j_tso said:A Land Rover wouldn't be appropriate for a funeral.
They used one for her husband (that he custom designed himself) but maybe it was considered too 'masculine' for the queen.
j_tso said:A Land Rover wouldn't be appropriate for a funeral.
They used one for her husband (that he custom designed himself) but maybe it was considered too 'masculine' for the queen.
I tend to lean in Stampie's direction regarding the whole aristocratic-billionaire-colonialist oppression side of things, but I also didn't know the lady. While she may have been complicit in all of it, I would like to think that the monarchy and the office kept her isolated from it so I won't pass judgment. One thing I don't dig is the idiocy of funneling money to the top for no reason. I would almost understand it if the monarchy actually did anything other than take money while poor people die because they can't eat or put a roof over their heads. I won't idolize a system that pays a mascot billions of dollars for riding around in a parade waving at people.
All I know is that a human died and I hope she rests well. Her corporeal life is just as important as mine and it's sad that someone passed away.
I still like Corgis.
A bit I found on another automotive forum having a discussion on the passing of Elizabeth II. While there is support/dissent expressed over there as well, it's interesting that it's limited to 'Queen Yeah' Vs 'Outdated pointless' unlike the more nuanced discussion here over her personal good and bad points. Anyway, here's some figures that support my original claims about brining more in revenue than they cost the country. Again, I can't 'prove' these figures, but I at least strongly suggests my assumption was more than correct. I've seen various figures for what the monarchy costs the UK annually and I've seen figures in the £100million range, which suggests the ROI for the country is 17-18 times the costs
stuart in mn said:I think it's kind of interesting that they're using a Mercedes-Benz hearse. I would have thought they would have used a Rolls-Royce, or maybe even that custom Land Rover that Prince Phillip used.
Well she is German.
Not just German.... VERY German:
Saxe Coburg-Gotha
BTW, this is a Gotha bomber, that the Germans bombed England with in WWI..... so yeah... let's go with a quick name change.
Indiana Jones reference, for those who remember:
In reply to Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) :
What about the royal's personal wealth gained by being huge landlords?
That's kind of what I think of when we're talking about funneling money to the top.
Adrian_Thompson (Forum Supporter) said:A bit I found on another automotive forum having a discussion on the passing of Elizabeth II. While there is support/dissent expressed over there as well, it's interesting that it's limited to 'Queen Yeah' Vs 'Outdated pointless' unlike the more nuanced discussion here over her personal good and bad points. Anyway, here's some figures that support my original claims about brining more in revenue than they cost the country. Again, I can't 'prove' these figures, but I at least strongly suggests my assumption was more than correct. I've seen various figures for what the monarchy costs the UK annually and I've seen figures in the £100million range, which suggests the ROI for the country is 17-18 times the costs
I really appreciate your first-hand input since you actually lived it. I think what I was saying generally was that the ROI doesn't really have much validity for me since the hundreds of millions of pounds don't seem to be helping the general welfare of the nation. I'm not advocating for an equal distribution of wealth, but stoking the fires around GDP, tourism corporations, and funneling that money back into industries that are already thriving seems to just compound the inequality of wealth and income. I'm sure that a homeless person doesn't care that a cycle of money is being energized when that cycle of money starts at the upper-middle class all the way up to the gilded monarchy.
In the states we're still playing with the debunked theory of "trickle down" economics, but it feels like the monarchy is "trickle down times 100."
Edit: Short version... how many homeless shelters, educational grants, and mental health professionals would those hundreds of millions of pounds fund in an effort to give the destitute members of the society the tools they need to succeed on their own? Could the monarchy dine on chicken instead of goose? Maybe drive a Lexus instead of a Bentley? I just think it's time to set aside opulence as an indicator of global power. It worked in the 1600s, but I feel like it's a vestigial gesture in today's global politics.
This things are hard to quantify. I just drove past my local Megachurch and thought what a waste of money it was to build such a palatial 'house of worship' when the funds could have done more good taking care of homeless veterans, abused dogs or abandoned cars of the pre-malaise era. I'm sure the churchgoers feel like they are getting their money's worth from having a megacomplex to gather and develop a sense of community while enjoying the band playing on the stage with full lighting effects.
Curtis73 (Forum Supporter) said:Edit: Short version... how many homeless shelters, educational grants, and mental health professionals would those hundreds of millions of pounds fund in an effort to give the destitute members of the society the tools they need to succeed on their own? Could the monarchy dine on chicken instead of goose? Maybe drive a Lexus instead of a Bentley? I just think it's time to set aside opulence as an indicator of global power. It worked in the 1600s, but I feel like it's a vestigial gesture in today's global politics.
From what I have read the total tax payer spending on the Royal Family was £86.3 million of which £34.5 million was on servicing Buckingham palace (which even if there wasn't a Royal Family I'd expect them at least some of that portion to have been spent because Buckingham palace is a historic building and would be maintained either way). Considering that the total British spending was at £1,111.9 billion in the same year (2020-2021), I'd say the Royal Family is a fairly small expenditure and if those numbers which Adrian posted are inflated (which I think in some ways they are), I'd say there is still a net positive on the British economy.
1SlowVW said:On a lighter note I'm very curious if Canada won't use this opportunity to distance themselves from the monarchy. I imagine there will be an big call for it over the next coming weeks and months.
No signs of that so far, the government's actually considering a public holiday for the funeral:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/queen-funeral-national-holiday-or-not-1.6580582
I'm generally indifferent to issues of the monarchy's symbolic role in commonwealth countries...until the pro-monarchy(!?) crowd regrettably reminds everyone of their existence and ideology by opening their mouths, then I want the Queen/King removed as head of state etc. mainly to piss them off 
alfadriver said: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)
I don't see why countries would leave the Commonwealth. Being in the Commonwealth doesn't mean you have to recognize the Queen as head of state. There are 56 members of the Commonwealth only 15 have the Queen as the head of state. There are a lot of beneficial trade agreements within the commonwealth. There are nations that have joined the commonwealth that were never part of the British empire (Rwanda, Mozambique, Gabon and Togo). It also allows freer travel between many member states and IIRC if you are a citizen of the Commonwealth you can live in Britain for 5 years easily.
GameboyRMH said:1SlowVW said:On a lighter note I'm very curious if Canada won't use this opportunity to distance themselves from the monarchy. I imagine there will be an big call for it over the next coming weeks and months.
No signs of that so far, the government's actually considering a public holiday for the funeral:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/queen-funeral-national-holiday-or-not-1.6580582
I'm generally indifferent to issues of the monarchy's symbolic role in commonwealth countries...until the pro-monarchy(!?) crowd regrettably reminds everyone of their existence and ideology by opening their mouths, then I want the Queen/King removed as head of state etc. mainly to piss them off
It's been Interesting to watch here on the ground in Canada, everything from people asking if kids will have the day off school for the funeral to people who honestly haven't heard or care that she's past. I think it will take weeks or months for a real discussion about leaving the monarchy behind will take place at the political level.
A new article very relevant to this thread was just published:
https://www.vox.com/world/2022/9/13/23349267/queen-elizabeth-british-empire-colonialism-violence
Also plans for a holiday in Canada are moving ahead:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/queen-funeral-national-holiday-or-not-1.6580582
You'll need to log in to post.
