Queen Elizabeth II.... this is not what you're expecting.....

Sure, Jan.

It is 420 indeed.

R2 ?????

That gal knew her spuds!

[bold]Queen Elizabeth II.... this is not what you're expecting.....[/bold]

Yeah, I though she was in a vault, not Dubai

Lady was handed everything and was reasonably polite to the rest of humanity (which she couldn’t possibly have begun to relate to). Hooray!

OP, Opinions are like —-holes, everyone has one.

The threads keep coming even after she's been dead well over a year.

I liked the old girl and wouldn’t have taken her job for anything.

R4 — she knew her spuds, and also could play a mean banjo! She knew all the old songs. This is why she was the best.

Where’s the parsley, R4?

How very dare you speak ill of Her majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Hers was a constitutional monarchy. She fulfilled her role to perfection. And in truth, all the oversharing from the succeeding generations leaves me somewhat cold.

va-va-voom

Queenie was a PAWG!

I’d spank dat trunk, even with them freaky deek arms!

r3, OP must be high.

R13 Same photographer who did the Kate photos?

She was literally a figurehead. She cut ribbons and cakes, and she shook hands and listened to people prattling. But she held no real conversations that I know of with her people. William or Charles or Catherine or Anne will make a remark, answer a question, but Her Majesty never did. If you were concerned about Phil she'd smile and nod. That was it. Her repertoire: Smile and nod. People marvelled that "she never put a foot wrong..." no she didn't. Because she was totally low key and mechanical. We all invested pretensions of importance in a little old lady that simply werev not justified.

R13 what the…?!

[quote]what the…?!

What, r18?

The queen very rarely asked a question and she never invited conversations.

You’d be surprised how much restrain and effort it takes to live, work, and act for as long as she did without saying anything stupid that could have had enormous diplomatic ramifications.

None of us would last a year.

Soft diplomacy.

[quote]all the oversharing from the succeeding generations leaves me somewhat cold

I hate to break it to you honey, but you were never what one could call warm.

OP = Wallis Simpson from the grave.

She must have had some personality. She suppressed it almost entirely, I assume because she put her role above herself. For almost her entire life.

People like to image that we all have huge potential, but most of us don’t. QE at least had the sense to not reveal her limitations (whatever they were).

The idea that the other members of the BRF are happier now is bizarre. Two probably on their way out and the next king shouldering the prospect of taking on everything by himself prematurely while re-living his mother’s death in slow motion through his children. Yeah, sounds like a party!

[quote] The queen very rarely asked a question and she never invited conversations.

Where did you get that from? You pulled that out of thin air, and it's just not true at all. In fact, it's the INVERSE of the truth.

Royal protocol means that no one is supposed to initiate conversations with the monarch for public social occasions unles they are already on intimate terms with them. So all the queen did at social gatherings and meet-and-greets and walkabouts was to ask people questions (and initiate conversations) about what they did for a living.

She had a great ass but it couldn’t go on forever.

Queen Elizabeth II was an extraordinary monarch. If she hadn't kept the monarchy together (along with Prince Philip) then the British would have ended the monarchy years ago. The Queen was almost perfect in fulfilling her role and took her duty seriously. If you felt nothing for her, OP, then that's you. Judging by the crowds who paid respect at her lying in state and all the people who attended her funeral, left flowers or Paddington bears, were genuinely touched by her reign and her loss many, many people disagree with your assessment of the Queen.

Her speech about the pandemic was amazing and actually made me feel better during that terrible time. Whatever negative feelings you have about the Queen are your own, not a general view that people have at all. She also spent 70 years of her life asking people questions and chatting with them. She did that all the time.

You are supposed to feel that way, R28. That’s what makes you a mark for a grifter nepo gang.

Sure, Jan.

She was of a different time, OP, and became Queen very young. She also adapted and enabled the monarchy to thrive at times when it should have disappeared. I think she was an admirable person. And the British public agree with me as evidenced by her funeral.

By her funeral that they paid for?

R28 she had a lot of help from a media operation that built her up, and manipulated public opinion in her favor. MArgaret was the wild one, Andrew was wild, Anne rode horses and Charles was a cheater. But ER II was above all of it. like a mannequin. Of course she'd ask a question. Then listen to a brief answer and move on. No one said she wasn't polite. But that's all she was.

