Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace

TheReligion said:
Ahh so it’s Brewlio hiding under another user name! That explains a few things :lol:
Click to expand...

There was talk of it during a WW game once, I doubt it's true to be honest :lol:

I do back what he's saying. I want rid of the monarchy as soon as possible, I'm aware the whys and wherefores of that process would be very tricky to say the least but I find the principle that anyone is born to rule to be a ridiculous notion in the 21st century. I think ideas such as republicanism and those supported by the left more broadly are often seen as childishly optimistic and unworkable in reality but I'd dearly like to see a change in many of the systems we've ended up with in this country and in this world, and you don't get that change by accepting the status quo without question.
 
12OunceEpilogue said:
There was talk of it during a WW game once, I doubt it's true to be honest :lol:

I do back what he's saying. I want rid of the monarchy as soon as possible, I'm aware the whys and wherefores of that process would be very tricky to say the least but I find the principle that anyone is born to rule to be a ridiculous notion in the 21st century. I think ideas such as republicanism and those supported by the left more broadly are often seen as childishly optimistic and unworkable in reality but I'd dearly like to see a change in many of the systems we've ended up with in this country and in this world, and you don't get that change by accepting the status quo without question.
Click to expand...

@neverdie can you confirm or deny this Brewlio? I’ll be keeping a watchful eye on you.. wondered why the profile and posting history was hidden! :lol:

@12OunceEpilogue oh sure I wasn’t contesting that. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I for one am not a Royalist myself. I do respect that others though, in particular the older generation, may feel upset by this and feel some kind of connection. It doesn’t offend me if they do though. Each to their own.
 
I'm certainly not a monarchist and am fed up with the general tone of how this news is being handled by the BBC but recognise she was an important figure to some people.

For me I think we need to consider both her personal role and her state role differently.

In her personal role she has done some amazing things like her wartime activities and her support of some charities and indeed her visit to Ireland. Yes she wasn't a key part of the peace process as such, but she could easily have refused to shake the hands of Mcguiness and Adams. The government might have asked her to do it, but I'm sure she had the scope to refuse it.

However she also seems to have made errors of judgement on a personal level too...the response to Diana's death and her support of Prince Andrew.

What I'd like to see is the gradual dismantling of the Monarchy from the engines of state. An agreement where they get to keep their inherited land but hand over the crown estates back to the country would seem a useful starting point.

Undoubtedly the monarchy has had it's share of appaling dereliction towards its own subjects both here and across the wider commonwealth. Dismantling the crown and duchy estates and returning that wealth to the nation would be a good starting point in trying to redress the balance.
 
buchansleftleg said:
I'm certainly not a monarchist and am fed up with the general tone of how this news is being handled by the BBC but recognise she was an important figure to some people.

For me I think we need to consider both her personal role and her state role differently.

In her personal role she has done some amazing things like her wartime activities and her support of some charities and indeed her visit to Ireland. Yes she wasn't a key part of the peace process as such, but she could easily have refused to shake the hands of Mcguiness and Adams. The government might have asked her to do it, but I'm sure she had the scope to refuse it.

However she also seems to have made errors of judgement on a personal level too...the response to Diana's death and her support of Prince Andrew.

What I'd like to see is the gradual dismantling of the Monarchy from the engines of state. An agreement where they get to keep their inherited land but hand over the crown estates back to the country would seem a useful starting point.

Undoubtedly the monarchy has had it's share of appaling dereliction towards its own subjects both here and across the wider commonwealth. Dismantling the crown and duchy estates and returning that wealth to the nation would be a good starting point in trying to redress the balance.
Click to expand...
I agree with all that you've said here. Sounds like a good plan!
 
TheReligion said:
@neverdie can you confirm or deny this Brewlio? I’ll be keeping a watchful eye on you.. wondered why the profile and posting history was hidden! :lol:

@12OunceEpilogue oh sure I wasn’t contesting that. I think everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I for one am not a Royalist myself. I do respect that others though, in particular the older generation, may feel upset by this and feel some kind of connection. It doesn’t offend me if they do though. Each to their own.
Click to expand...

Yeah I don't think anybody was contesting that really. The thread ended up going into land ownership and what to do about original people in Australia and the US ( :lol: a good read overall) but my first principle on this is that the monarchy is a downright wrong and embarrassing institution to have these days and that we should debate how we move on from it, and that due to a monarch's personage and constitutional position being virtually impossible to differentiate that debate needs to happen now as much as ever.

I'm also aware that there are good people who held the queen in high regard so while I reserve the right to mock the monarchy endlessly, and some of that may move into the realms of bad taste for some, I'm not interested in 'rubbing noses in it', so to speak.
 
buchansleftleg said:
I'm certainly not a monarchist and am fed up with the general tone of how this news is being handled by the BBC but recognise she was an important figure to some people.

