The Queen of England is not doing well right now. I don’t wish her ill, but I can’t get too worked up about her potential imminent demise. What does worry me is this:
Prince Charles, her heir, and his wife Camilla and Prince William, the Duke of Cambridge are traveling to Balmoral to be with the queen, according to their offices.
Hasn’t the United Kingdom suffered enough with boobs occupying high office? It seems so unfair.
The greatest thing Queen Elizabeth could do would be to disinherit all her heirs and dissolve the office, break up the kingdoms and let them all be independent. Or maybe do a Buffy and bestow her royal powers on every girl in the land.
The Queen is dead. May the monarchy follow suit.
The last Queen of England has been in a tomb in Westminster Abbey since 1714.
No-one has ever been in training for this role longer than Prince Charles. You don’t make it clear what your objections to him are – but it seems pretty likely that you’re mistaken.
I understand that many people in other countries fail to understand the attachment we have to our Queen. but you must surely see that this isn’t the right time for snide posts like this. Maybe keep quiet for a week or so and let us deal with what seems likely to quickly become a moment of national grief.
Walton?
Looks like chuckie will get to play King after all. A vile institution held by vile people. I wish no ill on the old biddy but time to shuffle off. The next couple of generations of royalty may just convince the brits to chuck them all in the waste basket.
#1 Nothing is scared. You sound like a religious person demanding that we respect their religion. Ain’t gonna happen.
oops sacred not scared
Training? For a grossly overpaid ceremonial role?
There’s no shortage of stupidities Charles believes or has said. He’s not qualified for much of anything.
I understand that some British people have a peculiar attachment to their bizarre institution. I have no ill will to Queen Elizabeth herself, but the institution itself is a colossal waste.
@davecross: Charles is racist and classist and has demonstrated a willingness to violate constitutional rules for the monarchy by throwing his influence around on political matters. Additionally, his mess of a personal life makes him incapable of assuming the role of the head of the Church of England, which will cause a further constitutional issue.
If he wasn’t an entitled wanker he would abdicate in favour of his son. This would allow the monarchy to limp along for a bit longer.
While the Queen herself is fairly popular, polling indicates that British people’s fondness for the monarchy itself is waning rapidly.
If Charles takes the throne he will be the last British monarch.
Charles is, and I want to make sure I’m using the correct terminology here, an absolute bellend.
Has any heir to a throne ever had to wait so long for mum or dad to shove off this mortal coil so he or she could sit on the iron throne? I remember reading about bonnie prince charlie as far back as the 1960’s. It must be frustrating sitting on the sidelines and having to go to all those boring ground breaking ceremonies for all those years.
I have no particular affection for the institution of monarchy but I’m not sure a nation that elects the likes of Trump as head of state can claim their system is any better.
@9 I think Hirohito’s heir in Japan also had to wait for quite some time.
In historical times rulers rarely got that old, I suppose, without modern medicine and the occasional ambitious and well armed son…
davecross @1: this American has no interest in the lifestyles of rentiers and the infamous. (For the record, I don’t like American rentiers, either, although, as a retired person, I guess I qualify; but as I commented to the Podish Podcast post, I’m still contributing to society in my small way, and I pay to do it.)
Tabby Lavalamp @8: what’s a bellend?
As a Canadian, I’ve always felt that as soon as our dollar bills are updated to show King Charles’ portrait (or whatever name he picks) the anti-monarchist sentiment in Canada would finally come through and within a few years we’d turn into a republic. At least, I hope so.
I realize that people don’t use paper money all that much anymore, though.
Oops, I should have said, “Podish-Sortacast”.
Also, I had meant to add that there could be exceptions to my lack of interest since real people are really complicated. For example, I’ve heard that the Duke of Argyle, who’s also the Campbell chief, is a nice guy.
djh #10
Who made that claim?
What???
Either I’m missing something or Queen Victoria was an Undead Vampire who wakes up every few centuries.
Queen Victoria died (again?) in 1901.
mordred@11 Akihito was 56 when he became Emperor in 1989. Hirohito/Showa had been Emperor since he was 25 in 1926, and had been regent for several years before that, since his father Emperor Taisho’s extremely poor health made him unable to fulfill his duties.
Pierre Le Fou@13 I don’t think that’s gonna happen. I doubt we’ll be a republic even if the royals call it a day/are dumped. And the can of worms that’s the Canadian Constitution won’t encourage dumping them even if people don’t like Charles.
davecross@1
What a load of old bollocks. Speaking as a fellow Brit, I can’t wait for that privileged disfunctional bunch of parasites to have their power and wealth stripped from them and redistributed to the mass of people who actually do the work of keeping our society functioning. Quite apart from the gross unfairness of the monarchy, they also help prop up the toxic class system which blights our nation.
The real obstacle preventing us from moving on is the sycophants such as yourself who seem to relish tugging their forelocks to a social elite that for some reason you see as your betters. They don’t give a toss about you, you’re just useful idiots taken in by the pro-monarchy propaganda pumped out by the media, particularly our right wing gutter press and the BBC.
One is born into a royal bloodline through no fault of their own.