R33 here. I love Charles. He is warm and friendly and emotional and very human but he still is King. He is exactly what is needed and it's too bad we had to wait so long for it.

R34 = Camilla with a fag in her mouth and a gin between her fingers.

Please, it took a grand total one year after she left for the whole fucking enterprise to turn to shit.

She and Phillip kept that entire shit show together by shear force of their arthritic, geriatric will.

She was the head of state not a political prime minister expressing opinions. We are used to those function being combined in a President but many countries, even non royal ones, divide that role. She did the job assigned impeccably and was respected worldwide, including by all US Presidents. It is unlikely there will be another like her anywhere.

Oh, I don't know. Her sister Margaret was a trainwreck, and after she divorced Antony Armstrong Jones she had her very public flings and lay abouts in the Caribbean. Andrew was a Pedo with an ex wife who lived with him, as he chased after the young stuff. Diana and Charles had a very public, very embarrassing divorce, Windsor Castle damned near burned down, and all of this before Harry said, Adios! That stuff all happened during her reign.Oh, forgot to mention Edward and Sophie's mini scandal. Since Charles has been king,, both he and Catherine, Princess of Wales were diagnosed with cancer. One can hardly claim this was a problem of their own creation. Illness is not something one plans for. The soap opera dramas happened on her watch.

I agree with you, OP (well, until the But Charles part). She was a monarch for decades and her role was absolutely passive. There was never an opinion, an intervention, a claim on the side of fairness or justice. I perfectly understand that some people look at this with admiration and as a sort of diplomacy. I see it has an absolute irrelevancy. The Crown tried to give her depth, but it was a struggle.

Personally, given the results of her children, her family management was abismal, with the wrong interventions and omissions. Lastly, this was a woman whose great emotional showdown was when her boat or yatch or whatever was put to rest.

She built this city...

Her greatest challenge was living down the trashy behavior of her offspring.

All grifters, cut their heads off please, the new set of grifters aren't even interesting, just trashy.

[quote]Oh, forgot to mention Edward and Sophie's mini scandal.

You also forgot that Edward left the fold for a career in “show business.” It must have been very difficult for her to accept that her son was being paid by Andrew Lloyd Webber.

And those theatrical parties attended by many homosexualists. Michael Ball may have sang beautifully but one cannot bear to think where else that mouth may have been.

R33, how many times did you actually meet with the Queen? Your extensive personal knowledge, hostility and obsession with the royal family indicates that you must have met HM many times over the years of her reign. Apparently you are also very close to all the members of the family. It's fascinating.

[quote] Personally, given the results of her children, her family management was abismal,

Speaking of "abismal"...

Prince Philip ran the family, the Queen had enough to do being Queen. Besides, she had to give him some power in the family.

For many people, QE was always there and she became this grandmotherly figure. Age and time washes away a great many mistakes and covers a great many flaws. Her biggest mistake was probably not letting Charles marry Camilla from the jump, thus avoiding years of pain, but in these these types of situations you live and you learn.

R44 you must not read anything regarding the RF. I said nothing that wasn't public knowledge. I'm not hostile. I just feel now that she is gone, and time is passing a true assessment of her reign will not credit her with too much beyond longevity.

Her longevity is the point, child. Never mind, you don't know anyone or anything so discussing this with you is pointless.

Have a nice day.

Didn't she heavily lobby for Brexit? Racist cunt.

R50 she did nothing specific about Brexit as I recall. Her public comment after the vote, was that they had survived before Brexit and they would survive after it. She relied on her government and PM to deal with it.

It would have been better if she had not become queen until the proper time, upon the death of Edward VIII.

[quote] Didn't she heavily lobby for Brexit?

No. Not even close. She said nothing whatsoever about it.

She disliked Thatcher and loathed Boris Johnson.

She disliked Thatcher so much that she made her a Baroness and attended her state-like funeral, something she’d only done once (Churchill’s funeral)

Eh, she was fine. She cared about horses and dog, her kids, the country and her husband in that order. She wore sensible headscarves and tweed. That’s more less what she was supposed to do so she was fine. She stayed in her lane.

Stayed in her lane full of free money and castles, what a champ.

[quote]She cared about horses and dog, her kids, the country and her husband in that order.

