Off Topic Queen Elizabeth II RIP

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Call me a cynic, but the "reunion" walkabout between William and Harry and respective spouses around the flowers looked awkward and brittle. News presenters are gushing that love has broken out. Bollocks. Harry's written his book and won't bin it.

It's just wallpaper to make the funeral a little less tense and ensure the hostilities don't take up too many newspaper inches the next day.

William seems to me to be a bit of a prick. I quite like Charles, but once he's done they should just wrap it all up.

Having said that, if William were to croak, King Harry and Queen Meghan would be great fun.
 
OK, had time to ponder this now. I’m not a monarchist, or particularly a Republican, doesn’t make much difference to me whether we have an hereditary head of state or an elected one as long as the powers are similar. In terms of neutrality there may be advantages to the hereditary model, though the immense wealth the family has acquired and inherited, and the deference they are shown don’t sit easily with me. Might be offset by the tourism impact. Certainly nowhere near the top of the list of things in this country which need urgent attention.

However, Elizabeth II is undoubtedly the reason the monarchy in this country is still fairly robust, despite the best efforts of some of her offspring and their offspring to undermine it. Her obvious devotion to the role and the institution and her immense dignity was awe inspiring, and the sincere comments of many ordinary people and world leaders bear testament to that. In some ways I pity the royals - born into a role with no real choice - even if you walk away you never really escape as Harry is showing - a life bound by ritual, dressing up and handshaking, albeit a very comfortable one. Reminds me of Gormenghast, if anyone has read that. I suspect that my generation is one of the last which will really mind about this stuff. Certainly my kids (in their twenties) don’t have especially strong feelings.

More personally, when I was really young (between the ages of 2 and 6) we lived in Old Windsor, and we spent quite a bit of time in Windsor Great Park. We would often see royals in their land rovers or on horseback, especially the Queen and Princess Anne for the latter, and they would always return waves and smile. Was a buzz then and even now it resonates. Perhaps monarchy is hardwired in to some of the British psyche, even for cynical old gits like me.

I will miss her vague, distant but benign presence. Continuity and stability are not bad things, especially in current circumstances.
Measured and wise.
 
William seems to me to be a bit of a prick. I quite like Charles, but once he's done they should just wrap it all up.

Having said that, if William were to croak, King Harry and Queen Meghan would be great fun.
And what about Prince George, seeming he's next in line after William ?
 
William seems to me to be a bit of a prick. I quite like Charles, but once he's done they should just wrap it all up.

Having said that, if William were to croak, King Harry and Queen Meghan would be great fun.
Charles was brought up according to the iron rule which his mother believed ie. that the job is for life. Bearing in mind that his father lived to be 99 and his mother to 96 he could be around for quite some considerable time yet. I like Charles as well and believe he can perform this role well if given the chance. To be honest I've always been a bit of a republican but I'm no longer sure of that. The present monarchy has very largely transcended the role of being the apex of the aristocratic pyramid and so the fact that about 50% of the land in the UK is owned by either the aristocracy or the landed gentry (ie. the descendents of a massive land grab nearly 1,000 years ago) and so the present royals cannot be held to account for this. It is true that over half of England is owned by less than 1% of the population and that the same families have owned much of this for nearly a thousand years. The actual distribution of land in the UK is more unequal than any other country apart from Brazil. The aristocracy and landed gentry own 30%, corporatiions 18%, oligarchs and city bankers 17%, 17% is unaccounted for (meaning that it has never been bought or sold and so presumably has been in the hands of the same families for centuries). Only 8.5% belongs to the public sector, 5% to house owners, 2% to conservation charities, 1.4% directly to the crown and royal family and, finally 0.5% to the church of England. What is most needed in the UK is massive land reform.

It was interesting to know that Elizabeth the second had been in regular meetings with so many Prime Ministers and appears to have been on the best terms with Harold Wilson in as much as that their meetings took longer, very often going well over time and extending to drinks afterwards - it was Harold Wilson who had to explain to her what trade unions where and why they where needed. In contrast she always allowed Thatcher to wait outside for the full 15 minutes until the exact appointment time :angel: But the fact that she had never heard of trade unions until Wilson told her about them tells us millions about the secluded life the Royals had lived up to that point.
 
“Reverence of the kind we increasingly give to politicians should be reserved for the Head of State, who is like the king on the chessboard, mainly important because he prevents anyone else from occupying his space.”

Sums it up for me. To paraphrase (I think it was) Mark Twain: Anyone wanting to run for public office should be disqualified for that reason alone.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.c...nday-column-on-the-death-of-her-majesty-.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
Modern Britain for you. People clapping and cheering the arrival of the hearse into Edinburgh like the Queen’s just completed a triathlon. Didn’t we once simply bow our heads in silent respect?
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiwiqpr
Charles was brought up according to the iron rule which his mother believed ie. that the job is for life. Bearing in mind that his father lived to be 99 and his mother to 96 he could be around for quite some considerable time yet. I like Charles as well and believe he can perform this role well if given the chance. To be honest I've always been a bit of a republican but I'm no longer sure of that. The present monarchy has very largely transcended the role of being the apex of the aristocratic pyramid and so the fact that about 50% of the land in the UK is owned by either the aristocracy or the landed gentry (ie. the descendents of a massive land grab nearly 1,000 years ago) and so the present royals cannot be held to account for this. It is true that over half of England is owned by less than 1% of the population and that the same families have owned much of this for nearly a thousand years. The actual distribution of land in the UK is more unequal than any other country apart from Brazil. The aristocracy and landed gentry own 30%, corporatiions 18%, oligarchs and city bankers 17%, 17% is unaccounted for (meaning that it has never been bought or sold and so presumably has been in the hands of the same families for centuries). Only 8.5% belongs to the public sector, 5% to house owners, 2% to conservation charities, 1.4% directly to the crown and royal family and, finally 0.5% to the church of England. What is most needed in the UK is massive land reform.

It was interesting to know that Elizabeth the second had been in regular meetings with so many Prime Ministers and appears to have been on the best terms with Harold Wilson in as much as that their meetings took longer, very often going well over time and extending to drinks afterwards - it was Harold Wilson who had to explain to her what trade unions where and why they where needed. In contrast she always allowed Thatcher to wait outside for the full 15 minutes until the exact appointment time :angel: But the fact that she had never heard of trade unions until Wilson told her about them tells us millions about the secluded life the Royals had lived up to that point.

I suspect her Maj knew about trade unions - she was not poorly educated. She had probably been given a very one sided view though, which Wilson took it upon himself to correct.

There have been land reforms during C20th through tax which resulted in the falling into disrepair and ultimately destruction of many country houses on estates.

It probably pays the country if estates are well run, but there should be greater rights to roam imo
 
Modern Britain for you. People clapping and cheering the arrival of the hearse into Edinburgh like the Queen’s just completed a triathlon. Didn’t we once simply bow our heads in silent respect?

As you say.....the modern way.
No less respectful imo.