Queen Elizabeth II passes at age 96

[stumppy]

That's a helluva long life of service. RIP

[Easy 6]

Never once in my life gave a damn about the royals, and never understood why so many Americans do

That said she was clearly a woman of class, grace, and powerful will... the longest reigning queen in their history

Gotta admit the double rainbow was incredible, hopefully a harbinger of good things for that nation

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

Never once in my life gave a damn about the royals, and never understood why so many Americans do

That said she was clearly a woman of class, grace, and powerful will... the longest reigning queen in their history

Gotta admit the double rainbow was incredible, hopefully a harbinger of good things for that nation

I do find the concept of a country keeping one's monarchs around kind of interesting. The concept of a singular entity being given any decision-making power entirely due to birthright is pretty antiquated, and if (like in the case of Britain and a few other European countries) the monarch essentially has no powers, then why have one at all? But you ask Brits how they feel about having a monarch, and they're like, "What? Why would we get rid of the royal family?"

So I guess the pomp and circumstance and all that shit is kind of interesting to watch from afar. I think the royal wedding like 10 years ago that made everybody's panties wet was waaaaaay overblown, but whatever.

And this bitch lasted 70 years on the throne. So many of her subjects have only ever known her reign and no one else's. It's not monumental to their lives, and nothing drastic will be different from day-to-day, but it is an interesting marker in observing the passage of time, I guess.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

I do find the concept of a country keeping one's monarchs around kind of interesting. The concept of a singular entity being given any decision-making power entirely due to birthright is pretty antiquated, and if (like in the case of Britain and a few other European countries) the monarch essentially has no powers, then why have one at all? But you ask Brits how they feel about having a monarch, and they're like, "What? Why would we get rid of the royal family?"

So I guess the pomp and circumstance and all that shit is kind of interesting to watch from afar. I think the royal wedding like 10 years ago that made everybody's panties wet was waaaaaay overblown, but whatever.

The "queen of England" has become part of English parlance over 70 years. So much of her subjects had only ever known her reign and no one else's. It's not monumental to their lives, and nothing drastic will be different from day-to-day, but it is an interesting marker in observing the passage of time, I guess.

I find this interesting as well. I don't follow the royal family at all, so I don't know the mechanics of royalty. I know that they make their land from a lot of different properties, but are those properties owned by them or the government?

If Britain decided to "do away with royalty", what does that even mean and what are the results? Would the royals just shrug and continue being rich from the properties, or would that money go into the government coffers and the royals would have no income and start working at fish and chips stands?

I kind of wonder if anything would really change if Britain decided to abolish the crown. The royals would still be celebrities and that's essentially all that most of them are now.

I did hear something a while back that the queen participated in some national policy discussions and maybe she had to sign bills or treaties or something. Or she had to approve things like her own branch of government. But if she didn't approve, would it really count as a veto? I have no idea.

[RealSNR]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I find this interesting as well. I don't follow the royal family at all, so I don't know the mechanics of royalty. I know that they make their land from a lot of different properties, but are those properties owned by them or the government?

If Britain decided to "do away with royalty", what does that even mean and what are the results? Would the royals just shrug and continue being rich from the properties, or would that money go into the government coffers and the royals would have no income and start working at fish and chips stands?

I kind of wonder if anything would really change if Britain decided to abolish the crown. The royals would still be celebrities and that's essentially all that most of them are now.

I did hear something a while back that the queen participated in some national policy discussions and maybe she had to sign bills or treaties or something. Or she had to approve things like her own branch of government. But if she didn't approve, would it really count as a veto? I have no idea.

They'd still be rich, I'm guessing. I've seen a few youtube channels who do things like show the family trees of various ruling families after they're out of power.
Somehow, when they reach the "surviving monarch" who would be the ruler of today, that person always looks filthy rich and important, wearing a suit with a bunch of medals on it or whatever. There's never a photo of just some guy as an employee at a used car lot in Kalamazoo. Or with his family at Disney World. They never say, "That's right. The presumptive Holy Roman Emperor of today is Harvey from accounting"

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

They'd still be rich, I'm guessing. I've seen a few youtube channels who do things like show the family trees of various ruling families after they're out of power.

