God Save His Majesty Charles III, King of the United Kingdom
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/30/Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom_%283-2_aspect_ratio%29.svg/1200px-Flag_of_the_United_Kingdom_%283-2_aspect_ratio%29.svg.png)
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1567928275913121792?t=kUm7-jZ0wK8-TD8Folyl5Q&s=19
QuoteThe Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon.
The King and The Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow.
Actually CNN just reported her death.
All Hail King Charles
RIP.
Rest in Peace.
Truly the end of an era.
La reine est morte. Vive le Roi!
RIP, old lady. You were pretty cool, sometimes.
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 08, 2022, 12:39:51 PMLa reine est morte. Vive le Roi!
RIP, old lady. You were pretty cool, sometimes.
The old lady jumped out an airplane with James Bond to start the 2012 Olympics! Damn right she was cool.
The Queen is Dead. God Save the King.
RIP.
It is incredibly jarring hearing the BBC immediately jump to "the King and his consort" etc.
RIP :(
The Queen my lord is dead
Wow. I never thought this day would come somehow.
RIP Liz.
Good luck Chuck.
Well thats unexpected today.
Rest in peace. :(
Very impressive life.
Since my job title has the word "Crown" in it I'm waiting to see if we have any particular instructions on what to do as a result. Nothing so far. Flags at the Edmonton Police that I can see out my window have not been lowered.
You know what - with Ukraine making advances in the war, and with Her Majesty passing away, I think today is the day to take down the Ukrainian flag and put up the Canadian one again (at half mast of course).
Rest in peace.
I also wonder what Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench is going to do. Do they immediately order lawyers to start using "King's Bench"? Do they keep QB for a time for a more orderly transition? Do they keep the name QB?
Or does someone decide this is the opportunity to rename it entirely? Only the prairie provinces and New Brunswick use QB as the name of our superior court.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:02:45 PMI also wonder what Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench is going to do. Do they immediately order lawyers to start using "King's Bench"? Do they keep QB for a time for a more orderly transition? Do they keep the name QB?
Or does someone decide this is the opportunity to rename it entirely? Only the prairie provinces and New Brunswick use QB as the name of our superior court.
I wonder if this could lead to any legal shennanigans.
"Oh, it was the Queen who had this case against me, not the King".
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:02:45 PMI also wonder what Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench is going to do. Do they immediately order lawyers to start using "King's Bench"? Do they keep QB for a time for a more orderly transition? Do they keep the name QB?
Or does someone decide this is the opportunity to rename it entirely? Only the prairie provinces and New Brunswick use QB as the name of our superior court.
QCs immediately become KCs (and weird to think I'll probably never see another QC in my lifetime). I'd assume the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court will also just become the King's Bench. It seems like it'd make sense to move to a different name for provincial superior courts though.
A Tweet by The Toronto Star, today, is so true:
The Queen, who died Thursday at age 96, was the last royal to wholly personify the traits of duty, discretion and personal dignity.
Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 01:07:08 PMA Tweet by The Toronto Star, today, is so true:
The Queen, who died Thursday at age 96, was the last royal to wholly personify the traits of duty, discretion and personal dignity.
That's a really backhanded compliment at her family. Poor taste.
Still very odd - but a statement from the King:
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1567936934290329608?s=20&t=R-nUa3nb1e0nx64RWSxIkA
Quote from: Josquius on September 08, 2022, 01:04:50 PMI wonder if this could lead to any legal shennanigans.
"Oh, it was the Queen who had this case against me, not the King".
I strongly doubt it. The style of cause could be easily amended.
But then again - do we need to amend the style of cause on every single criminal file before the courts? :o
Presumably that's why its R v anyone and the Crown that's prosecuting? :hmm:
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:11:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 08, 2022, 01:04:50 PMI wonder if this could lead to any legal shennanigans.
"Oh, it was the Queen who had this case against me, not the King".
I strongly doubt it. The style of cause could be easily amended.
But then again - do we need to amend the style of cause on every single criminal file before the courts? :o
I thought is was always "the crown vs", not "the queen vs"?
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2022, 01:13:34 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:11:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 08, 2022, 01:04:50 PMI wonder if this could lead to any legal shennanigans.
"Oh, it was the Queen who had this case against me, not the King".
I strongly doubt it. The style of cause could be easily amended.
But then again - do we need to amend the style of cause on every single criminal file before the courts? :o
I thought is was always "the crown vs", not "the queen vs"?
The originating document is either an information or an indictment. Both list "Her Majesty the Queen" at the top.
It's usually shortened to R v Whomever, but the original court documents are more formal.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:11:04 PMQuote from: Josquius on September 08, 2022, 01:04:50 PMI wonder if this could lead to any legal shennanigans.
"Oh, it was the Queen who had this case against me, not the King".
I strongly doubt it. The style of cause could be easily amended.
But then again - do we need to amend the style of cause on every single criminal file before the courts? :o
The whole thing could have been avoided if you'd switched to female only succession.
Interesting. Sounds like a pain to fix, if it does indeed need fixing. Though I guess easier is a digital age.
You have at least three generations of kings coming so you shouldn't have to change it again for awhile.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2022, 01:22:43 PMYou have at least three generations of kings coming so you shouldn't have to change it again for awhile.
As long as they don't take up jousting like the French Kings did.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:02:45 PMI also wonder what Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench is going to do. Do they immediately order lawyers to start using "King's Bench"? Do they keep QB for a time for a more orderly transition? Do they keep the name QB?
Or does someone decide this is the opportunity to rename it entirely? Only the prairie provinces and New Brunswick use QB as the name of our superior court.
Apparently it's states in the statute that even though the statute is named the Court of Queen's Bench Act, that during the reign of a King it will be called the Court of King's Bench.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 12:57:57 PMYou know what - with Ukraine making advances in the war, and with Her Majesty passing away, I think today is the day to take down the Ukrainian flag and put up the Canadian one again (at half mast of course).
Keep the Ukrainian flag up, they need the spirit more than the Royals.
Quote from: viper37 on September 08, 2022, 01:55:31 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 12:57:57 PMYou know what - with Ukraine making advances in the war, and with Her Majesty passing away, I think today is the day to take down the Ukrainian flag and put up the Canadian one again (at half mast of course).
Keep the Ukrainian flag up, they need the spirit more than the Royals.
But that's just it - I don't think they do right now. They're kicking Russian ass right now.
The passing of an age, it feels like. :(
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2022, 02:12:27 PMThe passing of an age, it feels like. :(
It does indeed. For most of us in commonwealth countries she would be the first political figure to enter our awareness given her how ubiquitous she is on our money. Not many of us carry cash around any more, but "who is the lady on our coins?" is still something I remember explaining to my own kids, and being fascinated by as a kid myself.
It'll be curious to see her steadily face away as Charles money steadily replaces Elizabeth money.
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2022, 02:12:27 PMThe passing of an age, it feels like. :(
Yeah there's an age in her father's funeral not being televised and her death being announced by Tweet.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 02:27:05 PMQuote from: Syt on September 08, 2022, 02:12:27 PMThe passing of an age, it feels like. :(
Yeah there's an age in her father's funeral not being televised and her death being announced by Tweet.
Her own coronation was one of the first huge live TV events IIRC?
Quote from: Syt on September 08, 2022, 02:31:59 PMHer own coronation was one of the first huge live TV events IIRC?
Yeah. I think so - certainly in the UK I think it was when a lot of families got their first TV specially to watch.
QuoteIt'll be curious to see her steadily face away as Charles money steadily replaces Elizabeth money.
I hadn't even thought of the money - but yeah that, the stamps, the post boxes (very slowly) etc.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 02:36:14 PMI hadn't even thought of the money
Of course not. You grew up in a castle. I doubt you've ever carried money in your life.
She lived a good life. God save the King.
It is going to cost a mint to change our money over
Fun twitter thread about a Canadian citizenship ceremony held today over Zoom.
Seemed like a lengthy delay about who the new citizens are to swear allegiance to, but they go ahead pledging allegiance to King Charles III, King of Canada. The Queen is dead, God Save the King.
https://twitter.com/robroc/status/1567933492859736073
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2022, 02:43:39 PMOf course not. You grew up in a castle. I doubt you've ever carried money in your life.
:lol:
QuoteIt is going to cost a mint to change our money over
Just do it gradually as you issue and withdraw notes, no? I think older generations would have currency with the Queen and George VI on their money - until decimalisation at least.
Incidentally on Charles - I think him and William are going to lean heavily into environmental issues. There was already a hint of that at the jubilee but I also think they'll use it as a bridge to younger generations - and it's something Charles has banged on about for fifty years. It is political but basically there's not really any climate change denial in the UK so it's probably safely political for them to regularly say we need to generally do stuff for the environment.
Lots of small changes to take place, not the least of which is the retirement of the Machin silhouette from all UK and many commonwealth stamps.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AStamp-GB_Machin_4d_red.jpg%23%2Fmedia%2FFile%3AStamp-GB_Machin_4d_red.jpg&hash=c36b18c6f49293dc71bae36cf8cb40ba011cf191)
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:08:05 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 01:07:08 PMA Tweet by The Toronto Star, today, is so true:
The Queen, who died Thursday at age 96, was the last royal to wholly personify the traits of duty, discretion and personal dignity.
That's a really backhanded compliment at her family. Poor taste.
?
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 02:58:58 PMFun twitter thread about a Canadian citizenship ceremony held today over Zoom.
Seemed like a lengthy delay about who the new citizens are to swear allegiance to, but they go ahead pledging allegiance to King Charles III, King of Canada. The Queen is dead, God Save the King.
https://twitter.com/robroc/status/1567933492859736073
I was curious if you were going to call him Charles I, King of Canada. I guess you are going to keep with the English Regnal count like the UK does. (Despite there only ever being one Elizabeth of the UK)
Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 03:05:38 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:08:05 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 01:07:08 PMA Tweet by The Toronto Star, today, is so true:
The Queen, who died Thursday at age 96, was the last royal to wholly personify the traits of duty, discretion and personal dignity.
That's a really backhanded compliment at her family. Poor taste.
?
Personal dignity is not allowed to royals who grew up in the tabloid era.
Quote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 03:05:38 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:08:05 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 01:07:08 PMA Tweet by The Toronto Star, today, is so true:
The Queen, who died Thursday at age 96, was the last royal to wholly personify the traits of duty, discretion and personal dignity.
That's a really backhanded compliment at her family. Poor taste.
?
It's saying that her kids do not personify those things.
Why take a swipe at the kids? Just say that she personified those virtues and leave it at that.
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2022, 03:06:43 PMI was curious if you were going to call him Charles I, King of Canada. I guess you are going to keep with the English Regnal count like the UK does. (Despite there only ever being one Elizabeth of the UK)
There's an important constitutional case here which was originally brought by a Scot who objected to her being Elizabeth II not Elizabeth I on official documents, post boxes etc in Scotland :ph34r:
It's mainly important because of some obiter remarks by the Lord Advocate that parliamentary sovereignty is "a distinctively English principle" with no equivalent in Scottish law. He also added that parliament couldn't repeal or fundamentally alter the Act of Unioin - it would need, in some form, an equivalent Scottish act. It's been approvingly quoted by Scottish Law Lords/Supreme Court Justices since but not really touched by the rest of the court. After chatting about that he basically said the monarch can call themselves whatever they want, including the number :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 03:00:47 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 08, 2022, 02:43:39 PMOf course not. You grew up in a castle. I doubt you've ever carried money in your life.
:lol:
QuoteIt is going to cost a mint to change our money over
Just do it gradually as you issue and withdraw notes, no? I think older generations would have currency with the Queen and George VI on their money - until decimalisation at least.
Incidentally on Charles - I think him and William are going to lean heavily into environmental issues. There was already a hint of that at the jubilee but I also think they'll use it as a bridge to younger generations - and it's something Charles has banged on about for fifty years. It is political but basically there's not really any climate change denial in the UK so it's probably safely political for them to regularly say we need to generally do stuff for the environment.
The coinage was very interesting pre-decimalisation; with coins as far back as Victoria in your change :cool:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 03:16:43 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 08, 2022, 03:06:43 PMI was curious if you were going to call him Charles I, King of Canada. I guess you are going to keep with the English Regnal count like the UK does. (Despite there only ever being one Elizabeth of the UK)
There's an important constitutional case here which was originally brought by a Scot who objected to her being Elizabeth II not Elizabeth I on official documents, post boxes etc in Scotland :ph34r:
It's mainly important because of some obiter remarks by the Lord Advocate that parliamentary sovereignty is "a distinctively English principle" with no equivalent in Scottish law. He also added that parliament couldn't repeal or fundamentally alter the Act of Unioin - it would need, in some form, an equivalent Scottish act. It's been approvingly quoted by Scottish Law Lords/Supreme Court Justices since but not really touched by the rest of the court. After chatting about that he basically said the monarch can call themselves whatever they want, including the number :lol:
That's a common-sense way of dealing with it!
Besides, she has always been Queen Elizabeth II in Canada.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 08, 2022, 03:17:02 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 03:00:47 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 08, 2022, 02:43:39 PMOf course not. You grew up in a castle. I doubt you've ever carried money in your life.
:lol:
QuoteIt is going to cost a mint to change our money over
Just do it gradually as you issue and withdraw notes, no? I think older generations would have currency with the Queen and George VI on their money - until decimalisation at least.
Incidentally on Charles - I think him and William are going to lean heavily into environmental issues. There was already a hint of that at the jubilee but I also think they'll use it as a bridge to younger generations - and it's something Charles has banged on about for fifty years. It is political but basically there's not really any climate change denial in the UK so it's probably safely political for them to regularly say we need to generally do stuff for the environment.
The coinage was very interesting pre-decimalisation; with coins as far back as Victoria in your change :cool:
And long afterwards for the old shilling (5p) & two shilling (10p) coins which were legal tender up until 1990 & 1993 respectively. I certainly remember old pre-Elizabeth coins still being in circulation in the 1980s.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcJxeL5XEAAAl8i?format=jpg&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcJyJ91WQAgD4A3?format=jpg&name=900x900)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcJyP-VXgAMkf0L?format=jpg&name=900x900)
Does he always go on and on like that?
Quote from: Berkut on September 08, 2022, 03:46:02 PMDoes he always go on and on like that?
Yes. The BBC host was reading out statements from various former PMs and got to Johnson's -"we've got a statement now from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson. It's rather lengthy as you'll see - but, well, we'll just read it out". :lol:
As I say small blessing, but at the very least I don't get the sense Truss will want to be at the centre of attention for all this.
A, err, "Truth" from Trump on Truth Social:
QuoteMelania and I are deeply saddened to learn of the loss of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. Together with our family and fellow Americans, we send our sincere condolences to the Royal Family and the people of the United Kingdom during this time of great sorrow and grief. Queen Elizabeth's historic and remarkable reign left a tremendous legacy of peace and prosperity for Great Britain. Her leadership and enduring diplomacy secured and advanced alliances with the United States and countries...
It goes on in similar fashion. Nicely done.
Another post by Trump early today:
QuoteThe Perverts and Lowlifes of the Lincoln Project are back on, where else, Fox News. I thought they ran away to the asylum after their last catastrophic campaign, with charges made against them that were big time sleaze, and me getting many millions more votes in 2020 than I got in 2016. The Paul Ryun run Fox only has high standards for "Trump" ads, but not for anyone else. The Perverts should not be allowed to "false advertise," and Fox News should not allow it to happen. See you all in Court!!!
:lol:
Yup - totally written by the same guy!
Quote from: mongers on September 08, 2022, 03:04:08 PMLots of small changes to take place, not the least of which is the retirement of the Machin silhouette from all UK and many commonwealth stamps.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcommons.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFile%3AStamp-GB_Machin_4d_red.jpg%23%2Fmedia%2FFile%3AStamp-GB_Machin_4d_red.jpg&hash=c36b18c6f49293dc71bae36cf8cb40ba011cf191)
I was thinking also of all those queen's crowns they have to swap out now on signs, etc.
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:45:54 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:02:45 PMI also wonder what Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench is going to do. Do they immediately order lawyers to start using "King's Bench"? Do they keep QB for a time for a more orderly transition? Do they keep the name QB?
Or does someone decide this is the opportunity to rename it entirely? Only the prairie provinces and New Brunswick use QB as the name of our superior court.
Apparently it's states in the statute that even though the statute is named the Court of Queen's Bench Act, that during the reign of a King it will be called the Court of King's Bench.
Yup - apparently at least one Justice confirmed today in court they were sitting as the Court of King's Bench.
That story must rank up there about the queen.
I know it's 2022 and all that. I never watch TV.
But wow. The schedules. All 5 of the main channels non stop news. BBC 1 and 2 duplicates. BBC 3 and 4 off air saying you must watch bbc1. Lesser entertainment channels like e4 have regular programming with a big bar along the bottom saying important news, change the channel.
Aye this is a big event and it's really sad and all that but... This feels a tad OTT.
Michael Jackson dying got that level of non-stop coverage for days over here so it makes sense.
Granted being the king of pop might be a bigger deal than constitutional monarch.
As always happens when there's moments for gestures of solidarity - France really gets it, always deepens my view that we're sort of sibling nations. Among others Macron's very impressive statement, Paris turning off the Eiffel Tower's lights and the Elysee this evening:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcKDdldWYAMu0Pg?format=jpg&name=small)
Also reading Macron's statement can't help but shake the feeling he'd quite like to be a monarch - or remember his analysis about the "figure of the king" being the great "absentee" in French politics. There was a Le Monde column - perhaps on that sibling/neighbourly contrast - of Macron attempting to fill the royal void in France, while the Queen helped make Britain forget the anachronism of monarchy.
I don't know how to judge that sibling nations remark. That sounds like perhaps wishful thinking on the Brit side :lol: .
I dunno. I can see it. We bicker and call each other names and fight about absolutely everything... But when shit gets serious we have each others back.
I think there's something there. Compete with and want to beat each other, but tend to "get" it/each other when needed.
Plus two post-imperial middle powers with delusions of grandeur who have a history of fighting each other but are now close frenemies (especially militarily - there's a French general commanding a division of the British army).
Edit: And Macron's statement:
https://twitter.com/peddersophie/status/1567969171740442624?s=46&t=IxtG5xtPmQgdv3ibxtehbA
Only within the last 150 odd years once Germany got its shit together and the uk got nervous. The 800 years or so before that was a different story. Absolute mutual disdain verging on murderous hatred depending on the decade/war.
So at best you're now cousins with a past that cheer for the same football team but beyond that you have a strained relationship :P
Those 800+ years are part of it. All I'll see is you all seem to have very placid relations with your siblings :P
10 days of mourning in Canada.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2022, 05:36:59 PMOnly within the last 150 odd years once Germany got its shit together and the uk got nervous. The 800 years or so before that was a different story. Absolute mutual disdain verging on murderous hatred depending on the decade/war.
So at best you're now cousins with a past that cheer for the same football team but beyond that you have a strained relationship :P
Anglo-French wars tended to be pretty cordial affairs. :bowler:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 05:42:08 PMThose 800+ years are part of it. All I'll see is you all seem to have very placid relations with your siblings :P
Not all of us aspire to be the Gallagher brothers :D
Hey! They also teamed up against the Russians and the Spanish before that.
And Scotland and France were best buds, France even invented Calvinism for them. That was nice, right?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 05:42:08 PMThose 800+ years are part of it. All I'll see is you all seem to have very placid relations with your siblings :P
Same with Denmark & Sweden. Apparently ~30 wars and we're definitely "sibling nations".
QuoteSome theatres dimmed their lights on Thursday but most other performances went ahead as planned, including the Royal Shakespeare Company's productions of Richard III in Stratford-Upon-Avon and Matilda The Musical in London.
In a statement, the company quoted a passage from Shakespeare's Henry VIII, about the baby princess Elizabeth I: "She shall be, to the happiness of England / An aged princess; many days shall see her / And yet no day without a deed to crown it."
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 03:16:07 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 03:05:38 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:08:05 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 08, 2022, 01:07:08 PMA Tweet by The Toronto Star, today, is so true:
The Queen, who died Thursday at age 96, was the last royal to wholly personify the traits of duty, discretion and personal dignity.
That's a really backhanded compliment at her family. Poor taste.
?
It's saying that her kids do not personify those things.
Why take a swipe at the kids? Just say that she personified those virtues and leave it at that.
That would make it a backhanded insult, not compliment. i think.
Quote from: Jacob on September 08, 2022, 06:34:27 PMSame with Denmark & Sweden. Apparently ~30 wars and we're definitely "sibling nations".
Yeah - while I'm pleased at everyone's friendly relations with their family, being mates isn't quite what a sibling is in my mind. It's more there's a lot of shared history, a fair bit of competitiveness but, as Jos says, having their back when it comes down to it - but that may also be projection on my part :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 04:51:39 PMAlso reading Macron's statement can't help but shake the feeling he'd quite like to be a monarch - or remember his analysis about the "figure of the king" being the great "absentee" in French politics. There was a Le Monde column - perhaps on that sibling/neighbourly contrast - of Macron attempting to fill the royal void in France, while the Queen helped make Britain forget the anachronism of monarchy.
To be fair, as French President Macron is the Co-Prince of Andorra.
Just got notice, all QCs are now KCs
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2022, 07:45:54 PMJust got notice, all QCs are now KCs
Dairy Queen should change their name to capitalize on the free press
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2022, 07:55:16 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2022, 07:45:54 PMJust got notice, all QCs are now KCs
Dairy Queen should change their name to capitalize on the free press
That wouldn't make sense...Kings cannot produce dairy. :mad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gcVIRSO1vg
Double rainbow over Buckingham just before announcement.
It's blocked here. Apparently Canadians aren't allowed to see rainbows.
Quote from: HVC on September 08, 2022, 09:09:14 PMIt's blocked here. Apparently Canadians aren't allowed to see rainbows.
At least the ones transmitted via the United States
I only have one thing to say ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2022, 07:45:54 PMJust got notice, all QCs are now KCs
Québecers are Kebecers? :P
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 02:00:52 PMQuote from: viper37 on September 08, 2022, 01:55:31 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 12:57:57 PMYou know what - with Ukraine making advances in the war, and with Her Majesty passing away, I think today is the day to take down the Ukrainian flag and put up the Canadian one again (at half mast of course).
Keep the Ukrainian flag up, they need the spirit more than the Royals.
But that's just it - I don't think they do right now. They're kicking Russian ass right now.
Lot's of them are getting hurt and maimed by Russian artillery. That's a real plight. Meanwhile, Charles III has 500 millions in his bank account.
Quote from: Rex Francorum on September 08, 2022, 09:23:57 PMI only have one thing to say ;)
Glad you are back with us. But you do not have to wait for such extraordinary events to come back around, you know? ;)
Haendel is nice, btw. :)
Quote from: Tonitrus on September 08, 2022, 08:18:21 PMQuote from: HVC on September 08, 2022, 07:55:16 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 08, 2022, 07:45:54 PMJust got notice, all QCs are now KCs
Dairy Queen should change their name to capitalize on the free press
That wouldn't make sense...Kings cannot produce dairy. :mad:
In clownworld they can even be pregnant
That said: never thought it would happen, Charles becoming king that is. It was as if the queen would be here forever.
While most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 08, 2022, 04:51:39 PMThere was a Le Monde column - perhaps on that sibling/neighbourly contrast - of Macron attempting to fill the royal void in France, while the Queen helped make Britain forget the anachronism of monarchy.
I would rate Le Monde higher (much, much ;) than Le Monde Diplomatique, but it is still a very left leaning newspaper and as such, everything it writes about politician should be interpreted under that lense. I get the feeling it is more about disparaging Macron than anything else, given his... personal style.
I wouldn't say The Queen has ever attempted to make Britain (or its colonies) forget the anachronism of monarchy, quite the contrary. What kind of actions has she taken that would embody such vision?
