the ceremony being fairly new, seemingly designed for the media age. I guess in the old days only a few hundred, if that, would see it all, with the commoners getting to see a woodcutting at best.
Dunno if that's the same in other countries?
So after what seems like a year of Huw Edwards speaking somber banalities, what does the future hold for the monarchy? Yesterday felt like the last blast of pre-1914 Europe with its military pageants and full-on Christianity. While I’d like to think we will have a grown up discussion about becoming a republic like Australia or Canada probably will, that’s probably optimistic in our post-Brexit Ruritania. But, if Charles and William have the survival nous of their ancestors, surely as a minimum they will be thinking about reshaping the institution to become a monarchy more along the Dutch or Scandinavian model?
By corollary, why does it please you to give your wealthy betters more money?
I've read Charles wants to scale the monarchy down a bit.
I have to thank @2cents for this post:
because it makes for fascinating reading and eloquently explains the relatively recent origins of all of this pomp and ceremony that so many of you are moaning about. I highly recommend that you make the effort to read the extract as it also gives us some insights into why the monarchy has been able to survive in its present form for over a century.
I've been in London a few months now and have been able to experience these historic events and like many of you have questioned the need for a monarchy in this day and age. With so many problems facing us, the idea of a fabulously wealthy dynasty swanning about in limousines cutting ribbons and being bowed to does seem daft and indefensible given the problems facing some of us to even heat our homes and feed our families. But that mostly boils down to money issues that I think will be dealt with in the coming years anyway. Charles seems to want to trim the fat in many ways and I think he realizes that their wealth has to be addressed. I don't see him being bothered with breeding horses so that will all go, and he's got a history of managing crown property in a more business-like fashion and I think he'll look at giving back some of the land and palaces. The government could easily pay for the needs of the less well-off if it chose to do so anyway, it isn't the fault of the Windsors that we have a shower of cnuts in power who care so little about the poor. Selling the Crown Jewels to try and pay heating bills would be a daft decision of short-termism that we would surely regret.
But, going back to the need for the Monarchy, I was struck by one particular passage in the above link where the author talked about the void left in Europe after most other nations got rid of their royals and aristocratic dynasties. Like it or not the Queen was a living embodiment of the national identity and it's clear from the response to her death that many of us still find that very important. In these times we need that stable, seemingly incorruptible figurehead with the world going to hell around us. Our political leaders are awful, not a single inspirational figure among them. They can't be trusted in anything they say or promise and we all know that they seek only to enrich themselves and their cronies. So in the extract, the quote is referring to Hitler and says' if we drop the trappings of monarchy in the gutter..., Germany has taught us some guttersnipe will pick them up'. It seems to be saying that if we dispense with the monarchy and all the archaic rituals, dress and ceremony that go along with it, some elected or unelected politician will happily come along and make up a whole bunch of new ones to exploit the void that would be left in order to exploit the people's need for an absolute leader who embodies national ideals and aspirations. As we know in Hitler's case it turned out horrifically and you may think that it could never happen here. But just look at America and what Trump did in a short space of time, Putin declaring himself leader for life, Italy becoming fascist, Bolsonaro...the list goes on. I'm quite certain that Boris Johnson would have acted as Trump did with demanding personal adulation and unflinching loyalty if he could have gotten away with it, seeking grand parades in his honour and suchlike. But the Queen always stood there, silently in the background, providing a check on the power of every Prime Minister. I can pretty much guarantee that every soldier, sailor and airman/woman that you saw yesterday, if ordered by the Queen to march on Parliament and arrest the government would have done so without hesitation...that's the kind of power that she silently wielded. The same power that she had over most Britons who looked to her as being above politics and simply representing us but all the while shrewdly adapting to the changing times over the course of her long reign. If we lose that we lose a big part of our shared identity and the danger of some unscrupulous politician coming along and exploiting that need to coalesce around something scares me. I think Charles still has the strength to resist and commands enough respect to remain somewhat significant in national politics, but William will be the one they eventually target. I even think the loudest voices for abolishing the monarchy will come from the right since they now solely represent corporations, landowners and other moneyed interests who want unquestioning consumers loyal only to brands rather than a King.
I've seen how bad things get after 20 years in the USA. Everything decided along political lines and an inability to agree on anything. Dumbification, drowning in cheap consumer crap designed to pacify, people being fed food laced with legal poison to ensure that a monetized health service gets more and more money, for-profit education that makes people stupider and maintains the supply of service workers who toil while the true wealth goes to the select few. Britain is heading that way already and the loss of the monarchy will only speed that up. Yes it needs to be streamlined, yes we need to get rid of a lot of the bowing and scraping, but we do need them to maintain the status quo and prevent runaway political power from dragging us irreversibly to the right. Cromwell's Parliament came about to represent the needs of the common man against the excesses of aristocratic privilege, nowadays I genuinely believe that the Royal Family cares more about ordinary people than anyone in power in Westminster. In return we agree to do the silly bowing and deference, but most of us don't actually believe that they are different from us...we just accept that we all have to play along for the institution to work. If we can all adapt it to function in the modern world then we'll be alright, getting rid of it is dangerous.
