Queen Elizabeth II dies at 96

[Tarmaque]

Queen Elizabeth II dies at 96, surrounded by the royal family at Balmoral estate

Queen Elizabeth II, whose seven decades on the throne of the United Kingdom was a longer reign than any other British monarch, has died at the age of 96.

The queen "died peacefully" on Thursday afternoon at Balmoral Castle, her estate in the Scottish Highlands, royal family officials announced. Charles, her son, is at Balmoral and will return to London on Friday.

The queen had been placed under medical supervision earlier Thursday, officials said. "Following further evaluation this morning, The Queen's doctors are concerned for Her Majesty's health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision," the palace had said in a statement.

Other members of the royal family had also traveled to Balmoral, including her grandson Prince William, who is now the heir apparent. Prince Harry, who was already in the country for a charity event, was also reportedly en route.

In recent years, the queen had taken on fewer public duties, occasionally canceling appearances in which her attendance was once tradition. Mobility issues had troubled her in recent months, and she had taken to spending much of her time at Windsor Castle, the family's country estate near London, and at Balmoral, the castle in Scotland.

In February, she contracted COVID-19, which she later described as leaving her "very tired and exhausted."

Queen Elizabeth II is the second-longest reigning monarch in history

In June, Elizabeth appeared at her Platinum Jubilee celebrating her 70 years on the throne, watching the parade from a balcony of Buckingham Palace. But she missed most of the other festivities. And on Tuesday, she met with the U.K.'s new prime minister, Liz Truss, at Balmoral, a first in her reign.

Elizabeth acceded to the throne on Feb. 6, 1952. Over her 70-year-long reign, she oversaw an extraordinary period of British history, including decolonization and the independence of more than 20 countries that were once a part of the British Empire.

Charles, 73, is now Britain's king.

https://www.npr.org/2022/09/08/11217443 ... ii-dead-96

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

My life is forever changed!

[Tarmaque]

I will only say this: I'm glad she put it off until the twin clowns of Boris Johnson and Donald Trump were out of their official positions.

She wasn't a perfect monarch by any stretch, but she was a good one and saw her country through many difficulties with a grace that few could manage. She shall be missed, and by more than just her subjects.

[Z is for Zangie]

I am sad to see her go, but, 96 is a good age to make it to. She did a lot of things with grace, and unlike some people we know, she stayed out of politics and united her country and their other adjacent countries affiliated with GB in some way.

I am curious about how Charles will do, I always thought he never wanted to be king, and for some reason, I thought the scandal with Camilla would keep him from doing it. Or that he had already abdicated.

[Tarmaque]

I am curious about how Charles will do, I always thought he never wanted to be king, and for some reason, I thought the scandal with Camilla would keep him from doing it. Or that he had already abdicated.

I doubt he'll sit it out until he dies. As you said, he never really was too excited about being king, but I suspect he feels at least some sort of obligation to maintain continuity for at least a few years. He's nearly 74 (About a year younger than my Mom!) and I'm sure he'd rather reign for a couple years and abdicate in favor of William, who apparently has been groomed for a long time for the position and is only 40. William is also a whole lot more popular than Charles is too. I expect Charles to hang around for a minimum of a year and probably about 3 before he abdicates.

But that's just supposition by someone with no horse in the race.

Can you imagine the funeral though? Just think of the who's who that will be there. Which US Presidents? (My money is on Obama and Bush, and probably Biden. I'd love to see Carter go, but he's actually 2 years older than the Queen and in frail health himself.) Which European royalty? (My guess: most of them)

[Z is for Zangie]

I am curious about how Charles will do, I always thought he never wanted to be king, and for some reason, I thought the scandal with Camilla would keep him from doing it. Or that he had already abdicated.

I doubt he'll sit it out until he dies. As you said, he never really was too excited about being king, but I suspect he feels at least some sort of obligation to maintain continuity for at least a few years. He's nearly 74 (About a year younger than my Mom!) and I'm sure he'd rather reign for a couple years and abdicate in favor of William, who apparently has been groomed for a long time for the position and is only 40. William is also a whole lot more popular than Charles is too. I expect Charles to hang around for a minimum of a year and probably about 3 before he abdicates.

But that's just supposition by someone with no horse in the race.

Can you imagine the funeral though? Just think of the who's who that will be there. Which US Presidents? (My money is on Obama and Bush, and probably Biden. I'd love to see Carter go, but he's actually 2 years older than the Queen and in frail health himself.) Which European royalty? (My guess: most of them)

Yeah, I agree, lots of royalty and presidents etc...

