Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Breaking News
posted by janrinok on Thursday September 08, @06:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the R.I.P. dept.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61585886

Buckingham Palace has announced that Queen Elizabeth II has died.

This discussion was created by janrinok (52) for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 2, Funny) by drussell on Thursday September 08, @06:24PM (6 children)

    by drussell (2678) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 08, @06:24PM (#1270791) Journal

    Like I said in my journal earlier...

    Argh!! Oh, great...
    Now we have to start putting King Charles' ugly mug on our money! 🙄

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @07:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @07:43PM (#1270805)

      And in not entirely unrelated news, the new coins of the realm will no longer be round.
      "It's the ears, innit!"

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by NPC-131072 on Thursday September 08, @08:23PM

      by NPC-131072 (7144) on Thursday September 08, @08:23PM (#1270815) Journal

      Hello fren,

      In old news, he was just ahead of his time! [youtube.com]

      I say Charles don't you ever crave
      To appear on the front of the Daily Mail
      Dressed in your mother's bridal veil?

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by HammeredGlass on Thursday September 08, @10:06PM (2 children)

      by HammeredGlass (12241) on Thursday September 08, @10:06PM (#1270839)

      I thought all the brits stayed at the green place . . .

    • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday September 09, @07:41AM

      by Opportunist (5545) on Friday September 09, @07:41AM (#1270896)

      The royal post is already in full panic because they already know that they'll have to hire a bunch of new workers to explain to people why the new stamps don't stay attached.

      Public service announcement: To make them work, you have to spit on the other side, people!

  • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 08, @06:49PM (27 children)

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday September 08, @06:49PM (#1270794) Journal

    Fuck the office of queen! We fought a war over this shit!

    However, Mrs. Elizabeth seemed to have become a fairly ok person in her older age and RIP and best wishes to all the folks that loved her.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by NateMich on Thursday September 08, @06:58PM (17 children)

      by NateMich (6662) on Thursday September 08, @06:58PM (#1270797)

      the office of queen

      Well don't worry then. That office should be vacant for a good while.

      • (Score: 3, Flamebait) by DeathMonkey on Thursday September 08, @07:10PM

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Thursday September 08, @07:10PM (#1270798) Journal

        One down one to go!

      • (Score: 3, Touché) by cykros on Thursday September 08, @08:58PM (15 children)

        by cykros (989) on Thursday September 08, @08:58PM (#1270828)

        Unless you count Camilla, Queen Consort of the United Kingdom.

        Prince Philip had to wait years to outgrow the title of mere Duke. The Queen's biggest failing in life seems to have been raising a family that couldn't even muster the class necessary to be an upstanding trailer park resident. Her uncle had the decency to abdicate; her son on the other hand sees fit to bestow the title of Queen upon his whore.

        As the saying goes though, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. That she made a life of doing so despite the number of horses in her life hellbent on dehydration stands to her credit.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday September 09, @02:50AM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @02:50AM (#1270875) Journal

          her son on the other hand sees fit to bestow the title of Queen upon his whore.

          Is there supposed to be a problem here? Seems a reasonable thing to do.

          I find it interesting how much abuse people are willing to heap on these people just because they don't live perfect lives.

          • (Score: 3, Touché) by acid andy on Friday September 09, @11:32AM (1 child)

            by acid andy (1683) on Friday September 09, @11:32AM (#1270914) Homepage Journal

            I find it interesting how much abuse people are willing to heap on these people just because they don't live perfect lives.

            Whereas someone who isn't born into all the wealth they could ever need and suffers as a result should just try harder because it isn't that hard, eh khallow?

            --
            Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday September 09, @11:51AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @11:51AM (#1270917) Journal
              Pretty much. Feels like I'm back in high school when I read this stuff.
        • (Score: 2) by Opportunist on Friday September 09, @07:44AM

          by Opportunist (5545) on Friday September 09, @07:44AM (#1270897)

          As the saying goes though, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

          You want to make Camilla drunk? What whs that?

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09, @03:46PM (6 children)

          by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 09, @03:46PM (#1270945) Journal

          I'd say the Queens biggest failings were doing nothing about Apartheid and the colonies in Africa and India (in her younger years) but hey....what's a bit of slavery and oppression amongst friends!