I think Macron wouldn't mind going beyond the two term limit since he's young (44), but that doesn't mean he'd enjoy serving a life sentence at the Élysée. ;) There are lots of career opportunities for influential ex-politicians, should they wish to pursue some honest work. He'll likely play his cards well, try to maximize the chances that his successor is elected President and then get a nomination as ambassador to Canada and have regular chit-chats with Justin (who has no term limits and is unlikely to be defeated by the next two or three Conservative leaders) about the post-national world over some kombucha tea. ;)
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
And I wonder why... :)
I'm told that apparently the Swiss news announced she was dead at lunch time.
Other foreign media jumped the gun?
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
Fair few on twitter providing wonderful ammunition to the far right.
Is it still the Duke of Norfolk who organizes coronations?
Quote from: The Brain on September 09, 2022, 03:54:25 AMIs it still the Duke of Norfolk who organizes coronations?
Yes.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 03:56:43 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 09, 2022, 03:54:25 AMIs it still the Duke of Norfolk who organizes coronations?
Yes.
Cool. I saw some stuff about that in Arundel Castle.
Who better than the country's leading Roman Catholic to organise the coronation of the next Church of England's Supreme Governor?
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
Salty because it wasn't their countries building world spanning empires and engaging in the accompanying 'group activities'...
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
Yeah - though we are seeing very online people and I've seen a fair few references to them needing to stage an intervention with their elders :lol:
It is justified though. I've far less time for all the American blue tick shitposting which I find a bit weird.
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
I don't think they can beat the Argentinian show that started popping champagne to celebrate the news. :lol:
I liked this one:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcJ95RiWYAE-s0E.jpg)
Quote from: Valmy on September 08, 2022, 05:48:51 PMHey! They also teamed up against the Russians and the Spanish before that.
And Scotland and France were best buds, France even invented Calvinism for them. That was nice, right?
National shame of France. :( But no, Calvin eventually became Swiss. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 05:01:52 AMQuote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
Yeah - though we are seeing very online people and I've seen a fair few references to them needing to stage an intervention with their elders :lol:
It is justified though. I've far less time for all the American blue tick shitposting which I find a bit weird.
I say it doesn't feel like the time and place. If you don't have anything nice to say, you don't need to immediately have your say.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 09, 2022, 04:14:17 AMWho better than the country's leading Roman Catholic to organise the coronation of the next Church of England's Supreme Governor?
:hmm:
Makes sense cf. Fidei Defensor.
Question for the English from a dumb American: Who/what is a "gammon" and what does it mean?
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 09, 2022, 06:27:29 AMQuestion for the English from a dumb American: Who/what is a "gammon" and what does it mean?
Literally it is a kind of pork meat, but it has evolved into an insult for someone who is very right wing. A Brit can give some better context for that.
Quote from: Duque de Bragança on September 09, 2022, 06:10:42 AM:hmm:
Makes sense cf. Fidei Defensor.
Although I believe Charles had wanted to change that title to "defender of faith" or "defender of faiths" - wonder if he'll do it now. The Queen was very Christian and I'm sure Charles is too, but he's taken a really keen interest in Islamic philosophy and is known for having very close relations with Muslim and Jewish clerics especially.
QuoteI say it doesn't feel like the time and place. If you don't have anything nice to say, you don't need to immediately have your say.
To be honest with the Americans a lot of it looks (not for the first time) that being prominent on social media just leads you to basically being a high-functioning sociopath. Whether it's Trumpies telling people that they should give their thoughts and prayers to the royal family AND the Trump family because of how close they were or progressive Americans shitposting about how bad monarchy is - it just feels like a very weird inability to not try to inject yourself and your views (dialled to 11 for content) into things.
As I say I absolutely get it and think it is justified from Commonwealth diaspora in the UK, or countries that were victims of British imperialism, especially if they've only liberated themselves recently.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 05:01:52 AMQuote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
Yeah - though we are seeing very online people and I've seen a fair few references to them needing to stage an intervention with their elders :lol:
It is justified though. I've far less time for all the American blue tick shitposting which I find a bit weird.
I don't understand what this means. :shame:
Quote from: The Larch on September 09, 2022, 06:31:16 AMLiterally it is a kind of pork meat, but it has evolved into an insult for someone who is very right wing. A Brit can give some better context for that.
Yeah - like the reverse of snowflake (and referring to their florid colouring when they get angry which looks a bit like gammon). Eg the wall of gammon from Question Time:
(https://i.inews.co.uk/content/uploads/2018/05/Screen-Shot-2018-05-14-at-14.57.15.png)
:lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 06:31:22 AMTo be honest with the Americans a lot of it looks (not for the first time) that being prominent on social media just leads you to basically being a high-functioning sociopath. Whether it's Trumpies telling people that they should give their thoughts and prayers to the royal family AND the Trump family because of how close they were or progressive Americans shitposting about how bad monarchy is - it just feels like a very weird inability to not try to inject yourself and your views (dialled to 11 for content) into things.
As I say I absolutely get it and think it is justified from Commonwealth diaspora in the UK, or countries that were victims of British imperialism, especially if they've only liberated themselves recently.
I think you are being sloppy. It isn't just Americans who have that tendency but rather that social media users in general always feel like they have to be part of the conversation, they have to be active participants no matter if they have something worth saying or not.
Crowing on day 1 seems unnecessary whomever you are, especially given that person is dead. Literally nothing they can do anymore. The successor on the other hand...
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 05:01:52 AMQuote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 02:03:53 AMWhile most people seem to pay their respects, segments of the Irish, Kenyan, Indian, etc. response are a fair bit more ... jubilant. :ph34r:
Yeah - though we are seeing very online people and I've seen a fair few references to them needing to stage an intervention with their elders :lol:
It is justified though. I've far less time for all the American blue tick shitposting which I find a bit weird.
Is it?
I can maybe see it for e.g. Kenyans from groups who supported the maumau, that coming under her reign and the current state of histography on the topic.
But for Ireland?
Most of the bad shit came solidly before her reign, before her birth even. The queen was pretty good for for mending bridges.
Don't know how trustworthy this survey might be... :hmm:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcM-mxRXoAIcDiw?format=jpg&name=large)
Quote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 03:57:33 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:45:54 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 08, 2022, 01:02:45 PMI also wonder what Alberta's Court of Queen's Bench is going to do. Do they immediately order lawyers to start using "King's Bench"? Do they keep QB for a time for a more orderly transition? Do they keep the name QB?
Or does someone decide this is the opportunity to rename it entirely? Only the prairie provinces and New Brunswick use QB as the name of our superior court.
Apparently it's states in the statute that even though the statute is named the Court of Queen's Bench Act, that during the reign of a King it will be called the Court of King's Bench.
Yup - apparently at least one Justice confirmed today in court they were sitting as the Court of King's Bench.
That guy is in for a world of hurt after Queen Anne II cleans her brothers' blood off her blade at the cornoation
Quote from: garbon on September 09, 2022, 06:49:20 AMI think you are being sloppy. It isn't just Americans who have that tendency but rather that social media users in general always feel like they have to be part of the conversation, they have to be active participants no matter if they have something worth saying or not.
You're right - I'm seeing it more with blue tick Americans today, but that is possibly because I'm just following them more and because there's more of them around on social media. But you're right it is a general social media thing and not even limited to this - it's not the first time I've watched the terminally online and thought about this.
Quote from: The Larch on September 09, 2022, 06:58:18 AMDon't know how trustworthy this survey might be... :hmm:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcM-mxRXoAIcDiw?format=jpg&name=large)
17% is almost too high for France. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 06:31:22 AMAs I say I absolutely get it and think it is justified from Commonwealth diaspora in the UK, or countries that were victims of British imperialism, especially if they've only liberated themselves recently.
I think that people celebrating her death as a colonialist, while under her reign the British Empire voluntarily freed all of its colonies - is certainly an interesting take.
The British monarch is a symbol, and therefore it is also a symbol of the long history of the monarchy, and the long history of the United Kingdom, including the long history of British imperialism. That symbolism is, these days, the essence of the function. It goes with the territory.
Otherwise, she's a politician, and would require to ascribe decolonialism to her, as a personal decision, along with accountability (which is in direct contradiction with the idea of monarchy).
(Interestingly, this is very much similar to arguments erupting during the French Revolution. Louis XVI may have been a benign monarch, a nice person, and interested in reform in his own time, but you can't wrap yourself in history when it suits you, hope to wield it as a source of immense prestige and influence, and discard it when it backfires).
Well clearly the imperialism didn't bother the Indians or the Malaysians too much judging by that chart. Or if it did, it didn't impact their feelings about the British Monarchy.
So why does Spain hate the Windsors? Is it out of solidarity with Argentina?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 10:08:36 AMThe British monarch is a symbol, and therefore it is also a symbol of the long history of the monarchy, and the long history of the United Kingdom, including the long history of British imperialism. That symbolism is, these days, the essence of the function. It goes with the territory.
Otherwise, she's a politician, and would require to ascribe decolonialism to her, as a personal decision, along with accountability (which is in direct contradiction with the idea of monarchy).
(Interestingly, this is very much similar to arguments erupting during the French Revolution. Louis XVI may have been a benign monarch, a nice person, and interested in reform in his own time, but you can't wrap yourself in history when it suits you, hope to wield it as a source of immense prestige and influence, and discard it when it backfires).
People can, and do, say what they will about the monarchy. And certainly Queen Elizabeth represented the monarchy and the British state.
Yesterday though was the death of a person. And in that moment celebrating her death was in poor taste.
Of course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media.
That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.
On the topic of people with bad things to say about the monarchy, here is Liz Truss :lol:
https://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2022-09-06/clip-emerges-of-young-liz-truss-branding-monarchy-disgraceful
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 10:08:36 AMThe British monarch is a symbol, and therefore it is also a symbol of the long history of the monarchy, and the long history of the United Kingdom, including the long history of British imperialism. That symbolism is, these days, the essence of the function. It goes with the territory.
Otherwise, she's a politician, and would require to ascribe decolonialism to her, as a personal decision, along with accountability (which is in direct contradiction with the idea of monarchy).
(Interestingly, this is very much similar to arguments erupting during the French Revolution. Louis XVI may have been a benign monarch, a nice person, and interested in reform in his own time, but you can't wrap yourself in history when it suits you, hope to wield it as a source of immense prestige and influence, and discard it when it backfires).
Yes. There's a bit of the two bodies theory of the sovereign as well. The criticism of her from a colonised nation is not of her personal acts but as you say she exists as a symbol. It is a criticism of the historical source of much of the UK's wealth, it's historical legacy and the policies of British governments in the 20th century - I think it is fair to emphasise that it wasn't her who made the decisions of British governments in her reign, but by the same token I don't think she gets any of the credit for "winds of change" and decolonisation.
The only slight exemption I'd possibly make is apartheid because she did go to a Commonwealth meeting in Zimbabwe against the advice of the British government when relations were bad in the 80s, because she thought her role in the Commonwealth mattered more - and, as far as we know, it wasn't just an invention of The Crown the closeset she came to pushing constitutional limits was support for sanctions against South Africa again, against the Thatcher government's policies.
I suppose part of this also reflects the tension between the way the Queen (and possibly the UK) is seen from inside and outside. Because I think internally - and you saw this at the jubilee celebrations - the view of the Queen's reign is that she's there through enormous social change. She came to the throne at the centre of a (rapidly declining) empire that was monocultural, monochrome, grey, deferential, constrained - it was only three years after her accession that rationing ended; the UK now is - or sees itself as - post-imperial, multi-cultural, multi-racial, diverse and far more open. And I think there is a lot of truth to that but even if there wasn't it would still matter as the story/interpretation. So I think the internal story of the Queen in the UK has been that story where she's constant while the entire country changes around her, while the external story - especially, I think, the more distant you are from the Queen having some constitutional function which requires adaptation - is the unchanging symbol and that her meaning and interpretation hasn't changed since 1952. I think there is a tension there that is being reflected back.
A part of that is that I've read numerous by children of immigrants saying how much their parents love(d) the royals - I think this is a huge part of why the Windrush scandal was such a betrayal of people. There's been a trend of TikToks etc about mums going crazy about the Queen dying. I'd say over half of them have been women of colour with hashtags from their younger kids about desi, Ghanian, Nigerian, Congolese mums needing an intervention. I've always wondered if part of it is that national days being about weddings, new kids, funerals are really easily relatable to people from any culture - while a national being tied to a historic event or something similar requires a bit more explaining.
As an aside it is absolutely crazy seeing this stuff happen - because you get the theory of how monarchy as an institution survives etc. But seeing the announcement of the Queen's death in one paragraph then immediately saying the "King and Queen Consort" will stay at Balmoral overnight. Then today in parliament I think Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss and Keir Starmer's speeches all ended with "God save the King" - which is something that's been shouted and sung by the crowds at Buckingham Palace (including when Charles did a walkabout meeting people). It is really weird to see that they do actually do the whole "the Queen is dead, long live the King" thing.
QuoteOf course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media.
I think that's why I have find some of the takes from prominent Americans a bit more annoying/edgelord nonsense as you say. I saw an Irish journalist today drawing a distinction between Ireland and Irish responses and Irish-American responses saying that people talking about "Irish Twitter" were verging on misinformation. You can't help but think that in the US there's partly a bit of a displacement activity going on in discussing the consequences and evils of imperialism.
There is a difference between what people feel about the monarchy and what people feel about a given monarch. Similarly, I can feel that US police are too violence-prone, while not feeling that about the cops I know personally.
So, there's really no excuse for shitting on the death of the Queen because one doesn't like the monarchy in general.
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2022, 11:32:02 AMSo, there's really no excuse for shitting on the death of the Queen because one doesn't like the monarchy in general.
I'd add that politically if you support republicanism in the UK - looudly proclaiming how much you dislike the Queen/monarchy right now is probably not a winning strategy :lol: Political republicans wonder why they make so little progress when the times they get any attention are when people are happy bcause they've got the day off or are sad, and they just sound like puritan killjoys.
I was thinking about how cunning/clever constitutional monarchy is - as someone who would quite like a republic. Because it's strength is its weakness. It doesn't require a revolution to overthrow, it's really easy - you just have to make enough people care and that's a challenge because in day-to-day life it doesn't matter. So you're relying on slightly abstract principles. Plus the time when it should be easiest - like now when a popular monarch dies to be replaced by a less popular heir - are also the times when sympathy for the monarchy are at its peak. It's quite frustrating.
As an aside struck by Malcolm Turnbull who led the campaign for an Australian republic was quite teary on TV there talking about the Queen and by Paul Keating's really nice statement - again from a man who led the campaign in the 90s referendum for a republic.
As I said, that sort of detachment is easier if, say, to take your example, one never has been on the other end of a police taser. Symbolism "embodied" or "materialized" becomes a lot less academic, and tends to blur the line between the "two bodies" of any institution, a line that is never as neat as we'd like to posit anyways.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 11:11:44 AMOf course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media.
That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.
An indigenous person I follow on Twitter (because he posts interesting links to work by indigenous scholars and others advocating for indigenous rights) had this to say: "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II - a blessed journey."
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 11:30:10 AMA part of that is that I've read numerous by children of immigrants saying how much their parents love(d) the royals - I think this is a huge part of why the Windrush scandal was such a betrayal of people. There's been a trend of TikToks etc about mums going crazy about the Queen dying. I'd say over half of them have been women of colour with hashtags from their younger kids about desi, Ghanian, Nigerian, Congolese mums needing an intervention. I've always wondered if part of it is that national days being about weddings, new kids, funerals are really easily relatable to people from any culture - while a national being tied to a historic event or something similar requires a bit more explaining.
Just as an aside - My middle son's name (born in 2012) is Charles, because my middle name (born in 1975) is Charles, because my dad's middle name (born in 1949) is Charles, because my very Ukrainian grandmother thought enough of the Royal Family to give him the same name as the then-baby Prince.
QuoteAs an aside it is absolutely crazy seeing this stuff happen - because you get the theory of how monarchy as an institution survives etc. But seeing the announcement of the Queen's death in one paragraph then immediately saying the "King and Queen Consort" will stay at Balmoral overnight. Then today in parliament I think Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Liz Truss and Keir Starmer's speeches all ended with "God save the King" - which is something that's been shouted and sung by the crowds at Buckingham Palace (including when Charles did a walkabout meeting people). It is really weird to see that they do actually do the whole "the Queen is dead, long live the King" thing.
Yeah I've been kind of fascinated by the whole process from a purely objective political basis.
I think a lot of people wondered that "sure, people love Liz, but once she passes people will rethink the monarchy". But the process as it has evolved over centuries (I suspect very deliberately) doesn't give any room for such second thought. The Queen is dead, Long Live the King. Charles sends out word almost immediately that he is King and what name he will take, I understand he's proclaimed King in some official format today. The fact that the funeral won't be held for some time, and the coronation for months and months are immaterial - Charles is King, and the "rally around the flag" sentiment is very real.
Over hear Her Majesty's death was announced in the morning, and by afternoon we received word that anything filed in superior Court should properly be addressed to the Court of King's Bench (though there will be a grace period).
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 11:44:47 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 11:11:44 AMOf course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media.
That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.
An indigenous person I follow on Twitter (because he posts interesting links to work by indigenous scholars and others advocating for indigenous rights) had this to say: "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II - a blessed journey."
While that is a respectful response and one I have no issue with, I do think it's one that's primarily expressed on Twitter.
Historically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy. Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother. First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 11:47:19 AMYeah I've been kind of fascinated by the whole process from a purely objective political basis.
I think a lot of people wondered that "sure, people love Liz, but once she passes people will rethink the monarchy". But the process as it has evolved over centuries (I suspect very deliberately) doesn't give any room for such second thought. The Queen is dead, Long Live the King. Charles sends out word almost immediately that he is King and what name he will take, I understand he's proclaimed King in some official format today. The fact that the funeral won't be held for some time, and the coronation for months and months are immaterial - Charles is King, and the "rally around the flag" sentiment is very real.
Yeah. It's really incredible.
I think tonight all the MPs re-take their oath of allegiance to Charles. I think the Accession Council is tomorrow at St James' Palace and then he's proclaimed King in London. I don't know if this is new or if it's always been the case - but my understanding is Charles then travels to all four nations and is officially proclaimed in Edinburgh, Belfast and Cardiff.
There really is just a machine of monarchy that rolls on. As you say it just doesn't allow space or gaps.
QuoteOver hear Her Majesty's death was announced in the morning, and by afternoon we received word that anything filed in superior Court should properly be addressed to the Court of King's Bench (though there will be a grace period).
Yeah - same here. I say this morning at Old Bailey they were referring to the "King's Justices". It's really been a week for incredibly rapid British transfers of power with a new PM and a new King in the same week.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 11:55:16 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 11:44:47 AMQuote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 11:11:44 AMOf course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media.
That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.
An indigenous person I follow on Twitter (because he posts interesting links to work by indigenous scholars and others advocating for indigenous rights) had this to say: "Despite the colonial injustices perpetrated by the British Monarchy against indigenous people, I would still like to wish her majesty Queen Elizabeth II - a blessed journey."
While that is a respectful response and one I have no issue with, I do think it's one that's primarily expressed on Twitter.
Historically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy. Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother. First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.
That is pretty archaic language BB, and embedded with a colonial view of the world.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:03:15 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 11:55:16 AMHistorically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy. Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother. First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.
That is pretty archaic language BB, and embedded with a colonial view of the world.
Of course it's archaic - I'm citing the 19th century.
And in my frequent dealings with indigenous people they don't use language like "colonialist". That kind of language is more common in academic circles and Twitter.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 12:12:53 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:03:15 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 11:55:16 AMHistorically, and I think to this day, many/most indigenous people had positive feelings towards the monarchy. Queen Victoria was the Great White Mother. First Nations were proud that they signed treaties not with the Canadian Government, but with the Crown, and there would be appeals to the monarch when they felt that they were being mistreated by provincial or federal authorities.
That is pretty archaic language BB, and embedded with a colonial view of the world.
Of course it's archaic - I'm citing the 19th century.
And in my frequent dealings with indigenous people they don't use language like "colonialist". That kind of language is more common in academic circles and Twitter.
Well, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time. I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother".
I guess my issue specifically with anti-monarchy feelings in Britain is that it seems kind of...irrational. Which is kind of weird considering we are talking about a very irrational institution.
But it not only serves a key part of the British Constitution but it also is a symbol of unity for the country in an era where that seems increasingly unstable. Then the monarch is head of the Commonwealth, which gives Britain a position of prestige it might not otherwise deserve. Likewise with the British monarchy being head of state to Antigua and Barbados, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. So this is an institution that seems to produce tons of benefits in the national interest with few drawbacks. It also gives the chattering classes something to waste their time on.
And replace it with what? Some figure-head president who will be some politician who will probably lack all the historical ties to Scotland and Wales and all those other countries. Not to mention there are probably a ton of unknown constitutional issues that would need to be solved. Seems like a huge cost to pay for very little gain.
So good on the monarchy, I guess, for making itself so useful.
I know the British have a rich recent history of shooting themselves in the foot and self-sabotage but creating a Republic seems so idiotic from the Bismarckian national interest perspective that I don't really get it. Why would you want to damage your nations interests for no gain? The Windsors would have to become so politically toxic that their presence is worse than their absence and despite trying hard to achieve this they seem to be in the clear from that perspective, at least for the foreseeable future.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2022, 12:18:12 PMSeems like a huge cost to pay for very little gain.
You have perfectly summed up why we still have a monarch as our head of state in Canada - and I suspect that is the reason the rest of the Commonwealth stays the course.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:16:30 PMWell, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time. I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother".
I agree that "Great White Mother" is a thoroughly historical term. But it speaks to that history.
And I suspect that between the indigenous people I deal with on a regular basis, and your indigenous clients, my experiences are more representative of indigenous people as a whole. And before you go there - no not the Accused people. I never speak with them after all. I mean all the witnesses, victims and family members.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2022, 12:18:12 PMI guess my issue specifically with anti-monarchy feelings in Britain is that it seems kind of...irrational. Which is kind of weird considering we are talking about a very irrational institution.
But it not only serves a key part of the British Constitution but it also is a symbol of unity for the country in an era where that seems increasingly unstable. Then the monarch is head of the Commonwealth, which gives Britain a position of prestige it might not otherwise deserve. Likewise with the British monarchy being head of state to Antigua and Barbados, Australia, the Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, the Solomon Islands, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Saint Kitts and Nevis. So this is an institution that seems to produce tons of benefits in the national interest with few drawbacks. It also gives the chattering classes something to waste their time on.
And replace it with what? Some figure-head president who will be some politician who will probably lack all the historical ties to Scotland and Wales and all those other countries. Not to mention there are probably a ton of unknown constitutional issues that would need to be solved. Seems like a huge cost to pay for very little gain.
It does seem worthwhile to point out that Barbados did become a Republic just last year. Apparently they thought it was worthwhile.
BUt yeah this partly points out why I support the monarchy. The monarch's role is 99.99% symbolic. But in the once or twice per century where there's a constitutional crisis who do you want to make that call - a partisan elected President? A President appointed by a partisan sitting government? A Court which was also appointed by a partisan sitting government?
It seems to me that in those rare cases having an elected monarch who has been selected by nothing more than the lottery of birth is a better choice. Even better if that person is overseas and is even more removed from any local pressures or influences.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:21:56 PMYou have perfectly summed up why we still have a monarch as our head of state in Canada - and I suspect that is the reason the rest of the Commonwealth stays the course.
I think it might be a bit mixed.
Jamaica is committed to moving to a republic which I think is entirely understandable - though I believe a republic only has 55% support so that might change as I believe they plan to hold a referendum. I think it is probably symbolically worth it there and in the Caribbean - but not uncontentious/universally popular.
I'd be surprised if Australia and maybe New Zealand didn't become republics in the next few years but I think the issue of what you have instead was what lost the last referendum in Australia and might happen again.
I don't know if Charles stays as head of the Commonwealth - and I'm incredibly cynical about the value of the Commonwealth because it seems pointless to me. But recently there have been countries who weren't part of the British empire joining (I think Rwanda and Mozambique - maybe others?) - so there must be some benefit to being in it, but I can't work it out. Similarly I saw Kevin Rudd who is a republican saying that the Commonwealth was actually very valuable and undervalued in the UK - but again I'm not sure why or how?
