Queen Elizabeth II

[Jub]

Man some people just love to suck the dick of the people making everything in the world worse for everyone.

I guess Wong was wrong all those years back. There really is such a thing as being too righteous to understand.

Can you do anything that doesn't involve licking the boots of people wealthier and/or more well respected than you are?

[His Divine Shadow]

Just to derail completely, but not really because I bet the queen was a billionaire, the channel "second thought" is a good channel and has several videos on billionaires and their effect on society.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=316nOvHUS8A

[LadyTevar]

ENOUGH.
Back on Topic.

[Jub]

Bets on how long it'll be before Charles is feeding the worms alongside Liz?

[Gandalf]

Bets on how long it'll be before Charles is feeding the worms alongside Liz?

He's mid seventies and has had a life of solid privilege, so he'll probably get a good decade or so?

[bilateralrope]

The palace bees have been notified of her death

Because that's a thing that happens.

[Jub]

Bets on how long it'll be before Charles is feeding the worms alongside Liz?

He's mid seventies and has had a life of solid privilege, so he'll probably get a good decade or so?

One can hope the stress of his new role starts that clock ticking faster.

[LadyTevar]

Bets on how long it'll be before Charles is feeding the worms alongside Liz?

He's mid seventies and has had a life of solid privilege, so he'll probably get a good decade or so?

A better question, that came from my Mother -- How long til he steps down and lets William take over?

I think we'll have King Charles for 10-15 years, until William's kids are teens/twenties, and old enough to start attending Royal Functions, take over Royal Patronages, etc.
Then again, he might reign til he dies, which will be at least 25 years depending on his health. That would make him 98, while his father died at 99.

Either way, I'm expecting a new King within my lifetime.

[Crazedwraith]

Abdication simply to retire and let the new generation take over isn't really the tradition of the British Monarchy as we an see from QEII. I expect Charles III will follow her example and do it as long as possible.

[Gandalf]

Also, with the possible growing strength of the republican movement, maybe Charles could be the last king.

[LadyTevar]

The palace bees have been notified of her death

Because that's a thing that happens.

The Bee-boy's Song
Kipling's poem in "Puck of Pook's Hill" was the first time I'd ever heard of the custom.

So many old rituals that we don't even remember WHY they're done, but they're done because it's Ritual, and you don't want something bad to happen because you forgot to do it.

The black mourning ribbons are a nice touch.

[Crazedwraith]

Also, with the possible growing strength of the republican movement, maybe Charles could be the last king.

Possibly? William and Kate are pretty popular.

I don't think the UK's going to cease being a monarchy any time soon. I expect there will be lot of commonwealth countries that will stop having the monarchy and go to their own head of state first though.

[LadyTevar]

Also, with the possible growing strength of the republican movement, maybe Charles could be the last king.

I've been hearing "Charles will be the last" for DECADES. Started after he split with Diana. Got worse after her death.

I doubt it will go that far. The Commonwealth might elect their own Heads of State, but England will cling to the Royalty for some time yet

[Zaune]

The Commonwealth might elect their own Heads of State, but England will cling to the Royalty for some time yet.

And why not? It's not like we haven't spent at least the past twelve years electing people who are even bloody worse.

[NecronLord]

And why not? It's not like we haven't spent at least the past twelve years electing people who are even bloody worse.

There are some arguments to be said that the paralysis of having a constitutional monarch who can act openly once and only once as a head of state means you don't have a balance against the prime-ministerial executive constantly expanding its power.

People often knee-jerk to 'the US President is a terrible model and we'd get that' but I think the Irish President, who has functionally the same role as the queen or governor general, but has a veto that he or she can use without fear of triggering a constitutional crisis, and which refers a law to the courts or to a plebiscite (the supreme court has been more used historically) unless it's a budgetary or constitutional law, is far more effective at curtailing the excesses of bad leaders. And because the President of Ireland is elected, there is no issue with them using their veto, so it's been actively used.

[Zaune]

Counterpoint: There is a non-negligible possibility that we'd elect Boris Johnson to the presidency.

More seriously, I think the monarchy isn't even in the top ten most pressing problems with the current system compared to First Past The Post, the complete impotence of the Press Complaints Commission, the lack of regional parliaments within England and more other stuff than I have the patience to list. Electing someone every five years to do all the mostly-ceremonial stuff that used to be the job of the monarch while changing nothing else of substance about how the country is ruled would barely change anything, and what it did change might not be for the better.

[NecronLord]

How many of those problems might be redressed by having a someone who can actually refer a bill to a constitutiona court? Certainly things like the MPs voting to exempt themselves from conduct rules in flagrant corruption would be a fine example of what's wrong in this country, and something that conceptually the monarch is supposed to counterbalance but actually cannot because their interests are wholly about preserving their family privelege, and not serving the nation, or charitably, with that as a distant second.

As for Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, Narcissistic populists in countries with a non-executive president do not want to be president - the Irish experience has borne this out, with Presidents being much, much less narcissistic IMO than Taoiseacha. The very limited power to say no to things and otherwise open hospitals doesn't tend to appeal to such people.

