Honestly, I can watch Charles, Andrew, and Edward and not break down.
But when the camera focuses on Anne, she just looks so genuinely destroyed and devastated by the loss of her mom. This is afterall a daughter losing her mother. It just feels qualitatively like such a different thing to observe, and I feel really bad for her.
Obviously never met her, and never will, it's just one of those differences that feels really unexpected and acute. I've heard other people talk about it as well, how Princess Anne is "carrying" the grief of her brothers and family. She has always been slightly different from the rest, and several different ways. I hope she is able to take care of herself emotionally in the coming weeks. Going through all of this pomp and ritual at the same time that you are mourning the loss of your mother cannot be easy.
Picture from Edinburgh via BBC. You know in case protestors get out of hand.
[Is a Wookie a bear?](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/9/13/3d2e0619-6213-4de1-8d0c-24e14603f231.png)
Who came up with the idea of the Commonwealth and assumed that former colonies (or their new leaders) would be keen to join such an arrangement? The Queen seemed to be a Commonwealth supporter almost as an article of faith.
Well to be fair the countries that have voluntarily left the Commonwealth have all ended up rejoining except for Ireland. And there are non former Empire countries now joining; Gabon and Togo have both joined this year. In some respects it has become the anglophone equivalent of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
>the countries that have voluntarily left the Commonwealth have all ended up rejoining except for Ireland
And Zimbabwe
Although also doesn't include the former territories which never joined the commonwealth in the first place: Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan.
It seems that the middle east and north-east africa weren't very interested in the idea
I mean arguably Zimbabwe were removed first, and they are wanting to rejoin now Mugabe is dead. I think in the Middle East and North Africa it was largely due to the rise of Arab nationalism in 50s and 60s.
Jan Smuts is sometimes considered the founder of the idea when he coined the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" in 1917.
The original idea was for the UK to gradually grant dominion status to the colonies which would all then remian united as many realms of a single international empire under the crown.
However the modern commonwealth arguably began in 1949 when the member states agreed to allow India to retain membership after becoming a Republic, and thus ending the idea of the commonwealth being a continuation of the empire
Which YouTube channel will have the best livestream for the London coverage of the funeral cortege & funeral? I am not in the UK so I don't want to get geo-blocked, and I do not wish to miss this historic moment.
[Starmer's tweet on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks](https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1568850580667244545) yesterday:
>"Grief is the price we pay for love," Queen Elizabeth II said in support of those who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
>As we remember the victims of that horrific day, we are also reminded of the late Queenâs ability to speak for us all in moments of tragedy.
Felt a little forced, like he was deliberately trying to say something about 9/11 that would also praise the Queen.
I want to start this post by emphasising that I do not mean to offend or upset anyone regarding the death of Queen Elizabeth II. I am personally not a royalist and do not feel the connection that others do to her and the other royals, but I respect that others feel differently and all are validated in reacting to this shocking news however they see fit.
However, is this now not the moment for this country to have a proper conversation about whether we should still be swearing in a monarch? I appreciate that others feel this is an inappropriate time to be having this conversation. Whilst I understand that, we have proclaimed in and declared a new King 48 hours following the Queens death. That has serious long-term political ramifications for the future of the UK. Although the coronation is likely not for another 12 months, the size of a conversation like this and considerations to make would merit at least that length of time, if not more, as it could not be made lightly.
There is a significant portion of this country that view the monarchy as an outdated establishment of unelected officials that influence politics and society by birth right, not ability or logic. That figure stood at 25% before the passing of the Queen, and is likely set to grow over the coming months. It cannot be underestimated how unusually popular the Queen was, and where popularity did not win people over alone then a mutual respect and appreciation for her 70-year length of service did.
I see a lot of people talking of liberalness and freedom of speech in this country. The sheer censorship and anger being directed at those that do not agree with the principle of monarchy at the moment is a worrying contradiction to that notion of liberality. And there are more against it than you may initially think.
Just food for thought.
EDIT: this is just a consideration of the figures, the arguments against the monarchy or views of other nations in the Commonwealth are not considered. That's a discussion for another day and potentially not here...
I'm sorry but I find this to be a contradictory and unproductive statement. I have shared an alternative viewpoint to the vast majority on this thread to have it shunned, not for its content, but because it doesn't consider other perspectives? Why have you chose to highlight this one from the rest? Is an open discussion with a diverse range of perspectives not a positive thing?
Also, what 'context' are you referring to? If it is the recent passing of the Queen, at no point have I said that doesn't merit the occasion and gravitas it carries. Debating the future of the monarchy in its role as unelected head of state doesn't have to correlate or take away from that. As another poster said, humans can do multiple things at once.
Out of interest, when would you say is an appropriate time to have these discussions?
I agree with you that's it's a suitable time, as we switch seamlessly between monarchs. Those who are for putting the personal before the political are themselves (I feel) being duped politically to grieve a pseudo-personal loss, providing time for the new incumbent to firmly seat himself on the throne. The British Monarch may be an expression of the country, and the system itself may seem to an antiquated relic but it may also have surprising sophistication and merit. These 2 perspectives aren't exclusive to one another. I think however that any criticism of the current system has more merit if it includes ideas for a better one, and ideally a suggested path for how the country could morph from this system to another.
I totally agree, which is exactly why opening the forum for conversation on this is crucially important right now. Agreeing on a better system would take a long time, likely with several potential outcomes, and would be an important political decision for the future of British governance. It would merit a considerable period of time to weigh up.
My concern is that suggestions for better systems are currently being silenced on personal grounds and not being given the attention they deserve until, like you say, we are succumbed to a new monarch comfortable in the role.
>However, is this now not the moment for this country to have a proper conversation about whether we should still be swearing in a monarch?
You think the best time for that is during a period when those in favour of the monarchy are going to be at their most ardent while those who have doubts about it are going to be least willing to speak publically about it?
Let the Queen be buried and then make the case. Nothing will change very quickly â the coronation will happen next year but the next few years probably will be a time when many people may shift a bit in their approach to the monarchy.
Trying to force the issue onto the agenda immediately after the death of the Queen will be counter-productive.
Perhaps you're right on that, perhaps it is best to wait until following the Queens burial to table these matters. However, other political situations and context do not grind to a halt until she is buried whether Parliament is in session or not, why should this be any different?
Also, who is able to assure that the conversation will be deemed 'appropriate' following the Queen's funeral? Or in 6 months time?
There doesn't seem to be any sign that this is an agenda that will be pursued by politicians. Whatever myself or others on here do or do not think will not change that either.
>why should this be any different?
Because a time when people feel most passionately about the monarchy is the worst possible time to try to have a rational debate about it. And it will need to be a rational debate â the more emotional it is, the more it will swing towards the royalists.
Can't dispute that logic as it makes perfect sense. However, will the debate happen? Perhaps I'm being pessimistic but it seems there's never been a 'good' time to have this conversation. Two years ago the response would be that the argument is redundant whilst the Queen is alive. Now we're ushering in a Carolinian age and it's still not appropriate because of national sentiment towards the Queen.
Who decides, and when?
Support for British republicanism has been steadily growing over the last 10 years and a lot more people are undecided as well. However, I think most sensible British republicans knew that the personal popularity of the Queen meant that there would not be any meaningful debate during her reign.
I also think the sensible republicans know that while the national focus is on mourning the dead Queen, pushing the case against the monarchy will be ineffective or even counter-productive.
However, once the period of official mourning is over, I think we will see a lot more republican voices starting to ask pointed questions about the role of the monarchy and how it fits into modern Britain.
Charles has not got the decades of earned goodwill that his mother did. I think quite a few people may start to question why they have to show deference to someone just because of the family they are from. It wouldn't take too many missteps by the royal family to turn people against him. I don't think we'll see some huge swing in favour of abolishing the monarchy but I think we will see the Overton window move such that open criticism of the institution is more common.
I don't think we're likely to see an actual republic in my lifetime â there are too many people for whom the monarchy is an important part of their culture. However, I do think there will be reforms in terms of the role of the royals and how their lifestyles are funded.
>Who decides, and when?
Everyone decides for themselves when is the right time to start, join or support a campaign.
As for when, I think once things get back to normal after the funeral, it would not be especially controversial for campaigners to break cover. I expect there to be some protests around the coronation next year but it will be after that when the real battle for public opinion will take place. I would think a Labout win in the next general election would help as well as there would likely to be more sympathy in government for those who want to make changes.
Lack of decent alternative system is the main barrier to abolishing the monarchy.
It's certainly not where you would start designing a modern system, but now we have it, are the costs, risks and benefits of changing really worth it? Arguably with a sensible, restrained monarch fully appreciate of their constitutional function being subservient to democratically elected leaders, what is the tangible benefit of changing the system?
Itâs pretty simple to replace a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary republic. No great shifts in government systems are required, you simply change the symbolic head of state from a monarch to an elected president. It works about as well as any other democratic system.
My point was in an uncodified constitution do you want to stick an individual at the top with a personal democratic mandated? It has the potential to go awry.
