R.I.P. Queen Elizabeth II, Britain’s longest-ruling monarch
The Queen died on September 8 at the age of 96, Buckingham Palace confirms.
Aux News Elizabeth II
Queen Elizabeth II, who sat atop Britain’s monarchy for more than 70 years and is the second longest-ruling monarch in human history, has died, Buckingham Palace confirms via their official Twitter account. She was 96 years old.
Earlier today, a spokesperson for Buckingham Palace shared that the Queen’s doctors are “concerned for Her Majesty’s health and have recommended she remain under medical supervision.” They also shared the Queen was “comfortable and at Balmoral,” her Scottish estate— members of the royal family including her son, Prince Charles, and her sister, Princess Anne, quickly gathered at her side. The Queen had been consistently stepping back from public duties after swearing in new Prime Minister Liz Truss on Monday—her mobility had become limited after a bout of COVID-19.
Born on April 21, 1926 to King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, it initially never seemed probable that Elizabeth II would take the throne. Her father had taken the reigns after his older brother Edward VII abdicated the crown in 1936 in order to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson, making Elizabeth II the throne’s heir apparent. In 1947 she wed her distant cousin Philip Mountbatten (who she remained married to until his death in 2021)— a year later, her first child, Charles, was born.
But just as Elizabeth II navigated the early days of motherhood, marriage and monarchy, she received a shove into the deep end in the form of her father’s February 1952 death. Elizabeth received word of his passing during a royal trip with Philip through Kenya—when she returned home to England, she returned as Her Majesty.
Throughout her extensive rule, the Queen dragged the old monarchy into the modern world, including allowing the royal family to interact via televised broadcast in 1970, as well as condoning her sister’s separation and divorce from her first husband in 1989 and 1992 respectively. A visit to Ireland she made in 2011 also marked one of the first visits by a British monarch to the country in 100 years.
The Queen’s monarchy journey saw some growing pains during Charles’ turbulent marriage to Princess Diana and subsequent divorce. Tensions between the monarchy’s perception of Diana and the adoration she received from the British people eroded the monarchy’s relationship with an already-skeptical public, especially after Diana’s death in 1997.
In 2015, the Queen officially surpassed Queen Victoria’s record-length time on the throne, becoming the longest-sitting ruler in British history. Shortly after Prince Philip resigned from public life in 2017, the Queen also began limiting her duties and appearances, passing many to grandson Prince William and his wife Kate, Duchess of Cambridge. Prince Harry and his wife Meghan, Duchess of Sussex also initially participated in royal duties until they themselves stepped away from the monarchy in 2020 to some controversy. One of the Queen’s final large-scale public events came in February of this year, when she celebrated her Platinum Jubilee to mark 70 years on the throne.
The Queen’s life has been chronicled in a myriad of cinematic adaptations—she has been portrayed by Helen Mirren, Emma Thompson, and even Fred Armisen. Netflix’s popular drama The Crown has chronicled her life (portrayed in chronological ages by Claire Foy, Olivia Colman, and Imelda Staunton) since 2016.
354 Comments
Man, snatched away in the prime of life. Sad.
lol snatched
HA! Multiple entendre!
I wonder what Charles is going to choose as his regnal name. Surely he won’t go with Charles III.
I’m hoping for “Ralph”.
An underrated John Goodman and Peter O’Toole vehicle.
Charles III is fine. William, however, will be going with Sir-Pegs-A-Lot I
Obvs, Sir Will.I.Am.I
Maybe George, that certainly hasn’t been overused. Charles has terrible precedent, but the last one preceded the birth of the United States…enough time may have elapsed.
Wikipedia tells me that Charles II was popular in his day. Elizabeth clearly didn’t consider the name too terrible for a probable future king. Also per Wikipedia, William will likely be the first British monarch to be descended from Charles I and II (on his mother’s side).
As I recall, Charles II’s biggest crime was just being sort of an idiot; the English were just happy to have their monarchy back. Although this was before the beginning of actual history in 1776, so we’ll probably never know for sure.
Charles II was decent — he was an amateur scientist who went on to found the Royal Society (one of the first organizations for scientists and I believe the oldest with continuous existence). But the current Charles likes homeopathy and is a disgrace to this tradition.
The Merry Monarch seemed all right, as far as kings go.
Tampax?
Bloody good.
King Tampax the First (brought to you by Coinbase)
King Tampax Super II like it.
You just had to go there, LOL. You manky wee strumpet!
Galactus?
Well, at least he can now share part of the name with one of the sweetest dog breeds.
King Charles Phillip Arthur Labradoodle George Windsor
Chazz
Chucky
Reggie
Ghidorah II
douche nozzle
Charles “Hambone” Slappy von Couch-Dick
Are you sure he doesn’t want to use Charles in Charge as the national anthem instead of God Save the King?
Napoleon XIV
MF Doom II
I heatf he’s putting out feelers to see how “Tut” would fly.
Lord Shithead the Motherfucker
Just confirmed: Charles III
Chezza?
Actually, that’s what they announced he would go by.
its charles 3
He went with Charles III. He will no doubt be more successful than Charles I but not nearly as much fun as Charles II.
I heard. I suppose it makes some sense to stick with the same name you’ve had for 70+ years…
Actually, that’s exactly what he’s going with.
The world would be an immeasurably better place if the royals all vanished. Short of that, he should choose a name like “His Majesty Galactron the Annihilator” and only ever refer to himself in the third person as Galactron. “GALACTRON DEMANDS PANCAKES!”
Charles: the luckiest name for an English king.
Charlie Cubed it is, looks like
She seemed lovely, for a Queen.As a member of the Irish diaspora, I will mourn her as a person, mother and a grandmother but the British Monarchy and its Empire is still responsible for a lot of misery in the world.
Such a well-known person that it’s also weird that I had to look up her ‘accomplishments’, of which there doesn’t seem to be many that are too substantive. I imagine it’s one of those things that is very hard to get your head wrapped around not having grown up in a country with royals. Still very strange to me.
One of my great aunts fled Ireland because her Republican (Irish Republican, not the disgusting American political party) boyfriend’s head was left on her doorstep by Irish royalists.No love for the crown here.
And this tax they have going on tea is bullshit!
Well, handed the title of queen and didn’t ever fuck it up is an accomplishment.
apart from not having to elect a president ? well there is the pr of one of the most recognisable persons in the world, but dont underestimate what her influence was, 15 pm’s have learned that she was at least as up to date on the facts as they were.Charles btw used his navy pension to start a charity that now has helped 1 million young people and is worth 1.4 billion.
Yes.
Her Majesty was a pretty nice girl.
but now she really doesn’t have a lot to say.
Nor is she changing from day to day, except perhaps on the cellular level. Embalming science has come a long way.
Yeah , in her defence when they visited Ireland a few years back she was fairly respectful, and seemed on the whole like a nice enough person.
“ a few years back she was fairly respectful,” Not respectful enough to give back the rest of the island.
Two sides of a coin: the British Empire was also responsible for a lot of good in the world.
It’d be almost impossible for her not to seem lovely as the British media are effectively banned from ever saying anything critical of her. In the last year she gave her son 10 million quid of taxpayer money to cover up his Epstein connection and sexual abuse and there was barely a whisper.She went out of her way to make sure the palace has specific exceptions for equality law, financial transparency, etc. Maybe she was lovely, maybe she wasn’t, all we really know is that she was very good at not expressing any opinions or emotions publicly.
serf shit
No lover of any monarchy, but – damn – there will never be another woman (or human) like her.
Why not?
Quite a few people live to be 96.
I’m sure the world will see another 96 year woman figure head with vast amounts of inherited wealth.
Aubrey de Grey will be very sad if life extension doesn’t make 96 years normal.
Imelda Marcos is 93 years young!
good
I look forward to everyone discovering how crap the whole family really is, now that friendly grandma isn’t around to cover for it.
