The secret plan for the death of Queen Elizabeth II

[Thanas]

A very fascinating read, way too long to quote here.

[Tribble]

Yes it is interesting, though your title makes it sound as though the PM is plotting to kill the Queen or something. According to the URL, the original title is "What Happens When Queen Elizabeth Dies- London-Bridge"

[Thanas]

I think you have been reading too many conspiracy theories lately.

[Tribble]

I think you have been reading too many conspiracy theories lately.

\

Well, given the state of things one can't entirely rule out May having a secret "kill the Queen and pin it on the EU plan", as part of her Brexit negotiations.

[Shroom Man 777]

Aw her poor Corgis will lose their puppy-mommy.

[Tribble]

Aw her poor Corgis will lose their puppy-mommy.

They'll be in the funeral procession, apparently.

[NecronLord]

Disgusting profligacy.

At least we might get a republic.

[Gandalf]

Disgusting profligacy.

At least we might get a republic.

I always assumed that King Charles was the reason that QEII has stayed around so long, because as soon as people see a crown on his head everyone will see just how silly the monarchy really is.

[Tribble]

Disgusting profligacy.

At least we might get a republic.

I always assumed that King Charles was the reason that QEII has stayed around so long, because as soon as people see a crown on his head everyone will see just how silly the monarchy really is.

I'd still prefer having a Monarch as official Head of State over someone like Trump or May tbh.

[Zaune]

It probably isn't going to cost all that much, in the grand scheme of things; it's not like the C of E are going to charge for the use of Westminster Abbey, and if she dies away from Buckingham Palace then her body will likely be returned to London using the same aircraft (or train) she used to get there in the first place. The only non-routine expenses for the taxpayer will be crowd control and possibly the media coverage.

And Prince Charles is far from the worst potential monarch we've ever had anyway. He might bend protocol by writing earnest letters to various cabinet ministers with the royal letterhead, but there's no actual rule against that even if it's contrary to custom and practice, and they tend to be on stuff that the general public broadly agree with him on anyway. And only keeping one mistress, eventually making an honest woman of her after getting a divorce and not treating it as opening a new vacancy? By historical standards that's bloody impressive! Plus he also seems to have had the good manners to tactfully ignore the question of whether he's really young Prince Harry's biological father, at least in public.

[Thanas]

It probably isn't going to cost all that much, in the grand scheme of things; it's not like the C of E are going to charge for the use of Westminster Abbey, and if she dies away from Buckingham Palace then her body will likely be returned to London using the same aircraft (or train) she used to get there in the first place.

The article explicitly mentions that a special plane will be used if it is away from the UK.

[Zaune]

Oh, yeah. My mistake. Still, it's a Royal Flight aircraft that we use for ferrying senior government officials around on official business; it's not like we're having to charter it at a short-notice premium or anything.

[NecronLord]

I'd still prefer having a Monarch as official Head of State over someone like Trump or May tbh.

And in a republic, you'd - if British - get a vote on who that is. In a monarchy, it depends on who happens to be birthed from whom. There have been many wholly inadequate monarchs in modern history.

There are likewise many states that have a ceremonial head of state without having to have unbearable monumental paroxysms of boot licking for the most privileged of the privileged.

[Tribble]

I'd still prefer having a Monarch as official Head of State over someone like Trump or May tbh.

And in a republic, you'd - if British - get a vote on who that is. In a monarchy, it depends on who happens to be birthed from whom. There have been many wholly inadequate monarchs in modern history.

There are likewise many states that have a ceremonial head of state without having to have unbearable monumental paroxysms of boot licking for the most privileged of the privileged.

I have absolutely no desire to see even a ceremonial head of state become more politicized via voting and/or political horse trading, though at least those states are still better off than American-style Republicanism. The reserve powers that the Monarchy has would have to go somewhere, and I would rather have a hereditary Monarch that dares not use them (lest they be seen as violating the general will) than risk potentially handing them over to a demagogue. Or even worse, handing them over to the PM, who has more than enough power already (especially in Canada).

