The death of Queen Elizabeth II is not a tragedy. Her life was long and noble, in every sense of the word. That Britain mourns her passing itself signals something special about the relationship between the Brits and their Royal Family. For it is in fact
I'm an American Socialist Democrat, but I greatly admired and even, in a way, loved, Queen Elizabeth II, who served her nation and the world with intelligence, sympathy, honor, dignity, and an unwavering, uncompromised sense of her responsibilities and duties.
Just can't understand the infatuation with the Queen?? I agree with Robert and think this is an excellent take on the "queen". There is something to be said for the Sex Pistols "God save the queen, and her fascist regime"!! When will we finally get into the 21st century and start becoming mature with the understanding that peace is the only way. Wars, classism (which the queen represents), Maga dingdongs and Neanderthal monkey-brain thinking should be of past. Let them all go and let's finally grow up and stop this madness of worshiping the billionaire class. Lets finally become a species that cares about everyone - not just the queens of the world!
Love it! So glad that Bernie existed in our lifetime - the only decent candidate for president in the history of the United States. I hope there will be more like him soon - hopefully a woman with his values for president at long, long last!
Yes! Bernie’s integrity is regal! In my humble opinion, that prevented him from ascending to the presidency; he simply did not sell himself to corrupt political and other influences.
I completely agree with your take; what's more, the royals' vast fortune is at the expense of the common man, woman, and child. I see them as nothing more than a thinly veneered crime family. To her credit, the queen started paying income taxes in 1997(?).
If you visit the German city of Schwerin, you will doubtless visit a 900-year-old castle, home of the ruling family of Mecklenburg until the end of WW-I. From the tower, you can observe the humble fishing villages whose residents paid for the exquisite castle. It was doubtless easy to imagine, if you were a humble fisherman being taxed to support the elegant lifestyle of the aristocracy, that you were truly inferior and deserved your position of submission — in the face of the finery and sophistication of your “betters.” A decade ago, I toured the castle with my teenage son and pointed out the gross inequality that endured for 900 years. I think it was the most-important lesson I ever taught. Thanks, Schwerin, for providing a valuable lesson!
Stan, I say this about every mind bogglingly beautiful church in Europe and religious institutions everywhere, mosques and temples. They are marvels, yet the people sacrificed decent basic living for them to exist. As an atheist I like to show religionists the pictures and then say, please pass the donation plate! In the days these were built it was for the very very very few indeed.
T. Walker: You say "let's finally grow up and stop this madness of worshiping the billionaire class. Lets finally become a species that cares about everyone - not just the queens of the world!" I totally agree! I have serious doubts about the British succession, now that Elizabeth is gone. And I agree that royalty must be a thing of the past. Let's grow up as citizens! Let's get the citizens well-informed and well-educated, capable of making responsible decisions, votes, and institutions serving all, without exclusions and exceptions: all races, ethnicities, genders, etc. I am, as I said, a socialist! Thanks for your comment, minus the Sex Pistols!.
Many of us love the musicality and appreciate the significant impact that the Sex Pistols have had on rock music, fashion, and social attitudes. Some cannot and genuinely enjoy Céline and Phil Collins. . .Enjoy your world!
I do. I'm into Motown, the Moody Blues, Simon & Garfunkel, Commodores, Alan Parsons Project, Dan Fogelberg, Fixx, Depeche Mode, Linkin Park, the Weeknd, etc., most of whom were/are able to get good, strong messages across with a lot more melody, rhythm & soul.
Wow, T Walker, that was a pretty negative assessment. Elizabeth II was not a warmonger and I can't imagine how the royals being gone from the UK will make things there better. They serve as the ones people can blame for their problems even though they didn't cause them and can't fix them. Elizabeth II tried to with dignity, stand for a people, a link to the past and another into the future. Royals bashing has been a passtime in the UK for generations and it has worked for them. Perhaps, slightly more modest living might be in order, though.
Quite a bit more modest would be in order! How about billions up on billions more modest. No family ever has or ever will deserve billions - especially a family that comes from the heritage of torture of its own people. You can't make things up like Henry the 8th - just simple lunacy at its best. Thank god for Monty Python for more clarity!
Ruth Sheets ; But modest living would take away the pageantry! It's the whole fairytale thing. The Royalty ; coaches and castles and flowers. Pomp and circumstance, in an otherwise 'boring' and staid society. It was fun to watch the fisticuffs in Parliament a few times, but that goes only so far. I would love to see certain 'lawmakers' get roughed up a little here, in the 'land of the free!
Ruth ; Wouldn't it be great if there could be a "vote of no confidence " to get rid of a bad leader (president) like they did the Prime minister Boris Johnson?!
Yes, at least expel someone who got to power fraudulently or betrayed the oath of office while in power.
We shouldn't've had to endure Trump for 4 years. Heck, now it's over 6 years & seems neverending. He will never leave us alone, the press will never stop amplifying his voice, the Republofascist Party will never stop supporting him, & our (in)justice system will never put him away no matter how much crime & treason Trump commits.
Jaime, I have to remind people over and over that TFG was SELECTED, not elected. Hillary won by almost 3 million vote. Our electoral system is allowed to nullify the will of the people over and over again. So many of my foreign friends ask, why did so many people elect him? And I say, we didn’t.
The BS of a two year investigation into video, audio and live action evidence is OUR evidence of sheer corruption that Congress refuses to address appropriately! We HAVE laws that are not being applied to the worst domestic terrorist attack on democracy and the capitol building in US history! We are not supposed to seat those who aid seditionists or take part in the act. But they are there now. Making MAGA stronger!
Wouldn't work here. To have that be an option, you need a similar system -- and a similar level of integrity and concern for Oaths of Office and the Rule of Law. We don't have any of that. Britain's system is fading fast, but ours died a long time ago. It just isn't acknowledged.
The place for pageantry and fairytales is the theater/entertainment/theme parks like Disney. Those have the costumes, the props, the coaches, the castles, and the flowers, but they hire actors, and anyone can train in this field and apply for the positions.
I do not promote the monarchy, but I can see the traditions of their subjects, and some of them like it, because it has always been there. I would not be surprised if many Brits and other 'subjects' are not fans. I'm sure that many who studied history are aware that many evil deeds and lots of oppression were behind the 'fairytale'.
Agreed. I get it: the Brits appreciate the glorious past their royals represent. But, as you indicate, they were and are a potent symbol of the whole class system that, IMHOI, has been and continues to be at the root of most, if not all, of our problems. The human race needs social justice and that means EQUALITY.
"When will we... start... understanding that peace is the only way?"
When the current human race is replaced with a higher life form.
Just because Queen Elizabeth was rich doesn't mean she's "worshipped" because she is, nor does caring about the death of a long-time public servant equal "infatuation." I fail to see how classism is more represented by a monarch than it is by an untitled billionaire -- MSM fawns all over Musk and Bezos, et al. Isn't that "infatuation?"
That's what's in YOUR head. It doesn't belong anywhere else.
We have to do away with all classism, period. I've been boycotting the mainstream media since 2016 because they are essentially an instrument of propaganda, and what they do bears little or no resemblance to actual journalism. Bernie is right in saying that "billionaires shouldn't exist." This world has 8 billion people, and when a few hoard way more than they can ever use in a lifetime, others end up with little or nothing. We need to recognize every human's right to the essentials first, then compete over the surplus.
I agree wholeheartedly with the goal, but you'll never do away with classism. It's part of Mother Nature's hierarchy, and humans can't escape it anymore than a mosquito can.
The US has exchanged class by birth for class by $$ (maybe fame too -- sports stars, "Hollywood Royalty," etc.).
Hierarchy itself is the problem, and I strongly believe that yes, we can escape it in favor of a more egalitarian society. In fact, we have to escape it if we want to preserve the habitability of this planet. Humans are not mosquitoes; we can make intelligent choices beyond biology. As for the US, that's largely the corporate media. Most people do not consider "stars" of any kind to be better than they are.
Corporate media spends days on 1 Hollywood "story" and totally ignores a presidential speech. People CAN'T make intelligent choices without the tools to do so.
If people don't think "stars" are worth anything, why do they go to movies, shows, and sports events? Why do "stars" get paid so much? That doesn't mean they're "better" -- but it does mean they're richer, and $$ is what makes the US go 'round. Corporatism.
Laurel, well said. But I do think people fantasize about the wealth that comes with fame. And therefore, make it something to admire. Our society is ruled by money and so the fantasy for control continues.
I agree - the billionaires are no different than the queen - they are both of the same class and worshiped in the same ridiculous way. Neither should exist. Also we can achieve peace. We've reduced total wars over the past 80 years. We can keep reducing these eventually to zero if enough people get on board. Peace is afterall - possible.
Tell that to the Ukrainians, the Yemenis, the Syrians, the Burmese, about 1/2 of the continent of Africa (including victims of Boko Haram), and victims of drug wars (Mexico, Colombia).
Just because an entire nation isn't at war doesn't mean violence, killing, and one faction's trying to force its will on another have declined.
You do know our MSM doesn't report on problems in most of the world, right?
Over 20 years ago I asked a broker whether the Civil War in E. Timor (now Timor-Leste) was roiling Pacific Rim stocks. His reply? "What war?" I'd seen a report on CNN (in Italy) that cut from a man being chased down the street by several other men armed with machetes because what happened "was too graphic." Want to guess what hapoened?" After I'd been home over a week -- reading a newspaper every day -- I saw a small article about the conflict on p. 12.
I am part Neanderthal and l have no inclination to confront you. In fact hope our paths never meet. Wish you well when you find utopia, however. I haven't your faith.
Yes, she represented a kind of stability and tradition, She could be counted on to never waver from her role, and always stay dependably Royal and dignified. A source of comfort for her subjects.
LOL Really your concepts of SERVICE? Is living a lavish live by the taxes of servant mentality people who is happy to be diminish by nobility titles? INTELLIGNCE? that she lost to post the Prime Ministers because everyone she did they quit her and Parliament took it as its task.
SYMPATY? Before LADY DIANA SPENCER, become part of that evil family , your queen hardly attend any social interact with her "people" event that wasn't a gala or an official stamp her snob face on an photo-opp. and what HONORABILITY have a person that protect an unfaithful son in a convenient marriage for an her and spare, to later plot in killing the legitimate wife, bend the constitution to assure that golum become king and even break church rules to permit a religious marriage ? a Marriage that her uncle KING EDWARD VIII was denied when he being single try to marry Willy Simpsom a divorcee? DIGNITY. REALLY ? When she gave immunity to his self-confessed Pedophile son Andrew? WHAT IN THE WORLD YOUR ADJETIVES HAVE SUCH DEFINITION OF CRIME COVER TO SAID THAT SHE WAS UNCOMPROMISED PERSON AND HER RESPONSIBILITIES WERE PRECISELY BE AS CRIMINAL AS HER SONS. HONESTLY YOU NEED TO READ MORE THE FACTS OF HER LIFE THAT DRINK THE KOOL AID THEIR PR TRY TO DISTOR YOUR BRAIN ... SHE DIE IN DISGRACE AS THE UPCOMING REPLACEMENT IS
Your comment would be more apt to be read and evaluated if you used proper english and didn't shout. You lose credibility by an exponential factor. Promptly dismissed.
Well English is my second or should I said 3rd language, and usually my editors change the meaning of my writing (due my grammar, they said) however when I write from my personal opinion, I expect that people get my meaning than my grammar, If you can tolerate that.
Well there are plenty of editing tools that you might avail yourself of if you want to be taken seriously especially criticisms of a monarch who without question personified decency and decorum. You obviously take issue with the entire monarchy which is a different topic altogether.
I find it distasteful and arrogant to assert one's political opinions when the article was written in the tone of deference to a highly regarded woman of the United Kingdom.
