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: 4, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday March 05 2018, @03:04PM (9 children)
Why would anyone want to assassinate the queen? Honestly, the UK would probably be better off if they put her back in charge instead of just having her as a figurehead. And they'd probably be much better off now if she had been in power all along, instead of some of the crappy PMs they've had.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday March 05 2018, @03:17PM (3 children)
Apparently the assassin was a career criminal who wanted to become a high-level terrorist among British Neo-Nazis and thought bumping off Elizabeth II was a good way of building his resume.
Elizabeth II is not the only royal to be targeted by violent criminals: Her daughter Princess Anne was nearly kidnapped by a guy wanting a few million pounds ransom.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Monday March 05 2018, @04:38PM (1 child)
Yeah, bumping off a figurehead is unlikely to achieve much on a political level. It could serve as a symbolic act, but that's about it. If the perp was an Islamic terrorist, or a state sponsored assassin from Gaddafi's Libya or the Irish Republic Army, that could stir things up.
But she's not the Archduke of Austria Hungary and Europe isn't the powder keg it was in 1914. Emperor Franz Joseph, who didn't even like his heir, was so old he had to delegate Austria's response to younger people, who it turned out were much too hot blooded. He felt their ultimatum to Serbia was extreme, but let them go ahead with it, must have lacked the energy to make them tone it down.
It sounds like the perp was a run of the mill criminally insane loner who wanted the notoriety and infamy, and didn't even have a political agenda.
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Monday March 05 2018, @05:18PM
I don't think he wanted to achieve much on a political level, given that his motive was to pad his killer resume, not affect political change.
Or, you know, maybe the would-be assassin wanted to be a high-level terrorist among British Neo-Nazis and thought bumping off the queen would build his resume.
Excerpts from a Metro.co.uk [metro.co.uk] story from last month:
So, it's possible that he wanted to be a high-level terrorist among British Neo-Nazis and thought bumping off the queen would build his resume. And not, say, affect political change as a loner.
No, but he was charged with "possessing a firearm in a public place, discharging a firearm and a further 15 charges including aggravated robbery and arson" and jailed for three years.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 05 2018, @06:00PM
Seems like NZ high schools need better career consoulers
(Score: 4, Funny) by realDonaldTrump on Monday March 05 2018, @04:06PM (1 child)
Don’t forget Britain’s great and Queen Elizabeth is a great monarch. Many people want her to become a dictator. Britain would be better off, and the world would be better off. 100%. She’s now queen for life. And look, she was able to do that. I think it’s great. Maybe we’ll give that a shot someday.
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by takyon on Monday March 05 2018, @04:11PM
https://www.unilad.co.uk/articles/artist-reimagines-donald-trump-and-kanye-west-as-drag-queens/ [unilad.co.uk]
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/remember-donald-trump-motorboating-rudy-giuliani-in-drag-remember-it_us_57bcb196e4b00d9c3a1a8a02 [huffingtonpost.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by therainingmonkey on Tuesday March 06 2018, @10:18AM (2 children)
Arguments usually go something like: "If the monarch owns the country, it's in their interests to make it a good country!"
In case the absurdity isn't immediately obvious, let me refute:
Monarchy has been tried before. There's a reason most places got rid of their monarchs.
Open almost any history book to see what monarchism leads to. The results have been very well documented.
(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".