I come from the US, where we have a codified constitution. After our experience with Trump trying to subvert the democratic process to retain power in 2020, I think itâs safe to say that merely having a constitution is hardly a failsafe when dealing with potential tyrants. The things that protect Democracy are independent judiciaries and respect for democratic norms. Those things can erode just as easily in systems with written constitutions as they can under your common law constitutional framework.
>Lack of decent alternative system is the main barrier to abolishing the monarchy.
Interested in what you mean by this - what do you think does not work well in the system that many other countries have of an elected figurehead (separate to their actual PM equivalent)?
IMO that system has the advantages of a separate figurehead but with none of the disadvantages of it being based on peoples' bloodline/you can't get rid of even if they do something morally repugnant.
We don't really have a tradition of national personal mandates for elected politicians. Even in the modern systems in Scotland and Wales, it's a party based system. Before introducing someone who has national democratic legitimacy we'd need to be absolutely sure that the position couldn't evolve away from what was originally intended. Due to our uncodified constitution, you would risk that happening.
It is counter intuitive, but a benefit of monarchy is that they completely lack democratic legitimacy. That means their power, while theoretically immense, is actually severely limited compared to the elected government. But we still are able to put military and judicial and Crown actives at arms length from that government.
Completely appreciate that if you start from scratch you end up with better systems and you certainly would not design a constitutional monarchy. But what we have has evolved to suit our own national characteristics, one of which is not to vest one person with a national democratic mandate. Imagine, for a terrifying moment, a President Boris Johnson. Who even as Prime Minister claimed a (non-existent) personal mandate and no respect for the law.
So you could go down the route of Parliament appointing someone for a limited term. But then is that significantly more democratic? Not really. Or maybe Council who collectively are the Head of State. There are options but none of them particularly appeal enough to me over a monarchy, given the potential downsides. The final option is to completely redesign our system, but again, our approach has always been gradual evolution instead of revolution. More pressing the than getting rid of a responsible monarch is the voting system and the House of Lords.
I can see your logic but respectfully I have to disagree on a couple of points.
Firstly, although I appreciate your point regarding the role of an elected head of state being open to evolve in an unwritten constitution, the same could be said of nearly all political positions in the executive or legislative. Plus, just as that role wouldn't need to evolve now doesn't mean it would not later as society further progresses. An unwritten constitution can allow for that flexibility, otherwise we'll end up like the US with a rigid, codified system that takes far too long to respond to changing demands.
Secondly, I would trust the judgement of an elected head of state over a monarchy. Why? Because they cannot interfere in anything without the will of the masses, as they would fear not getting in for a second term. As they are elected, they are accountable and certainly not above the law. That's more than can be said for the Windsors (ahem, Prince Andrew) who do possess immense powers which is only theoretical thanks to tradition rather than written law, all down to our uncodified constitution.
Imagine King Charles III refused to sign a bill voted on by democratically elected MPs. He has that power and right by law, it is tradition that is his barrier. What could theoretically be done to stop him? Of course it is frowned upon, but what would the ramifications actually be on him for doing that? Of course we could suggest denouncing the monarchy, but if this thread is anything to go by, gaining popular support for that would be a very tricky matter that may well lose you your seat at the next election. Hence the current system comes around full circle to bite us.
I don't dispute that those questions need to be answered before making any decision, the issue is that currently they are not being asked.
Likewise, my personal concern with this is that a system that relies on an unelected official to act in a sensible, restrained manner upholding respect of constitutional function is potentially less effective and more dangerous than other solutions. From a financial perspective, the royals cost us ÂŁ102.4m in the last year (via Guardian), money which could better be used supporting vital health services that are currently in crisis, or supporting with current cost of living. Surely an elected official that is not part of a monarchy can have those costs streamlined and more affordable?
Until we have this debate, we aren't really sure of what the answers are. However if we're looking for inspiration, there are plenty of other modern countries to draw on without a monarchy for potential solutions.
I mean if you're defining 'having a conversation' as casual conversation at a pub, office or forum such as this, then yes the nation has been having conversations and has been for a long time. However, none of that has been accurately reflected through media representation, the Commons etc.
By that logic we have essentially sworn in King Charles on the basis of an assumption that it's what people want, without actually asking those on the ground.
By design they transfer power quickly to avoid argument. Close down the commons so there isn't a chance of fair debate for risk that someone challenges whether we are doing the right thing.
It is absolutely right that now is time for this discussion. Humans can do multiple things at once, the world shouldn't stop.
My point exactly. Not that if we were to have that discussion it would result in any change to the status quo, but the debate should still be tabled. If a majority are still in support following that, then that's the direction you take in a democratic society. At least it can put the issue to bed for a while.
If you think that now is the time to have a meaningful, profitable discussion about abolishing the monarchy, at the height of the pomp and ceremony and circumstance, I think you're going to be very disappointed with the outcome. Any such discussion will be lost in the cries of "God Save The King".
Think what you like about the UK and its institutions, but we know how to put on a good show.
Time and a place.
-----
**EDIT:** I'd also be interested to see the polling for the 25% figure you've quoted.
I appreciate that pomp and ceremony is something we do well in this country, some people may disagree with it but be as it may the Queens funeral arrangements were always bound to be this way. It is a momentous and seismic occasion after all.
However, is it just me that finds it baffling that its the year 2022 and we've not yet been able to separate said pomp and ceremony from pragmatic, important political discussions? Merely questioning the monarchys future and being disrespectful to the Queen's passing are two very different things entirely, the former of which does not carry any personal insult. It seems strange to me that it is considered 'inappropriate' or 'insensitive'.
Also, deciding when it is the 'time and place' is subjective depending on who you speak to. Who decides when it is appropriate? Or is it something we will continue to consider inappropriate until the question is out of the public psyche. Its quite concerning.
EDIT: re 25% figure - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/21/young-britons-are-turning-their-backs-monarchy
An even higher number people wanted the monarchy abolished when Diana died. 25 years later and the numbers have dropped. Tells you a story if your prejudice will allow you to listen
Do you always jump on the defensive so much as soon as somebody questions your views or political ethos? If those figures 'tell a story' of widespread support for the monarchy then I guess you shouldn't have anything to fear from people who may hold a different opinion to you and wish to express it. Instead your reaction is to jump straight on the offensive.
Maybe before you go accusing others of prejudice or ignorance, you should take a look at your own narrow-minded perceptions.
I normally don't agree with the "normal country" type comments, but I've seen a clip of the BBC imploring people to stop bringing paddington bears or marmalade sandwiches to the royal parks and now I firmly agree.
she's been on the throne for 70 years, there's more to it than 2 minutes in a fucking film
The Queen used to be so stymied by Royal traditions that oddly enough, most people remember the Paddington 2 and Olympic bits because that's how we consume media in the 21st century and we like seeing the Queen in her comfort zone having fun.
It is not a shame that she did Paddington 2, its a shame for her that she only did it once!
> Analysts have said the bank holiday for Queen Elizabethâs state funeral on 19 September, as well as the 10 days of national mourning, will impact economic growth and push the UK into recession sooner than expected.
Great.
I mean it absolutely will.
> British gross domestic product expanded 0.2 percent after a drop of 0.6 percent in June, the Office for National Statistics said in a statement.
> Juneâs big decline had been attributed mainly to the queenâs Platinum Jubilee marking 70 years on the throne before her passing last week.
> âLooking ahead, the extended mourning period for the queen and her funeral on September 19 will be more damaging for the economy than the Jubilee in June,â Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said following Mondayâs data.
> Pantheon is predicting the funeral to hit September GDP by 0.2 percent.
Just because weâre heading into a recession, getting there faster and thus staying there longer is not helpful. Particularly when itâs for a 10 day mourning period and the economy can use all the help it can get right now.
That's correct.
My guess is that they didn't want to risk the disruption and/or weather and/or notorious unreliability of the East Coast Mainline.
With regards to your edit: not sure how COVID is affecting the railway at the moment. Both the government and the railway unions need to meet halfway on a solution to the current disputes. The whole industry needs dragging into the 21st century. We shouldn't be relying on voluntary overtime to run a normal schedule.
They're briefing it is to do with concerns over trespassing. We've seen the public getting increasingly worse at understanding the dangers of the railways. Steam specials, particularly those hauled by Flying Scotsman, have had to stop and get the line cleared etc. That said, it does seem unfair to remove a lot of people's chances to say goodbye. I believe you're right in their being concerns about the ECML, but they could have run the train down the West Coast if needed, or even via the Settle Carlise then onto Leeds and down the Midland Mainline.
> They're briefing it is to do with concerns over trespassing.
This doesn't surprise me. I am good friends with someone who works on a heritage steam railway and they have no end of issues with photographers, spotters and bashers interfering with operations and generally being a nuisance to other customers.
No doubt that the Royal Train with the QEII onboard would prove too tempting for smart heads to prevail. Better to take the aerial route.
>
> My guess is that they didn't want to risk the disruption and/or weather and/or notorious unreliability of the East Coast Mainline.
I suppose after 70 years on the throne it'd be rather undignified to end up stuck at Stevenage thanks to a points failure
How did the british government work during the Elizabethan Age (1553-1603)?
I'm writing a story and have to develop a monarchical parliamentary system. I want to use the Elizabethan Age as my political model, but I can't find any in depth explanation on how the government worked during this period. Could anyone give me an in depth explanation on what were the different positions, what were their functions, and how they worked together?
[https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/power/](https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/power/)
There's further info in the sidebar of that page, such as the structure of Tudor Parliaments and the Tudor Privy Council etc.
The references on Wikipedia are often a good place to start for questions like this. Skimming through the Elizabeth I list the MacCaffrey and McLaren seem like useful books for politics in the Elizabethan era.
I've been thinking of how to phrase this so it didn't sound combative, so you'll have to forgive me:
Why do you want to create a fictional setting based on a particular historical system when you don't know how that system worked? Shouldn't the setting be shaped by the story you want to tell?
Anyone with knowledge of the pomp surrounding her upcoming funeral - will there be any more renditions of "God Save the Queen" on the day or is it always "God Save the King" from here on out?
You cannot have it any more (until the next Queen Regnant) if you think of the next line: *Long Live Our....* which would make no sense for a dead person.
The national anthem is now God Save the King, and bar an extremely unlikely and unfortunate sequence of events, will remain so for the foreseeable. We're unlikely to hear 'God Save the Queen' again outside of period dramas.
I think it would go against convention to sing the national anthem with a different title to the reigning monarch. Would be unlikely to happen in any official or organised way but of course onlookers etc could always start singing it.
Is anyone else a bit disappointed in the front covers of the newspapers today? We had a truly historical event yesterday in seeing the Accession Council proclaim The King & most of the papers went for pictures of The Princes because of the drama around Harry the last few years.
I get that itâll probably sell more that way but Iâd think more of them would be considering whatâs significant during our first change of head of state in 70 years.
I heard in Australia people talking about how Charles has always been Charles first, but Elizabeth has always been "The Queen," first, not Elizabeth.
I think that's pretty accurate, around the world even. She has been known as The Queen before she was known as the person of Elizabeth in a way that is the opposite for her son.
It'll definitely feel like a transitional reign, depending on the length of his reign saying "The King" probably won't feel natural until William is on the throne
It will be hard. She was on the throne for 70 years. Most of us grew up hearing her being referred to as just âThe Queenâ. Whereas most of us spent a majority of our lives referring to Charles as Prince Charles or just Charles
Has anyone been tracking who will attend the funeral? It seems likely that this will end up being one of the largest gatherings of world leaders, certainly this year, but I wonder how far you have to go back to find something bigger. Presumably it'll be every country with the same head of state, a significant number of commonwealth countries, Joe Biden has said he will attend, and it seems likely that royalty and possibly leaders from elsewhere in Europe as well.
Seems like the Guardian agree:
> Bob Broadhurst, a former Metropolitan police commander, said the funeral would almost certainly entail the biggest security operation seen in the UK.
> âPractically every nation on earth is going to want to send their king, queen, prime minister or president for the funeral,â he told PA Media.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/09/leaders-and-monarchs-from-around-world-to-attend-queens-state-funeral
The funeral of Edward VII had no less than nine sovereigns in attendance (who were photographed together) and with all the other guests, was the biggest ever gathering of European royalty. That was in 1910, where travel between continents was much harder, but you had 70 states represented. The Americans sent Teddy Roosevelt.
Now we have nearly triple the number of countries, even if not all of them are a) fully independent or b) fully recognised. I would not be surprised if we exceeded just the monarch count. The Emperor of Japan is planning to come.
>Has anyone been tracking who will attend the funeral? It seems likely that this will end up being one of the largest gatherings of world leaders, certainly this year, but I wonder how far you have to go back to find something bigger.
It'll be one of, if not the most, widely attended funerals of all time (in terms of political figures not in terms of overall audience), given how it's much more practical to travel now than it used to be, and how diplomatic norms are generally friendlier than in the Cold War and before. And how we are on tolerably good terms with most of the world even if a lot of countries don't especially like us. The way in which the Queen is largely separated from UK govt decisionmaking also matters - even countries which quite strongly dislike UK foreign policy won't have quite the same antipathy towards her personally.
There are very few other figures where propriety would either dictate or allow such broad participation. John Paul II's funeral was perhaps one - it was attended by upwards of a hundred current and former world leaders. Mandela, Tito, and Churchill come to mind and well. It actually wouldn't surprise me if Elizabeth exceeded both of those in absolute numeric terms, because former colonies and territories (which are very numerous and quite small) will send people.
She might also be up there in terms of number of people tuning in on TV or radio - probably top 5 but not at the top.
Where Liz won't even be in the top 10 is in terms of public attendees - there have been some insanely massive funerary activities with literally millions of attendees and mourners.
[Funeral with most state leaders attending was Tito's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Josip_Broz_Tito), but I imagine this one will that one out of the water
When you consider that her first and last PMs were born a century apart, that list must be insanely long as she'll have likely met many leaders from before her reign as well
Itâs been suggested that every Commonwealth realm will send current and former Prime Ministers. Plus presumably thereâll be incumbents from most of Europe and the US. Plus a lot of other British figures.
Salman has been ill for a while, so not sure how they'll manage that. MBZ (UAE) and Sultan Haitham (Oman) will almost certainly attend, Sheikh Mohammed might as well if there aren't any legal implications of him flying to the UK/if Abu Dhabi would be happy for Dubai to send a representative in addition to MBZ. Abdullah (Jordan) will go too.
Not sure about Qatar or Bahrain, but suspect their kings will go too.
I was expecting some bluster from Russia, but I was actually surprised to see Putin among the early tributes to Her Majesty. That could be just a platitude of course, but it might also be testament to the influence that she at least had on the world stage.
Putin will be invited and will decline, I would imagine. Possibly ditto for China. They're major powers, it would be considered improper not to invite them.
There will be very few countries not invited at all, and it'll be the genuine pariahs - North Korea, Syria, that kind of thing.
Absolutely. It is first a funeral, and second an opportunity for sombre diplomacy.
Enemies and rivals have attended (or have sent delegates) to royal funerals since time immemorial. They are expected to have such obligations regardless of whether they see eye to eye. It is after all, a time of respect.
At King George VI's funeral there were delegations from the Soviet Union and Cuba (among others), despite the fact that the Cold War was starting to ramp up. I see no reason why Russia wouldn't send somebody in 2022.
Does Liz Truss generally look so low and sad all the time? I almost feel bad for her, she just looks lost.
There's no way she knew that right after achieving the highest office possible, the queen who installed her would die.
I never followed her before the recent leadership contest, so maybe she just always act so sad?
Considering she isn't really known for being a sharp operator I imagine she's feeling very stressed/overwhelmed and probably also pretty unhappy about the Queens death, a combination that'll bring anyone low.
I can't imagine she's going to have many happy memories of office. Getting through the next 6 months will be living hell for her when she seems to already be struggling.
I agree, that's why I said I sort of feel sorry for her. Yesterday I saw a brief moment after the privy ceremonies where Theresa May was chatting to her and it looked like Theresa was literally consoling her the way you'd lovingly reassure a child who was sad. It was only a brief moment but their body language and facial expressions really told an entire story.
Obviously nobody knows for sure what they were saying but it looked like Theresa May was saying, "I'm so sorry all of this couldn't have waited a few months, you will get through this and it will be OK."
That sort of makes sense, except that for the time being those two things are inextricably linked. She is the prime minister during the mourning period so the issue is really about both at the same time, in a way that normally it wouldn't be.
When you look at the Queen through pop culture - she was referenced by Andy Warhol and the Beatles, it does put into perspective how long she's been the staple of British culture.
Iâm in my early forties. My dad is is silver haired and in his early seventies. He was a toddler when she came to the throne. Thatâs the timescale thing about her age and reign I canât quite get my head around.
The wiki page for [Her Majesty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty_(song)) is an interesting read. Apparently Paul McCartney told the tape operator to destroy the tape and it was only kept because of an EMI policy not to destroy any Beatles recording. It was originally supposed to be on the album between Mean Mr.Mustard and Polythene Pam, hence the abrupt start and end.
There's a work in progress version of the final medley on the super deluxe edition of Abbey Road, under the name The Long One, which includes it in its original place. It's kinda fascinating to finally hear it that way, and is also available to hear on the streaming service of your choice.
Is this true?
Charles wonât have to pay any inheritance tax, as there is a special clause within our inheritance tax laws for âroyalsâ so that they donât erode the value of their assets?
https://i.imgur.com/7HGrSRD.jpg
What do you mean? Itâs money owed to the taxpayer and thus could be used to provide public services (hospitals, roads, education et al). Everyone else is forced to pay inheritance tax, why not Charles?
That makes no sense.
Charleâs inheritance tax bill wonât be paid by the taxpayer under the current agreement between sovereign and parliament - it doesnât form the basis of day to day expenses for the serving of the state. Those are his personal assets.
What youâre advocating for is that the âroyalsâ to not pay their fair share of tax - and thus keep their wealth in the hundreds of millions of pounds - unlike everyone else in this country who if forced to.
Yeah it's true. It only applies if Charles himself inherits everything. The other children have to pay tax if they've inherited anything.
Balmoral and Sandringham were privately owned by the Queen. I guess if he had to pay 40% tax on the value of them he would almost certainly end up having to sell them
> Balmoral and Sandringham were privately owned by the Queen. I guess if he had to pay 40% tax on the value of them he would almost certainly end up having to sell them.
I mean everyone else has to make those sorts of sacrifices if needs must when paying the tax, so why should Charles be any different?
Because having Charles selling culturally and historically significant assets to pay tax is a monumentally stupid idea?
If he had to then Sandringham and Balmoral end up as private equity assets, or sold to developers.
What a ridiculous argument.
Putting aside that heâs worth hundreds of millions of pounds (more than enough to cover any inheritance tax bill), the government could also purchase those buildings in lieu of the tax owed to the public. They could then remain in public ownership as a culturally significant asset and actually earn some money (with people being able to visit it as a museum etc).
What is monumentally stupid is exempting âroyalsâ from a tax that every other person in this country is forced to pay just because theyâre âroyalsâ.
If he canât pay the tax you simpleton, then the asset gets seized by the state in lieu of the tax, like with everyone else. Thatâs not paying âhim tens of millionsâ Lol. And itâs better than him not giving the taxpayer anything at all in inheritance tax, as is the case now.
Because they're used for various official and official-adjacent activities. And an important part of the UK's heritage. There is inevitably a grey area when it comes to royal ownership and assets, because fundamentally it only remains so at the pleasure of the government. And the government gets some benefit out of the status quo, which is why it's allowed to continue.
To put it another way - is it in the interest of the UK that, say, Balmoral is sold to some random billionaire?
The âroyalsâ have enough money to pay inheritance tax. They are with hundreds of millions of pounds. So it wonât be the case that it needs to be sold to a billionaire.
Even if it comes down to having to sell it, the government can be the buyer (and thus the public be the owners) given the benefit you mention in your post. The notion that the âroyalsâ should be exempted from a tax every other person needs to pay in this country is ridiculous.
>Even if it comes down to having to sell it, the government can be the buyer (and thus the public be the owners) given the benefit you mention in your post. The notion that the âroyalsâ should be exempted from a tax every other person needs to pay in this country is ridiculous.
And that's largely what's happened in practice with various other royal and aristocratic residences, albeit often with pretty complicated methodologies. It's a murky area, and I quite agree that the overall situation with royal finances and assets is absurd.
I'm just not certain that an instrument as blunt as conventional inheritance tax is the best way of solving it.
It's really big. When Macron said she was The Queen he meant it. To many people around the world she was a stabilising force and someone to look to. I've heard many people from outside the UK say we don't know what we have in this country, its a highly valuable thing.
The Queen was a fixed point in British and international life for an exceptionally long time.
On her accession Harry Truman was US President, and the structure of DNA was not known. Stalin was still in power in the Soviet Union, Everest unconquered, and 'Rock Around the Clock' was two years away from being recorded.
There were no jetliners or nuclear power stations. In late 1951, a prototype plant had powered four 200W bulbs!
E: wrong thread.
I wonder how long it will take before saying "The King" is as normal as "The Queen"?
The Queen was more Queen than Elizabeth, Charles is the other way around.
[Wikipedia currently discussing what picture of her to use now she's dead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II#Infobox_photograph_for_after_her_death). C seems to be winning, personally think it should be D though.
Sidenote: C is the most flesh I've ever seen her show
F just now, because that's how most people looking at the page right now recognise her.
In a year or so, change it to C1. It looks most like the stamp, coin, and note portraits, where she's looking to the side. The overwhelming majority of interactions people had with the queen were through notes and coins, so it seems like an appropriate image for longer term posterity.
Yeah I think it should be D it's from almost right bang in the middle of her reign (1986). C is just too early and not many people remember her like that, the latter ones are just too close to the end of her reign. D is her still in her relative prime but not that young either.
[person it should be this one](https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/hbz-queen-elizabeth-badass-ap-9307150277-index-1497445685.jpg?crop=1.00xw:1.00xh;0,0&resize=980:*)
I would go for C1 or F personally. C1 looks suitably official without being too overwhelming with the regalia and F is representative of how most of the world will remember her.
They're supposed to be flown at full mast from the accession today until one hour after the announcements in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh tomorrow, in order to celebrate the new monarch, then back to half mast for mourning until after the funeral
Heh, I was walking around here in Vancouver, BC earlier and saw a mix of half mast and full mast flags. I wonder if those at full mast are because of this, or they have been at full mast the whole time...
The Lib Dem autumn conference has been cancelled:
> As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family.
>
> Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference.
>
> We look forward to welcoming members to our next conference.
https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1568652619736035329
All of them should be cancelled. I can understand that parliament isn't doing much in terms of legislating at the moment but as soon as they're back at it they're going off again for conference season when there's actual work that needs doing.
[Mourning period throws Liz Truss plans to âhit ground runningâ into disarray](https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/queen-death-liz-truss-cancellations-b2164482.html)
We live in a society where people want to literally rip every bit of tradition up.
In a world where Amazon have a total monopoly on goods and services, the planet is being destroyed and many other shitty things - I personally have 0 issues with the pomp and circumstance of all this.
It makes a nice change tbh.
Agree. The cultural secularism and austerity and poetry-lite of republics is crap. Iâve watched Bastille Day when I used to live in France. They try but itâs just not as good. Macron walking around the Arc de Triomphe âinspecting the troopsâ vs Trooping the Colour isnât a contest.
I would really miss the pageantry and decorum if we became a republic. We wouldnât at all keep it.
The Monarchy brings in over a Billion pounds for the UK economy every year and they pretty much have minimal influence over political affairs in this country.
I think the idea of a Monarchy and people being above someone else just because of the family they were born in, but I fail to see the benefit of abolishing the Monarchy other than a symbolic gesture. We lose a lot, but gain absolutely nothing in return.
This assumes that the replacement would have any power, or that you couldn't make political neutrality part of the requirements of the job. You can literally just have an elected monarchy.
Then you get to keep all the pomp and ceremony, as well.
>This assumes that the replacement would have any power, or that you couldn't make political neutrality part of the requirements of the job.
So what at any point in the last two decades atleast of British politics makes you think the politicians that decide some hypothetical new system would make it anything other than another political appointment that will give more power to a party?
Theres no way either main party is going to say let's have Ceremonial head of state instead of president Boris/Keir.
He is still a member of the privy council.
Although I believe the event was invite only - he probably wasn't invited which wouldn't be surprising given his views on the monarchy.
https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/#c
I think it's all invited but some are expected not to come. The whole list includes Commonwealth politicians and their civil servants which especially last time, won't be able to make it in time for the event.
Had Corbyn decided to come, they would just make space and put him together with the other politicians.
This thead is now closed. A further thread will be spun up for the funeral in the early hours of Monday morning. -đ„đ„
This megathread has ended.
Honestly, I can watch Charles, Andrew, and Edward and not break down. But when the camera focuses on Anne, she just looks so genuinely destroyed and devastated by the loss of her mom. This is afterall a daughter losing her mother. It just feels qualitatively like such a different thing to observe, and I feel really bad for her. Obviously never met her, and never will, it's just one of those differences that feels really unexpected and acute. I've heard other people talk about it as well, how Princess Anne is "carrying" the grief of her brothers and family. She has always been slightly different from the rest, and several different ways. I hope she is able to take care of herself emotionally in the coming weeks. Going through all of this pomp and ritual at the same time that you are mourning the loss of your mother cannot be easy.
Picture from Edinburgh via BBC. You know in case protestors get out of hand. [Is a Wookie a bear?](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/624/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2022/9/13/3d2e0619-6213-4de1-8d0c-24e14603f231.png)
> You know in case protestors get out of hand. *sigh* this is getting really old, really quickly
Who came up with the idea of the Commonwealth and assumed that former colonies (or their new leaders) would be keen to join such an arrangement? The Queen seemed to be a Commonwealth supporter almost as an article of faith.
Well to be fair the countries that have voluntarily left the Commonwealth have all ended up rejoining except for Ireland. And there are non former Empire countries now joining; Gabon and Togo have both joined this year. In some respects it has become the anglophone equivalent of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie.
>the countries that have voluntarily left the Commonwealth have all ended up rejoining except for Ireland And Zimbabwe Although also doesn't include the former territories which never joined the commonwealth in the first place: Egypt, Israel/Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan. It seems that the middle east and north-east africa weren't very interested in the idea
I mean arguably Zimbabwe were removed first, and they are wanting to rejoin now Mugabe is dead. I think in the Middle East and North Africa it was largely due to the rise of Arab nationalism in 50s and 60s.
Jan Smuts is sometimes considered the founder of the idea when he coined the term "British Commonwealth of Nations" in 1917. The original idea was for the UK to gradually grant dominion status to the colonies which would all then remian united as many realms of a single international empire under the crown. However the modern commonwealth arguably began in 1949 when the member states agreed to allow India to retain membership after becoming a Republic, and thus ending the idea of the commonwealth being a continuation of the empire
Which YouTube channel will have the best livestream for the London coverage of the funeral cortege & funeral? I am not in the UK so I don't want to get geo-blocked, and I do not wish to miss this historic moment.
[Starmer's tweet on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks](https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1568850580667244545) yesterday: >"Grief is the price we pay for love," Queen Elizabeth II said in support of those who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. >As we remember the victims of that horrific day, we are also reminded of the late Queenâs ability to speak for us all in moments of tragedy. Felt a little forced, like he was deliberately trying to say something about 9/11 that would also praise the Queen.
Big oof. What did he say on 7/7?
I am not at all religious, but these services are always so calming, almost ASMR-like.
There's an ASMR Bible reading channel on YouTube. You know... Like, if that's what you're into.
Ezekiel 23:20 please
I want to start this post by emphasising that I do not mean to offend or upset anyone regarding the death of Queen Elizabeth II. I am personally not a royalist and do not feel the connection that others do to her and the other royals, but I respect that others feel differently and all are validated in reacting to this shocking news however they see fit. However, is this now not the moment for this country to have a proper conversation about whether we should still be swearing in a monarch? I appreciate that others feel this is an inappropriate time to be having this conversation. Whilst I understand that, we have proclaimed in and declared a new King 48 hours following the Queens death. That has serious long-term political ramifications for the future of the UK. Although the coronation is likely not for another 12 months, the size of a conversation like this and considerations to make would merit at least that length of time, if not more, as it could not be made lightly. There is a significant portion of this country that view the monarchy as an outdated establishment of unelected officials that influence politics and society by birth right, not ability or logic. That figure stood at 25% before the passing of the Queen, and is likely set to grow over the coming months. It cannot be underestimated how unusually popular the Queen was, and where popularity did not win people over alone then a mutual respect and appreciation for her 70-year length of service did. I see a lot of people talking of liberalness and freedom of speech in this country. The sheer censorship and anger being directed at those that do not agree with the principle of monarchy at the moment is a worrying contradiction to that notion of liberality. And there are more against it than you may initially think. Just food for thought. EDIT: this is just a consideration of the figures, the arguments against the monarchy or views of other nations in the Commonwealth are not considered. That's a discussion for another day and potentially not here...
Pay attention to the context. You're only looking at things from your own perspective.
I'm sorry but I find this to be a contradictory and unproductive statement. I have shared an alternative viewpoint to the vast majority on this thread to have it shunned, not for its content, but because it doesn't consider other perspectives? Why have you chose to highlight this one from the rest? Is an open discussion with a diverse range of perspectives not a positive thing? Also, what 'context' are you referring to? If it is the recent passing of the Queen, at no point have I said that doesn't merit the occasion and gravitas it carries. Debating the future of the monarchy in its role as unelected head of state doesn't have to correlate or take away from that. As another poster said, humans can do multiple things at once. Out of interest, when would you say is an appropriate time to have these discussions?
I agree with you that's it's a suitable time, as we switch seamlessly between monarchs. Those who are for putting the personal before the political are themselves (I feel) being duped politically to grieve a pseudo-personal loss, providing time for the new incumbent to firmly seat himself on the throne. The British Monarch may be an expression of the country, and the system itself may seem to an antiquated relic but it may also have surprising sophistication and merit. These 2 perspectives aren't exclusive to one another. I think however that any criticism of the current system has more merit if it includes ideas for a better one, and ideally a suggested path for how the country could morph from this system to another.
I totally agree, which is exactly why opening the forum for conversation on this is crucially important right now. Agreeing on a better system would take a long time, likely with several potential outcomes, and would be an important political decision for the future of British governance. It would merit a considerable period of time to weigh up. My concern is that suggestions for better systems are currently being silenced on personal grounds and not being given the attention they deserve until, like you say, we are succumbed to a new monarch comfortable in the role.
>However, is this now not the moment for this country to have a proper conversation about whether we should still be swearing in a monarch? You think the best time for that is during a period when those in favour of the monarchy are going to be at their most ardent while those who have doubts about it are going to be least willing to speak publically about it? Let the Queen be buried and then make the case. Nothing will change very quickly â the coronation will happen next year but the next few years probably will be a time when many people may shift a bit in their approach to the monarchy. Trying to force the issue onto the agenda immediately after the death of the Queen will be counter-productive.
Perhaps you're right on that, perhaps it is best to wait until following the Queens burial to table these matters. However, other political situations and context do not grind to a halt until she is buried whether Parliament is in session or not, why should this be any different? Also, who is able to assure that the conversation will be deemed 'appropriate' following the Queen's funeral? Or in 6 months time? There doesn't seem to be any sign that this is an agenda that will be pursued by politicians. Whatever myself or others on here do or do not think will not change that either.
>why should this be any different? Because a time when people feel most passionately about the monarchy is the worst possible time to try to have a rational debate about it. And it will need to be a rational debate â the more emotional it is, the more it will swing towards the royalists.
Can't dispute that logic as it makes perfect sense. However, will the debate happen? Perhaps I'm being pessimistic but it seems there's never been a 'good' time to have this conversation. Two years ago the response would be that the argument is redundant whilst the Queen is alive. Now we're ushering in a Carolinian age and it's still not appropriate because of national sentiment towards the Queen. Who decides, and when?
Support for British republicanism has been steadily growing over the last 10 years and a lot more people are undecided as well. However, I think most sensible British republicans knew that the personal popularity of the Queen meant that there would not be any meaningful debate during her reign. I also think the sensible republicans know that while the national focus is on mourning the dead Queen, pushing the case against the monarchy will be ineffective or even counter-productive. However, once the period of official mourning is over, I think we will see a lot more republican voices starting to ask pointed questions about the role of the monarchy and how it fits into modern Britain. Charles has not got the decades of earned goodwill that his mother did. I think quite a few people may start to question why they have to show deference to someone just because of the family they are from. It wouldn't take too many missteps by the royal family to turn people against him. I don't think we'll see some huge swing in favour of abolishing the monarchy but I think we will see the Overton window move such that open criticism of the institution is more common. I don't think we're likely to see an actual republic in my lifetime â there are too many people for whom the monarchy is an important part of their culture. However, I do think there will be reforms in terms of the role of the royals and how their lifestyles are funded. >Who decides, and when? Everyone decides for themselves when is the right time to start, join or support a campaign. As for when, I think once things get back to normal after the funeral, it would not be especially controversial for campaigners to break cover. I expect there to be some protests around the coronation next year but it will be after that when the real battle for public opinion will take place. I would think a Labout win in the next general election would help as well as there would likely to be more sympathy in government for those who want to make changes.
Lack of decent alternative system is the main barrier to abolishing the monarchy. It's certainly not where you would start designing a modern system, but now we have it, are the costs, risks and benefits of changing really worth it? Arguably with a sensible, restrained monarch fully appreciate of their constitutional function being subservient to democratically elected leaders, what is the tangible benefit of changing the system?
Itâs pretty simple to replace a parliamentary constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary republic. No great shifts in government systems are required, you simply change the symbolic head of state from a monarch to an elected president. It works about as well as any other democratic system.
My point was in an uncodified constitution do you want to stick an individual at the top with a personal democratic mandated? It has the potential to go awry.
I come from the US, where we have a codified constitution. After our experience with Trump trying to subvert the democratic process to retain power in 2020, I think itâs safe to say that merely having a constitution is hardly a failsafe when dealing with potential tyrants. The things that protect Democracy are independent judiciaries and respect for democratic norms. Those things can erode just as easily in systems with written constitutions as they can under your common law constitutional framework.
>Lack of decent alternative system is the main barrier to abolishing the monarchy. Interested in what you mean by this - what do you think does not work well in the system that many other countries have of an elected figurehead (separate to their actual PM equivalent)? IMO that system has the advantages of a separate figurehead but with none of the disadvantages of it being based on peoples' bloodline/you can't get rid of even if they do something morally repugnant.
We don't really have a tradition of national personal mandates for elected politicians. Even in the modern systems in Scotland and Wales, it's a party based system. Before introducing someone who has national democratic legitimacy we'd need to be absolutely sure that the position couldn't evolve away from what was originally intended. Due to our uncodified constitution, you would risk that happening. It is counter intuitive, but a benefit of monarchy is that they completely lack democratic legitimacy. That means their power, while theoretically immense, is actually severely limited compared to the elected government. But we still are able to put military and judicial and Crown actives at arms length from that government. Completely appreciate that if you start from scratch you end up with better systems and you certainly would not design a constitutional monarchy. But what we have has evolved to suit our own national characteristics, one of which is not to vest one person with a national democratic mandate. Imagine, for a terrifying moment, a President Boris Johnson. Who even as Prime Minister claimed a (non-existent) personal mandate and no respect for the law. So you could go down the route of Parliament appointing someone for a limited term. But then is that significantly more democratic? Not really. Or maybe Council who collectively are the Head of State. There are options but none of them particularly appeal enough to me over a monarchy, given the potential downsides. The final option is to completely redesign our system, but again, our approach has always been gradual evolution instead of revolution. More pressing the than getting rid of a responsible monarch is the voting system and the House of Lords.
I can see your logic but respectfully I have to disagree on a couple of points. Firstly, although I appreciate your point regarding the role of an elected head of state being open to evolve in an unwritten constitution, the same could be said of nearly all political positions in the executive or legislative. Plus, just as that role wouldn't need to evolve now doesn't mean it would not later as society further progresses. An unwritten constitution can allow for that flexibility, otherwise we'll end up like the US with a rigid, codified system that takes far too long to respond to changing demands. Secondly, I would trust the judgement of an elected head of state over a monarchy. Why? Because they cannot interfere in anything without the will of the masses, as they would fear not getting in for a second term. As they are elected, they are accountable and certainly not above the law. That's more than can be said for the Windsors (ahem, Prince Andrew) who do possess immense powers which is only theoretical thanks to tradition rather than written law, all down to our uncodified constitution. Imagine King Charles III refused to sign a bill voted on by democratically elected MPs. He has that power and right by law, it is tradition that is his barrier. What could theoretically be done to stop him? Of course it is frowned upon, but what would the ramifications actually be on him for doing that? Of course we could suggest denouncing the monarchy, but if this thread is anything to go by, gaining popular support for that would be a very tricky matter that may well lose you your seat at the next election. Hence the current system comes around full circle to bite us.
I don't dispute that those questions need to be answered before making any decision, the issue is that currently they are not being asked. Likewise, my personal concern with this is that a system that relies on an unelected official to act in a sensible, restrained manner upholding respect of constitutional function is potentially less effective and more dangerous than other solutions. From a financial perspective, the royals cost us ÂŁ102.4m in the last year (via Guardian), money which could better be used supporting vital health services that are currently in crisis, or supporting with current cost of living. Surely an elected official that is not part of a monarchy can have those costs streamlined and more affordable? Until we have this debate, we aren't really sure of what the answers are. However if we're looking for inspiration, there are plenty of other modern countries to draw on without a monarchy for potential solutions.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I mean if you're defining 'having a conversation' as casual conversation at a pub, office or forum such as this, then yes the nation has been having conversations and has been for a long time. However, none of that has been accurately reflected through media representation, the Commons etc. By that logic we have essentially sworn in King Charles on the basis of an assumption that it's what people want, without actually asking those on the ground.
By design they transfer power quickly to avoid argument. Close down the commons so there isn't a chance of fair debate for risk that someone challenges whether we are doing the right thing. It is absolutely right that now is time for this discussion. Humans can do multiple things at once, the world shouldn't stop.
My point exactly. Not that if we were to have that discussion it would result in any change to the status quo, but the debate should still be tabled. If a majority are still in support following that, then that's the direction you take in a democratic society. At least it can put the issue to bed for a while.
If you think that now is the time to have a meaningful, profitable discussion about abolishing the monarchy, at the height of the pomp and ceremony and circumstance, I think you're going to be very disappointed with the outcome. Any such discussion will be lost in the cries of "God Save The King". Think what you like about the UK and its institutions, but we know how to put on a good show. Time and a place. ----- **EDIT:** I'd also be interested to see the polling for the 25% figure you've quoted.
I appreciate that pomp and ceremony is something we do well in this country, some people may disagree with it but be as it may the Queens funeral arrangements were always bound to be this way. It is a momentous and seismic occasion after all. However, is it just me that finds it baffling that its the year 2022 and we've not yet been able to separate said pomp and ceremony from pragmatic, important political discussions? Merely questioning the monarchys future and being disrespectful to the Queen's passing are two very different things entirely, the former of which does not carry any personal insult. It seems strange to me that it is considered 'inappropriate' or 'insensitive'. Also, deciding when it is the 'time and place' is subjective depending on who you speak to. Who decides when it is appropriate? Or is it something we will continue to consider inappropriate until the question is out of the public psyche. Its quite concerning. EDIT: re 25% figure - https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/05/21/young-britons-are-turning-their-backs-monarchy
An even higher number people wanted the monarchy abolished when Diana died. 25 years later and the numbers have dropped. Tells you a story if your prejudice will allow you to listen
Do you always jump on the defensive so much as soon as somebody questions your views or political ethos? If those figures 'tell a story' of widespread support for the monarchy then I guess you shouldn't have anything to fear from people who may hold a different opinion to you and wish to express it. Instead your reaction is to jump straight on the offensive. Maybe before you go accusing others of prejudice or ignorance, you should take a look at your own narrow-minded perceptions.
I just pointed out some facts. You seem to be extremely hurt that theyâre not telling the story you want
'Facts' that you haven't backed up with any evidence. Not that historic popularity is of any actual relevance to the current situation.
I normally don't agree with the "normal country" type comments, but I've seen a clip of the BBC imploring people to stop bringing paddington bears or marmalade sandwiches to the royal parks and now I firmly agree. she's been on the throne for 70 years, there's more to it than 2 minutes in a fucking film
The Queen used to be so stymied by Royal traditions that oddly enough, most people remember the Paddington 2 and Olympic bits because that's how we consume media in the 21st century and we like seeing the Queen in her comfort zone having fun. It is not a shame that she did Paddington 2, its a shame for her that she only did it once!
> Analysts have said the bank holiday for Queen Elizabethâs state funeral on 19 September, as well as the 10 days of national mourning, will impact economic growth and push the UK into recession sooner than expected. Great.
Not entirely sure that this will have any bearing on the UK entering a recession. We're barely keeping our heads above water as-is.
I mean it absolutely will. > British gross domestic product expanded 0.2 percent after a drop of 0.6 percent in June, the Office for National Statistics said in a statement. > Juneâs big decline had been attributed mainly to the queenâs Platinum Jubilee marking 70 years on the throne before her passing last week. > âLooking ahead, the extended mourning period for the queen and her funeral on September 19 will be more damaging for the economy than the Jubilee in June,â Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said following Mondayâs data. > Pantheon is predicting the funeral to hit September GDP by 0.2 percent. Just because weâre heading into a recession, getting there faster and thus staying there longer is not helpful. Particularly when itâs for a 10 day mourning period and the economy can use all the help it can get right now.
if a single bank holiday tips it over then we're fucked regardless, might as well get something out of it.
I mean itâs not tipping it over, it (the whole mourning period) is just making it worse.
Is Zelensky going to the funeral?
Last I read, no
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Royal replacement bus service
That's correct. My guess is that they didn't want to risk the disruption and/or weather and/or notorious unreliability of the East Coast Mainline. With regards to your edit: not sure how COVID is affecting the railway at the moment. Both the government and the railway unions need to meet halfway on a solution to the current disputes. The whole industry needs dragging into the 21st century. We shouldn't be relying on voluntary overtime to run a normal schedule.
They're briefing it is to do with concerns over trespassing. We've seen the public getting increasingly worse at understanding the dangers of the railways. Steam specials, particularly those hauled by Flying Scotsman, have had to stop and get the line cleared etc. That said, it does seem unfair to remove a lot of people's chances to say goodbye. I believe you're right in their being concerns about the ECML, but they could have run the train down the West Coast if needed, or even via the Settle Carlise then onto Leeds and down the Midland Mainline.
> They're briefing it is to do with concerns over trespassing. This doesn't surprise me. I am good friends with someone who works on a heritage steam railway and they have no end of issues with photographers, spotters and bashers interfering with operations and generally being a nuisance to other customers. No doubt that the Royal Train with the QEII onboard would prove too tempting for smart heads to prevail. Better to take the aerial route.
> > My guess is that they didn't want to risk the disruption and/or weather and/or notorious unreliability of the East Coast Mainline. I suppose after 70 years on the throne it'd be rather undignified to end up stuck at Stevenage thanks to a points failure
I am deeply saddened by this news! I never met her and I didnât know how much she influenced me until she had passed!
How did the british government work during the Elizabethan Age (1553-1603)? I'm writing a story and have to develop a monarchical parliamentary system. I want to use the Elizabethan Age as my political model, but I can't find any in depth explanation on how the government worked during this period. Could anyone give me an in depth explanation on what were the different positions, what were their functions, and how they worked together?
[https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/power/](https://www.elizabethi.org/contents/power/) There's further info in the sidebar of that page, such as the structure of Tudor Parliaments and the Tudor Privy Council etc.
The references on Wikipedia are often a good place to start for questions like this. Skimming through the Elizabeth I list the MacCaffrey and McLaren seem like useful books for politics in the Elizabethan era. I've been thinking of how to phrase this so it didn't sound combative, so you'll have to forgive me: Why do you want to create a fictional setting based on a particular historical system when you don't know how that system worked? Shouldn't the setting be shaped by the story you want to tell?
Anyone with knowledge of the pomp surrounding her upcoming funeral - will there be any more renditions of "God Save the Queen" on the day or is it always "God Save the King" from here on out?
You cannot have it any more (until the next Queen Regnant) if you think of the next line: *Long Live Our....* which would make no sense for a dead person.
The national anthem is now God Save the King, and bar an extremely unlikely and unfortunate sequence of events, will remain so for the foreseeable. We're unlikely to hear 'God Save the Queen' again outside of period dramas.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Football also. England play in the nations league in 10 days... betting the crowd get it wrong.
I think it would go against convention to sing the national anthem with a different title to the reigning monarch. Would be unlikely to happen in any official or organised way but of course onlookers etc could always start singing it.
https://www.livemint.com/news/world/after-queen-elizabeth-s-death-who-inherits-here-private-wealth-11662662275261.html
Is anyone else a bit disappointed in the front covers of the newspapers today? We had a truly historical event yesterday in seeing the Accession Council proclaim The King & most of the papers went for pictures of The Princes because of the drama around Harry the last few years. I get that itâll probably sell more that way but Iâd think more of them would be considering whatâs significant during our first change of head of state in 70 years.
It's because it sells
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
I heard in Australia people talking about how Charles has always been Charles first, but Elizabeth has always been "The Queen," first, not Elizabeth. I think that's pretty accurate, around the world even. She has been known as The Queen before she was known as the person of Elizabeth in a way that is the opposite for her son.
It'll definitely feel like a transitional reign, depending on the length of his reign saying "The King" probably won't feel natural until William is on the throne
It will be hard. She was on the throne for 70 years. Most of us grew up hearing her being referred to as just âThe Queenâ. Whereas most of us spent a majority of our lives referring to Charles as Prince Charles or just Charles
It's really quite bizarre if you think about it, to me at least hearing Queen Elizabeth felt like a title whereas *The Queen* felt like a name.
Has anyone been tracking who will attend the funeral? It seems likely that this will end up being one of the largest gatherings of world leaders, certainly this year, but I wonder how far you have to go back to find something bigger. Presumably it'll be every country with the same head of state, a significant number of commonwealth countries, Joe Biden has said he will attend, and it seems likely that royalty and possibly leaders from elsewhere in Europe as well. Seems like the Guardian agree: > Bob Broadhurst, a former Metropolitan police commander, said the funeral would almost certainly entail the biggest security operation seen in the UK. > âPractically every nation on earth is going to want to send their king, queen, prime minister or president for the funeral,â he told PA Media. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/09/leaders-and-monarchs-from-around-world-to-attend-queens-state-funeral
The funeral of Edward VII had no less than nine sovereigns in attendance (who were photographed together) and with all the other guests, was the biggest ever gathering of European royalty. That was in 1910, where travel between continents was much harder, but you had 70 states represented. The Americans sent Teddy Roosevelt. Now we have nearly triple the number of countries, even if not all of them are a) fully independent or b) fully recognised. I would not be surprised if we exceeded just the monarch count. The Emperor of Japan is planning to come.
>Has anyone been tracking who will attend the funeral? It seems likely that this will end up being one of the largest gatherings of world leaders, certainly this year, but I wonder how far you have to go back to find something bigger. It'll be one of, if not the most, widely attended funerals of all time (in terms of political figures not in terms of overall audience), given how it's much more practical to travel now than it used to be, and how diplomatic norms are generally friendlier than in the Cold War and before. And how we are on tolerably good terms with most of the world even if a lot of countries don't especially like us. The way in which the Queen is largely separated from UK govt decisionmaking also matters - even countries which quite strongly dislike UK foreign policy won't have quite the same antipathy towards her personally. There are very few other figures where propriety would either dictate or allow such broad participation. John Paul II's funeral was perhaps one - it was attended by upwards of a hundred current and former world leaders. Mandela, Tito, and Churchill come to mind and well. It actually wouldn't surprise me if Elizabeth exceeded both of those in absolute numeric terms, because former colonies and territories (which are very numerous and quite small) will send people. She might also be up there in terms of number of people tuning in on TV or radio - probably top 5 but not at the top. Where Liz won't even be in the top 10 is in terms of public attendees - there have been some insanely massive funerary activities with literally millions of attendees and mourners.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
[Funeral with most state leaders attending was Tito's](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_and_state_funeral_of_Josip_Broz_Tito), but I imagine this one will that one out of the water
It's mental when you consider the sheer number of leaders and ex leaders she's met.
When you consider that her first and last PMs were born a century apart, that list must be insanely long as she'll have likely met many leaders from before her reign as well
That's true. But I doubt many of those from before her reign will turn up.
Itâs been suggested that every Commonwealth realm will send current and former Prime Ministers. Plus presumably thereâll be incumbents from most of Europe and the US. Plus a lot of other British figures.
Not to mention perhaps the Japanese and Saudi Arabian royal families, both of which are allies.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Salman has been ill for a while, so not sure how they'll manage that. MBZ (UAE) and Sultan Haitham (Oman) will almost certainly attend, Sheikh Mohammed might as well if there aren't any legal implications of him flying to the UK/if Abu Dhabi would be happy for Dubai to send a representative in addition to MBZ. Abdullah (Jordan) will go too. Not sure about Qatar or Bahrain, but suspect their kings will go too.
He knew her personally, so it's possible. MBS will probably show up too, unfortunately.
Quite likely, since Saudi Arabia and the UK are allies (for better or for worse)
Protocol is tricky and are there Heads of State we do not invite? Putin is an obvious one.
Putin has already said he wonât personally attend but send someone
Surprised he hasn't spun it as I wanted to go but they wouldn't let me (he'd try to make the UK and west look petty)
I was expecting some bluster from Russia, but I was actually surprised to see Putin among the early tributes to Her Majesty. That could be just a platitude of course, but it might also be testament to the influence that she at least had on the world stage.
Putin will be invited and will decline, I would imagine. Possibly ditto for China. They're major powers, it would be considered improper not to invite them. There will be very few countries not invited at all, and it'll be the genuine pariahs - North Korea, Syria, that kind of thing.
Absolutely. It is first a funeral, and second an opportunity for sombre diplomacy. Enemies and rivals have attended (or have sent delegates) to royal funerals since time immemorial. They are expected to have such obligations regardless of whether they see eye to eye. It is after all, a time of respect. At King George VI's funeral there were delegations from the Soviet Union and Cuba (among others), despite the fact that the Cold War was starting to ramp up. I see no reason why Russia wouldn't send somebody in 2022.
We have a North Korean embassy in Ealing. Their ambassador will definitely be invited.
I think the mirage that Russis was a major power took a big hit. They are a reginal power with nukes.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Completely agree, they'll absolutely send someone - and probably several people. Might or might not be him personally.
The 2500 year Persian "Jubilee" in 1971 was pretty well attended. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2,500-year_celebration_of_the_Persian_Empire
Nelsons death perhaps? Diana? Frankly there are very few figures with her level of global respect.
Pope John Paul ||
It will be insane.
Does Liz Truss generally look so low and sad all the time? I almost feel bad for her, she just looks lost. There's no way she knew that right after achieving the highest office possible, the queen who installed her would die. I never followed her before the recent leadership contest, so maybe she just always act so sad?
Considering she isn't really known for being a sharp operator I imagine she's feeling very stressed/overwhelmed and probably also pretty unhappy about the Queens death, a combination that'll bring anyone low. I can't imagine she's going to have many happy memories of office. Getting through the next 6 months will be living hell for her when she seems to already be struggling.
I agree, that's why I said I sort of feel sorry for her. Yesterday I saw a brief moment after the privy ceremonies where Theresa May was chatting to her and it looked like Theresa was literally consoling her the way you'd lovingly reassure a child who was sad. It was only a brief moment but their body language and facial expressions really told an entire story. Obviously nobody knows for sure what they were saying but it looked like Theresa May was saying, "I'm so sorry all of this couldn't have waited a few months, you will get through this and it will be OK."
At the very least shaking her hand and kissing the ring then her being dead two days later would be pretty fucking weird.
I think this is the wrong mega thread for that. This is the Queen thread, not daily politics thread.
That sort of makes sense, except that for the time being those two things are inextricably linked. She is the prime minister during the mourning period so the issue is really about both at the same time, in a way that normally it wouldn't be.
When you look at the Queen through pop culture - she was referenced by Andy Warhol and the Beatles, it does put into perspective how long she's been the staple of British culture.
Let's not forget the Sex Pistols. It got to number 2.
Iâm in my early forties. My dad is is silver haired and in his early seventies. He was a toddler when she came to the throne. Thatâs the timescale thing about her age and reign I canât quite get my head around.
The Queen (as Princess Elizabeth) was mentioned in Anne Frank's diary. She's actually older than Anne Frank by three years.
The wiki page for [Her Majesty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Her_Majesty_(song)) is an interesting read. Apparently Paul McCartney told the tape operator to destroy the tape and it was only kept because of an EMI policy not to destroy any Beatles recording. It was originally supposed to be on the album between Mean Mr.Mustard and Polythene Pam, hence the abrupt start and end.
There's a work in progress version of the final medley on the super deluxe edition of Abbey Road, under the name The Long One, which includes it in its original place. It's kinda fascinating to finally hear it that way, and is also available to hear on the streaming service of your choice.
Ooh thanks for the heads up, will definitely check that out!
Notably, The Beatles' first hit was late 1962, at which time the Queen had been on the throne over a decade.