I think people know by now. Not from The Crown, but other sources. The whole Prince Andrew/Epstein thing…
The only people who don’t know are the ones who don’t care.
George VI’s older brother was Edward VIII, not Edward VII.
I’m sorry, what? The Queen is very much alive. Queen Aretha Franklin, first of her name, passed in 2018 and the crown was passed to Her Majesty Queen Beyonce, long may she reign.
ooh kay there buddy , sure she is .
Does that make her sister, Solenoid, Princess Margaret?
Ma’am, this is AV Club. Not Jezebel.
The first link is broken. Maybe it’s supposed to direct here:
Wow. RIP. And now, the game of thrones is afoot! All hail Queen Meghan!
Hell yeah. Ride that dragon and burn those assholes
we did a whole thing in law school how us commonwealth countries would have so much restructuring to do if we ever tried to denounce the monarch as the basis for where our legal powers are derived. and what a slippery slope that could be (Canada). So the figure head argument never quite makes sense, it’s not as simple as people think when they say do away with the crown.Lots of problematics with these colonizers, but she’s still had an interesting life.
and what a slippery slope that could be (Canada).
It really wouldn’t be. We’d reprint our money, get rid of the lieutenant governors, and that’s about it. Nothing would really change.
crown lands(highways, lands, forests, title claims etc), and a lot of legal instruments in property are derived from royal prerogatives. it would be very complicated to create a whole new system of operations, and a huge burden expecting each province to adapt to the changes. plus the actual legislative process.That’s just Canada, UK itself is even more entrenched.
Not only that, but our whole legislative framework set up around the governor general in council and the granting of royal assent. It’s “symbolic”, sure, but still needs a legal replacement for how laws are enacted.
precisely, and if we remove that then it sort of puts into question the legitimacy of any of our legislation. It actually would leave everything on very shaky grounds.
if we remove that then it sort of puts into question the legitimacy of any of our legislation.
Why would it question the legitimacy of legislation? The bill was drafted & voted on by the representatives of the people.
It actually would leave everything on very shaky grounds.Most countries don’t have a royal family or royal assent. Are their systems on very shaky grounds?
because other countries power derives elsewhere, the crown exists as a body of power and parliament makes decisions on behalf of the crown, here and in the UK. It’s just how things are codified here, if things are changed it’d honestly open the doors to question if any of the legislation made on behalf of the crown was legitimate under a new system. I’m not against it, it’d just be a big burden for all us legal folk, and financially very costly. Even now I have to go change every template I have drafted to language around the majesty the king, that’s a minor change that’s going to be very time consuming. I can’t imagine how time consuming it would be to change the entire system.idgaf about the family, but the crown itself still has its purpose.
It’s just how things are codified here Then let’s codify it differently.
It’s just how things are codified here Sounds like work you’d get paid for.
I can’t imagine how time consuming it would be to change the entire system. So let’s not eliminate a system that should’ve been eliminated decades ago, because it’ll take too much time?
idgaf about the family, but the crown itself still has its purpose.
And what purpose, exactly does the crown actually serve, other than rubber-stamping legislation?
are you American? it’s the similar issue of the right to bear arms argument, does removing that from the constitution put all other constitutional rights up for debate. it just opens up a lot of questions that might cause a lot of harm to what people assume are unchangeable rights here in Canada. It might just not be worth the risk.
are you American?
Fuck no. I’m Canadian.
it’s the similar issue of the right to bear arms argument, does removing that from the constitution put all other constitutional rights up for debate.
What a ridiculous question.
it just opens up a lot of questions that might cause a lot of harm to peoples rights.
No, it doesn’t.
lol I mean the professor doing this module was an expert in admin law, practiced a number of years. The fact that you think the American constitutional question is ridiculous is kind of ridiculous. You don’t just shake things up without it potentially having some really awful consequences for basic human rights.
The fact that you think the American constitutional question is ridiculous is kind of ridiculous.
I think it’s ridiculous because it is. Why would changing or removing one amendment affect any of the other amendments? It’s like asking if legalizing cannabis would lead to legalizing murder.
You don’t just shake things up without it potentially having some really awful consequences for basic human rights.
How would abolishing the monarchy in Canada affect human rights? There are plenty of other countries without a monarchy. Do they not have human rights?
Because if you change one amendment then you set a precedent to change the others, and the others are very central to human rights. I mean that’s sort of the central issue to the whole dilemma. Which is why even super liberal folks don’t want to fuck with how Canada operates, because it sets a precedent for people to start fucking with things we assume are constitutionally protected.
Because if you change one amendment then you set a precedent to change the othersNot necessarily. Different things are different.
The comparison to the American situation is not super convincing because amendments are ‘literally’ (yes, literally) changes and also have themselves been changed (18th and 21st) without diluting any of the fervor of the ‘originalist interpretation’ cadre.
Are you Quebecish, or Quebecese, or a Quebecky or whatever?
Get a Sharpie. Anywhere it says, ‘the crown’, mark it out and write in ‘the people’.
There. Done.
“if things are changed it’d honestly open the doors to question if any of the legislation made on behalf of the crown was legitimate under a new system”Why? That was the way laws were made. Now we will make them differently (basically the same, but without the Crown’s assent).
Why would it question the legitimacy of legislation? The bill was drafted & voted on by the representatives of the people.Dude, it’s ok not to post when you know absolutely nothing about the topic being discussed.You aren’t required to open your pie hole.
Strange women lying across the pond is no basis for a system of government. True legislative legitimacy derives from a mandate from the masses not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
listen fuck the queen, but it is the basis and removing that basis opens up some conservative wingnut contesting a bunch of basic rights as well as our treaties. It’s not like America is doing much better with whatever system they are pretending to operate from.
some conservative wingnut
Wingnuts should be ignored. These are the same type of people who were ranting on street corners 25 years ago, handing out photocopied manifesto handwritten on foolscap. They should be ignored. Then those people went online and all of a sudden they’re given attention?Whatever happened to telling nutjobs to shut the fuck up so the rest of us can get some shit done?
The good news is, at least you don’t have to argue about the value of the queen anymore. You get to argue about the value of the king.
(Dollars to doughnuts, those conservative wingnuts are more-than-slightly less cool with answering to a king. Is it semantics? is it misogyny? either way…)
Strange women lying across the pond is no basis for a system of government. True legislative legitimacy derives from a mandate from the masses not some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Not only that, but our whole legislative framework set up around the governor general in council and the granting of royal assent. It’s “symbolic”, sureIf it’s purely symbolic, then eliminating it outright won’t pose any problems.
It’s not symbolic in the way you’re thinking. The way laws are made in this country, they require royal assent. Sure, no GG is going to refuse to give it, but the PM can’t just declare something a law. We need someone/thing to replace that system. All government is symbolic when you get right down to it. The royal family itself is not the issue, the crown is.
It’s not symbolic in the way you’re thinking. The way laws are made in
this country, they require royal assent. Sure, no GG is going to refuse
to give it
So it’s exactly symbolic in the way I’m thinking.
but the PM can’t just declare something a law.
He can after it’s been voted on & approved by parliament.
We need someone/thing to replace that system.
Why? So the formal rubber stamp would be eliminated. So what?
The royal family itself is not the issue, the crown is.
The royal family and the crown are one & the same.
The royal family and the crown are NOT one and the same. And no, under the current system, the PM can’t just declare something a law. This is the point I’m trying to make. As things currently stand, it is not an easy fix. I’m not at all saying that things shouldn’t change. Coming up with a solution would be interesting! But for one thing, you’d have to get all the provinces on board. That alone is a headache and a half.
The royal family and the crown are NOT one and the same.
How are they different?
And no, under the current system, the PM can’t just declare something a law.
So let’s change the sytem! Why is it necessary to have everything rubber-stamped by someone who will never say no?
Coming up with a solution would be interesting!
Not really. We could just follow the examples of the many countries that don’t have monarchies.
