Elizabeth II

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

In 75 I flew into Heathrow, and caught a bus to Victoria station to start a backpacking trip through Europe. On the way in I was sitting next to an older woman on a bus. I saw all these burned out buildings, I asked her if they had a large fire recently, she put her hand gently on my arm and said, oh no dear, that was from the Blitz (of course I felt foolish). Elizabeth grew up through those dark times and I suspect that colored and informed her whole reign...

Yes it must have been difficult for her family, having so many relatives "on the opposite side", as it were!

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I understand Ronson point about elites. Right now, I'm just going to focus on a human being has died and many people are going to be sorrowful.

Putting it into perspective a very old lady [who wanted for nothing materially] has died peacefully after a very brief illness, and surrounded by her family. That first and those last three points seem to be about as much as anyone could hope for.

Sympathy for her family is of course a natural response.

The hagiographies and eulogies that will drag on, probably for the next few weeks, are another issue.

Watching the news tonight was very interesting, with people expressing the need to be at places associated with her; Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, and of course the doleful group outside the gates of Balmoral Castle.

And of course the floral tributes.

[Thoughtful Monk]

Don't get me wrong, I don't wish anybody's demise (well, maybe heinous killers), but neither can I mourn for people I don't know and/or don't respect. That goes for entertainers as well as politicians. I mourned for Mother Teresa.

No argument from me.

[Christianbookworm]

She lived a long life. Of course her family will still miss her, but 96 years is a long time. A peaceful death from old age sounds good.

[Gondwanaland]

Sad, but I was sort of expecting it to come soon, with her retreat from her own Jubilee festivities, and going to Balmoral where she's basically remained since. Especially the PM resignation/appointment the other day, which broke from tradition with them coming to Balmoral.

So Charles (yuck) will be King now, I sort of doubt that will last too long. I suspect he will abdicate within a decade to William.

[Christianbookworm]

Didn't she have some great grandkids too? And who is Charles and why do people not like him? Not familiar with the UK royal family.

[rogue06]

Wow, this seems very sudden. I just assumed she would outlive us all. So Charles finally gets his chance to wear the crown. I wonder how it will fit?

Her decline was pretty evident for several months now.

[rogue06]

Didn't she have some great grandkids too?

Both William and Harry, who were Elizabeth's grandchildren, have children of their own.

[Terraceth]

It is the state religion - as I understand it, the only western country to actually have one. Normally such things are associated with Islamic nations.

Not counting really small countries (e.g. Vatican City or Monaco), there's Denmark/Greenland, Iceland, Greece, and Costa Rica.

[Starlight]

And who is Charles and why do people not like him? Not familiar with the UK royal family.

Charles is her oldest son who will be king now. He lacks charisma and was previously married to a very popular wife, Princess Diana, and after their split public opinion supported Diana and disliked Charles. He has also recently been indirectly accused of racism by his son Harry and Harry's wife Meghan. Charles' oldest son William is more charismatic and well-liked so many will view Charles (at 73 years old currently) as a place-holder.

Over the last 100 years or so it has been the tradition of the English monarchy to absolutely and completely stay out of politics and let democracy do its thing to the point where the monarch is expected not to express any political opinions whatsoever even in private (the days where the monarchs actually wielded political power being long-gone), but Charles has deviated from this by first privately and then publicly expressing political positions with respect to supporting environmentalist issues, especially action on climate change, and he runs 16 charities related to these and other issues. So it's not impossible that Charles might give speeches with his own political opinions or criticize government actions, which would be something quite new.

[Starlight]

I never saw her in person. She seemed a woman very focused on duty, even if that duty just consisted of waving at the public and going to dinners.

Her death seems to have spawned another round of "should we keep the monarchy?" stories in the media. But frankly, the UK seems to make money from it from tourism, it doesn't cost the rest of the countries anything who have the Queen/King of England on paper as their monarch, and if we got rid of her/him we'd have to then have a new President as head of state which doesn't seem any better just a renaming.

Looking around the world, democracies with a monarch rather than a president seem to be more stable, possibly because the populace understands and agrees that it's unacceptable to have the monarch actually making laws because they're not elected, so the monarch can never seize power because the populace would never tolerate it and so can only be an emergency temporary backstop if there's a major issue with the current democratic government. Whereas an elected President can evoke public support for themselves as leader and their overthrow of the democratic government because they are an elected and often partisan political figure. We've seen wannabe dictators in a lot of countries around the world use the existence of the office of the Presidency to worm their way into dictatorship (e.g. Putin). So there does seem to be increasing evidence that democracies with constitutional monarchies are more stable than democracies with constitutional presidencies.

[CivilDiscourse]

I never saw her in person. She seemed a woman very focused on duty, even if that duty just consisted of waving at the public and going to dinners.

Her death seems to have spawned another round of "should we keep the monarchy?" stories in the media. But frankly, the UK seems to make money from it from tourism, it doesn't cost the rest of the countries anything who have the Queen/King of England on paper as their monarch, and if we got rid of her/him we'd have to then have a new President as head of state which doesn't seem any better just a renaming.

Given that she had reigned for 70 years, to pretty much most of England, Queen Elizabeth was synonymous with the monarchy, as she was literally the only person, for their entire life, to be in that position. That's going to change now. Charles has at most ~25 years, at which point he'll be 98, though I'm not positive he will last as long as Elizabeth. From there, its going to go to his son. He's 40, and is (likely) going to be in his 50's and 60's when he takes the throne.

What all this means is that, after 70 years of near constancy, the Monarchy is going to start changing hands alot more frequently. The love for the constant monarch, may not survive in the modern world, when it starts changing hands. So, I am uncertain if the "seems to make money" will hold nearly as strongly after yesterday.

[rogue06]

Not counting really small countries (e.g. Vatican City or Monaco), there's Denmark/Greenland, Iceland, Greece, and Costa Rica.

Much of Central America had official state religions when I was there.

[rogue06]

Charles is her oldest son who will be king now. He lacks charisma and was previously married to a very popular wife, Princess Diana, and after their split public opinion supported Diana and disliked Charles. He has also recently been indirectly accused of racism by his son Harry and Harry's wife Meghan. Charles' oldest son William is more charismatic and well-liked so many will view Charles (at 73 years old currently) as a place-holder.

Over the last 100 years or so it has been the tradition of the English monarchy to absolutely and completely stay out of politics and let democracy do its thing to the point where the monarch is expected not to express any political opinions whatsoever even in private (the days where the monarchs actually wielded political power being long-gone), but Charles has deviated from this by first privately and then publicly expressing political positions with respect to supporting environmentalist issues, especially action on climate change, and he runs 16 charities related to these and other issues. So it's not impossible that Charles might give speeches with his own political opinions or criticize government actions, which would be something quite new.

Harry and Megan have pretty much accused everyone of being a racist AFAICT, but yeah, Chuck, whether he likes it or not, is pretty much a placeholder for William, unless he holds onto the crown for a few decades

[Starlight]

Harry and Megan have pretty much accused everyone of being a racist AFAICT

Nah it was mostly Charles they accused.