The Queen dies

lastexitlondon

A moment in history.

josevolution

Oh damn RIP Queen Elizabeth 

lastexitlondon

Watching the bbc news.   Its bizarre  how moments  like this make you realise you are living in history

The Juggler

Long live the king. 

tempo_n_groove

The Juggler said:

Long live the king. 

Off with his head!

gimmesometruth27

wow. i knew the day would come, just didn't know it would be this quick. rip.

23scidoo

https://youtu.be/eubgWMwSD0k

Edved82

A truly dignified woman with an incredible sense of duty. May she rest in peace. Certainly a milestone day in history!

cblock4life

Sad.  IMO her best quote “grief is the price we pay for love”. 

static111

If only the concept of royalty died

lastexitlondon

Im not a royalist at all but i think when you are  english its just  normal .  The Queen  has been  ever present  in 3 generations of my family maybe 4.
 Odd

guypjfreak

I loved my Queen.... Sad day yesterday sad day today tbh.. Making plans to go to London for the funeral.... 
Long live the king. 

Cropduster-80

Very sad. 

Only saw her once when she made an appearance at the diamond jubilee concert in front of Buckingham palace when I lived there. 

I’m not british but I totally get her appeal. I saw her once from a distance and will never forget it 

mace1229

gimmesometruth27 said:

w/ow. i knew the day would come, just didn't know it would be this quick. rip.

Quick? I don't think anything is considered a quick death when you're 96.

Hobbes

lastexitlondon said:

Im not a royalist at all but i think when you are  english its just  normal .  The Queen  has been  ever present  in 3 generations of my family maybe 4.
 Odd

She certainly had been a permanent fixture for so many of us. Apparently 9 out of 10 people on the planet were born after her coronation.

mickeyrat

static111 said:

If only the concept of royalty died

curious how the concept affects you to come to that position.

josevolution

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

If only the concept of royalty died

curious how the concept affects you to come to that position.

Maybe he doesn’t like to have to bow down to her when in her presence 😂😂

Cropduster-80

static111 said:

If only the concept of royalty died

There is value in a ceremonial head of state in the context of a constitutional monarchy

look at all the ceremonial stuff other world leaders get stuck doing or just don’t do.  they are supposed to be governing 

Even if you only see it as division of labor.  The monarch  shows up at way more stuff than a president does. 

I kind of wish we had some unifying figure that wasn’t political.  You have red voters and blue voters and really nothing in common.  There is literally nothing 80 percent of Americans can agree on 

bootlegger10

Cropduster-80 said:

static111 said:

If only the concept of royalty died

There is value in a ceremonial head of state in the context of a constitutional monarchy

look at all the ceremonial stuff other world leaders get stuck doing or just don’t do.  they are supposed to be governing 

Even if you only see it as division of labor.  The monarch  shows up at way more stuff than a president does. 

I kind of wish we had some unifying figure that wasn’t political.  You have red voters and blue voters and really nothing that anyone can agree on.  There is literally nothing 80 percent of Americans agree on 

Never thought about it like this.

lastexitlondon

Its  a fascinating debate. I see both sides. Historically fascinating  but on a day to day level trying to survive, its a big waste of money 

Cropduster-80

lastexitlondon said:

Its  a fascinating debate. I see both sides. Historically fascinating  but on a day to day level trying to survive, its a big waste of money 

I disagree on the money.

first if you dissolve the monarchy they still own what they own. They did turn over the crown estate to the government and take a salary from that. In that sense the government comes out way ahead as do the taxpayers.  Otherwise it’s no monarchy and they are just rich landowners (or someone else is if you seize it and privatise it). That’s been the status quo for a really long time 

I believe they (the crown estate)basically own all of regent street for example. That revenue is the governments among other things.  It appears the treasury has a flow of money they wouldn’t otherwise have 

im paraphrasing as I don’t know all the details but it’s not the economic drain it appears to be.or at least that’s my understanding 

then you have tourism and economic benefits to keeping close ties to the commonwealth.  Without the monarchy there is literally nothing to keep them connected to the UK.  Not even talking about the imperialist past, advanced democracies like Australia and Canada.  That is beneficial to the UK no doubt.  Maybe not as beneficial if you are Canadian or Australian but I have to think it’s good for the UK 