But for one thing, you’d have to get all the provinces on board.
Funny thing about federal law is that the provinces have to follow it. Far too many things are left up to the provinces anyway. It’s ridiculous that most laws change when you drive for a few hours.
Unfortunately the provinces do need to be involved if we’re opening up the constitution. We can’t just arbitrarily change jurisdictional powers, either.
Unfortunately the provinces do need to be involved if we’re opening up the constitution.
So the stick-in-the-mud province get to dictate to everyone else? Fuck that. Majority rules.
We can’t just arbitrarily change jurisdictional powers, either.
If the federal government can’t dictate to the provinces, then what’s the point of having a federal government?
That’s how confederation was set up. Perhaps reading up on the Meech Lake Accord would be helpful for you.
That’s how confederation was set up.
Then let’s fix it.
Okay. Fine. I need to get back to work. But please: how, other than through a dictatorship where you get to make unilateral changes to the constitution, do you suggest fixing it? What legal mechanisms would you use? And how would you get consensus for those changes?
But please: how, other than through a dictatorship where you get to make
unilateral changes to the constitution, do you suggest fixing it? What
legal mechanisms would you use? And how would you get consensus for
those changes?A single province holding everything up by refusing to approve changes is not democracy. If a majority of provinces agree, then that should be it. I’m tired of “This is how it is because of something written 150 years ago” being a reason not to change or fix anything.
Okay, but confederation happened, so that ship has sailed. Again, going back to the original point I was making: it’s not an easy fix. Your answer seems to be “I don’t like how Canadian democracy is set up so I would just ignore it.” That’s not a feasible solution to the problem at hand.
Okay, but confederation happened, so that ship has sailed.So confederation means nothing can ever be changed?
Again, going back to the original point I was making: it’s not an easy fix. Not a reason not to do it.
Your answer seems to be “I don’t like how Canadian democracy is set up so I would just ignore it.” That’s not a feasible solution to the problem at hand. Were there errors made in Canada’s founding document? Yes, of course there were. So let’s fix those errors. And if everyone doesn’t agree, because of course 100% agreement is impossible, then let’s do the logical thing and go with majority rule. If 1 or 2 provinces don’t want to agree, then fuck ‘em. The rest of us agree, so too bad. That’s how democracy works. What idiot thought 100% agreement was feasible?The entire point of fixing old, broken laws is because they’re old & broken. Why should be still following those old broken laws to write the new laws, when we all agree the old laws are broken?
I don’t have an answer that will satisfy you. You have a sense of how things should be, ideally, and that’s fine, but no suggestion for how things would actually change, or who would do the changing, or what legal mechanism they would use to get there. We agree on the end result, the question is how to get there. You seem to think it’s a simple problem, whereas I see it as a complicated mess. I think that’s where I have to leave things.
You are *remarkably* patient.
Thanks! I have to bow out now lest I become less so.
It sounds like he’s basically advocating for revolution (that is, extralegal rewriting of the constitution). Which is fine to advocate for; revolution is sometimes necessary. I just don’t quite get why he thinks it’ll be so easy.
You are *remarkably* patient.Seriously. I Miss Splinter’s plan to change the government of ~40 million people is to stamp his feet, hold his breath, and say “But Mommy, that’s how I want it to work!”/smdh
You have a sense of how things should be, ideally, and that’s fine, but no suggestion for how things would actually change
I’ve made my suggestions, you’ve just ignored them. Enough of this 100% agreement bullshit. Majority rules. If a couple of provinces can’t get onboard and everyone else can, then fuck the hold-outs.
what legal mechanism they would use to get there.
We’d be fundamentally changing the foundation of our system. There might not be an existing legal mechanism. And that’s fine. But plenty of other countries have figured this out. To say that it’s too complicated for Canada to do is just ridiculous.
You seem to think it’s a simple problem, whereas I see it as a complicated mess.
You’re over-complicating it. First things first, just eliminate “requiring approval of the Crown.” We’ll sort out the rest as it comes. To claim that everything comes from royal authority (which is made up in the first place) is ridiculous.
If the federal government can’t dictate to the provinces, then what’s the point of having a federal government?That’s exactly the point of a federation. You seem to be mixing federations up with unitary states.
Why can’t you just say from now on that no assent is required for legislation passed. Unless you want to give veto power to an executive like we have in the US, but you could do that pretty simply as well.
You probably could. The problem is the mechanism for doing it requires all the provinces to agree, and we don’t have a good track record for that. It would take time and lots of discussion. I suspect we would stick in some kind of symbolic non-partisan president to give “royal” assent. The monarchy is actually quite a non-presence here though and so I think it would be better to take the time to develop a new system properly rather than try to rush into things and potentially cause a constitutional crisis.
Ok, so let’s do it. People have been asking for a shake-up, here’s the chance. Yes, it’s complicated. Yes it will be painful, but it’s also fucking NECESSARY.
I’m not arguing against that at all. Let’s do it! And cross all fingers and toes that all the provinces are on board.
Quebec would be a problem, but when aren’t they one? Alberta might protest only because they fucking protest everything, being the shitheels they are. Rest of the provinces would likely be fine. I say just get it done at the federal level first and the provinces won’t have a choice (and they really shouldn’t, this is not a “province” issue.
Since it would be a constitutional change, Quebec and Alberta would have to agree. In other words, hell would freeze over.
Not necessarily. It depends on the approach taken here and there’s several paths to this. Would those paths piss off Alberta and Quebec? More than likely but seriously fuck them.
Interesting! I’ve only seen the constitutional approach suggested, but am curious about other, uh, sneakier methods.
But the royal family and the crown are the same thing!
crown lands(highways, lands, forests, title claims etc), and a lot of
legal instruments in property are derived from royal prerogatives.
Royal prerogatives are based on bullshit, though.
it would be very complicated to create a whole new system of operations,
and a huge burden expecting each province to adapt to the changes.
Most countries don’t have a royal family. Is Canada incapable of figuring this out?
plus the actual legislative process.
What about it?
So you’re saying that the royal family owns highways and forests in Canada?
The royal family is not the same thing as the crown.
So WTF is the crown? All google tells me is that it’s a TV show. Is it the king/queen only? Or is it everyone, all the earls, dukes, lords, etc.?
It’s a fancy hat
It’s even better, it’s a picture of a fancy hat we all point to and pretend it has power, therefore giving it power.
Not me. We Americans proudly get our power “from the people” and by “people” I mean an archaic voting system that really just keeps two parties full of mostly wealthy elitists controlling us.
A whole other discussion, but I’ve always wondered what would happen if a third party really gained ground there. Would that break the electoral college’s brain?
We Americans proudly get our power “from the people” We drink blood and eat souls.
it’s a picture of a fancy hat we all point to and pretend it has power, therefore giving it power.So let’s stop pretending.
technically, public access is the crowns land.
You guys need to cut the umbilical cord.
So make it Canadian land.
it would infringe on a lot of treaty rights and could set back our Indigenous populations even more.
Well, I was keeping it as simple as the example. To the extent that any lands have been given to the indigenous people and to the extent they have any sovereignty, why can’t that just stay the same? Or why can’t such lands be granted to them.
because the treaties were established with the crown, federal government essentially respects treaty rights because they derive power from the same source. if they argue that treaty rights are illegitimate then they argue that parliament is illegitimate. otherwise they would have fucked over the indigenous people even more, and still would if they could.you’re conflating where the power to make changes comes from with how we amend legislation.
It seems simple enough to decide the power comes from sources entirely within Canada and accept that all prior law is still ion effect to the extent it is not expressly changed.
The crown is how the Indigenous people still maintain their rights to sovereignty and any land back claims would be forfeited. Canada would complete its genocide by pulling the same fuckery it’s been trying to achieve throughout its history.
It essentially is. “Crown land” is basically land managed by the government. Same with crown corporations.