          • (Score: 1) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 09, @06:16PM (5 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @06:16PM (#1270995) Homepage Journal

            Curious. How many colonies did England and/or the UK still hold when Elizabeth was crowned? And, uhhhhhhhmmmm, apartheid? Was that the norm in former English colonies? I have an idea that you are somewhat confused on the issues you are raising. Whatever evils the English and the UK visited upon the world, they did lead the way in ending slavery. At risk of sparking a new wave of outrage, I'll paraphrase a comment I made in another discussion: The English aren't the only evil in the world, nor are they the worst.

            --
            "no more than 8 bullets in a round" - Joe Biden
            • (Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09, @07:39PM (4 children)

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 09, @07:39PM (#1271009) Journal

              Pretty sure she was in office in 1993 when Apartheid ended....

              • (Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09, @07:41PM (2 children)

                by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 09, @07:41PM (#1271010) Journal

                Americans seem to forget how shockingly recent Apartheid was....

                • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday September 09, @08:18PM (1 child)

                  by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @08:18PM (#1271029) Journal

                  Particularly in the United States of America. When did segregation end there? Was it the 1960s? Their "democratic government" was even shooting student protestors as late as 1970.

                  • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, @03:54PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, @03:54PM (#1271212)
                    Well now they shoot blacks, hispanics and some whites.

                    Progress?
              • (Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 09, @11:19PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @11:19PM (#1271047) Homepage Journal

                Well, you answered part of the question. Now, just to be sure, apartheid was a South African thing, right? And, who colonized South Africa? Yeah, sure, England was in on it, almost from the beginning. But, who actually colonized and settled most of South Africa? Those Boers had a lot to do with everything, from the first days, right up through today.

                --
                "no more than 8 bullets in a round" - Joe Biden
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @05:52PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @05:52PM (#1270992)

          ... her son on the other hand sees fit to bestow the title of Queen upon his whore.

          No he didn't. His mother is the one who bestowed the title. And that title is not "Queen", but "Queen Consort".

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @06:17PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @06:17PM (#1270996)

            I'll point out that it takes a right royal wanking fuckwit to care about royalty.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @07:51PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @07:51PM (#1271018)

              I'll point out that I correct mistakes whenever I see them, no matter the subject or my personal opinions.
              You should see my record and would be surprised at how hard it would be to derive my personal opinions from that.

        • (Score: 4, Interesting) by turgid on Friday September 09, @08:13PM

          by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @08:13PM (#1271026) Journal

          I say this as a republican Brit pro-Scottish independence: that is totally uncalled for. What a terrible thing to say about our new King and his wife. People get married and divorced. That's life. They're human beings like the rest of us. You got a flamebait mod from me.

          Whether you like monarchy or not, that's what we've got.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @07:48PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @07:48PM (#1270807)

      Headline News: Monarch Not Beheaded

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @07:53PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @07:53PM (#1270809)

        Bah, and they pretend to follow tradition.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by HiThere on Thursday September 08, @08:22PM (4 children)

        by HiThere (866) on Thursday September 08, @08:22PM (#1270814) Journal

        Isn't that reserved for kings named Charles?

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday September 09, @11:41AM (2 children)

          by Thexalon (636) on Friday September 09, @11:41AM (#1270915)

          In Britain, yes. Over in France, it's kings named Louis that are much more in danger.

          --
          The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by Nuke on Friday September 09, @12:44PM (1 child)

            by Nuke (3162) on Friday September 09, @12:44PM (#1270923)

            Over in France, it's kings named Louis that are much more in danger.

            Not statistically sound. Weren't they nearly all called Louis?

            • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09, @06:09PM

              by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 09, @06:09PM (#1270994) Journal

              Aren't they only allowed to have like 3 different names in thee first place? (serious question, this Yank doesn't know much about monarchy)

        • (Score: 2) by Nuke on Friday September 09, @12:41PM

          by Nuke (3162) on Friday September 09, @12:41PM (#1270922)

          Henry VIII got his rocks off by beheading queens.

