tremm said:
If anyone here has an answer, can they please share a link which describes:
- what significance Queen Elizabeth had/has to the layperson in the UK
- what significance her/his/the successor will have on the layperson in the UK
No offense meant to the Brits, and I'm glad you had a public servant (or public figure, I guess) who (I think) was well-behaved & well-loved for such a long time. On the one hand, I'm sorry that the burdensome position went to such a decent person, on the other, I suppose 1 lifetime of service is a small sacrifice for the betterment of a country.
I kind of had the impression that the royalty had mostly devolved into spending a lot of money on public celebrations (I am a younger American, so mostly think of the recent Jubilee, weddings, funerals, etc.).
My guess, is that it would be like if a Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter, maybe W Bush, stuck around post-presidency, to serve as a for-broadcast general public figure advisor/moral compass of a society for 30-50 years. I can see the appeal or service in something like that- which spans terms of office and human generations. Sorry for the ignorance.
For me, at least, this post seem to sum up her importance to the people of England.
The Rob Halford comment makes me wonder if Johnny Rotten will be around to say, "...we mean it man!"
tremm said:
If anyone here has an answer, can they please share a link which describes:
- what significance Queen Elizabeth had/has to the layperson in the UK
- what significance her/his/the successor will have on the layperson in the UK
No offense meant to the Brits, and I'm glad you had a public servant (or public figure, I guess) who (I think) was well-behaved & well-loved for such a long time. On the one hand, I'm sorry that the burdensome position went to such a decent person, on the other, I suppose 1 lifetime of service is a small sacrifice for the betterment of a country.
I kind of had the impression that the royalty had mostly devolved into spending a lot of money on public celebrations (I am a younger American, so mostly think of the recent Jubilee, weddings, funerals, etc.).
My guess, is that it would be like if a Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Carter, maybe W Bush, stuck around post-presidency, to serve as a for-broadcast general public figure advisor/moral compass of a society for 30-50 years. I can see the appeal or service in something like that- which spans terms of office and human generations. Sorry for the ignorance.
The BBC's coverage is comprehensive and even-handed. Her obituary is here: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-61605149
Live coverage of mourners outside of Buckingham Palace https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TTtsMvEbc8
It's always interested me that while the Monarchy has it's detractors, this Queen is almost universally revered, even during scandals such as Diana's untimely passing, Prince Andrews indiscretions, and the current issues with the Sussexes..
In reply to tremm :
Resident Brit. No problem, no offense taken. You need to forget the notion that a monarch is somehow entitled to be the head of the country due to a spurious family tree dating back over 1,000 years. There's no rational way to defend that concept. You need to look at who she was as a person, and what the concept of the British Monarchy means to people the world over. No need to get into the technicalities of what a constitutional Monarchy is and how they can vary around the world. What's important is that while Queen Elizabeth had very limited power to rule per the constitution, she was an outstanding figure head for the country. As person she was beloved by many. You don't have to like the concept of a monarch to accept that she was a great symbol for Britain and the commonwealth. A shinning example of British history and tradition (for good and bad). Look at how many hundreds of millions of (maybe billions) of £ and $ get spent by tourists from around the globe traveling to see Royals and the Royal sights in Britain? Look at the media interest in their lives, look at the movies, series, books about the family and its history. Dismiss it and ignore it if you will, but millions of others don't. If people are going to spend their time and money looking into, or at other peoples lives, I'd say Queen Elizabeth was probably far more worthy of attention than the average reality TV, soap, movie, sports star. She has spent her life working to promote the the people, products, history and culture of an enter nation (Nations if you think about the Commonwealth). Her prepense or endorsement can bring millions of eyes, and therefore $$"s to worthy causes and charities. However much she, and the Royal estate receive from the Civil List (w hat and how money is paid to people such as royals or estates by the government), I bet it's a bargain for the ROI the country, thus the tax roles, thus the people of the country, get in return.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
My mom loved the Queen.
I had to travel to London back in March and she asked me for a very specific coffee mug that was only sold at Buckingham Palace. When I got there they told me it was almost impossible to keep anything that referenced the Queen's Platinum Jubilee in stock. Luckily the girl was nice and wrote my name and told me to return in a week and she would save me one. I was skeptical but she did.