WOW you are really invested in the koolaid given by the PR of British monarchy to believe that my knowledge of their actions is distasteful, arrogant and political LOL you made my day... IGNORANCE is a bliss, there are not decorum in any actions of any of the senior criminals living in those castles... Is not my ambition to get any approval from people that care more about English grammar than the truth. TAKE YOUR LEAVE WITH A BOW IN YOUR OWN DECENCY STANDARS FOR MURDERES AND PEDOPHILES COVER UP LADY. I DON'T CARE IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. BYE
It certainly seems arrogant to me that someone who reports on boat shows acts as though she has an inside track to the history of the British Royal Family.
Conflating some news items with the life of a great woman makes you small, not her.
When historian Douglas Brinkley spoke about his Carter book 'The Unfinished Presidency' at the upper Shattuck book store, I asked him his pick for best VP > 'Eleanor Roosevelt'.
Hey Janet, I agree with your assessment of Carter. I wish he had actually served as a model for presidents after they left the office. None has followed his example into true public service. Can you imagine Trump working at a Habitat for Humanity home or at a soup kitchen? I can see Obama and his family doing it and I wish they would.
Not all had that capacity as have Carter & Obama. Some knew enough to go underground after finishing their presidency, like Nixon & Bush Jr. I only wish Trump had followed their lead.
Rather liked the all-American Fords: Betty was a joyous trip, and founded a clinic; one son was a rodeo performer; another was a TV host; Susan was a gracious all-time Queen of the Prom. No scandals. And, when Gerry hosted his Michigan team at the WH, his black running-back teammate stole the show ..
Gerald Ford's biggest mistake was pardoning his former "boss" Richard Nixon. I want to believe he did so with the best of intentions...however, a sharp and painful lesson (in the form of a trial) at that time might have saved us the corrupt antics of Reagan, GHWBush and DJT.
AGREED TO GIVE THE REAL MEANING OF ROYALTY TO PEOPLE WHO IS DECENT, HONORABLE, HARD WORKING FOR OTHER BENEFITS WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER POSITION AND THEIR ACTIONS ARE IN HARMONY WITH THEIR WORDS. THE KENEDY'S SORRY TO BREAK YOUR BUBBLE BUT THEY HAVE A LOT SKELETONS IN THEIR CLOSET TO BE CALL ROYALTY
Yes, Nancy, the Obamas did fill that role and were dysed and mocked as the British royals have been but with far less cause. In their case, it was race. For the British royals, it seems to be class. It's always something, though!
We don't need no stinkin' royalty. She was dignified but her family were as human as any Norman Leer sitcom family. ".a living, breathing, soap-opera of a family that in the minds of many Brits symbolized modern-day Britain." Archie, Edith, Meathead, Sanford and son.
We have a lot in common. Language, culture, Anglo-Saxon common law. Many of us were Anglophiles -- like Robert, my brother attended Oxford. We wore British clothes, drove British cars. We suffered a British invasion of our culture in the 1960s.
The royal family is quite familiar. The queen looked just like my mother, who passed at age 102 (and my paternal grandfather looked just like John Paul II). I had 3 uncles and a mother-in-law who had been stationed in England in WWII. On my dad's side, my grandmother lived in Wales, spoke Welsh with a Yiddish accent. We listened to English music, studied English literature. I had a pair of wellingtons, had English tack for some of our horses. My first dog was an Irish setter, but we had cocker spaniels, beagles and an English setter. But had we lived in England, we would have been relegated to be "downstairs" people.
But the notions of royalty, superiority and arrogance of aristocracy, and a structure where only the landed gentry hold a house in a bicameral legislature are antithetical to democracy and to progress.
The queen is dead. Moving on long live Charles III. King Charles I was executed for treason, and then the monarchy ended in England.
His son, Charles II, restored the monarchy, sired 12 illegitimate children (but no legitimate ones) and was known as the Merry Monarch.
Charles III has not been coronated, but all Americans my age should be familiar with the royal motto: What me worry?
There is a chance that although the "Windsors" are not the same as the Tudors or Stuarts, the royal line may not survive.
A lot of interesting information in your comment. Thank-you for it! A couple of thoughts your post evoked...
In my opinion, we didn't "suffer" a British invasion in the 1960s, but were greatly enriched by the Beatles, Animals, Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Moody Blues, Hollies, etc.
Our current state of severe economic injustice & disparity in wealth and power of historical proportions with our own form of worship for the extremely rich & famous in our society is even more insidious & destabilizing than the notions of aristocracy the British continue to cling to.
In conclusion for you NORMAL FAMILY is to have children with your second cousin in your mom side and 3rd of your dad, have dysfunctional genetically children who are raise by anyone but you as mother choosing being in the military post with that cousin, and by accident become queen. then when your son is old enough be part of the greatest scam of a happy marriage, allowing your first in line to become a self-called tampon in his extramarital relationship, plot to kill the legitimate wife, and cover up your second son pedophilia, giving both inmunity when you suppoused are the head of the state? BS ... YOUR BLOOD LINEAGE is the one to blame the wrong mentality for to make such unrelated comparisons.
The word is 'crowned' but I would agree that Charles III is unlikely to be a lucky monarch being a self centred capricious individual who is unable (from the evidence of his past interventions) to walk that tightrope of being a ceremonial figurehead as his mother ably did without stirring a hornet's nest of dissent.
Isn't "coronated" a synonym to "crowned"? What's the difference other than "coronated" has gone on to represent a wider range of meanings than just the act of having a crown put on one's head & the ceremony of being officially declared head of a monarchy?
And you would be wrong but left make assumptions that are ridiculous. Don’t like Obama so I must love Trump? That is so dumb. However. I will say that Obama was without family scandal and had a strong marriage and nice kids. He just sucked as a President. Very disappointing as I voted for him first time. Biden is awful proving he is a liar and not a centrist as he promised. But no I do not like or support Trump at all
Nope - Manchin and Sinema are corporate democrats - just as bad as the republicans as you suggest. Biden is not much different - just look at his past and look at how the Green New Deal was incredibly watered down to just a corporate handout similar to the infrastructure bill! Now I have to go protest the stupid natural gas pipeline assured in the bill from West Va through Va where I grew up. Corporate democrats like Biden and Manchin are purely hypocrites calling a bill the largest environmental bill passed when they assure fossil fuel pipelines that will be the end of the planet as we know it.
Ridiculous! Biden barely did anything - he had the opportunity to do great things with the help of Bernie, but the democrats (including manchin or mansion) and republicans are getting in the way as usual. We need a third party to save the planet and fast! Biden is nothing but a corporate democrat that supports corporations and not the people. Even his infrastructure and climate bills are nothing but corporate handouts or welfare for the rich - as Bernie puts it. The republicans are obviously even worse. This will all have no alternative but to change as the global climate changes and will upend all of society in the next decade - two at the most!
T Walker, Have you been asleep for the past 2 years? Biden has done an incredible job of passing $1.2 TRILLION infrastructure bill. $1.9T for Covid relief, has the most diverse admin ever! Tried to implement BBB which would have been excellent if not for Manchin/Sinema.
He has significantly moved to the left.
I don’t disagree that we could order companies to comply rather than throw money at them, but to say Biden has barely done anything is pretty blind of you. The media working against him is another atrocity.
Hillary couldn’t fill a Jr. High gymnasium and Bernie was filling stadiums. The election wasn’t stolen from Trump but the seeds of suspicion had already been sown when the DNC admitted that they didn’t need to follow their own rules. Gore, Bernie, and you can blame the DNC for all of it. Republicans turn to the right, Democrats stop any turn to the left, and the money flows in. Bernie had to beat two parties. It’s the voters against the oligarchs.
I do, too. I wish, after being denied the Democratic nomination, Bernie had accepted the offer by the Green Party to head their ticket. He most likely would've won, & we'd be in a much better position today, with still a fighting chance to overcome the worst of climate chaos (as I choke from smoky skies on another torrid day heading near 100).
Chris, no one is actually COMPARING the presidents' families here to British royalty in a negative or positive sense, just that sometimes a president's family's activities can distract people from the challenges of their day-to-day lives and help them feel a bit better about life.
Let us count the PBS programs that enviously dissect the Royals every which way, and the more serious documentaries re '53-'22 foreign-policy decisions ..
Well is kind of hope, for real since most of donations came from rich families that it might have investment in the royal family... I expect more from independent productions that will be acquire from other distributors of content
I am a Brit, although a US citizen also, and I have admired HM The Queen all my life and my parents before me. I feel that she was the glue that held us together in hard times and how many other women ride a horse at the age of 96? I know people who knew her and not one of them has ever said she was boring, her dutiful facade hid a great wit and intelligence as well as a sense of humour (watch the video of her with Paddington Bear released during her Jubilee). She will be sorely missed...
Loved the Paddington Bear video…. Also loved that she took a job in the armed forces as a jeep mechanic… a woman who drew outside the lines… UK has reason to be proud 🥲 of her and to miss her
You must know that Americans follow the Queen & Royal family as much as any Brit.😄 Queen Elizabeth II has reined over many generations and she has been a steady support for her country. It is shocking to us all that her record breaking time as queen has ended. But she and Prince Philip lived incredibly long lives.
Sally. I am not a Brit, but I admired QEII too. I also found it refreshing that she couldn't control her kids any better than the rest of the non-royals.
Kuddos for you, as I said the brits slave mentality to adore a woman who live a lavish live by the money she took from the hard-working people of England is astonished. but ride a horse a 96 when in the 80's decade she couldn't hold properly a sword to cut a cake it tells you how much staged she was her entire life, photo-opp as her movie's appearances weren't differente directed stage poses. and sorry to break your bubble, but all messages that she read on camera in hard times were written my American journalist form the Times.. You are entitle to your feeling but be informed by the truth about who you are missing, just a criminal as her legacy.
America’s love and fascination with the British monarchy can be compared to the dynamic of a family. Britain is America’s mother. America, the child, grew up and moved out. There was an estrangement (that little dustup in 1776) and the child was disinherited, but eventually mother and child reconciled. That didn’t mean the child wanted to move back home with mom or that she wanted it back. The child was a bit unruly and belligerent, but they have had a good relationship for centuries. And the child still loves the mother and keeps tabs on everything she does.
Connie, I really like your assessment of our mother-child relationship with UK. Following the shenanigans of the royals can be pretty entertaining. Charles has a chance to be a positive figure in Britain because of his interest in global warming and nature in general. I hope he will use his position to help push the UK and countries that still are spiritually connected to Britain to make the moves necessary to curb global warming.
And another "dust-up" in 1812...and oh yeah, the Confederacy actually planned their strategy counting on help from the British Empire. To the Brit's credit, although they may have sympathized with the South, they remained officially neutral and never recognized nor exchanged ambassadors with the Confederacy.
It wasn't until WWI that relations with the UK went beyond cordial to warm.
In your analogy the son hopefully didn't plot to kill his legitimate wife with his mommy to be accepted his relationship with a married woman. And the mother use her power to bend all constitutional rules to married her divorced widow son to a divorce woman, as well the core of a church. and also the mother didn't give her other son immunity to his pedophile actions... OTHER WAY WHAT A KIND OF AMERICAN MOTHER ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ????
King Charles III will be another good example to the world. For many years he has been a strong environmental advocate and more recently has been a participant in international climate change conferences.
Today I heard it said that he wishes to "streamline the monarchy". I have no clue what that really means but he does bring a much more modern, progressive viewpoint to the "scene" so perhaps he'll bring it back down to earth a bit, the way William and Kate have done, and particularly the way Harry and Meghan have done. Will be interesting to watch. And even though the monarchy there is so entrenched in British culture and economy, it could do with some "toning down". All that pomp and ceremony, precise rules and procedures, etc..... So Much Money in just one family...
