Jump to content

OT - Queen Elizabeth Has Passed Away


Sabres Fan in NS
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am not a huge fan of the Royal Family and what they represent, but that is a discussion for another day and another thread.  Maybe not at all.  

Also, Islam forbids royalty, which is another interesting discussion for another day and another thread.

That said, as a Canadian she was my Queen and she was a steady presence for many years.  She was 96 and we all have to go at some point.  I think the strife she has faced in the last year+ was just too much.

RIP!!

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Sabres Fan in NS said:

I am not a huge fan of the Royal Family and what they represent, but that is a discussion for another day and another thread.  Maybe not at all.  

Also, Islam forbids royalty, which is another interesting discussion for another day and another thread.

That said, as a Canadian she was my Queen and she was a steady presence for many years.  She was 96 and we all have to go at some point.  I think the strife she has faced in the last year+ was just too much.

RIP!!

I agree on the first part, never really understood the attention the royal family gets and what they stand for.  Technically I DO 'understand' it, but I guess I don't agree with it.  With that said, there are a lot of people that this means a lot to, so this is an important/sad day to so many.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a royalist at all. Not sure there’s a place for it in this world. A figurehead worth billions of buckolas who won’t pay for the repairs on her castle or her travel and security ? What she represents is colonialism, greed, exploitation, etc. But I do feel for her little grands right now who will be missing their grandmom so she can R.I.P. wherever that may be.

  • Like (+1) 7
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Domestically, the BBC has told those facing a long winter in which they will not be able to afford to heat their homes that their suffering is “insignificant” compared to that of the family of a 96-year-old woman who died peacefully in the lap of luxury.    

 

Edited by phil_soisson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, phil_soisson said:

Domestically, the BBC has told those facing a long winter in which they will not be able to afford to heat their homes that their suffering is “insignificant” compared to that of the family of a 96-year-old woman who died peacefully in the lap of luxury.    

 

Big difference between her and Marie Antoinette. The latter made the ill-fated mistake of telling French subjects, “let them eat cake” when they had no bread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously  I'm not for royalty, still beats having a president though.    So I guess I'm all for royalty by default.

President means extra elections, usually have to spend more money than on a king or queen, and a King has more neutrality than a president because not bound to any political faction.    Here in Belgium its in the law that the king must remain neutral, Its a puppet show but still beats having a president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FogBat said:

Big difference between her and Marie Antoinette. The latter made the ill-fated mistake of telling French subjects, “let them eat cake” when they had no bread.

Fun fact- the famous quote is actually "let them eat brioche." Probably translated to "cake" when culturally, less English-speaking folks were familiar with brioche. Very happy that many more are now familiar, including myself 😄

Edited by erickompositör72
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Seriously  I'm not for royalty, still beats having a president though.    So I guess I'm all for royalty by default.

President means extra elections, usually have to spend more money than on a king or queen, and a King has more neutrality than a president because not bound to any political faction.    Here in Belgium its in the law that the king must remain neutral, Its a puppet show but still beats having a president.

Yeah, I’ll take voting for someone that potentially represents me rather than hope for a benevolent head that earned the position via heredity.

Your mileage may vary.

  • Agree 3
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

Seriously  I'm not for royalty, still beats having a president though.    So I guess I'm all for royalty by default.

President means extra elections, usually have to spend more money than on a king or queen, and a King has more neutrality than a president because not bound to any political faction.    Here in Belgium its in the law that the king must remain neutral, Its a puppet show but still beats having a president.

OT, but in Belgium, who decides who will be Prime Minister?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in Belgium the King is the titular head of state, but the Prime Minister is the actual head of government.  The Prime Minister is not elected himself, but appointed by an elected Parliament?

The Prime Minister, not the King, would essentially by the equivalent of a US President.

Why the concern about there being extra elections?

Again, correct me if I’m incorrect about anything.

Edited by Curt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Curt said:

OT, but in Belgium, who decides who will be Prime Minister?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but in Belgium the King is the titular head of state, but the Prime Minister is the actual head of government.  The Prime Minister is not elected himself, but appointed by an elected Parliament?

The Prime Minister, not the King, would essentially by the equivalent of a US President.

Why the concern about there being extra elections?

Again, correct me if I’m incorrect about anything.

The prime minister is elected by the parties with the most votes in parliament.     Yes prime minister is the equivalent of a US president.
King or President basically have ***** all power anyway in deciding things.    No one here wants to spend time on another Sunday deciding on a lazy nitwit from a political faction that wants to cash in, rather have a king then.

A president would not be decided by parliament, just like in France it would be a direct voting system.   But you risk at him being from a politcal faction that doesn't have a majority in parliament, rather have a neutral king.   Really not see the point in switching , will only bring more issues.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

The prime minister is elected by the parties with the most votes in parliament.     Yes prime minister is the equivalent of a US president.
King or President basically have ***** all power anyway in deciding things.    No one here wants to spend time on another Sunday deciding on a lazy nitwit from a political faction that wants to cash in, rather have a king then.