The calculus of how useful the monarchy is changes for the non-UK countries for sure. It just stupid from a UK perspective.
Why would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.
Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 12:30:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:21:56 PMYou have perfectly summed up why we still have a monarch as our head of state in Canada - and I suspect that is the reason the rest of the Commonwealth stays the course.
I think it might be a bit mixed.
Jamaica is committed to moving to a republic which I think is entirely understandable - though I believe a republic only has 55% support so that might change as I believe they plan to hold a referendum. I think it is probably symbolically worth it there and in the Caribbean - but not uncontentious/universally popular.
I'd be surprised if Australia and maybe New Zealand didn't become republics in the next few years but I think the issue of what you have instead was what lost the last referendum in Australia and might happen again.
I don't know if Charles stays as head of the Commonwealth - and I'm incredibly cynical about the value of the Commonwealth because it seems pointless to me. But recently there have been countries who weren't part of the British empire joining (I think Rwanda and Mozambique - maybe others?) - so there must be some benefit to being in it, but I can't work it out. Similarly I saw Kevin Rudd who is a republican saying that the Commonwealth was actually very valuable and undervalued in the UK - but again I'm not sure why or how?
I think Australia shows the exact problem why it's so difficult to move to a Republic.
First, it just isn't an issue many people care about that much to begin with. Very few people are worked up one way or another.
But second it's one thing to agree that a change is needed - another thing entirely to agree on what that change should be. We saw that in Canada in our 1992 constitutional referendum. Nobody was super happy with the existing constitution, but when a new version was agreed to by the politicians you couldn't get a majority of Canadians to vote in favour of them. Everybody found something in there to disagree with.
Commonwealth is the same. I don't know if it has a ton of value, and probably not something you'd create today from scratch, but more trouble than it would be worth to leave it.
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:40:44 PMWhy would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.
Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.
Of course I get all of that. But that is just ideological stuff, I am talking about the political reality and national self-interest.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2022, 12:37:56 PMThe calculus of how useful the monarchy is changes for the non-UK countries for sure. It just stupid from a UK perspective.
It is wrong on principle but I agree convincing people that we should change now is very difficult. At least until we have a monarch who oversteps the bounds or something similar.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2022, 12:43:04 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:40:44 PMWhy would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.
Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.
Of course I get all of that. But that is just ideological stuff, I am talking about the political reality and national self-interest.
How can you know its ideology only and that it would not result in advantages?
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 11:11:44 AMOf course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media.
That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.
"Borne the brunt", the vast majority, of places the British colonized were far better off after and because of colonization than they were prior to colonization.
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:44:49 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 09, 2022, 12:43:04 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:40:44 PMWhy would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.
Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.
Of course I get all of that. But that is just ideological stuff, I am talking about the political reality and national self-interest.
How can you know its ideology only and that it would not result in advantages?
I don't. I wouldn't have posted that if I didn't want robust rebuttals proving me wrong.
Just that whenever I hear people saying why the monarchy is bad, it is only ever for those reasons.
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:44:49 PMHow can you know its ideology only and that it would not result in advantages?
I'm not sure it would - but that might be because countries I quite like and think get lots of things right like much of the Scandis, Japan are also constitutional monarchies. So I don't think it necessarily makes a difference.
I assume we'd go for a German or Irish style president which I like a lot as a system - but I suppose there is a non-zero risk we actually end up going for a US or French system where the President as an individual with a direct mandate has power which I'm not sure would be great :ph34r:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 12:50:18 PM"Borne the brunt", the vast majority, of places the British colonized were far better off after and because of colonization than they were prior to colonization.
That's a hard argument to make, because so very few places were not colonized. In Africa you had Ethiopia, but even then it was conquered by fascist Italy for a period of time. In Asia you had Thailand, but hard to compare Thailand to places outside of SE Asia (and even then Thailand did a kind-of self-colonization). Persia I guess as well, but it was fairly well developed on its own.
I have seen reasonably convincing arguments that it was better to be colonized by the British than the other European powers, but that's something different.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 12:51:32 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:44:49 PMHow can you know its ideology only and that it would not result in advantages?
I'm not sure it would - but that might be because countries I quite like and think get lots of things right like much of the Scandis, Japan are also constitutional monarchies. So I don't think it necessarily makes a difference.
I assume we'd go for a German or Irish style president which I like a lot as a system - but I suppose there is a non-zero risk we actually end up going for a US or French system where the President as an individual with a direct mandate has power which I'm not sure would be great :ph34r:
Yeah because the monarch has been excellent in keeping PMs like Johnson in check. :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 12:50:18 PMQuote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 11:11:44 AMOf course. I'll simply note that it's easier to be decent when one hasn't borne the brunt, or is living through some of the most dire consequences of, say, British imperialism. The sheer inequality of treatment is often enough to bring out a meaner streak - and that was before social media.
That being said, none of the "edgy takes" I have seen online was very thought-provoking, or much more than, as Sheilbh said, a somewhat obscene desire to inject yourself in a widely-covered event.
"Borne the brunt", the vast majority, of places the British colonized were far better off after and because of colonization than they were prior to colonization.
Ish. But then to what extent is that a product of the era in which the empire existed vs the empire itself?
To say the British empire was in most cases better than the likely alternatives is a point of view I have a lot of time for. For instance it was much better than just leaving capitalism to run rampant.
As sure. As nice as the idea is that India could just me a lovely modern Republic from the 18th century that just wasn't happening.
But its going a bit far on top of this to say the colonisation itself actively made things better on all occasions.
Overall my view on such things is fuck nationalists of all stripes. Though there are fragments of truth from all sides.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:16:30 PMWell, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time. I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother".
And he was incredibly clear in his very first post about it that he was referring to how the British monarch was referred to in the past, specifically the 19th and 18th centuries. And he was absolutely, unambiguously, spot on correct historically. The Native American tribes in the United States likewise used the term "Great Father" to refer to the President of the United States, and they very commonly made appeals to him when they felt they were being mistreated by local functionaries. This is because many if not most American tribes traditionally related to other tribes and clans with terms of family, and they recognized the leader of the white people as a "Great Father" of that tribe.
It is not at all inappropriate to discuss that history, nor is it even really our place to judge the word usage of long dead native peoples--I don't think it was a term they would have thought reflected negatively on them, nor did it mean immediate obedience or obsequiousness to the American government or President, it simply reflected their views of the President as a powerful ruler of men.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 12:22:50 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:16:30 PMWell, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time. I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother".
I agree that "Great White Mother" is a thoroughly historical term. But it speaks to that history.
And I suspect that between the indigenous people I deal with on a regular basis, and your indigenous clients, my experiences are more representative of indigenous people as a whole. And before you go there - no not the Accused people. I never speak with them after all. I mean all the witnesses, victims and family members.
I point out that witnesses you are speaking to are talking about the details of the incident you are prosecuting. I will readily concede that in those circumstances there would be little reason or room for the issue of colonization to pop into the conversation.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 12:59:15 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:16:30 PMWell, we are talking about what people are saying today - and I have to tell you all my indigenous clients use the words like "colonial" and "decolonization" all the time. I have never heard them refer to the Queen as the "Great White Mother".
And he was incredibly clear in his very first post about it that he was referring to how the British monarch was referred to in the past, specifically the 19th and 18th centuries. And he was absolutely, unambiguously, spot on correct historically. The Native American tribes in the United States likewise used the term "Great Father" to refer to the President of the United States, and they very commonly made appeals to him when they felt they were being mistreated by local functionaries. This is because many if not most American tribes traditionally related to other tribes and clans with terms of family, and they recognized the leader of the white people as a "Great Father" of that tribe.
It is not at all inappropriate to discuss that history, nor is it even really our place to judge the word usage of long dead native peoples--I don't think it was a term they would have thought reflected negatively on them, nor did it mean immediate obedience or obsequiousness to the American government or President, it simply reflected their views of the President as a powerful ruler of men.
And I will say to you what I said to him, we are talking about what people are saying today - rather than repeating a phrase heavily weighed down by a colonial view of the world.
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:40:44 PMWhy would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.
Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.
The wealth makes them different from us (read advantaged) the titles just give them some stupid rules. The deposed nobles of other European states are doing just fine flying under the weather... qell those that kept their heads :lol:
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:57:04 PMYeah because the monarch has been excellent in keeping PMs like Johnson in check. :P
That's not their job - this is like those made wishes that the Queen would somehow stop Brexit or that her and Lady Hale of the Supreme Court were sending secret messages through their fahion choices. It was striking that as Brexit came closer to happening the way out Remainers were clinging to became progressively further removed from democratic choice and the people - first to the courts then, somehow, the monarch. Unhinged.
Anyway we have a political constitution and I think removing a leader within 2 years of them winning a landslide is a sign of a relatively healthy political system.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 01:03:45 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:40:44 PMWhy would it be worthile? Because monarchies have people literally inheriting jobs and above the law status. A monarchy says that birth does determine who you are. A monarchy says the citizens of the state are not equal, some came out of superior wombs.
Not to mention that they are all remnants of warlords taking subjugating people.
The wealth makes them different from us (read advantaged) the titles just give them some stupid rules. The deposed nobles of other European states are doing just fine flying under the weather... qell those that kept their heads :lol:
They all always have cushy jobs in finance. It's infuriating. They should all be serving in the military like their ancestors. Even the freaking Bonapartes do this when their whole supposed reason for existing is the military glory of France. Sponges even as ex-Royals.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 12:59:36 PMI point out that witnesses you are speaking to are talking about the details of the incident you are prosecuting. I will readily concede that in those circumstances there would be little reason or room for the issue of colonization to pop into the conversation.
While many/most of these kinds of conversations are quite civil and pleasant, at times people feel free to tell me their frustrations with the system. They may call it a white system or speak of unfair treatment of native people.
But "colonization" or "colonial" or the like has never ever come up.
As an outsider, my perspective is the value of the Commonwealth was primarily in being "something" to put in place of the outright Imperial form, a way for countries to have true independence but still feel a shared sense of belonging to something bigger. I think that was probably important through the 1950s and 1960s, especially, not every country in the Commonwealth is Canada / Australia / New Zealand, i.e. stable, rich, Western countries with firm institutions long before the Commonwealth was created. It probably felt as an important binder during WWII for sure.
I think in that sense it's probably best understood as a "transitional" vehicle, and in most respects has exhausted its core purpose. Which is fine. I am not convinced any of its members or the country whose monarch is its head, gets any vast benefit from it. The UK likely gets much bigger benefit from its more powerful intelligence and military alliance structures with former colonies (like the Five Eyes) than it does the Commonwealth.
I think in terms of the monarchy, it would be a good move for countries like Australia / Canada / New Zealand to move away from it. I know less about all the other countries involved, but it seems like the Caribbeans are mostly keen to move away from it which is reason enough to do it. The anglo countries seem to get along fine with Governor Generals already, I think the last one to have any controversy related to their role was in Australia some 40 or 50 years ago, right? Otherwise that system seems to work fine for having a mostly inoffensive apolitical person holding some constitutional reserve powers.
I think Britain going to a Republic would be more difficult which means I am a little less warm to that despite my natural antipathy towards monarchy. I worry that almost anyone who could be picked as an apolitical Head of State would potentially lead to more division between the constituent countries of the UK, and the monarchy as it is constituted right now has an almost unique role with deep ties to all the constituent countries. I think the British legal and constitutional system is also a little more cumbersomely tied into many of the organs of monarchy, which obviously is fixable, but with perhaps more trouble than you'd see in Australia or Canada.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 01:05:46 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:57:04 PMYeah because the monarch has been excellent in keeping PMs like Johnson in check. :P
That's not their job - this is like those made wishes that the Queen would somehow stop Brexit or that her and Lady Hale of the Supreme Court were sending secret messages through their fahion choices. It was striking that as Brexit came closer to happening the way out Remainers were clinging to became progressively further removed from democratic choice and the people - first to the courts then, somehow, the monarch. Unhinged.
Didn't seem so secret to me. :hmm:
(https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/styles/1200x800/public/d8/images/methode/2019/10/29/2380ec4c-f9b6-11e9-acf9-cafedce87d15_image_hires_044847.JPG?itok=gkTvalYd&v=1572295734)
Quote from: Josquius on September 09, 2022, 12:57:28 PMIsh. But then to what extent is that a product of the era in which the empire existed vs the empire itself?
To say the British empire was in most cases better than the likely alternatives is a point of view I have a lot of time for. For instance it was much better than just leaving capitalism to run rampant.
As sure. As nice as the idea is that India could just me a lovely modern Republic from the 18th century that just wasn't happening.
But its going a bit far on top of this to say the colonisation itself actively made things better on all occasions.
Overall my view on such things is fuck nationalists of all stripes. Though there are fragments of truth from all sides.
I think depending on how we define colonialism, it usually did. North America, contact with white Europeans essentially erased almost all of the native inhabitants of the continent, and while we should never minimize the numbers who were killed through the active and deliberate actions of the colonizers, the vast, vast majority of damage done was through infectious diseases which even had decimated plains native populations before most of them had ever seen a white man (smallpox travels a lot faster than people do in pre-modern times.) If you view that spread of disease as a part of colonialism, it is undeniable it made things worse--few things are worse than an almost total destruction of your people.
In Africa and Asia, I think British colonialism (which is mostly what I was talking about), actually introduced things like literacy, modern medicine, infrastructure, and most importantly a sort of free market business and legal climate and certain conceptions of rights and liberties that have been helpful throughout the last 150 odd years. It was not without flaws.
Even in things like the partition of India into Hindu and Muslim countries, I am not convinced that we wouldn't have seen that process play out as more of a massive and very destructive total war at some point in the 20th century if the British hadn't been over the process.
India was weird anyway. They ere colonize by 18th century Walmart. If the crown hadn't stepped in when they collapsed it could have been worse. Then again the UK ended doing some shit anyway so who knows.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 01:05:46 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 12:57:04 PMYeah because the monarch has been excellent in keeping PMs like Johnson in check. :P
That's not their job - this is like those made wishes that the Queen would somehow stop Brexit or that her and Lady Hale of the Supreme Court were sending secret messages through their fahion choices. It was striking that as Brexit came closer to happening the way out Remainers were clinging to became progressively further removed from democratic choice and the people - first to the courts then, somehow, the monarch. Unhinged.
Anyway we have a political constitution and I think removing a leader within 2 years of them winning a landslide is a sign of a relatively healthy political system.
Ok, but then what is wrong with a Presidential system (even though it wouldn't be my preference)? The way I see it the only thing stopping a PM from acting like a US president is reluctance to do so.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 01:18:44 PMIn Africa and Asia, I think British colonialism (which is mostly what I was talking about), actually introduced things like literacy, modern medicine, infrastructure, and most importantly a sort of free market business and legal climate and certain conceptions of rights and liberties that have been helpful throughout the last 150 odd years. It was not without flaws.
It was not without flaws is a understatement.
Britain wasn't interested in mass education and providing mass access to modern medicine. The colonies were run on the cheap and in terms of human capital investment, the focus was on military training of loyal local units and educating small cadres of locals to fill subordinate positions. Infrastructure investment followed the same principle - the focus was on projects that served the imperial interests or the interests of British investors in country.
Weren't those the same criteria for education and infrastructure spending back home too? :P.
On the subject at hand, it makes no more sense to blame QE2 for British colonialism than to give her credit for de-colonization.
Even before she assumed the throne, the British monarchy had long since having a true political function; rather, they are part of the entertainment sector. They are actors, leading personae in the first, most successful and longest lasting reality show. QE2 understood that, played the role well, earned the appreciation of the audience, and avoided cancellation.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 02:02:25 PMWeren't those the same criteria for education and infrastructure spending back home too? :P.
Point taken, but for any time period you pick, educational spending per person in Britain was always far higher than in the colonies.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 01:18:44 PMI think depending on how we define colonialism, it usually did.
The main issue of those discussions hinges upon the capacity of European empires to remake the whole world in their image. At some point, colonial spaces will have been broken and remade enough so as to be "better equipped" to deal with the world thus remade.
Were African kingdoms or Asian empires of the 15th century so much worse off than European kingdoms of the same period? Not really - I mean, not if you compare elites to elites, and common folk with common folk. By the 19th century, however, the differential of power was such that it was entirely possible to indeed make matters much worse for, say, a lot of African polities, between coastal kingdoms with access to firearms and inland empires that didn't - until the coastal kingdoms were themselves reduced to client polities and then colonies. That came with dislocation of society, culture, references, etc. Compared to that moment of the mid-to-late 19th century with the mid-20th century, yes - eventually, some elements of the industrial (consumption) and scientific revolutions (vaccination) spread. But that process still made societies that were generally similar to European societies in the 15th century, clear "losers" by the 19th century, and *kept them losers* throughout the 19th and 20th century. India had to be *made poor* before being vaguely made better again.
Obviously, such metrics are tied to some ill-defined notion of material well-being. The discussion is even more fraught when we start to discuss consensus polities of the Americas, the question of labor, the sentiment of freedom, etc.
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 01:56:12 PMOk, but then what is wrong with a Presidential system (even though it wouldn't be my preference)? The way I see it the only thing stopping a PM from acting like a US president is reluctance to do so.
I think these are all standard reasons for a parliamentary system to be honest. I think you basically are at risk of ending up with referendums every four years for the soul of the nation - France and America for the forseeable are deciding for Trumpism or Le Penism v an alternative. I don't think that's great because I think they might win if they haven't already. Which matters because in a presidential system the ceremonial stuff, the relationship with the military, the speaking for the nation side of things is entangled with that political figure - in a parliamentary system (whether constitutional monarchy or republic) you separate that out from politics. So the "sentimental loyalty" doesn't go to the leader of a political faction - they are interchangeable (or as the Queen told Ted Heath, "you're expendable"). Hate Johnson as much as you like he can't pretend or try to embody Britain while the Queen's on the stage, or now the King.
Also I think presidents with power and a direct electoral mandate are and should be really difficult to get rid of, because they have that direct mandate. So there is a bit more of a crap shoot about it, while in a parliamentary system they're easy to replace (as we've seen - and in the post-war era only Attlee and Wilson I think came to and were removed from power by an election). In theory you should be able to get rid of the bad ones - though this hasn't recently worked in the US - but there's not really a solution for an incompetent president until the next election.
The other point is about how you balance powers which I think requires attention in a system with a powerful president. Personally I think if you're going to do it you should follow the French and create a system that gives clear precedence to one branch and reinforces that. I think if they are equal there are always risks of different branches with legitimate claims to power conflicting or deadlock between branches, both of which have been common in those systems and normally end with either a coup or one branch taking over.
Separately - King's speech:
https://twitter.com/RoyalFamily/status/1568297669382082567?s=20&t=toHdpJlWfwg08LPXUA7T1Q
Seems like he did pretty well.
Oh heck - never thought of this.
In my world every criminal file has a nine digit file number, followed by a letter identifying which court it has been filed in, followed by a single digit to identify which specific accused person. So it looks something like this:
2201234567p1
First two digits indicate the year (2022). Next 7 just identify the file. P indicates Provincial Court. And 1 indicates the first person named (or only person if one one name).
This all ties into a 30 year old computer system called JOIN (Justice Online Information Network). All our important records are in JOIN. It was cutting edge in it's time, but has long shown its age, but it's proven impossible to replace without losing all that data.
So why do I bring this up?
The letter code. It's "P" for Provincial Court, or "Q" for Queen's Bench.
I can't imagine the problems they're going to have to get the system to accept "K" files. :wacko:
How can a data system not be exportable?
@sheilbh good speech.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 03:20:06 PMHow can a data system not be exportable?
How the hell should I know?
That's just the story I've been told.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 03:20:06 PMHow can a data system not be exportable?
Having worked on the contracts for them - please let me introduce you to government IT projects :lol: :ph34r:
Fair enough to both of you :lol:
Interesting. I was curious to know if he would re-create the title of Prince of Wales, which is never inherited automatically.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 03:28:53 PMInteresting. I was curious to know if he would re-create the title of Prince of Wales, which is never inherited automatically.
I figured there was zero chance of him not conveying it on William.... why would he not? In an attempt to placate Welsh republicans?
If I was William I would be brushing up on my Welsh.
I am very comfortable with a hereditary monarchy where the monarch has no political power, like in Sweden. I think there are distinct advantages to having a head of state who is above everyday politics. Monarchies where the monarch retains formal political power, even if it's hardly ever used, are in my mind wide open to valid criticism, even if I don't think they are a major problem in practice.
My impression is that to many anti-monarchy people it's not about a lack of democracy, but about something else. For instance, The Swedish Republican Association is against monarchy because it means inherited position of head of state, which they think is undemocratic. Of course they know that the Swedish monarch was elected until well into the 16th century when the grandfather of Gustavus Adolphus made Sweden a hereditary monarchy. If their problem was actually with the lack of democracy they would be in favor of going back to an elected monarch, which would solve any democracy concerns and at the same time not alienate every pro-monarchy person making it much more likely to actually happen. So they are just lying to people about their motives.
Quote from: Valmy on September 09, 2022, 03:38:00 PMIf I was William I would be brushing up on my Welsh.
Man, first his grandmother dies and now he has to learn Welsh? Tough week.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 03:45:38 PMMan, first his grandmother dies and now he has to learn Welsh? Tough week.
And the looming inevitability that he will have to meet Liz Truss :(
Quote from: Caliga on September 09, 2022, 03:34:53 PMI figured there was zero chance of him not conveying it on William.... why would he not? In an attempt to placate Welsh republicans?
Oh, that he would recreate the title was pretty much a given. I was wondering if he would let some time pass before doing so (though probably not four years, as was the case for himself).
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 09, 2022, 03:48:04 PMQuote from: Caliga on September 09, 2022, 03:34:53 PMI figured there was zero chance of him not conveying it on William.... why would he not? In an attempt to placate Welsh republicans?
Oh, that he would recreate the title was pretty much a given. I was wondering if he would let some time pass before doing so (though probably not four years, as was the case for himself).
If I was the Royals I'd give it a bit of time just so it could be it's own "thing" in the media, rather than get lost in the funeral or coronation.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 03:49:02 PMIf I was the Royals I'd give it a bit of time just so it could be it's own "thing" in the media, rather than get lost in the funeral or coronation.
The investiture will probably play that role.
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 01:56:12 PMOk, but then what is wrong with a Presidential system (even though it wouldn't be my preference)? The way I see it the only thing stopping a PM from acting like a US president is reluctance to do so.
Also I saw this as a semi-related conversation was happening on Twitter by people who know a lot more than me, apparently there's a bit in a book by Giovanni Sartori, Comparative Constitutional Engineering, where he discusses how the US is the only long term successful Presidential system and suggests it's because "the American people are determined to make it work" :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 02:20:03 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 01:56:12 PMOk, but then what is wrong with a Presidential system (even though it wouldn't be my preference)? The way I see it the only thing stopping a PM from acting like a US president is reluctance to do so.
I think these are all standard reasons for a parliamentary system to be honest. I think you basically are at risk of ending up with referendums every four years for the soul of the nation - France and America for the forseeable are deciding for Trumpism or Le Penism v an alternative. I don't think that's great because I think they might win if they haven't already. Which matters because in a presidential system the ceremonial stuff, the relationship with the military, the speaking for the nation side of things is entangled with that political figure - in a parliamentary system (whether constitutional monarchy or republic) you separate that out from politics. So the "sentimental loyalty" doesn't go to the leader of a political faction - they are interchangeable (or as the Queen told Ted Heath, "you're expendable"). Hate Johnson as much as you like he can't pretend or try to embody Britain while the Queen's on the stage, or now the King.
Also I think presidents with power and a direct electoral mandate are and should be really difficult to get rid of, because they have that direct mandate. So there is a bit more of a crap shoot about it, while in a parliamentary system they're easy to replace (as we've seen - and in the post-war era only Attlee and Wilson I think came to and were removed from power by an election). In theory you should be able to get rid of the bad ones - though this hasn't recently worked in the US - but there's not really a solution for an incompetent president until the next election.