OK,“crown lands(highways, lands, forests, title claims etc)“Why wouldn’t those simply be nationalized? I am from the US here, but I assume Canada’s system is federal with some division between national and provincial (of that’s the write word) ownership of lands and such. Or is Canada more of a confederacy?“a lot of legal instruments in property are derived from royal prerogatives” Why couldn’t those instruments remain in place even if the prerogatives go away?
I guess where would we suddenly decide to derive power from, from the people? would it mean we could question the legitimacy of any legislation made under the queen? what would happen to our bands treaties which were formed with the crown, and should operate with the same respect as federal laws? I think the ramifications could actually set Canada back in a lot of ways depending what politics are presiding at the time, and could be another way for Canada to fuck over our Indigenous populations even more, especially when they are finally making some headway with getting title back from the Crown.
You’re over-thinking this way too much. We used to have a monarchy, and now we wouldn’t moving forward. Plenty of other countries have done it. It doesn’t invalidate every law previously passed, and anyone arguing that is an idiot. It’s like if a company gets sold. Does every rule for employees from the previous owner get thrown out? Of course not, because that would be stupid.
“and anyone arguing that is an idiot” it’s not an argument lol, it’s the legitimate reason why Canada has remained as a constitutional monarchy. Comparing an entire country to a company is not similar.
I think you said you’re a lawyer? I don’t think you’re going to make much headway here arguing with someone who thinks that you’re overthinking constitutional law, or that making any kind of amendment is easy-peasy. Though it is one of the more interesting AVClub discussions I’ve seen in a bit.
yes I am (sometimes bad when it manifests online like here lol), and I appreciate how well you’ve articulated how complex of an issue this is. You are a patient and knowledgable soul. Essentially people thinking obliterating the crown will somehow obliterate Canadian colonialism isn’t the truth, and could actually eradicate a lot of Aboriginal law.Also the legal system is so over burdened right now, I don’t know how things wouldn’t crumble if we created a whole new system that would then operate different province to province.
Thanks! I’m not a lawyer but do work professionally with regulations and legislation, so some of these things seep in (and then rear up on silly pop culture sites).
I’ve encountered I Miss Splinter before and seen them in other threads. They’re a borderline troll. Their MO is to restate their opinion/highly questionable ‘facts’ over and over again without engaging with anything you say or progressing the conversation. Handle with care.
Good to know!
it’s the legitimate reason why Canada has remained as a constitutional monarchy.
No, that would just be inertia.
Comparing an entire country to a company is not similar.
It is in this instance. You claiming that ending the monarchy would invalidate every single law every passed in Canada makes it really hard to take you seriously. Plenty of other countries have done this. Canada can do it, too.
You’re over-thinking this way too much. I’m just gonna politely throw this out there; maybe the fundamental reorganising of a 155 year old system of government based on a transfer of authority which goes back at least 315 years, and which in turn is based on a much older system, is something which would benefit from some over-thinking.Seriously, I’m all for ending the British monarchy, but the glib way many of its supporters tend to approach it is itself quite concerning. It’s not just a matter of changing some stamps and crossing out “the Crown” on some paperwork. It’s Brexit x1000.
maybe the fundamental reorganising of a 155 year old system of
government based on a transfer of authority which goes back at least 315
years, and which in turn is based on a much older system, is something which would benefit from some over-thinking.Plenty of other countries have done it. Canada can do it, too. And not a single person here has been able to give me a reason why it shouldn’t be done.
It’s Brexit x1000.
No, it’s not. The UK was subject to EU laws. Canada isn’t subject to UK laws.
Plenty of other countries have done it. Canada can do it, too. And not a single person here has been able to give me a reason why it shouldn’t be done.That’s because they’re not saying it shouldn’t be done. They’re saying doing it wouldn’t / won’t necessarily be as easy or straightforward as you’re making out, and that you might benefit from not acting so glib and taking the potential challenges in doing it seriously.No, it’s not. The UK was subject to EU laws. Canada isn’t subject to UK laws.No, but it is subject to the Crown, who approves Canada’s laws via the Governor-General. Removing the Crown as the basis for Canadian law requires replacing it with something else as that basis, which also requires thinking very carefully about the potential issues or pitfalls of what the Crown is being replaced with in order to make sure that replacement is better than or as good as the current status quo, and certainly that it doesn’t make things worse. That’s a massively complex undertaking, one arguably more so than Brexit in many ways. The UK was subject to EU laws but was still a sovereign nation with its own head of state and legislative system capable, in theory, of easily replacing the EU legislative authority — and the rash decision to leave was a huge political, governmental and economic headache that even today has repercussions that seriously threaten the existence of the Union as a political entity.Canadian independence and even if the abolition of the British monarchy overall are far from impossible, but they’re also something which should be done carefully and with plenty of thought.
No, but it is subject to the Crown, who approves Canada’s laws via the Governor-General.
Who rubber-stamps Canada’s laws. It’s a formality. So just eliminate the formality. The people’s representatives have already voted & passed these laws.
Removing the Crown as the basis for Canadian law requires replacing it with something else as that basis
Like the people?
That’s a massively complex undertaking, one arguably more so than Brexit in many ways.
Several other countries have figured it out. The UK couldn’t possible have fucked up Brexit more. Your Brexit example keeps getting worse.
Canadian independence and even if the abolition of the British monarchy overall are far from impossible
Canada is an independent country. That’s why the crown approving laws is a formality. Canada is not subject to the UK in any way. Queen Elizabeth II was the Queen of England, and she was also the Queen of Canada.
Who rubber-stamps Canada’s laws. It’s a formality. So just eliminate the formality. The people’s representatives have already voted & passed these laws.But they don’t become law until they receive Royal Approval (which can, in theory at least, be denied). The “formality” is the step that actually creates the law, so it still needs to be replaced by something. Like the people?Great! So you’re going to get everyone in Canada to approve every law, then. Because if not, then ‘the people’ need to be represented by someone. And a process for determining who that someone is going to be and how that someone is going to be chosen and how long they do the job for and whether or not that someone is going to remain a figurehead who just rubber stamps the laws needs to be figured out. And if they’re just a rubber-stamp figurehead, then you’re going to need to figure out a way that a rogue legislative can’t exploit this to have all kinds of dangerous laws rubber-stamped without an independent body who can, in theory at least, withhold assent. And you’re going to need to figure out a way to make sure a Donald Trump type doesn’t come along and spoil the party, or even if that’s something you want to prevent. And not everyone’s necessarily going to agree on every step of that.So it’s going to get complicated. Several other countries have figured it out. The UK couldn’t possible have fucked up Brexit more. Your Brexit example keeps getting worse.No, you’re just misunderstanding it (deliberately, I’m beginning to suspect). Brexit is being used here (pretty clearly, I’d suggest) as an example of how major political and governmental decisions like this can have disastrous consequences if they’re made in rashly on glib, simplistic premises. Again, no one is saying that Canada can’t separate from the monarchy in a such a way that they prosper and thrive. What you fail to grasp (again, I’m beginning to suspect deliberately) is the point that these kind of decisions need to be thought out and planned for carefully. Other countries ‘figured it out’ because they didn’t rush into it on the basis that these legal questions were just a formality that could be dealt with the stroke of a pen and a “she’ll be right!” attitude. And even then it was often complicated and difficult. Canada is an independent country. That’s why the crown approving laws is a formality. Canada is not subject to the UK in any way. Queen Elizabeth II was the Queen of England, and she was also the Queen of Canada.I misspoke there, I’ll hold my hands up to that. I meant ‘independence’ in the sense of Canada removing the monarch as Head of State.
But they don’t become law until they receive Royal Approval (which can, in theory at least, be denied).
So we stop requiring royal approval. Royal power is based on fantasy anyway.
The “formality” is the step that actually creates the law, so it still needs to be replaced by something.
No, it doesn’t need to be replaced. Laws should be voted on by the representatives of the people. That’s it.
