Elizabeth II, 1926-2022

[zapatos]

6 hours ago, joigus said:

Suppose you're the owner of an old machine. It's been working for many centuries. It's old, but reliable. Would you re-design it while it's running?

 

Hmm, let's think about that. We have some old coal-fired electrical generation plants that have been working for many decades. They are old but reliable, providing a needed product on-schedule, and as budgeted.

I have my grandfather's old table saw. Works great. Of course there is not a single safety feature on it.

I can't say I'm terribly enamored with the outhouse we have at our cabin. And it has been working flawlessly for nearly 100 years.

Keeping something around as-is just because it's always been there is not something most people think of as a good idea.

[Peterkin]

16 minutes ago, zapatos said:

If you don't mind, can we bring this back to the Queen,

Go! Have at the royal spawn!

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Go! Have at the royal spawn!

FFS I am not "having at" anyone! I insulted no one! Would you please move on?!?! 

[mistermack]

20 minutes ago, zapatos said:

None of this was about insulting anyone, which is a complete mischaracterization of what I said. I spoke of the system used to choose a ruler. I DID insult that system.

Don't worry. It's fine when you say it. I said the same and it got moved to trash with a nasty made up title added. It's not what you say, it's who says it on this site.

[geordief]

49 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Well... that is her title.
It's like referring to Biden as "president".
What do you expect them to call her "Granny Windsor"?

I wouldn't have referred to her as that when she was alive and certainly  not now.

"The queen"does fine .We don't call TFG "the president " do we unless we want to lick his b...ls.?

Edited September 9, 2022 by geordief

[swansont]

47 minutes ago, geordief said:

We don't call TFG "the president "

It's common to refer to ex-presidents with their title. You just don't call them "the president"

"The contemporary practice is to orally address and refer to former presidents as President (Surname) in conversation or in a salutation."

https://www.formsofaddress.info/president-usa-former/

 

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

FFS I am not "having at" anyone! I insulted no one! Would you please move on?!?! 

Oh, I see. It was purely about the selection of leaders. In the UK, they also have a parliament, political parties and elections, not unlike the US. That system gave them Boris Johnson. It seems to me that both methods fall somewhat short in quality control, but at least they have a back-up.

I'm ready to move on now.

[StringJunky]

3 hours ago, geordief said:

You are right . We need balance and the emotional steplock  is  sickening. I can still hear them  on the radio  referring to the dead woman as "Her Majesty"

Her official name is Elizabeth Regina and she always signed off 'Elizabeth R'. That is 'Elizabeth Queen' translated. 'Her Majesty' is just like 'Mr' or 'Mrs' for us.

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Hmm, let's think about that. We have some old coal-fired electrical generation plants that have been working for many decades. They are old but reliable, providing a needed product on-schedule, and as budgeted.

I have my grandfather's old table saw. Works great. Of course there is not a single safety feature on it.

I can't say I'm terribly enamored with the outhouse we have at our cabin. And it has been working flawlessly for nearly 100 years.

Keeping something around as-is just because it's always been there is not something most people think of as a good idea.

You need to consider the cost of replacement logistically, materially and socially of moving to a republic setup.

Edited September 9, 2022 by StringJunky

[zapatos]

17 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Oh, I see. It was purely about the selection of leaders.

My god you are dense. It was about the selection of king and queen. To the best of my knowledge Boris Johnson was not PM due to birthright.

22 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

In the UK, they also have a parliament, political parties and elections, not unlike the US.

Gee, nothing gets past you, does it?

23 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I'm ready to move on now.

Yeah, we'll see.

18 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

You need to consider the cost of replacement logistically, materially and socially.

Absolutely. Probably 100 other considerations also.

It seems the monarchy already went through at least two major revisions with the adoption of the Magna Carta and the changeover to a Constitutional Monarchy.

[joigus]

2 hours ago, zapatos said:

Hmm, let's think about that. We have some old coal-fired electrical generation plants that have been working for many decades. They are old but reliable, providing a needed product on-schedule, and as budgeted.

I have my grandfather's old table saw. Works great. Of course there is not a single safety feature on it.

I can't say I'm terribly enamored with the outhouse we have at our cabin. And it has been working flawlessly for nearly 100 years.

Keeping something around as-is just because it's always been there is not something most people think of as a good idea.

