Queen Elizabeth II dead at 96

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

The queen is dead; God save the King

Jeff

3 Likes
2

Charles immediately became King upon the death of his mother, Queen Elizabeth

The Royal family referred to Charles as King in announcing death of Queen Elizabeth. The tweet referred to Camila as the Queen Consort. II.

As heir apparent since the age of three, he has been the longest serving heir to the throne in British history.

Upon becoming the sovereign, Charles has the option to take any name he chooses for his reign as King. For example, King George VI’s real name was actually Albert. Two previous monarchs have been called Charles.

Jeff

1 Like
3

Charles has the option to take any name he chooses for his reign as King.

To honor his boys, maybe a form of Diana such as ‘Aidan’; or maybe since Diana was the goddess of the hunt, Hunter.

Yes, King Aidan or King Hunter sounds good.

:wink:

Pete

1 Like
4

Saw that on the news feed when I got home from the day’s wandering.

The BBC showed a clip of her, walking, with a cane, only a couple days ago, as she met with the new PM.

The Beeb reported last night that medical types were rushing to the palace.

At long last, after over 40 years of doing the right thing, as opposed to Andy’s scandals, Charles is finally king.

May as well hit the sack early tonight, as the BBC news will, no doubt, be wall to wall QEII.

Steve

1 Like
5

To honor his boys, maybe a form of Diana such as ‘Aidan’; or maybe since Diana was the goddess of the hunt, Hunter.

Yes, King Aidan or King Hunter sounds good.

Or he could name himself after a famous Biblical hunter who became king:

King Nimrod.

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

6

Let’s hope he doesn’t chose King ‘Elphy Bey’. Only surpassed by 46 in military blunders.

7

Here’s to all the nations of the world that her regime
 ‘benefitted’ from


1 Like
8

Here’s to all the nations of the world that her regime
 ‘benefitted’ from


To be fair to her, it wasn’t her foreign policy. That was set by the PMs and parliament. She was just a figurehead.

That said, I think having a monarch–even a figurehead–is nuts. Why would you support a monarch? What is in it for you as a citizen? I mean, er, subject. And on top of that the British royal family are awful, revolting people. Charles is demonstrably soft in the head and spends his days talking to plants and lobbying NHS to pay for crackpot alternative medicine. And that guy gets to be king? I realize the bar is set pretty low, but woof. I wouldn’t want him to represent a neighborhood blockwatch, much less an entire nation.

12 Likes
9

I wonder
 do our friends up north have to change the QEW to the KCW?

(For those not of the region, Queen Elizabeth Way is a highway running between Niagara Falls and Toronto)

10

That said, I think having a monarch–even a figurehead–is nuts. Why would you support a monarch? What is in it for you as a citizen?

If I am not mistaken, monarchy-induced revenues (esp. tourism) still dwarfs outgoings to support the royal family.

11 Likes
11

Upon becoming the sovereign, Charles has the option to take any name he chooses for his reign as King. For example, King George VI’s real name was actually Albert. Two previous monarchs have been called Charles.

I suggest Charlie McCharles Face.

Goofy (not a lot of respect here for “royals”.)

2 Likes
12

"A financial report revealed that Queen Elizabeth II and her family cost the British people ÂŁ102.4 million during the previous year.

Ever wondered how much the royal family cost the taxpayer? Accounts for the Sovereign Grant, which funds the Queen and her household’s official expenses, released in June of 2022 show the monarchy cost the taxpayer £102.4m during 2021-22 – an increase of 17% from the previous financial year."

I couldn’t care less about Queens and Kings. Thank goodness the founding fathers were tired of monarchies and made sure we didn’t have one here. Even though there were calls for a “king” and some wanted George Washington to be ‘king’ of the country.

Maybe 300 and 1000 and 2000 years ago there were reasons for kings who could set up countries and defend them through the feudal system, build castles, keep invaders at bay. Keep the peace by intermarriage of daughters.

That all ended 200 years ago as the Industrial Age started
even though people still fell in love with Tyrants like Hitler, Mussolini, the Arab ‘leaders’ , etc. Japan still has a figure head emperor
and half the countries in north EU do to
Denmark, Sweden
Netherlands and a few others I think.

No need for Barons, princes, earls, consorts, jesters, knights, damsels in distress, etc
all baloney these days. Useless.

t.

1 Like
13

If I am not mistaken, monarchy-induced revenues (esp. tourism) still dwarfs outgoings to support the royal family.

Yup. Monarchy as tourist attraction.

Anyone else realize that Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Spain, all have current ruling monarchs? They don’t have the PR department the Windsors have.

The Austrian, German and Italian royals picked the wrong side in a war.

We USians fought a war to get rid of royals, the Russians stood theirs up in front of a firing squad, and the French put theirs in an oversized veg-a-matic.

Steve
Liberté, égalité, fraternité

2 Likes
14

Why would you support a monarch? What is in it for you as a citizen?

Well, the Royal Family adds something like 1 to 2 billion pounds to the UK economy every year. That’s a combination of the kingdom’s 75% take of the profits on all of the royal lands plus various boosts to the economy from things like tourism and the occasional wedding or other large event. (Harry & Meghan’s wedding brought in an estimated 1 billion pounds alone.)

And yes, that is the cut after paying all sorts of royal expenses.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1437145/how-much-money-


There is a reason the Royal Family sometimes refers to themselves as “The Firm”. They run a profitable business, one that helps themselves, the UK treasury, and their economy in general. In the article above, they are compared to a big “influencer” business.