Great! So you’re going to get everyone in Canada to approve every law, then.
That why we elect representatives.
Brexit is being used here (pretty clearly, I’d suggest) as an example of
how major political and governmental decisions like this can have
disastrous consequences if they’re made in rashly on glib, simplistic
premises.
Brexit does not apply here. The UK was leaving a body that was able to dictate laws to the UK. That’s not the case here.
Again, no one is saying that Canada can’t separate from the monarchy in a
such a way that they prosper and thrive. What you fail to grasp (again,
I’m beginning to suspect deliberately) is the point that these kind of
decisions need to be thought out and planned for carefully.I never said we can just declare it so tomorrow. I was being facetious in my original post. But all I’m seeing is details that need to be worked out. So let’s get the process started. There aren’t any valid reasons not to do this. Will it be complicated? Of course. Should it be done anyway? Of course.
No, it doesn’t need to be replaced. Laws should be voted on by the representatives of the people. That’s it.Sure, but once they’re voted on, what’s the process whereby it comes into force — that is, becomes an actual law, and not just something a bunch of people have all said yes or no to? In the United States, for example, even after it’s passed through Congress a bill doesn’t become law until the President has either signed it or Congress has overridden the President’s veto. In the current Canadian system, a law comes into force when the Governor-General gives assent. In fact, I’m struggling to think of a workable democratic system which doesn’t have some kind of affirmative process or role where, after all the votes have been counted, someone signs off on it in a way that definitively states “Yep, this has gone through all the necessary stages in an appropriate way and is now a law.”So it seems that something would, in fact, need to officially replace this, because in a Canadian system without the monarchy, the current Governor-General officially becomes Just Some Person and there’s no future Governor-General appointed to give assent. So what’s the replacement? That why we elect representatives.Again — missing my point. Brexit does not apply here. The UK was leaving a body that was able to dictate laws to the UK. That’s not the case here.Again, you are (perhaps deliberately) misunderstanding my point. I’m using Brexit as an analogy for rushing ill-advisedly and ill-preparedly into a major political / governmental shift, as I’ve repeatedly stated. Like any analogy it’s not 100% the same in all ways, but there is also such a thing as taking an analogy too literally.I never said we can just declare it so tomorrow. I was being facetious in my original post. So you basically agree with everything I’ve been saying about this being a complicated process that’s worth giving serious thought and contemplation to rather than being rushed into headlong, then. Good to know.
Sure, but once they’re voted on, what’s the process whereby it comes
into force — that is, becomes an actual law, and not just something a
bunch of people have all said yes or no to?
It would get signed by the president, who would be head of state. The prime minister would be the head of government. This is how it works in many other countries. This isn’t a new concept, though you’re clearly unfamiliar with it.
So it seems that something would, in fact, need to officially replace
this, because in a Canadian system without the monarchy, the current
Governor-General officially becomes Just Some Person and there’s no
future Governor-General appointed to give assent. So what’s the
replacement?
Plenty of countries have parliaments and a president as the head of state. There’s no reason why Canada can’t do the same. Yes, a figurehead is necessary. But asking “Who’s gonna sign our laws?” is just a stupid question that other countries answered a long time ago.
I’m using Brexit as an analogy for rushing ill-advisedly and
ill-preparedly into a major political / governmental shift, as I’ve
repeatedly stated.
And I never said we should declare it tomorrow. I’m not saying we should rush into it. But I’m saying we should get it done. Brexit was about leaving a body that held power over another country. That’s not the case here.
Like any analogy it’s not 100% the same in all ways, but there is also such a thing as taking an analogy too literally.
And sometimes it’s just a bad anology. You could’ve just said “We shouldn’t rush into it” and your point would’ve been made.
So you basically agree with everything I’ve been saying about this being
a complicated process that’s worth giving serious thought and
contemplation to rather than being rushed into headlong, then. Good to
know.
Everybody here is using “It’s complicated” as a reason not to do it, and it’s a shitty reason not to do it. I’m saying lets get started, regardless of how complicated it will be. And though it will be complicated, it won’t be as complicated as some here are making it out to be.
This is a perfect opportunity. There’s just no reason to keep the monarchy in Canada.
“Great! So you’re going to get everyone in Canada to approve every law, then.”a) re-read the line before that: “The people’s representatives have already voted & passed these laws.” This is not an argument for a government passing laws and for some reason then putting them to public referendum, it is an argument for the representative democracy that already exists to operate as a representative democracy instead of a representative democracy with a potemkin monarchy. Brexit is being used here … as an example of how major political and governmental decisions like this can have disastrous consequences if they’re made in rashly on glib, simplistic premises.b) Brexit was not made on rashly glib, simplistic premises. Brexit was made on deliberately, knowingly contradictory promises. Everyone involved knew it was impossible to square the circle, but also realized it was a lever they could wield to get closer to power (fuck, even Cameron thought calling the referendum was a way to shut up the UKIP wing) while assuming they could hedge just enough that they could step in after someone else’s head fell for the fuckups.
I’m sure there could be downsides, but this isn’t really a power play (it’s not like some Canadian politician is going to sense a vacuum, and declare himself interim Queen of Canada), so it has such different dynamics that it doesn’t really make sense to compare.
What you fail to grasp (again, I’m beginning to suspect deliberately)It’s either deliberate or they are in middle school.
I do not want to be as confrontational as IMS, but I agree with him/her/them. All laws currently in existence will continue unless Parliament expressly repeals or amends them.
Sorry but strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
the aquatics of it all has actually given room for our legislation to be a lot more flexible than comparatively a much more rigid American system. The royal family can live in a shitty little flat somewhere, idc, but dismantling an entire legal system because someone doesn’t understand how constitutional law works isn’t it.
Our whole legislative system would be affected: hard to have Royal Assent without a royal. I’m sure it could be done, but not easily.
Plenty of other countries get along fine without a royal family. It’s an out-dated concept. So some paperwork needs to be re-written. Not a reason to keep a royal family.
No one is saying it can’t be done. However, it will be a huge headache to do it properly. The royal family is not the actual problem here, it’s our legislative system and how Parliament works. I’m no monarchist, but I recognize that it isn’t a matter of just switching out the art on the money.
No one is saying it can’t be done. However, it will be a huge headache to do it properly.
I’m not hearing a reason not to do it. Anything worth doing is worth doing right.
The royal family is not the actual problem here, it’s our legislative system and how Parliament works.
Then lets change how our legislative system & parliament works. Plenty of countries have parliaments and crown.
I’m no monarchist
And yet you’re here trying to explain why it’s too complicated rid of them.
but I recognize that it isn’t a matter of just switching out the art on the money.
So some paperwork needs to be re-written. You haven’t given any reasons not to re-write it. So let’s get to it.
Listen, I really am no monarchist. My family is métis and many attended residential schools. What I’m taking issue with is your insistence that it would be as simple as swapping out the money. It’s definitely a project worth taking on, but it’s ridiculous to insist that it’s a simple fix.
“However, it will be a huge headache to do it properly.”It’s fucking paperwork.
And what paperwork would that be?
As someone that is currently doing a pile of paperwork, it’s a fucking headache.
I hear ya. I spent 15 years killing a small forest worth of paper. I still shudder whenever I have to sign my name.
As someone that is currently doing a pile of paperwork, it’s a fucking headache.
Doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.
it’s way more than that lol
It really isn’t. It’s just paperwork.
that what a republic is, right? the queen/reigning monarch isn’t the head of state any more.from what i can tell, commonwealth republics tend to just go ahead with the westminster system. there’s talk about changing up things, but it’s not like it has to be done right away.
I would like to look into how Barbados did it. I suspect it was simpler there because in comparison, Canada has a weird history with the confederation of provinces and I don’t think they had that there. Canada is basically a bunch of provinces and territories stitched together. A frankencountry, if you will.
canada being a so-called first world country bodes well for self-determination. republics or not, a lot of the smaller commonwealth countries are still beholden to ex-coloniser whims.it’s not an overnight thing, for sure. heck, chile is still trying to figure out a new constitution 30 years after their dictatorship.
