• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Queen Elizabeth II

Few thoughts.

The Queen's death and Charles' succession is just cementing feelings of pro and anti monarchists alike. There are strong feelings in both camps. If the monarchy doesn't have the support of the people it won't be able to continue - this could be a tipping point, but I really doubt it. The opposite if anything - I think Charles and the younger generation now get the need to engage more and be less remote than previously the case. He has also long said that he wants to slim down the monarchy.

I think most people queueing for Westminster Hall are paying respects rather than outright mourning. Subtle difference.

As for those railing against disruption on Monday, well for most it's no more than a mild inconvenience if that - and it's happened once in 70 years and won't happen again for maybe another 15. Just treat it like Christmas where everything shuts down and most people 'celebrating' it don't give a second's thought to the reasons behind it. EDIT: Clearly shouldn't cost people in terms of lost income.

And whether pro or anti, you've got to say that we do all the pageant around it bloody well.
 
Last edited:
TRF_Olyy said:
I never liked the monarchy but was ok enough with the status quo

The past week has turned me actively anti-monarchy
Click to expand...

This is exactly how I feel. I was fine with the status quo but the cancellation of 100+ flights just so London could fall silent for 45 mins was almost the final straw. People due to fly in may have to forfeit hotel bookings and may struggle to find alternative accommodation. Disruption and inconvenience galore.

When Charles pops his clogs I'll be booking a flight out of the country to escape from the madness.
 
Old Hooker said:
Just treat it like Christmas where everything shuts down and most people 'celebrating' it don't give a second's thought to the reasons behind it.
Click to expand...
Execpt Christmas is a planned event every year like clockwork. People don't get surgeries cancelled at Christmas because the hospitals don't book them in in the first place. Everyone makes their arrangement around it knowing it is coming. People have had less than a week for a lot of this stuff.

And we're more shutdown than Christmas.
 
I hate the "she symbolises everything that is great about being British" line that is constantly trotted out as well as the "what a great person she was" ******.

For me she symbolises everything that is wrong with our society and I don't think she was a particularly amazing person either. I don't really acknowledge her service, in my mind she's been unemployed her whole life and is the biggest benefit scrounger going, the likes of which the Daily Mail love abusing on a daily basis. But there's no consideration for people like me, we're told be quiet, be sad and sorry if you've had hospital appointments cancelled, or whatever cancelled, it's a minor inconvenience.

I refuse to watch any of it but the bits I have watched with people in the queue being interviewed they speak for about 30secs about the occasion and the historical event before they even mention the flipping queen. These people aren't mourning and to call it such is gross.
 
Welsh Exile said:
I hate the "she symbolises everything that is great about being British" line that is constantly trotted out as well as the "what a great person she was" ******.

For me she symbolises everything that is wrong with our society and I don't think she was a particularly amazing person either. I don't really acknowledge her service, in my mind she's been unemployed her whole life and is the biggest benefit scrounger going, the likes of which the Daily Mail love abusing on a daily basis. But there's no consideration for people like me, we're told be quiet, be sad and sorry if you've had hospital appointments cancelled, or whatever cancelled, it's a minor inconvenience.

I refuse to watch any of it but the bits I have watched with people in the queue being interviewed they speak for about 30secs about the occasion and the historical event before they even mention the flipping queen. These people aren't mourning and to call it such is gross.
Click to expand...

It's incredible how people who barely knew her are claiming how wonderful she was. Theresa May said she was the most impressive person she'd ever met. Based on what? A couple of brief pleasantry exchanges over tea and cucumber sandwiches.

People are convincing themselves that they are mourning for her when they're really not and the media don't help by forcing it down our throats 24/7 at the expense of other news. I have no issue with tributes and the ceremonial stuff relating to the death of the Queen but it's going way beyond that. It's basically a big marketing push for Charles and the rest of the Royals.
 
The Oggmonster said:
It's basically a big marketing push for Charles and the rest of the Royals.
Click to expand...
It's working, tbf - Can't remember if it was on here or on twitter but I saw a graphic showing approval rates of Charles as King over the past few years and he was consistently in the 20-30% range up until after QE2 died and now it's jumped to mid-to-high 60s
 
TRF_Olyy said:
It's working, tbf - Can't remember if it was on here or on twitter but I saw a graphic showing approval rates of Charles as King over the past few years and he was consistently in the 20-30% range up until after QE2 died and now it's jumped to mid-to-high 60s
Click to expand...
That's a bigger bump than Truss' 3%!

We'll see it's very hard to gauge real reaction during the event give it a month or two.
 
Approval rating for a King is hilarious to me. You're either happy for some random family to be born better than you or you're not, you don't get to choose you don't like one just because he looks like Goofy.

I haven't said anything on this so RIP to your Queen, she didn't seem like a bad individual, it would be distasteful for me to expand further than that.
 