As prince he had the freedom to take sides on environmental, urban planning, etc issues that being king denies him. His duty from now on is to be neutral. Sorry to lose him—a valuable force for good.
It seems to me that he might have the power to expand (or contract) those boundaries. On such a critical matter as climate disruption, it is imperative that he do everything in his power to address this problem.
Somehow it strikes me as illogical that freedom of speech for a person in such a high position, even if it's mainly ceremonial, should be so restricted. Besides, climate chaos is a global emergency. It's like your house being on fire. It makes no sense to me that just because you're a figurehead monarch, you are prohibited from speaking up & acting & have to let it all burn down.
OH yeah, Environmental advocated, egocentric prick who enter in a marriage with a virgin girl to have his heir and spare meanwhile having a married women aside as her lover, plotting with mommy and daddy after he was exposed calling himself a tampon, and then enjoy international immunity to marry the lover, bending England constitutional rules as well the hypocrite church who decades before denying to the legitimated KING EDWARD same right to marry a divorcee. and be the proud brother of another criminal the pedophile Andrew... KUDDOS FOR YOUR PRIDE . BUT EXAMPLE TO THE WORLD????? BIG STRECH
I'd suggest that a large part of your complaint/s is with the "system" and not necessarily the person... IDK that he had a choice about who/when he married since the pressure was constant and the rules like a straight jacket... we all know Diana discovered that to be the case and it nearly broke her... I didn't like the infidelity bit either but I think the guy was "normal" but forced to live within expectations of (again) the "system". Look at what it took for Harry and Meghan to break free... The entire monarchy needs to go away.
As Head of State, The UK monarch has constitutional and representational duties. The monarch is head of the British armed forces. The queen or king can appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. (May Charles III dismiss that Tory piece of rag Liz Truss.)
Elizabeth was a focus for national identity, unity and pride. She gave everyone a sense of stability and continuity. She officially recognized success and excellence, even when the excellence was in dirty rock and roll. She made the Rolling Stones OBEs, for example. Throughout her life, she lived the ideal of voluntary service.
She lived through World War II, drove trucks, changed their tires, never said it was beneath her. She stayed at Windsor Castle throughout the war, her parents refusing to evacuate (while the US Ambassador to Great Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy, fled London.) She lived through every Prime Minister from Winston Churchill to the current mean-spirited wench. The day before she died, she accepted Truss as her prime minister.
She lived through decolonization, further diminution of the British Empire, an assassination attempt, economic, environmental, and political changes unimaginable to anyone. She went around the world, raised children, watched her children grow, marry, divorce, break traditions, become laughing stocks and public jackasses. She rode horses, loved dogs, and loved above all things meeting the common people, children, elders, workers, city people, rural people.
Sorry to break you bubble, but since all her appointed Prime Ministers quit on her, the Parliament took all her official duties to themselves. Just and update And her "duties" become just social and potho-opp.
She chooses to become a mechanic instead of a nurse during the war because she was unable to relate with humans needs and suffering, the fact she gave her children to be nursed by other women and prefer to go with her 2nd cousin from her mom and 3rd from his dad cousin husband post in the military. So what is beneath to a no nurture nature of a woman?
Regarding to keep unity, before Diana's own assignments to go hospitals and use her media attraction to showcase the needs in the brits' colonies, your queen hardly stops traveling the world without any official assignment, as the photo records exist, (you can read Wikipedia as minimum) And every speech she read in a crisis time was written by Times magazine Journalist. If her nature was to keep peace why she wasn't able to keep taht in her own house?
She was forced to decolonize some territories due the avolition of slavery and mostly the ugly poverty of those places that couldn't contribute any longer to support their lavish living. (Strongly recommend to you read the bio of Mahatma Gandhy) And records of the contribution in taxes to the ones still are under their foot.
So keep drinking the Koolaid the remoras who live like the monarch to justify the LIES of the criminals who are part of the establishment in the royal fantasy.
I agree and grew up in the British Commonwealth. It serves a useful purpose to keep the pomp and circumstance separate from the politics. Combining both in the presidency causes contradictions.
I was privileged to see King George VI and his wife Elizabeth as they waved from a balcony in Niagara Falls Canada. I think it was 1939. All I remember was Queen Elizabeth wore a pretty powder blue outfit and hat and the King wore a uniform. I was a Canadian then. My parents were very excited seeing the King and Queen. The Monarchy was good for England during WW2, it helped keep up their courage during the terrible bombings. Queen Elizabeth II is a symbol of the history of Britain. For we, Americans, we lack the symbolism of that type. What we do have, and should cherish above all else is a body of laws which until 2016 [240 years] governed us. Because, at the end of the 18th century, the British Monarchist semi-Democracy, treated us as though we were a penal colony (or a defeated group of slaves) our Founding Fathers did everything possible in written law, to prevent an autocracy, monarchy or any other form of authoritarianism from taking us into the abyss. We, as a people, need to read and understand the Constitution. Especially the checks and balances built in to prevent any branch of government or any person from taking control of the Nation. I don't know why the Constitution isn't taught in every school in the Nation, it should be. Ben Franklin's reply to what kind of government did you give us "A Republic, if we can keep it. It is our obligation to keep it." Authoritarianism is very appealing to the wealthy. It gives them all the power and right to sit at the top, enjoying their goods and privileges. The "little people" have only one function - to serve their needs, whatever they may be. If they keep us, "the little people" insufficiently fed, clothed, housed, and cared for, we will be too busy trying to find sustenance to revolt. Authoritarianism in one form or another has lasted longer than any other form of government on Earth. BECAUSE WE LET IT. A representative democracy is better for most of us, but we have to work to keep it. We have to take time to find out what a particular candidate will provide for the good of the nation, not just what he/she says they will do in ads. We also need to recognize that we are part of a Nation, not the center of it. If we prosper, all should prosper. There is no reason or rationale why the wealthiest 3/100,000% of the Nation should control most of the wealth. What great good have they done to deserve it? Even the British Monarchy doesn't have that much wealth and they at least make an attempt to do some good.
As always, well said Fay. So many things that we “let go” are having a haunting affect now. Not putting criminal presidents in prison is a huge mistake. Not addressing the right wing take-over of our media conglomerate has been devastating. Not demanding that the actual winner of presidential elections be put in office (Al Gore, probably J Kerry, Hillary R Clinton etc.) And preventing best choices…Henry Wallace, Bernie Sanders etc. from being on the ticket! Letting monopolies form again on and on.
Time to remove the Republicans entirely and all non-progressive so- called Democrats. We’re out of time.
Trump & his followers need to make history by being locked up according to the level of crime committed, life or death penalty. We know the second is highly unlikely, but t-rump is fully qualified for it!
I agree with you, but, I also think we need at least two RESPONSIBLE parties, or perhaps even three. Yes, we need Progressives like us, to remind the Nation that we are all equal citizens, under the law, with the same rights and privileges. But we also need Fiscal Conservatives, to remind us that we have to live within our means and perhaps a Centrist party to mediate. We could, as a courtesy, accept a fourth party of nut jobs, white supremacists, racists misogynists so they had a forum to blow off steam - at least we could watch them and use police and National Guard if they get too far out of line
She was definitely a product of her time and she rose to the occasion. Who knows what her life would have been like, had she not been thrust into "service" at such an early age? Time to move on.......
I might agree it was a "harmless fiction" if the British government didn't spend millions in public money on sustaining the royal family, or if these figureheads didn't serve as a reminder of the colonial era - the spoils of which they still hold onto: stolen items from the nations they plundered.
Quality leadership by public example is worth millions. We spend millions through both parties sustaining what, under Trump, amounted to a metastasizing meadow muffin for the fly population, and we had nothing of quality to show for it.
William, I appreciate your perspective. We certainly did spend a lot to sustain Trump's fantasylands and the secret service needed to protect them and their "prince." That got us nothing but a whiny former president who just can't leave. He believes himself crowned king for life or some such nonsense. I am having a bit of trouble thinking that is much better than what Britain has. Maybe some brakes on what a president is allowed to do in office would help.
LEADERSHIP , if they do the work for it, such OBAMAS far from there is not justification at all. The brits pays for lavish lives of a opportunistic photos of criminals.
Your understanding of the royal expenses is fundamentally flawed. The Crown Estate (a massive UK property portfolio) was effectively gifted to the British nation (i.e. HMG) in 1760 in return for a guarantee that HMG would pay the British royals' expenses (formerly the Civil List, now the Sovereign Support Grant) in perpetuity. Income from the Crown Estate is currently around £210 million per year, whereas the Sovereign Support Grant is about £45 million. In other words, under the terms of the deal agreed in 1760, the British royal family pay for themselves almost 5 times over. There is no "public (i.e. taxpayers') money" involved.
Aren't there some current tax-funded expenses? Not arguing, just asking for clarification.
"A financial report revealed that the royal family cost the British people £102.4 million during the previous year." britishheritage.com. But it says funds come from "the Sovereign Grant," which is what you refer to?
The history of the British royal family, and its relationship to the state, is long and complex (arguably going back to the Magna Carta of 1215), and consequently the current arrangements regarding finances are similarly less-than-straightforward. Briefly, before 1760, the royal family met its own expenses from its own assets. In 1760, however, the then monarch was in grave financial difficulty, and struck a bargain with the state. Thus from 1760 to 2012 the state provided funds to the royal family in the form of the Civil List, effectively in return for the income from the Crown Estate. In modern times the state's income from the Crown Estate has vastly exceeded the state's Civil List expenses. In 2012, the arrangement was adjusted such that the royal family's official expenses (which includes upkeep of the palaces held in trust by the state) are met by the Sovereign Grant, which is itself calculated as a percentage P of the Treasury's income from the Crown Estate (currently around £200 million per year). P was initially 15%, but has been temporarily increased to 25% in order to meet the costs of renovating Buckingham Palace, after which it will revert to 15%. The state is responsible for providing royal security (by the police and army) just as it would be for any visiting foreign dignitary, and so these costs are effectively paid for by the taxpayer rather than from the income from the Crown Estate. Nevertheless, there is no way these costs are greater than 75% of the Crown Estate income! Thus, even taking security costs into account, the royal family pays for itself many times over. And that calculation of course does not take into account the absolutely priceless value to the state (and its citizens) of having an apolitical insulator between the various arms of government, including the UK's famously impartial courts (please see my separate comment elsewhere on this thread). There are some actors who would like to see the British monarchy abolished and replaced by an elected Head of State (which would of course destroy the priceless apolitical insulator we currently enjoy), and those actors regularly publish their own estimates of royal costs, but IMO these aren't really to be trusted as they are clearly inflated in order to promote their own "republican" agenda. For more information please see the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lots of people inherit unearned wealth. Lots of people own shares and other investments that provide them with unearned income. How does the royals' unearned wealth in any way affect their ability to perform their constitutional roles?
Or are you simply jealous that somebody enjoys more unearned wealth than you...?
Har har — I have inherited modest wealth and am not “jealous” (or envious) of the good luck of others. But when good luck is determined by legislation, then we need to examine it in order to achieve a level economic playing field. No one should be born on third base or halfway to home plate. As we make our way to a truly equitable economy, a “circular” economy, the utility of my view will doubtless become increasingly obvious.
Thanks, Aaron, that was very informative. Dating royal/state relations back to Magna Carta works for me. I've often wondered whether the Barons and King John considered what the document might mean in the future or whether it was just "We win, you lose, sign here." 😉
I've seen an original in the BL; even with protective glass, faded ink, and archaic language, it was very moving.
The royal family are parasites. The money spent on them would better be spent on the people of the United Kingdom. The royal family should be self supporting.