Pfft I dare you to name ONE successful country that doesn’t have a King or Queen. It’s unheard of!
It’s true. The US had Elvis and Aretha
Which was passed down to Micheal and Madonna..
Some countries have sultans or emirs.
/whooooosh.
I forgot about emperors.
Last time we tried to rewrite some paperwork Quebec wouldn’t sign it.
Last time we tried to rewrite some paperwork Quebec wouldn’t sign it.
Fuck Quebec. If 12 out of 13 are in favour, then too bad for the 1 that disagrees. That’s how democracy works. I’m sick & tired of Quebec holding the rest of this country hostage. Fuck Quebec.
I don’t mean to say it will be Quebec that is against the change (I’m sure they would be in favour of replacing the head of state), but it’s not that easy to make sweeping changes to the constitution of a country while getting everyone to agree.
Alberta would likely not sign this time around either, given our insane Conservative leadership candidates.QC is very different than i was in the 80’s. There is a greater chance that QC signs than Alberta does.
Alberta would likely not sign this time around either, given our insane Conservative leadership candidates.Then fuck Alberta, too. Majority rules.
QC is very different than i was in the 80’s.
Is it, though? Their primary concern is still protecting the French language that most people don’t want to speak.
Fuck You, You dont just get to say “Fuck Alberta” There is a lot of us here putting up with this authoritarian shit the Conservatives are pulling. Going into a situation like this, requires a steady hand, not a stick and a sign saying “fuck you if you dont agree” That is just colonialist bullshit language. It is a massively complex and complicated issue, not a simple flip of a switchQC is massively different. Most of the older generation that pushed QC to the brink, have died off. Having gotten to be around some fellow youth from QC around that time, it was a massive generational divide. Sure QC should fight for the French language, it is a Provincial issue, so no one else should have a say. Hell i think French should be mandatory learning in school up in to high school across the county.
There’s good fishing in Quebec
I tend to agree, but one good thing of a (ceremonial) monarch is that patriotic affection can be directed towards the monarch rather than the current elected leader. Which is handy when the current elected leader isn’t the one you wanted.
one good thing of a (ceremonial) monarch is that patriotic affection can
be directed towards the monarch rather than the current elected leader.
Patriotic affection shouldn’t be directed at a person.
Yeah! It should be directed towards a piece of colored cloth like Americans do! And when said cloth is burned or otherwise treated with disrespect you should get angry! So much more logical than directing affection towards an actual person!
You don’t need to print Bitcoin, silly.
And of course, once Lucky Pierre becomes our PM, the invidious influence of the WEF on our country’s governance will be eliminated, and everything will be great. Just great.
No, you’d keep the governors, maybe rename them “President”, otherwise you end up with America, and no one wants to end up like America:You get an executive with carte-blanche powers who is also meant to be the psychospiritual heart of the nation.
The money would have to change now anyway, it’s just a matter of with or without His Royal Big-Ears.
You can’t deny the horrible bullshit the monarchy caused throughout the world though. Yes, it would be complicated but we NEED to do it. Fuck England and fuck the Commonwealth, seriously.
Didn’t South Africa leave the commonwealth?
do all commonwealth countries have a savings clause? i.e. no colonial laws can be challenged?that’s partly why it took us (a commonwealth country) so long to knock down our sodomy laws.
Let’s get to the real issue. The cost of rebranding…
As is tradition, she will be fed to her corgis.
She outlived all of them.
Only thanks to you, you corgi murderer.
She actually stopped breeding them several years ago so they wouldn’t be lonely.
There is one left. I am angling for my place in line to rehome it.
Not so! She had one corgi and a dorgi (Dachshund-Corgi mix) remaining.
A dachshund-corgi mix sounds redundant (but awesome).
She didn’t want any of them to outlive her. It was going well until she was gifted two more after Philip died. Maybe they get burned on her funerary pyre?
Yes. That is the way of things with royal pets. Interestingly, that’s where we get “hot dogs” from.
“Hey, this 95 year old woman’s husband is sick for probably the final time. Y’know what she needs? Puppies! Yep.”
I am fairly certain that being a rich monarch means that you get to enjoy all the great parts of down ownership without any of the hard work. I’m sure her serving staff was thrilled to be taking care of a puppy and a 95 year old woman.
Actually, tradition demands that her corgis be slayed and buried alongside her. Along with all her servants and concubines.
This is true, but they get one last meal.
The corgis, that is. The concubines will have to make due just like everyone else in Britain.
Damn , and you never had a chance to ask her opinion on whatever the fuck the name is of that Olivia Wilde movie you seem to desperately want to promote.
It’s almost as if this website is a paid publicity machine.
Florence Pugh! Florence Pugh!
All hail the Queen! Pugh or a republic!
omg lasers pugh pugh pugh
Are y’all really whining about the pop culture site covering the most talked about pop culture drama of the moment?
“most talked about pop culture drama”
My wife has near zero online presence and has heard all about it, it’s the biggest thing in pop culture news right now (besides the dead monarch). I’m sorry it doesn’t jibe with your dumb conspiracy theory that they’re doing extra paid publicity for a movie that garnered a lukewarm review from the site.
Good for her. It can be so dehumanizing around here.
It is the most talked about pop culture drama of the moment.Surprise surprise, most pop culture is dumb as shit.That said, AV Club didn’t always cater to this brand of pop culture ephemera quite so enthusiastically.
Well, yeah, because the AV ones get to do the talking, then report on it. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. It’s like that Brazilian reporter who killed all those people so he could report on the serial killings, except no one expects the Neo AV Club to have that level of gumption.
Usually I’d agree, but “Harry Styles spat on Chris Pine?!?!” was all over social media for a while, way beyond the reach of sites like this. People I know who don’t give a single sweet shit about modern pop culture still somehow heard about it. It was a moment just weird enough to break out.
AV Club is the place for botany news isn’t it?
Don’t Worry Your Highness
How long was the standing ovation the Queen got for dying?
Reggie Jackson’s mission is finally complete.
Imust killthe queen
Where’s Enrico Palazzo when you need him?
“Hey look! It’s Enrico Pallazzo!”
My t-shirt from 1986 predicted this.
And Morrissey was finally right about something
Counterpoint: Fuck that miserable semi-fascist racist. Least talented member of The Smiths
Even a stopped, miserable, asshole of a clock is right once. 36 years later, anyway.
Immediately thought of this upon hearing the news…
She meant a lot of different things to a lot of different people, as figureheads often do. Some of my friends are mourning, others are celebrating.
As for me, I’m somewhere in the middle. I never took the Oath of Allegiance, and never would. Still, I was technically her subject, and her very existence provided a weird sort of constancy.
At the end of the day, regardless of how I value the institution she ruled over, she did her duty, and for a very long time. I can respect that at a very fundamental level — and if that requires, at this very moment, to temporarily overlook everything else she stood for, then so be it.
End of an era, man — Curious to see how succession will play out. The UK could just become the K, given how things have been going. Interesting times…
While never having been a subject of The Crown, I am fascinated by the sense of duty The Queen possessed. History written long after I’m gone will determine the effects she had on the next generations. I believe Charles to be a placeholder until William ascends which may see the largest shift in how the monarchy is portrayed and behaves.If Truss can keep things together, maybe Scotland doesn’t continue to speak of independence and Ireland getting concerned about Brexit effects, along with their population still war weary but resolved to continue for autonomy.
Scotland may finally pull the trigger on independence, and Northern Ireland is teetering. Wales appears to be staying put, though, so I guess the U part of UK could still have a use, should the two other members of the U leave. A union with fewer members is a union nonetheless.I’m not even sure that the Queen’s passing will impact any of this, though, honestly. Feels like the wheels are already in motion. At least she won’t be around to see them come off.