The other point is about how you balance powers which I think requires attention in a system with a powerful president. Personally I think if you're going to do it you should follow the French and create a system that gives clear precedence to one branch and reinforces that. I think if they are equal there are always risks of different branches with legitimate claims to power conflicting or deadlock between branches, both of which have been common in those systems and normally end with either a coup or one branch taking over.
I can't really agree with that. We can't move from "the monarch has no influence" to the monarch being the balance of power.
I also think parliamentary elections are perfectly fine for fighting for the soul of a nation. In the UK mean increasingly far right Tories keep winning so maybe that's the soul of this nation. In Poland there is no Presidential system but the soul of the country has very much been in stake, even more so in Hungary.
And on the other hand its not like monarchs could stop dictators from creeping up.
And, frankly, are we REALLY going to point at the USA and France from Britain and say they have had a more chaotic, unpredictable, self-damaging political life in recent years?
Monarch is an outdated system keeping on high pedestal ideas woefully in direct opposition to what otherwise is (should be) the very basis of modern democracies.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 01:10:40 PMAs an outsider, my perspective is the value of the Commonwealth was primarily in being "something" to put in place of the outright Imperial form, a way for countries to have true independence but still feel a shared sense of belonging to something bigger. I think that was probably important through the 1950s and 1960s, especially, not every country in the Commonwealth is Canada / Australia / New Zealand, i.e. stable, rich, Western countries with firm institutions long before the Commonwealth was created. It probably felt as an important binder during WWII for sure.
I think in that sense it's probably best understood as a "transitional" vehicle, and in most respects has exhausted its core purpose. Which is fine. I am not convinced any of its members or the country whose monarch is its head, gets any vast benefit from it. The UK likely gets much bigger benefit from its more powerful intelligence and military alliance structures with former colonies (like the Five Eyes) than it does the Commonwealth.
I think in terms of the monarchy, it would be a good move for countries like Australia / Canada / New Zealand to move away from it. I know less about all the other countries involved, but it seems like the Caribbeans are mostly keen to move away from it which is reason enough to do it. The anglo countries seem to get along fine with Governor Generals already, I think the last one to have any controversy related to their role was in Australia some 40 or 50 years ago, right? Otherwise that system seems to work fine for having a mostly inoffensive apolitical person holding some constitutional reserve powers.
I think Britain going to a Republic would be more difficult which means I am a little less warm to that despite my natural antipathy towards monarchy. I worry that almost anyone who could be picked as an apolitical Head of State would potentially lead to more division between the constituent countries of the UK, and the monarchy as it is constituted right now has an almost unique role with deep ties to all the constituent countries. I think the British legal and constitutional system is also a little more cumbersomely tied into many of the organs of monarchy, which obviously is fixable, but with perhaps more trouble than you'd see in Australia or Canada.
The Commonwealth has been a meaningless concept for at least a couple of decades now. The concept of the Commonwealth is not connected with whether the Monarch should continue to be the head of state. Removing the Crown from our constitution, laws, traditions and norms would be absurdly difficult to accomplish - and for what? There is also the problem of the risk that any replacement would become political. No one in Canada wants to emulate the American system.
Quote from: Tamas on September 09, 2022, 04:07:19 PMI can't really agree with that. We can't move from "the monarch has no influence" to the monarch being the balance of power.
I wasn't meaning monarchy v presidentialism. I meant a powerful presidential system (France, US, Turkey) v a parliamentary system whether with a constitutional monarch or a more limited president (UK, Germany, Ireland).
It's not about monarchy - personally I'd rather a system like the German or Irish president where they have a very limited constitutional role and are normally respected figures who are expected to be broadly non-partisan.
QuoteI also think parliamentary elections are perfectly fine for fighting for the soul of a nation. In the UK mean increasingly far right Tories keep winning so maybe that's the soul of this nation. In Poland there is no Presidential system but the soul of the country has very much been in stake, even more so in Hungary.
Absolutely. No constitution matters they're all pointless. All that matters is the political culture and willingness of the people to keep a system going.
My point is that by design presidential systems have a candidate A v candidate B to be head of state, commander in chief etc every electoral cycle. I don't think you could design a system better to eventually result in polarisation over who speaks for/is the nation. It is or should be easier if you remove the symbolic stuff from politics to have real political fights between different views without turning opponents into enemies.
QuoteAnd, frankly, are we REALLY going to point at the USA and France from Britain and say they have had a more chaotic, unpredictable, self-damaging political life in recent years?
In relation to the US, yes. I think Trump is far more worrying. On France - and Italy, I'd add - not yet, but I think the popular social unrest we've seent here and the real possibility of a post-fascist is far more dangerous than Brexit Britain.
It is a very unpopular opinion but ultimately I think the past six years were the system working as it should. It's just my side lost, repeatedly. But it was democratic and validated with multiple democratic events. Democracy can be chaotic, unpredictable and self-damaging because it is about how you contest competing visions and ideologies. It is a way of making social and regime change without violence. A system defined by stability, order, progress is probably not particularly free.
What I would say is that when I look at the choice voters were given since the war, with a couple of exceptions I think they probably got it right the vast majority of times.
QuoteMonarch is an outdated system keeping on high pedestal ideas woefully in direct opposition to what otherwise is (should be) the very basis of modern democracies.
Oh couldn't agree more. They should be exiled absolutely - I don't agree with monarchy.
But my preferred model is still fundamentally parliamentary just with a president who is not engaged in day to day politics.
QuoteThe Commonwealth has been a meaningless concept for at least a couple of decades now. T
As I say I agree - but new countries are joining. Countries that are kicked out want back in (South Africa, Pakistan, Fiji). Republican leaders say it has value. I don't know how or what it is or why anyone is interested but it makes me think there must be something - part of me wonders if it's just one of those rare international forums where it's not a club of countries that are relatively similar?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 09, 2022, 01:56:55 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 01:18:44 PMIn Africa and Asia, I think British colonialism (which is mostly what I was talking about), actually introduced things like literacy, modern medicine, infrastructure, and most importantly a sort of free market business and legal climate and certain conceptions of rights and liberties that have been helpful throughout the last 150 odd years. It was not without flaws.
It was not without flaws is a understatement.
Britain wasn't interested in mass education and providing mass access to modern medicine. The colonies were run on the cheap and in terms of human capital investment, the focus was on military training of loyal local units and educating small cadres of locals to fill subordinate positions. Infrastructure investment followed the same principle - the focus was on projects that served the imperial interests or the interests of British investors in country.
I don't believe I ever spoke to motivation, one of the things that I personally think has worked well for the British and to some extant the American "system" of economic development is it was not central government driven. There were divergent groups advocating for and pushing various things. Sometimes a byproduct of capitalist interests would be development that had lasting benefits, sometimes not.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 04:08:12 PMThe Commonwealth has been a meaningless concept for at least a couple of decades now. The concept of the Commonwealth is not connected with whether the Monarch should continue to be the head of state. Removing the Crown from our constitution, laws, traditions and norms would be absurdly difficult to accomplish - and for what? There is also the problem of the risk that any replacement would become political. No one in Canada wants to emulate the American system.
I don't think it would be that hard, you just declare the office of Governor General has legal equivalence to the former sovereign.
I'm confused about "No one in Canada wants to emulate the American system", is that just part of your psychopathic need to attack the United States, if so whatever. But I clearly never suggested anything remotely like that, what I said was the Anglo democracies do fine with Governor Generals fulfilling most of the role of the monarch and could pretty easily just switch to that as the entire thing.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 04:08:12 PMThe Commonwealth has been a meaningless concept for at least a couple of decades now.
Mostly meaningless, but I agree.
At least it's more meaningful than La Francophonie.
QuoteThe concept of the Commonwealth is not connected with whether the Monarch should continue to be the head of state.
Agreed.
QuoteRemoving the Crown from our constitution, laws, traditions and norms would be absurdly difficult to accomplish - and for what? There is also the problem of the risk that any replacement would become political. No one in Canada wants to emulate the American system.
Absurdly difficult? It would require a constitutional amendment. I was just looking at the Constitution Act 1867 - it has 53 references to the Queen. I feel like a team of lawyers could bang out a replacement text over a weekend removing references to the Queen.
But a Constitutional Amendment takes 7/50 as you well know. While I don't think it would be impossible to get agreement on replacing the monarchy, once you touch the constitution you'd have to resist the urge to start tinkering with other areas. And once you do that the whole thing will fall apart spectacularly.
The U.S. system has "worked" because it is a culture built on private locuses of power as opposed to government ones, to some degree that was the core dispute between Patriots and Loyalists in the Revolution, and was the core dispute between the Hamilton and Jackson wings of the polity forever after.
That's also why the concept of the Trumpists being a risk to American democracy is, imo, and always has been, massively overblown. Their side winning is not really going to be an end to democracy, it will just be a rollback of government power to restrain private locuses of power. Most of the serious misdeeds in American history have involved private power that government allows to happen--much of the campaign to dispossess and steal land from the Native Americans was actually through private endeavors. The government was regularly signing treaties to stop it, and then doing nothing to stop private endeavors to violate those treaties. Slavery was perpetuated by private landowners. Jim Crow was almost wholly perpetuated by private business owners, and where government was involved, it was generally local governments especially school boards.
The real risk of Trumpism is a return to the time when private powers were more able to suppress the non-powerful (at least, more so than they can right now.)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 04:42:38 PMI don't think it would be that hard, you just declare the office of Governor General has legal equivalence to the former sovereign.
Definitely not that easy.
Again, I've been looking at our Constitution Act - in particular the sections I normally never look at (in my line of work only really concerned with the Charter of Rights). It's spelled out right in section 9:
Quote9 The Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
There are many other sections that speak of doing things "in the Queen's name", but it's in black and white that the buck stops with the monarch.
Now an interesting side question of whether it might be easier to just name a new, Canadian monarch, but I don't think that's what anyone's really going for.
So what we'd need to do is pass a constitutional amendment. If there's general consensus in Canada that wouldn't be that hard, but it's a lot more than just a declaration passed in Parliament.
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 04:48:01 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 04:08:12 PMThe Commonwealth has been a meaningless concept for at least a couple of decades now.
Mostly meaningless, but I agree.
At least it's more meaningful than La Francophonie.
QuoteThe concept of the Commonwealth is not connected with whether the Monarch should continue to be the head of state.
Agreed.
QuoteRemoving the Crown from our constitution, laws, traditions and norms would be absurdly difficult to accomplish - and for what? There is also the problem of the risk that any replacement would become political. No one in Canada wants to emulate the American system.
Absurdly difficult? It would require a constitutional amendment. I was just looking at the Constitution Act 1867 - it has 53 references to the Queen. I feel like a team of lawyers could bang out a replacement text over a weekend removing references to the Queen.
But a Constitutional Amendment takes 7/50 as you well know. While I don't think it would be impossible to get agreement on replacing the monarchy, once you touch the constitution you'd have to resist the urge to start tinkering with other areas. And once you do that the whole thing will fall apart spectacularly.
Yeah, that is what I was getting at when I said it was absurdly difficult - I think non-Canadians like Otto don't appreciate what disaster awaits as soon as we start talking about any constitutional reform, and that is not even considering the difficulty of acquiring enough support to amend.
Yeah, because in America we trivially change our constitution, and it never causes any problems.
But I think you're both being fairly pollyannaish, the Queen has served no real constitutional role in Canadian society and what you're quibbling about are literally matters of wording. The Governor General's title could be transposed for "monarch" in every spot it appears in the constitution, and you'd be perfectly fine.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 05:24:23 PMYeah, because in America we trivially change our constitution, and it never causes any problems.
But I think you're both being fairly pollyannaish, the Queen has served no real constitutional role in Canadian society and what you're quibbling about are literally matters of wording. The Governor General's title could be transposed for "monarch" in every spot it appears in the constitution, and you'd be perfectly fine.
No need for sarcasm. You suggested it would be easy to do. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not appreciate how impossible the task really is. Your second paragraph indicates you still have little understanding how difficult it would be to amend our constitution. It is NOT simply a question of changing a few words here and there.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 05:28:16 PMNo need for sarcasm. You suggested it would be easy to do. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not appreciate how impossible the task really is. Your second paragraph indicates you still have little understanding how difficult it would be to amend our constitution. It is NOT simply a question of changing a few words here and there.
So you're saying it's possible :lol:
QuoteStraightforward from here
- Commonwealth realms start leaving
- Scotland has IndyRef2
- Yes wins
- United Ireland next
- Wales sees, also leave
- Kingdom of England
- English reassess future, become republic
- Too difficult to reform Canadian constitution
- King Charles of Canada
Canada becomes the successor. Like a western Byzantium :D
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 05:43:49 PMCanada becomes the successor. Like a western Byzantium :D
:lol: "We've got a monarchy by mistake."
Your joke aside there a good chance that his mom "oversaw" of the collapse of the empire and Charles will be there for the collapse of the uk.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 05:48:07 PMYour joke aside there a good chance that his mom "oversaw" of the collapse of the empire and Charles will be there for the collapse of the uk.
Yeah, maybe - I still think it's not the likely outcome but it definitely could happen and I think it's more likely now the Queen's gone.
It's an avalanche thing, I think. Once one goes the rest will follow in quick succession
I'm just not as sure of the route for Scotland (slightly depends on the Supreme Court). But also they're very different countries. I feel like Northern Irish unionists will be the last Britons even if the rest of the UK has collapsed.
And Wales is politically quite similar to and far more integrated with England. Wales voted for Brexit 52/48, Wales has 14 Tory MPs and 22 Labour (and 4 separatist) and support for independence has always been around 25% bobbing about. That might shift quickly if Scotland were to go but they're not similar yet - and as I say I don't think unionist identity as British will shift any time soon.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 05:57:04 PMQuote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 05:48:07 PMYour joke aside there a good chance that his mom "oversaw" of the collapse of the empire and Charles will be there for the collapse of the uk.
Yeah, maybe - I still think it's not the likely outcome but it definitely could happen and I think it's more likely now the Queen's gone.
I still hope the love the Scots and the English have always felt for each other prevails!
Besides 800,000 Scots live in England and 500,000 English people live in Scotland. International borders just make the common people's lives worse. It would be ridiculous to split the union now.
Which is why it will probably happen. The ridiculous is normal in modern politics :P
But surely that has nothing to do with the monarchy. Charles III would still be King of Scots should they split, or at least that was the plan last time.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 09, 2022, 05:33:35 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 05:28:16 PMNo need for sarcasm. You suggested it would be easy to do. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not appreciate how impossible the task really is. Your second paragraph indicates you still have little understanding how difficult it would be to amend our constitution. It is NOT simply a question of changing a few words here and there.
So you're saying it's possible :lol:
QuoteStraightforward from here
- Commonwealth realms start leaving
- Scotland has IndyRef2
- Yes wins
- United Ireland next
- Wales sees, also leave
- Kingdom of England
- English reassess future, become republic
- Too difficult to reform Canadian constitution
- King Charles of Canada
:D
Oh God help us.
Quote from: Caliga on September 08, 2022, 12:33:03 PMGod Save His Majesty Charles III, King of the United Kingdom
HE'S NOT A HUMAN BEING!
...do we really have no spoiler tags over here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMxqcgBhWQ
I'm surprised to realize that you can sort of rhyme "being" with both "king" and "queen" :huh:
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 03:20:06 PMHow can a data system not be exportable?
Having transitioned our company data from a 20+ year old custom solution to a new one, I can tell you it's harder than it looks on the surface. Raw data tables are one thing. But once you start with data relations, definitions, business logic, and decades worth of patches, band-aids and "quick fixes", often with little or no documentation, it quickly becomes a hot mess. Especially when you then have to map all that to your new database structure and redesigned rules and logic. The amount of undocumented "special data tables" alone that were added ad hoc at the time to record certain special business cases was staggering.
Quote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 05:48:07 PMYour joke aside there a good chance that his mom "oversaw" of the collapse of the empire and Charles will be there for the collapse of the uk.
The last Habsburg Emperor was a Karl/Charles too, so ... :P
I saw a number of tweets with the screenshot from Star Trek where, when listing successful terrorist campaigns, Data lists:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D8_83rvUIAENXIb.jpg)
:ph34r:
(Edit: just realized, this would have been in the same year as much of season 2 of Star Trek Picard :o )
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 05:24:23 PMYeah, because in America we trivially change our constitution, and it never causes any problems.
But I think you're both being fairly pollyannaish, the Queen has served no real constitutional role in Canadian society and what you're quibbling about are literally matters of wording. The Governor General's title could be transposed for "monarch" in every spot it appears in the constitution, and you'd be perfectly fine.
As shocking as it may be, the Governor-General actually also appears in the Constitution Act 1867, distinct from the Queen.
In terms of re-writing the Constitution it wouldn't be all that terrible (put aside the politics of passing it), but it would NOT be as simple as doing a find-and-replace in the text.
Quote from: Syt on September 09, 2022, 09:20:35 PMQuote from: HVC on September 09, 2022, 03:20:06 PMHow can a data system not be exportable?
Having transitioned our company data from a 20+ year old custom solution to a new one, I can tell you it's harder than it looks on the surface. Raw data tables are one thing. But once you start with data relations, definitions, business logic, and decades worth of patches, band-aids and "quick fixes", often with little or no documentation, it quickly becomes a hot mess. Especially when you then have to map all that to your new database structure and redesigned rules and logic. The amount of undocumented "special data tables" alone that were added ad hoc at the time to record certain special business cases was staggering.
At least you documented the new system comprehensively and kept the documentation up-to-date. Right...? ;)
Quote from: Zanza on September 10, 2022, 12:29:04 AMAt least you documented the new system comprehensively and kept the documentation up-to-date. Right...? ;)
Transfering the whole project from one external developer to another this year has been ... "fun." (Actually, the new guys are still getting up to speed .... )
(https://highdefdiscnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/full_metal_jacket_4k_3.png)
Quote from: Barrister on September 09, 2022, 12:56:40 PMI have seen reasonably convincing arguments that it was better to be colonized by the British than the other European powers, but that's something different.
Better than the Belgians, I guess.
Just had part 1 of the Accession Council on the TV for the first time. Slightly fascinating because it's the only bit of ceremonial that is Anglo-Saxon in origin and basically derived from the Witan.
I think the next bit is Charles swearing to uphold the Church of Scotland and then he gets proclaimed in London.
It does mean, thankfully, that the TV talking heads are now historians not royal correspondents.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2022, 04:20:53 AMJust had part 1 of the Accession Council on the TV for the first time. Slightly fascinating because it's the only bit of ceremonial that is Anglo-Saxon in origin and basically derived from the Witan.
I think the next bit is Charles swearing to uphold the Church of Scotland and then he gets proclaimed in London.
It does mean, thankfully, that the TV talking heads are now historians not royal correspondents.
Again, how is a small circle of people ceremonially affirming who is going to be head of state 'til the day he dies is in any way compatible with the democratic ideas we take not only for granted but necessary for maintaining a modern state?
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 04:25:21 AMAgain, how is a small circle of people ceremonially affirming who is going to be head of state 'til the day he dies is in any way compatible with the democratic ideas we take not only for granted but necessary for maintaining a modern state?
It doesn't seem to hold, say, Japan back from modernity - and I found their enthronement ceremony after the abdication of the emperor really interesting. I don't think it matters in terms of modernisation or not, or progressive or not.
It's wrong in principle - but fascinating to watch.
Edit: Actually and weirdly this does remind me aesthetically of the Japanese ceremony - the King and lots of others in morning dress. I keep expecting everyone to shout banzai - like I think the PM and various politicians were doing at the Japanese enthronement.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2022, 04:31:17 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 04:25:21 AMAgain, how is a small circle of people ceremonially affirming who is going to be head of state 'til the day he dies is in any way compatible with the democratic ideas we take not only for granted but necessary for maintaining a modern state?
It doesn't seem to hold, say, Japan back from modernity - and I found their enthronement ceremony after the abdication of the emperor really interesting. I don't think it matters in terms of modernisation or not, or progressive or not.
It's wrong in principle - but fascinating to watch.
Yeah fascinating the same way a medieval re-enactment event is. :P I'd prefer principle over entertainment.
I don't know. The archaic anachronism of it all just upsets me more than I thought it would.
And now this lady on the BBC just stopping short on crawling on the floor in front of the new king. Give me a bloody break.
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 04:41:23 AMAnd now this lady on the BBC just stopping short on crawling on the floor in front of the new king. Give me a bloody break.
Have you given up your citizenship oath so quickly?
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 04:38:10 AMYeah fascinating the same way a medieval re-enactment event is. :P I'd prefer principle over entertainment.
To be fair I also love the civic ceremonial of Republics :blush:
I think there's something wonderful about the inauguration in the US (with one recent, quite dark exception) - all the big flags and the marching bands etc. I think it's great.
Or the inauguration of the French President - which only lasts one day but is quite similar the President is announced in front of all the political and judicial leaders, he becomes Grand Master of the Legion of Honour and then travels to the City of Paris to sign the charter.
Edit: Although on archaism I hope the Scottish Parliament gets rid of the oath to protect the one true Protestant faith (the Church of Scotland) :lol:
:P
I'll keep to my oath of being a loyal subject but I don't remember swearing to like all the groveling.
And there will be a bank holiday for the funeral - I missed that but apparently one of the orders in council just approved.
You don't have to watch it Tamas; I believe cbeebies programming is still going on as normal.
I will also add that republics are an older form of organisation than constitutional monarchies and thus moire archaic :P
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 04:50:01 AM:P
I'll keep to my oath of being a loyal subject but I don't remember swearing to like all the groveling.
Just watching that bit and the crowd doing three cheers for the new king before guards did it/before they were told to. There's something almost pre-modern about that. As I was saying earlier, I've always read about the theory of monarchy and how they do the continuity - but it is incredible to see it in action like this.
This country just has no republican sense or gumption - this hasn't happened for 70 years and everyone knows their role and what to do :huh:
And I think David Olusoga's point a few times this morning is interesting, that we're watching this on TV - and Charles wanted the Accession Council on TV for the first time. But what we're watching are the original ceremonies of making this all public - proclamations in the City to announce what had happened.
Just on the BBC watching Charles' former Prince's Trust head talking about the "festival of sustainability" he hosted a couple of years ago at St James' Palace, David Olusoga talking about Charles' attending Barbados becoming a republic and being struck by him (and the closest the monarchy - maybe Britain - has come to an apology for the slave trade) and Lord Simon Woolley of Operation Black Vote talking about Charles' interest in BLM movement (and also Barbados as he has Bajan heritage).
I wonder how long it'll be before we discover from the Daily Mail that, regrettably, the monarchy is woke :ph34r:
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 10, 2022, 05:17:48 AMYou don't have to watch it Tamas; I believe cbeebies programming is still going on as normal.
I will also add that republics are an older form of organisation than constitutional monarchies and thus moire archaic :P
:P
I am not sure why but it really triggered the red revolutionary in me. I think it was at the affirmation of Scottish protestantism where I flew off the handle.
Its the platitudes that get me, that and the self-congratulatory nonsense about the UK being the best place in the world for this sort of show...personally I think we are a very poor second to North Korea :lol:
So is Putin going to the State Funeral? :huh:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 05:28:16 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 05:24:23 PMYeah, because in America we trivially change our constitution, and it never causes any problems.
But I think you're both being fairly pollyannaish, the Queen has served no real constitutional role in Canadian society and what you're quibbling about are literally matters of wording. The Governor General's title could be transposed for "monarch" in every spot it appears in the constitution, and you'd be perfectly fine.
No need for sarcasm. You suggested it would be easy to do. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not appreciate how impossible the task really is. Your second paragraph indicates you still have little understanding how difficult it would be to amend our constitution. It is NOT simply a question of changing a few words here and there.
I guess this is just the difference between a nation of Patriots vs a nation of timid Kneelers. We got rid of our monarch with little thought to it--and in fact did not even formalize a replacement for over 13 years. The glorified tourist resort known as Barbados found the intellect and will to replace the monarchy, but I guess Canada, one of the world's largest economies filled with bright legal minds such as yourself, finds it an impossibility. That is very telling.