Rip to an amazing woman with a tremendously fantastical story.
very odd to think that my parents haven't known another monarch being 3 at the time of her coronation. We're Americans but my mom loved the royals. No idea why.
Surprised no one's mentioned she was married to a car guy. Prince Phillip had some nice cars, had a license till he was 97, continued driving on private property after giving up his license, and designed the Land Rover hearse for his own funeral.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:
In reply to tremm :
Resident Brit. No problem, no offense taken. You need to forget the notion that a monarch is somehow entitled to be the head of the country due to a spurious family tree dating back over 1,000 years. There's no rational way to defend that concept. You need to look at who she was as a person, and what the concept of the British Monarchy means to people the world over. No need to get into the technicalities of what a constitutional Monarchy is and how they can vary around the world. What's important is that while Queen Elizabeth had very limited power to rule per the constitution, she was an outstanding figure head for the country. As person she was beloved by many. You don't have to like the concept of a monarch to accept that she was a great symbol for Britain and the commonwealth. A shinning example of British history and tradition (for good and bad). Look at how many hundreds of millions of (maybe billions) of £ and $ get spent by tourists from around the globe traveling to see Royals and the Royal sights in Britain? Look at the media interest in their lives, look at the movies, series, books about the family and its history. Dismiss it and ignore it if you will, but millions of others don't. If people are going to spend their time and money looking into, or at other peoples lives, I'd say Queen Elizabeth was probably far more worthy of attention than the average reality TV, soap, movie, sports star. She has spent her life working to promote the the people, products, history and culture of an enter nation (Nations if you think about the Commonwealth). Her prepense or endorsement can bring millions of eyes, and therefore $$"s to worthy causes and charities. However much she, and the Royal estate receive from the Civil List (w hat and how money is paid to people such as royals or estates by the government), I bet it's a bargain for the ROI the country, thus the tax roles, thus the people of the country, get in return.
Not a Brit at all...
Adrian has the right of it. Her majesty the Queen had an outsized influence on world events simply by throwing her support behind various causes. She remains the only female Royal to serve in the armed forces of the UK, served as head of the commonwealth for seven decades, and generally tried to make life better for her subjects, insofar as she was able. The world will truly be a poorer place without her.
In reply to MiniDave :
In his 70s, I believe. He holds the record for oldest ascent to the throne, and longest time as heir apparent...
Don't mean to be that guy, actually I do but I don't mind being that guy.
But......
For those of us who have roots from Africa and the Caribbean....BYE! The monarchy did not signify anything hopeful to most countries on our planet except maybe the 20 or so that they didn't get to colonize. She lived for a long time and could've turnt all this upside down but didn't.
Do you think King Charles III will return all the stolen stuff back to Africa, Indian and Asia? That would be a good start.
She had many dogs and cars. Who couldn't love a Queen like that.
The UK doesn't have the American Hollywood in the same sense so their version of old tabloids like our National Enquierer focus on The Royals. See Megan Markell for cross-over.
JfK and Jacqueline Kennedy were referred to as Camelot (a UK reference) because they were a spectical in ways similar to The Royals
She was once known as the Princess Mechanic and later as the Gearhead Queen. She would have fit in well here.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/queen-elizabeth-ii-the-gearhead-monarch-has-died/ar-AA11BZnW
In reply to yupididit :
I was looking at a map of the Commonwealth today and wondered why the berk some of the countries haven't said nope y'all screwed us up way more than you helped. Even then ones that the majority of people wouldn't say that is because they wiped out the indigenous people so the white people are the only ones left.
In reply to yupididit :
I was struck by things like Belize is a Commonwealth nation. Why? This reminds me of a conversation I had with an Indian customer a few years ago. We were discussing his country and I said "The British did more to screw up your country than anything else in history." He exclaimed back "Yes you understand!". We could go into how the British made Afghanistan a buffer state between Russia and their money makers in India. Or how a British diplomat and a French diplomat that had never been to the Middle East divided it up with no concern about ethnic or religious differences. Has the crown addressed it's past? Nope.
I think she is the sort of person who deserves respect no matter how you feel about the office. The world is paying respects to a person today, not just a monarch, because she always seemed to show compassion and integrity.
yupididit said:
Don't mean to be that guy, actually I do but I don't mind being that guy.
But......
For those of us who have roots from Africa and the Caribbean....BYE! The monarchy did not signify anything hopeful to most countries on our planet except maybe the 20 or so that they didn't get to colonize. She lived for a long time and could've turnt all this upside down but didn't.