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Okay maybe you two can help me with this. I'm going to try really hard to not be a smart ass. (starting by not posting sex pistols songs)

Why do we care? I understand that to some the royal family is symbol of grace, dignity and honer. I've just never really seen that as anything more the pageantry. To me there is no such thing as a good monarch. I see them as hold overs from a cast system and a perpetuation of the idea that blood line is more valuable the individuals. It's not that I take any issue with the people whiten the family, my feeling to them is mostly indifferent. (other then Harry who stole my woman!) I just don't see why we put so much value in a system that frankly I find inherently immoral.

On the flip side we have people putting personal blame on Elizabeth for colonialism. Which, is the natural outgrowth of a belief in birth right. If you get the good from your blood line you deserve the bad as well. I just find it all so bizarre. but judging from the rest of the world, I'm the weirdo here. Can someone help me to understand?

[Tarmaque]

Yeah, I agree, lots of royalty and presidents etc...

Biden has just announced his intention to attend if invited (which is not really a big question.) As I said, I expect Obama and Bush to go as well, and probably Clinton. Possibly Carter, which would be an amazing delegation from the US if it happens. I find it hilarious that apparently Michelle Obama and George Bush have developed a kind of strange friendship.

Why do we care?

You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the role royalty plays in other societies. A common failing in a system like ours where the Head of State is also the Head of Government. The King (or Queen) has little or no political roll in the United Kingdom. Their roll is ceremonial. The argument can be made that they relieve the Head of Government (in this case the Prime Minister) of the stress and obligation of the Head of State. Something we combine into one elected individual, our President. Some countries have and elected President who is Head of State and also a Prime Minister, who is head of government. It's an effective system.

Now some would argue that a system of royalty is not worth the cost to the state. Possibly, but it's a matter of opinion. For instance, in the United Kingdom the system of royalty cost each citizen about $1.60 a year in taxes. That's pretty minimal. Spain's royal family only costs the country about $0.20 a year. On the other hand, Norway spends about $9.20 a year per capita on its royals. There's a direct relationship between the amount paid to the population.

Realistically we probably spend about as much on Head of State activities in the United States as these other countries do on their royalty.

Why do we care? There's no real reason why we should, aside from the care anyone would have for another human being and their family. Furthermore, we have close political, military, and cultural ties to the United Kingdom. The only country in the world that is closer family to the United States is probably Canada, which is coincidentally also a part of the United Kingdom.

We have no obligation to care about the death of the monarch of any other country, but we should care about the citizens of our ally and sister nation and commiserate with their pain.

When I say "Queen Elizabeth was a good monarch" I am saying she supported and worked for the betterment of her citizens and to portray a respectable figurehead and symbol for her people, while staying out of politics in as much as it is possible. Charles has indicated he intends to do the same. I can respect that. The purpose of monarchy is stability. Elizabeth achieved that.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the role royalty plays in other societies. A common failing in a system like ours where the Head of State is also the Head of Government. The King (or Queen) has little or no political roll in the United Kingdom. Their roll is ceremonial. The argument can be made that they relieve the Head of Government (in this case the Prime Minister) of the stress and obligation of the Head of State. Something we combine into one elected individual, our President.

My issue isn't the roll royalty plays in the government, nor is it a misunderstanding. My issue is the idea of divine right that is given to monarchies in general. I take no issue with countries who separate duties between elected officials as you pointed out.

When I say "Queen Elizabeth was a good monarch" I am saying she supported and worked for the betterment of her citizens and to portray a respectable figurehead and symbol for her people, while staying out of politics in as much as it is possible. Charles has indicated he intends to do the same. I can respect that. The purpose of monarchy is stability. Elizabeth achieved that.

I understood what you meant. My point is that a Monarch is an immoral position. A good person in that position doesn't make it moral.

PS Some at work was saying that he has several friends who belie that her death will lead to significant instability in the UK. Including a potential exit of Ireland. Now that is something I do care about, even if it makes no sense to me.

[Tarmaque]

Some at work was saying that he has several friends who belie that her death will lead to significant instability in the UK. Including a potential exit of Ireland.

That has little or nothing to do with the Queen and a LOT to do with Brexit which had nothing to do with the Monarchy. And it's Scotland that is likely to leave the union first, and possibly take Northern Ireland with it. Brexit has caused all kinds of problems between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and it has nothing to do with the Church of England or Catholicism. It's economic. They're unlikely to reunite, but it is possible that Northern Ireland could follow an exiting Scotland to be a part of the EU.

The thing about Scotland is it has a lot of resource wealth (oil and gas in the North Sea) for a very small population. The UK would be a lot poorer without Scotland.