Somehow, when they reach the "surviving monarch" who would be the ruler of today, that person always looks filthy rich and important, wearing a suit with a bunch of medals on it or whatever. There's never a photo of just some guy as an employee at a used car lot in Kalamazoo. Or with his family at Disney World. They never say, "That's right. The presumptive Holy Roman Emperor of today is Harvey from accounting"

Yeah, I don't know the mix of public and private ownership, but they've been rich for so long that I'm sure they put a little aside each month to buy yachts and castles and runaways. Even if they lost 95 percent of the assets they get to use now, they'd probably still live in a castle.

Hmm, a quick google search estimates the queen's net worth at $500 million. That's about 1 percent of what I would have expected. Of course, I think her housing and utilities are probably covered, so her costs are lower than average.

[PunkinDrublic]

I like to tell Canadians they have the queen on their currency because they’re a bunch of doormats with no backbone.

[JPH83]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I find this interesting as well. I don't follow the royal family at all, so I don't know the mechanics of royalty. I know that they make their land from a lot of different properties, but are those properties owned by them or the government?

If Britain decided to "do away with royalty", what does that even mean and what are the results? Would the royals just shrug and continue being rich from the properties, or would that money go into the government coffers and the royals would have no income and start working at fish and chips stands?

I kind of wonder if anything would really change if Britain decided to abolish the crown. The royals would still be celebrities and that's essentially all that most of them are now.

I did hear something a while back that the queen participated in some national policy discussions and maybe she had to sign bills or treaties or something. Or she had to approve things like her own branch of government. But if she didn't approve, would it really count as a veto? I have no idea.

They own the land, not the Government. Duke of Westminster is one of the richest Royals and it's entirely because he owns a shit load of properties, particularly in wealthy areas of London. They're basically fancy landlords.

As for policy discussions the convention is they stay away from it. Charles frequently got in trouble for lobbying various government ministers on policy. They're basically there to open parliament...and local swimming pools.

Probably little would change if we abolished them but we still should.

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by RealSNR

I do find the concept of a country keeping one's monarchs around kind of interesting. The concept of a singular entity being given any decision-making power entirely due to birthright is pretty antiquated, and if (like in the case of Britain and a few other European countries) the monarch essentially has no powers, then why have one at all? But you ask Brits how they feel about having a monarch, and they're like, "What? Why would we get rid of the royal family?"

So I guess the pomp and circumstance and all that shit is kind of interesting to watch from afar. I think the royal wedding like 10 years ago that made everybody's panties wet was waaaaaay overblown, but whatever.

And this bitch lasted 70 years on the throne. So many of her subjects have only ever known her reign and no one else's. It's not monumental to their lives, and nothing drastic will be different from day-to-day, but it is an interesting marker in observing the passage of time, I guess.

It must hearken them back to a nostalgic, romantic vision of what once was

Knights and round tables and grand ceremony, etc

But yeah its a strange thing that modern monarchs have no official power, yet their words and actions still carry considerable weight

I dunno, but she was clearly the best of this modern lot by a country mile... RIP Elizabeth

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by Easy 6

It must hearken them back to a nostalgic, romantic vision of what once was

Knights and round tables and grand ceremony, etc

But yeah its a strange thing that modern monarchs have no official power, yet their words and actions still carry considerable weight

I dunno, but she was clearly the best of this modern lot by a country mile... RIP Elizabeth

What do you have against King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden or King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands?

[Easy 6]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

What do you have against King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden or King Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands?

Those guys are bundles of sticks, King Abdullah of Jordan is the only true monarch left in the historical sense IMO

Not just some figurehead, but the actual leader of his army, security apparatus and everything else... he calls ALL the shots, he's the man

Now he just needs another what, 35 years in power to match old Liz?

[srvy]

Originally Posted by stumppy

That's a helluva long life of service. RIP

Sevice to what?

Sitting on a throne living in the lap of luxury with everyone catering to your every whim. I'd say she got lifelong service from the backs of her subject's and their taxes.