For me I think we need to consider both her personal role and her state role differently.

In her personal role she has done some amazing things like her wartime activities and her support of some charities and indeed her visit to Ireland. Yes she wasn't a key part of the peace process as such, but she could easily have refused to shake the hands of Mcguiness and Adams. The government might have asked her to do it, but I'm sure she had the scope to refuse it.

However she also seems to have made errors of judgement on a personal level too...the response to Diana's death and her support of Prince Andrew.

What I'd like to see is the gradual dismantling of the Monarchy from the engines of state. An agreement where they get to keep their inherited land but hand over the crown estates back to the country would seem a useful starting point.

Undoubtedly the monarchy has had it's share of appaling dereliction towards its own subjects both here and across the wider commonwealth. Dismantling the crown and duchy estates and returning that wealth to the nation would be a good starting point in trying to redress the balance.
Click to expand...

The issue with the crown estates is that it pretty much acts as protection against their privatisation. All of them are open to the public (they are essentially museums), and the royal family only use Buckingham Palace and Windsor out of the 900 properties in the portfolio. Without it, will the government be inclined to actually keep the properties or will they sell them off privately? The public may lose access to them in this case.

I'm not sure what wealth there would be to distribute - if the government kept hold of the crown estates, the vast majority of the monarchy expenditure will still need to be spent even without them. The maintenance and staff required to take care of these properties is what takes up most of the outlay. Of course, there is the option of selling them, but would you trust the government with their disposal in a fair way?

The final point is what is the alternative to the royal family? Do we get a new head-of-state or just make the prime minister also head-of-state? It will cost millions for the referendums alone to decide whether to remove the monarchy. It will then cost millions, probably, to decide what to do as an alternative (possibly needing another referendum). And then you will have the voting - even more millions spent on a vote every four years to get the head-of-state that people will not agree on. We know what people are like - the likelihood is that a large proportion of people are not going to be happy with the result.

In the end, it seems like a lot of money and time spent by MPs for something that a lot of people still won't be happy with. MPs have more important matters to be spending money and time on. I also doubt any of this will save any money, whatsoever; in fact, it might even be a financial loss when you consider the tourist attraction of the monarchy. I know people deny this, but even without that you cannot deny that the weddings/coronation have/will attract an enormous amount of attention in the UK and abroad.

I don't see the benefits. Even if you deny/ignore all the financial benefits of the having the monarchy, the amount of savings will be miniscule; it will be a grain of salt in comparison to the UKs expenditure each year.
 
Last edited:
horsechoker said:
The more people say nobody cares about something, the more people actually care.
Click to expand...

I was in Myanmar once and a local with passable English tried to talk to me about Two Girls One Cup.

The idea that a globally connected population needs to ‘care’ to comment in something, is rather silly. People holding that kind of thing up as ‘Her global appeal’ is so obtuse.

Not really firing that at you, but I hate all this hand wringing shite.
 
Bobcat said:
she was certinally one of the most famous people on the planet.
Click to expand...

And instantly recognisable... and that came from her as a person and her dedication to the role she was thrown into in her mid-twenties. I remember as a child getting my coronation mug at school and watching the event on a neighbour's black and white TV (we couldn't afford one) and thinking... she was too young to be a Queen!
Was just entering the ground last night when the steward told us her death had just been announced.
RIP
 
Drifter said:
Anyone from Holland? How is your royalty treated out there.
Click to expand...

Most people are fine with them. They also dont have any real power. Well paid mascot with great benefits is what they are.

Popularity is getting lower though because our braindead king decided it was a good idea to go on holiday during the Corona period when you werent allowed to travel. He had to come back from his holiday because of the reaction but wasnt too happy about it :lol:

Poor guy couldnt even use his speedboat that us taxpayers had to get him. He also does other dumb things which make him less popular. Our future queen refused to receive 1.6m euros (because she turned 18 she had the right to receive it) because of public outcry. They are trying to work on their image a bit.

We dont have scandals often since our media is not allowed to take picture of the royal family during private moments. Well technically they are, the king wrote a non legally binding 'mediacode' and if a media outlet doesnt follow it they arent welcome at the yearly press gathering. Last week the media was allowed to show pictures of our future queen her first day arriving at University though.

Personally i find it outdated and ridiculous. I hope we ditch our dumb King soon. No political party will put it on the agenda though... the royal family still has too many supporters. It would cost too many votes to make it worth discussing.
 
fergies coat said:
Believing in a monarchy is up there with believing in Santa Claus and religion.
Click to expand...

Monarchy comes from a period most people were religious and people actually believed that the royal family had a divine right to rule the people. The royal people thought the same too (or still do since they just refuse to feck off).
 
Stadjer said:
Most people are fine with them. They also dont have any real power. Well paid mascot with great benefits is what they are.

