Long Live the King

[Cyclops]

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom has died. Her rule was the longest of any monarch I know, certainly in British history. She has been a skilled and charming monarch, and delayed in my view the end of the monarchy in Australia and for all I know the rest of her realms by sheer force of ability and hard work.

A very great leader for her peoples.

I expect Australia will be a republic shortly. I also expect our constitution will be less stable for a while, but i think that would be the case as her son, to be Charles III, is known as an arrogant ass of a man with a talent for enraging others.

I feel particularly for our friends in the UK, as she is well loved by most. I feel she probably acted as a moderating force, because although she was a figurehead, her intelligence and example had enormous influence on public affairs.

Will the monarchy survive her son's reign? Will the UK suffer from the loss of stable rule? I fear so.

[alhoon]

I believe monarchy in Australia will survive her son's reign. In fact, monarchy in Australia is better viewed as in England.

[Heathen Hammer]

I never really understood the whole simping for Windsors thing, given how Windsors themselves have 0 Celtic/Anglo-Saxon blood and are basically German/Dutch/Russian nobles that rule their Briton inferiors just like Romans did in early ADs.
That aside, constitutional "monarchy" is kind of a meme, where monarch is just a figurehead and just by looking at the past one's track record, her nation went from being a giant Empire leading the world... to a tiny island, ruled by corrupt cosmopolitan kleptocracy, along with other "commonwealth" nations and all of her accomplishments to oppose that was that one time when she vaguely hinted to her supporting Brexit.
I wonder if Charles will be different, but am not holding hope.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Seems like, barring a royal terrorism conviction, the monarchy can easily continue to coast along by sheer force of habit, if nothing else. Then again, the kiddies could cancel it out of spite.

[Heathen Hammer]

It would be funny if left-leaning establishment that was largely allowed to fester and ultimately dominate society under E2's rule will be the reason why monarchy there is abolished.

[Cyclops]

I believe monarchy in Australia will survive her son's reign. In fact, monarchy in Australia is better viewed as in England.

I can't agree: mostly we just don't care. Most people, even educated people have at best a vague idea the prime minister as our head of state, and see the connection to the Queen as ceremonial at best, when in fact she is definitely the Sovereign.

There's less ill-will than in the UK, but also a less fervent devotion. The actual Monarchist movement is tiny, the "support" for retaining the monarchy here is "if it ain't broke", and sheer fear of change: fairly well founded fear too, we have some problems with corruption that a distant sovereign somehow ameliorates). Now we have a "difficult *****" as a monarch that will probably change, but Elizabeth II was a flawless constitutional monarch.

Support for and hatered of the Monarchy in the UK can be glimpsed in the fierce trolling on line. People are dancing on her grave already, not out of hate for her I think but for the very corrupt establishment that took her as their shibboleth.

In Australia the Republican movement was skilfully stymied by a politically astute PM at the end of the last century which resulted in an unexpected survival.

The convention is to wait a generation before reopening such matters: its been near enough (23 years) and the death of the Monarch will be the trigger for another referendum. With the conservative parties in disarray it will either serve to rally them, or be a walkover for the Republic.

[Heathen Hammer]

People are dancing on her grave already, not out of hate for her I think but for the very corrupt establishment that took her as their shibboleth.

She had 7 decades to say something about that. She was either okay with that establishment and the horrible things it has been doing to nations that she technically led throughout her rule... or she wasn't even in a position to voice her opinion on any significant matters, rendering her a symbolic mascot. In either case it seems that excessively praising her is kinda silly, since she never really accomplished much of anything other then just being there.

[skh1]

Sir David Attenborough attends the Queen



Regina mortua est, vivat Rex.

[Laser101]

I can't agree: mostly we just don't care. Most people, even educated people have at best a vague idea the prime minister as our head of state, and see the connection to the Queen as ceremonial at best, when in fact she is definitely the Sovereign.

There's less ill-will than in the UK, but also a less fervent devotion. The actual Monarchist movement is tiny, the "support" for retaining the monarchy here is "if it ain't broke", and sheer fear of change: fairly well founded fear too, we have some problems with corruption that a distant sovereign somehow ameliorates). Now we have a "difficult *****" as a monarch that will probably change, but Elizabeth II was a flawless constitutional monarch.

Support for and hatered of the Monarchy in the UK can be glimpsed in the fierce trolling on line. People are dancing on her grave already, not out of hate for her I think but for the very corrupt establishment that took her as their shibboleth.

In Australia the Republican movement was skilfully stymied by a politically astute PM at the end of the last century which resulted in an unexpected survival.

The convention is to wait a generation before reopening such matters: its been near enough (23 years) and the death of the Monarch will be the trigger for another referendum. With the conservative parties in disarray it will either serve to rally them, or be a walkover for the Republic.