🤔🤔🤔

I think the order was

1. Horses

2. Dogs

3. Country

4. Andrew

5. Philip

6. Her Grandchildren

7. Anne/Edward

8. Balmoral

9. Anything else

10. Charles

[quote]Now that she's been dead for a while I have to confess, I don't think she was a very good Queen. She was a cipher. People projected a lot, invested a lot in her outward behavior, but basically she seemed deeply ordinary. Nothing much to her at all.

As soon as the smoke from the funeral clears, we're all going to see -- and how! -- she did NOTHING for years.

she drank a lot at lunch

Why was Andrew her favorite?

Why did the Queen Mother stop at two children? Surely the third child would have been a boy. She failed in her duty. She should have gone a third round for England, but then again she was Scottish so she wasn’t going to do any more for England than was absolutely necessary.

This quote by Robert Lacey says it best:

“The queen’s personal view is to stay out of politics,” said Robert Lacey, a royal historian and historical consultant on Netflix series “The Crown.” “It’s her nature to be shy. It’s her nature not to intervene. She doesn't believe it’s the constitutional monarch’s role to make interventions, to change the rules or change things.”

[quote]I will go so far as to say Elizabeth II was an old stick in the mud bound to tradition and stifling in her rigidity.

No one checked to see if the little girl was okay, after the soldier accidentally smacked her in the face.

The British Monarch has two major responsibilities: 1) to be an apolitical figure head to the nation 2) Ensure you are not the last monarch. On both accounts, it's safe to say Queen Elizabeth II succeeded.

The reality is Queen Elizabeth II was not a particularly imaginative or outgoing person which is probably how she survived 70 years in the same role without going stark raving mad. Also she was highly pragmatic and the monarchy changed considerably over her reign, but did so at an almost imperceptible pace.

Those "complaining" about her longevity clearly miss the point of the only real major selling point of monarchy which is continuity: governments come and go, society changes, but the monarch is a fixed point. The truth is, she became more popular the longer she was on the throne. Given how much society changed over those 70 years, it's amazing that the monarchy not only has survived, but that republicanism in the UK is till only around 25%.

I think if we're going to be critical of Queen Elizabeth II, it's probably in her parenting skills. I think some of the problems the monarchy has faced is down to her and [to a much lesser extent] Philip's indulgence of their children. People close to the Queen used to say she was like an ostrich and when problem with her children arose, she's bury her head until the situation was irretrievable and she had no choice but to act.

r43/Princess Michael- Tell us about your daughter-in-law.

There is no shit-show going on, fools. Certainly not compared to the past.

The King and the Princess of Wales having cancer isn't a result of post-Elizabeth and post-Philip activities. The latter two family heads, misreading their own times (largely because of the interminable influence of the Bowes-Lyon woman lingering 20 years too long, after her superb-ish performance over the years of her own term as a Queen Elizabeth), permitted the circumstances that led to much of today's trouble.

Responsibility for the appalling influence of the pederast and plotting Dickie Mountbatten over Charles, the Diana catastrophe, the Margaret catastrophes, the Andrew catastrophes, the Edward military problem, and the Harry catastrophe all land on Elizabeth's and Philip's deposited heads first.

The "House of Windsor" phony-bourgeois strategy to remake the status of the Royal family into the nation's moral/family symbols has been a cynical grab for the appearance of relevance. No one in the past would have considered royals as being paragons of commonplace virtues. But since Elizabeth's death Charles has been as steadfast as he could be, and now he's ill with at least a public uncertainty about his prognosis. The same is true for the Princess of Wales. Andrew is creeping back in family terms. Harry remains as foul as the Duke of Windsor and his wife is much worse than the Duchess of Windsor. That ain't Charles' fault at this point.

[Quote] She was literally a figurehead.

“Literally?” How did they keep her tied to the mast, and how did they clean all the brine off of her?

Look. She was herself. An anachronism. She did exactly what she was taught, and what was expected of her, even though her longevity indicated to her that as the times changed so should the role of monarch. A dictate she flatly refused to go along with. It is the public who infused her with all kinds of interpretations. And it was the media who gave us this sweet benign woman who was literally an empty suit. The Media can make you believe anything apparently.