[ray245]

This is why I question the large bonuses for executives who lose the company money. The worker who costs the company $100 would surely be fired and steps may even be taken to recover those funds, meanwhile, the CEO who loses them billions is paid to leave and may even get bonuses on top of that... This system is very logical and makes much sense.

It's why I think it's only in certain industries, and even then only exclusively referring to the top end of the spectrum tvat you get bosses getting their dues as for failures as compared to the employees.

I'm talking about football ( not the American kind, that's not football), especially in the top end of the competition in Premier league and etc for elite footballers.

It's one of the very few industry where you can see the employees being more valued than the manager, and any manager that fails to perform gets sacked.

This is because the competition is actually intense and failure to perform can be easily seen by the public.

Despite what most capitalist thinks about capitalism is a competitive system, in reality it is still more of a cartel. The level of competition often aren't fierce enough for the poor performance of a company to be linked to any particular CEOs and etc.

And most capitalistic system simply isn't willing to embrace a truly competitive environment in which bad decisions and bad decision makers are punished.

Our economic structures protects the bad decision makers because it is still a cartel.

This is so very true. There is very little real competition in business because the status quo suits companies and thus stagnation and rot set in.

How many companies death spiral, cutting costs to pay shareholders rather than innovating and reinvesting to try to stimulate new avenues of revenue? Why are individuals supposed to have 3-months of liquid assets on hand but not companies? If the landscape was truly competitive each recession would kill all unfit companies and yet we suffer round after round of bailouts because a company must never suffer any real risk.

And this is the exact reason why Americans especially tried to make European football more like the NFL.

Because creating a Super-League will ensure badly performing clubs won't be too badly damaged from the mistakes they themselves made.

People talks about how communism is just an ideal that won't be practical in real life, but the same is for capitalism too.

True competition of companies is just an ideal.

[Gandalf]

In good news, Australia is getting a public holiday for the whole mess. Woohoo!

Also, what now of PedoPrince?

[Zaune]

Also, what now of PedoPrince?

He's keeping his head down and his mouth shut and staying out of trouble if he knows what's good for him. If we still had any far-flung, desolate outposts of the Empire with ample opportunities to get a fatal tropical disease named after oneself then he would have been made governor of one of those, but these days they have to make do with stripping him of all his honourary titles and probably cutting him out of the will.

And I'm actually prepared to believe his protestations of ignorance, if not necessarily innocence. I dare say the red flags were there for anyone with the wits and the morals to look for them, but Epstein must have been at least a moderately convincing bullshitter to have got away with as much as he did and Prince Andrew never was known for being terribly perceptive or quick on the uptake.

[bilateralrope]

Also, with the possible growing strength of the republican movement, maybe Charles could be the last king.

Republican is not a word with good associations right now. We can blame the US for that.

Are any countries seriously talking about leaving the commonwealth right now ?

I'm not expecting much there unless Charles does something that angers people.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Also, with the possible growing strength of the republican movement, maybe Charles could be the last king.

Republican is not a word with good associations right now. We can blame the US for that.

Are any countries seriously talking about leaving the commonwealth right now ?

I'm not expecting much there unless Charles does something that angers people.

I think the speculation is not so much that countries will leave the Commonwealth, but that the assorted other Realms Charles is also King of (IIRC places like Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand and some Caribbean islands) might get rid of him as their individual Head of State and join the other 30-odd countries that are in the Commonwealth but don't have a monarch.

[Solauren]

And I'm actually prepared to believe his protestations of ignorance, if not necessarily innocence. I dare say the red flags were there for anyone with the wits and the morals to look for them, but Epstein must have been at least a moderately convincing bullshitter to have got away with as much as he did and Prince Andrew never was known for being terribly perceptive or quick on the uptake.

That's a polite way of saying the truth - Prince Andrew is a fucking moron that believes anything presented to him

[LadyTevar]

I think the speculation is not so much that countries will leave the Commonwealth, but that the assorted other Realms Charles is also King of (IIRC places like Canada, Austrailia, New Zealand and some Caribbean islands) might get rid of him as their individual Head of State and join the other 30-odd countries that are in the Commonwealth but don't have a monarch.

The PM of Antigua and Barbuda declared HRM Charles III head of state, and soon after suggested a Referendum will be started to become a Republic "Within three years".

Australia has ruled out holding a Referendum "for at least four years".

Antigua and Barbuda Acknowledge Charles III

[Darth Yan]

So, morally neutral?

How does one get to be a billionaire without exploiting people and therefore becoming evil? Even mere inheritance without divestment of those funds is still evil as hoarded funds and the concentration of wealth only serve to harm society. The only ethical way to have a billion dollars is to immediately give it away and descend to the mere mortal realm of a comfortable multi-millionaire.

As someone pointed out "No sane person can honestly tell me that every poor person is inherently virtuous and wouldn't be a scumbag if they were rich. It's also entirely possible for a rich person to try to do some good with their money, be it from guilt or genuine philanthropy. It's the structural concentration of wealth in a few hands that is the problem, not the rich themselves."

There are poor people who are good and poor people who are assholes. There are rich people who are assholes.....and there are also rich people who are good.