If Canada were to become a Republic the German model would probably be the best way to go, though chances are it would wind up being an American Style presidency. No thanks.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'd still prefer having a Monarch as official Head of State over someone like Trump or May tbh.

And in a republic, you'd - if British - get a vote on who that is. In a monarchy, it depends on who happens to be birthed from whom. There have been many wholly inadequate monarchs in modern history.

There are likewise many states that have a ceremonial head of state without having to have unbearable monumental paroxysms of boot licking for the most privileged of the privileged.

Yeah, its easy to say "Monarchs are better than Presidents/Prime Ministers" when you're comparing Elizabeth with Trump/May, which is pretty much the comparison that will come to mind for most people in the English-speaking world right now.

But their is no guarantee that you will get an Elizabeth for a monarch.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I think people are underestimating Charles, not necessarily based on his own character, but consider that he's had his whole life with Elizabeth as a role model on how to be a Monarch. Combine that with the public expectation that he'll follow example and I think he'll do fine.

[Tribble]

I'd still prefer having a Monarch as official Head of State over someone like Trump or May tbh.

And in a republic, you'd - if British - get a vote on who that is. In a monarchy, it depends on who happens to be birthed from whom. There have been many wholly inadequate monarchs in modern history.

There are likewise many states that have a ceremonial head of state without having to have unbearable monumental paroxysms of boot licking for the most privileged of the privileged.

Yeah, its easy to say "Monarchs are better than Presidents/Prime Ministers" when you're comparing Elizabeth with Trump/May, which is pretty much the comparison that will come to mind for most people in the English-speaking world right now.

But their is no guarantee that you will get an Elizabeth for a monarch.

On the other hand I think they are all well aware that it is the public perception of the Monarchy that matters. They are in a rather unique positon of having vast reserve powers yet having no incentive to actually use said powers, less they risk public displeasure. An elected president would almost certainly like feel he/she has the democratic mandate to use said powers while in office, and quite frankly I don't trust politicizing the kind of powers the Monarch currently has. I don't want to see an elected Governor General / President with the current setup, that's just begging for a demagogue down the road. Nor do I think just giving all those powers directly to the PM would be a good idea - the whole point of reserve powers is "in case of major constitutional / national crisis, break glass" and I'd much prefer it to be a separate position.

Now perhaps if Canada completely revamped its Constitution to match something like the German Constitution it might work, but I don't see that happening.

[The_Saint]

*cough Australian 1975 constitutional crisis *cough* ....yea it's not like the crown reserve powers haven't proved useful in the past...


I observe that all the discussion regarding succession planning has quietly disappeared. Whether Charlie will take a short term and then abdicate in favour of William or even if Elizabeth would abdicate to push things along those lines.

[Alyrium Denryle]

OK. Those plans and everything that surrounds their current and past use is so unflappably British that I find it hilarious. As for the monarchy itself... it works for the brits who by and large want to keep their current system. There is something to be said for the monarchs reserve powers as well ("in case of emergency, break glass"). It is their country, they want to keep their government as it is, and there is no objectively better system (because Republics have their own issues)

[The Romulan Republic]

OK. Those plans and everything that surrounds their current and past use is so unflappably British that I find it hilarious. As for the monarchy itself... it works for the brits who by and large want to keep their current system. There is something to be said for the monarchs reserve powers as well ("in case of emergency, break glass"). It is their country, they want to keep their government as it is, and there is no objectively better system (because Republics have their own issues)

To me, its not any objection to the functionality of monarchy, but the fundamental problem of a system which puts some people over others on the basis of heredity.

A system which somehow had the benefits of monarchy without the inherent injustice of hereditary government would likely meet with little objection, at least as far I am concerned.

[Captain Seafort]

To me, its not any objection to the functionality of monarchy, but the fundamental problem of a system which puts some people over others on the basis of heredity.

As opposed to the fundamental problem of a system that puts some people over others on the basis of what sort of mood a few million idiots happen to be in at one particular moment on one day in history?