R55, apart from your rhetorical error (Being able to say something does not make it convincing.), Elizabeth was an objectively and intentionally detached monarch when it came to doing what she needed to do. She never was so base or "entitled" as to shirk her responsibilities because of her own opinions. It was right, given the broadest political and longest historical circumstances, for her to do what she did with the baronetcy and funeral. I loathed Thatcher but in Elizabeth's position it was the thing to do. Watch that faulty logic based on the baldest fallacy of si dico, verum est.

Excuse my verbosity. I should just have typed, "Duh."

Williams so happy with the post Elizabeth era that he’s found a way to work even less while getting paid more then ever. Kate, pre cancer was an equally lazy cow. Camilla is the only one having a good time.

Her thumb was so green that day...

[quote]She doesn't believe it’s the constitutional monarch’s role to make interventions, to change the rules or change things.

I know it didn't start with her, but can anyone reasonably argue that the UK is better off without an empowered monarch taking an active part in government? There are a lot of issues that Queen Elizabeth could have taken care of, and some that Charles could, certainly better than the elected government.

Everyone wants to forget or ignore that the monarch apparently has secret veto power over laws that imperil their profits. She was plenty involved in governing.

Queen’s consent

R55. The Queen did what was asked and expected of her. The fact that she attended Thatcher’s funeral is no more an indication of personal friendship than her hosting of Cesusescu. She hosted Ceausescu because she was asked to and was expected to. Same with Thatcher.

R74. Well, if the Guardian says it’s a problem, it must be. It has no history of being hyperbolic and irrelevant.

The Queen also gave Thatcher the Order of Merit, a major honor that is entirely at the monarch's personal discretion and then other ministers or parties are discouraged from advocating for. I don't know that she liked Thatcher (it seems generally agreed upon that they did not get along easily), but she clearly respected her when all was said and done.

I have never read anything that says the Queen disliked Boris Johnson. She seems to have thought him a charming rogue.

So it’s “fake news” R76?

How’s this?

R76. Yes. Thank you for the succinct summary.

[quote]I don't know that she liked Thatcher (it seems generally agreed upon that they did not get along easily), but she clearly respected her when all was said and done.

I think everyone, whether they like her or not, respect her or not, or agree or disagree with her policies, has to agree that Thatcher had a huge impact on the history of the country in the 20th century, and her legacy continues into the 21st. The Queen would have to acknowledge that as well.

The Guardian wouldn’t know how to survive without the monarchy. They like to pretend that they are as edgy and brave as the people who stormed the Bastille, but the abolition of the monarchy is a parlour discussion in today’s time. The monarchy provides a topic that their deeply stupid journalists can comment on while complimenting themselves on how bold and progressive they are. If you think current British legislation reflects in any degree the personal preferences of Elizabeth II, that is moronic.

Yeah yeah yeah

I can't recall where, but I read that ERII's privately expressed concerns about Thatcher were that her nationalization efforts were too draconian, adversely affecting too many people, as well as her laissez-faire to friendly attitude toward South Africa's apartheid regime.

Fake news

Blah blah blah

Etc etc etc

R87 The Express article explicitly references the Guardian. You’re not advancing the case beyond the Guardian link.

You are right, R88, I’m just a pawn of the vast anti-monarchical conspiracy.

R89. No. You’re just dim.

Not dim enough to stan for lazy royals.

I’m not supporting them. I’m just pointing out how stupid and mindless the Guardian’s republican arguments are. The Electoral College has vastly more anti-democratic effect than the monarchy has in the last 100 years.

It’s fine to oppose the monarchy. Just don’t make up dim and hyperbolic arguments to support your position.

So the queen has never used that consent clause?

It’s OK because she was a nice old granny and did not abuse the privilege?

I’m pointing out that there is a major western country that is so stuck in the past that it has retained an 18th century institution that thwarts the will of the people. And that country is the United States, not the United Kingdom. The effect of this quaint, archaic institution—the Electoral College—- is difficult to exaggerate. Without it, it is unlikely the second gulf war would have been fought. Without it , abortion would almost certainly remain legal throughout the United States. Probably US gun laws would be entirety different without its existence. You would Street gale mightily to find any influence so significant and malign of the British monarchy in the last hundred it even 200 years.

Despite these glaring facts, you are appalled that the monarch of the United Kingdom retains theoretical powers to affect legislation despite the absence of any evidence that this power has been used in a hundred years or more in any way that affects the lives of ordinary British citizen. Perhaps it has been used occasionally for the personal benefit of the sovereign with minuscule or absolutely no effect on the British public—-you don’t know and I don’t know.