Also amusing despite your long history of hateful anti-Americanism and continual gloating about Canada's superiority, you here are suggesting your people are frankly too stupid to edit a legal document.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 10, 2022, 04:31:17 AMIt doesn't seem to hold, say, Japan back from modernity - and I found their enthronement ceremony after the abdication of the emperor really interesting. I don't think it matters in terms of modernisation or not, or progressive or not.
Mind you Japan is not even really a constitutional monarchy in the normal sense of that word. Most constitutional monarchies, the monarch is the nominal Head of State, leader of the armed forces, laws are enacted in their name etc etc. The Japanese constitution actually has no formal government role for the Emperor, the Emperor is not legally the executive or associated with the military. The Japanese constitution formally vests all of that in the Japanese cabinet, and the Prime Minister is the formal commander in chief of the Self Defense Forces. The constitution goes on to even explicitly say the Emperor has no governing capacity or responsibilities, and only has such ceremonial responsibilities as the government deems appropriate.
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 05:42:34 AMI am not sure why but it really triggered the red revolutionary in me. I think it was at the affirmation of Scottish protestantism where I flew off the handle.
What was that about? :hmm:
Part of the Act of Union - obviously probably worth a refresh but I think you'd need to replace it with something else specific to Scotland.
The history nerd in me loves this. I think Tamas should be made to symbolically hand over a ceremonial sheaf of wheat while affirming the wisdom of the Presbyter Church of Scotland. ;)
It does feel like a bit of a flex that Scotland makes the head of the Church of England swear to protect and preserve the "true Protestant and Presbyterian" Church of Scotland :lol:
I suppose Edinburgh is worth a Morning Service.
Politico EU has an article up that has an interesting take on Elizabeth's life:
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-short-unhappy-life-of-elizabeth-windsor-queen-elizabeth-ii-obituary/
Quote from: Josephus on September 10, 2022, 06:20:04 AMSo is Putin going to the State Funeral? :huh:
maybe his own?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 10, 2022, 09:32:50 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 09, 2022, 05:28:16 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 09, 2022, 05:24:23 PMYeah, because in America we trivially change our constitution, and it never causes any problems.
But I think you're both being fairly pollyannaish, the Queen has served no real constitutional role in Canadian society and what you're quibbling about are literally matters of wording. The Governor General's title could be transposed for "monarch" in every spot it appears in the constitution, and you'd be perfectly fine.
No need for sarcasm. You suggested it would be easy to do. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you did not appreciate how impossible the task really is. Your second paragraph indicates you still have little understanding how difficult it would be to amend our constitution. It is NOT simply a question of changing a few words here and there.
I guess this is just the difference between a nation of Patriots vs a nation of timid Kneelers. We got rid of our monarch with little thought to it--and in fact did not even formalize a replacement for over 13 years. The glorified tourist resort known as Barbados found the intellect and will to replace the monarchy, but I guess Canada, one of the world's largest economies filled with bright legal minds such as yourself, finds it an impossibility. That is very telling.
Also amusing despite your long history of hateful anti-Americanism and continual gloating about Canada's superiority, you here are suggesting your people are frankly too stupid to edit a legal document.
There is are big differences between our two countries. One appears to be the ability to understand how other countries are governed.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2022, 04:03:09 PMThere is are big differences between our two countries. One appears to be the ability to understand how other countries are governed.
Disagree that that is one of the big differences. Canada is not far behind the US when it comes to understanding how other countries are governed. Still a little naïve, but only a little.
Quote from: Josephus on September 10, 2022, 06:20:04 AMSo is Putin going to the State Funeral? :huh:
Biden will be there. I assume all the ex-Presidents will be as well. That should be fun.
Quote from: Valmy on September 10, 2022, 04:25:42 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 10, 2022, 06:20:04 AMSo is Putin going to the State Funeral? :huh:
Biden will be there. I assume all the ex-Presidents will be as well. That should be fun.
What's the plan for avoiding the whole funeral being about Trump?
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 04:28:35 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 10, 2022, 04:25:42 PMQuote from: Josephus on September 10, 2022, 06:20:04 AMSo is Putin going to the State Funeral? :huh:
Biden will be there. I assume all the ex-Presidents will be as well. That should be fun.
What's the plan for avoiding the whole funeral being about Trump?
Bring the FBI.
The ceremony at St. James reminded me of the Kentucky Derby.
Guardsmen would look so much cooler if they went back to the Enfield.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 10, 2022, 11:53:07 AMPolitico EU has an article up that has an interesting take on Elizabeth's life:
https://www.politico.eu/article/the-short-unhappy-life-of-elizabeth-windsor-queen-elizabeth-ii-obituary/
Think there's a bit to that - they've not spoken about it in a while. But at the start of the coverage on the BBC there were a few moments when they were talking about how we know Prince Charles' views on various issues and how he'll behave as king and a few times the host said something like "of course, he'll be allowed to keep some of his personality".
It's sort of an inhuman thing to say about someone - but that's the job.
Having said that I think the monarchy will use Charles and William's environmentalism. I think that will be allowed and will also be the way they try to bridge the gap with younger people. An interesting one is the Commonwealth and confronting Britain's imperial legacy. In remarks he's given I think Charles kind of gets it and probably wants to say something. I imagine this government would rather he didn't so that will be a constraint tension of how far the palace can go in his remarks.
Edit: I mean given that Charles' views are a sort of mix of esoteric, conservative, conservationist, traditionalist, quasi de-growthing thought with a real fondness for Sufism and Eastern Orthodoxy, it's probably for the best that he's only allowed some of them now :lol:
There's some overlap between views of guys like E.F. Schumacher who basically espoused the ideas of decentralization and "human-scale" economies and King Charles.
I have to say, while I mostly held vaguely positive feelings towards the British monarchy, despite being against it in concept, I was surprised with how virulently...wrong, I felt it was to watch a video of the House of Commons all obsequiously pledging undying and absolute loyalty to King Charles. I understand the theory that this is really a pledge to the "British State", through Charles, but as an American steeped in the long tradition that none of us (including our military) swear oaths to the President, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2022, 09:43:16 AMThere's some overlap between views of guys like E.F. Schumacher who basically espoused the ideas of decentralization and "human-scale" economies and King Charles.
Yes for sure. There's also all the stuff that Charles' charities do to fund "traditional" artisans and craftsmen etc. I think weirdly it ties to his possibly wanting to go further on talking about colonialism because Charles has written books about needing to break out of the "modernist" mindset and instead learn from traditional artisan, craftsmen, small farmers - which I think very much includes indigenous communities and seeing colonialism as part of that. He has set up a school funding, say, traditional crafts in the UK, Islamic world, South-East Asia etc.
It is quite a contrast with Liz Truss who, according to her speeches, is all about growth and maximising the economy.
QuoteI have to say, while I mostly held vaguely positive feelings towards the British monarchy, despite being against it in concept, I was surprised with how virulently...wrong, I felt it was to watch a video of the House of Commons all obsequiously pledging undying and absolute loyalty to King Charles. I understand the theory that this is really a pledge to the "British State", through Charles, but as an American steeped in the long tradition that none of us (including our military) swear oaths to the President, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
It's mad - it is the swearing in they do when they take their seats. There's no need for them to do it now (as it's to "their heirs" as well), but I believe it's just become tradition that they take the oath to a new monarch. Historically parliament used to dissolve and we'd have an election - which, while I'm not a fan of Liz Truss, I think would have been unfair. Famously a few republicans like Dennis Skinner used to take the oath with their fingers crossed behind their back.
On the other hand I think you can see the other side in Charles meeting with the PM yesterday, the cabinet and the leaders of the main opposition parties (in Westminster) today - he'll do the same in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast in the next few days. Which in theory is about that idea of loyal opposition and politics as between opponents not enemies:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcTtuZYXoAAKJ4k?format=jpg&name=small)
Rather impressed by the significant number of the Dundee onlookers who were wearing formal black attire, including black armbands.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2022, 09:43:16 AMThere's some overlap between views of guys like E.F. Schumacher who basically espoused the ideas of decentralization and "human-scale" economies and King Charles.
I have to say, while I mostly held vaguely positive feelings towards the British monarchy, despite being against it in concept, I was surprised with how virulently...wrong, I felt it was to watch a video of the House of Commons all obsequiously pledging undying and absolute loyalty to King Charles. I understand the theory that this is really a pledge to the "British State", through Charles, but as an American steeped in the long tradition that none of us (including our military) swear oaths to the President, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
For what it's worth, my citizenship ceremony had effectively two oaths, one to the state, the other to the monarch and her heirs, i.e. it felt like a distinction was made between the two in a way and I was expected to swear loyalty to both.
(https://i.redd.it/m5kzypnig7n91.jpg)
QuoteUFC PPV starts off with a moment of silence in remembrance of Queen Elizabeth, which is met with boos and then a USA chant.
Quote from: The Larch on September 11, 2022, 01:00:08 PMQuoteUFC PPV starts off with a moment of silence in remembrance of Queen Elizabeth, which is met with boos and then a USA chant.
Fans of brutal fighting sport are dumb aggressive morons. Film at 11.
Best take I've seen -
So they want a MAN to be the next queen. This woke nonsense has gone too far.
:lol:
It
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2022, 09:43:16 AMThere's some overlap between views of guys like E.F. Schumacher who basically espoused the ideas of decentralization and "human-scale" economies and King Charles.
I have to say, while I mostly held vaguely positive feelings towards the British monarchy, despite being against it in concept, I was surprised with how virulently...wrong, I felt it was to watch a video of the House of Commons all obsequiously pledging undying and absolute loyalty to King Charles. I understand the theory that this is really a pledge to the "British State", through Charles, but as an American steeped in the long tradition that none of us (including our military) swear oaths to the President, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
It isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.
Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.
In the case of the monarch, he or she is mostly (but not entirely) an office place-holder, with a small but important constitutional role to play; there is a certain value in separating the head of state from the executive - it avoids, or at least lessens, people mistaking blind following of the executive with "patriotism". A weakness of the American system, as the events surrounding Trump has demonstrated - though, at least so far, Trump hasn't been able to exploit this weakness to ruin American democracy, it hasn't been for what of trying.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2022, 02:40:30 PMIt isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.
Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.
No one pledges allegiance to the flag. They mouth the nonsense words to show that they are slavishly conformational, but the actual words spoken are meaningless.
Quote from: Tamas on September 10, 2022, 04:28:35 PMWhat's the plan for avoiding the whole funeral being about Trump?
I was slightly wondering about whether they'd even invite all the ex-presidents because it sounded on that CNN bit like this was up to Biden. It sounds like, due to space limitation at Westminster Abbey, it'll only be serving heads of state and spouses (I assume maybe heads of government too?) - which makes sense because if ex-US Presidents why not ex-French Presidents etc.
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2022, 06:13:31 PMQuote from: Malthus on September 11, 2022, 02:40:30 PMIt isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.
Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.
No one pledges allegiance to the flag. They mouth the nonsense words to show that they are slavishly conformational, but the actual words spoken are meaningless.
Pledging to the flag is also a purely puff behavior, it is not tied to any oath of office or etc at the Federal level or any State level office AFAIK.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2022, 08:12:18 PMQuote from: grumbler on September 11, 2022, 06:13:31 PMQuote from: Malthus on September 11, 2022, 02:40:30 PMIt isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.
Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.
No one pledges allegiance to the flag. They mouth the nonsense words to show that they are slavishly conformational, but the actual words spoken are meaningless.
Pledging to the flag is also a purely puff behavior, it is not tied to any oath of office or etc at the Federal level or any State level office AFAIK.
Does the form of an oath of office matter to anyone in the slightest?
The basics are: you are bound to perform your duties in accordance with the laws. If you fail to do so, you risk punishment.
There are a lot of permutations, but not convinced they matter. Affirming that you support the constitution (whatever that means) or allegiance to a monarch - all just ways of saying you will be loyal to the system of government you are appointed to.
It does seem weird to think of it. Doesn't it basically mean you're promising to vote conservative and against change shoukd any referendums crop up?
Here is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:
QuoteSo my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.
Quote from: Malthus on September 11, 2022, 10:13:37 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2022, 08:12:18 PMQuote from: grumbler on September 11, 2022, 06:13:31 PMQuote from: Malthus on September 11, 2022, 02:40:30 PMIt isn't really different from pledging allegiance to the flag.
Most understand that the real object of allegiance is the nation, as symbolized by the flag, and not to a mere inanimate bit of nylon ... but some Americans take the whole flag idolatry thing a step too far, so that it seems that the flag itself is an object of allegiance. Which can seem a bit odd.
No one pledges allegiance to the flag. They mouth the nonsense words to show that they are slavishly conformational, but the actual words spoken are meaningless.
Pledging to the flag is also a purely puff behavior, it is not tied to any oath of office or etc at the Federal level or any State level office AFAIK.
Does the form of an oath of office matter to anyone in the slightest?
The basics are: you are bound to perform your duties in accordance with the laws. If you fail to do so, you risk punishment.
There are a lot of permutations, but not convinced they matter. Affirming that you support the constitution (whatever that means) or allegiance to a monarch - all just ways of saying you will be loyal to the system of government you are appointed to.
Maybe it matters to me because of my familiarity with our military oaths.
Note the two forms (enlisted v officer):
Oath of Enlistment
QuoteI, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Oath of Office
QuoteI, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
While the Oath of Enlistment does mention obeying the President's orders, the Oath of Office upon commissioning does not. However, it is understood that the President is Commander-in-Chief and can give orders to the military. What is more important is that the oath is actually to the constitution, and that supersedes other responsibilities.
As I would wager the vast majority of British military members give very little thought to the pro forma oath they have to take, my assumption is a decent chunk of the U.S. military is the same. However, I think at the upper command ranks, the distinction between an oath to a President vs to the constitution is more firmly understood. I think for example, part of the reason Trump had so much trouble with his Generals not being "loyal", is because officers of that rank very well understand their responsibilities when their duty to the constitution and their duty to obey the President are in conflict--the constitution trumps the President.
In that sense an oath that is personal fealty to a human being, is very jarring and different to me.
The practical effect of that difference is likely minimal, but there is IMO an importance in the symbolism. There may even be, in theory, some constitutional significance--in all intents and purposes in the UK the Prime Minister exercises all of the monarch's royal powers and prerogatives for them, so in a sense you could make an argument that the UK's oath of personal fealty to the monarch would in essence mean the British military would be obligated to obey a Prime Minister's order, regardless of whether it might conflict with constitutional or legal principles. I'm sure they've probably crafted specific laws and regulations saying that isn't the case, but if it was me I'd like the principle being enshrined in the oath itself.
To my point: Putin is still head of state. Won't he get an invite? The UK is not at war with Russia, and still has open diplomatic relations, no?
I doubt Putin gets an invite, and I imagine there is no automatic invitation for every Head of State.
Yeah, Putin won't be invited.
On the military for what it's worth my experience is that British military types really value their path to the Queen/monarch and relationship with the royal family in general. As opposed to politicians such as the PM and normally see it as - a bit like the civil service - that they are apolitical in service of the crown.
The clash would be if the PM had support of Parliament in using the military in one way and the "crown"/British state had another - and then we're back to the 1640s.
And of course there's another set of risks with a military having oaths to a constitution or constitutional order - opens up coups like Pinochet's or other "guardian coups".
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2022, 08:36:16 AMYeah, Putin won't be invited.
On the military for what it's worth my experience is that British military types really value their path to the Queen/monarch and relationship with the royal family in general. As opposed to politicians such as the PM and normally see it as - a bit like the civil service - that they are apolitical in service of the crown.
The clash would be if the PM had support of Parliament in using the military in one way and the "crown"/British state had another - and then we're back to the 1640s.
And of course there's another set of risks with a military having oaths to a constitution or constitutional order - opens up coups like Pinochet's or other "guardian coups".
All true enough.
I have always found it a little amusing that, unlike the other branches of the British military, the Royal Navy doesn't actually swear an oath to the monarch. They often say it is because "their loyalty is never in question" as it is Her/His Majesty's Navy.
But of course in the English Civil War, the navy was loyal to Parliament and not the King.
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 07:46:44 AMHere is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:
QuoteSo my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.
I am slightly wondering how to do "respectfully excited" for another bank holiday :ph34r:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2022, 09:14:55 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 07:46:44 AMHere is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:
QuoteSo my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.
I am slightly wondering how to do "respectfully excited" for another bank holiday :ph34r:
:D
So what's the Stone of Destiny? It was mentioned at the start of the Scottish church rememberance thing.
No radio station playing anything over a certain BPM is getting ridiculous now.
And also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events. I wonder how representative this is.
I also wonder if this will serve to highlight to the public just how out of touch by now these monarchy-related customs are with modern times.
The Stone of Destiny is also known as the Stone of Scone, it's a random ass giant rock a bunch of ignorant Picts dug up 1200+ years ago and is seen as an important cultural artifact for the Scottish people. It was traditionally sat upon during the coronation of the old Scottish Kings.
The English took it after England had defeated Scotland in the late 13th century and briefly controlled it as a puppet state, and traditionally it has sat in a compartment beneath St. Edward's Chair (a decrepit hunk of 700-year-old wood that English monarchs have historically used for their coronation), symbolically the new English monarch sitting on that chair, which also meant sitting on the Stone of Scone inside of it, represented the fact of the English monarch also being the Scottish monarch.
Also fun fact there are rumors that the Stone was at least twice replaced by a copy and the "real" stone hidden. It's possible that the currently known Stone was a fake from 1300 because the Scots hid the real one when they knew King Edward was going to steal it (and the real one in this theory is now lost to history.) Further, in the 1950s a group of Scottish school boys broke into Westminster Abbey and stole the Stone, and also accidentally broke it in half during the theft. There are rumors to this day that the stone that eventually was given back to the authorities was itself a counterfeit, and that they had hidden the real stone yet again.
The Stone of Scone is essentially peak "stupid British shit", embrace it deeply as the cultural heritage of your adopted nation, Tamas.
It sounds delicious, which has probably helped its popularity.
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 07:46:44 AMHere is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:
QuoteSo my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.
The British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy. There is no "in between". :)
Colonials have been stuck with it for a while now. CBC is all about the Queen, in both official languages. It's like there's no election going on anymore. FFS, give me a fucking break. Isn't it some kind of cultural appropriation anyway? It's the British Queen, we're not supposed to be British subjects, let them their playthings. :P
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 09:31:05 AM:D
Also I say that - and oppose all this on principle and think it is mad (but I think humans are mad and irrational creatures so maybe we all need an outlet)...But I saw Emperor Naruhito is coming to the funeral, and I did think that's very exciting :lol: :blush:
QuoteSo what's the Stone of Destiny? It was mentioned at the start of the Scottish church rememberance thing.
The Stone of Scone - as OvB says. But I lived in Scotland in the 90s when the Stone was returned to Scotland so have a bit more of a romantic attachment to it. It was a stone that was used for the crowning of Kenneth MacAlpine the first King of Scots and used for every subsequent King of Scots. I have a feeling but I can't remember any details that it was often a feature in Scotland's (many) internal disputed successions with different parties trying to capture the Stone.
Then in Edward Longshanks monstrous war on Scotland it got stolen by the English who started using it in their coronations. And it stayed in Westminster Abbey for the next 600 years or so. In the 50s I think a group of Scottish Nationalists broke into the Abbey, kidnapped the Stone and tried to return it to Scotland.
When I was a kid in the 90s it was regularly brought up that the Stone of Destiny was in England and it was restored to Scotland in the mid-90s to much rejoicing. But it still gets used for coronations so when that happens the Stone will be ceremoniously transported from Edinburgh Castle to London.
QuoteAnd also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events. I wonder how representative this is.
I also wonder if this will serve to highlight to the public just how out of touch by now these monarchy-related customs are with modern times.
Perhaps but Guardian commentators and voters is not where I would naturally go to get in touch with modern Britain :P
It's the Guardian. It's Guardian readers. They normally have a widget to "turn off" royal news on big events like weddings etc. I think they don't for this because it is a new head of state so it is newsy. I would also add that my understanding is these are absolute record days for readership for British news sites (especially free and open ones like the Guardian) - so they may, and will grumble, but I suspect it's pretty good for them overall.
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 07:46:44 AMHere is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:
QuoteSo my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.
Brits being self absorbed and stuck in the past? :o
Quote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 09:37:06 AMAnd also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events.
Brits complaining about self-inflicted inconveniences? :o
The way I see it is that the minority of royal-obsessives are like the chief mourners at any other death. They deserve to take priority in our thoughts, even though it looks very OTT to normal people. It is our duty to look respectful, try not to drink too much and tell any jokes quietly.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2022, 04:18:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2022, 04:03:09 PMThere is are big differences between our two countries. One appears to be the ability to understand how other countries are governed.
Disagree that that is one of the big differences. Canada is not far behind the US when it comes to understanding how other countries are governed. Still a little naïve, but only a little.
Rim shot. Rick Mercer had a great show a few years back called "Talking to Americans". You should watch it some time, the whole theme was Americans being completely ignorant about the world around them, and particularly Canada. Otto would have definitely had a spot on the show.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2022, 10:08:45 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 07:46:44 AMHere is a comment you won't be surprised to learn I agree with:
QuoteSo my thought for the day. I have no problem celebrating the life of a monarch who has played a huge role in public life for over 70 years. However days and days of mourning with no other news, soporific music all over the radio, no comedy allowed and events being cancelled "out of respect" is just ludicrous. Secondly and even more ludicrous is the pageantry, the arcane customs, the ridiculous outfits and sycophantic commentators (step forward James Naughtie, "she didn't put a foot wrong"). Some people love all that stuff, for me this is Britain at its absolute worst.
The British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy. There is no "in between". :)
Colonials have been stuck with it for a while now. CBC is all about the Queen, in both official languages. It's like there's no election going on anymore. FFS, give me a fucking break. Isn't it some kind of cultural appropriation anyway? It's the British Queen, we're not supposed to be British subjects, let them their playthings. :P
She was the Queen of Canada - separate and apart from the crown she held in the UK.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 12, 2022, 10:31:02 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 12, 2022, 09:31:05 AM:D
Also I say that - and oppose all this on principle and think it is mad (but I think humans are mad and irrational creatures so maybe we all need an outlet)...But I saw Emperor Naruhito is coming to the funeral, and I did think that's very exciting :lol: :blush:
QuoteSo what's the Stone of Destiny? It was mentioned at the start of the Scottish church rememberance thing.
The Stone of Scone - as OvB says. But I lived in Scotland in the 90s when the Stone was returned to Scotland so have a bit more of a romantic attachment to it. It was a stone that was used for the crowning of Kenneth MacAlpine the first King of Scots and used for every subsequent King of Scots. I have a feeling but I can't remember any details that it was often a feature in Scotland's (many) internal disputed successions with different parties trying to capture the Stone.
Then in Edward Longshanks monstrous war on Scotland it got stolen by the English who started using it in their coronations. And it stayed in Westminster Abbey for the next 600 years or so. In the 50s I think a group of Scottish Nationalists broke into the Abbey, kidnapped the Stone and tried to return it to Scotland.
When I was a kid in the 90s it was regularly brought up that the Stone of Destiny was in England and it was restored to Scotland in the mid-90s to much rejoicing. But it still gets used for coronations so when that happens the Stone will be ceremoniously transported from Edinburgh Castle to London.
QuoteAnd also I don't know how representative it is, but the most upvoted comments (hundreds of upvotes) under the daily Guardian live politics coverage are all about being fed up with the whole series of grieving events. I wonder how representative this is.
I also wonder if this will serve to highlight to the public just how out of touch by now these monarchy-related customs are with modern times.
Perhaps but Guardian commentators and voters is not where I would naturally go to get in touch with modern Britain :P
It's the Guardian. It's Guardian readers. They normally have a widget to "turn off" royal news on big events like weddings etc. I think they don't for this because it is a new head of state so it is newsy. I would also add that my understanding is these are absolute record days for readership for British news sites (especially free and open ones like the Guardian) - so they may, and will grumble, but I suspect it's pretty good for them overall.