That being said, what one does with this has ethical implications. The minimum duty of one in a royal bloodline is to renounce their title as soon as one comes of age (better late than never, though). Alternatively, if one is more inclined to do more than the bare, bare minimum, the duty is to do as PZ suggests and to assume the crown only for as long as it takes to sign official documents dissolving the institution.
@raven: Since the act of union between England and Scotland monarchs have been kings / queens of “the United Kingdom” and not England specifically.
Gotta admit I’d love to see Charles and Camilla lead a coup. Oh, that would be comedy gold.
@Raven
What specialfrog said. Calling E2 the “Queen of England” is like calling Joe Biden “the President of California”.
PZ @ OP
Can the reigning monarch dissolve the monarchy? I suspect that’s governed in some way by UK law.
davecross @#1
I think you mean that Queen Anne was the last queen of England buried in Westminister in 1714, whereas the previous last queen, Victoria, was buried next to Albert at Windsor Great Park in 1901.
Victoria was the longest-reigning British monarch and the longest-reigning queen in world history, until Elizabeth II surpassed her on 9 September 2015. But Elizabeth is about a 1.5 years short of the longest royal reign which is King Louis XIV of France…at least those we know about.
me @11:
OK, I Googled for it. As Rosanne Rosannadanna said, “Never mind.”
robro @23: No, davecross means that the last person with the title “Queen of England” was Anne, who held that title (among others) until the Act of Union (1707),when England ceased being a sovereign nation.
chigau @ #2, LOL.
Quite apart from the gross unfairness of the monarchy, they also help prop up the toxic class system which blights our nation.
Really? Are the UK’s worst instances of gross economic or wealth inequality really coming from either the Windsors or the old titled nobility? I ask this because America’s wealth-inequality problem has been getting worse for decades, with no royal family or old titled gentry to blame for it. Also, are any of your royal or old titled-aristocratic families in any way responsible for your Tories’ policies?
Raging Bee @#27:
“Are the UK’s worst instances of gross economic or wealth inequality really coming from either the Windsors or the old titled nobility?” At least partly. The current Duke of Westminster, for example, is the richest person under 30 in the world. The descendants of William I and his barons still own a substantial chunk of the land area of Britain.
(was the richest person under 30 in the world. He’s 31 now.)
I do not see the Brit public tolerating Charles as monarch for a similar long period.
If the Scots want a Royal chief of state, and if Norway joins the EU, they could join Norway in a union. The Norwegian Royal family has no embarrassing luggage that I know of.
Can the reigning monarch dissolve the monarchy?
No, only the House of Commons can do that.
Aristocrats and oligarchs…
“Truss received £ 100 k from former BP executive – so no “windfall tax” !
Corruption as foundational principle?
https://youtu.be/hHmNpjWynD8
Larry @ # 9: Has any heir to a throne ever had to wait so long for mum or dad to shove off …
Consider the Dauphins under French king Louis XIV. Louis XIV outlived his son and his grandson, finally succumbing after about 72 years under the crown. The eventual Louis XV didn’t personally have to wait so long, taking the throne at the age of five (same age as his great-grandfather did, but he only ruled 54 years).
Akihito became emperor of Japan after his father’s reign of 63 years, at the sprightly age of ~56.
@Raging Bee: The Queen’s estates are exempt from environmental and labour laws. Corporate transparency laws were weakened to allow the Queen to hide where her investments are. Both of these are results of the Queen’s undisclosed influence over house legislation where she has repeatedly intervened over decades to help protect her wealth.
The royals aren’t the cause of inequality in the UK but they are certainly a contributing factor.
Although heavy of heart, I am trying to look at the news of the demise (whether immediate or eventual) of Queen Elizabeth II optimistically, for all that it will of course be a difficult time for her close and loving family.
Given the current UK economic outlook, thanks to 12 years of financial misrule under Her Majesty’s previous Government, a sea change to our remarkable new Prime Minister and loyal servant of the Queen, Liz Truss, will be welcomed by the country as a whole. The Prime Minister’s inevitable public displays of devotion to the new King, who will take the regnal name Brian I, and a change of name of the ongoing Tory administration to His Majesty’s Government, will be a much-needed break with the past and the fillip the country needs to face the future with confidence. I look forward, too, to the financial stimulus afforded the economy, when the barristers currently recognised as Queen’s Counsel will be required to change their post-nominal titles from QC to KC on all their business cards, stationery and legal office nameplates (well, those barristers not presently on strike, at least).
I am deeply reassured that once Her Majesty chooses the right moment to die, the people of this great country can look forward to a bright and cheery winter.
England messed up its last attempt to overthrow a King Charles, Ireland (reunified) and Scotland are better off independent.
In terms of reigns, Charles to Elizabeth will probably be similar to Edward VII to Victoria.
Charles is very close to 5 months older than I am. He has not aged well. (This is understandable, all things considered.) I wouldn’t want to bet on him living another 10 years.
As for Elizabeth’s popularity…bear in mind that she drove an ambulance in WW2, so she started out as a “working royal”. Her family generally behaved well during WW2. Similarly, the Danish royal family modern popularity is probably an echo of the way Christian X behaved during WW2.
He’s 73, so not really that much of a problem.
I’m a Brit, and I have no love for the monarchy. In fact, I’ve gotten pretty tired of being asked about it over the decades I’ve lived in the US. Typically, the person who asks me already knows more than I do about what’s going on with that family.