I tend to think ticket revenue at Windsor castle as one example would be a lot less if it was an empty building. Certainly 2 million people a year wouldn’t buy tickets. Having been to Windsor I can’t imagine another reason anyone would go there as there is plenty to do in London.  It’s a tourist hotspot. My American family, that’s where they wanted to go anytime someone visited. I probably had to go 10 times.  Tower of London was way more convenient but that was way down the list as no one lives there 

23scidoo

Wondering how our Cypriots brothers feels today..

mace1229

Cropduster-80 said:

lastexitlondon said:

Its  a fascinating debate. I see both sides. Historically fascinating  but on a day to day level trying to survive, its a big waste of money 

I disagree on the money.

first if you dissolve the monarchy they still own what they own. They did turn over the crown estate to the government and take a salary from that. In that sense the government comes out way ahead as do the taxpayers.  Otherwise it’s no monarchy and they are just rich landowners (or someone else is if you seize it and privatise it). That’s been the status quo for a really long time 

I believe they (the crown estate)basically own all of regent street for example. That revenue is the governments among other things.  It appears the treasury has a flow of money they wouldn’t otherwise have 

im paraphrasing as I don’t know all the details but it’s not the economic drain it appears to be.or at least that’s my understanding 

then you have tourism and economic benefits to keeping close ties to the commonwealth.  Without the monarchy there is literally nothing to keep them connected to the UK.  Not even talking about the imperialist past, advanced democracies like Australia and Canada.  That is beneficial to the UK no doubt.  Maybe not as beneficial if you are Canadian or Australian but I have to think it’s good for the UK 

I tend to think ticket revenue at Windsor castle as one example would be a lot less if it was an empty building. Certainly 2 million people a year wouldn’t buy tickets. Having been to Windsor I can’t imagine another reason anyone would go there as there is plenty to do in London.  It’s a tourist hotspot. My American family, that’s where they wanted to go anytime someone visited. I probably had to go 10 times.  Tower of London was way more convenient but that was way down the list as no one lives there 

Thats a good way to think of it. I've always thought it was kind of pointless, and therefore a waste of money too. But if it was all originally part of their family's estate anyway, I guess it doesn't make much of a financial difference.
I learned from watching Dowton Abby that I really have little idea how this whole royal family thing works. I guess instead of being a rich private family who choses who to pass your fortune on to, the government has predetermined all of that for you.

tempo_n_groove

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

lastexitlondon said:

Its  a fascinating debate. I see both sides. Historically fascinating  but on a day to day level trying to survive, its a big waste of money 

I disagree on the money.

first if you dissolve the monarchy they still own what they own. They did turn over the crown estate to the government and take a salary from that. In that sense the government comes out way ahead as do the taxpayers.  Otherwise it’s no monarchy and they are just rich landowners (or someone else is if you seize it and privatise it). That’s been the status quo for a really long time 

I believe they (the crown estate)basically own all of regent street for example. That revenue is the governments among other things.  It appears the treasury has a flow of money they wouldn’t otherwise have 

im paraphrasing as I don’t know all the details but it’s not the economic drain it appears to be.or at least that’s my understanding 

then you have tourism and economic benefits to keeping close ties to the commonwealth.  Without the monarchy there is literally nothing to keep them connected to the UK.  Not even talking about the imperialist past, advanced democracies like Australia and Canada.  That is beneficial to the UK no doubt.  Maybe not as beneficial if you are Canadian or Australian but I have to think it’s good for the UK 

I tend to think ticket revenue at Windsor castle as one example would be a lot less if it was an empty building. Certainly 2 million people a year wouldn’t buy tickets. Having been to Windsor I can’t imagine another reason anyone would go there as there is plenty to do in London.  It’s a tourist hotspot. My American family, that’s where they wanted to go anytime someone visited. I probably had to go 10 times.  Tower of London was way more convenient but that was way down the list as no one lives there 

Thats a good way to think of it. I've always thought it was kind of pointless, and therefore a waste of money too. But if it was all originally part of their family's estate anyway, I guess it doesn't make much of a financial difference.
I learned from watching Dowton Abby that I really have little idea how this whole royal family thing works. I guess instead of being a rich private family who choses who to pass your fortune on to, the government has predetermined all of that for you.

