The Queen is Dead

Sorry, when I saw this thread title, I was just coming over from Beechtalk and thought someone was crapping a Queen Air. Maybe I need to spend less time on aviation.
 
Yeah, don't have any real interest in the royal family, but she seems to have been a fairly good human from the public accounts. Not much more than a figurehead for England, but I doubt they really need that "position" any longer. I think she wore the crown well.
 
agreed... based on what little I know I did hold respect for her. In the early years I think she shouldered a lot. I never really had the idea that she didn't take her role in any way but seriously.
I'm not really so sure any of the remaining bunch of royals have anywhere close to her level of commitment to the idea of duty, responsibility, and so on.

If you haven't seen it, Netflix has a series called the Crown. I very much enjoyed watching it....seems well done. I hope it continues with the rest of her story.

RIP Ma'am
 
Long live the king.
 
It's the end of the second Elizabethan Age. And probably the end of meaningful royalty. The most sad day for England losing someone who was irreplaceable.
 
Sad. Good person. Good queen. Respected her. If Britain was smart they’d call an end to the Royals now.
 
luvflyin said:
I didn’t mean in charge literally. Let me rephrase. Who’s the Queen/King now.
Click to expand...

Alexander Haig?
No, that was a different power vacuum.
My understanding is that Charles became King immediately upon the Queen's death, even though the coronation will take place later.
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
Charles :frown2:
Click to expand...
Charles III, to the likes of peasants like you and me.

Actually, he doesn't have to use his birth name. The first two Charleses had their problems (the first beheaded, lotsa moral issues with the second). It's been suggested he be coronated as Arthur II.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Charles III, to the likes of peasants like you and me.

Actually, he doesn't have to use his birth name. The first two Charleses had their problems (the first beheaded, lotsa moral issues with the second). It's been suggested he be coronated as Arthur II.
Click to expand...

It's been announced he's sticking with Charles III. The second Elizabethan Age has ended, and the Carolinian Age has begun.
 
It's sad, of course, but, I don't know why it is our major concern.
 
Pilawt said:
It's been announced he's sticking with Charles III
Click to expand...


I vote for Chuck I.

But my vote doesn't count since my family was kicked out of England sometime around the early 1700s.

Then again King Ralph was popular...

KingRalph_featured.jpg
 
Sac Arrow said:
It's sad, of course, but, I don't know why it is our major concern.
Click to expand...

Given that this thread has 1/4 the replies of the "bah, young people these days" thread, I'm not sure it's your major concern. It is however worthy of note.
 
Last edited:
Sac Arrow said:
It's sad, of course, but, I don't know why it is our major concern.
Click to expand...

For the same reason it’s ‘news’ when a Pope dies. Or an American (former) president.

When you look at the fact she transformed the colonial British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, it’s probably worth a second to pause and pay some level of respect.
 
Whether one approves of the monarchy or not, you have to respect the Queen for her unwavering sense of duty through many difficult times. Despite being largely a figurehead, the monarchy has been a stabilizing influence on British politics over the years, unlike our craziness every four years. Not that I want a king or queen here, but it seems to mostly work for Britain.

Charles will have a really tough act to follow.
 
Charlie Golf said:
I don't have any use for the royal family in general, but I did have a level of respect for her. From all accounts she was a good person who served her country during WWII. RIP.
Click to expand...
And a devoted wife to her cousin.
 
Dana said:
Whether one approves of the monarchy or not, you have to respect the Queen for her unwavering sense of duty through many difficult times. Despite being largely a figurehead, the monarchy has been a stabilizing influence on British politics over the years, unlike our craziness every four years. Not that I want a king or queen here, but it seems to mostly work for Britain.

Charles will have a really tough act to follow.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't go so far as to say they don't have craziness. Can you spell brexit boys and girls. Or johnson. And then there's this guy.

 
Hmm. They gots to change their national anthem now. Now the King needs saving
 
Similar to #Dana statement in listening to the coverage on a long drive yesterday I gained some new perspective. Though I agree right now would be a great time to end the royal family, but the positive I realized and hadn’t before that with her even handedness and long reign the great sounding board and private advice giver she was able to be for the prime ministers. She evidently met w them weekly and it was held like a priest hold the secrecy of the confessional. What an asset to a politician of any stripe… she would have been able to say “cool your jets grasshopper I’ve seen a lot, let’s think this through….” That’s an asset for a leader to have the highest level of insight dating back long before their political term and the Crisis of the moment.

however that can’t be offered by just any royal…it was a temporary gift she alone really could bring the British… So I don’t see the value of the position from here forward, but she herself did seem to ne a true national asset for them.
 
Huckster79 said:
Similar to #Dana statement in listening to the coverage on a long drive yesterday I gained some new perspective. Though I agree right now would be a great time to end the royal family, but the positive I realized and hadn’t before that with her even handedness and long reign the great sounding board and private advice giver she was able to be for the prime ministers. She evidently met w them weekly and it was held like a priest hold the secrecy of the confessional. What an asset to a politician of any stripe… she would have been able to say “cool your jets grasshopper I’ve seen a lot, let’s think this through….” That’s an asset for a leader to have the highest level of insight dating back long before their political term and the Crisis of the moment.

however that can’t be offered by just any royal…it was a temporary gift she alone really could bring the British… So I don’t see the value of the position from here forward, but she herself did seem to ne a true national asset for them.
Click to expand...

As integral as the royal family is the the country's identity, I wonder if it would detract from their status at all. I mean, I'm sure they would still get plenty of tourists, but visiting Buckingham Palace and the Queens Guard is an iconic thing that may lose it's luster if there isn't a royal family. I don't forsee them giving that up, despite not having a legislative need for a King/Queen. I'm sure King Charlie will be around for a decade and then Prince William will assume the throne to continue on. He and Princess Middleton seem to be well-suited to assume the duties of the crown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top