I would be perfectly happy to see the monarchy lose all constitutional power (not that the really have that much these days given the constitutional crisis that would ensue if they tried to wield too much of it) but only under the condition that the office that replaces it (a presidency, presumably) has little to no constitutional power itself except to thwart the unconstitutional designs of a rogue elected government.
While there are major improvements that can be made to the present parliamentary system (some form of proportional representation being near the top) I would be extremely reluctant to give up the unicameral system given what’s been going on the US over the last few decades. Regardless of how bad some of the governments have been, having the power to enact change more easily also makes it a lot easier to hold governments accountable at the next election when things go wrong. I used to think that was a scary thought growing up in the 1970s when power alternated from left to right and back again, but now I find it much more preferable than the decades long paralysis that has seen the US slowly losing ground compared to much of Europe in modern democratic reforms (though I’m not sure the UK is any better now, after Brexit, but that’s a special case).
Finally, breaking up the UK might be good for Wales and Scotland, but the Irish question would continue to loom, and England risks becoming a permanent right-wing Conservative state.
Looks like Charles is going to try to be King. Let’s see how that goes.
She died.
Yes, they announced it just a few minutes ago as I write this. In the next few weeks in the UK, life will be really disrupted.
Not so sure about that. It will be a big deal in the media, but otherwise most people’s lives will go on as normal.
If he wants it, it’s his. End of story.
You don’t speak for by any means everyone in the UK – not me for one. I wasn’t in the least attached to Elizabeth Windsor, and despite all the propaganda in her favour, a number of things have emerged in recent years that reflect badly on her: the extent to which she (and Charles) got to put a secret veto on proposed legislation that would affect their private interests, her continued favour to that revolting shitbag “Prince” Andrew, and her failure to defend democracy from Johnson’s anti-democratic manoeuvres.
@tacitus: Parliament decides who the monarch is. Been that way since the Glorious Revolution.
@40: “Looks like Charles is going to try to be King.”
Trying has nothing to do with it. As the British say, “The Queen is dead. Long live the King”. Previously last said in January of 1901.
Charles became King automatically when his mother died.
I think Chuck should choose Arthur as his regnal name.
One fantasy is as good as the next.
It really feels strange to me to think that one of Charles’ new titles is “King Of Canada” !
Now the question is whether QEII state funeral will be bigger and the outpouring of grief from the people more pronounced than that which occurred from Princess Diana, who, so I’ve heard, was pretty popular.
Why would the royalist Tory Party do anything to interfere with the line of succession?
In any case, Charles is already king, so the discussion is moot.
@48
And discover that his Quest will be to find the Holy Grail.
Larry #50
Diana died 24 years ago, does anybody care any more?
Not my point. She was popular 24 years ago and the outpouring of grief then reached 11. Will the Brits today go to those extremes.
Elizabeth II 1926-2022
tacitus: In theory at least, the House of Commons could vote to put someone else on the throne (say, Charles’s oldest son); but they probably wouldn’t even discuss such a vote unless Charles was as unpopular and discredited as, say, his brother Andrew now is.
And discover that his Quest will be to find the Holy Grail.
Well, that would certainly be more energizing than Liz Truss’s tax-cut plan…
So…are the LaRouches going to start blaming King Charles for the US drug trade from now on?
London Bridge has fallen…may it never be built again.
It’s not like I had anything against the woman personally – she has been Queen, not just for all of my own life, but all but a year or so of my parents’ lives as well. I’ve come to see her as a comforting constant in a world of change, representing an institution that doesn’t really DO change very well. Monarchies are basically a taxpayer-funded real estate business and public spectacle, with small sides of charity and nostalgia to justify it all. As they exist now, these theatrical thieves have no place in the modern world.
Take all of the land and buildings owned by the British Royal Family and donate it in perpetuity to the people of each country in which the land is located, for the preservation of the natural world and human history (some of their urban and/or non-historical buildings could be sold to finance the upkeep of the rest, of course). And then, dissolve the institution as it exists as the official head of over a dozen nations’ governments. If Charles and his kids and their kids want to keep on playacting, let them earn their money the old-fashioned way – marketing. Let him be king only in the minds of those who want a king. If they want to pay him to prance around wearing fancy hats (or perhaps…ties or something – hats were his mother’s affectation), that is certainly something they can choose to do.
The only King I recognize is the late King Oliver, and the only Prince I recognize is the Purple One.
Diana died 24 years ago, does anybody care any more?
Yes, lots of people still do. There’s a cable-TV miniseries about her (not watching it, forgot which channel), and some sort of reservations-only memorial exhibition about her in one of Northern Virginia’s fancier shopping malls (not going to that either). Will Elizabeth II get the same treatment 24 years from now?
Liz Truss fires the most experienced economy ministry civil servant
https:www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/tom-scholar-permanent-secretary-to-the-treasury-sacked-by-liz-truss
“We don’t need no steenking economy experts”
She is going to govern by using the Force!
Erratum
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/sep/08/tom-scholar-permanent-secretary-to-the-treasury-sacked-by-liz-truss
Sweden, Norway and Denmark has plenty of princes and princesses that seem relatively down to Earth.