The morality of the tradition of monarchy and royalty is not something I think it's up to us to debate. If you lived in England or Denmark or Norway or Spain then you could work to end it, but you're American. Personally I believe that it's immoral to have a system that rewards our government's failures by reelecting them over and over again because the electorate is too dumb or lazy to vote intelligently.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

he morality of the tradition of monarchy and royalty is not something I think it's up to us to debate. If you lived in England or Denmark or Norway or Spain then you could work to end it, but you're American.

That's an odd position, where does it end. Had Hitler kept his atrocities in Germany would that mean we have no right to weigh on on the morality? Something immoral happening in another country is still immoral.

If you lived in England or Denmark or Norway or Spain then you could work to end it, but you're American.

I have no desire to control what they do. But not all traditions deserve to be respected.

Personally I believe that it's immoral to have a system that rewards our government's failures by reelecting them over and over again because the electorate is too dumb or lazy to vote intelligently.

I'm not sure it's immoral but it's obviously pretty stupid.

[Z is for Zangie]

You suffer from a fundamental misunderstanding of the role royalty plays in other societies. A common failing in a system like ours where the Head of State is also the Head of Government. The King (or Queen) has little or no political roll in the United Kingdom. Their roll is ceremonial. The argument can be made that they relieve the Head of Government (in this case the Prime Minister) of the stress and obligation of the Head of State. Something we combine into one elected individual, our President.

My issue isn't the roll royalty plays in the government, nor is it a misunderstanding. My issue is the idea of divine right that is given to monarchies in general. I take no issue with countries who separate duties between elected officials as you pointed out.

When I say "Queen Elizabeth was a good monarch" I am saying she supported and worked for the betterment of her citizens and to portray a respectable figurehead and symbol for her people, while staying out of politics in as much as it is possible. Charles has indicated he intends to do the same. I can respect that. The purpose of monarchy is stability. Elizabeth achieved that.

I understood what you meant. My point is that a Monarch is an immoral position. A good person in that position doesn't make it moral.

PS Some at work was saying that he has several friends who belie that her death will lead to significant instability in the UK. Including a potential exit of Ireland. Now that is something I do care about, even if it makes no sense to me.

"My point is that a Monarch is an immoral position"

I really don't understand this, it is a different political system and in the past it would pretty bad for the subjects...but, now I don't see what is immoral about it...fathers pass all kinds of things onto their children for instance, even here. I don't know what is wrong about that unless they are evil behaving...

I mean my boss inherited his fathers business,how is that different?

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

I really don't understand this, it is a different political system and in the past it would pretty bad for the subjects...but, now I don't see what is immoral about it...fathers pass all kinds of things onto their children for instance, even here. I don't know what is wrong about that unless they are evil behaving...

I mean my boss inherited his fathers business,how is that different?

Your boss inherited a thing, ie a business. He then had to continue to run that business effectively to receive continual value from that inheritance. A monarch inherits power and position over others. You might say the owner of a business has this to some extent, but the relationship between employee and employer is a voluntary one. They are free to leave if your boss does not handle the business appropriately, or even if they simply don't like him. The subjects of a monarch have no such option. They are forced to pay for and honer the monarchs position by rule of law. And the monarch receives these benefits as a birth right. It places heritage over the individual and backs it by the power of government.

[Z is for Zangie]

I really don't understand this, it is a different political system and in the past it would pretty bad for the subjects...but, now I don't see what is immoral about it...fathers pass all kinds of things onto their children for instance, even here. I don't know what is wrong about that unless they are evil behaving...

I mean my boss inherited his fathers business,how is that different?

Your boss inherited a thing, ie a business. He then had to continue to run that business effectively to receive continual value from that inheritance. A monarch inherits power and position over others. You might say the owner of a business has this to some extent, but the relationship between employee and employer is a voluntary one. They are free to leave if your boss does not handle the business appropriately, or even if they simply don't like him. The subjects of a monarch have no such option. They are forced to pay for and honer the monarchs position by rule of law. And the monarch receives these benefits as a birth right. It places heritage over the individual and backs it by the power of government.

Don't they have the choice to change the government if they want, many have? My understanding is that most of them like having royalty in the UK. And the monarchy there is not political at all, and doesn't seem to interfere in day-to-day life?

[Senor Natural]

73 yearly man finally gets a job.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Don't they have the choice to change the government if they want, many have? My understanding is that most of them like having royalty in the UK. And the monarchy there is not political at all, and doesn't seem to interfere in day-to-day life?

I don't know what the rules in England are for changing the government, I'd presume it's more complicated then having a simple majority, but that isn't the point. It's those who don't like the idea and are forced into it that I'm concerned with. I'm a firm believe in moderating Majority rule so it doesn't trample majority rights. Forcing a population to support a family based on blood line alone violates this principle.

On a side note Hamilton wanted the US to be a Constitutional Monarchy. I'm glad he didn't get traction.