On this side of the pond it’s hard to determine how much the Queen was quietly steering things and how much was her being prompted in a direction as the behest of the PM and Parliament. I hadn’t considered Wales an issue, but we rarely hear discontent on their part over here. The Empire’s influence obviously has diminished faster during Elizabeth’s time than any other in British history, that whole sphere of influence falling to economic factors and outside foreign influences. Guess the world will have to see how the new Monarch holds himself on the world stage. Few alive who can speak with authority to life before and likely we see shorter periods between generations given her 71 years puts the rest incapable of matching that due to simple math.
Wales appears to be staying put, thoughSure, but that’s just because they’re hoping Swansea and Cardiff City can get back in the Premier League.
The issue is that (at the time of writing and supreme court case pending) the SNP can’t pull the trigger because they don’t have the powers required. They were relying on angry popular support to force Westminster’s hand which… didn’t really happen, and polls are more or less the same as they were in 2014.While the Republicans gaining the top job in NI is significant, it was largely due to Unionist infighting rather than a genuine surge in support for unification. I think Sinn Fein gained something like 1-2% of the vote, while the DUP lost 7 or 8% to other more hardcore unionist parties and soft unionists Alliance.There’s a chance that having Republicans in charge will normalise the idea and lead to faster change, but there’s a long way to go.
Good analysis, though I feel like you’d agree that the wheels are in motion, which is what I was referring to? Could be decades, but still…Brexit happened with a slim margin. First-past-the-post Westminster systems can get a lot done with like 40% of the electorate.
The SNP will continue angling for independence — their literal, actual raison d’être — and the trade barriers keeping Northern Ireland outside the UK proper will continue being an irritant.
The union is not getting any stronger, is what I’m saying.
Truss is going to absolutely (continue to) fuck up Brexit for NI, though right? And I reckon she’s not going to grant Sturgeon a referendum, which, while not the answer SNP want, might be strategically their best outcome.
And Plaid Cymru is basically where SNP was about 20 years ago. The difference between the Covid response in Wales and England has cast a lot of harsh light on the relationship.
The economics of Brexit were ill-conceived and given the mess that the EU is staring down as a result of Russia flexes its muscle over energy shipments, the only result that makes sense is closer ties not complete autonomy. I recognize that the EU has stated that Brexit must continue but hopefully smarter heads find a method to keep most industrial ties working.The EU is headed for a huge energy crisis this coming winter and the signs are growing of civil unrest that could become a larger, more violent movement. But Truss can’t model herself on Thatcher either… the Iron Lady got quite a few things wrong along the way.
I believe Charles to be a doorstop.
This is the most balanced comment I’ve read about this all day.
she did her duty Her duty was what, exactly? As far as I can tell, it was to wave and to generate tourist dollars.
She also cut ribbons, man. Yeah she was a figurehead, though she did opine on policy (directly to the PM) once in a while, and skirted laws when she felt like it.A monarch in a constitutional, Westminster parliamentary democracy, basically. Complete with House of Lords. Monarch shit.
Okay, fine, I guess I’ll watch The Crown.Anyway, RIP. Interested to see what happens to the monarchy without her seemingly holding it together out of sheer force of will.
They can finally get to work on the finale now!
It’s really good.
Edward VIII, not Edward VII.What’s the fact-checking/editor situation at AVClub.com?
The AF Klub dos a fyne job ov checking on words.3
And identifying Charles as a “her”
It’s “Charlene” now. Don’t deadname King Charlene!
[VolunteerProofreader enters the chat]
I have a degree in British history and even I get the Edwards mixed up.
didnt they have a bunch of english and scotish ones so that its pretty weird
You’re thinking of the Jameses.Edward I was the evil one in Braveheart.Edward II was the gay one in Braveheart.Edward III was the generic medieval one. He outlived most of his kids.
Edward IV was the one from the War of the Roses.Edward V gets forgotten because he was never coronated before he was murdered.Edward VI was King Henry VIII’s son who also died young without kids and why England had three queens in a row after that.Edward VII – I felt like was Victoria’s son, and I just looked it up and that’s correct.Edward VIII was the Nazi one who abdicated.That took some Googling because there’s a lot of people in between them (mostly Henrys and Georges).
Hmmm. I’m pretty sure it’s Michael Douglas in the War of the Roses
*Edsward
Edward of New Jersey.
Worse than that:“Born on April 21, 1926 to King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, it initially never seemed probable that Elizabeth II would take the throne.”— no, she was born in 1926 to people who would become “King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother”, but the King in 1926 was her grandfather, George V. The rest of the paragraph seems right.
The rest of the paragraph seems right.Well, there’s this part in the next sentence. Although, given the context I’m almost willing to give the writer a pass:“Her father had taken the reigns after his older brother Edward VII abdicated the crown in 1936 in order to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson”
Is this your first day here? And first time reading a Hattie Lindert post?
There’s not even a situation, much less any editors.
There is now!
The answer is . . . none. None fact-checking/editor situation at AVClub.com.
Pretty sure another writer here claimed George VI was her grandfather.
Imagine caring at all about a fucking MONARCH in the year 2022.
I got a Venture Bros notification for this?
the queen is dead boys, and its so lonely on a limb
Rest in Piss
And so begins the dissolution of most of the remainder of Britain’s formal links to its former Dominions – and given how badly the Tories have screwed things up, probably not much more than even odds on England remaining in union with Scotland too.She led a privileged life, but you can’t argue that she wasn’t genuinely committed to service too. Could have followed her mother, who was by all accounts a reactionary upper class , but she didn’t.What I will be most interested in besides the dumpster fire of the Charles transition is if we start now getting much more detail on the personal life and beliefs of Elizabeth II; she guarded her secrets jealously when alive, and only a handful of accounts were ever published.
Calling it now: Queen Elizabeth was Satoshi Nakamoto.
Creator of Bitcorgi
members of the royal family including Prince Charles and her sister, Princess Anne
For a website that seriously uses the pronouns any so-called celebrity wishes to be known for you’re really sloppy when it comes to ordinary folks… Anne isn’t Elizabeth II.’s sister nor is Charles known as a she. But at least you know that Flash Miller is their majesty.
You sure Chuck’s a man?
Honestly, good fucking riddance. Fuck the monarchy and ALL of the fucking bullshit the “English Empire” caused throughout the world.
Americans realized the British Empire sucked hundreds of years ago and founded their own nation. And so the USA has been a force for good in the world ever since.
They were FOUNDED on good principles. The American Experiment has fucking failed though – they have not been a force of good ever since – in fact they fell off the fucking wagon pretty soon after their independence. Fuck America, seriously – fucking cesspool socially and intellectually that has taken the divide/conquer method of the British, perfected it to be economically instead and fucked the rest of the world over.
I was being sarcastic, but…yes.
Fair enough. My sarcasm meter these days is broken given the sheer number of right-wing shitheads that voice their dumbass opinions.
As an American, I’ve always found comfort in the fact that we only exist because Britain sucked so much, which really makes all of our faults and mistakes over the past three centuries theirs.
And so the USA has been a force for good in the world ever since.
Lol, yeah. Murka took one long look at British Imperialism and said, “We can do that better!”
She’s with Diana now. It’s not going well.
Maybe the monarchy can go with her. I mean as an American I got little skin in this game but her sons are both assholes. Gonna be hard to see the King of England and not recall that he once told his mistress he wanted to be her tampon.
I’ve never understood the controversy behind the tampon thing. I’d rather not be a tampon, myself, but who am I to kink-shame? There’s a lot of other bad shit to lay at Chuck’s feet is what I’m saying.