The question you should ask yourself is why this theoretical and practically unimportant power matters to you. First, it probably matters to you because you are dim and the idea that someone should inherit power by birth is offensive, which it is if it were true. Second , it interests you because you are fascinated by the royal family—-which is one of the main arguments for its retention. Third, it feeds an irrational sense of national superiority in your part.

She was cunning as a fox. Remember the Paul Burrell saga

No, mostly I’m annoyed when people reflexively badmouth the Guardian. I’m convinced that they could break the story of the second coming and people like you would ignore it. I’m not a Grauniad fan, but it’s hilarious when they pull out a real story (Panama Papers, Snowden, queens consent) and people about fake news. It’s sad, actually.

Complain about fake news

R97’ They kovj it because it is so frequently ridiculous. I’m generally on the left, but you would have to be blind to deny that it often reads as a moronic parody.

Absolutely, yes.

Compared to what OP? Actually I think the biggest sham of a monarch was Queen Victoria - that bitch has her name on so much stuff around the world and she really didn't do ANYTHING. Fat, dreary, depressed over-eater.

At least Lizzie got out there and had a relatively strenuous work schedule. Vicky didn't do much at all. And she was an icy detached bitch to her kids.

She did hate pirates, though, R101.

She spoke to the prime minister on a weekly basis and tried to keep him/her from behaving too insanely.

If you get rid of King's Consent, then there is no point in retaining the monarchy. The King has to have some power to justify the monarchy's existence.

R104. You could easily get rid of it. Essentially all the prerogatives of the Swedish monarch have been stripped.

IOW, you wanted her to be an outspoken activist for whatever causes you support, OP. No thanks.

She did her role and did it well.

And Charles is doing a shitty job when it comes to his actual role, even if you like his outspokenness on climate change or whatever the hell.

R106 Charles is undergoing treatment for cancer. Aside from that I think he has been doing a great job, and all the senior members of the RF seem to have been doing more substantive work. Camilla is a champion of women who have experienced domestic violence. She is also big on writing and reading and books. Charles of course has the environmental issues, but he is also extremely supportive on local businesses, economic development and serving under privileged youth. The King's Trust is something he can be very proud of. Now I am curious to know what specifically makes you say he is doing a shitty job? Whether he means it or not, Charles seems to convey warmth and kindness when he interacts with the public, and Camilla has surpassed my expectations. She is really doing a very commendable job.

R57, yes. That is her lane, plus dogs and horses.

I agree with OP completely and I'm surprised by my own mindset change as well. Her death drove home the point that British monarchs are tourist attractions, nothing more. About the only thing they're good for is shoring up morale during war time, and even that's not really relevant anymore.

[quote]You could easily get rid of it. Essentially all the prerogatives of the Swedish monarch have been stripped.

r105, I didn't state it "couldn't" be done. I stated that there would be no point in retaining the monarchy if the King's Consent was scrapped.

R95 You forgot that BRITISH people for all practical purposes, developed the concept of the Electoral College, so your disgust is just like I would expect of a British cunt, go suck a Muslim dick.

Please, gentle drunk man at r111, could you please elucidate your points, I'm sure I'm not the only person who would appreciate following your reasoning and concomitant states that might have influenced your apparently rigid opinions. You might actually bring some points to the table, which I'd appreciate hearing.

R111 isn’t today a school day, do your parents know you are skiving?

[quote]OP, Opinions are like —-holes, everyone has one.

R7 - you can say ass on Datalounge you silly cunt.

“shoring up morale during war time”

I understood that when the queen gave that address during the Covid shutdown. She ended it with “we will meet again”. I dunno, she said it with such surety, I believed her. (Imagine if she had caught it then, before vaccines, and succumbed, I think everyone would have really freaked out bad)

R109, the British monarch is head of state. Do you know what that means?

R109. I assume you’re American?

I understand that the British monarch is head of state. But it is clear from the Robert Lacey comment at R62, that Elizabeth II decided not to exercise much influence in her capacity as head of state. IMO, to most of the rest of the world outside the Commonwealth, the Queen was a celebrity. So not much was required in terms of her popularity. But I do believe she was very much governed by advisors she trusted implicitly. And they were traditionalists and very conservative in their approach to things. She tread very carefully when adapting to new ways of doing things. IMO again, the irony is that so many people credit her with "saving the monarchy" after her father died, as the everyone was emerging from WW II, when in reality, her caution and determination to do not much at all, did little to justify the monarchy's existence. I think Charles' interpretation of his role, will do much more to stabilize the monarchy in modern times that his mother did. I do believe Elizabeth II took her religious role very seriously.

I love the picture posted by r13 . All these years and I never noticed that she had 3 arms. Who knew?

[quote] All these years and I never noticed that she had 3 arms.

It’s like the photo of the Queen in bed with the Country Bear Jamboree. Double exposure.

R118. Her decision not to use her influence was consistent with her constitutional role. Are you British? Would you want someone determining policy on the basis of her birth?

She was a celebrity, but she was not just a celebrity. She was a head of state. The world is full of ceremonial heads of states. Do you think they are also purely celebrities?

The head of state is meant to be apolitical, r118, he/she is not meant to "influence" government policy. The monarch does meet regularly with the prime minister in private, however, and has the duty to prevent prime ministers from doing anything unconstitutional in that private capacity.

The monarch and other working royals "influence" in a non-political way through the various humanitarian causes they support. The King/Queen is also a neutral unifying national figure.

If the monarch tried to "influence" things in the political way you suggest then that would be the time to consider abolishing or reforming the monarchy. Even if the monarchy was abolished, then it would still be replaced by a non-political constitutional presidency.

She was pointless.

R123. How so?

I don't understand why the UK still has a House of Lords. Hereditary appointments based on wealth.

R125. Hmm Your American, right? There are two ways of getting a seat in the House of Lords. Wealth is not one of them. But don’t let lack of knowledge deter you from criticizing something.

A lot of people don’t understand why the US still has an electoral college. The House of Lords remains because of inertia. Eliminating it would require effort and a consensus on the replacement. Since the House of Lords, unlike the Electoral College, does very limited harm, it has remained.

[quote]A lot of people don’t understand why the US still has an electoral college.

The US has an electoral college to prevent the majority from forming a dictatorship. It's a weighted system of electing the President. If we didn't have it, California, Texas, New York and Florida would be deciding every presidential election.

R110. Why would there be no point in having a monarchy without royal assent? The only justification for the institution is a prerogative that is never substantively used?

Sweden retained a monarchy without this prerogative. There are a multitude of heads of state without political power. Why is the British monarchy the only one that requires political power to justify its existence?

People conflate the monarchy with Elizabeth II. I said SHE was pointless. I rather like Charles. It is the interpretation of the monarchy she embodied that I feel was pointless. This is not arguable. It is an opinion. I will not change my opinion.

[quote]By her funeral that they paid for?

Who the hell else was supposed to pay for it? It was a state event, she was Head of State of the UK. Of course the taxpayers paid for her funeral.

If the President of the U.S. dies tomorrow, the taxpayers will pay for his state funeral as well. Same as in France, Germany, Canada, etc.

The idea that a person should have influence based purely on birth is arguable. It's stupid and vicious. The Queen was popular because she knew she should influence anything.

R127. I don’t think you know what a dictatorship is.

Is that some argument you lifted from a right wing website?

[quote] Is that some argument you lifted from a right wing website?

No, dear. It's part of the thought process of the Founding Fathers, which you've obviously never studied. The US very specifically did not want what the UK had. Example, Henry VIII changed religions every time he changed wives. That's what a dictator does, forces everyone to follow whatever whim they take on.

R139. Dear god. You’re far gone mentally. It’s difficult to cope with the stupidity of your post.

Just a down to earth gal...

She stayed too long. Her version of the monarchy ended with the 20th century.

If it's hereditary then how can it be an appointment, r125?

Is it true that certain Lords don't have to run for Parliament and that they inherit their constituencies by virtue of being a member of the nobility?

[quote]The US very specifically did not want what the UK had. Example, Henry VIII changed religions every time he changed wives. That's what a dictator does, forces everyone to follow whatever whim they take on.

'kay. Henry VIII changed religions ONCE (Broke from Rome actually). Nothing about the electoral college prevents that or prevents a dictatorship. The checks and balances between congress, the white house and the supreme court are what prevents that.