My late husband always called them "the royal parasites." They seem to serve some purpose for Brits but is it equal to the vast wealth they have accumulated? And their treatment of Meghan Markle is disgraceful and I have to say, racist.
Imo it's more likely that a movie about a vampire-peasant wouldn't have been economically successful. Castles and clothes had a lot to do with the ambience -- not much of that in a 1-room hut with a dirt floor and livestock. Maybe Bram Stoker was making a statement -- or maybe he was writing a book.
My boyhood hero was Errol Flynn — until I read his autobiography “My Wicked, Wicked Ways,” in which he stated that his greatest regret was not having learned to play the piano. I’m waiting for Charles 3rd to show that he’s not an Errol Flynn type.
In this life, every individual must choose wisely. If you want to get tangled up in a phony “royal” family from Germany, then it’s likely you will pay a price. You do know that the Windsors came from Germany and are not from the UK, don’t you?
I am not familiar with what Aaron cites, but they do contribute to the public coffers in tourism, and other ways, I suppose. Still, it is an anachronistic institution based on subjugation and exploitation of countries around the world that contributed, very unwillingly, to their wealth.
Also, I personally would not mourn someone like QEII who repeatedly shielded Prince Andrew, certified creep and very likely pedophile, from any consequences of his actions. I know it must have been a difficult situation for her as a mother, but she did real harm to his victims in protecting him.
IF SHE WAS A REAL HEAD OF STATE, SHE SHOULD SET HIM ON A JAIL AT LEAST FOR THE PEOPLE'S IMPRESSION, BUT HONESTLY SHE DIDN'T RAISE HER SONS, SHE PREFER TO BE A MECHANIC DURING THE WAR. SHE WAS INHUMAN BEING ... HELL WELCOME HER
In 1993 QE2 assented to paying personal income tax at the top bracket, which certainly must have added social utility to her reign. And regardless what one thinks of the idea of the monarchy in these times, we've had plenty of examples here in the US of the power of symbols, good and bad.
I NEVER FOUND ANY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OF ANY MEMBER OF THE ROYALTY DOING ANY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AS DIANA DID WORKING AS NANNY AND HOUSEKEEPER. SO WHERE DID YOU GOT THAT INFO?
AND I TOTALLY AGREED THAT IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD POWER SYMBOLS AND CORRUPTION BUT NOBODY WITH SUCH INFLUENCE TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA AS THIS queen did
Both Stalin and Mao died of natural causes. You don't think they got away with murder?
You can google 'working royals' or something and find out who does what.
Here's a bit about Diana (whom I admired, just as I admired the Queen):
"Diana didn't excel academically. She twice failed her O-levels (the rough equivalent of not completing high school in the United States) and left West Heath at 16. Attending the Institut Alpin Videmanette, a Swiss finishing school, also wasn't a success, as Diana balked at speaking French as required and spent more time skiing than anything else. Yet these issues didn't overly concern her family — women in Diana's sphere were generally expected to marry well, not to have to support themselves.
Diana relocated to London, staying first in her mother's apartment and then in a flat purchased as a coming-of-age present. Thanks to her family's support and an inheritance that had arrived when she was 18, Diana didn't have financial worries. She worked as a nanny and kindergarten teacher, but otherwise didn't pursue a career."
LOL COMING FROM A NO PICTURE STRANGER, THE JOKE IS IN YOU AS YOUR CRIMINAL QUEEN ALSO NEVER EXCELL IN ANY ACADEMIC DEGREE AND CHOOSE TO GET INTO AN INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE WITH HER 2ND COUSIN FROM HER FATHER SIDE AND 3RD FROM HIS SIDE.
SO JUST THERE, YOUR QUEEN IS IN LOW SCORE.
DIANA WAS PURER REAL NOBLE BLODD THAN YOUR IMPOSTOR QUEEN, AND THANKS TO YOUR CONFIRMATION, DIANA DIDN'T HAVE THE NECESITY TO WORK IN ANYTHING, BUT SHE DID IN THE SERVICE OF A FAMILY AND CHILDREN, WICH THAT IS TELLING YOU THE HIGH LEVEL OF HUMANITY AND INTEGRITY. AND YES, IN THAT PERIOD THERE ARE RECORDS PUBLICIZED IN THE TABLOIDS WHEN SHE GOT ENGAGED TO HER MURDER.
MEANWHILE YOUR QUEEN CHOOSE IN THE SAME AGE AS DIANA BECOME A MECHANIC BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T LIKE TO BE NURSE TO DEAL WITH HUMAN CARE OR PAIN.
AND YOUR QUEEN BROKED ALL RULES THAT MADE THE LEGITIMATED KING EDWARD VIII ABDICATE, AND BY ACCIDENT MAKE HER QUEEN.
HER DARK SOUL WAS SO EVIL THAT SHE DENIY HIM TO LIVE IN ANY TERRITORY OF UK. MEANWHILE SHE FACILITATE THE ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP OF HIS GERONTROPHILIC SELF-CALLED TAMPON OF HIS ADULTEROUS MISTRESS, SON, DIVORCE HIM, PLOT HIS EXWIFE (DIANA) MURDER TO EXTOR THE HYPOCRITE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TO MARRIED THE SINFUL DIVORCEES SON AND MISTRESS. WHEN THEY DENY A SINGLE K I N G TO MARRIED AN AMERICAN DIVORCEE.
YOU SHOULD READ AT LEAS WIKIPEDIA TO GET YOUR HISTORIC FACTS STRAIGHT.
AND KEEP IN THE TIME LINE OF THE CURRENT EVENTS, I'M NOT DOING ANY HISTORICAL WORLDWIDE ROYAL ANALISIS OF WHICH MONARQHY OR DICTATORSHIP HAS BEEN BETTER THAN OTHER. I JUST GIVING MY OPINION OVER A BUNCH OF LIES AND PROPAGANDA THAT ALL JOURNALIST IS TALKING OVER A CRUEL MANIPULATIVE WOMAN WHO DIE I DISGRACE AND A SUCCESSION OF ANOTHER CRIMINAL THAT HARDLY REPRESENT THE VALUES AND CORE OF THE HARD WORKING AND LOVING BRITHISH PEOPLE I HAVE THE HONOR TO KNOW AND HAVE AS MY FRIENDS, WHO ALSO HATE THE PARASITE MONARCHS AND THEY HAVEN'T THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAT I HAVE.
😂🤣😂🤣HILARIOUS, YOU CAN'T EVEN ELABORATE A PROPER DEPARTURE FROM A CHAT. USING THIS 🍎 Elizabeth crowned DEFAULTED QUEEN DENY THE ACCESS TO HER LEGITMATE UNCLE KING LIVE IN ANY UK LAND IF NOT AFRICA AS PUNISHMENT FOR HIS MARRIAGE. BUT SHE BROKE ALL THOSE SAME RULES TO HELP HER GERONTOPHILICA SELF CALLED, TAMPON SON TO INHERET HER THRONE. CAN YOU BRAIN PROCESS THAT???? I UNDERSTAN YOUR LIMITATIONS, SO READ YOUR OWN POST CRITIZING MY OPINION AND FIND IF YOU REALLY SAID BEFORE GOOD BYE ... I TOLD YOU CHOP, CHOP 2 TIMES WICH MEANS THAT PRECISELY, SO DON'T PATRONIZING ME WITH YOUR IGNORANCE... BELIEVE ME IF THIS CHAT HAS THE OPTION TO BLOCK YOU, I WONT BE WASTING MY TIME GIVING YOU SOME INFO, CLEARLY YOU CANNOT PROCESS.... CHOP CHOP!. TODDLE PIP! TATA! CHERRIO!🤦♀️ I HAVE THE LASTHISTORY RECORD WORD 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣💪😋
If this means you'll FINALLY stop your demented rants, yay. But I doubt you mean it. If you really understood anything, you'd stop making yourself look like a fool. But you're too full of negative emotions (starting with hate and anger) to have space for rational thought. In fact, you seem rather unstable. Rationality has been conspicuously missing in everything you've said.
You know the history, George the VI was not supposed to ascend the throne. He did, oh, so reluctantly and made it his own. At his death, Elizabeth, herself, had no choice. Admire them both for doing their very best. Admire her more for carrying the weight of that office for seventy years without a whimper. She made the archaic relevant. That's some stones baby!
I'm an American Socialist Democrat, but I greatly admired and even, in a way, loved, Queen Elizabeth II, who served her nation and the world with intelligence, sympathy, honor, dignity, and an unwavering, uncompromised sense of her responsibilities and duties.
Just can't understand the infatuation with the Queen?? I agree with Robert and think this is an excellent take on the "queen". There is something to be said for the Sex Pistols "God save the queen, and her fascist regime"!! When will we finally get into the 21st century and start becoming mature with the understanding that peace is the only way. Wars, classism (which the queen represents), Maga dingdongs and Neanderthal monkey-brain thinking should be of past. Let them all go and let's finally grow up and stop this madness of worshiping the billionaire class. Lets finally become a species that cares about everyone - not just the queens of the world!
By the way, I'm also a "yuge" Bernie supporter!
Love it! So glad that Bernie existed in our lifetime - the only decent candidate for president in the history of the United States. I hope there will be more like him soon - hopefully a woman with his values for president at long, long last!
Yes! Bernie’s integrity is regal! In my humble opinion, that prevented him from ascending to the presidency; he simply did not sell himself to corrupt political and other influences.
Elizabeth Warren fit the bill, if only people noticed.
I completely agree with your take; what's more, the royals' vast fortune is at the expense of the common man, woman, and child. I see them as nothing more than a thinly veneered crime family. To her credit, the queen started paying income taxes in 1997(?).
Yes, I am a Bernie supporter.
If you visit the German city of Schwerin, you will doubtless visit a 900-year-old castle, home of the ruling family of Mecklenburg until the end of WW-I. From the tower, you can observe the humble fishing villages whose residents paid for the exquisite castle. It was doubtless easy to imagine, if you were a humble fisherman being taxed to support the elegant lifestyle of the aristocracy, that you were truly inferior and deserved your position of submission — in the face of the finery and sophistication of your “betters.” A decade ago, I toured the castle with my teenage son and pointed out the gross inequality that endured for 900 years. I think it was the most-important lesson I ever taught. Thanks, Schwerin, for providing a valuable lesson!
Stan, I say this about every mind bogglingly beautiful church in Europe and religious institutions everywhere, mosques and temples. They are marvels, yet the people sacrificed decent basic living for them to exist. As an atheist I like to show religionists the pictures and then say, please pass the donation plate! In the days these were built it was for the very very very few indeed.
T. Walker: You say "let's finally grow up and stop this madness of worshiping the billionaire class. Lets finally become a species that cares about everyone - not just the queens of the world!" I totally agree! I have serious doubts about the British succession, now that Elizabeth is gone. And I agree that royalty must be a thing of the past. Let's grow up as citizens! Let's get the citizens well-informed and well-educated, capable of making responsible decisions, votes, and institutions serving all, without exclusions and exceptions: all races, ethnicities, genders, etc. I am, as I said, a socialist! Thanks for your comment, minus the Sex Pistols!.
Well said, and I'm English! (But also a little sad at her passing)
Power to the People!
Ahh - you gotta love the Sex Pistols! There music was a little crunchy and misunderstood, but their intent - spot on!
Crunchy? Bollocks!
Agreed - crunchy doesn't quite get it. Never mind the Bollocks!
Not a fan, sorry! I prefer music that is musical.
Many of us love the musicality and appreciate the significant impact that the Sex Pistols have had on rock music, fashion, and social attitudes. Some cannot and genuinely enjoy Céline and Phil Collins. . .Enjoy your world!