One of my favorite might-have-beens in history: when Edward Longshanks lay dying, he (according to one account) asked that his funeral be having the flesh stripped from his bones and his skeleton put in armour and led on his horse against the Scots.
Now that would have been very metal.
Unfortunately, his wishes were not heeded, and instead he was buried in a solid black stone coffin with "here lies the hammer of the Scots, keep the vow" written on it in Latin (still metal, but not as much).
Saw a clip of the service in Edinburgh and very pleased to see that the Kirk had an appropriately dour minister to preside over the service - he's very Revd I M Jolly :lol:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2022, 10:56:45 AMQuote from: grumbler on September 10, 2022, 04:18:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 10, 2022, 04:03:09 PMThere is are big differences between our two countries. One appears to be the ability to understand how other countries are governed.
Disagree that that is one of the big differences. Canada is not far behind the US when it comes to understanding how other countries are governed. Still a little naïve, but only a little.
Rim shot. Rick Mercer had a great show a few years back called "Talking to Americans". You should watch it some time, the whole theme was Americans being completely ignorant about the world around them, and particularly Canada. Otto would have definitely had a spot on the show.
I mean I'm not "ignorant" about Canada, all I have said is I would have thought a mighty polity like Canada would be able to figure out how to amend a legal document when a tiny Caribbean nation like Barbados did it with zero trouble. If it is your position that the matter is simply too hard to figure out for Canadian legislators then I of course defer to your opinion on your own people. A strange position to hold, though.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 12:20:14 PMI mean I'm not "ignorant" about Canada, all I have said is I would have thought a mighty polity like Canada would be able to figure out how to amend a legal document when a tiny Caribbean nation like Barbados did it with zero trouble. If it is your position that the matter is simply too hard to figure out for Canadian legislators then I of course defer to your opinion on your own people. A strange position to hold, though.
Amending the constitution of a small unitary state like Barbados would almost certainly be easier than amending the constitution on a large and diverse federal state like Canada.
Wiki says that the Barbadian constitution can be amended by a 2/3 vote of each house.
Amendments to the Canadian constitution require the approval of both parliament, but 7 out of 10 provinces representing at least 50% of the population. And as a practical matter Quebec holds a virtual veto over any amendments as well.
Like I said last week, I figure a team of lawyers could draft up a new republican Constitution Act over the weekend. Getting it approved would be an entirely different matter.
Right but CC is talking about that like it is some insane concept that no one but a well-educated Canadian lawyer could understand. Most countries have relatively higher hurdles for constitutional amendments than regular legislation. The idea this is some complicated thing non-Canadians are too stupid to understand is..highly ignorant in and of itself.
Meh. Doesn't matter much to me. I'm not interested in some colonial relic's life. She has not done anything for Canada except being born in a family where it was long ago decided that she would reign over Canada because it was either that or confront the British Empire the way the Americans did a century earlier, without any outside help.
There is no way the British would have let Canada go quietly and peacefully out of the Empire in 1867. A responsible government firmly controlled by White Anglo-Saxon Protestant interests was the furthest they would go. Even in 1931, they retained the right to overturn the laws of our parliament.
As such, it is still a powerful symbol of colonialism for all the conquered people of this country, and a powerful reminder of whom this country was built for. It's a shame really, that so many people would call themselves "progressives" and support such institutions. They're more attached to inclusive writing, gender neutral speak and forced diversity than anything really meaningful.
The first part is true, the second is utterly false, as demonstrated by the 1982 Constitution.
Charlottetown was rejected by the Western provinces as well as Quebec in 1992, while Meech was firmly rejected by Manitoba and Newfoundland in 1990. Mulroney had insisted on a unanimous approval by all province, and all provinces had first agreed to sign the document, but after the elections, two provincial governments decided to renege their signature. In the end, Elijah Harper from Manitoba decided to reject it because First Nations weren't included in this document. Which was just a bullshit excuse to show his anti French racism, of course. Rejecting the province that always tried to include its First Nations in all Constitutional negotiations despite the Feds attempts at isolating them was just dumb. Had he been of good faith, he could have spearheaded a new round of negotiations between all first nations and the Federal government. Or he could have spoken before the 11th hour. In the end, he was either a racist, or he was manipulated by racist. Either way, that was a dumb move, and 32 years later, the First Nation cause in Canada hasn't advanced one iota.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2022, 01:22:46 PMThe first part is true, the second is utterly false, as demonstrated by the 1982 Constitution.
Charlottetown was rejected by the Western provinces as well as Quebec in 1992, while Meech was firmly rejected by Manitoba and Newfoundland in 1990. Mulroney had insisted on a unanimous approval by all province, and all provinces had first agreed to sign the document, but after the elections, two provincial governments decided to renege their signature. In the end, Elijah Harper from Manitoba decided to reject it because First Nations weren't included in this document. Which was just a bullshit excuse to show his anti French racism, of course. Rejecting the province that always tried to include its First Nations in all Constitutional negotiations despite the Feds attempts at isolating them was just dumb. Had he been of good faith, he could have spearheaded a new round of negotiations between all first nations and the Federal government. Or he could have spoken before the 11th hour. In the end, he was either a racist, or he was manipulated by racist. Either way, that was a dumb move, and 32 years later, the First Nation cause in Canada hasn't advanced one iota.
Elijah Harper was a racist? Say what now?
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2022, 01:14:06 PMAs such, it is still a powerful symbol of colonialism for all the conquered people of this country, and a powerful reminder of whom this country was built for. It's a shame really, that so many people would call themselves "progressives" and support such institutions. They're more attached to inclusive writing, gender neutral speak and forced diversity than anything really meaningful.
Hear hear! Death to monarchy!
That being said my guess as to how it is has remained in the non-UK countries so long is entirely because the vast majority of voters don't spend a lot of time caring about things that do not affect their daily lives. Liz II being on your money and nominally being Head of State (with all real Head of State functions performed by a Governor General) is a situation that just doesn't matter a lot to most people's daily lives. Not as much as the price of staples, rent, immigration, etc etc and all the other things that governments bicker over.
The cost benefit ratio of chucking the monarchy just doesn't work out all that way. The ongoing costs of maintaining the status quo, politically speaking, are basically nil. The political effort and cost of replacing it is greater than nil.
In terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.
I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 01:38:55 PMIn terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.
I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.
More than that - the US having such a huge army in the 1860s was a prime reason behind confederation itself! It was felt that a unified dominion, rather than separate colonies, would better be able to defend itself.
There was no meaningful support for independence in the 19th century. Much of the english-speaking population had arrived from the UK. Arrivals from other countries (Like Ukraine) were just glad to have been taken in and were generally pretty loyal to the new country. As for Quebec... well I can't really speak for the mood in Quebec. There was some sentiment in favour of Quebec independence, but never really expressed itself as much of a political movement.
As for war in general between the US and UK... the two countries had fought a war just 50 years prior so such a thing was not impossible. The US was a growing country, but the UK was almost at the peak of her Empire as well and "ruled the waves". There were several efforts by the Fenians to try and draw the two countries into war, but both countries new to avoid such a war at all costs.
And the North knew that if they suddenly got themselves into what would be a long and difficult war with Canada that the South would be very pro-UK in its sentiments. Hardly a good position to challenge the greatest naval power on earth.
Right, there was a persistent faction in the U.S. that wanted another war with the UK in the mid-19th century. Not to "conquer" Canada, which I don't think was ever seriously considered after 1812 (and even then they called it a "liberation"), but more to settle boundary disputes. Cooler heads on both sides realized a major war between the US and UK just made little sense over things like the border of Maine and some lines of latitude in the Pacific Northwest.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 01:38:55 PMIn terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.
I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.
If the Canadians wouldn't join us against British rule in the 1810s, when almost all of its English speakers had been born in the 13 colonies, it seems insane to think they would do so in the 1860s. They had made their choice to align with Britain...well at least when it came to rejecting the United States. Obviously they had issues with how London did things sometimes as you can see from the 1830 revolts.
It is interesting how quickly the relationship changed, while it obviously never happened, there was at least "serious talk" of war between the 1840s and 1860s, but by the 1880s the UK was America's closest European relationship and you started to have a lot of intermarriage between the English upper class and American wealthy families (Churchill was the product of one such union.)
Quote from: Valmy on September 12, 2022, 02:27:21 PMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 01:38:55 PMIn terms of Canadian independence, my guess is Britain probably would not have waged a major North American war to suppress a deliberate Canadian break in the 1860s. The U.S. Army just a few years prior had literally become almost overnight the largest military in the world, with advanced deployment of weapon systems for the first time. There is a very non-zero chance a Canadian rebellion against British rule would have almost immediately drawn in the United States, and I simply think London would not have gone in for that fight in that era.
I also have to think the looming giant to the South was a decent reason not to want independence in the 1860s. The U.S. was still occasionally saber rattling about the Northern border in those eras, and an independent Canada is in a much worse position to contest those American assertions than one that has the British Empire behind it.
If the Canadians wouldn't join us against British rule in the 1810s, when almost all of its English speakers had been born in the 13 colonies, it seems insane to think they would do so in the 1860s. They had made their choice to align with Britain...well at least when it came to rejecting the United States. Obviously they had issues with how London did things sometimes as you can see from the 1830 revolts.
Right, to my knowledge our two major beefs with them--the border between British land and American holdings in the Pacific North West (then the Oregon Territory) and the border between Maine and New Brunswick (Aroostook War), there was no talk of war to "conquer" Canada. It would have entirely been war to settle those border disputes in American favor.
The last big issue was British tacit support for the Confederacy, and in that instance war was considered primarily as a vehicle to stop British support for the CSA. I think some speculation I've read of American thinking is a quick march into lower Canada, seizing some strategic locations, and then basically telling the British "we'll give these back if you agree to cease any and all aid to the CSA."
As it was, the British support for the Confederacy just didn't escalate to the point where this seemed like a good idea. The closest to conflict we got was the
Trent affair, and Lincoln shrewdly understood the folly of escalating things, and chose a diplomatic solution where he released the prisoners we had taken but made no formal apology. Note that the British publicly announced plans to blockade New York harbor if war were to break out, which very likely we could have done nothing about, our Navy simply was not big enough to contest the British at scale on the seas.
I think to some degree the close economic relationship between the two countries in the 1860s made war somewhat unlikely in any case--something like 40% of American saltpeter, essential to the war effort, was imported from Britain, and a quarter of all grain used in British food was imported from the United States in this era.
I also think it was politically awkward for the British after the Emancipation Proclamation. There was strong anti-slavery sentiment in the British working class and parts of the ruling class at the time, that combined with the Battle of Antietam making Confederate long term success seem doubtful undermined any possibility of Britain going as far as formally supporting the CSA.
The Confederates of course always were desirous of British involvement, and some of their leaders "assumed" it would occur and would secure their independence. They stopped exporting cotton to the British, hoping the denial of Britain's major cotton supply would entice them to join the war on the Confederate side, but the British just switched to Egyptian cotton instead, permanently damaging demand for American cotton that never recovered its previous importance.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 02:39:30 PMRight, to my knowledge our two major beefs with them--the border between British land and American holdings in the Pacific North West (then the Oregon Territory) and the border between Maine and New Brunswick (Aroostook War), there was no talk of war to "conquer" Canada. It would have entirely been war to settle those border disputes in American favor.
War talk was not just one way though.
Our (Canada's) major beef with the US in that time period was the Fenian raids. Armed militants based out of the northern states would make armed raids across the border into Canada in order to somehow drive the UK out of Ireland. Some leaders were arrested in the US, but it was generally thought the US should do more to supress the Fenians.
I had never even heard of those. It continually surprises me how minimally American support for Irish independence (and later the IRA in Northern Ireland) is ever talked about here. I did not know until probably I was 40+ years old for example that the U.S. was the largest supplier of weapons and financing for Irish partisans, going back 100+ years.
It's odd we do talk up the Aroostook War and the battle over 54'40 though.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 03:09:03 PMI had never even heard of those. It continually surprises me how minimally American support for Irish independence (and later the IRA in Northern Ireland) is ever talked about here. I did not know until probably I was 40+ years old for example that the U.S. was the largest supplier of weapons and financing for Irish partisans, going back 100+ years.
It's odd we do talk up the Aroostook War and the battle over 54'40 though.
Yeah it seemed like you didn't know about them, so I thought I'd go into a tiny bit of detail.
I can't say that is something every Canadian knows by heart but it was covered in high school Canadian history as one of the driving forces behind Confederation.
Reading about them a little bit I struggle to understand the logic.
1. Raid Canada
2. Somehow somehow Britain lets Ireland free
3. Profit
I don't really understand how they seriously thought a few sloppy raids along the border of a British possession 3,000 miles away from Ireland was going to further Irish independence. :lol:
An anti-Fenian song, based on the US Civil War era song "Tramp! Tramp! Tramp!":
'Tramp tramp tramp the boys are marching
Onward onward let them come
For Beneath the Union Jack
We will drive the Fenians back
And we'll fight for our Canadian homes!'
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 12:52:00 PMRight but CC is talking about that like it is some insane concept that no one but a well-educated Canadian lawyer could understand. Most countries have relatively higher hurdles for constitutional amendments than regular legislation. The idea this is some complicated thing non-Canadians are too stupid to understand is..highly ignorant in and of itself.
You again completely misunderstand the point. As BB has said, at least twice, and I have agreed with him, both times, it would be easy to amend the text itself. However, it would be next to impossible to amend the constitution. First, simply as a practical matter, because of the amending formula. But more importantly because of the constitutional crisis which has occurred during the modern era whenever an amendment is attempted.
And a small quibble. It does not take a well educated Canadian lawyer to understand these simple facts. Most Canadians seem to understand them. I am not sure why it is so difficult for you.
And as evidence for how it is a political impossibility, you note previous attempts that involved politically contentious amendments. It goes almost without saying, unless you are beyond daft, that one would not abolish the monarchy without broad support for it, and with said support it would not be a contentious amendment.
It'd be silly if your world was the real one, because you're suggesting if the UK itself abolished the monarchy, Canada would still maintain the current family (who would still be non-resident aliens) as their royals? I highly doubt that is how it would go down.
It's almost as stupid as an American saying it is impossible to amend the constitution, and then pointing to all the times we haven't. But the point is, there have been times when there was broad, almost universal consensus, and amending has been easy. See: 18 year old voting age, and Presidential succession. Procedurally as Barrister laid out, it is in fact easier to amend the Canadian constitution than the American. Amending the U.S. Constitution, if the 12 smallest states decided to veto it, they could--and they in total represent around 4% of the U.S. population.
Again, you seem to think Canada is special in that it is procedurally non-trivial to amend its constitution, in a conversation with an American--the country with the hardest to amend constitution in the Western world. Your point might have some relevance if you were clarifying it to a Brit, a people who amend theirs with simple majority votes.
Ok, you keep missing the point. So I will bow out as gracefully as possible.
If you are interested, please read up a little more about our constitutional history before making more ill informed broad statements. You can start with reading about what happened with the Meech Lake Accord. You can round out your education by reading about the continuing fall out related to the last time our constitution was successfully amended.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 12, 2022, 01:36:27 PMQuote from: viper37 on September 12, 2022, 01:14:06 PMAs such, it is still a powerful symbol of colonialism for all the conquered people of this country, and a powerful reminder of whom this country was built for. It's a shame really, that so many people would call themselves "progressives" and support such institutions. They're more attached to inclusive writing, gender neutral speak and forced diversity than anything really meaningful.
Hear hear! Death to monarchy!
That being said my guess as to how it is has remained in the non-UK countries so long is entirely because the vast majority of voters don't spend a lot of time caring about things that do not affect their daily lives.
You say things like this, and yet your people don't elect Justin Trudeau and his wokes or have NYC mayor talk about non ceded territory bullshit... Ah well.
One day, I will die and rest in peace, go to land far away from all this nonsense. Or Pierre Poilièvre will be my Prime Minister and wage a not so civil war on wokism just like he promised. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on September 12, 2022, 01:36:09 PMElijah Harper was a racist? Say what now?
He voted against the Lake Meech accord out of spite against French speakers for some reasons that still elude us today.
I gotta admit, I have just fallen in love with Howard Stern. ;)
QuoteInstead of sharing condolences like so many others have, Stern questioned why news from across the pond was being reported in the American news cycle, before clarifying that he understood why Her Majesty's death resonated with many. "I mean, it's America," he shared. "We don't have a queen. I get it. You know, queen was a nice lady, I guess she was born, you know, my whole life, the queen has been the same queen and there's a tradition there and she did her duty to her country."
In his segment on Monday, Stern argued that more focus should be placed on the Department of Justice's investigation into former president Donald Trump's mishandling of classified files. "But we gotta get back to Trump and where those papers are that they found that Mar-A-Lago,"
:wub:
Had I know it would be that bad, even on French news networks&papers, I would have hung myself years ago, dammit. Americans, I already knew they would disapoint me :(
What was the point of that whole rebellion thing again? :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 11, 2022, 08:12:18 PMPledging to the flag is also a purely puff behavior, it is not tied to any oath of office or etc at the Federal level or any State level office AFAIK.
Had a really cool salute when it was originally introduced (as an ad for selling more flags):
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Students_pledging_allegiance_to_the_American_flag_with_the_Bellamy_salute.jpg)
Man, Nazis ruin everything.
Quote from: viper37 on September 12, 2022, 10:08:45 AMThe British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy. There is no "in between". :)
Not really true. I don't want a monarchy and if a republic could be instituted reasonably easily I'd support abolition. But the reality is that it would suck up so much Parliamentary time and create such horrendous divisions that we would do nothing else politically for half a decade.
Quote from: Gups on September 13, 2022, 04:09:22 AMQuote from: viper37 on September 12, 2022, 10:08:45 AMThe British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy. There is no "in between". :)
Not really true. I don't want a monarchy and if a republic could be instituted reasonably easily I'd support abolition. But the reality is that it would suck up so much Parliamentary time and create such horrendous divisions that we would do nothing else politically for half a decade.
Same.
If the monarchy didn't exist I wouldn't want it implemented and ideologically I can see its wrong.
But there's no data to support getting rid of it. All signs suggest it'd be a massive faff for zero practical gain beyond a bit of "hurray we owned the conservatives" feels.
Not sure if this is the full list, but of countries the UK has diplomatic relationships with, Russia, Belarus and Myanmar are not invited to the state funeral in any capacity.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2022, 07:06:59 AMNot sure if this is the full list, but of countries the UK has diplomatic relationships with, Russia, Belarus and Myanmar are not invited to the state funeral in any capacity.
But what's the betting Trump all turn up anyway.
Amazing - feels like a particularly extreme example of the status quo effect in public opinion:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FchfMixXoAAYcPe?format=jpg&name=small)
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2022, 07:30:49 AMAmazing - feels like a particularly extreme example of the status quo effect in public opinion:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FchfMixXoAAYcPe?format=jpg&name=small)
Somebody on Twitter made a compilation of all the journos and public figures that used to say that Charles would be a bad king and he should step aside who now made a full turn and say that he's the best possible king by far. It's quite the read.
Btw, David Squires' latest comic (https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2022/sep/13/david-squires-on-football-response-to-the-queen-death (https://www.theguardian.com/football/ng-interactive/2022/sep/13/david-squires-on-football-response-to-the-queen-death)) on how football has reacted to the Queen's death is great. The "Wokefinder General" joke is particulary inspired.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 12, 2022, 05:10:14 PMOk, you keep missing the point. So I will bow out as gracefully as possible.
If you are interested, please read up a little more about our constitutional history before making more ill informed broad statements. You can start with reading about what happened with the Meech Lake Accord. You can round out your education by reading about the continuing fall out related to the last time our constitution was successfully amended.
And I would simply counter you have only been a real country for a few decades. I'm speaking from the position of a country that has been doing this a lot longer than you and understands that conditions change. For a country that has only truly been independent since 1982, I understand that lots of things seem impossible to you.
Quote from: Gups on September 13, 2022, 04:09:22 AMQuote from: viper37 on September 12, 2022, 10:08:45 AMThe British either want monarchy or they do not want monarchy. There is no "in between". :)
Not really true. I don't want a monarchy and if a republic could be instituted reasonably easily I'd support abolition. But the reality is that it would suck up so much Parliamentary time and create such horrendous divisions that we would do nothing else politically for half a decade.
If I was a British Republican, which I am not, my philosophy would be that you get rid of the monarchy by gradual erosion. A first step, which the current King even appears to favor, is shrinking the number of "working royals", make the family have a smaller footprint at official events by basically only having the current monarch, their spouse, and his immediate heir and their spouse involved in working royal activities.
At some later point, my next step might be trimming their military involvement. I posit that a decent chunk of the prestige the monarchy has maintained involves their convoluted relationship with the military. While many of the recent male Royals have had a "normal" military career of x number of years for PR purposes, they then later get a bunch of ceremonial ranks and positions that let them engage in a lot of military pageantry. I would probably seek to dial a lot of that back, some of that military pageantry itself does not need to exist, and is not seen in many other countries (like we don't really have anything quite like it in the United States.) The new status quo should be if an appropriate age royal wants to serve in the military, they certainly can, but under the exact same parameters as any other British person.
I would then look into reforms of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which appear to be ran as private piggy banks for the royals, and that do not pay corporation tax. I am curious how appropriate that is, I feel those estates should either be merged into the Crown Estate and essentially managed by the government, or treated like a true private asset and taxed appropriately (including having to pay inheritance tax--ownership of these Duchies presently transfers with no tax bill.)
The New York Times actually has an article today about the royals private holdings:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/world/europe/king-charles-wealth.html
QuoteKing Charles Inherits Untold Riches, and Passes Off His Own Empire
As prince, Charles used tax breaks, offshore accounts and canny real estate investments to turn a sleepy estate into a billion-dollar business.
By Jane Bradley and Euan Ward
Sept. 13, 2022
Updated 9:08 a.m. ET
LONDON — King Charles III built his own empire long before he inherited his mother's.
Charles, who formally acceded to the British throne on Saturday, spent half a century turning his royal estate into a billion-dollar portfolio and one of the most lucrative moneymakers in the royal family business.
While his mother, Queen Elizabeth II, largely delegated responsibility for her portfolio, Charles was far more deeply involved in developing the private estate known as the Duchy of Cornwall. Over the past decade, he has assembled a large team of professional managers who increased his portfolio's value and profits by about 50 percent.
Today, the Duchy of Cornwall owns the landmark cricket ground known as The Oval, lush farmland in the south of England, seaside vacation rentals, office space in London and a suburban supermarket depot. (A duchy is a territory traditionally governed by a duke or duchess.) The 130,000-acre real estate portfolio is nearly the size of Chicago and generates millions of dollars a year in rental income.
The conglomerate's holdings are valued at roughly $1.4 billion, compared with around $949 million in the late queen's private portfolio. These two estates represent a small fraction of the royal family's estimated $28 billion fortune. On top of that, the family has personal wealth that remains a closely guarded secret.
As king, Charles will take over his mother's portfolio and inherit a share of this untold personal fortune. While British citizens normally pay around 40 percent inheritance tax, King Charles gets this tax free. And he will pass control of his duchy to his elder son, William, to develop further without having to pay corporate taxes.
The growth in the royal family's coffers and King Charles's personal wealth over the past decade came at a time when Britain faced deep austerity budget cuts. Poverty levels soared, and the use of food banks almost doubled. His lifestyle of palaces and polo has long fueled accusations that he is out of touch with ordinary people. And he has at times been the unwitting symbol of that disconnect — such as when his limo was mobbed by students protesting rising tuition in 2010 or when he perched atop a golden throne in his royal finery this year to pledge help for struggling families.
Today, he ascends to the throne as the country buckles under a cost-of-living crisis that is expected to see poverty get even worse. A more divisive figure than his mother, King Charles is likely to give fresh energy to those questioning the relevance of a royal family at a time of public hardship.
Laura Clancy, the author of "Running the Family Firm: How the Monarchy Manages Its Image and Our Money," said King Charles transformed the once-sleepy royal accounts.