If there’s one thing that I have learnt from these threads on the DL it is that there is nothing to be gained from trying to educate some American posters about the British monarchy.

They know what they know and, being American, they know that they’re right.

Even when they’re wrong, which is regularly.

UK here.

I am a lifelong, convinced republican, because I believe the status quo is bad for them as well as us.

I don’t understand why Americans would get their knickers in a twist about the complexities of the UK constitution. I didn’t agree with the late Queen’s enormous privilege or position, but she had my respect as a woman doing her best in an impossibly confined role. Remember, she didn’t choose it, and after the fallout from her uncle’s abdication, that was never going to be repeated. She stuck it out to the end, even welcoming the idiotic Liz Truss as PM when she was very close to death. That takes guts.

There you are R111, calling a poster with whom you disagree a cunt!

In the absence of an intelligent argument (as always, completely beyond you) you really do need to find a new insult, as “cunt” marks you as an easily identifiable idiot.

R141. To me that is the main argument for abolishing the monarchy. Is it humane to impose this burden.on the members of a particular family with little realistic opportunity that they can escape it?

The Americans who go on about what a cushy life being king or queen is have no idea. Can you imagine if you were suddenly chosen at random to succeed Charles? You’d want to slit your wrists.

Condi is a ravishing beauty!

[QUOTE]Example, Henry VIII changed religions every time he changed wives.

I had no idea Europe had five different religions to choose from in the 1500s. Tell us more, r133.

R141, she had no experience of what it was like not to be in that "impossibly confined role." Whether or not her father was king, the possibility of her becoming Queen was very real since her uncle had no heirs. She grew up in a much different time. And while it was fine for her father and her Grandfather to be "mysterious" to their public, for her the pressure was exactly opposite. Philip helped move her in the direction of modernization, but there was absolutely a limit. And she had staff and advisors who insisted she move slowly and be cautious. Her very concept of being modern was limited because she viewed it through the eyes of her advisors, all traditionalists. Too often her role was compared to what her father and her grandfather did, and how different she was from them, instead of what was required of the monarchy if it was to survive in the next century. Charles is much better suited to what is needed right now than she was. The fact t hat she "stuck it out to the end" may seem to most people as her singular achievement And it is a credit to her that she was so steadfast. But to me she stayed too long. Way too long.

[quote] The idea that a person should have influence based purely on birth is arguable.

Based solely on birth would be silly. The king has power because he’s anointed by God.

The problem with British royalty is you never have to be accountable for anything.

One misstep that Elizabeth made was when Diana died. She’s supposed to be the person the nation looks to and she’s hiding out in Scotland.

Oh, that was an error in judgement. IMO the biggest misstep she made as Queen was the mess around Brexit with Boris Johnson asking her to shut things down? I don't understand it but I am sure our Brits will explain.

[quote] Example, Henry VIII changed religions every time he changed wives.

When Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn and divorced Catherine of Aragon, he left the Catholic Church and formed the Church of England.

At no other time in his entire life did he ever change religions.

You evidently know nothing whatsoever. Why even post?

Queen Elizabeth II was "protected" from a lot of stuff by an overly protective staff.

[quote]When Henry VIII married Anne Boleyn and divorced Catherine of Aragon, he left the Catholic Church and formed the Church of England.

And his daughters? Some of you are willfully obtuse. The point is that the US didn’t want a leader who made culture changes on a personal whim.

R129 likes Charles. The Prince who literally accepts bags of cash from Saudi billionaires for his charities and makes them British citizens and gives out honors to them like they were party favors. I guess Charles doesn't know there are bank transfers or even checks. And then lets the man who holds his piss bottle and toothpaste take the fall. Though I'm sure he was paid handsomely for his groveling. And then there is his traveling with his bedroom furniture and toilet seat. The guy is a spoiled asshole who couldn't have gotten a salesclerk's job at Mark and Spencer's even if he had had the guts to apply for it.

You know nothing, R153, and you’re not afraid to show it!

[quote] And his daughters?

r133 said nothing whatsoever about his daughters. Don't try to move the goalposts--that's an asshole move.

[quote] And his daughters? Some of you are willfully obtuse. The point is that the US didn’t want a leader who made culture changes on a personal whim.

The electoral college does nothing to prevent that.