          Beheading kings was only if the killer was kind. Being stuck up the a-hole with a rod happened more often - a red-hot was optional.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @08:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @08:32PM (#1270821)

        Murdoch Not Beheaded?

        Why not?

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Friday September 09, @12:17PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @12:17PM (#1270918)

      So did we. To pick out the main ones:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peasants%27_Revolt [wikipedia.org]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Three_Kingdoms [wikipedia.org]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution [wikipedia.org]
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobite_rising_of_1715 [wikipedia.org]

      (although back then, some of you were also some of us)

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Snotnose on Thursday September 08, @08:25PM (6 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Thursday September 08, @08:25PM (#1270816)

    Things that make me fast forward: 1) Covid and boosters. 2) Sports, unless I get gory shots of an $18m/year asshole beating his gf in an elevator; and 3) anything dealing with the royal family.

    The queen adjusting herself to insurance adjusters mortality lists is gonna be in half my local news, and 2/3 of the national news tonight. I may as well go to bed. Except, well, it rained this morning. And rain wasn't predicted until tomorrow at 9 AM. And I really want to know when the heat will end so I can turn on my air conditioner. Oh wait, that didn't make sense? I live in California, where Good Old Gavin held a press conference begging us to crank our thermostats up to 78. Except he was wearing a fleece jacket. Zipped up to his chin. Indoors.

    Good old "do as I say, not as I do" Gavin strikes again.

    --
    The Word Of the Day (WOD) is finicky. As in, "sharks avoid the sewage discharge pipe because they make their finicky".
    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09, @03:48PM (5 children)

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 09, @03:48PM (#1270947) Journal

      I'm actually surprised that "we don't care about monarchy" is such a controversial opinion around here!

      People are actually spending mod points in this thread! It's weird..

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @06:50AM (4 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @06:50AM (#1271081)

        Funny that you can complain about moderation and the rest of us can't. No bias around here, eh?

        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Saturday September 10, @09:52AM (3 children)

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 10, @09:52AM (#1271093) Journal

          You have an account so you can moderate too. Is the problem that other people don't agree with your moderations? That is the way the world is, we all have different opinions from time to time. Or do you think you have some kind of moderation ban in force - there is none that I can see?

          I can't help any further because I don't quite understand why "the rest of us can't" complain about the moderation.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @07:52PM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @07:52PM (#1271141)

            ... I don't quite understand why "the rest of us can't" complain about the moderation.

            Of course not, but you mod "the rest of us" down for it anyway.

            • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday September 11, @06:15AM (1 child)

              by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11, @06:15AM (#1271178) Journal

              You seem to think that I, or at least I and the other admins, are the only people who moderate.

              The latest statistics for the 10 Sep show that administrators made 2 moderations out of a total of 150 made on that day. That is 1.33%. You are moderated by the community. These statistics are slightly lower than a typical 'normal' day where it is usually around 3%. Administrators also mod comments up as well as down, as well as revert malicious moderations. That people have different views or opinions is simply a fact of life.

              It was the community that were fed up with all of the disruptive and off-topic posting, frequently aimed at specific individuals. It was the community who were asking for a ban on AC posting (look at the IRC logs for evidence if you remain unconvinced). There had been numerous requests for such a move for over 18 months. It was the community members who were leaving the site because it was no longer possible to have an intelligent discussion because of a small but significant number of idiots. Even those former community members who were most instrumental in creating and setting up this site left because they were ashamed and disappointed with what it had become. You have every right to feel aggrieved for how ACs might be viewed, but you are aiming your complaints at the wrong people.

              Furthermore, by remaining as ACs you are removing your own ability to influence how the site is managed and operates in the future. You cannot help downmod the bad posts. You only have a limited voice when we seek opinions because we cannot identify every AC as an individual. You cannot help us manage the site by more practical means because you insist on remaining anonymous.

              The moderation system allows a community member to build up a reputation - good or bad - that can be recognised by other members. This reflects how they view each comment and how much they can rely on the nickname for accurate and relevant information. You might not be aristarchus yourself - but all the community members see is 'Anonymous Coward'. This is a choice that you have made and I fully accept that it is your right to do so. You may have very good reasons for your decision. If, over time, the quality of AC posts improves (which are sometimes very good but buried in a lot of AC posts that are much worse) then perhaps the view of AC posts will change.