Maybe we could donate some to Scotland and Wales when they break loose from Westminsterland?
birgerjohansson @64 Please donate some to Canada too.
There was some Ramses that was long-lasting. But it was before newspapers and paparazzi.
In case no one has linked to it yet…
https://youtu.be/RvMxqcgBhWQ
Pierre le Fou @ 65 You have Alanis Morrisette and various other cool people.
And if you follow North Korea you can have a dead chief of state. I nominate Kurt Vonnegut.
@birgerjohansson
“I do not see the Brit public tolerating Charles as monarch for a similar long period.”
Neither do I. I seriously doubt he’s gonna live to be 143.
The king lists of Sumer list a number of kings whose reigns lasted tens-of-thousands of years. En-men-lu-ana the first king of Bad-tibira (Tell al-Madineh) lived 12 sars or 43,200 years. Ubara-Turu, king of Shuruppag, lived 5 sars and 1 ner, or 18,600 years, then there was a flood. He’s the father of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh, which I think makes him equivalent to Methuselah. After the flood the kingship moved to Kish and the lengths of their reigns became much more realistic: only hundreds of years up to 1,200 years for a few on them.
Re: Pierre Le Fou @ #49…
Emperor of India and Defender of the Faith are probably still in the list.
whheydt #71 — The Emperor/Emperess of India title ended June 22, 1948 with George VI.
When celebs die within a short time of each other, I tend to propose that one was the other incognito. My claim that Princess Diana was really Mother Teresa with better makeup didn’t go very far, however.
Not sure my present thesis that Elizabeth Windsor was really CNN anchor Bernard Shaw will do much better, but we still have hours to go today. If only Mikhail Gorbachev had lasted a couple of days longer…
Gotta tell ya, (and i might have told this story here before) but i have nothing but love and gratitude for the old gal. I lost the love of my life, my first corgi, Misha about 10 years ago. He was and is the best being i have ever had the honor to have in my life and i miss him every single day. When i found out his mesothelioma diagnosis with a week? days? long left to live – i knew something was wrong but this diagnosis was a hammer blow which i thought to never withstand. I was distraught, couldn’t eat, couldn’t sleep – the love of my life was dying and there was nothing i could do about it. So for some stupid reason i thought’ the queen! the queen has corgis and bet she loves those dogs better than any person in her life!” (i still think that is the case – in life so full of stuff and state and PEOPLE PEOPLE PEOPLE who could she really open up to but her beloved dogs and horses?) So i looked up her ADDRESS and yes – her address or how to write to the queen is listed online. So i wrote to her, by hand, on paper, with tears blurring all the letters. I poured my silly heart out in that letter. I said i didn’t think i could live with out my Misha, the Meesh, Meesh-ka-peesh, Machu Poochu – How does someone recover from a love so precious and joyous and true. I SOBBED all over that thing…and then sent it off. Misha had a mercifully short decline, and he died in my arms. And i went home, and went to the mail box after i left him to be cremated, and there was a letter from Barmoral Castle…. from THE QUEEN, and she said she was sure Misha knew i loved him, and that she knew i had given him a wonderful life, and that I would withstand this loss and i held that letter up to the sky and said “Meesha a letter to you from the queen!’ That letter rests with him in his little box of ashes, and i am crying now, and i am also sending all my love for the swift journey of a woman so fucking kind to send a letter of solace to the grieving mother of a dog that still owns my heart. Bless you Bessie! And thank you.
p.s. and please give Meesha a hug if you see him –
I am impressed!
So many of you would have done so much better in her situation,
Defender of the Faith is almost certainly still on the list; the King or Queen is always technically the head of the Church of England, even if that position is a lot more ceremonial than the Pope’s. Elizabeth always seemed to be one of those ‘bedrock of faith’ sorts of people.
Charles, on the other hand, being a re-married divorcee, already pissed off a number of the older more paleo-Conservative sorts within the Church. If he’s smart, he’ll be even more hands-off with the Church than his mother was.
Given that one of Charles’ big pushes has been to heavily back homeopathic ‘medicine’ and try to get the NHS to pay for it, I’m not entirely certain he’s that smart. He knows he’s unpopular, I’m not sure he cares, and he can tell himself that he’s doing this to shield his sons from having to deal with it which just gives a level of annoying self-righteousness to it all.
jenorafeuer @ #77 — Isn’t it ironic that the paleo-Conservative sorts within the CoE would get their backs up because Charles is re-married…tho his first wife was dead…despite the fact that the very origin of the CoE is so a king could divorce (technically annul) his marriage to his very Catholic wife (Catherine) and marry someone else (Anne).
Billmcd@ 69
All those reptilian genes …you can never be sure.
One serious argument in favor of a constitutional monarchy is that it provides a neutral, non-partisan figure with very limited powers as head of state, rather than a system like the US one where the head of state is both very powerful and completely partisan. One big weakness with this argument is that a neutral head of state doesn’t have to be a hereditary monarch – it can also be an elected “elder statesperson” type of figure, as in Germany.
Speak for yourself not the whole nation, there are plenty of us who don’t give a fuck – except for the possibliity Charles screws up badly enough for us to finally get rid of the parasites.
