The Queen is Dead

[Moksha]

and 70 as Queen, if i have that right. Wow indeed.

She became Queen when Truman was still President.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

RIP, Ms. Elizabeth. Not a fan of monarchies, ceremonial or otherwise. However, you were a brave soul, an excellent diplomat, and from what I gathered passively, a humanitarian.

- Doc

PS - Prince Andrew should be in prison.

[Some Schmo]

RIP, Ms. Elizabeth. Not a fan of monarchies, ceremonial or otherwise. However, you were a brave soul, an excellent diplomat, and from what I gathered passively, a humanitarian.

My wife is watching a little news memoir on her life, and I told her what I said here. She got quite animated and started explaining why I should care, essentially outlining what you said about her. If we're talking about the woman's life and what she did with it, I can understand many people feeling sad today. I never followed her life, so I wouldn't know.

But I'm with you on monarchies. The idea that someone is royalty, or "chosen by god" is the thing that makes it all so damned stupid to me.

[Vēritās]

It’s a bit harder to be sympathetic to professor Uju Anya when she doesn’t even tell us where or when this supposed genocide took place.

Colonization is usually accompanied by rape and murder. Some folks come from these countries and know and remember things most of us are unaware of. I don't know the full role of the Queen in all of this, but she did stand as the symbol of the "Empire of the Sun." Think of the atrocities that happened with Malaya, Kenya, Yemen, Cyprus and Ireland.

I saw the Queen when I was a kid living in Germany. We attended a British Catholic School. I remember having an affinity for drawing the British Flag, which I thought was the coolest thing ever.

Right Wing fake news outlets are going to respond to any given current event based on how people perceived to be on the "Left" respond first. If college professors everywhere were fawning over her, Brietbart would be criticizing them for ignoring her roles in said atrocities.

[Moksha]

But I'm with you on monarchies. The idea that someone is royalty, or "chosen by god" is the thing that makes it all so damned stupid to me.

You might feel that way with monarchies, but Trump Republicans feel that way about democracy.

[MeDotOrg]

The ambivalence I feel has to do with the relevance of a Monarchy in the 21st Century. Monarchy has the ability to separate love of country from love of the political leader of the country. And I think it's nice to have a symbol that transcends the politics of the day. But the Monarchy is also a form of welfare for the well born. I can see why people want nothing to do with that.

To blame Elizabeth for all of the colonial sins of the British Empire seems a bit of a stretch. The Empire was pretty much gone by the time she ascended the throne.

From the movie Hope and Glory, here is my favorite explanation of the British Empire:

Keeping the pink bits pink.

[Res Ipsa]

My condolences. Ms. Ipsa lived in England for six years growing up. She and her brother both feel a loss. They attended her silver jubilee, so her passing feels like a bit of her childhood is gone.

She’s been the queen for my entire life. PMs have come and gone, Presidents have come and gone, but the queen has just always been there. I don’t know if I can think of a similar constant. It feels to me like the finishing of a book or the ending of an era.

May she Rest In Peace.

[Jersey Girl]

"I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service." ~ Elizabeth 1947

She declared it and then she did it.

[Chap]

She’s been the queen for my entire life. PMs have come and gone, Presidents have come and gone, but the queen has just always been there. I don’t know if I can think of a similar constant. It feels to me like the finishing of a book or the ending of an era.

That really is the explanation of why so much is being made of the death of a woman who did not have any real political power at all; all of the "royal prerogatives" held by her ancestors were exercised on her behalf by elected politicians, or (even if she appeared to exercise any of them) by her on the "advice" of ministers, from which by long established custom she never deviated. In the 19th century, Walter Bagehot famously divided the unwritten British constitution in into two parts - the "dignified" and the "efficient" (that is, the bit that actually did things). Her job was to embody the former, and she did it pretty well on the whole, and even people opposed to having a monarchy tended to like her as a person.

That being said, one great defect of having an unelected head of state with no powers is that they cannot exercise the role played by some elected heads of state in other parliamentary democracies, where one of the few powers held by the head of state is to declare that some law or some government act is unconstitutional, and suspend it while matters are reviewed. Thus, for instance, the powers of the largely ceremonial President of the Irish Republic include:

The Constitution also provides the President with the power to refer certain Bills to the Supreme Court for a determination as to whether the bill or any provision thereof is repugnant to the Constitution.

That cannot be done by a British monarch. Under the premiership of Boris Johnson, it became clear that:

(a) The old customary restraints on a prime minister's actions no longer operated: he just lied and cheated his way through any obstacle in his way.

(b) The country needs a written constitution to protect it from utterly unscrupulous elected politicians excercising what were once royal powers.

That is why, now the Queen is gone, someone like myself begins to think that we need to begin to contemplate the (doubtless long and rather bumpy) road that leads to an Irish-style elected and largely ceremonial head of state, but with clear power to ensure that a new (written) constitution is respected.

[Xenophon]

Thanks for that perspective, Chap.

That is why, now the Queen is gone, someone like myself begins to think that we need to begin to contemplate the (doubtless long and rather bumpy) road that leads to an Irish-style elected and largely ceremonial head of state, but with clear power to ensure that a new (written) constitution is respected.

This is a sentiment I've heard a few times already, do you have any good insight into how popular the idea is and if there is any solid movement on that front?

I'm also curious about the relationship of the Crown now with places like Australia. My understanding is that Head of the Commonwealth is not a hereditary title and that a changing of the guard may lead to some changes in the old colonies.