              This may not be how you would like the moderation system to work. It may not be a perfect system or even a good system. But is the system that we have and until we can modify the source code it will remain unchanged.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, @10:51PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 11, @10:51PM (#1271248)

                *you*, the "community", with the fragile egos that can't take any criticism, not you specifically, but nice diversion... and quite the novela (among several) you seem so compelled to write, though rather stuffy and banal

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by EJ on Thursday September 08, @08:33PM (2 children)

    by EJ (2452) on Thursday September 08, @08:33PM (#1270822)

    She just had to regenerate. I'm interested to see who will play her in the next series. Perhaps the TARDIS will get a new paint job.

    • (Score: 4, Informative) by Opportunist on Friday September 09, @07:49AM (1 child)

      by Opportunist (5545) on Friday September 09, @07:49AM (#1270898)

      I've seen the preview. They'll switch her gender and make her insufferable to watch.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @01:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @01:58AM (#1271060)

        And her ears get bigger.

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @08:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @08:47PM (#1270825)

    Not what we were expecting? And not my queen.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @09:14PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 08, @09:14PM (#1270831)

    to get a belly full of wine [youtube.com] and now it's too late.

    Sigh.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday September 08, @09:46PM (9 children)

    by Mykl (1112) on Thursday September 08, @09:46PM (#1270834)

    Regardless of any opinions on Monarchies in general, this was a woman who devoted her entire life to public service. Sad to see her go, particularly when she was only a few years away from being able to write a letter to herself congratulating her on 100 years.

    Here in Australia, Elizabeth's personal popularity has held back any movement on becoming a Republic for decades now. It will be very interesting to see what happens in the next few years. On one hand, Charles is not well liked at all, but on the other we have a recent cautionary tale from the US about what happens when the Presidential system goes wrong.

    I'm looking forward to seeing how Megan and Harry navigate this stage. If they're not careful, they'll put a lot of people offside with their 'cake and eat it' show (simultaneously wanting to no longer be part of the royals, yet keeping their royal title and only ever talking about their royal lives).

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by coolgopher on Friday September 09, @12:35AM (5 children)

      by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @12:35AM (#1270852)

      Indeed. She was one of the few remaining public figures I had respect (and in her case, great admiration) for. Her dedication to duty and her word was a rock of stability in a generally volatile world. She was the monarch we needed, but didn't deserve.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Snospar on Friday September 09, @09:04AM (4 children)

        by Snospar (5366) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @09:04AM (#1270903)

        I whole heartedly agree with this, as an enduring symbol of stability she will be sorely missed. Contrast her life of service to the string of clowns she has had to deal with recently from Cameron to May, then Johnson. Perhaps the thought of having to meet with Truss was just too much for her (and who could blame her).

        • (Score: 2, Disagree) by PiMuNu on Friday September 09, @12:19PM (3 children)

          by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @12:19PM (#1270919)

          Mix in Brown. Blair was probably okay though.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @07:01AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @07:01AM (#1271082)

            Blair was probably okay though.

            Not according to Rupert [vanityfair.com].. I still want to see a paternity test on Grace.. "Godfather", my foot! [hollywoodreporter.com]

            • (Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday September 10, @06:31PM (1 child)

              by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Saturday September 10, @06:31PM (#1271131) Journal

              Do people actually get paid real spending money to write that sort of stuff?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @07:37PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @07:37PM (#1271138)

                Why? What's not to believe? What makes it so implausible? Powerful men like to bang pretty girls, it's part and parcel to their power. What makes him so different?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @07:05AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @07:05AM (#1270890)

      Interestingly, her position as Queen of England was distinct from her position as Queen of Australia. She just happened to have (at least) two jobs.
      We could choose someone else to be King or Queen of Australia. I vote for a local, how about Cathy Freeman.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by turgid on Friday September 09, @08:38PM (1 child)

      by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @08:38PM (#1271032) Journal

      I don't know how the law works in Australia, but here in the UK there's a thing called Queen's (now King's) Consent where the Monarch has to sign all laws passed by Parliament to make them official, and can apparently ask for changes to be made in private [theguardian.com].

