Queen Elizabeth has passed away.

[Cigar Surgeon]

[mprach024]

30 minutes ago, Cigar Surgeon said:

This is cool

[Bijan]

6 hours ago, 99call said:

I was going to say "you can't buy class!".  Those four words are so divisive in the British psyche.  For a lower middle class person like myself, it means a decency as a human being, someone with reserve, with panache, with steel, skilful, and someone you'd trust in a dicy situation, respectable etc.    This is the kind of class Macron possesses

in other deranged quarters of the country, and almost certainly how the phrase was originally intended.  "you can't buy class" means your class of birth is set, those of the upper classes waltz through life without challenge of test. their feckless withering efforts, lorded as genius.  This is the kind of class Johnson possesses

The interesting thing of course about Queen Elizabeth is that she qualified in both regards, and even though she didn't have to perform or stand up and deliver, she did, everyday, she was indeed "class"........the way i mean it!

For a long time during the middle ages (until the industrial revolution), the two things were tied together. Society was poor and only a select few could live decent lives through the second type of class, and generally only they could cultivate those qualities of the first type.

One of the happiest developments of history is that the bulk of humanity is no longer cursed to live their lives as dirt-farming peasants.

One of the saddest developments (in those societies where birth is still an important consideration), is that those who are born to the second type of class are today less likely to possess the first type of class, rather than more likely.

[99call]

3 minutes ago, Bijan said:

second type of class are today less likely to possess the first type of class, rather than more likely.

This is not intended to be cruel, but rather factual to the handful of occasions I have been in the company of the upper class, is that watching them eat was a real eye opener.   You'd expect airs and graces........not a drop.   It was like watching cave people.  Barely able to use knives and forks, talking with their mouths open, food falling out of their mouths.       In the end the penny dropped, they don't care about anyones opinion of them, as it has no baring on their success or future trajectory.     

Manners and social standards are for the plebs to observe. 

[Andy04]

On 9/9/2022 at 3:56 AM, BoliDan said:

She was queen when Winston Churchill was PM. Let that sink in for a sec...

Maybe they can use this opportunity to abolish the crown and stop giving millions to these parasites.

No offense to her. May she rest in peace.

Keep those sort of comments to yourself. 

The Royal Family brought in more than they received from the public. 

 

 

[BoliDan]

17 hours ago, Andy04 said:

Keep those sort of comments to yourself. 

The Royal Family brought in more than they received from the public.

Dude. That's absolutely impossible to quantify. I've seen those bogus articles that attribute ALL tourism and foreign spending to them. It's categorically impossible to know what % of tourism came for royals and how much they spent. It's like attributing all tourism in France to the Eiffel Tower. How much current tourism in London still exist without the the crown? I'd say most of it. The is an after thought when going there. It's a city like Paris or NYC, the crown is not the deciding factor of tourism.

Show me a scholarly article with a semi-decent model of assumption on quantification of tourism because of the crown and I'll concede, but there is not one. 

 

I said I'll let this die and I will, but I need to call out this misinformation. There is no way to know how much they bring in. Sorry if I offended you.

[Kitchen]

To me, the Queen represented a magical era of days past where a head of state could operate above partisan fray in complete dedication to her country.  

At 21 she announced this is what she would do, and did so, without fault, her entire life thereafter.  

How many can we honestly say have done so in the past.  

As an American, I put Washington, and then Lincoln, above all others.  The Queen may be 3rd.  

[Frinkiac7]

Isn't a lot of their property privately held and owned by the monarch directly and not "public?" To all saying it should be auctioned off...

[Fuzz]

10 hours ago, Frinkiac7 said:

Isn't a lot of their property privately held and owned by the monarch directly and not "public?" To all saying it should be auctioned off...

The Crown Estate is all the land and holdings owned by the British monarch, but is neither privately owned by he monarch or the UK Government. The reigning monarch receives a grant from the Crown Estate to pay for the expenses of the Royal Family. The King and Prince of Wales also receive money from the Duchy of Lancaster and Cornwall. Property like Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle are not part of the Crown Estate, nor are they the private property of the King. The surplus from the Crown Estate goes to the UK Treasury.

Properties like Balmoral Castle and Sandringham are privately owned as they were purchased directly (by Prince Albert in 1852 and Albert Edward, Prince of Wales in 1862, respectively) and part of the King's inheritance. Other royal residences privately owned include; Craigowen Lodge, Birkhall, Anmer Hall, Gatcombe Park and Barnwell Manor.

[Mr. Japan]

R.I.P. her majesty Liz.

A sad week end......but we go on.

God save the King.

[dominattorney]

Idk what to add to this conversation that would be legitimately productive. I've always thought the British monarchy to be foolhardy and outdated. That said, saddened by the passing of anyone who's made a go at helping in whatever way he or she deemed best. 

It's not like my country knows the secret to keeping everyone happy. 

[gustavehenne]

I think @Ken Gargett absolutely nailed it in the numerous posts here. I'm no monarchist and whilst I've attended a few garden parties and indeed met a few of the Royal Family at said events, I'd still on balance 'vote' to keep the monarchy especially with the current line of succession. If you threw Harry and Meghan into that I may change my mind.

@Fuzz made a wonderful point about the Crown Estate and the source of the Royals funds. It's without a doubt that they benefit from the public purse (security, upkeep of residences etc.) but they also do fund much work privately. The Royal Family undertake many public events that boost tourism to the UK and engage in events that drive direct and indirect investment to the UK. Buckingham Palace is used by the monarch but owned by the Crown Estate which isn't directly controlled by the monarch - whereas Sandringham, Balmoral etc. are private residences that are entirely paid for privately.

Referring to people as parasites - aside from it being rude and unnecessary - is untrue and one doesn't need to dig into a world of qualifications or data to understand that the Royals do bring benefit to the UK. I'd sooner have a sensible discussion on the shape of the monarchy than throwing names and cruel comments around.

Queen Elizabeth served her country with distinction over seven decades - something that she didn't choose to do and the vast majority of the population of the UK and the Commonwealth recognise and respect. She wasn't a parasite and in my view, was the best of what the UK has/had to offer. A true loss to the world.