My preferred solution to the monarchy has always been to switch to dead kings and queens as heads of state. They’re much cheaper and less controversial than living ones, and since the monarch basically does nothing of value anyway the dead are entirely qualified for the job. We don’t strictly have to prop the corpse up on a throne for state occasions, but it would be very disappointing if we didn’t. We could pop a text-to-speech device under it for the reading of the government manifesto, and outsource writing the Christmas Message to some kind of AI.
And when we get to 2066 we can start again with William the Conqueror. I think there are still a few bits of him left over in Rouen Cathedral.
Also, yeah, “national grief”, pull the other one. The gammons might feel compelled to pretend that they are distraught, but most of us only care whether we’re getting a day of work when the funeral happens.
Time for more farcical aquatic ceremonies.
Tabby @8, Bill @12, um, ‘bellend’ refers to the glans of the penis.
@Kathi Rick: That is the sweetest thing ever! What a kind thing to do.
@birgerjohansson: weirdly, the royal house of Norway is at least party a very recent offshoot of the British royal family. When Norway left Sweden in the late 1800’s (though parliamentary action) they decided that they wanted a king (not to do any ruling, just to have around like all the big kids or something) so they borrowed a Danish prince and his British princess wife, neither of whom had ever expected/wanted to rule anything (he was in the Navy), but they were raised to duty, so they did it, and got to start with WWI. (I think she was a granddaughter of Victoria.)
@davecross: Charles is way, way into homeopathy. That’s a huge strike against him being in charge of anything in my book.
John @85: Yes, and with “old biddy” used by someone in the thread, we have gendered insults making a comeback!
@82 cartomancer
Why not start today? Cnut the Great’s bones have to be lying around somewhere. It would mean losing Scotland, Wales and the north of Ireland but England would have a good casus belli against Denmark and Norway in a few years.
cartomancer writes on 8 September 2022 at 5:28 pm:
Wait, what? Dead as in let’s go and fish one out of the mausoleum dead; or dead as in “Sorry, George. It’s your turn now. The rules are the rules.” dead?
I vey much doubt it. Of course there’ll be a lot of “official sadness”, but she was 96, had obviously been in poor health for the last few months, and not much in evidence since the start of the pandemic. Even the royalists will be hard put to it to regard her death as anything other than the natural course of events.
Truss said the nation offers King Charles III our “loyalty and devotion”.
Insolent woman. Being PM doesn’t give her the right to offer our “loyalty and devotion” to anyone, let alone that arrogant old fool.
robro:
Oh, I agree, but let’s be honest, the paleo-Conservatives within the CoE have more in common with the paleo-Conservatives within the Catholic church than they do with the more progressive sides of either of their churches. To the point where when the CoE started allowing things like the ordination of women there were active attempts by conservative Catholics to ‘poach’ disaffected conservative members of the CoE.
The whole paleo-Conservative ideal is a reference to a mythical perfect ‘golden age’ that completely ignores the actual messy history.
cartomancer @ # 82: My preferred solution to the monarchy has always been to switch to dead kings and queens as heads of state.
So by that plan Liz 2 can continue just as she had been, with perhaps a brief break for some taxidermy.
That would save a lot of trouble and expense in printing new stationery, coronating PC, etc. Go for it!
As I’ve been sharing on the Infinite thread, Black Twitter and Irish Twitter are trending right now. Recommended.
Nothing against the queen personally other than the fact that she was used as a to prop up disparate political despots. As for the monarchy, in 1975 the democratically elected government in my country was ousted in a bloodless coup engineered by Rupert Murdoch, a Neo-nasty conservative opposition and the governor-general, (the Queens representative) who dismissed the government. More than 40 years later it was discovered that the governor-general had been corresponding with the Queen to seek advice. All correspondence was answered by the Queen’s Secretary who advised him to dismiss the government. This was not without precedent. During the depression a state premier had moved to stop the predominantly British owned banks from foreclosing on mortgages and imposed a moratorium on evictions. The banks put pressure on the British governor who sacked the government. Other elements involved in this were the New Guard, an extreme right conservative mob similar to your Oath Keepers. Burn the monarchy down, long live the Republic and while you are at it apply the match to your own threat to democracy, the Supreme Court.
The Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine (formally the Royal Homeopathic Hospital) exists and is paid for by UK taxpayers thanks to Charles. I don’t care to know more about him than that.
We poor serfs down here in the colonies are quite happy to be done with this ridiculous medieval sideshow now, thank you.
“There was total silence outside Buckingham Palace as the news broke, and then the crowds broke into song: God Save the King.”
Video at the (Twitter) link. Blech.
“I understand that some British people have a peculiar attachment to their bizarre institution. I have no ill will to Queen Elizabeth herself, but the institution itself is a colossal waste.”
The British occasionally argue the point when the question of “What’s the point” comes up. I think it’s a pretty shallow answer but many make the argument the pageantry of the monarchy is a profitable affair for the nation.
Which, if true, would be sad – for it’s an admission the country lacks investment in other things to attract attention.
The best answer I’ve ever heard is that the monarchy is a magnet for courtiers and nonsense attention to personality, removing those bugbears from the nations governance.
Unfortunately recent history disproves that theory as well.
No, there’s more to it than that.
A sense of history, of continuity, of legacy.
A sense of momentousness, of the last remnant of an era passing.