      By convention, the Monarch is "above politics" and must be seen to be so (completely impartial).

      From the linked article:

      The truth is that the government often acts on the advice of the Queen.

      The Monarch meets with the democratically-elected Prime Minister (head of the government) once a week on official business.

      It's a mysterious system going back hundreds of years.

      As I mentioned in my previous post to this story, I'm a Republican, but it seems that we have been very lucky to have had a Queen who reigned for over 70 years who had a keen desire to promote peace and good international relations. She was a friend of Nelson Mandela amongst others.

      Apparently she saw the funny side of her situation: [theguardian.com]

      There is something “inherently ridiculous about the monarchy,” says Lacey, who believes “her sense of humour was an acknowledgment of that. This goes right way back to the fact she wasn’t born into the succession. She was the Princess Beatrice of her day: she was the elder daughter of the Duke of York, she wasn’t destined for this job.” On her uncle’s abdication she was suddenly in line to the throne. “So it’s a pure lottery that cast her into it. She could see the funny side of that.”

      Anyway, I think it's a bit silly that someone can be Head of State by accident of birth, but this late Head of State was in office my entire life and this is a big change. We have a King now! He's very different. He paid a very nice tribute to his mother today. Remember he has now lost both of his parents, and he's a human being just like us. He genuinely admired his mother and wants to try to follow her example.

      Who knows what will happen next?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Saturday September 10, @01:45AM

        by deimtee (3272) on Saturday September 10, @01:45AM (#1271056) Journal

        I don't know how the law works in Australia, but here in the UK there's a thing called Queen's (now King's) Consent

        Officially, it's similar here in Oz, except that they are signed by the Governor General on the Crown's behalf. Same in the state governments except it's the various state Governors General.

        We made some changes after what Kerr did in 1975 though, so now it's really just a formality. Any GG who refused to sign a law would stay in office about 3 minutes.

        Remember he has now lost both of his parents, and he's a human being just like us.

        He's in his seventies. Anyone who got to be that old without losing them has to expect that to change pretty damn soon.

        --
        No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by HammeredGlass on Thursday September 08, @10:03PM

    by HammeredGlass (12241) on Thursday September 08, @10:03PM (#1270837)

    Why can't I quit you?!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Friday September 09, @08:01AM (12 children)

    by Opportunist (5545) on Friday September 09, @08:01AM (#1270899)

    He'd claim he's too old to do the job and let William take over. Charles is about as popular as festering foot fungus in the UK, not just by people who ain't the hottest supporters of the monarchy, even royalists don't consider him fit for the rule.

    Charles on the throne will be a very tough cookie for the Commonwealth to nibble with their tea.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @12:57PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @12:57PM (#1270925)

      If you could help this Yank out, what is the real significance of the King/Queen of England? Isn't it a position that essentially is all figurehead? Does it really matter outside of the tabloids who is sitting on the throne provided they at least don't embarrass themselves too much, so having a dope sitting there shouldn't be too bad as long as he smiles and keeps his mouth shut? I've never understood the fascination and obsession from my side of the Atlantic other than people seem to like to look at the monarchy through a filter where there are still shining knights saving princesses and slaying dragons. I do appreciate how that position can give a sense of identity and be a uniting presence for at least the people of England, but it was never obvious to me how the other Commonwealth countries felt about the monarchy.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Friday September 09, @01:34PM (10 children)

        by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @01:34PM (#1270926)

        Some of my information is a couple of hundred years out of date, but here goes. Note the UK has no constitution, but rather the Common Law, based on precedents some of which date back 100s of years and have not been tested since major constitutional crises. The basic system came into place during the War of the Four Kingdoms (1642), and also the Glorious Revolution (1688).

        In the UK we elect people to the legislature, i.e. the body of people who enact laws. Each year, the UK legislature enacts (or not) a new law that enables taxation, in much the same way as the US system.