The commonwealth pays the crown if I remember correctly?  So if Canada for example is in, then they pay a duty to the crown.

Ledbetterman10

King Chuck's first address.....

https://youtu.be/AGFZ8lXbXY8

mace1229

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

lastexitlondon said:

Its  a fascinating debate. I see both sides. Historically fascinating  but on a day to day level trying to survive, its a big waste of money 

I disagree on the money.

first if you dissolve the monarchy they still own what they own. They did turn over the crown estate to the government and take a salary from that. In that sense the government comes out way ahead as do the taxpayers.  Otherwise it’s no monarchy and they are just rich landowners (or someone else is if you seize it and privatise it). That’s been the status quo for a really long time 

I believe they (the crown estate)basically own all of regent street for example. That revenue is the governments among other things.  It appears the treasury has a flow of money they wouldn’t otherwise have 

im paraphrasing as I don’t know all the details but it’s not the economic drain it appears to be.or at least that’s my understanding 

then you have tourism and economic benefits to keeping close ties to the commonwealth.  Without the monarchy there is literally nothing to keep them connected to the UK.  Not even talking about the imperialist past, advanced democracies like Australia and Canada.  That is beneficial to the UK no doubt.  Maybe not as beneficial if you are Canadian or Australian but I have to think it’s good for the UK 

I tend to think ticket revenue at Windsor castle as one example would be a lot less if it was an empty building. Certainly 2 million people a year wouldn’t buy tickets. Having been to Windsor I can’t imagine another reason anyone would go there as there is plenty to do in London.  It’s a tourist hotspot. My American family, that’s where they wanted to go anytime someone visited. I probably had to go 10 times.  Tower of London was way more convenient but that was way down the list as no one lives there 

Thats a good way to think of it. I've always thought it was kind of pointless, and therefore a waste of money too. But if it was all originally part of their family's estate anyway, I guess it doesn't make much of a financial difference.
I learned from watching Dowton Abby that I really have little idea how this whole royal family thing works. I guess instead of being a rich private family who choses who to pass your fortune on to, the government has predetermined all of that for you.

The commonwealth pays the crown if I remember correctly?  So if Canada for example is in, then they pay a duty to the crown.

Yes, but according to Cropduster (and typing his name I just realized for the first time what it actually is, ha ha), the crown handed over their estate to the government to manage and pay for their way of life. SO in theory is supposed to be self-sustaining I guess, and not come from taxpayers. 

Cropduster-80

mace1229 said:

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

lastexitlondon said:

Its  a fascinating debate. I see both sides. Historically fascinating  but on a day to day level trying to survive, its a big waste of money 

I disagree on the money.

first if you dissolve the monarchy they still own what they own. They did turn over the crown estate to the government and take a salary from that. In that sense the government comes out way ahead as do the taxpayers.  Otherwise it’s no monarchy and they are just rich landowners (or someone else is if you seize it and privatise it). That’s been the status quo for a really long time 

I believe they (the crown estate)basically own all of regent street for example. That revenue is the governments among other things.  It appears the treasury has a flow of money they wouldn’t otherwise have 

im paraphrasing as I don’t know all the details but it’s not the economic drain it appears to be.or at least that’s my understanding 

then you have tourism and economic benefits to keeping close ties to the commonwealth.  Without the monarchy there is literally nothing to keep them connected to the UK.  Not even talking about the imperialist past, advanced democracies like Australia and Canada.  That is beneficial to the UK no doubt.  Maybe not as beneficial if you are Canadian or Australian but I have to think it’s good for the UK 

I tend to think ticket revenue at Windsor castle as one example would be a lot less if it was an empty building. Certainly 2 million people a year wouldn’t buy tickets. Having been to Windsor I can’t imagine another reason anyone would go there as there is plenty to do in London.  It’s a tourist hotspot. My American family, that’s where they wanted to go anytime someone visited. I probably had to go 10 times.  Tower of London was way more convenient but that was way down the list as no one lives there 

Thats a good way to think of it. I've always thought it was kind of pointless, and therefore a waste of money too. But if it was all originally part of their family's estate anyway, I guess it doesn't make much of a financial difference.
I learned from watching Dowton Abby that I really have little idea how this whole royal family thing works. I guess instead of being a rich private family who choses who to pass your fortune on to, the government has predetermined all of that for you.

