Elizabeth II / Charles III megathread

[Shrillland]

Say what you will about Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland she wasn't an actual tyrant. Personal and imperialistic shortcomings aside she'll be what is known in proper British public schools as "a good Queen."

But isn't it a fact that the USA fought a long and costly war so we Yanks wouldn't have to acknowledge the authority of an hereditary monarch? Is no one else shocked and appalled at our nation's glorious flag being pulled down to half-staff to memorialize the death of a direct descendant of mad King George III? Fly it proudly say I.

We've been close allies for over a century, it makes sense it would happen. We've done it for several British monarchs before this. And we didn't really fight the Revolution for that, we fought it so we wouldn't have to pay taxes that we had no say in creating and couldn't afford, the monarchy had fairly little to do with that.

[Vistulange]

New Zealand might be in doubt as well, though admittedly far less likely than Australia.

I was under the impression that support for the monarchy was pretty strong in Australia, but less so in New Zealand.

Australia held a referendum on the status of the monarchy in 1999 which failed with 55% "no" votes. I haven't done research on this, but if I were a gambling man, I would be quite happy to bet that Queen Elizabeth II's personal popularity influenced the outcome. Regardless of that, 55% voting to keep the monarchy—which is not necessarily indicative of support for the monarchy—does not constitute "strong" support for the monarchy, I'd wager. Meanwhile, New Zealand is the country that hasn't had such a referendum.

Is there a significant impact of it? I've never fully understood the relationship between the crown and commonwealth states. Is it a symbolic gesture, severing that last tie of British colonialism, or does the crown actually have an important role in government?

Australia and New Zealand have a strong as a home rule government can possibly have. I seen that support for republicanism in Australia and New Zealand has to do more with past racist atrocities committed by the crown. Native populations in those countries are gaining more and more political power

Home rule is not the correct term. Both countries—like Canada—are independent countries. The Queen (and now King) of the United Kingdom is not the same person as the Queen (and now King) of Canada/Australia/New Zealand. Put more specifically, those positions are not the same legal entities. They just happen to be held by the same real person, but that's a happy outcome of (perfectly intentional, obviously) circumstances.

Really?! That is surprising.

Not really. All treaties with the indigenous people are held through the crown not the government. And many Māori are concerned that the government might not honor those treaties while at current they have to or get smacked down by the monarch

This really isn't a big deal as it's made out to be, unless the Commonwealth countries have a strange version of lawmaking that eludes us mortals. Replacing references to "the Crown" with "the State/Republic/People/Nation" or whatever suffices. We've figured out state succession and even state cessation—I think a transition from monarchy to republic is definitely doable without so much as touching the proverbial boat.

Say what you will about Elizabeth II of England and I of Scotland she wasn't an actual tyrant. Personal and imperialistic shortcomings aside she'll be what is known in proper British public schools as "a good Queen."

But isn't it a fact that the USA fought a long and costly war so we Yanks wouldn't have to acknowledge the authority of an hereditary monarch? Is no one else shocked and appalled at our nation's glorious flag being pulled down to half-staff to memorialize the death of a direct descendant of mad King George III? Fly it proudly say I.

"Imperialistic shortcomings aside"? What are you on?

And, you know, there's a pretty thick line between "paying respect to a foreign head of state" and "acknowledging the authority of an hereditary monarch". It's not even nuanced. The line is pretty fucking thick.

[Perikuresu]

I was under the impression that support for the monarchy was pretty strong in Australia, but less so in New Zealand.

Australia held a referendum on the status of the monarchy in 1999 which failed with 55% "no" votes. I haven't done research on this, but if I were a gambling man, I would be quite happy to bet that Queen Elizabeth II's personal popularity influenced the outcome. Regardless of that, 55% voting to keep the monarchy—which is not necessarily indicative of support for the monarchy—does not constitute "strong" support for the monarchy, I'd wager. Meanwhile, New Zealand is the country that hasn't had such a referendum.