Historical and all that.
Even I get it, even if I don’t partake.
billseymour @24 Sorry, was busy. I wanted to describe him with very British terminology.
Now that the UK is distracted, it’s the perfect time for nations from all over the world to get their stuff back from the British Museum.
We all end up in a box eventually. Not much more to say.
microraptor @ #101, hahaha.
Cross-posted with the Infinite Thread:
“Holy shit Irish tiktok doesn’t fuck around”
People not in boxes have plenty to say about their people’s boxes.
Charles III a k a Charles the last. The guy who cheated on his first wife is now officially boss. Hooray!
One thing PZ doesn’t seem to know is that the monarch does not have the power to dissolve t by e monarchy. Only parliament does.
“Irish tiktok doesn’t fuck around”.
We should play the same when that old evil fucker on the supreme court dies.
BTW a lot of elderly women are likely to die in Britain this winter. That you, tories.
Watch, various American conservatives are going to join the international chorus of lamentation over the passing of Britain’s racist old great-grandma. (Remember when they came a running to defend the Royals in the face of Megan Markel’s Oprah interview?)
Keep in mind that these American conservatives are the very same ones who claim to looooove the Founding Fathers and hold the American Revolution as scared. You know, a war that was supposedly meant to shake off the yoke of a monarch?
“There was total silence outside Buckingham Palace as the news broke, and then the crowds broke into song: God Save the King.”
Well, why not? He needs it, man!
So by that plan Liz 2 can continue just as she had been, with perhaps a brief break for some taxidermy.
Too late for that, they should have announced that she was down with Brezhnev’s Cold.
@68 birgerjohansson
Alanis was God in Dogma. I haven’t shed a tear for Elizabeth, but did when I recently watched true Canadian royalty descend upon the South Park stage and it dawned on me who was missing behind the drum kit (PBUH):
https://youtu.be/eQ3VjAMD5gA
I had some fondness for Diana. She was on a version of the video with Pavarotti and U2 called Miss Sarajevo but in retrospect given Bono that didn’t age well. Tragedy porn?
Harry and Meghan are a bit estranged no? I think of him as Superman when he gave up his powers for Lois Lane in one of those Christopher Reeves movies.
This documentary helped me make sense of royal tradition. Why must Canadians stoop to dissing my Nova Scotian heritage? Mushroom people? Really?
https://youtu.be/XcUbNoRqQTo
@93- Pierce R. Butler
Jeremy Bentham was on to something then.
Akira MacKenzie @108: Conservatives actually love monarchies. They want to start one in the US, after all.
Yeah, the Brits have been jealous of the US for several years now for just that. Now they have one of their own. But we still own the fact that ours cheated with a porn star.
The guy who cheated on his first wife is now officially boss. Hooray!
So fucking what? Charles had an affair with a consenting adult, and AFAIK he’s never been credibly accused of raping anyone, let alone a minor. So he’s a lot more moral than Trump.
Expanding on my @110 I meant estranged from royal family not each other. As much as I thought of Diana differently than the rest I think of Meghan and her hubby differently than the rest of them too. I have no reason to look down on Diana or Meghan. Harry did have a really messed up wardrobe choice way back when that sucks really bad. Youthful oopsy?
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/prince-harry-nazi-costume/
Charles III is not a paragon, he’s a King.
He most certainly won’t be the most flawed one, either.
Good enough for now.
(Obs, speaking for myself here; opinion only)
A large part of the basis of my country is the rejection of this silliness, and now it’s all over cable news. Enough. This is ridiculous.
It’s 2022. Let it go.
Not that easy, SC.
Gradual diminuition, etiolation, desuetude, irrelevance — it’s the surest way.
May have to be generational.
That noted, in my estimation, QEII was the foundation stone for the stability of the reign, because, whatever else, she was indeed a paragon. Masterful inaction. Ostensibly, anyway. A bridge to olden times and to tradition.
A lot of cultural inertia there.
And yes, I recall you are a sociologist, so you might shoot me down in flames. :)
@60. UnknownEric the Apostate :
I recognise all the kings and emperors from Pharoah Narmer ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narmer ) of ancient Egypt and China’s first Emperor Shi Huangdi to today’s Co-Princes Emmanuel Macron & (also Archbishop) Joan Enric Vives i Sicília of Andorra, King Letsie III of Lesotho, King Mohammed VI of Morocco, King Tupou VI of Tonga etc .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_current_monarchs_of_sovereign_states) as what they are historical figure and current relics of the history and the politics and cultures of their respective varied societies. Of course it certainly does NOT mean I venerate them or think they are superior to other people in any way other than having extra undeserved wealth and power / influence to varying extents. Many of them,the late QEII of the UK among them, seem to have become cult figures for reasons based more in human pyschology flaws than real value.
@108. Akira MacKenzie :
In Australia too, “Our” (Ita’s?) ABC is running fawningly uncritical and hagiograpohic coverahe non-stiop including a youtube video with Warcriminal jointly reosonsible for thousand s of Iraqi deatsh John Howard reflecting on her memory. Ycuk.
Now King Charlie III is supposedly Australia’s symbolic head of state too – although I vaguely recall reading somewhere that he was thinking of changing his name as king since the other pair of British monarch Charlies didn’t end well.