Popularity is getting lower though because our braindead king decided it was a good idea to go on holiday during the Corona period when you werent allowed to travel. He had to come back from his holiday because of the reaction but wasnt too happy about it :lol:

Poor guy couldnt even use his speedboat that us taxpayers had to get him. He also does other dumb things which make him less popular. Our future queen refused to receive 1.6m euros (because she turned 18 she had the right to receive it) because of public outcry. They are trying to work on their image a bit.

We dont have scandals often since our media is not allowed to take picture of the royal family during private moments. Well technically they are, the king wrote a non legally binding 'mediacode' and if a media outlet doesnt follow it they arent welcome at the yearly press gathering. Last week the media was allowed to show pictures of our future queen her first day arriving at University though.

Personally i find it outdated and ridiculous. I hope we ditch our dumb King soon. No political party will put it on the agenda though... the royal family still has too many supporters. It would cost too many votes to make it worth discussing.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. So there does not seem to be so much pomp and ceremony as in the UK.
 
Drifter said:
Thank you for that. So there does not seem to be so much pomp and ceremony as in the UK.
Click to expand...

That is one of the things our King did, he tried making the monarchy more modern. Partly because he wanted too but also because they had to adapt to the time to keep their position i suspect.

We arent as crazy/weird as the English when it comes to our royal family though...
 
Lecland07 said:
The issue with the crown estates is that it pretty much acts as protection against their privatisation. All of them are open to the public (they are essentially museums), and the royal family only use Buckingham Palace and Windsor out of the 900 properties in the portfolio. Without it, will the government be inclined to actually keep the properties or will they sell them off privately? The public may lose access to them in this case.

I'm not sure what wealth there would be to distribute - if the government kept hold of the crown estates, the vast majority of the monarchy expenditure will still need to be spent even without them. The maintenance and staff required to take care of these properties is what takes up most of the outlay. Of course, there is the option of selling them, but would you trust the government with their disposal in a fair way?

The final point is what is the alternative to the royal family? Do we get a new head-of-state or just make the prime minister also head-of-state? It will cost millions for the referendums alone to decide whether to remove the monarchy. It will then cost millions, probably, to decide what to do as an alternative (possibly needing another referendum). And then you will have the voting - even more millions spent on a vote every four years to get the head-of-state that people will not agree on. We know what people are like - the likelihood is that a large proportion of people are not going to be happy with the result.

In the end, it seems like a lot of money and time spent by MPs for something that a lot of people still won't be happy with. MPs have more important matters to be spending money and time on. I also doubt any of this will save any money, whatsoever; in fact, it might even be a financial loss when you consider the tourist attraction of the monarchy. I know people deny this, but even without that you cannot deny that the weddings/coronation have/will attract an enormous amount of attention in the UK and abroad.

I don't see the benefits. Even if you deny/ignore all the financial benefits of the having the monarchy, the amount of savings will be miniscule; it will be a grain of salt in comparison to the UKs expenditure each year.
Click to expand...
In addition to the obviously viewable properties the Crown estates also includes the resources of the whole of the coastline of the country so it gives the royal family de-facto control of all mineral rights etc including things like North Sea Oil etc.

Now obviously they aren't out their grabbing one fish from every trawler boat or getting a free barrel of petrol dropped off by BP and much of this "control" is ceded to the government, but it does effectively mean the Royal family have to be listened too when discussing these things.

So, for example, the Queen proactively lobbied to slow some of the legislation about various issues because they would have had profound impact on the crown estates. We are also not just talking about things like protecting Osprays in Scotland here but big issues like Oil and gas exploration licences etc which have a profound impact on everyone. They have an unfair influence because, unlike other landowners / big businesses / lobby companies they have the power to bestow honours for "loyal service" to those same politicians or company owners.

I'm not saying remove the Monarch from being "head of state", in the sense of being on the coins etc. However we can go a long way to remove the monarchy from the engines and mechanisms of state by reducing their role to a ceremonial one, restricting them to just a few inherited estates, and removing them from areas like the crown estate where they can exert an undue influence on government.
 
fergosaurus said:
Only a temp so he'll be back, unlike the racist old hag.
Click to expand...

TrueRed79 said:
The Royal family are inbred, Nazi sympathisers who presided over colonialism. Bankrolled by taxpayers. Pedophiles. Racists. A ridiculously lavish, pampered life. So out of tune with the common folks of this world. A nonsense of the highest order.
Click to expand...

Donaldo said:
What a farce. Bring the football back you overreacting numpties.
Click to expand...

:lol: These posts should be pinned. Bravo.
 
Stadjer said:
That is one of the things our King did, he tried making the monarchy more modern. Partly because he wanted too but also because they had to adapt to the time to keep their position i suspect.

We arent as crazy/weird as the English when it comes to our royal family though...
Click to expand...

He should go kitesurfing with our Belgian king :lol:

 
You must log in or register to reply here.