"The duchy has been steadily commercializing over the past few decades," Ms. Clancy said. "It is run like a commercial business with a C.E.O. and over 150 staff." What used to be thought of as simply a "landed gentry pile of land" now operates like a corporation, she said.
The Duchy of Cornwall was established in the 14th century as a way to generate income for the heir to the throne and has essentially funded Charles's private and official expenses. One example of its financial might: The $28 million profit he made from it last year dwarfed his official salary as prince, just over $1.1 million.
Piecing together the royal family's assets is complicated, but the fortune falls generally into four groups.
First, and most prominent, is the Crown Estate, which oversees the assets of the monarchy through a board of directors. Charles, as king, will serve as its chairman, but he does not have final say over how the business is managed.
The estate, which official accounts value at more than $19 billion, includes shopping malls, busy streets in London's West End and a growing number of wind farms. The royals are entitled to take only rental income from their official estates and may not profit from any sales, as they do not personally own the assets.
The estate's profits, valued at about $363 million this year, are turned over to the Treasury, which in return gives the royal household a payment called a sovereign grant based on those profits — which must be topped up by the government if it is lower than the previous year. In 2017, the government increased the family's payment to 25 percent of the profits to cover the costs of renovating Buckingham Palace.
The latest sovereign grant received by the royals was around $100 million, which the family, including Charles, has used for official royal duties, like visits, payroll and housekeeping. It does not cover the royals' security costs, which is also paid by the government, but the cost is kept secret.
The next major pot of money is the Duchy of Lancaster. This $949 million portfolio is owned by whomever sits on the throne.
But the value of that trust is dwarfed by the Duchy of Cornwall, the third significant home of royal money, which Charles has long presided over as prince. Generating tens of millions of dollars a year, the duchy has funded his private and official spending, and has bankrolled William, the heir to the throne, and Kate, William's wife.
It has done so without paying corporation taxes like most businesses in Britain are obliged to, and without publishing details about where the estate invests its money.
"When Charles took over at age 21, the duchy was not in a good financial state," Marlene Koenig, a royal expert and writer, said, citing poor management and a lack of diversification. Charles took a more active role in the portfolio in the 1980s and began hiring experienced managers.
"It was at this time that the duchy became financially aggressive," she said.
In 2017, leaked financial documents known as the Paradise Papers revealed that Charles's duchy estate had invested millions in offshore companies, including a Bermuda-registered business run by one of his best friends.
The final pool of money, and the most secretive, is the family's private fortune. According to the Rich List, the annual catalog of British wealth published in The Sunday Times, the queen had a net worth of about $430 million. That includes her personal assets, such as Balmoral Castle and Sandringham Estate, which she inherited from her father. Much of her personal wealth has been kept private.
King Charles has also made financial headlines unrelated to his wealth but tied to the charitable foundation that he chairs and operates in his name. His stewardship of the foundation has been marred by controversy, most recently this spring, when The Sunday Times reported that Charles had accepted 3 million euros in cash — including money stuffed in shopping bags and a suitcase — from a former Qatari prime minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani.
The money was for his foundation, which finances philanthropic causes around the world. Charles does not benefit financially from such contributions.
"He's willing to take money from anybody, really, without questioning whether it's the wise thing to do," said Norman Baker, a former government minister and author of the book " ... And What Do You Do? What the Royal Family Don't Want You to Know."
Mr. Baker described Charles as the most progressive, caring member of the royal family. But he said he had also filed a police complaint accusing him of improperly selling honorary titles.
"That's no way to behave for a royal," he said, referring to an ongoing scandal over whether Charles had granted knighthood and citizenship to a Saudi businessman in exchange for donations to one of Charles's charitable ventures.
Charles denied knowing about this, one of his top aides who was implicated stepped down, and the authorities began investigating. The king's representatives did not respond to a message seeking comment.
Charles has also courted controversy with his outspoken views and campaigning. He has lobbied senior government ministers, including Tony Blair, through dozens of letters on issues from the Iraq war to alternative therapies. Though English law does not require it, royal protocol calls for political neutrality.
In his inaugural address on Saturday, the king indicated that he planned to step back from his outside endeavors. "It will no longer be possible for me to give so much of my time and energies to the charities and issues for which I care so deeply," he said.
Ms. Clancy, the author, said the new king, in theory, would be expected to drop his lobbying and business ventures entirely.
"Whether that will pan out is a different question," she said.
Sarah Hurtes contributed reporting from Brussels.
So he's pretty well off.
Somehow this looks like a fantasy uniform to me, not a real one. :hmm: (*expects to get schooled on how this is the uniform of one of the most storied regiments and true nerds should know this* :P )
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcerFeeXoAIxZaq?format=jpg&name=large)
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 08:33:44 AMI would then look into reforms of the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, which appear to be ran as private piggy banks for the royals, and that do not pay corporation tax. I am curious how appropriate that is, I feel those estates should either be merged into the Crown Estate and essentially managed by the government, or treated like a true private asset and taxed appropriately (including having to pay inheritance tax--ownership of these Duchies presently transfers with no tax bill.)
True - there's no legal liability for either Duchy to pay tax of any sort but both have voluntary paid income tax at 45% (much higher than corporation tax) since 1993. I think you are right about inheritance tax.
Indeed. It seems like a great irony that public pressure is able to achieve higher fiscal returns with the Royals than corporate tax would be - which is fitting as it's pretty much an early modern strategy.
Inheritance tax is unsound.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:23:51 AMInheritance tax is unsound.
Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 10:26:04 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:23:51 AMInheritance tax is unsound.
Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.
Thankfully here in Socialist Sweden we're doing great without it.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 10:26:04 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:23:51 AMInheritance tax is unsound.
Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.
I don't want to restart the argument I had with the forum's towering intellect (Martinus) years ago, but there are plenty of families with emotional attachments -to ignore financial dependency- to things like homes. I would NOT be fine with my childhood home coming under state ownership once my parents die. Fuck that communist BS.
I think social mobility needs to improve. Study after study after study shows that a lot of one's life's path depends very much on one's own financial and social background. Do you inherit property, money, or other valuables upon death of your forbears? Are your parents academics? Etc. In Germany, the most common way, by far, to come into property or money is through inheritance. So there's room for improvement there to create equal chances for everyone. Speaking from experience, even figuring out how to navigate higher education systems, or financial matters, or how to start saving money is kind of difficult when you come from a family where nobody has any idea of any of those items and who upon their demise leave you nothing but debts (so you have to formally decline the inheritance or be on the hook, in my case, for ca. 200k in debts from a botched attempt at building a house 30+ years prior - also because my Mom was too proud - or unwilling to learn how to - go through the private bankruptcy process ... ). That I got where I am today is despite my background, and quite frankly, if my parents had gone to university, or left me some money that I could have used to buy a little place for myself, my life would likely have gone very, very differently; it would have been almost certainly materially a lot better and less stressful. And I'm likely luckier than most, because my parents at least valued education and book learning. A lot of families in the lower income strata may not hold it in as high of an esteem, and being "the nerd" is rather something that's frowned upon and being good in school or doing an office job might be actively discouraged (again, grew up among many such people; when I see some of those people's Facebook pages it's quite depressing - to me, anyways; they're probably quite happy, which is good; but upward mobility it is not).
That being said. Leaving a legacy, or at least material security for one's children is a natural instinct and desire, and starting from 0 for everyone might look good on paper, but would also quite inhumane to ask of people. I'd rather see measures to level the playing field in different ways, by providing more opportunities, support, and guidance to create more social mobility. Education is one thing, but it must be attractive, attainable, and affordable. But there's also soft skills that I, having lived on welfare for much of my childhood/teen years had to figure out when interacting with people whose parents owned a big house, where everyone in the family owned a car and traveled for vacation at least twice a year. Stuff like, "How to eat at a restaurant", "How to behave in a pub", "How to not stand out in conversation as the one who has a very different life experience from the others I'm meeting" etc.
Looking at how to mitigate wealth disadvantages in getting proper education and opportunities is worthwhile and important but nationalising people's wealth on their death is not the way to do it.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 11:06:47 AMLooking at how to mitigate wealth disadvantages in getting proper education and opportunities is worthwhile and important but nationalising people's wealth on their death is not the way to do it.
Exactly. In Sweden (for instance) healthcare and education is tax-funded (there are symbolic amounts to pay for a visit to the doctor, and because reasons your teeth have to fend for themselves). If you want to become well-off you can just get an attractive education and make money on the job market. If you want to get rich you have to start a business, which is fairly simple, and business climate in Sweden is pretty good. Basically, the only thing stopping a person is crippling disability or choice. My grandparents were dirt poor and had only primary education, yet their many kids all became successful professionals.
Quote from: Oexmelin on September 13, 2022, 10:22:39 AMIndeed. It seems like a great irony that public pressure is able to achieve higher fiscal returns with the Royals than corporate tax would be - which is fitting as it's pretty much an early modern strategy.
While there's some distinct legal form for the Crown Estate and the Duchies - they're basically trusts. They cannot dispose of anything they own, they are purely to live on revenue.
So an additional irony is that those entities probably pay more tax (particularly because there's never any capital gains) than most trusts which the wealthy use to hide their wealth. Plus the position of trusts themselves where a modern vehicle for tax avoidance is a legacy of the law of "equity" and doing justice when the law itself isn't a solution.
QuoteInheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.
Totally agree.
QuoteSomehow this looks like a fantasy uniform to me, not a real one. :hmm: (*expects to get schooled on how this is the uniform of one of the most storied regiments and true nerds should know this* :P )
:lol: It's Scottish I know that much.
QuoteIf I was a British Republican, which I am not, my philosophy would be that you get rid of the monarchy by gradual erosion. A first step, which the current King even appears to favor, is shrinking the number of "working royals", make the family have a smaller footprint at official events by basically only having the current monarch, their spouse, and his immediate heir and their spouse involved in working royal activities.
Yeah Charles has always been in favour of a "core royalty" approach. It's partly happened - there were lots of scandals in the 90s about how little tax the royals paid and how many hangers on there were. I think the extended family only really made appearances when it's with the Queen for one of "her" events because ultimately Prince Michael of Kent etc don't mean anything to people - neither, really, does Edward and Andrew needs to be locked away.
I think a lot of them are still "working" royals. So they do those opening fairs, drug treatment centres, community halls etc bit of the job and they act as patron for various charities - the Princess Royal is particularly popular as she does a lot of that.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:33:39 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 10:26:04 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:23:51 AMInheritance tax is unsound.
Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.
Thankfully here in Socialist Sweden we're doing great without it.
Sweden is a cultural abyss. It's the evolutionary dead end of societies. And in a few generations will be a northern Sheikdom.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 11:44:56 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:33:39 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 10:26:04 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:23:51 AMInheritance tax is unsound.
Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.
Thankfully here in Socialist Sweden we're doing great without it.
Sweden is a cultural abyss. It's the evolutionary dead end of societies. And in a few generations will be a northern Sheikdom.
Sheik Yerbouti?
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 10:39:08 AMQuote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 10:26:04 AMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:23:51 AMInheritance tax is unsound.
Inheritance tax is one of the few taxes I view as an unambiguous good. If I had my druthers it would be a 100% tax, with the only exceptions being a spouse obviously can inherit everything without paying tax, and any minor children you can provide a reasonable trust for their upbringing.
I don't want to restart the argument I had with the forum's towering intellect (Martinus) years ago, but there are plenty of families with emotional attachments -to ignore financial dependency- to things like homes. I would NOT be fine with my childhood home coming under state ownership once my parents die. Fuck that communist BS.
I'd be fine with the heirs having first buy option in a closed process not open to outside bids. But they don't have any special right to just have it given to them for free.
What inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?
In Soviet America, state owns all.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 11:49:37 AMWhat inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?
Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?" :P
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 10:23:51 AMInheritance tax is unsound.
Partially Agree. I don't mind a certain percentage of inheritance tax, like what we have here in the US, but the people who want 100% inheritance just hate individual and want all powerful institutions to dominate the peasants. I will agree to this proposition if every institution has to be dissolved every 60 years and all its assets distributed equally among the people. Then every corporation, every business, every university, every religious institution, every hospital everything must rebuild from zero every 60 years and ask for donations hat-in-hand. Because that makes about as much sense and just arbitrarily seizing all private property every lifetime. If you think it is some great injustice that children get inheritance then hey there is no law that says children should get an inheritance, you can give your property to wherever you want.
I just think it is disgusting how some of you think that institutional wealth can just grow forever unobstructed. While the private property get seized every couple decades. You cannot even develop a multi-generational scheme to get your family out of poverty. Nope! Fuck you individual citizen! It all belongs to your proper masters. And all in the name of some insane sense of "justice" and "fairness" that is neither and just serves to perpetuate poverty and subservience of individuals to the all powerful institutions of society.
If you want to tax like 60% of everything over $10 million or something, fine I get it. But seizing everything?
Besides the ultra-rich will have about a million ways to get out of it. They will just make a family corporation and hire all their relatives as employees or some shit. The only people who this would punish would be the middling types. As always.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 11:49:37 AMWhat inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?
When you die, you don't have wealth, you are dead.
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2022, 11:56:00 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 11:49:37 AMWhat inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?
Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?" :P
Plus if the state disposes of your assets Tamas will get those nice cheap houses he wants as supply increases :D
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2022, 11:56:00 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 11:49:37 AMWhat inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?
Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?" :P
Actually, I spent time of my childhood maintaining and cultivating the family land. :P And the state services are financed from taxes taken from the citizens. State services do not create obligations for the citizens, they are paid for already.
But this is a very academic debate. 100% (or even remotely close) inheritance task goes so much against the better instincts of humans that is not going to be enacted without violent rebellions against it.
I think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
Sweden has famously had very aggressive income taxes for ages. I think there was a situation in the 1960s where tax rates could actually get to 102% in Sweden. I think like in most of Communist Scandinavia that was toned down in the 90s and beyond, but top marginal rates and effective paid rates are much higher in Sweden than in say, America.
I think it is generally much harder to accrue wealth in Sweden than most countries. Obviously there have been a few odd Swedish billionaires, and plenty of ultra rich, but on a society wide level wealth inequality is not a significant problem in Sweden to begin with because they make it hard to get truly wealthy.
I generally am fine with people getting wealthy, even very wealthy, with their own efforts in their lifetimes, so take issue with Sweden's high income taxes. But I have little real sympathy for people who want to pass on intergenerational wealth. I do not want my children to inherit money from me, and I did no inherit anything from my parents. My wife came from a wealthy family and she did inherit some, and she actually also is not a big fan of perpetuating the practice.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:11:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?
I get that and again I am in favour of finding constructive ways of reducing inequality, but the kind of drastic inheritance task OvB was arguing for is one of the most drastic options imaginable.
And, BTW, a more mild inheritance task isn't that rare is it? I believe there is certainly a form of it in Hungary and England, but I can be wrong.
The kind of "take it away from you because I didn't have it growing up" is just monstrous, and I can't really see the difference between that and for example preventing talented people from seeking education focusing on their talent, e.g. if your kid is great at math, why not forbid them from any math specialisation? Their inherited ability will put them leaps and bonds beyond those not lucky enough to inherent such a potentially lucrative talent from their parents, so why make that inequality worse by leaning into it? Let's send the kids struggling with math to math school, and lets send the math genius to regular state school, so the playing field is more level.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:16:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:11:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?
Sweden has not trust fund kids?
This debate is interesting because - for me my support for absolutely prohibitive inheritance taxes, I think, come from the same source of why I'm against the monarchy in general. They're really linked in my mind (as is banning private schools - although there's a bit more there).
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 01:16:07 PMSweden has famously had very aggressive income taxes for ages. I think there was a situation in the 1960s where tax rates could actually get to 102% in Sweden. I think like in most of Communist Scandinavia that was toned down in the 90s and beyond, but top marginal rates and effective paid rates are much higher in Sweden than in say, America.
I think it is generally much harder to accrue wealth in Sweden than most countries. Obviously there have been a few odd Swedish billionaires, and plenty of ultra rich, but on a society wide level wealth inequality is not a significant problem in Sweden to begin with because they make it hard to get truly wealthy.
I generally am fine with people getting wealthy, even very wealthy, with their own efforts in their lifetimes, so take issue with Sweden's high income taxes. But I have little real sympathy for people who want to pass on intergenerational wealth. I do not want my children to inherit money from me, and I did no inherit anything from my parents. My wife came from a wealthy family and she did inherit some, and she actually also is not a big fan of perpetuating the practice.
Sweden is one of the countries in the world with the most billionaires per capita, so I don't think it's hard to get truly wealthy in Sweden.
The problem with an inheritance tax is it is relatively easy to avoid if you take the right steps during your lifetime, through gifts or trusts or similar measures. So you wind up not taxing the wealthy, but only those unwise enough to take proper tax-planning advice (or those who die young or unexpectedly).
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 01:21:21 PMThe problem with an inheritance tax is it is relatively easy to avoid if you take the right steps during your lifetime, through gifts or trusts or similar measures. So you wind up not taxing the wealthy, but only those unwise enough to take proper tax-planning advice (or those who die young or unexpectedly).
Oh to be fair we absolutely need to smash trusts as well :ph34r:
I'm more tolerant of gifts though :goodboy:
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:18:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:16:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:11:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?
Sweden has not trust fund kids?
How do they stop people from succeeding?
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2022, 01:24:00 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 01:21:21 PMThe problem with an inheritance tax is it is relatively easy to avoid if you take the right steps during your lifetime, through gifts or trusts or similar measures. So you wind up not taxing the wealthy, but only those unwise enough to take proper tax-planning advice (or those who die young or unexpectedly).
Oh to be fair we absolutely need to smash trusts as well :ph34r:
I'm more tolerant of gifts though :goodboy:
So I am a rich guy I put most of my assets into a company together with my children then on retirement I sell my share of it to the kids ona form of equity release where I get use of the properties and a stipend until I die. Should the whole company be taken away from the children on my death and if yes on what basis? That it was at some point in my life owned by me and it is now owned by blood relatives?
I admit this nationalisation would work much easier with poorer people who can't really afford fancy legal trickeries.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 01:17:10 PMI get that and again I am in favour of finding constructive ways of reducing inequality, but the kind of drastic inheritance task OvB was arguing for is one of the most drastic options imaginable.
And, BTW, a more mild inheritance task isn't that rare is it? I believe there is certainly a form of it in Hungary and England, but I can be wrong.
The kind of "take it away from you because I didn't have it growing up" is just monstrous, and I can't really see the difference between that and for example preventing talented people from seeking education focusing on their talent, e.g. if your kid is great at math, why not forbid them from any math specialisation? Their inherited ability will put them leaps and bonds beyond those not lucky enough to inherent such a potentially lucrative talent from their parents, so why make that inequality worse by leaning into it? Let's send the kids struggling with math to math school, and lets send the math genius to regular state school, so the playing field is more level.
Agreed, that is where I was going with my post :)
I don't think we create an equitable society by having the kind of one size fits all rule that Otto advocated for. The only way it would work under his scheme is if there was also a massive redistribution of wealth in order to make a completely level playing field in terms of access to educational opportunity and access to career opportunities. But that is a utopian pipedream that has a number of problems that are bigger than the ones we are talking about now.
But there is a pretty large middle ground between the two extremes of no inheritance tax vs complete confiscation of wealth, in which a tax can be reasonably formulated.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:27:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:18:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:16:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:11:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?
Sweden has not trust fund kids?
How do they stop people from succeeding?
There is not need to do so.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:32:49 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:27:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:18:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:16:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:11:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?
Sweden has not trust fund kids?
How do they stop people from succeeding?
There is not need to do so.
Maybe this is a cultural difference between Sweden and Canada? In Sweden you wouldn't call someone who simply inherited money "successful".
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 01:21:21 PMThe problem with an inheritance tax is it is relatively easy to avoid if you take the right steps during your lifetime, through gifts or trusts or similar measures. So you wind up not taxing the wealthy, but only those unwise enough to take proper tax-planning advice (or those who die young or unexpectedly).
Yeah, when a inheritance tax is proposed, the assumption is that all the loopholes where it could be avoided would also be closed. Otherwise, as you point out, it would really only end up being paid by those who take advantage of the loopholes.
Which brings us back to how it should be properly designed in the first place.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:34:28 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:32:49 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:27:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:18:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:16:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:11:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?
Sweden has not trust fund kids?
How do they stop people from succeeding?
There is not need to do so.
Maybe this is a cultural difference between Sweden and Canada? In Sweden you wouldn't call someone who simply inherited money "successful".
Same here. And so I find it difficult to understand your reasoning.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:35:37 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:34:28 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:32:49 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:27:24 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:18:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:16:25 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:11:13 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 12:50:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 12:43:26 PMI think the reason most are not in favour of inheritance taxes is that they personalize it to their own circumstances, without perhaps fully understanding how tax codes can be utilized by the wealthy to transfer large amounts of wealth to the next generation with no tax consequences.
I understand why Tamas does not want to lose the family home, but a inheritance tax, properly structure, could leave that sort of asset alone, and in instead target the value of securities and cash of the truly wealth which flows freely down through the generations.
The discussion is similar to the discussion around wealth taxes. The devil is in the detail of who actually pays.
What's the harm in transferring wealth to the next generation? I'm not aware of Sweden having any problems caused by the lack of inheritance tax.
The harm depends on the sort of society you want to have.
If you want to have one class of people forever privileged over all the others, then there is no harm at all. However, if you want a society where there is a more level playing field in which people succeed on their own merits then the absence of an inheritance tax is very harmful.
You think Sweden is a country where people don't succeed on their own merits?
Sweden has not trust fund kids?
How do they stop people from succeeding?
There is not need to do so.
Maybe this is a cultural difference between Sweden and Canada? In Sweden you wouldn't call someone who simply inherited money "successful".
Same here. And so I find it difficult to understand your reasoning.
So how do trust fund kids fit into the picture exactly?
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 01:31:03 PMSo I am a rich guy I put most of my assets into a company together with my children then on retirement I sell my share of it to the kids ona form of equity release where I get use of the properties and a stipend until I die. Should the whole company be taken away from the children on my death and if yes on what basis? That it was at some point in my life owned by me and it is now owned by blood relatives?
I admit this nationalisation would work much easier with poorer people who can't really afford fancy legal trickeries.
Yeah I don't really agree with inherited wealth and privilege in all its guises and it's no more virtuous in a business suit than it is a Ruritanian uniform. And how many generations do you go down before they are indistinguishable?
I don't have an issue with gifts - liquidate your assets and give money away. I don't mind people doing things like a sale - which would attract tax - within their life. As I say I object to trusts etc more.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2022, 01:44:01 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 01:31:03 PMSo I am a rich guy I put most of my assets into a company together with my children then on retirement I sell my share of it to the kids ona form of equity release where I get use of the properties and a stipend until I die. Should the whole company be taken away from the children on my death and if yes on what basis? That it was at some point in my life owned by me and it is now owned by blood relatives?
I admit this nationalisation would work much easier with poorer people who can't really afford fancy legal trickeries.
Yeah I don't really agree with inherited wealth and privilege in all its guises and it's no more virtuous in a business suit than it is a Ruritanian uniform. And how many generations do you go down before they are indistinguishable?
I don't have an issue with gifts - liquidate your assets and give money away. I don't mind people doing things like a sale - which would attract tax - within their life. As I say I object to trusts etc more.
But you want to judge something universal (if we want to be even remotely close to OvB's idea) and want to judge it by its desired outcome on the most extreme of cases (the very rich), while it would affect (near-)absolutely everyone.
One thing that Sweden does wrong IMHO when it comes to wealth transfer to the next generation is that you actually HAVE TO DO IT. Your kids are entitled to half of what an even split would be, regardless of what you write in your will. You can't fully disinherit your kids. Which is all kinds of bizarre. Especially these days when the typical Swede loses his parents when he is well into middle age, and typically already has his own functioning economy. I don't know why this law still exists.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 13, 2022, 01:44:01 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 01:31:03 PMSo I am a rich guy I put most of my assets into a company together with my children then on retirement I sell my share of it to the kids ona form of equity release where I get use of the properties and a stipend until I die. Should the whole company be taken away from the children on my death and if yes on what basis? That it was at some point in my life owned by me and it is now owned by blood relatives?