I do. I'm into Motown, the Moody Blues, Simon & Garfunkel, Commodores, Alan Parsons Project, Dan Fogelberg, Fixx, Depeche Mode, Linkin Park, the Weeknd, etc., most of whom were/are able to get good, strong messages across with a lot more melody, rhythm & soul.
Wow, T Walker, that was a pretty negative assessment. Elizabeth II was not a warmonger and I can't imagine how the royals being gone from the UK will make things there better. They serve as the ones people can blame for their problems even though they didn't cause them and can't fix them. Elizabeth II tried to with dignity, stand for a people, a link to the past and another into the future. Royals bashing has been a passtime in the UK for generations and it has worked for them. Perhaps, slightly more modest living might be in order, though.
Quite a bit more modest would be in order! How about billions up on billions more modest. No family ever has or ever will deserve billions - especially a family that comes from the heritage of torture of its own people. You can't make things up like Henry the 8th - just simple lunacy at its best. Thank god for Monty Python for more clarity!
Your grasp of history leaves a lot to be desired.
Ruth Sheets ; But modest living would take away the pageantry! It's the whole fairytale thing. The Royalty ; coaches and castles and flowers. Pomp and circumstance, in an otherwise 'boring' and staid society. It was fun to watch the fisticuffs in Parliament a few times, but that goes only so far. I would love to see certain 'lawmakers' get roughed up a little here, in the 'land of the free!
Ruth ; Wouldn't it be great if there could be a "vote of no confidence " to get rid of a bad leader (president) like they did the Prime minister Boris Johnson?!
Yes, at least expel someone who got to power fraudulently or betrayed the oath of office while in power.
We shouldn't've had to endure Trump for 4 years. Heck, now it's over 6 years & seems neverending. He will never leave us alone, the press will never stop amplifying his voice, the Republofascist Party will never stop supporting him, & our (in)justice system will never put him away no matter how much crime & treason Trump commits.
Jaime, I have to remind people over and over that TFG was SELECTED, not elected. Hillary won by almost 3 million vote. Our electoral system is allowed to nullify the will of the people over and over again. So many of my foreign friends ask, why did so many people elect him? And I say, we didn’t.
The BS of a two year investigation into video, audio and live action evidence is OUR evidence of sheer corruption that Congress refuses to address appropriately! We HAVE laws that are not being applied to the worst domestic terrorist attack on democracy and the capitol building in US history! We are not supposed to seat those who aid seditionists or take part in the act. But they are there now. Making MAGA stronger!
This speaks loud and clear!
Wouldn't work here. To have that be an option, you need a similar system -- and a similar level of integrity and concern for Oaths of Office and the Rule of Law. We don't have any of that. Britain's system is fading fast, but ours died a long time ago. It just isn't acknowledged.
The place for pageantry and fairytales is the theater/entertainment/theme parks like Disney. Those have the costumes, the props, the coaches, the castles, and the flowers, but they hire actors, and anyone can train in this field and apply for the positions.
I do not promote the monarchy, but I can see the traditions of their subjects, and some of them like it, because it has always been there. I would not be surprised if many Brits and other 'subjects' are not fans. I'm sure that many who studied history are aware that many evil deeds and lots of oppression were behind the 'fairytale'.
Amen! I am totally with you and a Bernie supporter as well!
Agreed. I get it: the Brits appreciate the glorious past their royals represent. But, as you indicate, they were and are a potent symbol of the whole class system that, IMHOI, has been and continues to be at the root of most, if not all, of our problems. The human race needs social justice and that means EQUALITY.
"When will we... start... understanding that peace is the only way?"
When the current human race is replaced with a higher life form.
Just because Queen Elizabeth was rich doesn't mean she's "worshipped" because she is, nor does caring about the death of a long-time public servant equal "infatuation." I fail to see how classism is more represented by a monarch than it is by an untitled billionaire -- MSM fawns all over Musk and Bezos, et al. Isn't that "infatuation?"
That's what's in YOUR head. It doesn't belong anywhere else.
We have to do away with all classism, period. I've been boycotting the mainstream media since 2016 because they are essentially an instrument of propaganda, and what they do bears little or no resemblance to actual journalism. Bernie is right in saying that "billionaires shouldn't exist." This world has 8 billion people, and when a few hoard way more than they can ever use in a lifetime, others end up with little or nothing. We need to recognize every human's right to the essentials first, then compete over the surplus.
I agree wholeheartedly with the goal, but you'll never do away with classism. It's part of Mother Nature's hierarchy, and humans can't escape it anymore than a mosquito can.
The US has exchanged class by birth for class by $$ (maybe fame too -- sports stars, "Hollywood Royalty," etc.).
Hierarchy itself is the problem, and I strongly believe that yes, we can escape it in favor of a more egalitarian society. In fact, we have to escape it if we want to preserve the habitability of this planet. Humans are not mosquitoes; we can make intelligent choices beyond biology. As for the US, that's largely the corporate media. Most people do not consider "stars" of any kind to be better than they are.
Corporate media spends days on 1 Hollywood "story" and totally ignores a presidential speech. People CAN'T make intelligent choices without the tools to do so.
If people don't think "stars" are worth anything, why do they go to movies, shows, and sports events? Why do "stars" get paid so much? That doesn't mean they're "better" -- but it does mean they're richer, and $$ is what makes the US go 'round. Corporatism.
Laurel, well said. But I do think people fantasize about the wealth that comes with fame. And therefore, make it something to admire. Our society is ruled by money and so the fantasy for control continues.
I agree - the billionaires are no different than the queen - they are both of the same class and worshiped in the same ridiculous way. Neither should exist. Also we can achieve peace. We've reduced total wars over the past 80 years. We can keep reducing these eventually to zero if enough people get on board. Peace is afterall - possible.
Tell that to the Ukrainians, the Yemenis, the Syrians, the Burmese, about 1/2 of the continent of Africa (including victims of Boko Haram), and victims of drug wars (Mexico, Colombia).
Just because an entire nation isn't at war doesn't mean violence, killing, and one faction's trying to force its will on another have declined.
You do know our MSM doesn't report on problems in most of the world, right?
Over 20 years ago I asked a broker whether the Civil War in E. Timor (now Timor-Leste) was roiling Pacific Rim stocks. His reply? "What war?" I'd seen a report on CNN (in Italy) that cut from a man being chased down the street by several other men armed with machetes because what happened "was too graphic." Want to guess what hapoened?" After I'd been home over a week -- reading a newspaper every day -- I saw a small article about the conflict on p. 12.
I envy you your idealism.
TWalker, If only! 😄 That’s the goal! 👏🏻👏🏻
I am part Neanderthal and l have no inclination to confront you. In fact hope our paths never meet. Wish you well when you find utopia, however. I haven't your faith.
Well said, David.
Hopefully you can keep GA purple! Or green would be better!
Some blue for now: Abrams replacing Kemp, Warnock fending off Walker, & Flowers trouncing MTG.
From your mouth to the voters' ears, Jaime.
Encapsulated perfectly. She was truly a remarkable woman. I even teared up at the news. I so admired her sense of dignity and loyalty.
She started her reign when I was four. It’s like an aunt dying. Why wouldn’t it sadden us.
For how many years has she been the only head of state in power before I was born? No one has come close to that length of reign in recent history.
Yes, she represented a kind of stability and tradition, She could be counted on to never waver from her role, and always stay dependably Royal and dignified. A source of comfort for her subjects.
LOL Really your concepts of SERVICE? Is living a lavish live by the taxes of servant mentality people who is happy to be diminish by nobility titles? INTELLIGNCE? that she lost to post the Prime Ministers because everyone she did they quit her and Parliament took it as its task.
SYMPATY? Before LADY DIANA SPENCER, become part of that evil family , your queen hardly attend any social interact with her "people" event that wasn't a gala or an official stamp her snob face on an photo-opp. and what HONORABILITY have a person that protect an unfaithful son in a convenient marriage for an her and spare, to later plot in killing the legitimate wife, bend the constitution to assure that golum become king and even break church rules to permit a religious marriage ? a Marriage that her uncle KING EDWARD VIII was denied when he being single try to marry Willy Simpsom a divorcee? DIGNITY. REALLY ? When she gave immunity to his self-confessed Pedophile son Andrew? WHAT IN THE WORLD YOUR ADJETIVES HAVE SUCH DEFINITION OF CRIME COVER TO SAID THAT SHE WAS UNCOMPROMISED PERSON AND HER RESPONSIBILITIES WERE PRECISELY BE AS CRIMINAL AS HER SONS. HONESTLY YOU NEED TO READ MORE THE FACTS OF HER LIFE THAT DRINK THE KOOL AID THEIR PR TRY TO DISTOR YOUR BRAIN ... SHE DIE IN DISGRACE AS THE UPCOMING REPLACEMENT IS
Your anger is disproportionate to the event and to Reich's comment. What fuels your anger? How has her remarkable life affected you personally?
Decency and curiosity begs the question.
Your comment would be more apt to be read and evaluated if you used proper english and didn't shout. You lose credibility by an exponential factor. Promptly dismissed.
Well English is my second or should I said 3rd language, and usually my editors change the meaning of my writing (due my grammar, they said) however when I write from my personal opinion, I expect that people get my meaning than my grammar, If you can tolerate that.
Well there are plenty of editing tools that you might avail yourself of if you want to be taken seriously especially criticisms of a monarch who without question personified decency and decorum. You obviously take issue with the entire monarchy which is a different topic altogether.
I find it distasteful and arrogant to assert one's political opinions when the article was written in the tone of deference to a highly regarded woman of the United Kingdom.
"Distasteful" is the perfect word. Her screeds leave a bad taste in my mouth.
WOW you are really invested in the koolaid given by the PR of British monarchy to believe that my knowledge of their actions is distasteful, arrogant and political LOL you made my day... IGNORANCE is a bliss, there are not decorum in any actions of any of the senior criminals living in those castles... Is not my ambition to get any approval from people that care more about English grammar than the truth. TAKE YOUR LEAVE WITH A BOW IN YOUR OWN DECENCY STANDARS FOR MURDERES AND PEDOPHILES COVER UP LADY. I DON'T CARE IF YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH. BYE
If ignorance is bliss, you should be very happy.
It certainly seems arrogant to me that someone who reports on boat shows acts as though she has an inside track to the history of the British Royal Family.
Conflating some news items with the life of a great woman makes you small, not her.
David, your remarks about Elizabeth II were beautiful and well-expressed. Thanks!
https://corbettreport.substack.com/p/the-dark-history-of-the-royals
Catholic monarchies...
Bingo!
You actually understood that word salad? Congratulations.
In addition to the Kennedys, our other ‘royal family’ was the gracious Obamas and their two beautiful daughters.
And we had Jimmy Carter… A National treasure for sure.
When historian Douglas Brinkley spoke about his Carter book 'The Unfinished Presidency' at the upper Shattuck book store, I asked him his pick for best VP > 'Eleanor Roosevelt'.
Love it!
[Idk why my computer has a hard time with the ❤️ link. I keep trying...]
That "like" worked lol.
Yep! Same experience I have
Well SAID
Spoiler alert: Jimmy had a temper ..
'amen to Jimmy Carter, the best before and after president of all
Hey Janet, I agree with your assessment of Carter. I wish he had actually served as a model for presidents after they left the office. None has followed his example into true public service. Can you imagine Trump working at a Habitat for Humanity home or at a soup kitchen? I can see Obama and his family doing it and I wish they would.
Not all had that capacity as have Carter & Obama. Some knew enough to go underground after finishing their presidency, like Nixon & Bush Jr. I only wish Trump had followed their lead.
Agree
Rather liked the all-American Fords: Betty was a joyous trip, and founded a clinic; one son was a rodeo performer; another was a TV host; Susan was a gracious all-time Queen of the Prom. No scandals. And, when Gerry hosted his Michigan team at the WH, his black running-back teammate stole the show ..
