UK Queen Elizabeth II deathwatch thread - Speculate on when a beloved old lady will die here.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Featured on Sep 8, 2022 by Null: Queen Elizabeth has died.
www.bbc.co.uk

The Queen back at Windsor after hospital stay

She is "in good spirits" after a one-night stay for preliminary medical checks, Buckingham Palace says.
www.bbc.co.uk

The Queen spent Wednesday night in hospital for preliminary medical checks and is now back at Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace has said.
The 95-year-old monarch returned from hospital at lunchtime on Thursday and is "in good spirits", the palace added.
The Queen was said to be "disappointed" after cancelling a visit to Northern Ireland on Wednesday.
She was given medical advice to rest for a few days, after a busy schedule of public engagements.
In a statement on Thursday night, Buckingham Palace said: "Following medical advice to rest for a few days, the Queen attended hospital on Wednesday afternoon for some preliminary investigations, returning to Windsor Castle at lunchtime today, and remains in good spirits."
The Queen was seen by specialists at the private King Edward VII's Hospital in central London, about 19 miles (32km) from Windsor. Her admittance is understood not to be related to coronavirus.
The overnight stay was said to be for practical reasons and the Queen was back at her desk undertaking light duties on Thursday afternoon.
The King Edward VII's is a private hospital in London's Marylebone used by senior royals, including the Queen's husband, the late Duke of Edinburgh, who received treatment there earlier this year.
It has been a busy period of official engagements for the Queen.
She was pictured hosting a Global Investment Summit at Windsor Castle on Tuesday evening alongside Prime Minister Boris Johnson.
An official record of the Queen's diary showed at least 15 other formal events during October.
On Wednesday, a Buckingham Palace spokesman said the monarch had "reluctantly accepted medical advice to rest for the next few days".
He said the Queen was "disappointed that she will no longer be able to visit Northern Ireland" - which would have involved an overnight stay.
She is expected to lead a royal delegation to the Glasgow COP26 climate change summit in two weeks' time.
Earlier this week, the Queen declined a magazine's award of Oldie of the Year, saying "you are only as old as you feel".
She "politely but firmly" turned down the award, but sent the Oldie magazine a message with her "warmest best wishes".
----
Just a preliminary thread for now, but it's worth keeping an eye on, pretty sure this was how it started with Philip...
 
Click to expand...
Ridley said:
The U.S. military has mammy-looking nigger-ladies advertise their diverse navy & runs a manga in Japan where they (the entire naval branch of the U.S. army) are portrayed as a little rabbit boy.
Click to expand...
If you're trying to convince Japanese the soldiers you have in their country aren't a bunch of schoolgirl-raping perverts (even though they are sometimes), you have to use Japanese tropes in your propaganda, and everything in Japan including their cops (who are anything but cute and cuddly) have a cute and cuddly avatar.
 
This evil glownigger is now burning in Hell and all of a sudden, she's the biggest deal to modern society since Jesus Christ?

People = Nigger Cattle

:story:
 
Last edited:
Once Charles in officially coronated (is that correct English?) he will be free to come out as a the secret Muslim he's been for a while. I know he forfeits the crown if he goes Papish, but the law didn't anticipate a king might go Muslim.

I definitely remember a conspiracy theory to that effect years ago after he said something insufficiently denunciatory about Islam.
 
Spunt said:
The Queen had no power at all. None. Doubly so since she always maintained a lifelong policy of never stating her opinion on anything, ever. One day she had to smile and shake hands with a left-wing mass-murderer, the next day a right-wing mass-murderer, and never, ever let slip what she thought of all those terrible people. Because she never represented herself or her opinions. She represented Britain, the entity, whatever it was doing, whoever was in charge. She was the crown, the flag, not Elizabeth von Saxe-Coburg Gotha Windsor. She had to be completely opaque and never take sides on anything, no matter what she thought of it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I have heard this type of argument before. Staying quite on the small stuff and the drama is a smart play for the monarchy. Everyone just blames the politicians.

But who appoints The House of Lords? This is real power that is hardly ever discussed.

Plus there are all of the written laws about her ability to dissolve parliament. Now she isn't exercising such powers. But if it came down to it, which way would it go? Probably it would come down to how riled up the public is. If the public was really really hating on the politicians the politicians just might need to cave and walk away.

I have heard her influence is far more subtle.
 
So I was wondering what the heck these giant glitchy-looking steel sculptures were hanging on the walls of St. Paul's Cathedral during the memorial service. They don't fit the architecture in the slightest and partially obstruct the view of the nave. It turns out they're relatively recent permanent installations meant to commemorate WWI, and were designed by a Sephardic Jew from India who wanted 'to commemorate the most important event of the 20th century in the highest church in the nation and be able to give it my take and my own polemic'. They look about as depressing as the sculptor himself. Also he threw in this little tidbit - '“You have to remember that the cross is a very violent symbol, as it was originally designed to kill people. I thought I would maintain that violence as a polemical reminder that wars have been forever fought over religion.” While I agree that it's important to remember the cross as primarily a torture device (many great saints have discussed the spiritual significance of this) it seems a bit awkward to bring up religious wars in a commission for a cathedral. They just spoil an otherwise beautiful masterpiece of architecture, in my opinion.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-09-10 at 1.34.28 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-09-10 at 1.34.28 AM.png
    2.5 MB · Views: 120
  • Screen Shot 2022-09-10 at 1.47.25 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-09-10 at 1.47.25 AM.png
    870.1 KB · Views: 81
  • GJ-01.1506073314.7413.jpg
    GJ-01.1506073314.7413.jpg
    418.4 KB · Views: 90
Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough but I have not seen a single person who actually gives a shit about her dying. Even the people I know who live in the UK do not give a single solitary shit.
 
