Queen Elizabeth II, the UK’s monarch for the past 70 years, has died aged 96

[China]

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

I think what fascinates me is that she essentially had a front-row ticket to the last 80 years of human history and a backstage pass to the last 70. Even though she didn't make many decisions or even really have too much influence, what a unique position to be in. I'm envious of that, more than anything else. 

[Die Hard]

2 hours ago, China said:

So what does our resident Canadian @Die Hard think?

 

Farewell to Prince Charles, the man who may not be king

 

Prince Charles did the best he could. He spoke to climate change, as he has so often done before. He praised Canada’s participation in the war over Ukraine. He watched in appreciation as the RCMP performed its fabled musical ride.

 

In short, he did everything a constitutional monarch should.

 

Alas, it was almost certainly not enough. Charles visited Canada this week as heir to his mother’s throne. But there is no guarantee that when Queen Elizabeth II dies he will inherit that throne to become the King of Canada.

 

Canada could decide to do away with the Crown as a significant element of the country’s Constitution, and turn itself into a republic.

 

Charles could be ignored and treated as irrelevant.

 

Diehard anti-monarchists would be thrilled if any of these scenarios came to pass. But not me. In fact, I’d be a little sad to see Charles go.

 

Partly that’s because he seems so familiar — like an old sock. He seems well-meaning but dull.

 

The only time I ever spoke to him — at a press event in Vancouver — he seemed vaguely baffled by the whole thing.

 

And I rather like the fact that, in these odd times, Canada relies on something as anachronistic as hereditary monarchy.

 

There is no question that the monarchy has worked for Canada. It gives us a head of state who is close enough to be personal, yet remote enough to be irrelevant.

 

Countries like the U.S. and France treat their elected heads of state with great reverence. Canadians respect their monarchical heads of state. But they don’t revere them.

 

I think this is rather healthy.

 

If I had my druthers, Canada would keep the monarchy after the Queen’s death for the very practical reason that it works.

 

Click on the link for more

Honestly, I don’t really have anything fresh or relevant to add. I’d add that I share many of the thoughts/opinions already expressed within this thread.

[tshile]

I would be such an awesome king

 

 

[China]

40 minutes ago, tshile said:

I would be such an awesome king

 

 

 

[86 Snyder]

[Captain Wiggles]

54 minutes ago, tshile said:

I would be such an awesome king

 

 

 

 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Canada already has a king.

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

4 hours ago, Destino said:

I’m not a fan of monarchies, because well … their history is essentially a succession of horrors.  There’s a reason we did away with them.  This queen wasn’t without significance to progress though, even if unwilling.  She famously stayed silent on important issues of the day because of her own sense of duty, but symbols have power all the same.  A  powerful woman existing with her husband forced to trail along behind her is a potent symbol that came at an important time.  She was always there, alongside the most powerful men in the western world who had no good options other than to graciously accept her presence.  I think that mattered.  It doesn’t give her credit for what feminists accomplished, but it holds significance all the same.  

This you?

 

 

[Destino]

1 hour ago, PleaseBlitz said:

This you?

 

Yes.  

[The Evil Genius]

 

[Captain Wiggles]

Well he's not my king. I didn't vote for him. 

 

King Charles III The Search for Charles 🖖🏻

[BleedBNG]

 

 

[TheGreatBuzz]

Colbert was apparently tapped before she died.  Fallon hasn't mentioned it at all yet.  But did mention the football game.

[TradeTheBeal!]

 

[Going Commando]

I find myself sad that she is gone.  My condolences to our British brethren here on the forums.  She was the Tom Brady of Queens.  Or perhaps Tom Brady is the Queen Elizabeth II of quarterbacks?

[Going Commando]

17 hours ago, Destino said:

I’m not a fan of monarchies, because well … their history is essentially a succession of horrors.

 

Not always, and for a vast majority of the history of civilization, the alternative systems of government were usually worse.  Monarchy was how humanity got from anarchic strong man systems that were just loosely organized banditry at scale to the concept that political power and the monopolization of force should be institutionally based.  And the early history of Republican government was mostly chaotic and plagued by instability and institutional weakness in many parts of the world.  During that time, people living in Monarchies often enjoyed more justice, stability, and prosperity in their societies.

 

By the standards of history, the United States was born from a particularly functional and liberal Monarchy, and flourished and grew into a state of self-sufficiency under that system of government.  And we got lucky that our transition to a Republic was successful and developed its own institutional strengths and norms, and did so by following the example of quintessentially British traditions and systems of law and society and government.  The British Monarchy birthed a better Republic than almost any other example of wide scale representative government in human history.  And I think the British people today enjoy one of the best governments and ways of life in the world.  I mean they've got to be top ten globally right?

[Dan T.]

 

[Yohan]

[China]

 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

4 hours ago, Going Commando said:

 

Not always, and for a vast majority of the history of civilization, the alternative systems of government were usually worse.  Monarchy was how humanity got from anarchic strong man systems that were just loosely organized banditry at scale to the concept that political power and the monopolization of force should be institutionally based.  And the early history of Republican government was mostly chaotic and plagued by instability and institutional weakness in many parts of the world.  During that time, people living in Monarchies often enjoyed more justice, stability, and prosperity in their societies.

 

By the standards of history, the United States was born from a particularly functional and liberal Monarchy, and flourished and grew into a state of self-sufficiency under that system of government.  And we got lucky that our transition to a Republic was successful and developed its own institutional strengths and norms, and did so by following the example of quintessentially British traditions and systems of law and society and government.  The British Monarchy birthed a better Republic than almost any other example of wide scale representative government in human history.  And I think the British people today enjoy one of the best governments and ways of life in the world.  I mean they've got to be top ten globally right?

 

This is very well said! 

 

The leniency with which the colonies were governed and, ultimately, the relative ease with which they were permitted to separate from Great Britain provide examples of how progressive the monarchy had evolved even by the late-18th century. It wasn't a ruthless, land hungry empire. Of course, that existed because it was run by humans...just as our democratic republic is. But, overall, if Great Britain truly wanted to maintain control of North America, it would have. Even with "a monarchy" they continued to improve upon a system of Western government that is the basis of the free world's today. 

[Renegade7]

Apparently her son, and the new King, is very opinionated on things like climate change and will not appear nearly as neutral on important issues as his mother did.

 

That feels Iike a breath of fresh air...

 

What kind of monarch will King Charles III be? Different from his mum.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/09/09/how-will-king-charles-rule/

[China]

Nations plotting to abandon the monarchy after Queen Elizabeth’s death

 

The death of Queen Elizabeth marks the start of King Charles’ reign – but a string of countries are now poised to turn their backs on him.

 

Last November, the Caribbean island nation of Barbados became the world’s latest republic after officially removing Queen Elizabeth as its head of state, following in the footsteps of Mauritius, which did the same back in 1992.

 

The Queen was also removed as head of state in Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and Dominica in the 1970s, and Fiji in 1987.

 

The government of neighbouring Jamaica has also announced plans to transition towards a republic in 2025.

 

And here in Australia, the republican movement has also seen a renewed push in recent years, with the cause getting a major boost with the election of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, who appointed MP Matt Thistlethwaite to the new role of Assistant Minister the Republic.

 

So what does it all mean for the future of the Commonwealth, and for King Charles’ reign?

 

There are now 54 member states of the Commonwealth, but just 15 of those still have the monarch as their head of state.

 

They include Australia, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands, The Bahamas and Tuvalu and the UK.

 

The republican movement appears to be especially strong in the Caribbean, with the Bahamas’ former attorney general Sean McWeeney stating last year that it was “inevitable” the nation would follow Barbados’ lead.

 

Also last year, Belize’s Minister Constitutional and Political Reform, Henry Charles Usher, reportedly told parliament: “Perhaps it is time for Belize to take the next step in truly owning our independence. But it is a matter that the people of Belize must decide on.”

 

Meanwhile, Mikael Phillips, an opposition member of Jamaica’s parliament, said on Thursday local time he believed the death of Queen Elizabeth could hasten the transition to a republic.

 

Click on the link for the full article

[Est.1974]

On 9/8/2022 at 8:01 PM, Corcaigh said:

Probably not the time for Royal-lovers but The Queen chose the establishment over her people. Many of the demons of the past have never been laid to rest.

 

As one example, this year we had the 50th anniversary of the Bogside Massacre (aka Bloody Sunday) where British paratroops murdered 14 unarmed civil rights protestors in Derry. The Queen's response was to decorate the commander of the brigade responsible with an OBE at the first opportunity in the New Year's Honours in 1973, and later to make Charles colonel-in-chief of the paratroop regiment.

Plenty of demons on both sides of the water.

 

Edited September 9, 2022 by Est.1974

[88Comrade2000]