@31. Raging Bee :
Be interesting to see them try to impose a monarchy continuing if the members of it all decided they wanted out.. every supposed royal has the right to abdicate and just say no. Sadly, that’s almost certainly never going to happen in practice.
The most common holiday celebrated worldwide is Independence from the British Empire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_independence_from_the_United_Kingdom
The current title holders aren’t actual royalty. They are just descended from some people who murdered the real queen, and some royal children, in order to claim their throne.
D’oh. Clicked submit not preview, sorry for the typos. Hope y’all get the gist anyhow.
@116. John Morales : Charles III is not a paragon, he’s a King. He most certainly won’t be the most flawed one, either.
Yeah, I mean imagine if ex-prince pedo Andrew had been next in line.. could be worse. Has been far worse in the past although modern societies tend not to let Kings and emperors get away with the sort of horrors historical ones had. Saudi Arabia’s Kingdom (& likely some others) aside.
Britain has defanged its hereditary monarchy – mostly – long ago. Still needs abolishing in my view and be embarrassing indeed if the UK became a Republic before we Aussies did.. Still, guess Canada & Aotearoa / NZ are in the same metaphorical boat here.
@117. SC (Salty Current) : Yup. Sucking up every bit of media focus and attention here in Oz too.
Meanwhile one-third of Pakistan is still underwater last I heard withmultipel deaths and a very significantly large percentage of tehNortehrn hemipshere is in megadrought, heatwave, flodd and inpasrts on fire so Igather. Wonder what the funeral arrangements for the younger unprivileged, poor Pakistani and other victims of all this are?
Re: SteveR @ #120…
If all the current family opted out and Parliament still wanted there to be a monarchy, it wouldn’t be the first time they shopped elsewhere for someone to come in and wear the crown. Last time, it was George of Hanover.
What with all the mentions of Diana… I felt sorry for her. She was too young and out of her depth. It was no wonder she couldn’t take it. A good deal tougher on William and Harry, but I think they’re better prepared at this point. William will probably be king in a decade.
Typos again, sigh.
For the real tragedies happening now – see :
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2022/09/the-summers-biggest-climate-disasters-seen-from-space/
& https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-08/human-development-set-back-5-years-covid-crises-un-report/101420968
& https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62712301 from which :
Metaphorically worlds apart from the predictable and long awaited passing of the most upper of upper class old aristocrats in England fom natural causes at the age of 96.
@123. whheydt : True. Agreed and why there as so much public sympathy for Diana and mournng for her I think.
The monarchy is staggeringly unhelathy an institution including for those born & married into its fishbowl bubble.
It should be noted that the previous British monarch-Charles II (1630-1685)–with the name of “Charles” had an interest in physics and chemistry and kept his own laboratory.
It should also be noted that the upcoming King Charles believes in homeopathy and once blamed Galileo for consumerism and environmental destruction.
The monarchy has devolved.
John Morales @ #119:
There are two separate questions: the existence of a monarchy and the process of getting rid of a monarchy. I think stating plainly that the concept of a monarchy is absurd and harmful is a key element in the process of moving past it. (I’ll be honest: I think about the world we live in and I’m baffled and annoyed that this is an actual thing that any of us has to spend a moment thinking about. I can’t take it seriously.)
I think stating plainly that the concept of a monarchy is absurd and harmful is a key element in the process of moving past it.
Eh, this could well be wrong. It could happen that the monarchy implodes without or prior to people appreciating this. But it’s true, and important.
There’s the concept of “last resort”.
The final bulwark against (ahem) anarchy or doom.
The Monarch might not have executive or constitutional power or legislative power, but — and this is where QEII comes in — has the power of tradition and legitimacy and public opinion. Fickle as that last one may be.
Soft power, one-time use. But extremely potent.
If there were a coup or something like it, if things are about to go to pot, to whom would the armed forces and the administration and populace at large give their allegiance, were it called upon in dire circumstances?
But now is now, that was then. When she yet lived.
Now? Not-so-much, I think.
Can’t see how this is not an event of significance.
In the news:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-09-09/what-happens-to-money-notes-coins-queen-elizabeth-ii-dead/100619020
a phantasy, a dream, what we wanted not what we got,
monarchs do nothing worth doing that are not better done by the people themselves. they certainly do not deserve all the wealth and property that comes down to them stolen not earned from the past
@88: “Cnut the Great”? I always thought he was Cnut the Dyslexic. All the other Charlies (both kings and wannabees) made a holy hames of the job, and I suspect Wingnut (Kingnut now, I suppose) will too.
StevoR@#120:
“I vaguely recall reading somewhere that he was thinking of changing his name as king since the other pair of British monarch Charlies didn’t end well.”
Yes, there was speculation that he’d take the throne as George VII because of the previous two Charleses. Also there’s the fact that Bonnie Prince Charlie styled himself “Charles III”.
But now it’s been officially announced that he will rule as Charles III.
In that respect, Charles was merely following centuries of precedent!
#67 @Akira and #97 @Salty,
the Sex Pistols song has been updated already
https://youtu.be/ccsWW-KCApg
I note that 50% of previous British kings called Charles have ended up being shortened by a head. Charles III might have been better advised to choose one of his other names (he had four of his own to choose from, the others being Philip, Arthur and George), and if he’d wanted to call himself King Marmaduke, King Wortleberry or King Gladys, I doubt whether anyone could have stopped him.