What has the electoral college have to do with any of it? That's only a mechanism to keep the states' influence in electing the president, so it's not based solely on the number of votes like in unitary countries. The US is a federation, after all.

The discussion here is about a monarchy vis-à-vis a representative democracy (or a republic, if you want) where the president has four to eight years to enact his policy and then he's out, provided he has the backing of the Congress of course. The point is that very little, if anything, comes down to personal whim because the president runs on a party platform before he gets into office.

The obtuse Americans are running wild.

The monarch isn’t held accountable? The Queen was excoriated for not joining in the hysterical performative wailing at Diana’s death. She complied and went to London and gave a speech.

The modern monarchs do not have any authority to change the country’s religion any more than modern US presidents are allowed to hold slaves.

The Brexit and “shutting things down” thing we will just leave to the side.

On a personal whim, Joe Biden has declared men such as "Rachel" Levine and "Charlotte" Clymer to be lesbians, r153. On a personal whim, Joe Biden plucked Dylan Mulvaney from relative obscurity and gave him a national platform.

In the United States we have politicians and businessmen who "donate" bags of cash to party leaders and get appointed to ambassadorships. I have to wonder who R153 hates more, Charles or the Saudi billionaires? Donating money to a charitable trust is not illegal, and acknowledging it by conferring honors on someone is not doing anyone any harm as far as I know. This is a "So what?" It was unseemly in the eyes of a lot of people and it was probably handled poorly. But I think the staffer who was fired was guilty of a lot more excesses than have come to light.

As for toilet seats and toothpaste, I really do not give a fuck. I am sure that senior members of the Royal Family have all kinds of personal services we'd find laughable or ridiculous. The Queen was having her stockings put on her as if she were a two year old for years before she became elderly. They dressed her like a china doll. Chose her outfits for her, and did all sorts of personal services just as they had for her mother and her Grandmother. We are talking about the Royal Family. When I read that Charles had his traveling toilet seat I thought it was kind of hilarious. These people are not to be taken seriously.

R129 at R160.

In Bill Clinton's White House you could "buy " a night in the Lincoln bedroom, or, a Presidential Pardon.

The Queen despite several ladies in waiting we never knew her bathroom habits.

Charles has no dignity zero zilch none. He is a crass dimwit like Harry. At least though the Queen made a couple of faux pas they were very very few and that was twice misjudging public sentiment. In a reign of 70 years that is not bad at all and one of them was her greatest regret. Diana well I really don't think she gave a fuck about her. Every time she would try to talk to her Diana would start weeping.

R159 had to fit her obsession in this unrelated thread....

R163 the Queen may have had several sets of ladies in waiting and servants who polished her ass, but she never had Princess Diana in her bed, more than willing to tell the world about that "dirty bastard" and his toothpaste and toilet seat. LOL!

R163 you sure do hate Charles. You have taken several opportunities to attack him. It hasn't changed my opinion of him, but it has underscored how invested and foolish you are. You're actually kind of unhinged about Charles.

Charles took his toilet seat with him so it wouldn't be stolen after he used and show up on Ebay, For sale, Royal Toilet! the King of England sat here!!!

But somebody asked him once about it and Charles, startled, exclaimed "my own whaaat?? Don't believe all that crap!" 🤴🏻🚽

R163. You can’t blame Charles for the invasions of his privacy. He hasn’t volunteered a great deal about his private life.

R163. As just one example, Charles produced a television documentary on the music of Hubert Parry, a name I am sure Harry would not even recognise. Whatever his flaws, Charles is the furthest thing from Harry. Harry is more Diana than Charles.

If nothing else, the drama of King Charles and the future Queen having cancer makes one appreciate anew the long lived, long reigning Elizabeth. Dodging bombs, suffering stalkers, wayward children and the English climate with nothing worse than a head cold. The woman was indefatigable, and so, then, were we.

Now I'm thinking about cancer all the time! And how bizarre that the laziest woman in Britain is Queen and doing the work of 3 people! It's all topsy turvy.

I need a drink--2 parts Dubonnet one part gin, twist of lemon.

R170 news leaked out recently that Queen Elizabeth had bone marrow cancer and they kept it hidden from the public.

I wonder why body parts of hers aren’t put on display in Anglican churches like Catholics do with relics of the saints. It would be interesting to see if they had any special powers.