SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A Teen Tried To Shoot Queen Elizabeth In 1981, Intelligence Report Says
New Zealand police say they are re-examining an apparent assassination attempt against Queen Elizabeth II. Declassified documents from New Zealand's intelligence service, newly released to an investigative journalist at the news website Stuff, indicate that there may have been a cover-up after teenager Christopher Lewis fired at the queen's motorcade in Dunedin. At the time, officials suggested to journalists that the bang of Lewis' gun was a sign falling over or firecrackers going off.
"Lewis did indeed originally intend to assassinate the queen, however did not have a suitable vantage point from which to fire, nor a sufficiently high-powered rifle for the range from the target," one declassified memo states.
[...] The 17-year-old was never charged with attempted murder or with treason, according to the news investigation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Tuesday March 06 2018, @05:27PM (1 child)
Monarchy has been tried before. There's a reason most places got rid of their monarchs.
Monarchy has been tried before, and was a big success. The reign of Elizabeth I is considered a golden age in Britain, for example, and Marcus Aurelius is considered an excellent emperor in ancient Roman times. Many monarchs have been excellent, and that's why I said this queen would have made a better ruler than most of the PMs that served during her time.
Anyone who has a clue about governmental forms would acknowledge that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government. It's far more efficient than a democratic republic and eliminates the problem of the people at the very top being corrupt or not having the nation's interest at heart.
The fatal flaw with monarchism is that great rulers eventually get old and die, and their heirs usually suck. That's the big reason we don't have them much any more. Marcus Aurelius was great, as I said, but his son Commodus was a disaster (it didn't play out quite the way as portrayed in "Gladiator"; Commodus was assassinated in his bathtub). Elizabeth I was great (and James I after her seemed to be good too), but she was preceded by Mary Queen of Scots, who was horrible and responsible for much oppression and murder (hence her moniker "Bloody Mary"). Of course, with democratic governments you have good and not-so-good leaders, but they have less power, and it's easier to get rid of them. This is why this form of government won out: over the long term, you get more consistent results. So when I say monarchy was "a success", the problem is that that success is time-limited, and can change quickly as soon as a new monarch takes over.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 12 2018, @01:58PM
Mary "queen of Scots" was never Queen of England. Mary Tudor, ( Mary I ), was "bloody Mary".