I might be able to give some more 'local' input here

Lizzie's popularity had a part in the referendum failing, but iirc, other factors that led to it's downfall was that the republic side was too divided amongst themselves (particularly on how the President would be chosen) and that nobody wanted to start the new century with that large of a risk (AKA if it ain't broke don't fix it)

However, since Liz is gone, and almost nobody (ik) cares about Charles or maybe dislikes him, and there's an increasing portion of the population coming from Asia, particularly India (and there will be more skilled migrants here to fill in labour shortages), if the Republic question reer it's head once again, it might get a better chance, only to get struck down by the greater need of alleviating cost of living pressures.

Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots and is now morphing itself into a more multicultural Australian identity, the crown's the last symbol of Australia's British roots and I think many republicans are keen to strike that down too.

[Prima Scriptura]

Australia held a referendum on the status of the monarchy in 1999 which failed with 55% "no" votes. I haven't done research on this, but if I were a gambling man, I would be quite happy to bet that Queen Elizabeth II's personal popularity influenced the outcome. Regardless of that, 55% voting to keep the monarchy—which is not necessarily indicative of support for the monarchy—does not constitute "strong" support for the monarchy, I'd wager. Meanwhile, New Zealand is the country that hasn't had such a referendum.

I might be able to give some more 'local' input here

Lizzie's popularity had a part in the referendum failing, but iirc, other factors that led to it's downfall was that the republic side was too divided amongst themselves (particularly on how the President would be chosen) and that nobody wanted to start the new century with that large of a risk (AKA if it ain't broke don't fix it)

However, since Liz is gone, and almost nobody (ik) cares about Charles or maybe dislikes him, and there's an increasing portion of the population coming from Asia, particularly India (and there will be more skilled migrants here to fill in labour shortages), if the Republic question reer it's head once again, it might get a better chance, only to get struck down by the greater need of alleviating cost of living pressures.

Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots and is now morphing itself into a more multicultural Australian identity, the crown's the last symbol of Australia's British roots and I think many republicans are keen to strike that down too.

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. The crown’s role is symbolic.

[Australian rePublic]

I might be able to give some more 'local' input here

Lizzie's popularity had a part in the referendum failing, but iirc, other factors that led to it's downfall was that the republic side was too divided amongst themselves (particularly on how the President would be chosen) and that nobody wanted to start the new century with that large of a risk (AKA if it ain't broke don't fix it)

However, since Liz is gone, and almost nobody (ik) cares about Charles or maybe dislikes him, and there's an increasing portion of the population coming from Asia, particularly India (and there will be more skilled migrants here to fill in labour shortages), if the Republic question reer it's head once again, it might get a better chance, only to get struck down by the greater need of alleviating cost of living pressures.

Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots and is now morphing itself into a more multicultural Australian identity, the crown's the last symbol of Australia's British roots and I think many republicans are keen to strike that down too.

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. Her role is symbolic.

If it ain't broke, don't fix

[Perikuresu]

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. The crown’s role is symbolic.

I'm assuming ur talking about the last bit ("Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots....")

But I've explained it already, getting rid of the Crown basically gets rid off Australia's symbolic link with Britain, and it's a symbol of Australia moving on and becoming (even more of) it's own nation

[Australian rePublic]

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. The crown’s role is symbolic.

I'm assuming ur talking about the last bit ("Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots....")

But I've explained it already, getting rid of the Crown basically gets rid off Australia's symbolic link with Britain, and it's a symbol of Australia moving on and becoming (even more of) it's own nation

Australia doesn't have any symbolic roots to Britian remaining in any significant sense. It's absurd to claim that we do. Claiming that of Australia would be like claiming the same of Canada, which is just as absurd. Even Australia's adversaries (such as China) falsly accuse us of being an American colony than a British one

[Perikuresu]

Australia doesn't have any symbolic roots to Britian remaining in any significant sense. It's absurd to claim that we do.

I've already noted ur point here:

Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots and is now morphing itself into a more multicultural Australian identity, the crown's the last symbol of Australia's British roots and I think many republicans are keen to strike that down too.