Gerald Ford's biggest mistake was pardoning his former "boss" Richard Nixon. I want to believe he did so with the best of intentions...however, a sharp and painful lesson (in the form of a trial) at that time might have saved us the corrupt antics of Reagan, GHWBush and DJT.
Add "W" to that list!
True. And he said as much himself later. Like you imo his intentions were admirable, but... "Do the crime, do the time."
I liked The Fords too. He was a humble, unpretentious man. I always think of him as kind and decent. I wish we still had the same kind of civility.
Betty was an alcoholic. She was in treatment, that’s why there’s the clinic connection.
SeekingReason ; Good for her that she recovered and started a treatment clinic to help others do the same.
Agreed.
Yes
AGREED TO GIVE THE REAL MEANING OF ROYALTY TO PEOPLE WHO IS DECENT, HONORABLE, HARD WORKING FOR OTHER BENEFITS WHEN THEY ARE IN POWER POSITION AND THEIR ACTIONS ARE IN HARMONY WITH THEIR WORDS. THE KENEDY'S SORRY TO BREAK YOUR BUBBLE BUT THEY HAVE A LOT SKELETONS IN THEIR CLOSET TO BE CALL ROYALTY
There are skeletons in every royal closet since the first curtain behind the first throne, hence their concurrent roles as entertainers ..
Yes, Nancy, the Obamas did fill that role and were dysed and mocked as the British royals have been but with far less cause. In their case, it was race. For the British royals, it seems to be class. It's always something, though!
Ugh
Probably a tRumper
We don't need no stinkin' royalty. She was dignified but her family were as human as any Norman Leer sitcom family. ".a living, breathing, soap-opera of a family that in the minds of many Brits symbolized modern-day Britain." Archie, Edith, Meathead, Sanford and son.
We have a lot in common. Language, culture, Anglo-Saxon common law. Many of us were Anglophiles -- like Robert, my brother attended Oxford. We wore British clothes, drove British cars. We suffered a British invasion of our culture in the 1960s.
The royal family is quite familiar. The queen looked just like my mother, who passed at age 102 (and my paternal grandfather looked just like John Paul II). I had 3 uncles and a mother-in-law who had been stationed in England in WWII. On my dad's side, my grandmother lived in Wales, spoke Welsh with a Yiddish accent. We listened to English music, studied English literature. I had a pair of wellingtons, had English tack for some of our horses. My first dog was an Irish setter, but we had cocker spaniels, beagles and an English setter. But had we lived in England, we would have been relegated to be "downstairs" people.
But the notions of royalty, superiority and arrogance of aristocracy, and a structure where only the landed gentry hold a house in a bicameral legislature are antithetical to democracy and to progress.
The queen is dead. Moving on long live Charles III. King Charles I was executed for treason, and then the monarchy ended in England.
His son, Charles II, restored the monarchy, sired 12 illegitimate children (but no legitimate ones) and was known as the Merry Monarch.
Charles III has not been coronated, but all Americans my age should be familiar with the royal motto: What me worry?
There is a chance that although the "Windsors" are not the same as the Tudors or Stuarts, the royal line may not survive.
"God save the queen and her fascist regime!" Thank God for the Sex Pistols!
The Royal Parasite leaves and another follows
A lot of interesting information in your comment. Thank-you for it! A couple of thoughts your post evoked...
In my opinion, we didn't "suffer" a British invasion in the 1960s, but were greatly enriched by the Beatles, Animals, Rolling Stones, Yardbirds, Moody Blues, Hollies, etc.
Our current state of severe economic injustice & disparity in wealth and power of historical proportions with our own form of worship for the extremely rich & famous in our society is even more insidious & destabilizing than the notions of aristocracy the British continue to cling to.
True, Jaime. I never heard of anyone's being forced to buy records, watch Ed Sullivan, attend concerts, etc. in the 60's.
In conclusion for you NORMAL FAMILY is to have children with your second cousin in your mom side and 3rd of your dad, have dysfunctional genetically children who are raise by anyone but you as mother choosing being in the military post with that cousin, and by accident become queen. then when your son is old enough be part of the greatest scam of a happy marriage, allowing your first in line to become a self-called tampon in his extramarital relationship, plot to kill the legitimate wife, and cover up your second son pedophilia, giving both inmunity when you suppoused are the head of the state? BS ... YOUR BLOOD LINEAGE is the one to blame the wrong mentality for to make such unrelated comparisons.
The word is 'crowned' but I would agree that Charles III is unlikely to be a lucky monarch being a self centred capricious individual who is unable (from the evidence of his past interventions) to walk that tightrope of being a ceremonial figurehead as his mother ably did without stirring a hornet's nest of dissent.
Isn't "coronated" a synonym to "crowned"? What's the difference other than "coronated" has gone on to represent a wider range of meanings than just the act of having a crown put on one's head & the ceremony of being officially declared head of a monarchy?
And you would be wrong but left make assumptions that are ridiculous. Don’t like Obama so I must love Trump? That is so dumb. However. I will say that Obama was without family scandal and had a strong marriage and nice kids. He just sucked as a President. Very disappointing as I voted for him first time. Biden is awful proving he is a liar and not a centrist as he promised. But no I do not like or support Trump at all
Biden has accomplished more in two years than most presidents did in 4
Well SAID
Biden has made incredible accomplishments. Especially in spite of republicans Manchin & Sinema.
Nope - Manchin and Sinema are corporate democrats - just as bad as the republicans as you suggest. Biden is not much different - just look at his past and look at how the Green New Deal was incredibly watered down to just a corporate handout similar to the infrastructure bill! Now I have to go protest the stupid natural gas pipeline assured in the bill from West Va through Va where I grew up. Corporate democrats like Biden and Manchin are purely hypocrites calling a bill the largest environmental bill passed when they assure fossil fuel pipelines that will be the end of the planet as we know it.
Ridiculous! Biden barely did anything - he had the opportunity to do great things with the help of Bernie, but the democrats (including manchin or mansion) and republicans are getting in the way as usual. We need a third party to save the planet and fast! Biden is nothing but a corporate democrat that supports corporations and not the people. Even his infrastructure and climate bills are nothing but corporate handouts or welfare for the rich - as Bernie puts it. The republicans are obviously even worse. This will all have no alternative but to change as the global climate changes and will upend all of society in the next decade - two at the most!
T Walker, Have you been asleep for the past 2 years? Biden has done an incredible job of passing $1.2 TRILLION infrastructure bill. $1.9T for Covid relief, has the most diverse admin ever! Tried to implement BBB which would have been excellent if not for Manchin/Sinema.
He has significantly moved to the left.
I don’t disagree that we could order companies to comply rather than throw money at them, but to say Biden has barely done anything is pretty blind of you. The media working against him is another atrocity.
So say you, T Walker. I am not buying your blather.
Huh?
Bernie stirred up the people and the crowd was getting bigger. There was talk of revolution and we certainly can’t have that!
Hillary couldn’t fill a Jr. High gymnasium and Bernie was filling stadiums. The election wasn’t stolen from Trump but the seeds of suspicion had already been sown when the DNC admitted that they didn’t need to follow their own rules. Gore, Bernie, and you can blame the DNC for all of it. Republicans turn to the right, Democrats stop any turn to the left, and the money flows in. Bernie had to beat two parties. It’s the voters against the oligarchs.
😉
Peaceful revolution, unlike the chaos, insurrection & civil war Trump & his republofascists have to offer.
I do, too. I wish, after being denied the Democratic nomination, Bernie had accepted the offer by the Green Party to head their ticket. He most likely would've won, & we'd be in a much better position today, with still a fighting chance to overcome the worst of climate chaos (as I choke from smoky skies on another torrid day heading near 100).
Chris, no one is actually COMPARING the presidents' families here to British royalty in a negative or positive sense, just that sometimes a president's family's activities can distract people from the challenges of their day-to-day lives and help them feel a bit better about life.
Lets not forget the harm of the empire . NEVER FORGET
Nor the harm of the US's march across the continent...
Let us count the PBS programs that enviously dissect the Royals every which way, and the more serious documentaries re '53-'22 foreign-policy decisions ..
Well is kind of hope, for real since most of donations came from rich families that it might have investment in the royal family... I expect more from independent productions that will be acquire from other distributors of content
I am a Brit, although a US citizen also, and I have admired HM The Queen all my life and my parents before me. I feel that she was the glue that held us together in hard times and how many other women ride a horse at the age of 96? I know people who knew her and not one of them has ever said she was boring, her dutiful facade hid a great wit and intelligence as well as a sense of humour (watch the video of her with Paddington Bear released during her Jubilee). She will be sorely missed...
Loved the Paddington Bear video…. Also loved that she took a job in the armed forces as a jeep mechanic… a woman who drew outside the lines… UK has reason to be proud 🥲 of her and to miss her
You must know that Americans follow the Queen & Royal family as much as any Brit.😄 Queen Elizabeth II has reined over many generations and she has been a steady support for her country. It is shocking to us all that her record breaking time as queen has ended. But she and Prince Philip lived incredibly long lives.
Sally. I am not a Brit, but I admired QEII too. I also found it refreshing that she couldn't control her kids any better than the rest of the non-royals.
Kuddos for you, as I said the brits slave mentality to adore a woman who live a lavish live by the money she took from the hard-working people of England is astonished. but ride a horse a 96 when in the 80's decade she couldn't hold properly a sword to cut a cake it tells you how much staged she was her entire life, photo-opp as her movie's appearances weren't differente directed stage poses. and sorry to break your bubble, but all messages that she read on camera in hard times were written my American journalist form the Times.. You are entitle to your feeling but be informed by the truth about who you are missing, just a criminal as her legacy.
We all get that you don't like her.
Your vitriol takes away from any legitimate criticism you might have (if one could decipher your English enough to figure it out).
Here's the (or a) video:
https://people.com/royals/queen-elizabeth-reveals-whats-in-her-famous-handbag-in-tea-time/
Why Americans Loved the Queen
America’s love and fascination with the British monarchy can be compared to the dynamic of a family. Britain is America’s mother. America, the child, grew up and moved out. There was an estrangement (that little dustup in 1776) and the child was disinherited, but eventually mother and child reconciled. That didn’t mean the child wanted to move back home with mom or that she wanted it back. The child was a bit unruly and belligerent, but they have had a good relationship for centuries. And the child still loves the mother and keeps tabs on everything she does.
Connie, I really like your assessment of our mother-child relationship with UK. Following the shenanigans of the royals can be pretty entertaining. Charles has a chance to be a positive figure in Britain because of his interest in global warming and nature in general. I hope he will use his position to help push the UK and countries that still are spiritually connected to Britain to make the moves necessary to curb global warming.
King Charles III has been a very visible supporter of addressing Climate Change.
Oh, good to learn that about Charles. I hadn't known. I do hope he can make a significant difference.
Connie, this is perfect! 😄
And another "dust-up" in 1812...and oh yeah, the Confederacy actually planned their strategy counting on help from the British Empire. To the Brit's credit, although they may have sympathized with the South, they remained officially neutral and never recognized nor exchanged ambassadors with the Confederacy.
It wasn't until WWI that relations with the UK went beyond cordial to warm.
In your analogy the son hopefully didn't plot to kill his legitimate wife with his mommy to be accepted his relationship with a married woman. And the mother use her power to bend all constitutional rules to married her divorced widow son to a divorce woman, as well the core of a church. and also the mother didn't give her other son immunity to his pedophile actions... OTHER WAY WHAT A KIND OF AMERICAN MOTHER ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ????
King Charles III will be another good example to the world. For many years he has been a strong environmental advocate and more recently has been a participant in international climate change conferences.