Elizabeth had been Queen almost as long as I’ve lived . I’m not British but my father once made me laugh by telling me he sang God Save the King as a child. I was a teenybopper and thought he was joking (King George and the former British West Indies)
It’s not exactly nostalgia but it feels odd and sad that someone who you were aware of, but didn’t actually know , as a child is now dead. I felt almost the same way when members of my favorite Motown group started dying . Though I’ll admit I grieved over the late Temptations members
@ ^
I’m actually struggling to think of something less odd.
I’m bemused there has been so much comment on the subject here. I get why too many British people, trained from birth to be repectful of the Royals are going gaga (and not in a good Lady Gaga way), but what do the rest of you really care? Obviously enough to comment, some of you repeatedly. Even those of you from former colonies I am surprised at, mainly that you are not taking the apparently widespread in African ex-colonies view that she was an upholder of colonialism and all of it’s ills so they are refusing to mourn her en masse.
Jazzlet, if you don’t get it by now, you won’t get it.
Stay bemused.
OK, I thought this might be the case, but it’s a fun video: “Irish Dancers, Cairde, at Buckingham Palace is an Old Video.”
LOL, they were actually dancing for the queen.
Ah, not Ding Dong the Witch is Dead. Phew.
@ 139 Jazzlet
Because for all it’s skeptic cred, Pharyngula is a gathering place for elderly white men (like myself) who – while thinking themselves rational – have respect for ‘western civilization’ baked into their bones. Look at the disgusting obsequiousness of John Morales for example at #119
*vomit*
(although regulars will know such fawning sycophancy is tediously typical of Morales, it’s wider than just him – Richard Dawkins, for example, once heavily hinted that he’d love a knighthood.)
I had to swear allegiance to this relic of the great chain of being daily on Monday from about the age of 5 to 12.
That such a disgusting institution as a monarchy has survived even into the 20th century, let alone the 21st, in nations that imagine themselves democracies, is an utter mark of shame.
That some are actually expressing regret at the passing of anyone connected to it, ten times so.
<snicker>
Liz ran the biz.
@ ^ John Morales : The Firm, the PR placeholding, symbolically (technically?) power-holding, wealth and ifluence accruing business producing .. what? Tourist dollars? Wealth for their own little club at everyone else’s expense. Selling newpapers and TV shows and a small “industry” dedicated to celebrities by birth and marriage and official lineage.
Do you really want to argue for the monarchy here?
@ 1. davecross (Walton maybe?) & ^ John Morales too I guess. You expect this blog to be a place where traditions for the sake of traditions are appreciated unquestioningly and royalty venerated uncritically and with unmerited, unqualified respect? Boy are you ever in the wrong place for that!
StevoR:
Whatever made you imagine I want to, never mind really want to?
Ah well. I’ve learnt not to bother trying to explain stuff to you. Pointless, that is.
StevoR @146:
Boy are we ever in the right place for having one’s (in this case John’s) comments ridiculously misread!
Apparently, it is still illegal in the UK under Section 3 of the Treason Felony Act 1848, and punishable by life imprisonment, to call for the abolition of the monarchy. According to the linked article, the law lords (now called the Supreme Court) dismissed a case arguing that the statute conflicted with the Human Rights Act on the grounds that it was “unnecessary” to make a ruling, basically because everyone knew that anyway. But the Truss junta intends to replace the Human Rights Act (which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law) with one crafted to their own convenience… On the other hand, Truss herself once advocated the abolition of the monarchy, and AFAIK, the Treason Felony Act 1848 has no statute of limitations. So maybe some public-spirited person will take out a private prosecution! (The Director of Public Prosecutions can take over such a case then drop it, but it might serve to make future prosecution of anti-monarchists for peacefully expressing their views less likely.)
@147. John Morales & #148. Rob Grigjanis : Maybe I have misunderstood. Wouldn’t be the first time. I am willing to listen to explanations and evidence and will admit I could be wrong but John Morales you do seem to me to be giving off quite a pro-monarchy vibe here so maybe you need to think about why that is and work on making your views here clearer?
PS. Note also Silentbob’s #144 here too. It isn’t just me.
The Onion, on the old monarch, and the new.
A few points arising from an online meeting I had today with a small political discussion group, all relevant to the way the UK’s “Deep State” has been using the occasion, and perhaps feared that Charles’ succession might not be accepted:
1) We have not been told what time the Queen died. It seems near-certain it was significantly before the death was announced, possibly quite a few hours before, but why the delay? Did they think she might rise again? Or was it so that Charles and William in particular could be imagined to have been with her?
2) In all the British media, Charles’ wife is consistently referred to as “Camilla the Queen Consort”. Evidently, an instruction has gone out that this is how she should be referred to – but why, and why have all the media meekly obeyed? It’s understandable that she’s not yet referred to simply as “the Queen” – that still means the recently expired one; but why not simply “Queen Camilla”?
3) Charles has already flown to Scotland, northern Ireland and Wales. Within days of their mother’s death, how many people would have been traipsing around the country?