It’s not a controversy in mind as much as it’s just sorta a gross fact. And it just rolls into reminding the world how that who family treated Diana like shit. I’m sure we all have kinks that others may laugh at but none of are the king of England
I wouldn’t want to have a king or queen that wasn’t a freak in the sack.Honestly, considering the Diana situation (and his other family issues) I think Chuck should abdicate in favor of William. Give the monarchy a fresh start, if they’re insisting on keeping it over there. He’s just got too much baggage.
For a while I thought that was the plan. To just skip Charles. But I guess not. We will see in a few days
I mean…I wouldn’t blame him, he’s been waiting his entire life for this. But he’s such a dipshit.
She has three sons, Charles, Edward and Andrew. Hard to argue with her assessment of them, though.
Yeah I forgot about Edward but in my defense most everyone else does to
You know, I knew it would be Edward you left out, everybody does!
the second longest-ruling monarch in human history
You can’t drop that without telling us who’s #1!
Louis XIV, but only by two years.
Louis XIV. The Sun King. WHOA. So listen to this. The Beatles have two songs on Abbey Road called “Sun King” and “Her Majesty.” THEY PREDICTED THIS. And clearly, this proves Paul is dead for sure.
Well, creatively at least!j/k…peace’n love, peace AND LOVE, Sir Paul!
I’d argue Paul’s early solo work and his output with Wings is pretty good-to-great. He should have retired in 1980.
Louis XIV of France – I had to hit the Googs to figure it out.
Must be nice to be approved, those of us who didn’t need Google already knew the damn answer! Why am I even here?
I would have approved if I had seen your reply. Even when I request it to show pending, half the time they don’t load.
I don’t blame you, I’m just wondering why I’m bothering to comment on a site that doesn’t seem to want me to. But then I realize life is essentially meaningless, I have nothing better to do, and that I can’t stop visiting this site out of sheer inertia. It’s aggravating, though.
Most of us ask that at least once a day around here.
This is the first time in my life Elizabeth hasn’t been Queen of The United Kingdom. I’m 37 years old.
I’m 64, and same.
108 here, so I’ve seen a few.
I was here before the oceans drank Atlantis and the rise of the sons of Aryas. I’d say Liz 2 ranks in my top 5 Monarchs I’ve seen. She’s right under Gorgo The Eater if Genitals. People say he was a bit tense but he sure knew how to run a country.
Based on the name, I’m guessing lots of people were under Gorgo The Eater of Genitals.
So Gorgo would only eat you if you didn’t have genitals? That’s oddly specific of him.
In a row?
Hey, get back here!
46!
Ding Dong! The Witch Is Dead
Classic case of someone being really good at a job that shouldn’t exist. RIP Your Majesty. You seemed pretty cool, considering.
Although her handbags were what first caught my attention, her hat game was always on point. She did seem pretty cool, considering. I always felt like I had to apologize for my fascination with her, but it was there, regardless. I think her sense of duty was admirable and I loved listening to her Christmas speeches.
The Queen said she drank a Martini a day, and that is her secret to a long life. I am definitely gonna try that!
If the stories are true, she had several more than 1 every day.
Knowing the preferences of her class, they were probably dry as desert and smaller than a demitasse cup. One of mine could probably have kept her going for 3 days.
Then you need to read the reports from former employees, former chefs, etc. She typically drank at least 4 cocktails per day.
Hopefully Charles III’s first royal decree will be to abolish Kinja. Otherwise, I look forward to his bloody reign of terror.
“The Queen’s monarchy journey saw some growing pains during Charles’ turbulent marriage to Princess Diana and subsequent divorce.”Hardcore college admissions essay vibes here.
“monarchy journey” is an odd phrase to use. I would have said ‘reign.’
She was working on Tuesday, at 96. That’s a woman who deserves to rest in peace.
and looked pretty good despite a purple hand. Some thought that was a sign of leukemia and then two days later she’s dead. That was quick!
I’m sure one of the Southern states will allow employers to deny insurance claims based on Purple Hand Disease soon enough. REliGouS FrEeDoM and all that.
I wonder if Charles will now appear in the Daily Mail, dressed in his mother’s bridal veil?
Ok and now there gets to be an open to all, no holds barred royal rumble to establish the new monarch.No? Just some other worthless twat gets to be king because of birthright?
You spit on our best Chris.We take your queen.Chess, not checkers.
RIP Queen ElizabethThey never should have canceled Reign, that show fucking ruled
Well if nothing else the Queen gave us the amusing spectacle of pissy Canadians going at each other here…
I always thought Canadians were either like Bob and Doug McKenzie or the denizens of Degrassi. Is this true?
This episode of the Crown sucks.
Some of my friends are in mourning, which I do find odd as Americans. That’s not to say those friends don’t have every right to be sad, just as they were when Betty White died. What I find unnerving, especially on more anonymous social media platforms like Twitter, are the callously untimely jabs at the Queen and her family. I will never understand people who insist on twisting the knife. Lots of people have negative opinions about the monarchy, and they’ve had their whole lives to air those grievances. Today is not the day.Many did the same when Nancy Reagan died. Neither woman was perfect, but both were mothers and grandmothers and had families who saw them as the flawed and mundane people they were in private family gatherings, just like our own Gam-Gams and Gizmos during Christmas or Passover. Today those children and grandchildren are grieving not as royals, but as human beings. An old lady has passed. Allow some time before unleashing your armchair critique of the monarchy’s modern day relevance.The day someone dies was once the time when even the most monstrous peanut gallery agreed to remain silent. Not so much anymore. We’ve lost a lot of tact and empathy over the last two decades, and the passing of someone so undeniably graceful in the most historic definition of the word offers us a lot to reflect on with who we are and how we react as a society.For me, the passing of someone like Queen Elizabeth obviously isn’t personal. To very few it truly is. But it is cause to reflect on loss, particularly of an era marked by societal decency. I feel the way I did when we lost Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds within two days. Here were two members of Hollywood’s aristocracy, two women of privilege. But they were two women who never abused that privilege. They held careers they clearly enjoyed and enjoyed them because they made others happy. In the case of Reynolds, like the Queen, she marked the end of an era in which her colleagues held their positions to respectable standards. This era has been largely usurped by Insta-famous YouTube personalities and reality television “stars” who perform first for themselves, their audiences just sacrifices offered up for their egos. As Colonials, it’s not odd that the United States assigns our pop culture royals as Kings and Queens. We look for figure heads beyond the confines of elected officials, and maybe if they were officiated, our elected officials wouldn’t be so…colorful. But Marlene Dietrich and Elvis Presley were figureheads who recognized themselves as employees of their audiences. Donald Trump and Kanye West are pop culture dictators who command a cult, and the ugliest side of any monarchy.I can only hope Queen Elizabeth’s successive Windsors do a better job at maintaining her level of respectability. Because Jeff Bezos, who holds over 250 times the wealth of Queen Elizabeth, is ready to drop a royal docudrama on Prime the moment the first royal decides to cash out.
So, where’s Johnny Rotten on all of this?
A literal end of an era. RIP. Though if ever there was a bad omen for Liz Truss…
Send Thatcher my regards.
Well, the Sex Pistols tried their hardest.
members of the royal family including her son, Prince Charles, and her sister, Princess AnneAnne is her daughter, not her sister. Her sister died twenty years ago. Nor does Charles identify as female.Born on April 21, 1926 to King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother, it initially never seemed probable that Elizabeth II would take the throne. Her father had taken the reigns after his older brother Edward VII abdicated the crown in 1936 in order to marry American socialite Wallis Simpson, making Elizabeth II the throne’s heir apparent. The tenses here are kind of messed up; her parents weren’t George VI and Queen Elizabeth when she was born. They’d be “the future King George VI and Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother…”, and it would be clearer to say that “her father would succeed to the throne after his older brother Edward VII abdicated…”. I mean, I’ve come to expect that the proofreading and fact-checking standards of the AV Club are not what they once were. But seriously, if you are going to chime in regarding the death of the longest-reigning British monarch, you might want to put at least a little more effort in. It’s kind of a big moment.