Queen Elizabeth dies

[Alexander]

Queen Elizabeth died on the 8th of September, and her funeral is to be held soon. She was a figurehead of many countries worldwide, and her death couldn't have come at a worse time, considering the economic uncertainty. Have you heard of Queen Elizabeth before she died? Many media companies are internationally covering her death on the news and paying tribute.

 

[Lamb]

It's all over the news here in the US. My condolences to your country.

Do you think the King will do a decent job?

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

It's all over the news here in the US. My condolences to your country.

Do you think the King will do a decent job?

Did you like the Queen?

 

[tango]

Queen Elizabeth died on the 8th of September, and her funeral is to be held soon. She was a figurehead of many countries worldwide, and her death couldn't have come at a worse time, considering the economic uncertainty. Have you heard of Queen Elizabeth before she died? Many media companies are internationally covering her death on the news and paying tribute.

You'd have to have been living under a rock to have not heard of Queen Elizabeth.

The timing of the death of a hugely long-standing monarch is never good but coming amidst so much political and economic uncertainty is about as bad as it could be. She's the longest reigning monarch in British history and if I recall you'd have to go back to the times of Louis XIII to find a monarch anywhere who reigned for longer.

Now it just remains to be seen whether the monarchy will last long enough to see King William - it seems already some Caribbean nations are looking to break ties with the monarchy.

 

[Albion]

The timing of the death of a hugely long-standing monarch is never good but coming amidst so much political and economic uncertainty is about as bad as it could be. She's the longest reigning monarch in British history and if I recall you'd have to go back to the times of Louis XIII to find a monarch anywhere who reigned for longer.

You mean Louis XIV who ruled for only a couple more years than Elizabeth II did. He, however, become king when he was only a young child, unlike Elizabeth.

Now it just remains to be seen whether the monarchy will last long enough to see King William - it seems already some Caribbean nations are looking to break ties with the monarchy.

That trend has been in play for some years now. But I don't think of it as particularly critical to the idea we're talking about since we're referring to the continuation of a monarchy that has existed since before England owned any of those places. So in recent history, she gained some and then lost some, but the monarchy continues on.

 

[tango]

You mean Louis XIV who ruled for only a couple more years than Elizabeth II did. He, however, become king when he was only a young child, unlike Elizabeth.

Louis XIV? I thought it was XIII but couldn't remember if it was XIII or XIV. Thanks for the correction.

Elizabeth II reigned for 70 of her 96 years. It's curious to think what proportion of the nation's population was even alive at the last coronation. After Victoria there were a few monarchs in a relatively short period but

That trend has been in play for some years now. But I don't think of it as particularly critical to the idea we're talking about since we're referring to the continuation of a monarchy that has existed since before England owned any of those places. So in recent history, she gained some and then lost some, but the monarchy continues on.

Sure, although since there's less deference to the monarchy in growing groups within the UK it's hard to know how much traction it will gain. I remember in 2002 when there was growing talk that maybe it was time to move on from the monarchy the talk was shut down at the Golden Jubilee celebrations when the entire length of The Mall was rammed with people wanting to commemorate the Queen. To what extent it resurfaces and gains traction within the UK remains to be seen.

 

[Lucian Hodoboc]

You'd have to have been living under a rock to have not heard of Queen Elizabeth.

Not necessarily.

 

[Albion]

Sure, although since there's less deference to the monarchy in growing groups within the UK it's hard to know how much traction it will gain. I remember in 2002 when there was growing talk that maybe it was time to move on from the monarchy the talk was shut down at the Golden Jubilee celebrations when the entire length of The Mall was rammed with people wanting to commemorate the Queen. To what extent it resurfaces and gains traction within the UK remains to be seen.

Right. Elizabeth turned things around and might have saved the monarchy. It was no accident that she made the right moves at the right time and blunted the attitude that was saying the monarchy was outmoded, no longer served any purpose, cost too much, and so on.

Much of that falls on the shoulders of King Charles now, and quite a few people seem to be saying that they hope he does not squander what his mother accomplished in this respect.