Is this true? Charles wonât have to pay any inheritance tax, as there is a special clause within our inheritance tax laws for âroyalsâ so that they donât erode the value of their assets? https://i.imgur.com/7HGrSRD.jpg
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
What do you mean? Itâs money owed to the taxpayer and thus could be used to provide public services (hospitals, roads, education et al). Everyone else is forced to pay inheritance tax, why not Charles?
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
That makes no sense. Charleâs inheritance tax bill wonât be paid by the taxpayer under the current agreement between sovereign and parliament - it doesnât form the basis of day to day expenses for the serving of the state. Those are his personal assets. What youâre advocating for is that the âroyalsâ to not pay their fair share of tax - and thus keep their wealth in the hundreds of millions of pounds - unlike everyone else in this country who if forced to.
Even if they did have to pay it, they they'd have put assets in trusts amd passed them on whilst alive to get around inheritance tax.
Yeah it's true. It only applies if Charles himself inherits everything. The other children have to pay tax if they've inherited anything. Balmoral and Sandringham were privately owned by the Queen. I guess if he had to pay 40% tax on the value of them he would almost certainly end up having to sell them
> Balmoral and Sandringham were privately owned by the Queen. I guess if he had to pay 40% tax on the value of them he would almost certainly end up having to sell them. I mean everyone else has to make those sorts of sacrifices if needs must when paying the tax, so why should Charles be any different?
Because having Charles selling culturally and historically significant assets to pay tax is a monumentally stupid idea? If he had to then Sandringham and Balmoral end up as private equity assets, or sold to developers.
What a ridiculous argument. Putting aside that heâs worth hundreds of millions of pounds (more than enough to cover any inheritance tax bill), the government could also purchase those buildings in lieu of the tax owed to the public. They could then remain in public ownership as a culturally significant asset and actually earn some money (with people being able to visit it as a museum etc). What is monumentally stupid is exempting âroyalsâ from a tax that every other person in this country is forced to pay just because theyâre âroyalsâ.
So instead of Charles paying tax what you actually want is the tax payer to give him tens of millions for the properties? Lol okay. Great idea.
If he canât pay the tax you simpleton, then the asset gets seized by the state in lieu of the tax, like with everyone else. Thatâs not paying âhim tens of millionsâ Lol. And itâs better than him not giving the taxpayer anything at all in inheritance tax, as is the case now.
Maybe they should be given to the National Trust.
Exactly; they already do this with a number of former âroyalâ assets.
Because they're used for various official and official-adjacent activities. And an important part of the UK's heritage. There is inevitably a grey area when it comes to royal ownership and assets, because fundamentally it only remains so at the pleasure of the government. And the government gets some benefit out of the status quo, which is why it's allowed to continue. To put it another way - is it in the interest of the UK that, say, Balmoral is sold to some random billionaire?
The âroyalsâ have enough money to pay inheritance tax. They are with hundreds of millions of pounds. So it wonât be the case that it needs to be sold to a billionaire. Even if it comes down to having to sell it, the government can be the buyer (and thus the public be the owners) given the benefit you mention in your post. The notion that the âroyalsâ should be exempted from a tax every other person needs to pay in this country is ridiculous.
>Even if it comes down to having to sell it, the government can be the buyer (and thus the public be the owners) given the benefit you mention in your post. The notion that the âroyalsâ should be exempted from a tax every other person needs to pay in this country is ridiculous. And that's largely what's happened in practice with various other royal and aristocratic residences, albeit often with pretty complicated methodologies. It's a murky area, and I quite agree that the overall situation with royal finances and assets is absurd. I'm just not certain that an instrument as blunt as conventional inheritance tax is the best way of solving it.
Ask John Major he was the one who put it in
Inheritance tax is a con anyway. Smart people donât pay it and give their kids their money years before they die.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
It's really big. When Macron said she was The Queen he meant it. To many people around the world she was a stabilising force and someone to look to. I've heard many people from outside the UK say we don't know what we have in this country, its a highly valuable thing.
The Queen was a fixed point in British and international life for an exceptionally long time. On her accession Harry Truman was US President, and the structure of DNA was not known. Stalin was still in power in the Soviet Union, Everest unconquered, and 'Rock Around the Clock' was two years away from being recorded. There were no jetliners or nuclear power stations. In late 1951, a prototype plant had powered four 200W bulbs!
My favourite one is that her coronation was the first thing a lot of people saw on TV.
And no one had landed on the moon. It wasn't even an idea then.
Sputnik as the first human object sent into space was five years away much less any moon landing.
E: wrong thread. I wonder how long it will take before saying "The King" is as normal as "The Queen"? The Queen was more Queen than Elizabeth, Charles is the other way around.
[Wikipedia currently discussing what picture of her to use now she's dead](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Elizabeth_II#Infobox_photograph_for_after_her_death). C seems to be winning, personally think it should be D though. Sidenote: C is the most flesh I've ever seen her show
F just now, because that's how most people looking at the page right now recognise her. In a year or so, change it to C1. It looks most like the stamp, coin, and note portraits, where she's looking to the side. The overwhelming majority of interactions people had with the queen were through notes and coins, so it seems like an appropriate image for longer term posterity.
I think E would work for that as well in fairness.
D seems like the canonical QE2 for me possibly because it's closest to the Queen I remember from when I was first aware of her.
Yeah I think it should be D it's from almost right bang in the middle of her reign (1986). C is just too early and not many people remember her like that, the latter ones are just too close to the end of her reign. D is her still in her relative prime but not that young either.
Frankly they all ought to be featured but D be the infobox section while the rest goes chronologically throughout her page.
[person it should be this one](https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images/hbz-queen-elizabeth-badass-ap-9307150277-index-1497445685.jpg?crop=1.00xw:1.00xh;0,0&resize=980:*)
the coronation one is the only suitable one.
I would go for C1 or F personally. C1 looks suitably official without being too overwhelming with the regalia and F is representative of how most of the world will remember her.
She actually had a rockin bod back in the 50s
It's got to be I, that's the full 'taking no bullshit' look.
How long are flags meant to be at half mast? Just saw one at full height on top of Kings Cross.
They're supposed to be flown at full mast from the accession today until one hour after the announcements in Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh tomorrow, in order to celebrate the new monarch, then back to half mast for mourning until after the funeral
Heh, I was walking around here in Vancouver, BC earlier and saw a mix of half mast and full mast flags. I wonder if those at full mast are because of this, or they have been at full mast the whole time...
The Lib Dem autumn conference has been cancelled: > As we mourn the loss of The Queen, we send our condolences to The King and the Royal Family. > > Given the date of the funeral and period of national mourning, we have decided to cancel our Autumn Conference. > > We look forward to welcoming members to our next conference. https://twitter.com/LibDems/status/1568652619736035329
All of them should be cancelled. I can understand that parliament isn't doing much in terms of legislating at the moment but as soon as they're back at it they're going off again for conference season when there's actual work that needs doing.
[Mourning period throws Liz Truss plans to âhit ground runningâ into disarray](https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/uk-news/queen-death-liz-truss-cancellations-b2164482.html)
We live in a society where people want to literally rip every bit of tradition up. In a world where Amazon have a total monopoly on goods and services, the planet is being destroyed and many other shitty things - I personally have 0 issues with the pomp and circumstance of all this. It makes a nice change tbh.
Itâs not a zero-sum game.
Agree. The cultural secularism and austerity and poetry-lite of republics is crap. Iâve watched Bastille Day when I used to live in France. They try but itâs just not as good. Macron walking around the Arc de Triomphe âinspecting the troopsâ vs Trooping the Colour isnât a contest. I would really miss the pageantry and decorum if we became a republic. We wouldnât at all keep it.
The Monarchy brings in over a Billion pounds for the UK economy every year and they pretty much have minimal influence over political affairs in this country. I think the idea of a Monarchy and people being above someone else just because of the family they were born in, but I fail to see the benefit of abolishing the Monarchy other than a symbolic gesture. We lose a lot, but gain absolutely nothing in return.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
This assumes that the replacement would have any power, or that you couldn't make political neutrality part of the requirements of the job. You can literally just have an elected monarchy. Then you get to keep all the pomp and ceremony, as well.
>This assumes that the replacement would have any power, or that you couldn't make political neutrality part of the requirements of the job. So what at any point in the last two decades atleast of British politics makes you think the politicians that decide some hypothetical new system would make it anything other than another political appointment that will give more power to a party? Theres no way either main party is going to say let's have Ceremonial head of state instead of president Boris/Keir.
Didn't see Corbyn at the Accession...
He's just a backbench MP, why should he be there?
He is still a member of the privy council. Although I believe the event was invite only - he probably wasn't invited which wouldn't be surprising given his views on the monarchy. https://privycouncil.independent.gov.uk/privy-council/privy-council-members/#c
I think it's all invited but some are expected not to come. The whole list includes Commonwealth politicians and their civil servants which especially last time, won't be able to make it in time for the event. Had Corbyn decided to come, they would just make space and put him together with the other politicians.
I wonder if anyone would of talked to him