The commonwealth pays the crown if I remember correctly?  So if Canada for example is in, then they pay a duty to the crown.

Yes, but according to Cropduster (and typing his name I just realized for the first time what it actually is, ha ha), the crown handed over their estate to the government to manage and pay for their way of life. SO in theory is supposed to be self-sustaining I guess, and not come from taxpayers. 

There are a lot of interesting tidbits. Royal warrants are another.

it’s like free advertising for businesses. If you supply the royal household with goods or services (which they have to buy) for a number of years you can get one. It’s a marker on all products that the royal household uses.

burberry has one for trench coats. Heinz has one for ketchup. If you want scotch whiskey you can buy the kind Charles personally drinks. Mattresses etc.  I have to think when you can say “the queen uses this” it helps sales in a crowded marketplace.  I mean look at what Michael Jordan did for whatever he endorsed but he was paid tens of millions of dollars a year 

plus to get one you also have to be environmentally sustainable to some extent . 

It’s great for businesses as they don’t have to pay a celebrity endorsement and they also have to be good to the environment.  Win win 

all of that adds money to the economy for free

Used to be only the queen, Philip, and Charles. I suppose now it will be Charles, Camilla, and William 

If they got paid for that, surely it would vastly exceed their royal allowance.  


I just opened my fridge and look what I have imported from the uk.  a product endorsed by the royal household 😂

mickeyrat

am interested to see what the King does in regards to his long standing sustainable farming and conservation practices. ..

1ThoughtKnown

RIP my Queen. As a Canadian I support the Royal Family. Constitutional Monarchies are solid democracies which hold the government and particularly the Prime Minister accountable to uphold the constitution. 

I like to think of the monarchy as our government’s board of directors.  Something that quite frankly, just does not exist in a Republic. 

1ThoughtKnown

tempo_n_groove said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

lastexitlondon said:

Its  a fascinating debate. I see both sides. Historically fascinating  but on a day to day level trying to survive, its a big waste of money 

I disagree on the money.

first if you dissolve the monarchy they still own what they own. They did turn over the crown estate to the government and take a salary from that. In that sense the government comes out way ahead as do the taxpayers.  Otherwise it’s no monarchy and they are just rich landowners (or someone else is if you seize it and privatise it). That’s been the status quo for a really long time 

I believe they (the crown estate)basically own all of regent street for example. That revenue is the governments among other things.  It appears the treasury has a flow of money they wouldn’t otherwise have 

im paraphrasing as I don’t know all the details but it’s not the economic drain it appears to be.or at least that’s my understanding 

then you have tourism and economic benefits to keeping close ties to the commonwealth.  Without the monarchy there is literally nothing to keep them connected to the UK.  Not even talking about the imperialist past, advanced democracies like Australia and Canada.  That is beneficial to the UK no doubt.  Maybe not as beneficial if you are Canadian or Australian but I have to think it’s good for the UK 

I tend to think ticket revenue at Windsor castle as one example would be a lot less if it was an empty building. Certainly 2 million people a year wouldn’t buy tickets. Having been to Windsor I can’t imagine another reason anyone would go there as there is plenty to do in London.  It’s a tourist hotspot. My American family, that’s where they wanted to go anytime someone visited. I probably had to go 10 times.  Tower of London was way more convenient but that was way down the list as no one lives there 

Thats a good way to think of it. I've always thought it was kind of pointless, and therefore a waste of money too. But if it was all originally part of their family's estate anyway, I guess it doesn't make much of a financial difference.
I learned from watching Dowton Abby that I really have little idea how this whole royal family thing works. I guess instead of being a rich private family who choses who to pass your fortune on to, the government has predetermined all of that for you.

The commonwealth pays the crown if I remember correctly?  So if Canada for example is in, then they pay a duty to the crown.

About $58M per year.  I am not sure if this includes the membership subscription fee to the Commonwealth. The article is vague.

https://www.narcity.com/the-crown-costs-canadians-over-58-million-each-year-heres-how-it-breaks-down

23scidoo

She could save him..she didn't..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evagoras_Pallikarides