MunsterCheese said:
But who appoints The House of Lords? This is real power that is hardly ever discussed.
Click to expand...
The leaders of the main political parties appoint the Lords. The monarch signs the piece of paper as Head of Sate, but has no input at all. If the monarch ever refused to do that, or indeed do any of the other constitutional rubber-stamping they do (appointing the Prime Minister, opening Parliament) we'd be dealing with a constitutional crisis - imagine the Electoral College ignoring the voting in each state and just appointing whoever they felt like. The entire system would break. The entire country would break. It's not in the monarchy's interest to start a fight with Parliament, because Parliament would win and we'd just become a republic.

We had a civil war about this 400 years ago and parliament won after a decade-long bloodbath that killed 250,000 people, about 5% of the population at that time, including King Charles 1st who got beheaded for treason. The monarchy was briefly abolished and we got a genocidal puritan theocrat called Oliver Cromwell who was so hated that when he died Parliament dug up his corpse, put it on trial for treason, cut off its head and displayed it on a spike for crowds to cheer. We also restored the monarchy on the condition that they do what parliament told them and stay out of politics.

That experience has told us:
1 - That having activist monarchs leads to bloodshed, and very sticky ends for said activist monarch.
2 - That having a President is, if anything, worse.

So that has kept the current situation as it is for 400 years. We don't have extremist Presidents take over and turn the place into something out of a shitty YA novel, and we don't have monarchs getting Big Ideas. Checks and balances, you know?

The idea that a King or Queen would start throwing their constitutional weight around is just fanfic bullshit. It's not going to happen, ever. If the monarchy is abolished it will be parliament that does it, and the monarch will sign their own abolition because they'll end up without their head if they don't. The balance of real power is so heavily in favour of Parliament that it's almost unthinkable.
 
Atomsk said:
Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough but I have not seen a single person who actually gives a shit about her dying. Even the people I know who live in the UK do not give a single solitary shit.
Click to expand...
That doesn't say much good about modern society to be frank. Even the people gravedancing have some investment in the event.

Modern society is a bunch of ahistorical nihilists who don't know or care or even think much about anything that isn't right under their noses, usually their cell phones and whatever dumb soma bullshit passes for entertainment these days. There's a reason I want to watch the world burn.
 
MunsterCheese said:
I have heard her influence is far more subtle.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it would be incredibly naive to think the British monarch actually has "no power at all." Although most of the monarch's hard power has been de facto neutered, they still wield an immense amount of soft power and influence across all institutions of the British state. For example, I saw some article that said Queen Elizabeth II influenced changes from the shadows to over 1000 bills in British parliament during her reign.
 
Emperor Pupienus said:
Yeah, I think it would be incredibly naive to think the British monarch actually has "no power at all." Although most of the monarch's hard power has been de facto neutered, they still wield an immense amount of soft power and influence across all institutions of the British state. For example, I saw some article that said Queen Elizabeth II influenced changes from the shadows to over 1000 bills in British parliament during her reign.
Click to expand...
On paper, the British monarch has the power to approve (and thus to reject) parliamentary legislation. Imagine the shitstorm were this power ever exercised.

However, monarchs (QE2 included) have been accused of using the "persuasive" power the ability to create such a shitstorm necessarily implies to mold legislation to their liking.

I think they should probably do away with this even on paper, as by custom now long-standing enough to be called tradition, it is simply not exercised by the Crown directly.
 
Atomsk said:
Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough but I have not seen a single person who actually gives a shit about her dying. Even the people I know who live in the UK do not give a single solitary shit.
Click to expand...
The obvious answer is it's region and age dependent. Scotland and Ireland generally won't really care as much and neither will most zoomers. The news will always show tears as predicted but the UK = England to too many people which is likely where the impression that everyone would be mourning as badly as you'd think comes from.

It's unfortunate that such a part of UK's history is gone, even more so with all the recent shit tarnishing the look of the royal family. Don't think anyone after her can beat her legacy.
 
Emperor Pupienus said:
Yeah, I think it would be incredibly naive to think the British monarch actually has "no power at all." Although most of the monarch's hard power has been de facto neutered, they still wield an immense amount of soft power and influence across all institutions of the British state. For example, I saw some article that said Queen Elizabeth II influenced changes from the shadows to over 1000 bills in British parliament during her reign.
Click to expand...

Considering the monarch and prime minister meet weekly to discuss the latter's performance, I would not be surprised at all if that were the case.
 
DoubleD said:
Considering the monarch and prime minister meet weekly to discuss the latter's performance, I would not be surprised at all if that were the case.
Click to expand...
I am not at all hostile to the idea that the morality of today should be, at least to some extent, judged by the morality of a longer time frame. I don't think the world should be enslaved to it, but simply radically changing everything immediately just because it's possible has never worked out well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom