Merged: UK Queen dead? Dying?/Liz Mountbatten's death

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

My point was the President acting as head of government and head of state causes exactly zero actual real world confusion. The whole government/state distinction doesn't exist outside of Polysci 101 textbooks.

The other thing the whole "Symbolic Soul of a Nation" thing sorta of depends on history. We can't snap our fingers and elect an "Uncle Sam" to represent us in some apolitical fashion and expect it to have the same weight.

There's no equivalent to William the Conqueror we can pretend a lineage goes back to in America to make it all more grandiose.

I question if we can do the "Head of State" thing simply by fiat.

There's no mechanism in the Constitution to separate the roles. There's no way to do it in the U.S. That doesn't mean a head of state is a bad idea in the many countries where they have it, often by election.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Bob001

I just note that while the Congress makes laws, the Senate alone approves treaties (technically not "ratify"; they are ratified separately after the Senate approves them).

https://www.senate.gov/about/powers-...s/treaties.htm

My bad. Thanks for the correction on terminology and process!

[theprestige]

NM

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

FFS man, we get it. You're not a fan.

SOme people just cannot adjust to the idea that everybody might not agree with them.
I also get a sense of "I am so superior to the stupid Proles" from certain posters here.

[Blue Mountain]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Most countries don't have it and get along just fine. This, all of it, is a solution in search of a problem.

Wrong. As was pointed out, Wikipedia has a list of heads of government and heads of state.

Quote:

When the President of the United States signs a treaty literally nobody has existential crisis about whether or not he's speaking for the government of the United States or the "state" of the United States because the distinction is stupid.

The head of government is the chief politician. He (she) is down in the trenches, slugging it out with other politicians to set the course of the country, its finances, and its policies. The role is partisan: left/right, hard-nosed/conciliatory, soft-spoken or in your face. When a politician refers to other countries as "****-holes" the countries so described might take notice, but could well write it off as politics.

The head of state is the chief diplomat. He (she) is supposed to be the "face" of the country to the rest of the world, saying nice things, representing the country at state functions, and ideally rising above partisan politics to be a unifying force among the people of the country he/she represents. When the chief diplomat refers to other countries as "****-holes," those countries see it as a direct insult.

Of course, it's not always so cut and dry. In many systems the head of state often gets involved with the politics of the country: it's this way in France and other countries where there's both a prime minister and a president. Here the idea is to have some separation of powers so one side or the other doesn't go totally off the rails, like what happened in the Trump administration.

[dudalb]

To manyk, perhaps most people, tradition and customs are important. Live with it.Besides, I think those who want to tear down everything in order to clear the way to build Utopia are not up to the job.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by ThatGuy11200

Or, that she was 96 and had recently lost her husband of 73 years.

If the Queen had died from a long-term illness, such as long covid or chest complaint or similar, her death would surely not have been so unexpected. From what I can gather only Princess Anne was there as she happened to be staying. Prince Charles had to be flown in by helicopter.

All the others arrived after she had already died.

So, not the normal close family gathered around the death bed to say their tearful last goodbyes.

Thus, I think there maybe some truth in the claims she had a fall, probably that morning. The House of Commons was interrupted with a note just after noon. Prince Charles was seen arriving by helicopter shortly after. The entourage brought by the R.A.F. arriving circa 5:00pm was too late.


A fall in an elderly person can be quite dangerous.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

My great-grandfather was only 94 when he died from being struck by lightning.

He went out with a bang..?

[Vixen]

I am not sure about King Charles III. His references to flying angels seems to sum up his tenuous grip on reality. Camilla will always be that woman who made Diana so unhappy.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Blue Mountain

Wrong. As was pointed out, Wikipedia has a list of heads of government and heads of state.



The head of government is the chief politician. He (she) is down in the trenches, slugging it out with other politicians to set the course of the country, its finances, and its policies. The role is partisan: left/right, hard-nosed/conciliatory, soft-spoken or in your face. When a politician refers to other countries as "****-holes" the countries so described might take notice, but could well write it off as politics.

The head of state is the chief diplomat. He (she) is supposed to be the "face" of the country to the rest of the world, saying nice things, representing the country at state functions, and ideally rising above partisan politics to be a unifying force among the people of the country he/she represents. When the chief diplomat refers to other countries as "****-holes," those countries see it as a direct insult.

Of course, it's not always so cut and dry. In many systems the head of state often gets involved with the politics of the country: it's this way in France and other countries where there's both a prime minister and a president. Here the idea is to have some separation of powers so one side or the other doesn't go totally off the rails, like what happened in the Trump administration.

You seem to be talking about a parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is the head of government in an essentially partisan political role. In the US, the chief politician role is fulfilled by the majority and minority leaders in the two legislative bodies.

The US president is in some sense the head of government, in that he interprets the laws and executes the government policies as he sees them. He is also, more explicitly, the chief diplomat, and thus by your assessment the head of state.

But I suspect the exact nature of the relationship between the UK's monarch and its government is really of interest only to UKians, and even then not all of them.

[GlennB]

"Duchy of Cornwall estate worth £1bn passes to Prince William

Duke of Cambridge and now Cornwall inherits cross-country landed estate that paid Charles income of £21m last year"

Nice 'work' if you can get it

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Vixen

I am not sure about King Charles III. His references to flying angels seems to sum up his tenuous grip on reality. Camilla will always be that woman who made Diana so unhappy.

It's a freaking quote from Shakespeare...and a pretty famous one. From Hamlet, to be exact.
i know you don't like Charles very much, but still, saying he is going crazy because he uses a very well known quote from Shakespeare is a bit much.

[Rolfe]

I wasn't listening, but I presume he said "May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."

I'd criticise that on the grounds of being hackneyed, unoriginal and unimaginative.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I wasn't listening, but I presume he said "May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."

I'd criticise that on the grounds of being hackneyed, unoriginal and unimaginative.

Yeah, he was quoting Hamlet.
I am inclined to agree, but that is different then saying that Chuck 3 is crazy for saying that.
And surprised that somebody would not recognize it as Shakespeare, since it has been so widely (over) used.

[Trebuchet]

How long before Chuck tries to reassert royal authority over something?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

How long before Chuck tries to reassert royal authority over something?

I dunno, but now I kinda hope he sends a polite letter to the President of Argentina, reminding him they're the Falklands, not the Malvinas. Just, you know, to yank his chain a bit.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

....
The US president is in some sense the head of government, in that he interprets the laws and executes the government policies as he sees them. He is also, more explicitly, the chief diplomat, and thus by your assessment the head of state.
....

That's the point of the discussion. The President is the head of the government and the head of state (representing the U.S. in the world and at moments of universal national concern, like 9/11) and also the head of his party. Those roles can be in conflict. Anything the President does for the good, in his view, of the nation can be interpreted as advancing the narrow interests of his party.

One small example: Biden's college loan reductions. There are perfectly valid arguments for and against that plan on economic, social policy and even legal grounds. But Repubs see it as a brazen attempt to buy votes. Trump somehow made covid vaccination a partisan issue rather than promoting it as a tool to save everybody's lives. Everything the President does is assessed through his role as party leader.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

*Snorts* Yeah, that's about what I thought.

"You shouldn't speak about Head of government if you don't understand it."
"Okay, explain it to me."
*Stammers* "Well... I don't want to, so there."

Cool straw man…..any other fallacies you are keen on?

Anyway son, you must have me confused with someone who is interested in your opinion.

[GlennB]

The UK's Monarch is 'Head of State' in name only. S/he has no actual power to do a single damn thing that affects the country's future in any significant way. A 'Head of State' US President is an entirely different beast.

[Rolfe]

It has recently become known that she has leaned on governments all her life.

[lionking]

From an unexpected tribute from Paul Keating:

Quote:

She was an exemplar of public leadership, married for a lifetime to political restraint, remaining always, the constitutional monarch.

To the extent that an hereditary monarch can ever reflect the will or conscience of a people, in the case of Britain, Queen Elizabeth assimilated a national consciousness reflecting every good instinct and custom the British people possessed and held to their heart.

In a 70-year reign, she was required to meet literally hundreds of thousands of officials – presidents, prime ministers, ministers, premiers, mayors and municipal personalities.

It was more than one person should ever have been asked to do.

But Elizabeth the Second’s stoicism and moralism welded her to the task and with it, the idea of monarchy.

Her exceptionally long, dedicated reign is unlikely to be repeated; not only in Britain, but in the world generally.

With her passing her example of public service remains with us as a lesson in dedication to a lifelong mission in what she saw as the value of what is both enduringly good and right.

[The Fool]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The UK's Monarch is 'Head of State' in name only. S/he has no actual power to do a single damn thing that affects the country's future in any significant way. A 'Head of State' US President is an entirely different beast.

Damn, next you’ll be telling me that different political systems are different…..

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by GlennB

The UK's Monarch is 'Head of State' in name only. S/he has no actual power to do a single damn thing that affects the country's future in any significant way. A 'Head of State' US President is an entirely different beast.

Truly spoken.

Mind you the British monarchy does effect the countries economy, by being a drain on resources.

We had the extraordinary situation, where the Queens representative in Australia sacked the elected government, not too many years ago. Would have been impressed, if the Queen had told the GG to pull his head in, at the time.

I think with Charles on the throne we are closer to becoming a republic when a new referendum is held. Whoopee!

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I wasn't listening, but I presume he said "May flights of angels sing thee to thy rest."

I'd criticise that on the grounds of being hackneyed, unoriginal and unimaginative.

Leave The Bard alone.

[Rolfe]

It was original when he said it.

[theprestige]

It kinda makes sense that you'd send off the queen with a passage from one of her nation's most widely-acclaimed wordsmiths.

If there's ever a time to quote Shakespeare, it's probably in the eulogy of a British monarch.

Any other time, though? Yeah, hackneyed etc.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If the Queen had died from a long-term illness...<a mix of conjecture, fantasy and bollocks snipped, for the sake of brevity and/or sanity.>

...A fall in an elderly person can be quite dangerous.

Yes. Yes, it can. Another thing that can put a person at risk of joining the choir invisible is being nearly 100 years old.

Do you have anything to support your suspicion of a fall doing her in? What about your earlier theory that cancer might have knocked her off her perch?

Why do you feel the need to imply that the clog-popping of a recently widowed 96-year-old happened for secret reasons that are being hidden by the PTB, for reasons unknown (but clearly nefarious)?

Originally Posted by Vixen

I am not sure about King Charles III. His references to flying angels seems to sum up his tenuous grip on realitY...

As has been noted, he was referencing a very well known (perhaps even a somewhat hackneyed) bit of Shakespeare. Not exactly an obscure reference when eulogising a fjord-pining loved one.

If you're wanting to paint Chuck (sorry, King Chuck of the hirstute thorax*) as divorced from reason, then the old vegetable chatting, or the homeopathy wibbliness would serve better (despite their age).

Originally Posted by Vixen

...Camilla will always be that woman who made Diana so unhappy.

Oh, of course. I should have guessed. You're a devotee of the blessed Saint Diana.


_{*first the worst, second the best, third the one with the hairy chest, as any fule no.}

[Samson]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It has recently become known that she has leaned on governments all her life.

As in Nietsche's "Will to power"?

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Drewbot

They could have injected some youth into the Royal line by naming William.
However, perhaps Charles will rule for a year and step aside.

He'd have to go against his own word, since he's already vowed himself to a lifetime of service like his mother.

However, perhaps he will have health problems that can't be cured by homeopathic placebos.

[junkshop]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If the Queen had died from a long-term illness, such as long covid or chest complaint or similar, her death would surely not have been so unexpected. From what I can gather only Princess Anne was there as she happened to be staying. Prince Charles had to be flown in by helicopter.

All the others arrived after she had already died.

So, not the normal close family gathered around the death bed to say their tearful last goodbyes.

Thus, I think there maybe some truth in the claims she had a fall, probably that morning. The House of Commons was interrupted with a note just after noon. Prince Charles was seen arriving by helicopter shortly after. The entourage brought by the R.A.F. arriving circa 5:00pm was too late.


A fall in an elderly person can be quite dangerous.

tl;dr: old queen carks it, who can we blame?

[Norman Alexander]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

How long before Chuck tries to reassert royal authority over something?

Strawberry jams?