        The UK monarch chooses a Prime Minister, formally the First Lord of the Treasury, who is able to pass the bill for taxation into law. Usually that would be the party that holds the majority in the House of Commons. The monarch appoints other ministers, usually under the advice of the Prime Minister, and the ministers act on his behalf. The ministers then carry out the business of government, i.e. collecting tax and raising an army. They also deal with some other minor details like building roads and running hospitals.

        The monarch signs all laws, which makes them legal, and without which parliament cannot enact new legislation. The monarch calls elections under the advice of the sitting government. The monarch appoints peers (upper house) directly, under advice of the sitting government and His Majesty's Opposition. The monarch appoints the judiciary and they act on his behalf. The monarch can pardon people who have broken the law. I can't remember whether the monarch can suspend existing laws (they changed things in 1688 and I can't remember which ones got changed).

        Were we to elect a bad outfit, the monarch could in principle refuse to appoint them to government positions. In practice, were the monarch to use his powers then it would cause a constitutional crisis. At the very least, no new taxes would be legally raised. Practically, whoever controls the army decides (which swung things against Charles I in 1642).

        Recent and not-so-recent examples in other countries near and far where a wise monarch would save the people from their poor choice of government. Godwin's law applies, so I won't name names.

        ps: does pre-invoking Godwin's law cause Godwin's law to be invoked? Second order Godwinning perhaps?

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @02:19PM (9 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 09, @02:19PM (#1270932)

          Practically, whoever controls the army decides (which swung things against Charles I in 1642).

          I know several members of the UK armed forces and I'd just like to point out that they are quite adamant that they swore their oaths to the Queen, not some politician. I am quite sure that had Lizzie ordered them to shoot Boris they would have. Whether that translates over to Charlie is an open question, but if I am quite sure that if I was the current PM of England I would not like to test if the armed forces were loyal to me over the crown.

          • (Score: 1, Troll) by DeathMonkey on Friday September 09, @04:00PM

            by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday September 09, @04:00PM (#1270950) Journal

            So those boots on the ground during Apartheid were serving the Queen and not the State?

          • (Score: 2) by srobert on Friday September 09, @06:55PM (2 children)

            by srobert (4803) on Friday September 09, @06:55PM (#1271003)

            "they swore their oaths to the Queen, not some politician."

            In the U.S., we swear to uphold the Constitution. Of course that is meaningless to soldiers and politicians alike because hardly any of them have ever actually read it.

            Despite the frequent dysfunction of many republics, it is surprising to me that, in the 21st century, people still consent to living under a monarchy even if it is only a figurehead. The U.S. has many problems, but I'm sure that none of them are caused by the absence of the king.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Sunday September 11, @02:19AM

              by deimtee (3272) on Sunday September 11, @02:19AM (#1271165) Journal

              Here in AU, every time the subject of becoming a republic gets significant traction someone will do a costing of replacing the Crown with an Office of President. Turns out to be rather expensive, especially since the UK bears most of the cost of the Monarchy.

              The Monarchy in AU is mostly tradition and symbology really. We have a King or Queen, but no other hereditary peerage. High achievers might be awarded a knighthood but all that really gets them is the right to put Sir on their business cards. And it's not like King Charlie is going to drop in and claim Droit du Seigneur.

              --
              No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Opportunist on Sunday September 11, @11:26AM

              by Opportunist (5545) on Sunday September 11, @11:26AM (#1271193)

              What absence? Your president has way, way more power than most constitutional kings and queens have today. Essentially, you're closer to an elective monarchy than a republic.

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday September 09, @07:05PM (3 children)

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @07:05PM (#1271004) Journal
            The Monarch is both Head of State and Head of the Armed Services. When soldiers join the British Armed Forces they swear an Oath of Allegiance not to the government of the day, but to the Queen and her successors. However, ultimate authority on the Armed Forces deployment and use rests with Parliament and 'the people'.
            • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Sunday September 11, @01:13PM (2 children)

              by PiMuNu (3823) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11, @01:13PM (#1271199)

              I agree but historically, it hasn't always worked out like that. In 1642 the reason why Cromwell and Fairfax were buddies during the interregnum - between them they had the army sewn up, so that whatever stuff the puritans and other factions threw at them, at the end of the day they could (and did) fall back on the support of the army (against the interest of the King).