IIRC constitutionally the monarch is the Head of State, but the only one permitted to use that authority is the Governor-General; the monarch can't do anything except through the GG.

The biggest hurdle for a Republic is providing a reason to bother; since a theoretical President would probably be a purely ceremonial and likely appointed position, you'd have to come up with some way this is different from how the Governor-General works now. Otherwise, it's a lot of effort for an aesthetic change.

[skh1]

Nonetheless, the accension of Charles the Third may prompt many a misgiving.



But maybe not. Let's see how the old duffer fares.

[irontaino]

Great day to be Irish...or Indian...or African...or Native American. The pubs in Ireland must be drying out now. Maybe the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization will take her casket and put it on display.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Her apparent association with British imperial glory across the world decades after its collapse is a testament to her historic reign.

[irontaino]

Her apparent association with British imperial glory across the world decades after its collapse is a testament to her historic reign.

What's that? A monarch who was an active participant in her nation's colonial history is associated with her nation's colonial history? How could that be?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Her Majesty’s remarks amidst the death of the Empire are an inspiration to all, and prescient even today.

It is inevitable that I should seem a rather remote figure to many of you. A successor to the Kings and Queens of history; someone whose face may be familiar in newspapers and films but who never really touches your personal lives. But now at least for a few minutes I welcome you to the peace of my own home.

That it is possible for some of you to see me today is just another example of the speed at which things are changing all around us. Because of these changes I am not surprised that many people feel lost and unable to decide what to hold on to and what to discard. How to take advantage of the new life without losing the best of the old.

But it is not the new inventions which are the difficulty. The trouble is caused by unthinking people who carelessly throw away ageless ideals as if they were old and outworn machinery.

They would have religion thrown aside, morality in personal and public life made meaningless, honesty counted as foolishness and self-interest set up in place of self-restraint.

At this critical moment in our history we will certainly lose the trust and respect of the world if we just abandon those fundamental principles which guided the men and women who built the greatness of this country and Commonwealth.

Today we need a special kind of courage, not the kind needed in battle but a kind which makes us stand up for everything that we know is right, everything that is true and honest. We need the kind of courage that can withstand the subtle corruption of the cynics so that we can show the world that we are not afraid of the future.

[skh1]

A double rainbow appeared over Buckingham Palace this morning just prior to the official announcement of Her Majesty's passing.



Make of that what you will.

[Cyclops]

IIRC constitutionally the monarch is the Head of State, but the only one permitted to use that authority is the Governor-General; the monarch can't do anything except through the GG.

The biggest hurdle for a Republic is providing a reason to bother; since a theoretical President would probably be a purely ceremonial and likely appointed position, you'd have to come up with some way this is different from how the Governor-General works now. Otherwise, it's a lot of effort for an aesthetic change.

GG is only head of state when the monarch is absent. Thats most of the time.

In Australia the Monarch and GG have wider powers than in the UK, the monarchy is less trammelled.

Youre right the form of Republic is the stumbling block. The was the point on which we stumbled in 1999.

Its not really just an aesthetic change but it will appear so to most people.

[basics]

Yesterday was a very sad day for not just the British but for a lot of people all around the world when Queen Elizabeth ll passed away. It is written that every ruler is there only because God ordained it and this woman certainly carried that blessing throughout her long reign and I have no doubt that she will be much missed all across this world. Was she a Christian? Yes I believe on good authority that she was indeed born again of the Spirit of God and now rests in the arms of her Lord. I can only pray that her successor may also be guided by the same Saviour that she so loved and followed. So the saying now is God save the King and I hope that He does.

-Similar threads merged. ~Abdülmecid I

[Prodromos]

A sad day for many. It must feel like the end of an era to you, basics. I imagine you were only a small boy when she became Queen.

[mishkin]

Was she a Christian? Yes I believe on good authority that she was indeed born again of the Spirit of God and now rests in the arms of her Lord. .

Sorry could you explain this? Wasnt she an Anglican, and so her religion was wrong according to other religions (like yours)? Or are you saying all anglicans are good?

[Heathen Hammer]

Her apparent association with British imperial glory across the world decades after its collapse is a testament to her historic reign.

Blaming her for events from 1800s is crazy, but then again, modern left hasn't been known for either its erudition or rational thinking.
Having said that, even a broken clock is right twice a day - she had powers, and chose not to use them throughout 70 years of her reign. She chose not to stop Blair and other war criminal PMs. She chose to allow policies that robbed her once proud and free subjects of their wealth and freedoms. That being said, I get that we don't know what such arrangement was in reality, but she was either okay with all of those things, or she had a MI6 threaten her and her family or she simply didn't care. I wouldn't take the page out of "democratic socialist' book by dancing on her grave, but this excessive praise for her seems forced and somewhat of a coping mechanism, by millions of people that lust for some kind of tradition, and British pseudo-monarchy is the closest simulacra to it.