[Prima Scriptura]

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. The crown’s role is symbolic.

I'm assuming ur talking about the last bit ("Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots....")

But I've explained it already, getting rid of the Crown basically gets rid off Australia's symbolic link with Britain, and it's a symbol of Australia moving on and becoming (even more of) it's own nation

I mean, I understand getting rid of the Union Jack from your flag, but how can you separate Australia’s ties to Britain? I mean, America pretty much dropped its’ Anglophobia during the Great Rapprochement. To be quite honest, if parliament gave America the amount of sovereignty in their government similar to Australia and New Zealand, I believe history would have turned out very differently.

[Perikuresu]

I'm assuming ur talking about the last bit ("Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots....")

But I've explained it already, getting rid of the Crown basically gets rid off Australia's symbolic link with Britain, and it's a symbol of Australia moving on and becoming (even more of) it's own nation

I mean, I understand getting rid of the Union Jack from your flag, but how can you separate Australia’s ties to Britain? I mean, America pretty much dropped its’ Anglophobia during the Great Rapprochement. To be quite honest, if parliament gave America the amount of sovereignty in their government similar to Australia and New Zealand, I believe history would have turned out very differently.

I meant symbolic links to Britain, obviously those of British descent and our political alignment and relationship with Britain (+a potential FTA deal) are still there

[Tinhampton]

The Accession Council was broadcast today. I have no comment on it, save to note that the payment of income tax by the Crown - a practice which commenced on the Queen's prerogative some thirty or so years ago and was enshrined into law under the Coalition government - is described as a "tradition" in the accession ceremony.

[The Alma Mater]

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. The crown’s role is symbolic.

I'm assuming ur talking about the last bit ("Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots....")

Now to return to their much older Dutch roots ?

[Infected Mushroom]

I’m devastated. This changes the political order of the world.

[Perikuresu]

I’m devastated. This changes the political order of the world.

I thought you of all people would be celebrating the Queen's death, but I'm pleasantly surprised by the first sentence of your response. Not sure how the political order would be changed, the British monarchy can't do jack to begin with

[Old Tyrannia]

Bit of an oddity in the BBC's commentary on the accession ceremony today- one of the guest commentators kept referring to the Church of Scotland as an established church. In fact although it is considered to be the national church of Scotland, it is not actually regarded as an established state church as the Church of England is, being wholly independent of the State- a status confirmed by the Church of Scotland Act 1921. Additionally, the suggestion that Parliament could abolish the oath to uphold the Church of Scotland if it so wished might raise an eyebrow or so, given that doing so would mean repealing a provision of the 1707 Acts of Union- something that could provoke a constitutional crisis.

[Old Tyrannia]

The Accession Council was broadcast today. I have no comment on it, save to note that the payment of income tax by the Crown - a practice which commenced on the Queen's prerogative some thirty or so years ago and was enshrined into law under the Coalition government - is described as a "tradition" in the accession ceremony.

Perhaps I missed something, but as far as I am aware the payment of income tax by the monarch as a private individual (not "the Crown" which can't pay income tax because it's the legal entity to which taxes are paid) was not mentioned once throughout the ceremony. What was mentioned was the transfer of the proceeds from the Crown Estate to the Treasury in return for the Sovereign Grant, formerly the civil list, which is indeed a tradition going back to the reign of King George III some two and a half centuries ago.

[Ifreann]

I mean, monarchies are inherently undemocratic, and a head of state should reflect the values of the state they represent.
Oh wait, now that "Westminster Democracy" and "Capitalism" thing makes sense now.

The Head of State should be apolitical, so that they could unite and represent their nation more effectively. Constitutional monarchs can be apolitical, and they mostly are. But politicians, believe it or not, can’t.

You can't be the head of state and be apolitical.