[Imperial528]

Much as I have a distaste for hereditary systems, and wouldn't want one for my own nation (US), they do at least have the advantage that, should those who surround the royalty be competent and selected by merit, there will be ample warning and chances to shape the heir into a competent monarch themselves.

Now that doesn't always work out, but when paired with a separate democratic system as Britain does, it seems to make up rather well for the failings of either individual system.

[The Romulan Republic]

To me, its not any objection to the functionality of monarchy, but the fundamental problem of a system which puts some people over others on the basis of heredity.

As opposed to the fundamental problem of a system that puts some people over others on the basis of what sort of mood a few million idiots happen to be in at one particular moment on one day in history?

Yes, damn it.

At least with a vote, their's choice, not merely the whims of fate. At least their is a theoretical option to take merit into account. At least their is some test of ability, even if its only personal charisma and skill as a campaigner (or ability to cheat the system), some merit beyond "I'm distantly descended from some ancient warlords through a millennia or so of inbreeding."

And above all, it does not directly contradict the fundamental ideal that people are entitled to equality, does not implicitly enshrine the belief that one is not innately better simply because of who their ancestors were.

And you know, as much as the scoffers at democracy like to portray the electorate as a bunch of semi-literate hicks, the voters tend to make decent choices when their's actually a fair vote.

Just to take America as an example, because its the one I'm most familiar with:

George W. Bush? Lost the popular vote. Presidency handed to him by the Electoral College with an assist from the Supreme Court.

Dickless Donald? Lost the popular vote by nearly three million. Appointed by the Electoral College against the will of the people.

Congressional Republican majority? Would be smaller or outright gone without gerrymandering and voter suppression.

The electorate tends to pick, if not good people, at least basically sane and competent people, when trusted with the ability to do so.

It is the Electoral College, one of those "safeguards" against the ignorant unwashed masses exercising their voice in politics, that made a rapist con man endorsed by the Klan President. It sure as hell wasn't the will of the people. So don't tell me that we are collectively so undeserving of our voice in government that we cannot be trusted to pick our head of state. Especially when Constitutional monarchy, such as Britain has, doesn't actually choose the people who exercise most of the day to day powers of government in any case.

None of this is directed at Queen Elizabeth the Second personally, you understand. I admire her as an individual, even if I have little regard for the institution that she represents. But not every monarch is an Elizabeth.

[Broomstick]

To me, its not any objection to the functionality of monarchy, but the fundamental problem of a system which puts some people over others on the basis of heredity.

A system which somehow had the benefits of monarchy without the inherent injustice of hereditary government would likely meet with little objection, at least as far I am concerned.

Do the royals really have that much of a huge privilege over other wealthy people? Well, yes, in a sense but the Queen (and now those who are acting in her stead at times as she ages) does have a pretty punishing schedule, she's not sitting in a parlor watching Netflix twelve hours a day. I get the sense that being of the nobility at any level means far less these days in the UK than it ever has before.

At least the British royals seem to have a strong sense of duty/giving back. Military service, William acting as a search and rescue pilot... far from a perfect situation but the past few generations seem to have a sense that they'd better be more than just ornaments if they want to keep their position in society.

Huh. Well, yeah, being American the whole hereditary privilege is somewhere between alien and repugnant. If Elizabeth II hadn't been so drawn to duty - she did, after all, engage in military service during WWII when she certainly did not have to do so, and got her hands dirty working as a driver and mechanic, not to mention her long reign of representing the UK - I think the British monarchy would have ended in the 20th Century. Don't recall Charles doing much of note (he might have without my noticing), but Princess Diana saw that her boys were raised with a sense of duty and, while waiting to inherit, they seem to be making some effort to be more than just playboys. As long as the British royals have some charisma and are not completely useless I suspect Britain will continue the tradition.

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not even the material advantages, primarily. We spend far more tax money on far worse things. Its the simple concept of saying "This person matters more because of who their ancestors were." It is a fundamentally anti-equality, anti-democratic idea, and no matter how constrained the institution, or benevolent the current monarch, that can't ever really be erased.