Anyway...that's my ramblings on this that you can pick apart as you please.
because it makes for fascinating reading and eloquently explains the relatively recent origins of all of this pomp and ceremony that so many of you are moaning about. I highly recommend that you make the effort to read the extract as it also gives us some insights into why the monarchy has been able to survive in its present form for over a century.
I've been in London a few months now and have been able to experience these historic events and like many of you have questioned the need for a monarchy in this day and age. With so many problems facing us, the idea of a fabulously wealthy dynasty swanning about in limousines cutting ribbons and being bowed to does seem daft and indefensible given the problems facing some of us to even heat our homes and feed our families. But that mostly boils down to money issues that I think will be dealt with in the coming years anyway. Charles seems to want to trim the fat in many ways and I think he realizes that their wealth has to be addressed. I don't see him being bothered with breeding horses so that will all go, and he's got a history of managing crown property in a more business-like fashion and I think he'll look at giving back some of the land and palaces. The government could easily pay for the needs of the less well-off if it chose to do so anyway, it isn't the fault of the Windsors that we have a shower of cnuts in power who care so little about the poor. Selling the Crown Jewels to try and pay heating bills would be a daft decision of short-termism that we would surely regret.
But, going back to the need for the Monarchy, I was struck by one particular passage in the above link where the author talked about the void left in Europe after most other nations got rid of their royals and aristocratic dynasties. Like it or not the Queen was a living embodiment of the national identity and it's clear from the response to her death that many of us still find that very important. In these times we need that stable, seemingly incorruptible figurehead with the world going to hell around us. Our political leaders are awful, not a single inspirational figure among them. They can't be trusted in anything they say or promise and we all know that they seek only to enrich themselves and their cronies. So in the extract, the quote is referring to Hitler and says' if we drop the trappings of monarchy in the gutter..., Germany has taught us some guttersnipe will pick them up'. It seems to be saying that if we dispense with the monarchy and all the archaic rituals, dress and ceremony that go along with it, some elected or unelected politician will happily come along and make up a whole bunch of new ones to exploit the void that would be left in order to exploit the people's need for an absolute leader who embodies national ideals and aspirations. As we know in Hitler's case it turned out horrifically and you may think that it could never happen here. But just look at America and what Trump did in a short space of time, Putin declaring himself leader for life, Italy becoming fascist, Bolsonaro...the list goes on. I'm quite certain that Boris Johnson would have acted as Trump did with demanding personal adulation and unflinching loyalty if he could have gotten away with it, seeking grand parades in his honour and suchlike. But the Queen always stood there, silently in the background, providing a check on the power of every Prime Minister. I can pretty much guarantee that every soldier, sailor and airman/woman that you saw yesterday, if ordered by the Queen to march on Parliament and arrest the government would have done so without hesitation...that's the kind of power that she silently wielded. The same power that she had over most Britons who looked to her as being above politics and simply representing us but all the while shrewdly adapting to the changing times over the course of her long reign. If we lose that we lose a big part of our shared identity and the danger of some unscrupulous politician coming along and exploiting that need to coalesce around something scares me. I think Charles still has the strength to resist and commands enough respect to remain somewhat significant in national politics, but William will be the one they eventually target. I even think the loudest voices for abolishing the monarchy will come from the right since they now solely represent corporations, landowners and other moneyed interests who want unquestioning consumers loyal only to brands rather than a King.
I've seen how bad things get after 20 years in the USA. Everything decided along political lines and an inability to agree on anything. Dumbification, drowning in cheap consumer crap designed to pacify, people being fed food laced with legal poison to ensure that a monetized health service gets more and more money, for-profit education that makes people stupider and maintains the supply of service workers who toil while the true wealth goes to the select few. Britain is heading that way already and the loss of the monarchy will only speed that up. Yes it needs to be streamlined, yes we need to get rid of a lot of the bowing and scraping, but we do need them to maintain the status quo and prevent runaway political power from dragging us irreversibly to the right. Cromwell's Parliament came about to represent the needs of the common man against the excesses of aristocratic privilege, nowadays I genuinely believe that the Royal Family cares more about ordinary people than anyone in power in Westminster. In return we agree to do the silly bowing and deference, but most of us don't actually believe that they are different from us...we just accept that we all have to play along for the institution to work. If we can all adapt it to function in the modern world then we'll be alright, getting rid of it is dangerous.
Anyway...that's my ramblings on this that you can pick apart as you please.
“I can pretty much guarantee that every soldier, sailor and airman/woman that you saw yesterday, if ordered by the Queen to march on Parliament and arrest the government would have done so without hesitation...that's the kind of power that she silently wielded”
What if she was Trump? This argument has popped up a few times but it rests on the idea that the current King or Queen will always in a certain manner. You rightfully point out the dangers of an elected politician turning rogue, but if a monarch did (and hypothetically wielding the power you’ve outlined) what’s the difference? Other than they can’t be voted out in the way Trump was. Obviously this would never be something the queen would do, but that’s beyond the point
What if she was Trump? This argument has popped up a few times but it rests on the idea that the current King or Queen will always in a certain manner. You rightfully point out the dangers of an elected politician turning rogue, but if a monarch did (and hypothetically wielding the power you’ve outlined) what’s the difference? Other than they can’t be voted out in the way Trump was. Obviously this would never be something the queen would do, but that’s beyond the point
I'm impressed you managed to spell most of that correctly, doubly so because you were probably munching on a pastie at the time.