Today I heard it said that he wishes to "streamline the monarchy". I have no clue what that really means but he does bring a much more modern, progressive viewpoint to the "scene" so perhaps he'll bring it back down to earth a bit, the way William and Kate have done, and particularly the way Harry and Meghan have done. Will be interesting to watch. And even though the monarchy there is so entrenched in British culture and economy, it could do with some "toning down". All that pomp and ceremony, precise rules and procedures, etc..... So Much Money in just one family...
As prince he had the freedom to take sides on environmental, urban planning, etc issues that being king denies him. His duty from now on is to be neutral. Sorry to lose him—a valuable force for good.
If that's what the royal rules really say he must do, I hope he is bold enough to defy those rules.
Jaime—I suspect that if Charles found the boundaries of his new job unacceptable he would have done what Harry did—get out.
It seems to me that he might have the power to expand (or contract) those boundaries. On such a critical matter as climate disruption, it is imperative that he do everything in his power to address this problem.
Take a look at Wikipedia etc regarding a Brit monarch's power to expand royal boundaries.
Somehow it strikes me as illogical that freedom of speech for a person in such a high position, even if it's mainly ceremonial, should be so restricted. Besides, climate chaos is a global emergency. It's like your house being on fire. It makes no sense to me that just because you're a figurehead monarch, you are prohibited from speaking up & acting & have to let it all burn down.
OH yeah, Environmental advocated, egocentric prick who enter in a marriage with a virgin girl to have his heir and spare meanwhile having a married women aside as her lover, plotting with mommy and daddy after he was exposed calling himself a tampon, and then enjoy international immunity to marry the lover, bending England constitutional rules as well the hypocrite church who decades before denying to the legitimated KING EDWARD same right to marry a divorcee. and be the proud brother of another criminal the pedophile Andrew... KUDDOS FOR YOUR PRIDE . BUT EXAMPLE TO THE WORLD????? BIG STRECH
I'd suggest that a large part of your complaint/s is with the "system" and not necessarily the person... IDK that he had a choice about who/when he married since the pressure was constant and the rules like a straight jacket... we all know Diana discovered that to be the case and it nearly broke her... I didn't like the infidelity bit either but I think the guy was "normal" but forced to live within expectations of (again) the "system". Look at what it took for Harry and Meghan to break free... The entire monarchy needs to go away.
As Head of State, The UK monarch has constitutional and representational duties. The monarch is head of the British armed forces. The queen or king can appoint and dismiss ministers, regulate the civil service, issue passports, declare war, make peace, direct the actions of the military, and negotiate and ratify treaties, alliances, and international agreements. (May Charles III dismiss that Tory piece of rag Liz Truss.)
Elizabeth was a focus for national identity, unity and pride. She gave everyone a sense of stability and continuity. She officially recognized success and excellence, even when the excellence was in dirty rock and roll. She made the Rolling Stones OBEs, for example. Throughout her life, she lived the ideal of voluntary service.
She lived through World War II, drove trucks, changed their tires, never said it was beneath her. She stayed at Windsor Castle throughout the war, her parents refusing to evacuate (while the US Ambassador to Great Britain, Joseph P. Kennedy, fled London.) She lived through every Prime Minister from Winston Churchill to the current mean-spirited wench. The day before she died, she accepted Truss as her prime minister.
She lived through decolonization, further diminution of the British Empire, an assassination attempt, economic, environmental, and political changes unimaginable to anyone. She went around the world, raised children, watched her children grow, marry, divorce, break traditions, become laughing stocks and public jackasses. She rode horses, loved dogs, and loved above all things meeting the common people, children, elders, workers, city people, rural people.
She was a class act. I salute her.
"She was a class act. I salute her." Well said.
[Technically the monarch CAN dismiss the PM, but the last time it happened was in 1834, so I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you. 😊]
Sorry to break you bubble, but since all her appointed Prime Ministers quit on her, the Parliament took all her official duties to themselves. Just and update And her "duties" become just social and potho-opp.
She chooses to become a mechanic instead of a nurse during the war because she was unable to relate with humans needs and suffering, the fact she gave her children to be nursed by other women and prefer to go with her 2nd cousin from her mom and 3rd from his dad cousin husband post in the military. So what is beneath to a no nurture nature of a woman?
Regarding to keep unity, before Diana's own assignments to go hospitals and use her media attraction to showcase the needs in the brits' colonies, your queen hardly stops traveling the world without any official assignment, as the photo records exist, (you can read Wikipedia as minimum) And every speech she read in a crisis time was written by Times magazine Journalist. If her nature was to keep peace why she wasn't able to keep taht in her own house?
She was forced to decolonize some territories due the avolition of slavery and mostly the ugly poverty of those places that couldn't contribute any longer to support their lavish living. (Strongly recommend to you read the bio of Mahatma Gandhy) And records of the contribution in taxes to the ones still are under their foot.
So keep drinking the Koolaid the remoras who live like the monarch to justify the LIES of the criminals who are part of the establishment in the royal fantasy.
Turd in the punchbowl, kid.
I agree and grew up in the British Commonwealth. It serves a useful purpose to keep the pomp and circumstance separate from the politics. Combining both in the presidency causes contradictions.
I was privileged to see King George VI and his wife Elizabeth as they waved from a balcony in Niagara Falls Canada. I think it was 1939. All I remember was Queen Elizabeth wore a pretty powder blue outfit and hat and the King wore a uniform. I was a Canadian then. My parents were very excited seeing the King and Queen. The Monarchy was good for England during WW2, it helped keep up their courage during the terrible bombings. Queen Elizabeth II is a symbol of the history of Britain. For we, Americans, we lack the symbolism of that type. What we do have, and should cherish above all else is a body of laws which until 2016 [240 years] governed us. Because, at the end of the 18th century, the British Monarchist semi-Democracy, treated us as though we were a penal colony (or a defeated group of slaves) our Founding Fathers did everything possible in written law, to prevent an autocracy, monarchy or any other form of authoritarianism from taking us into the abyss. We, as a people, need to read and understand the Constitution. Especially the checks and balances built in to prevent any branch of government or any person from taking control of the Nation. I don't know why the Constitution isn't taught in every school in the Nation, it should be. Ben Franklin's reply to what kind of government did you give us "A Republic, if we can keep it. It is our obligation to keep it." Authoritarianism is very appealing to the wealthy. It gives them all the power and right to sit at the top, enjoying their goods and privileges. The "little people" have only one function - to serve their needs, whatever they may be. If they keep us, "the little people" insufficiently fed, clothed, housed, and cared for, we will be too busy trying to find sustenance to revolt. Authoritarianism in one form or another has lasted longer than any other form of government on Earth. BECAUSE WE LET IT. A representative democracy is better for most of us, but we have to work to keep it. We have to take time to find out what a particular candidate will provide for the good of the nation, not just what he/she says they will do in ads. We also need to recognize that we are part of a Nation, not the center of it. If we prosper, all should prosper. There is no reason or rationale why the wealthiest 3/100,000% of the Nation should control most of the wealth. What great good have they done to deserve it? Even the British Monarchy doesn't have that much wealth and they at least make an attempt to do some good.
As always, well said Fay. So many things that we “let go” are having a haunting affect now. Not putting criminal presidents in prison is a huge mistake. Not addressing the right wing take-over of our media conglomerate has been devastating. Not demanding that the actual winner of presidential elections be put in office (Al Gore, probably J Kerry, Hillary R Clinton etc.) And preventing best choices…Henry Wallace, Bernie Sanders etc. from being on the ticket! Letting monopolies form again on and on.
Time to remove the Republicans entirely and all non-progressive so- called Democrats. We’re out of time.
Trump & his followers need to make history by being locked up according to the level of crime committed, life or death penalty. We know the second is highly unlikely, but t-rump is fully qualified for it!
I agree with you, but, I also think we need at least two RESPONSIBLE parties, or perhaps even three. Yes, we need Progressives like us, to remind the Nation that we are all equal citizens, under the law, with the same rights and privileges. But we also need Fiscal Conservatives, to remind us that we have to live within our means and perhaps a Centrist party to mediate. We could, as a courtesy, accept a fourth party of nut jobs, white supremacists, racists misogynists so they had a forum to blow off steam - at least we could watch them and use police and National Guard if they get too far out of line
Kudos (again), Fay.
Thank you
Wow! Outstanding post, even for you! I agree with you 100%
As a Brit, I can tell you I feel a resounding "meh".
The Queen made sure to see off Boris Johnson, then said "My work here is done."
We will not see the likes of her again. Well done good and faithful servant.
She was definitely a product of her time and she rose to the occasion. Who knows what her life would have been like, had she not been thrust into "service" at such an early age? Time to move on.......
I might agree it was a "harmless fiction" if the British government didn't spend millions in public money on sustaining the royal family, or if these figureheads didn't serve as a reminder of the colonial era - the spoils of which they still hold onto: stolen items from the nations they plundered.
Quality leadership by public example is worth millions. We spend millions through both parties sustaining what, under Trump, amounted to a metastasizing meadow muffin for the fly population, and we had nothing of quality to show for it.
William, I appreciate your perspective. We certainly did spend a lot to sustain Trump's fantasylands and the secret service needed to protect them and their "prince." That got us nothing but a whiny former president who just can't leave. He believes himself crowned king for life or some such nonsense. I am having a bit of trouble thinking that is much better than what Britain has. Maybe some brakes on what a president is allowed to do in office would help.
I think William agrees with you. If I'm reading him right, he's saying the British got more for the money they spent than we got with Trump.
"...metastasizing meadow muffin for the fly population?" Not quite sure what it means, but I'm sure I like it. 😉
Meadow muffin is slang for cow poop.
:-)
B
Thank Mr. Leavenworth; your phrasing is priceless and gave me a chuckle at the same time.
Bravo.
LEADERSHIP , if they do the work for it, such OBAMAS far from there is not justification at all. The brits pays for lavish lives of a opportunistic photos of criminals.
Your understanding of the royal expenses is fundamentally flawed. The Crown Estate (a massive UK property portfolio) was effectively gifted to the British nation (i.e. HMG) in 1760 in return for a guarantee that HMG would pay the British royals' expenses (formerly the Civil List, now the Sovereign Support Grant) in perpetuity. Income from the Crown Estate is currently around £210 million per year, whereas the Sovereign Support Grant is about £45 million. In other words, under the terms of the deal agreed in 1760, the British royal family pay for themselves almost 5 times over. There is no "public (i.e. taxpayers') money" involved.
Aren't there some current tax-funded expenses? Not arguing, just asking for clarification.
"A financial report revealed that the royal family cost the British people £102.4 million during the previous year." britishheritage.com. But it says funds come from "the Sovereign Grant," which is what you refer to?
The history of the British royal family, and its relationship to the state, is long and complex (arguably going back to the Magna Carta of 1215), and consequently the current arrangements regarding finances are similarly less-than-straightforward. Briefly, before 1760, the royal family met its own expenses from its own assets. In 1760, however, the then monarch was in grave financial difficulty, and struck a bargain with the state. Thus from 1760 to 2012 the state provided funds to the royal family in the form of the Civil List, effectively in return for the income from the Crown Estate. In modern times the state's income from the Crown Estate has vastly exceeded the state's Civil List expenses. In 2012, the arrangement was adjusted such that the royal family's official expenses (which includes upkeep of the palaces held in trust by the state) are met by the Sovereign Grant, which is itself calculated as a percentage P of the Treasury's income from the Crown Estate (currently around £200 million per year). P was initially 15%, but has been temporarily increased to 25% in order to meet the costs of renovating Buckingham Palace, after which it will revert to 15%. The state is responsible for providing royal security (by the police and army) just as it would be for any visiting foreign dignitary, and so these costs are effectively paid for by the taxpayer rather than from the income from the Crown Estate. Nevertheless, there is no way these costs are greater than 75% of the Crown Estate income! Thus, even taking security costs into account, the royal family pays for itself many times over. And that calculation of course does not take into account the absolutely priceless value to the state (and its citizens) of having an apolitical insulator between the various arms of government, including the UK's famously impartial courts (please see my separate comment elsewhere on this thread). There are some actors who would like to see the British monarchy abolished and replaced by an elected Head of State (which would of course destroy the priceless apolitical insulator we currently enjoy), and those actors regularly publish their own estimates of royal costs, but IMO these aren't really to be trusted as they are clearly inflated in order to promote their own "republican" agenda. For more information please see the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_family.