Do you think King Charles III will return all the stolen stuff back to Africa, Indian and Asia? That would be a good start.
You're certainly not wrong. Britain (and most western nations) have a pretty awful record of colonization and subjugation of POC. The only thing I would say is that Elizabeth was hardly the worst offender in this regard. By the time she came along, the tide was firmly against that kind of thing. Not that it makes up for the sins of the past, of course.
Keith Tanner said:
I think she is the sort of person who deserves respect no matter how you feel about the office. The world is paying respects to a person today, not just a monarch, because she always seemed to show compassion and integrity.
I won't respect any billionaire if they won't admit that their billions were made off of the millions of people that their direct ancestors enslaved, killed, or subjugated for their profit.
Tom_Spangler (Forum Supporter) said:
yupididit said:
Don't mean to be that guy, actually I do but I don't mind being that guy.
But......
For those of us who have roots from Africa and the Caribbean....BYE! The monarchy did not signify anything hopeful to most countries on our planet except maybe the 20 or so that they didn't get to colonize. She lived for a long time and could've turnt all this upside down but didn't.
Do you think King Charles III will return all the stolen stuff back to Africa, Indian and Asia? That would be a good start.
You're certainly not wrong. Britain (and most western nations) have a pretty awful record of colonization and subjugation of POC. The only thing I would say is that Elizabeth was hardly the worst offender in this regard. By the time she came along, the tide was firmly against that kind of thing. Not that it makes up for the sins of the past, of course.
Hardly the worst offender is still an offender. Rape and kill 10 people but because the offenders parents did the same to 100 means the lesser offender deserves respect?
Meanwhile still profiting and thriving off the spoils of colonization that came at the expense of possibly billions of people and an untold amount of cultures that no longer exist as a direct result.
How many places do they still colonize at the time of her death that lasted during her entire reign?
She inherited and SUSTAINED that "bloody" monarchy.
Nah, miss me with that E36 M3.
Keith Tanner said:
I think she is the sort of person who deserves respect no matter how you feel about the office. The world is paying respects to a person today, not just a monarch, because she always seemed to show compassion and integrity.
She was a person AND she was also the institution. The absolute top of it, Queen.
And if you saw what the real world is saying about her death, it isn't all happy happy joy joy. A conquerer and colonizer died today and the victims of her reign and institution do not respect her nor celebrate her life.
For me, also a Brit by birth, I had no special attachment to the royal family. I don't follow the tabloids about Harry Markle or any of the others. I will definitely miss her majesty however. The fact that Elizabeth managed a 70 year reign, from before most people had televisions through the onset of the age of social media without abusing her station or embarrassing a nation with indiscretions, is amazing. Most politicians can't even manage one office term without "f-ing" up.
In reply to travellering :
That's only if you decide not counting active colonization as not berkeleying up.
I find it strangely unsettling what intelligent individuals are willing to disregard in order to respect truly terrible leaders. Here on GRM, some of y'all are willing to breez by facts and the body count under and around her and justify respecting and celebrating her life. Yall wouldn't of afforded Hitler such respect if he lived this long and died today.
In her 70 years if she would've reverse their imperial rule and gave back everything they've taken then she would've died with virtually nothing compared to what she was born with. Or was she blissfully ignorant of where the diamonds across her body came from? The atrocities that happened during her long ass reign. Keeping the status quo of oppression and directly benefiting from it is abusing her station.
As a child, I learned world history in class and realized that she isn't any better than her folks. How loud does the survivors oppression, colonization and British Rule need to be for y'all to open your eyes. It's not like this E36 M3 isn't recorded in history. People have told and experienced these stories and know them to be fact.
In reply to yupididit :
It will be interesting to see how many countries use this opportunity to leave the Commonwealth. CNN brought it up while I was watching part of their coverage this afternoon. One thing I didn't know is that the membership is entirely voluntary. Not sure what the advantage of that is- other than an apparent ease in moving from one to another. (IIRC, Gameboy has moved from Barbados to Canada, and I used to work with a guy from India that moved to Canada and pretty quickly got Canadian citizenship- which meant he could be a resident of the US)
edit- I would be stunned if the UK ever gave anything back. Isn't Greece still trying to get part of the Acropolis back?