A president would not be decided by parliament, just like in France it would be a direct voting system.   But you risk at him being from a politcal faction that doesn't have a majority in parliament, rather have a neutral king.   Really not see the point in switching , will only bring more issues.   

I kind of feel like the US President does have a significant amount of power.  As much, maybe more, than I’d like to see in any one person’s hands.

The “big” elections in the US, for Congress and President are only one day every two years.  So it’s not really asking a lot as far as that goes.

By the way, as silly as it is, US elections are always on a week day.  Also, they are completely voluntary, so anyone who doesn’t want to spend the time selecting a lazy nitwit can just stay home.

Maybe because it is voluntary, people (those who do) tend to take a fair amount of pride in taking the time to exercise their right to vote.

In Belgium voting is mandatory, no?  Do most people see it as an annoying burden that they are forced to participate in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

President means extra elections, usually have to spend more money than on a king or queen, and a King has more neutrality than a president because not bound to any political faction.    Here in Belgium its in the law that the king must remain neutral, Its a puppet show but still beats having a president.

Taking into account taxes, public upkeep of property etc The Royal Family cost UK taxpayers over £340M a year. They are supposed to be neutral and a power designed to keep politicians from passing laws that unfairly impact British citizens. However they use this more often than not to veto rules that directly affect their own accumulated wealth. E.g. climate change bill, equalities act, animal mistreatment etc. 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/08/royals-vetted-more-than-1000-laws-via-queens-consent

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/09/prince-charles-vetted-laws-that-stop-his-tenants-buying-their-homes

https://www.republic.org.uk/the_true_cost_of_the_royals

And let's not forget Prince Andrew

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/02/15/queen-help-pay-12m-prince-andrew-settlement/

It is sad that a family have lost their mother, grandmother. Just as it is sad for all familes who have lost someone dear them. 

 

Edited by steveoath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Seriously  I'm not for royalty, still beats having a president though.    So I guess I'm all for royalty by default.

President means extra elections, usually have to spend more money than on a king or queen, and a King has more neutrality than a president because not bound to any political faction.    Here in Belgium its in the law that the king must remain neutral, Its a puppet show but still beats having a president.

Very interesting take here.
 

“ … having a President”?   By this do you mean having a democracy where the people elect their representation and leadership?  I can’t think of anything more valuable, and more worth fighting to protect, than that.  If the people become too lazy, tired, or indifferent to vote then that right  may inevitably be lost in the future.   

History shows that real Monarchy’s were anything but neutral.  They gained wealth and power by exploitation and colonization.  

My impression of this Queen was that she was a good leader, albeit still a figurehead.  I understand why people in the commonwealth love and respect her but the in general, the royals are not my cup of tea.  

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Pimlach said:

Very interesting take here.
 

“ … having a President”?   By this do you mean having a democracy where the people elect their representation and leadership?  I can’t think of anything more valuable, and more worth fighting to protect, than that.  If the people become too lazy, tired, or indifferent to vote then that right  may inevitably be lost in the future.   

History shows that real Monarchy’s were anything but neutral.  They gained wealth and power by exploitation and colonization.  

My impression of this Queen was that she was a good leader, albeit still a figurehead.  I understand why people in the commonwealth love and respect her but the in general, the royals are not my cup of tea.  

That is what a president in my country would be , a figurehead.   Prime minister and parliament have all the power.  No use in changing that and stirring up more ***** among politcal parties.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don’t know if people are dancing around the topic due to her death, I will not.

Regardless if Elizabeth was a good person who had admirable qualities, the notion of “royal blood“ and hereditary monarchy is vile. Abhorrent. Appalling. 

You’re labeled a king or a queen because of some family tyrant murdered people before you? ***** you. You think your blood is any different than anyone else on earth? ***** you. You think you deserve to ***** on a golden throne by birthright? ***** you.

In the year 2022, this concept is entirely disgusting and it has been for decades.

There is some hope the children are seeing this farcical cosplay horseshit for what it is and will reject it. Let’s hope we see Buckingham palace turn into a Spirit Halloween in our lifetime. Good riddance to this trash.

Hereditary monarchy is eugenics adjacent. When you start elevating the genes of one person over another, it leads to bad outcomes.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Disagree 1
  • Agree 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thanks (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

That is what a president in my country would be , a figurehead.   Prime minister and parliament have all the power.  No use in changing that and stirring up more ***** among politcal parties.

Not suggesting to add a President.  A Prime Minister is the equivalent of a President, as Parliament is to Congress.  
 

The question is whether you prefer monarchs over elected leaders.  Having elected leaders AND figurehead monarchs is a lot of extra tax on the people.  At the end of the day, the people foot the bill for both.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...