              If you look up the history of the interregnum, it is basically Cromwell cycling through different approaches to forming a government in order to find any system which is remotely viable, and largely failing. He was capable enough to keep on top of things, when he died no one knew what to do and put his feckless son in charge - at which point Monck, a senior general, decided things were a mess and went to Charles II (son of the beheaded king, hanging out in France) and asked him to sort it out. Once again, it was the army which decided, this time for the king. In 1688 it was (arguably) the defection of John Churchill, head of the army, to the invading Prince William, as well as James II being a prat, that swung things against the Stuart monarchy, against the king but for his son in law.

              Very interesting period, well worth looking into.

              • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Sunday September 11, @05:54PM

                by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 11, @05:54PM (#1271219) Journal

                The reason that the Oath of Allegiance is written the way it is is precisely because it was written after Cromwell and others, and it reflects the relationship between the Monarch, Parliament and the people.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13, @04:48AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 13, @04:48AM (#1271438)

                That was then, this is now.

                If Ms Truss stood up and said "Parliament has voted. We're going to become a Republic. Soldiers go and arrest the Monarch and seize all the royal property.", then the person in The Tower for treason at the end of the day isn't going to be Charlie.

          • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday September 09, @07:12PM

            by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 09, @07:12PM (#1271005) Journal

            The actual wording is (depending upon arm of the forces)

            I... swear by Almighty God (do solemnly, and truly declare and affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles III, His Heirs and Successors, and that I will, as in duty bound, honestly and faithfully defend His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, in Person, Crown and Dignity against all enemies, and will observe and obey all orders of His Majesty, His Heirs and Successors, and of the (admirals / generals/ air officers) and officers set over me. (So help me God.)

  • (Score: 2) by bootsy on Friday September 09, @03:16PM (2 children)

    by bootsy (3440) on Friday September 09, @03:16PM (#1270941)

    As a Head of State you really couldn't ask anymore of someone. She got the job at a very young age and would not have expected it. Her uncle was supposed to be King not her dad and he died at a far younger age than she was prepared for.

    She never displayed bias and was incredibly well informed. Queen Elizabeth was incredibly professional in this role. Unlike her eldest son she really did keep her opinions to her self. We don't know exactly what she said to various world leaders but the general consensus was it was an informed and useful perspective. She acted a diplomat and there are numerous examples of her intervening on behalf of people for whom she was head of state outside of the UK e.g. Canada.

    Any objective review of her job performance would be excellent.

    I'm not a monarchist but there are some credible arguments for an inherited head of state.
    They are essentially random in their political beliefs so can act as a check and balance against the popular political leaning of the time.
    They have the role for long enough to get good at it.
    As a billionaire they are harder to bribe.

    Of course this is if you get a good one. Many monarchs have been very lousy. Interestingly the female UK ones all seem to have been pretty good although the sample size is small.

    She held together the commonwealth through sheer force of personality. It will be interesting to see what happens to it now.

    Others have commented on how her children have turned out but her most obvious misstep was with Diana. With a contemporary view on things it would raise a few eyebrows getting a naive 19 year old to marry a man 10 years older. Charles's treatment of her was poor.

    The Queen's reaction to Diana's death ( which could have been avoided if she had worn a seat belt ) did not match the mood of the UK at all at the time. Diana in her role as Princess had done a lot to champion UK businesses and highlight issues such as AIDs and land mines. She was a net benefit to the UK and very well liked. Set aside the sickly TV interviews after the marriage collapsed. The Queen did eventually acknowledge the public feeling but the wronged party in that relationship was not her son, our new King.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @01:54AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @01:54AM (#1271058)

      The Queen's reaction to Diana's death ( which could have been avoided if she had worn a seat belt ) did not match the mood of the UK at all at the time.

      No, the ambulance already took over two hours to go three kilometers from the crash site to a hospital. If she'd worn a seat belt her injuries might have been less, but that would just mean the ambulance had to go slower.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @06:30PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 10, @06:30PM (#1271130)

        We're the lizard men from Zeta Reticuli involved at all?

(1)