 

[Lamb]

Did you like the Queen?

I really never kept tabs on her to know what she did or didn't do.

 

[tango]

Right. Elizabeth turned things around and might have saved the monarchy. It was no accident that she made the right moves at the right time and blunted the attitude that was saying the monarchy was outmoded, no longer served any purpose, cost too much, and so on.

I think after Diana's death in 1997 the Queen did make the changes so that the monarchy continued to be relevant to the people. By 2002 the crowds in the Mall for the Golden Jubilee spoke far louder than any words could that there were still an awful lot of people who favored her.

Much of that falls on the shoulders of King Charles now, and quite a few people seem to be saying that they hope he does not squander what his mother accomplished in this respect.

It would be easy for him to squander it. The more republican groups are saying that instead of rushing to a new coronation we should be rushing to abolishing the monarchy. It's not an unfair point and not an unreasonable discussion to be having, but constantly faces the uphill battle because naturally a discussion of abolishing the monarchy so soon after the death of the Queen is all but impossible to present without appearing hugely disrespectful to the Queen.

In years gone by one of the reasons quoted to abolish the monarchy is the cost savings. At the time a year's worth of the Civil List payments were equivalent to something like 12 minutes worth of the national welfare budget. Reducing the argument to a cost basis really doesn't work because I suspect the monarchy brings in a lot more money through tourism than it costs. That said it's easy to see why the people are increasingly reluctant to be funding Prince Andrew (nicknamed Air Miles Andy and Randy Andy over the years, even before the issue with Jeffrey Epstein blew up on him).

 

[Albion]

I think after Diana's death in 1997 the Queen did make the changes so that the monarchy continued to be relevant to the people. By 2002 the crowds in the Mall for the Golden Jubilee spoke far louder than any words could that there were still an awful lot of people who favored her.



It would be easy for him to squander it. The more republican groups are saying that instead of rushing to a new coronation we should be rushing to abolishing the monarchy. It's not an unfair point and not an unreasonable discussion to be having, but constantly faces the uphill battle because naturally a discussion of abolishing the monarchy so soon after the death of the Queen is all but impossible to present without appearing hugely disrespectful to the Queen.

There will there always will be that faction which wants to end the monarchy, but if we consult the polls taken of the British people over the years, the popularity of the idea was significant earlier in her reign but now it's much smaller. The response to Diana's death was one factor in that change, but only one of a number.

Reducing the argument to a cost basis really doesn't work because I suspect the monarchy brings in a lot more money through tourism than it costs.

Exactly. It's supposed by many people that all the ceremonies, etc. are a waste of money, but cooler heads have explained that this is a major attraction for tourists from all over the globe.

 

[tango]

There will there always will be that faction which wants to end the monarchy, but if we consult the polls taken of the British people over the years, the popularity of the idea was significant earlier in her reign but now it's much smaller. The response to Diana's death was one factor in that change, but only one of a number.

Yep, it's just a question of how many it would take to actually abolish the monarchy and whether the republican groups have any realistic chance of gathering that much support.

Since public opinion seems less hostile to the concept of Queen Camilla (even if technically Queen Consort Camilla) than it has been in years gone by that suggests Charles won't face an immediate uphill battle. I wonder if that was anything more than a masterstroke by the Queen to make it clear it was her decision rather than Charles' decision to grant Camilla the title.

Exactly. It's supposed by many people that all the ceremonies, etc. are a waste of money, but cooler heads have explained that this is a major attraction for tourists from all over the globe.

Some other countries seem to suggest that we don't specifically need the monarchy - France still gets tourists to see the buildings even though they have done away with their monarchy. Personally I think having actual people behind the buildings makes a lot of sense, especially when those people help represent a lot of charitable causes.

I think the relatively recent process of seriously pruning the Civil List helps deflate the argument about wasted money. It's not as if the Royal Family was expensive before relative to other things (welfare budget, defense budget etc) but pruning the costs further just means they cost even less than before and also gets rid of the ones seen as hangers-on.