–Peter

11 Likes
15

Goofy (not a lot of respect here for “royals”.)

I’m going to stick my neck out and say that I have quite a bit of respect for Queen Elizabeth II. She very clearly understood her role in the UK’s constitutional monarchy - which is mainly pomp and circumstance. She almost never got involved in her kingdom’s politics, leaving that to parliament.

You can see her standing by talking to almost any UK citizen. She began as the beloved daughter of the country, serving in the military (as is standard for all UK royals) as a mechanic. As she became older, she became mother and then grandmother to her subjects. But publicly, she never acted as if her subjects were beneath her, treating everyone with respect, from pauper to parliamentarian.

Of course, she had her failings. Her devotion to her job as Queen left her own children short changed. I don’t think any of them have her grace and innate understanding of the monarchy in today’s world.

Fortunately, Diana was around long enough to have a much better presence in the lives of William and Harry. They seem to have their heads screwed on straight. William has carried on that ability to find a wife capable of following in his mother’s footsteps, with Kate handling her position as spouse to a future monarch brilliantly.

William and Kate are doing so well in their role as royals that Prince (now King) Charles rarely makes public appearances without them in tow. I suspect he knows how much William and Kate are loved by the people (and that he is looked on with suspicion at best), so keeps them close at hand to have at least some chance of a non-disastrous reign. He will never rise to his mother’s standing, but if he manages to avoid being reviled, he will have done about as well as he can.

I will say that I don’t have a lot of respect for some members of the UK royal family. Some of that is noted above. I won’t bother naming further names, as that’s not productive. But I do believe that several are using their position as members of a royal family to do some good in the world. And for that I can respect them.

–Peter

15 Likes
16

Mostly monarchy etc is hopelessly obsolete and useless, except for one thing. A constitutional monarch in the Bagehot mode (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Bagehot). That one thing is to counterbalance short term political interests with an adamantine commitment to the Long Term and the Whole over short term advantage and a coalition of parts. I think that is far too valuable a role to be diluted with and squandered within an absurd set of traditions and genetics and etc.

The USA would be better off were its elective President as chief excecutive joined by a differently chosen person as head of state, with a limited veto power anchored in long term commitments and necessities. Fat chance.

david fb

1 Like
17

Well, the Royal Family adds something like 1 to 2 billion pounds to the UK economy every year. That’s a combination of the kingdom’s 75% take of the profits on all of the royal lands plus various boosts to the economy from things like tourism and the occasional wedding or other large event. (Harry & Meghan’s wedding brought in an estimated 1 billion pounds alone.)

Not really buying it. People often mention tourism as justification for the monarchy. But I’ve never heard someone say they wanted to visit England because they have a monarchy. I’ve never even heard someone give that as a partial reason. Probably somebody has, but I’ve never even heard it mentioned. I’ve been to London several times. Seeing the changing of the guard is fun, but other than that there is very little tourist activity directly related to the monarchy. Sure, they’ve got royal palaces and residences scattered about you can visit but other countries without existing monarchies have that too.

And some of the sources of “income” seemed pretty hand-wavey. For example:

However, their value is also linked to things like free media coverage for Britain which was an estimated ÂŁ283 million ($400 million) in 2017.

Did any of their subjects actually benefit from all that free media coverage? And what kind of coverage has there been lately? Off the top of my head, in the last couple years the big stories have included:

Harry is estranged from his brother and family due to the Royal Family’s racist treatment of Meghan.

The King’s brother regularly attended sex parties with a convicted sexual predator and was successfully sued for child sexual abuse.

Prince Phillip recently died. Phillip has made many, many racist public comments which the Royal Family tried to walk back as “gaffes” and “humour.” His mindset is somewhat understandable, given his deep family ties to the Nazi Party.

If I were a subject, I’d be willing to return the $400 million in exchange for a little less publicity.

3 Likes
18

I respected her.

I do not like the monarchy as an Irishman.

My condolences to those who like me think fondly of the Queen.

I have mixed feelings about British power and bigotry. I have that about American power and bigotry.

I am optimistic for all parties.

1 Like
19

This is the funniest thing I’ve read on here in a very long time; just outstanding!!
I wouldn’t want him to represent a neighborhood blockwatch, much less an entire nation.

1 Like
20

There is a reason the Royal Family sometimes refers to themselves as “The Firm”. They run a profitable business,

And Elizabeth protected the brand too. Remember when Meghan refused to keep doing the public service that is required of members of the family, for free, broke Harry away from the family, ran back to Shinyland, and registered “Sussexroyal” as a trademark, so she could make a big pile of money off of it? Liz shut that scam down in a hurry.

Sussex Royal ban: Queen put monarchy first as Meghan & Harry brand ‘potentially perilous’

QUEEN ELIZABETH II has been commended for “drawing a line in the sand” with Meghan Markle and Prince Harry as they threatened the reputation of the monarchy, according to a royal commentator.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1244701/Meghan-Markle-S


Of course, Forbes thought the Queen was wrong, because, in the Shinyland view, the only things that matter are money and publicity.

The Queen Bans Prince Harry And Meghan Markle From Using ‘Sussex Royal’ Brand—Here’s Why That’s A Bad Idea

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeetendrsehdev/2020/02/19/the-q


Steve

2 Likes