Yes, but countries are not machines. The key is countries are always running. That's where the analogy ends. It's the while it's running that I mentioned --and apparently someone didn't like-- that's key to what I meant.

I didn't mean to defend monarchy. I oppose monarchy. I'd rather see it gone for good. The problem is sometimes I try to be so suave that I come across as thinking the opposite of what I really do. OTOH, I didn't interpret this thread as one about "pros and cons of monarchy", which it seems to have become. I tried to be respectful while at the same time do my best to help you understand why Europe works differently, which --very understandably-- puzzles Americans, and you were expressing yourself in those terms.

Because I'm very familiar with the arguments, I tried to tell you why many people in Europe are wary of changing core pieces of the political system overnight. I know the argument because I've been told to ponder it while I was arguing against monarchy in the past.

I understand the pickle Britain is in. In some respects it's similar to what happens in Spain. Suppose 200 Km from where you live there are people who have a different language, traditions, with deep historical wounds, misgivings, etc that go back many hundreds of years, if not thousand plus --or thousand upon thousands, in the case of Basques. History is not something you can reverse-engineer in a couple of months, sign an agreement, and live happily everafter.

A formula that's stood the test of recent decades has been to gradually deactivate monarchies from their old absolutist role to the role they play today: The visible --and mostly symbolic-- head of diplomacy, the Army perhaps and, in the case of Britain, the Anglican Church.

In a way, you Americans have been dealt the lucky hand of being able to more consistently engineer your political system from almost scratch at a time when this kind of debate was already possible --free thinkers were no longer persecuted.

As an example of what to me is an almost reciprocal feeling, when I look at you guys, with your Mormons, and Amish, and all those religions that seem to mushroom out of every corner, I stand in disbelief. Yet, freedom of religion belief is one of your most important principles for reasons that are mostly historical.

To summarise: I respect your freedom to roll your eyes at us, as long as your respect my freedom of rolling my eyes at you.  

Edited September 9, 2022 by joigus
minor change

[TheVat]

I think the argument that, in UK, the monarch provides a stabilizing force that stands outside the government, is not a bad one.  An additional control rod, if you will, in the reactor of state.  UK could probably do worse than to have a control rod right now, one who is quite green in his outlook.  

Not sure how many old movie or Alec Guinness fans be here, but I couldn't help but think of the Duke of Chalfont in "Kind Hearts and Coronets," whose mother was edged out of the succession to the dukedom (for marrying below her station - an Italian!!), and so he murders his way through the nine people now ahead of him.  There's some line about how the first two was child's play, but the severe challenge of knocking off the next seven.  So Richard, Duke of Gloucester (presently at number 30), has his work cut out for him.  And he'd best avoid Bosworth Field.  

Offtopic, but I really loathe the American version, which chopped out six minutes of adultery, nonPC nursery rhymes, and tacked on a stupid ending that shat on the nice dark ambiguity of the original.  The Hays movie code really treated Americans like children. 

[John Cuthber]

2 minutes ago, TheVat said:

I think the argument that, in UK, the monarch provides a stabilizing force that stands outside the government, is not a bad one.

It's a great idea.

Perhaps we can implement it.
But given that the last Prime minister lied to the queen and got away with it...

I'm not  royalist, but I think that any alternative head of state would be roughly as expensive, and less good at attracting tourists.

[exchemist]

26 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

It's a great idea.

Perhaps we can implement it.
But given that the last Prime minister lied to the queen and got away with it...

I'm not  royalist, but I think that any alternative head of state would be roughly as expensive, and less good at attracting tourists.

True, but Bozo lying to the Queen was one of the black marks that ultimately led to him being branded a serial liar  - which got him chucked out as leader by his own party. It went down very badly with a lot of people. 

Edited September 9, 2022 by exchemist

[MigL]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

In a way, you Americans have been dealt the lucky hand of being able to more consistently engineer your political system from almost scratch at a time when this kind of debate was already possible --free thinkers were no longer persecuted.

The American system has its own set of specific problems.

You did it now, Joigus.
You've dipped your feet in the political waters.
Soon the undertow will drag you right into the sea of mostly opinions, and few facts.

[joigus]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

[...]

You did it now, Joigus.
You've dipped your feet in the political waters.
Soon the undertow will drag you right into the sea of mostly opinions, and few facts.

LOL. I'm afraid so.