Also "toxic" comments whilst telling citizens to feck off out of the country? You can feck off
You are probably right because I read another report that the total number was quite a bit higher which seems more likely to me.
That figure of £102.4m looks bad because there is no context added to it. Here is the breakdown:
£63.9m on property maintenance - this is spent on the estates. The value includes a reservicing of Buckingham Palace amounting to £47.8m. The royal family do not use most of these estates - in fact, they use only a very small number. Also, the vast majority are already open as museums, so your point about that makes no sense. The likelihood is that a lot of them will end up privatised if the crown estates revert to the government, so going against what you said.
You say that tourists will still come, but not if the government allow Buckingham Palace to become rundown by not paying to maintain it. These maintenance payments need to continue. There is no way around this expenditure unless these buildings are sold off. That is not exactly the best outcome, is it?
£23.7m on staff - this will include staff to maintain the properties and keep them open. There will be staff to take care of the royal family, but most of this will be to do with maintaining the estates. This takes a lot of work and needs a whole lot of staff. Buckingham Palace is absolutely enormous and would need a huge workforce to keep it up to scratch.
So, that is 86% of that £102.4m expenditure already continuing without the monarchy. And I haven't even bothered looking into the rest of the expenses.
Last edited:
It was all absolutely shambolic, it appears. For a long time people despised the monarchs, no-one much cared when they died and nothing was organised well, if at all. Even during Queen Victoria's long reign, people had had enough of her complete withdrawal from public life when she became the Widow of Windsor.
It seems that when the monarchs stopped interfering directly in politics and became ceremonial figureheads, they became more popular. The late Queen was right when she said the King or Queen has to be seen.
Isn't that already unintentionally happening by half of his kids fecking off?
I think what turned it was when the king stayed in London during the blitz. Kings generally do stand to the end because they have the most to lose of course, but the people appreciated it nonetheless.
So the alternatives are what?
A US style President and a written constitution because that's not looking that great.
Or an elected, ceremonial, Presidential, political, none entity or worse still flavor of that month celebrity. President Posh Spice or the winner of I'm a celebrity.
Its like when you look at the alternatives to FPTP the problem is easy to see but the solutions are really unappetizing. Then you get to the possible consequences if the new system breaks over time and how do we get to a point where the majority agree with any alternative.
I Think it's like it or lump it.
A US style President and a written constitution because that's not looking that great.
Or an elected, ceremonial, Presidential, political, none entity or worse still flavor of that month celebrity. President Posh Spice or the winner of I'm a celebrity.
Its like when you look at the alternatives to FPTP the problem is easy to see but the solutions are really unappetizing. Then you get to the possible consequences if the new system breaks over time and how do we get to a point where the majority agree with any alternative.
I Think it's like it or lump it.
Just checked - nope, still with us.I'm impressed you managed to spell most of that correctly, doubly so because you were probably munching on a pastie at the time.
Also "toxic" comments whilst telling citizens to feck off out of the country? You can feck off
It is not only that, though. It also counters the argument that getting rid of the monarchy will be a show of anti-classism, when in reality only a wealthy person would ever be elected head of state. Wealth is the number one factor in classes. People still wouldn't actually be getting what they want.
Getting rid of the monarchy will possibly bring republicans some joy, but it will be short-lived when the first head-of-state is elected.
Nothing says "togetherness" like someone belly marching their way into a room and shouting "Shut up if you have anything bad to say". I genuinely understand why some of the
You don't fancy President Boris or Blair?
President Truss
I still don't understand that logic. I could just as easily point out "King Andrew"
I suppose with a hereditary monarchy at least everyone knows who's coming next. You know it's someone who understands how the job works, if nothing else.
Could be worse. Could've been President Corbyn.President Truss
That's a good point, there is something to be said for having a set pattern of succession, and no chance of surprises.
I think a negative to that though is it being a role for life, with a monarchy you could have a very unsavoury character and it would a permanent thing until his death. At least with an elected official it is a finite function with mechanisms in place to choose someone else.
Yes, we've all heard down South of the Air Fat Fryers riots of 2021.
Unity if not Union brother.
You'd hope that nowadays the main Royals are savvy enough to realise that someone who messed it up would put them all at risk. I'm pretty sure that if you're born a member of that family (particularly one who'll never have to actually be the monarch), you soon grow to love all the perks and benefits.
People are fickle. The Queen didn't put a foot wrong and so she was respected and admired by many, but the tabloids would go to town on a less-than-perfect monarch. Look at the coverage the leaky pen incident had - immediately there were comparisons being made with the Queen, who never showed irritation in that way.
Probably a bad time for that poll. Plus, I imagine that, when asked that question, people always imagine prominent polticians/PMs as president rather than thinking about the types Ireland has had as head of state.