Le Frére Alpha said:
Approval rating for a King is hilarious to me. You're either happy for some random family to be born better than you or you're not, you don't get to choose you don't like one just because he looks like Goofy.

I haven't said anything on this so RIP to your Queen, she didn't seem like a bad individual, it would be distasteful for me to expand further than that.
Click to expand...
it would be distasteful for me to call you a *****

I think they should break the approval rating down into categories. Fashion, handshakes, ribbon cutting, waving, sitting down at state functions. Give me advanced royal analytics.
 
Welsh Exile said:
For me she symbolises everything that is wrong with our society and I don't think she was a particularly amazing person either. I don't really acknowledge her service, in my mind she's been unemployed her whole life and is the biggest benefit scrounger going
Click to expand...

I get that you despise the Royals. I'm not going to to try to change your mind but just try to be a bit objective.

Yes the Royals cost and yes there's been a load of sycophantic BS (as there is when virtually anyone dies….it's just hugely exaggerated here). And like anyone else who's ever drawn breath they're far from perfect.

But in pure financial terms they bring a lot of money in through tourism, they've helped get some fairly sizeable trade deals over the line and their patronage has helped charities raise probably £billions in additional funds. The Prince's Trust alone has helped thousands of disadvantaged youngsters.

As for unemployed. That just doesn't stack up. And she was even doing what she could well into her 90s with a terminal health condition.
 
Old Hooker said:
I get that you despise the Royals. I'm not going to to try to change your mind but just try to be a bit objective.

Yes the Royals cost and yes there's been a load of sycophantic BS (as there is when virtually anyone dies….it's just hugely exaggerated here). And like anyone else who's ever drawn breath they're far from perfect.

But in pure financial terms they bring a lot of money in through tourism, they've helped get some fairly sizeable trade deals over the line and their patronage has helped charities raise probably £billions in additional funds. The Prince's Trust alone has helped thousands of disadvantaged youngsters.

As for unemployed. That just doesn't stack up. And she was even doing what she could well into her 90s with a terminal health condition.
Click to expand...
The tourism argument doesn't make any sense to me. Are tourists going to suddenly stop coming to the UK if we disband the monarchy? Did tourism stop in France in the late 18th century? or is it still a really popular place to visit for its various historical buildings and what not? I'd even put forward an argument, that if you took away their obscene, disgusting amount of wealth and property they've inherited you could boost tourism by opening up places like Balmoral to the public and tourists alike.

Also, I don't despise the royals I despise the monarchy and what they represent. I don't know them personally though some, including the queen, have been involved in some shady **** but I don't know if they're bad people as individuals but the legacy of monarchy in this country, or any for that matter, is sick as you'd expect being the remanence of the feudal system.

The charity argument doesn't make much sense to me either. Hamas do loads of charity work, does that make them amazing? The Queen, when she was alive was one of the biggest landlords in the world and she died a billionaire. I'd say someone on £30k per year giving £10 of their monthly salary has probably done more relative good than the Queen. I wouldn't say the absence of good deeds makes her a bad person but I think it's enough to make me pretty confident she wasn't an amazing person like I'm being told by every man and his dog.
 
Question for republicans here - who would you replace the monarchy if you could?

Personally, a President elected in line with ROI would be my preference with a fixed term(s). Still, largely ceremonial with no real constitutional power, but taking away the hereditary wealth and influence aspect.

Edit: and if Charles wanted to be the first President of the UK he should then put his name forward for nomination/election. Even William. But it should no longer be hereditary IMO.
 
Last edited:
Bada-Bing! said:
Question for republicans here - who would you replace the monarchy if you could?
Click to expand...
The Crown itself, its a purely ceremonial position and our PM is our de facto head of state anyway.
 
ncurd said:
The Crown itself, its a purely ceremonial position and our PM is our de facto head of state anyway.
Click to expand...
That's not really suggesting a change if you could change it. Hence why republicans always struggle to offer an alternative vision or option.

My one would at least get rid of the inherent hereditary aspect of monarchy which is fundamentally unfair.
 
Bada-Bing! said:
Question for republicans here - who would you replace the monarchy if you could?

Personally, a President elected in line with ROI would be my preference with a fixed term(s). Still, largely ceremonial with no real constitutional power, but taking away the hereditary wealth and influence aspect.

Edit: and if Charles wanted to be the first President of the UK he should then put his name forward for nomination/election. Even William. But it should no longer be hereditary IMO.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'd be happy with that, the House of Lords needs to go as well though for sure. I don't get why we can't just have a second house that has elected representatives instead of a bunch of Lords. An elected president with fixed terms as well.

It's pipe dream stuff though. They're not going anywhere anytime soon. Not in our lifetime anyway.
 

Similar threads

S
dating game classics I & II
Replies
0
Views
1K
sambãd5
S
S
  • Locked
Caption Compo Thread II
22 23 24
Replies
473
Views
30K
getofmeland
G

Latest posts

Top