[ThatGuy11200]

Originally Posted by Vixen

If the Queen had died from a long-term illness, such as long covid or chest complaint or similar, her death would surely not have been so unexpected. From what I can gather only Princess Anne was there as she happened to be staying. Prince Charles had to be flown in by helicopter.

All the others arrived after she had already died.

So, not the normal close family gathered around the death bed to say their tearful last goodbyes.

Thus, I think there maybe some truth in the claims she had a fall, probably that morning. The House of Commons was interrupted with a note just after noon. Prince Charles was seen arriving by helicopter shortly after. The entourage brought by the R.A.F. arriving circa 5:00pm was too late.


A fall in an elderly person can be quite dangerous.

I agree. But my comment was about her frailty, not her specific cause of death. The stress of losing a spouse can be devastating at that age.

[Orphia Nay]

Pretty sure it would have been announced if she'd had a fall.

[alfaniner]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Pretty sure it would have been announced if she'd had a fall.

Kinda like London Bridge.

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by bluesjnr

..... you've made your point, ad nauseam. You're anti-monarchy, you're edgy n' you're cool.

The British monarchy is a waste of money and real estate. It's members can be faulted at all times for not renouncing their roles voluntarily. Just, like, deal with it. It's the worst form of constitutional arrangement except for the mess that is the American system that some members spend their whole lives trying to proclaim is the best in the world but is in fact a morass dreamed up by a bunch of "founding dads" who were out of their trees on crack.

Ooh. You're right. I feel awfully edgy now!

Quote:

Like she ever, even once, affected you personally, in any way shape or form

On a more serious note though, . . . You can not be ******* serious with that remark

[Francesca R]

Originally Posted by Mojo

https://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers/cover-75

They still have a week or so to come up with the next cover. I'm quite interested in what they will do. Taking the piss wouldn't work well. Probably an utterly non offensive cover, rather unlike the "end of bojo" one

[Craig4]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It was original when he said it.

The work of The Bard is worthy of being quoted by kings.

[Chanakya]

Just watched the new king's speech. Not bad at all?

It occurs to me, Charles just might, just maybe, end up a great king after all. I mean, he's probably had the longest on-the-job training ever, isn't it. If at all king-ing, ruling, reigning, in the odd not-actually-ruling way of these folks, can be learned, then he's had more time and more opportunity than anyone, ever, to do it. Plus he clearly likes and wants the job. Plus the job isn't much, literally a monkey might be able to do it, if they agreed to make a monkey king/queen.

And he's old enough to have been able to have wised up to both himself and his environment, so he'd know what's appropriate, and at that age be able to hold back any impulse, whether whackjob impulse or idealistic impulse or whatever, that a younger man may perhaps not have been able to pull off. (I mean, that's been his mom's chief and probably only virtue, not having any genuine impulse, or at least never giving vent to it, well that and living on and on and on.)

What I'm saying is, much to everyone's surprise Charles may actually end up being a great king, maybe even greater than his mom (for the super watered down sense in which "great" applies to these ...essentially circus clowns whose job it is to keep everyone feeling good.)

[bluesjnr]

Originally Posted by Francesca R

The British monarchy is a waste of money and real estate. It's members can be faulted at all times for not renouncing their roles voluntarily. Just, like, deal with it. It's the worst form of constitutional arrangement except for the mess that is the American system that some members spend their whole lives trying to proclaim is the best in the world but is in fact a morass dreamed up by a bunch of "founding dads" who were out of their trees on crack.

Ooh. You're right. I feel awfully edgy now!

There's nothing "edgy" at all in what you've written. You need to be more disparaging for a pass.

Quote:

On a more serious note though, . . . You can not be ******* serious with that remark

I'll confess to ignorance (you can educate me, by all means) but in my 59 years I'm not aware of anything that the monarchy has done that has affected me in any measurable way, apart from the 0.00356p per day they cost me since I started paying tax at 16 years old.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

He'd have to go against his own word, since he's already vowed himself to a lifetime of service like his mother.

However, perhaps he will have health problems that can't be cured by homeopathic placebos.

Service doesn’t mean you have to stay on long after you can effectively do your role. There is a strong argument that your dedication to service can also mean stepping down.