---

I might be able to give some more 'local' input here

Lizzie's popularity had a part in the referendum failing, but iirc, other factors that led to it's downfall was that the republic side was too divided amongst themselves (particularly on how the President would be chosen) and that nobody wanted to start the new century with that large of a risk (AKA if it ain't broke don't fix it)

However, since Liz is gone, and almost nobody (ik) cares about Charles or maybe dislikes him, and there's an increasing portion of the population coming from Asia, particularly India (and there will be more skilled migrants here to fill in labour shortages), if the Republic question reer it's head once again, it might get a better chance, only to get struck down by the greater need of alleviating cost of living pressures.

Australia's largely strayed away from it's British roots and is now morphing itself into a more multicultural Australian identity, the crown's the last symbol of Australia's British roots and I think many republicans are keen to strike that down too.

Why? She doesn’t have any political power. The crown’s role is symbolic.

Not entirely symbolic.

[Kerwa]

I can understand disliking having a monarch, but I don’t get why anyone would want to replace it with a president. That’s just going from bad to horrible.

And as a british subject I hope the UK keeps it’s monarchy, simply because any elected head of stated is almost certainly going to be even more loathsome than actual royalty.

Misrule is guaranteed anyway.

[The Blaatschapen]

I can understand disliking having a monarch, but I don’t get why anyone would want to replace it with a president. That’s just going from bad to horrible.

And as a british subject I hope the UK keeps it’s monarchy, simply because any elected head of stated is almost certainly going to be even more loathsome than actual royalty.

Misrule is guaranteed anyway.

You can always go for the Swiss model.

And also, the great thing about having an elected official is that you can vote them out at the next election.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I can understand disliking having a monarch, but I don’t get why anyone would want to replace it with a president. That’s just going from bad to horrible.

And as a british subject I hope the UK keeps it’s monarchy, simply because any elected head of stated is almost certainly going to be even more loathsome than actual royalty.

Misrule is guaranteed anyway.

You can always go for the Swiss model.

And also, the great thing about having an elected official is that you can vote them out at the next election.

>Tories sharing power on the Swiss model
Mate idk about you but if the British monarchy goes Liz Truss is just gonna declare herself Minister-President... probably for life.

[Jewish Republic of Yessinah]

rest in peace queen

[Ifreann]

I can understand disliking having a monarch, but I don’t get why anyone would want to replace it with a president. That’s just going from bad to horrible.

And as a british subject I hope the UK keeps it’s monarchy, simply because any elected head of stated is almost certainly going to be even more loathsome than actual royalty.

Misrule is guaranteed anyway.

The Irish Presidency has been pretty great. It's an almost entirely ceremonial role and we've managed to always fill it with people who aren't embarrassments.

[Fartsniffage]

I can understand disliking having a monarch, but I don’t get why anyone would want to replace it with a president. That’s just going from bad to horrible.

And as a british subject I hope the UK keeps it’s monarchy, simply because any elected head of stated is almost certainly going to be even more loathsome than actual royalty.

Misrule is guaranteed anyway.

The Irish Presidency has been pretty great. It's an almost entirely ceremonial role and we've managed to always fill it with people who aren't embarrassments.

But we seem to have an awful lot of Tory voters.

[The Blaatschapen]

I can understand disliking having a monarch, but I don’t get why anyone would want to replace it with a president. That’s just going from bad to horrible.

And as a british subject I hope the UK keeps it’s monarchy, simply because any elected head of stated is almost certainly going to be even more loathsome than actual royalty.

Misrule is guaranteed anyway.

The Irish Presidency has been pretty great. It's an almost entirely ceremonial role and we've managed to always fill it with people who aren't embarrassments.

Kennedy and Biden.

Wait.. Not that kind of Irish presidency.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I can understand disliking having a monarch, but I don’t get why anyone would want to replace it with a president. That’s just going from bad to horrible.

And as a british subject I hope the UK keeps it’s monarchy, simply because any elected head of stated is almost certainly going to be even more loathsome than actual royalty.

Misrule is guaranteed anyway.

The Irish Presidency has been pretty great. It's an almost entirely ceremonial role and we've managed to always fill it with people who aren't embarrassments.

Yes but Britain isn't Ireland
In Britain you got the modern Tory Party in charge.