If the royals want to function as “insulators,” then they should give up their unearned wealth to set an example for the rest of us.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Lots of people inherit unearned wealth. Lots of people own shares and other investments that provide them with unearned income. How does the royals' unearned wealth in any way affect their ability to perform their constitutional roles?
Or are you simply jealous that somebody enjoys more unearned wealth than you...?
Har har — I have inherited modest wealth and am not “jealous” (or envious) of the good luck of others. But when good luck is determined by legislation, then we need to examine it in order to achieve a level economic playing field. No one should be born on third base or halfway to home plate. As we make our way to a truly equitable economy, a “circular” economy, the utility of my view will doubtless become increasingly obvious.
Thanks, Aaron, that was very informative. Dating royal/state relations back to Magna Carta works for me. I've often wondered whether the Barons and King John considered what the document might mean in the future or whether it was just "We win, you lose, sign here." 😉
I've seen an original in the BL; even with protective glass, faded ink, and archaic language, it was very moving.
The royal family are parasites. The money spent on them would better be spent on the people of the United Kingdom. The royal family should be self supporting.
My late husband always called them "the royal parasites." They seem to serve some purpose for Brits but is it equal to the vast wealth they have accumulated? And their treatment of Meghan Markle is disgraceful and I have to say, racist.
The characterization of vampires in many films as members of the aristocracy is a clear reference to the economic parasitism of the royals.
Ah, symbolism, ain't it grand.
Imo it's more likely that a movie about a vampire-peasant wouldn't have been economically successful. Castles and clothes had a lot to do with the ambience -- not much of that in a 1-room hut with a dirt floor and livestock. Maybe Bram Stoker was making a statement -- or maybe he was writing a book.
My boyhood hero was Errol Flynn — until I read his autobiography “My Wicked, Wicked Ways,” in which he stated that his greatest regret was not having learned to play the piano. I’m waiting for Charles 3rd to show that he’s not an Errol Flynn type.
See Aaron Turner’s comment.
and let's not forget the plight of Diana.... talk about walking into a "straight jacket" situation, and that's without the Camilla business...
In this life, every individual must choose wisely. If you want to get tangled up in a phony “royal” family from Germany, then it’s likely you will pay a price. You do know that the Windsors came from Germany and are not from the UK, don’t you?
The royal family aren’t parasites. See Aaron Turner’s comment.
Yes, perhaps they are merely extremely expensive hood ornaments.
What a thought! That's it!
I am not familiar with what Aaron cites, but they do contribute to the public coffers in tourism, and other ways, I suppose. Still, it is an anachronistic institution based on subjugation and exploitation of countries around the world that contributed, very unwillingly, to their wealth.
Har-har: how can royals work for a living?
In many countries in Europe royals work, in some Scandinavian countries in Germany.
Then “working royals” isn’t a contradiction. I support calling them just “workers.”
Sorry, my comment wasn’t clear, those people have real jobs and are part of the productive force in their countries
See Aaron Turner’s comment.
Believe me, I come from Australia. You do not need kings.
Also, I personally would not mourn someone like QEII who repeatedly shielded Prince Andrew, certified creep and very likely pedophile, from any consequences of his actions. I know it must have been a difficult situation for her as a mother, but she did real harm to his victims in protecting him.
IF SHE WAS A REAL HEAD OF STATE, SHE SHOULD SET HIM ON A JAIL AT LEAST FOR THE PEOPLE'S IMPRESSION, BUT HONESTLY SHE DIDN'T RAISE HER SONS, SHE PREFER TO BE A MECHANIC DURING THE WAR. SHE WAS INHUMAN BEING ... HELL WELCOME HER
In 1993 QE2 assented to paying personal income tax at the top bracket, which certainly must have added social utility to her reign. And regardless what one thinks of the idea of the monarchy in these times, we've had plenty of examples here in the US of the power of symbols, good and bad.
I NEVER FOUND ANY OFFICIAL DOCUMENT OF ANY MEMBER OF THE ROYALTY DOING ANY FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS AS DIANA DID WORKING AS NANNY AND HOUSEKEEPER. SO WHERE DID YOU GOT THAT INFO?
AND I TOTALLY AGREED THAT IN EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THERE ARE GOOD AND BAD POWER SYMBOLS AND CORRUPTION BUT NOBODY WITH SUCH INFLUENCE TO GET AWAY WITH MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA AS THIS queen did
Both Stalin and Mao died of natural causes. You don't think they got away with murder?
You can google 'working royals' or something and find out who does what.
Here's a bit about Diana (whom I admired, just as I admired the Queen):
"Diana didn't excel academically. She twice failed her O-levels (the rough equivalent of not completing high school in the United States) and left West Heath at 16. Attending the Institut Alpin Videmanette, a Swiss finishing school, also wasn't a success, as Diana balked at speaking French as required and spent more time skiing than anything else. Yet these issues didn't overly concern her family — women in Diana's sphere were generally expected to marry well, not to have to support themselves.
Diana relocated to London, staying first in her mother's apartment and then in a flat purchased as a coming-of-age present. Thanks to her family's support and an inheritance that had arrived when she was 18, Diana didn't have financial worries. She worked as a nanny and kindergarten teacher, but otherwise didn't pursue a career."
You're a joke.
LOL COMING FROM A NO PICTURE STRANGER, THE JOKE IS IN YOU AS YOUR CRIMINAL QUEEN ALSO NEVER EXCELL IN ANY ACADEMIC DEGREE AND CHOOSE TO GET INTO AN INCESTUOUS MARRIAGE WITH HER 2ND COUSIN FROM HER FATHER SIDE AND 3RD FROM HIS SIDE.
SO JUST THERE, YOUR QUEEN IS IN LOW SCORE.
DIANA WAS PURER REAL NOBLE BLODD THAN YOUR IMPOSTOR QUEEN, AND THANKS TO YOUR CONFIRMATION, DIANA DIDN'T HAVE THE NECESITY TO WORK IN ANYTHING, BUT SHE DID IN THE SERVICE OF A FAMILY AND CHILDREN, WICH THAT IS TELLING YOU THE HIGH LEVEL OF HUMANITY AND INTEGRITY. AND YES, IN THAT PERIOD THERE ARE RECORDS PUBLICIZED IN THE TABLOIDS WHEN SHE GOT ENGAGED TO HER MURDER.
MEANWHILE YOUR QUEEN CHOOSE IN THE SAME AGE AS DIANA BECOME A MECHANIC BECAUSE SHE DIDN'T LIKE TO BE NURSE TO DEAL WITH HUMAN CARE OR PAIN.
AND YOUR QUEEN BROKED ALL RULES THAT MADE THE LEGITIMATED KING EDWARD VIII ABDICATE, AND BY ACCIDENT MAKE HER QUEEN.
HER DARK SOUL WAS SO EVIL THAT SHE DENIY HIM TO LIVE IN ANY TERRITORY OF UK. MEANWHILE SHE FACILITATE THE ADULTEROUS RELATIONSHIP OF HIS GERONTROPHILIC SELF-CALLED TAMPON OF HIS ADULTEROUS MISTRESS, SON, DIVORCE HIM, PLOT HIS EXWIFE (DIANA) MURDER TO EXTOR THE HYPOCRITE CHURCH OF ENGLAND TO MARRIED THE SINFUL DIVORCEES SON AND MISTRESS. WHEN THEY DENY A SINGLE K I N G TO MARRIED AN AMERICAN DIVORCEE.
YOU SHOULD READ AT LEAS WIKIPEDIA TO GET YOUR HISTORIC FACTS STRAIGHT.
AND KEEP IN THE TIME LINE OF THE CURRENT EVENTS, I'M NOT DOING ANY HISTORICAL WORLDWIDE ROYAL ANALISIS OF WHICH MONARQHY OR DICTATORSHIP HAS BEEN BETTER THAN OTHER. I JUST GIVING MY OPINION OVER A BUNCH OF LIES AND PROPAGANDA THAT ALL JOURNALIST IS TALKING OVER A CRUEL MANIPULATIVE WOMAN WHO DIE I DISGRACE AND A SUCCESSION OF ANOTHER CRIMINAL THAT HARDLY REPRESENT THE VALUES AND CORE OF THE HARD WORKING AND LOVING BRITHISH PEOPLE I HAVE THE HONOR TO KNOW AND HAVE AS MY FRIENDS, WHO ALSO HATE THE PARASITE MONARCHS AND THEY HAVEN'T THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH THAT I HAVE.
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE TRUE.... CHOP CHOP. MOVE ON
MY historic facts? Elizabeth was 10 when her uncle abdicated. I doubt she had much to do with it.
I thought I'd said goodbye to you already. Just to make sure: Goodbye. Keep your nauseating vitriol to yourself.
😂🤣😂🤣HILARIOUS, YOU CAN'T EVEN ELABORATE A PROPER DEPARTURE FROM A CHAT. USING THIS 🍎 Elizabeth crowned DEFAULTED QUEEN DENY THE ACCESS TO HER LEGITMATE UNCLE KING LIVE IN ANY UK LAND IF NOT AFRICA AS PUNISHMENT FOR HIS MARRIAGE. BUT SHE BROKE ALL THOSE SAME RULES TO HELP HER GERONTOPHILICA SELF CALLED, TAMPON SON TO INHERET HER THRONE. CAN YOU BRAIN PROCESS THAT???? I UNDERSTAN YOUR LIMITATIONS, SO READ YOUR OWN POST CRITIZING MY OPINION AND FIND IF YOU REALLY SAID BEFORE GOOD BYE ... I TOLD YOU CHOP, CHOP 2 TIMES WICH MEANS THAT PRECISELY, SO DON'T PATRONIZING ME WITH YOUR IGNORANCE... BELIEVE ME IF THIS CHAT HAS THE OPTION TO BLOCK YOU, I WONT BE WASTING MY TIME GIVING YOU SOME INFO, CLEARLY YOU CANNOT PROCESS.... CHOP CHOP!. TODDLE PIP! TATA! CHERRIO!🤦♀️ I HAVE THE LASTHISTORY RECORD WORD 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣💪😋
If this means you'll FINALLY stop your demented rants, yay. But I doubt you mean it. If you really understood anything, you'd stop making yourself look like a fool. But you're too full of negative emotions (starting with hate and anger) to have space for rational thought. In fact, you seem rather unstable. Rationality has been conspicuously missing in everything you've said.
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1993-02-12-mn-1435-story.html
DIANA PAID HER INCOME TAXES, they were publicized in the tabloids when she got engaged with the adulterous self-called tampon of the rag camila...
EVERYTHING IS IN YOUTUBE DOCUMENTARIES WITH PICTURES OF THE ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS ... ENJOY IT
You know the history, George the VI was not supposed to ascend the throne. He did, oh, so reluctantly and made it his own. At his death, Elizabeth, herself, had no choice. Admire them both for doing their very best. Admire her more for carrying the weight of that office for seventy years without a whimper. She made the archaic relevant. That's some stones baby!