I admit this nationalisation would work much easier with poorer people who can't really afford fancy legal trickeries.
Yeah I don't really agree with inherited wealth and privilege in all its guises and it's no more virtuous in a business suit than it is a Ruritanian uniform. And how many generations do you go down before they are indistinguishable?
I don't have an issue with gifts - liquidate your assets and give money away. I don't mind people doing things like a sale - which would attract tax - within their life. As I say I object to trusts etc more.
You're fine with rich people on their deathbeds giving their wealth to their kids?
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2022, 11:56:00 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 11:49:37 AMWhat inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?
Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?" :P
That's why you pay taxes, and everything you own has already been taxed. No need to tax it a second time (or in case of Belgium: a second, third, fourth and fifth time)
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:36:52 PMSo how do trust fund kids fit into the picture exactly?
Not sure how it works in Sweden, but in Canada they are created by the funds flowing to them with little or no tax consequences.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:53:55 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:36:52 PMSo how do trust fund kids fit into the picture exactly?
Not sure how it works in Sweden, but in Canada they are created by the funds flowing to them with little or no tax consequences.
And how do they have an impact on whether people in Sweden succeed on their own merits or not?
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 13, 2022, 01:53:50 PMQuote from: Syt on September 13, 2022, 11:56:00 AMQuote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 11:49:37 AMWhat inherent right does the state has on my wealth that my heirs lack?
Pure devil's advocate argument: "What have your children contributed to your wealth? Meanwhile, hasn't the state provided the societal, legal, economic framework for you to be able to achieve your wealth in?" :P
That's why you pay taxes, and everything you own has already been taxed. No need to tax it a second time (or in case of Belgium: a second, third, fourth and fifth time)
That is the flaw in the argument of those opposing the tax. It is from the perspective of someone who starts from nothing, builds wealth, and then passes it on.
Now take it from the perspective of that second generation. Everything they own has not actually been taxed. They received their wealth tax free. And so on and so on, through the generations - unless they screw up and invest everything in a Ponzi scheme.
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 01:47:40 PMBut you want to judge something universal (if we want to be even remotely close to OvB's idea) and want to judge it by its desired outcome on the most extreme of cases (the very rich), while it would affect (near-)absolutely everyone.
No while I'd have carve outs like OvB says and I'd have a threshold of let's say £100k (which is very high in my view), it's not about the very rich. I think the inherited wealth is wrong. My problem isn't that there's a few rich people with it - I couldn't care less about them and, honestly, I think the bigger problem there is trusts and tax avoidance while they're living (see the owner of the Telegraph).
That doesn't it gets nationalised. Either you have the ready money to pay the tax or you have to liquidate the assets so they're back on the market and circulating again.
QuoteYou're fine with rich people on their deathbeds giving their wealth to their kids?
This is where I'd borrow the existing law where there's a clawback on gifts made in the seven years before death, which I think is fair.
Weird video from the CBS:
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1569725148432834561
Quote"I can't bear this bloody thing!": King Charles' signing ceremony at Northern Ireland's Hillsborough Castle made one thing clear – even royalty can't escape the frustration of an inadequate pen.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:54:49 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:53:55 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:36:52 PMSo how do trust fund kids fit into the picture exactly?
Not sure how it works in Sweden, but in Canada they are created by the funds flowing to them with little or no tax consequences.
And how do they have an impact on whether people in Sweden succeed on their own merits or not?
In Sweden, does money not purchase access to better opportunities through education for them or their children etc.
In Canada, my experience was that a lot of my university classmates were from families that were fairly wealthy. There were some of us who were from working class backgrounds, but I think that was the exception. My experience today is that those differences have not diminished.
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2022, 01:58:59 PMWeird video from the CBS:
https://twitter.com/CBSNews/status/1569725148432834561
Quote"I can't bear this bloody thing!": King Charles' signing ceremony at Northern Ireland's Hillsborough Castle made one thing clear – even royalty can't escape the frustration of an inadequate pen.
On the one hand - I can understand that as I hate fountain pens for that reason. On the other - Charles has a reputation for petulance and he'll get a pass when it's within a week of his mum dying, but he needs to really control it or people will turn.
So I have actually checked out one of the crap random posts Facebook recommended me, because it was some obscure radio station asking people to turn on their headlights when driving, to show respect for "Lizzie". I just had to see if this was a joke. I have brought over from Hungary the custom of always having them headlights on (its mandatory there) so I thought this might be a joke hinting that people should be doing this.
But no I think it was serious, and browsing through the hundreds of comments one lady suggesting she does that anyways got absolutely flooded with insults and mockery. The Internet can be a vile place.
But, more importantly, there were several mentions of the "10 kidnapped Canadian children" related to the Queen, and one comment seemed to be saying she was one of them? What's up with that?
Quote from: Tamas on September 13, 2022, 02:10:47 PMBut, more importantly, there were several mentions of the "10 kidnapped Canadian children" related to the Queen, and one comment seemed to be saying she was one of them? What's up with that?
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/jul/23/facebook-posts/queen-elizabeth-did-not-kidnap-10-children-canadia/
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:01:30 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:54:49 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:53:55 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:36:52 PMSo how do trust fund kids fit into the picture exactly?
Not sure how it works in Sweden, but in Canada they are created by the funds flowing to them with little or no tax consequences.
And how do they have an impact on whether people in Sweden succeed on their own merits or not?
In Sweden, does money not purchase access to better opportunities through education for them or their children etc.
In Canada, my experience was that a lot of my university classmates were from families that were fairly wealthy. There were some of us who were from working class backgrounds, but I think that was the exception. My experience today is that those differences have not diminished.
Like I mentioned earlier, in Sweden education is tax-funded. Rich or poor, people get accepted to universities on their personal academic achievements. And the system of school vouchers makes choosing good primary education possible even for the poorest families. The poor student who lacks the money to get the university education he wants doesn't exist* in Sweden.
*I'm sure you can find people who blame poverty for their lack of academic achievement.
Quote from: Syt on September 13, 2022, 10:56:27 AMI think social mobility needs to improve. Study after study after study shows that a lot of one's life's path depends very much on one's own financial and social background. Do you inherit property, money, or other valuables upon death of your forbears? Are your parents academics? Etc. In Germany, the most common way, by far, to come into property or money is through inheritance. So there's room for improvement there to create equal chances for everyone. Speaking from experience, even figuring out how to navigate higher education systems, or financial matters, or how to start saving money is kind of difficult when you come from a family where nobody has any idea of any of those items and who upon their demise leave you nothing but debts (so you have to formally decline the inheritance or be on the hook, in my case, for ca. 200k in debts from a botched attempt at building a house 30+ years prior - also because my Mom was too proud - or unwilling to learn how to - go through the private bankruptcy process ... ). That I got where I am today is despite my background, and quite frankly, if my parents had gone to university, or left me some money that I could have used to buy a little place for myself, my life would likely have gone very, very differently; it would have been almost certainly materially a lot better and less stressful. And I'm likely luckier than most, because my parents at least valued education and book learning. A lot of families in the lower income strata may not hold it in as high of an esteem, and being "the nerd" is rather something that's frowned upon and being good in school or doing an office job might be actively discouraged (again, grew up among many such people; when I see some of those people's Facebook pages it's quite depressing - to me, anyways; they're probably quite happy, which is good; but upward mobility it is not).
That being said. Leaving a legacy, or at least material security for one's children is a natural instinct and desire, and starting from 0 for everyone might look good on paper, but would also quite inhumane to ask of people. I'd rather see measures to level the playing field in different ways, by providing more opportunities, support, and guidance to create more social mobility. Education is one thing, but it must be attractive, attainable, and affordable. But there's also soft skills that I, having lived on welfare for much of my childhood/teen years had to figure out when interacting with people whose parents owned a big house, where everyone in the family owned a car and traveled for vacation at least twice a year. Stuff like, "How to eat at a restaurant", "How to behave in a pub", "How to not stand out in conversation as the one who has a very different life experience from the others I'm meeting" etc.
Thank you Syt, a very interesting read.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:36:52 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:35:37 PMSame here. And so I find it difficult to understand your reasoning.
So how do trust fund kids fit into the picture exactly?
This is how it's done.
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 02:14:43 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:01:30 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:54:49 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 01:53:55 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 01:36:52 PMSo how do trust fund kids fit into the picture exactly?
Not sure how it works in Sweden, but in Canada they are created by the funds flowing to them with little or no tax consequences.
And how do they have an impact on whether people in Sweden succeed on their own merits or not?
In Sweden, does money not purchase access to better opportunities through education for them or their children etc.
In Canada, my experience was that a lot of my university classmates were from families that were fairly wealthy. There were some of us who were from working class backgrounds, but I think that was the exception. My experience today is that those differences have not diminished.
Like I mentioned earlier, in Sweden education is tax-funded. Rich or poor, people get accepted to universities on their personal academic achievements. And the system of school vouchers makes choosing good primary education possible even for the poorest families. The poor student who lacks the money to get the university education he wants doesn't exist* in Sweden.
*I'm sure you can find people who blame poverty for their lack of academic achievement.
Then Sweden is an example of social democracy working. I congratulate you. So lets set aside that special case and talk about the concept of an inheretance tax where access to education is not as equal.
I will say the wall-to-wall media coverage is getting a bit tiring; might even prove counter productive if instilling respect for the monarchy is an aim.
Canada just declared a Federal Holiday as a day of mourning. It will be interesting to see if the provinces follow suit. I bet Quebec will not for sure - and likely not BC. Also willing to bet that Nova Scotia does declare the holiday.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:36:48 PMCanada just declared a Federal Holiday as a day of mourning. It will be interesting to see if the provinces follow suit. I bet Quebec will not for sure - and likely not BC. Also willing to bet that Nova Scotia does declare the holiday.
I appreciate the sentiment, but its really hard to accommodate a holiday on short notice.
Feds can get away with it as it only affects federally-regulated industries - and I can't think of any that don't operate 24/7 anyways.
Provincial holidays would affect everyone. Selfishly it would cause a whole bunch of trials to get postponed for months.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 02:41:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:36:48 PMCanada just declared a Federal Holiday as a day of mourning. It will be interesting to see if the provinces follow suit. I bet Quebec will not for sure - and likely not BC. Also willing to bet that Nova Scotia does declare the holiday.
I appreciate the sentiment, but its really hard to accommodate a holiday on short notice.
Feds can get away with it as it only affects federally-regulated industries - and I can't think of any that don't operate 24/7 anyways.
Provincial holidays would affect everyone. Selfishly it would cause a whole bunch of trials to get postponed for months.
Its actually not going to affect federally regulated industries. That would be a huge blow - it would affect all the ports and airports, airlines etc. Instead it is only going to be federal employees.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:33:42 PMThen Sweden is an example of social democracy working. I congratulate you. So lets set aside that special case and talk about the concept of a wealth tax where access to education is not as equal.
Fair enough. I would suggest that working on core issues related to equal opportunity is better bang for your buck than fighting inherited wealth. Among other things looking at the mechanisms that give people with great wealth significant advantages where those advantages can be considered unwarranted and harmful, and the mechanisms that make it hard for very poor people to succeed. My impression is that universal access to decent healthcare and education (including university education) are important foundations.
Inheritance seems to me to be pretty "far" from the core problem, and working on stuff "far" from problems tends to be inefficient compared to working closer to the "center".
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 02:58:35 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:33:42 PMThen Sweden is an example of social democracy working. I congratulate you. So lets set aside that special case and talk about the concept of a wealth tax where access to education is not as equal.
Fair enough. I would suggest that working on core issues related to equal opportunity is better bang for your buck than fighting inherited wealth. Among other things looking at the mechanisms that give people with great wealth significant advantages where those advantages can be considered unwarranted and harmful, and the mechanisms that make it hard for very poor people to succeed. My impression is that universal access to decent healthcare and education (including university education) are important foundations.
Inheritance seems to me to be pretty "far" from the core problem, and working on stuff "far" from problems tends to be inefficient compared to working closer to the "center".
I agree with you if the end result can be achieved without the need to have one. But what you pulled off in Sweden is not easily done.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 03:00:51 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 02:58:35 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:33:42 PMThen Sweden is an example of social democracy working. I congratulate you. So lets set aside that special case and talk about the concept of a wealth tax where access to education is not as equal.
Fair enough. I would suggest that working on core issues related to equal opportunity is better bang for your buck than fighting inherited wealth. Among other things looking at the mechanisms that give people with great wealth significant advantages where those advantages can be considered unwarranted and harmful, and the mechanisms that make it hard for very poor people to succeed. My impression is that universal access to decent healthcare and education (including university education) are important foundations.
Inheritance seems to me to be pretty "far" from the core problem, and working on stuff "far" from problems tends to be inefficient compared to working closer to the "center".
I agree with you if the end result can be achieved without the need to have one. But what you pulled off in Sweden is not easily done.
I agree. And also there are Swedes who would tell you that Sweden is very unequal when it comes to opportunity and not at all as rosy as I paint it. I disagree with them, for two reasons:
1) It is true that university students are not a perfect representative sample of the general population. Just like plumbers or what have you. But this doesn't automatically indicate a problem. Factors like family traditions, interests nurtured in childhood, natural aptitude, knowledge about the existence of certain degrees or jobs, etc, all contribute to a "legacy" effect. This is natural and not to be feared. The important thing is that people who want to study something or work with something aren't stopped from doing that by things other than a lack of sufficient personal qualities or achievements.
2) Chasing the "perfect" anything is useless and, in politics, dangerous.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:58:18 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 02:41:39 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:36:48 PMCanada just declared a Federal Holiday as a day of mourning. It will be interesting to see if the provinces follow suit. I bet Quebec will not for sure - and likely not BC. Also willing to bet that Nova Scotia does declare the holiday.
I appreciate the sentiment, but its really hard to accommodate a holiday on short notice.
Feds can get away with it as it only affects federally-regulated industries - and I can't think of any that don't operate 24/7 anyways.
Provincial holidays would affect everyone. Selfishly it would cause a whole bunch of trials to get postponed for months.
Its actually not going to affect federally regulated industries. That would be a huge blow - it would affect all the ports and airports, airlines etc. Instead it is only going to be federal employees.
Here is the proclamation - there is an interesting legal question here that we will be working through this afternoon... It is permissive, ie and invitation to obverse rather than a mandatory day to observe.
QuoteCHARLES THE THIRD, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and His other Realms and Territories KING, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
David Lametti
Attorney General of Canada
Great Seal of Canada
TO ALL TO WHOM these presents shall come or whom the same may in any way concern,
GREETING:
Whereas Our Privy Council for Canada has directed that a proclamation be issued requesting that the people of Canada set aside September 19, 2022, as the day on which they honour the memory of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, who passed away on September 8, 2022;
Now Know You that We, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, do by this Our Proclamation request that the people of Canada set aside September 19, 2022, as the day on which they honour the memory of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, who passed away on September 8, 2022.
Of All Which Our Loving Subjects and all others whom these presents may concern are required to take notice and to govern themselves accordingly.
WITNESS:
Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved Mary May Simon, Chancellor and Principal Companion of Our Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Military Merit, Chancellor and Commander of Our Order of Merit of the Police Forces, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
At Our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, this thirteenth day of September in the year of Our Lord two thousand and twenty-two and in the first year of Our Reign.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 03:35:33 PMIts actually not going to affect federally regulated industries. That would be a huge blow - it would affect all the ports and airports, airlines etc. Instead it is only going to be federal employees.
Here is the proclamation - there is an interesting legal question here that we will be working through this afternoon... It is permissive, ie and invitation to obverse rather than a mandatory day to observe.
But ports, airports, airlines already all operate on stat holidays anyways. I think the only effect would be to give people working that day to be paid at holiday rates.
Interesting. I suppose the real question is whether the federal government closes it's own offices that day.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 01:21:21 PMThe problem with an inheritance tax is it is relatively easy to avoid if you take the right steps during your lifetime, through gifts or trusts or similar measures. So you wind up not taxing the wealthy, but only those unwise enough to take proper tax-planning advice (or those who die young or unexpectedly).
That's the thing right, all of that is set in statute and not even that difficult to change or prevent. In the American tax code almost all tax dodges are because we have a complex way of giving preferential tax treatment to all kinds of different scenarios, and savvy people can find ways to get a large amount of money classified under said scenarios.
At least in the United States, trusts are not a way to avoid paying tax on a transfer of wealth--they avoid having to go into probate and thus they avoid the
estate tax, but the money moved into a trust, past the gift tax exclusion amount, is considered a gift, and is taxed at the gift tax rate (which I think is essentially the same as the estate tax rate.) The real kabuki theater starts when they start to do these graduated distributions from one generation's wealth into a trust, and use promissory notes so that it isn't a "gift" but a loan to the trust, and then they also can appreciate the underlying asset that is now in the trust, eventually allowing a huge amount of money to move at massively reduced rates.
That is not some magical thing though, the tax code could just be changed to disallow that. I am generally fairly skeptical of arguments against a tax that are moored in "but rich people will just avoid the tax", if that was true then across all OECD countries, rich people would pay the same effective tax rate, since they would all be avoiding tax to the same degree. The reality is, that is not the case, and in many OECD countries rich people pay a much higher effective tax rate than they do in the United States--this is because there are typically limits to what can be done, and those limits are defined by a combination of the tax code and a wealthy person's willingness to risk legal trouble to milk as much as they can.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:36:48 PMI bet Quebec will not for sure
We should. I feel the Royal fervour mounting in me. I'd require at least one paid week off to properly mourn my dear sovereign and celebrate our new King. I'll try to find some royal drink. Prune juice is a warrior drink, Dekuyper is Dutch, whiskey is for the Highlanders, hmm, what should it be...? I hope I'd never drink Beefeater again dammit! But if it's the price to pay for a day off... ;) :P
Quote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 03:22:38 PMI agree. And also there are Swedes who would tell you that Sweden is very unequal when it comes to opportunity and not at all as rosy as I paint it. I disagree with them, for two reasons:
The problem here is things aren't just "not as rosy as you paint it", you have essentially given a false statement about Sweden "not having much of an inequality" problem. I took that at face value, but now that I have fact checked it, it looks like Sweden is one of the most inequal countries on earth. That is probably good evidence that not having an estate tax is not a good thing.
I'll note under the Wealth GINI measure, Sweden comes in as the 3th most inequal country on earth, 1st is the Netherlands, 2nd is Russia, and 4th is the United States. Sweden is actually a poster boy for this being a problem, not an example of a society that doesn't have a problem with inequality in spite of not having an estate tax.
Where are you seeing this - about Sweden being 3rd most unequal? My quick google (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gini-coefficient-by-country) puts Sweden relatively low (and indeed below both the US and Canada). But maybe you're looking at more recent data?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_inequality
I went by the 2019 numbers which were the most recent on the chart on that page.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 03:59:48 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 13, 2022, 03:22:38 PMI agree. And also there are Swedes who would tell you that Sweden is very unequal when it comes to opportunity and not at all as rosy as I paint it. I disagree with them, for two reasons:
The problem here is things aren't just "not as rosy as you paint it", you have essentially given a false statement about Sweden "not having much of an inequality" problem. I took that at face value, but now that I have fact checked it, it looks like Sweden is one of the most inequal countries on earth. That is probably good evidence that not having an estate tax is not a good thing.
I'll note under the Wealth GINI measure, Sweden comes in as the 3th most inequal country on earth, 1st is the Netherlands, 2nd is Russia, and 4th is the United States. Sweden is actually a poster boy for this being a problem, not an example of a society that doesn't have a problem with inequality in spite of not having an estate tax.
I'm not getting into those exact numbers. I observe however that equality of opportunity doesn't mean equality of outcome. I know that your political views are unconventional, but to me equality is about equality of opportunity. If people all get opportunity then some will succeed much, much better than others. This is a good thing.
Which specific problems do you observe in Sweden caused by this inequality?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 13, 2022, 04:28:02 PMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_inequality
I went by the 2019 numbers which were the most recent on the chart on that page.
Interesting. I've never really looked at wealth inequality numbers. Odd to see some places that do so well on income inequality scoring poorly on wealth.
Quote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 03:42:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 03:35:33 PMIts actually not going to affect federally regulated industries. That would be a huge blow - it would affect all the ports and airports, airlines etc. Instead it is only going to be federal employees.
Here is the proclamation - there is an interesting legal question here that we will be working through this afternoon... It is permissive, ie and invitation to obverse rather than a mandatory day to observe.
But ports, airports, airlines already all operate on stat holidays anyways. I think the only effect would be to give people working that day to be paid at holiday rates.
Interesting. I suppose the real question is whether the federal government closes it's own offices that day.
Quite right, but the costs go up by about three fold and as a result service on stats is normally curtailed and that is built into scheduling. This is being sprung on everyone and so the costs would have been extremely high.
fyi, Ontario and Quebec have officially said they will not create a provincial holiday.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 04:46:51 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 13, 2022, 03:42:30 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 03:35:33 PMIts actually not going to affect federally regulated industries. That would be a huge blow - it would affect all the ports and airports, airlines etc. Instead it is only going to be federal employees.
Here is the proclamation - there is an interesting legal question here that we will be working through this afternoon... It is permissive, ie and invitation to obverse rather than a mandatory day to observe.
But ports, airports, airlines already all operate on stat holidays anyways. I think the only effect would be to give people working that day to be paid at holiday rates.
Interesting. I suppose the real question is whether the federal government closes it's own offices that day.
Quite right, but the costs go up by about three fold and as a result service on stats is normally curtailed and that is built into scheduling. This is being sprung on everyone and so the costs would have been extremely high.
fyi, Ontario and Quebec have officially said they will not create a provincial holiday.
And it just got worse - turns out BC has decided it has been forced into giving its public sector workers the day off because the wording in many collective agreements gives workers the holidays declared by either the feds or the province. There is an argument to be made that the Feds never really declared a holiday - but the province decided not to take on that fight. Here is part of what the Premier had to say.
QuoteWe have advised provincial public-sector employers to honour this day in recognition of the obligations around federal holidays in the vast majority of provincial collective agreements.
"K-12 public schools and public post-secondary institutions, and most Crown corporations will be closed. We encourage private-sector employers to find a way to recognize or reflect on the day in a way that is appropriate for their employees.
"This will be a national day to reflect on the incredible life of Canada's Queen and the longest-serving monarch in British history."
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 13, 2022, 02:36:48 PMCanada just declared a Federal Holiday as a day of mourning. It will be interesting to see if the provinces follow suit. I bet Quebec will not for sure - and likely not BC. Also willing to bet that Nova Scotia does declare the holiday.
Here is your response about Ontario:
(https://preview.redd.it/0bfb6t229pn91.jpg?width=640&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=4ead680660e1581a18969d78ac766cd25c13f52f)
Poor, poor Ontarians. :cry:
:P
QuoteSheffield football teams branded "despicable" by league after arranging 'friendly' following Queen's death
A Sheffield football league has promised to deal with two of its clubs "in the strongest possible terms" after what it called the "disrespectful and despicable" decision to organise a friendly game on the weekend after Queen Elizabeth's passing.
All professional football was postponed over the weekend following the Queen's death late last week, with the decision also extending to amateur and junior football under the FA's umbrella.
Sheffield International FC's Sheffield and District Fair Play League game against Byron House was subsequently postponed – with the club then announcing publicly on Twitter that they were aiming to play a friendly against Byron House instead on Saturday morning.
The original tweet went viral, with over 40,000 likes, and further tweets included plans to change the friendly to a training session after someone "snitched", and photographs showing players turning up in their match kit and appearing to suggest Byron House had also arrived.
Although there was no confirmation that a friendly match was played – the club's account later referencing a 'training session' which saw a fight and a trial goalkeeper playing as their main striker – the whole episode was condemned in a strong statement issued by the Sheffield and District Fair Play League.
"It has been brought to our attention that, despite our clearly informing all clubs that football matches this weekend should be cancelled as a mark of respect for the passing of Her Majesty the Queen, two teams within our League have chosen to play a friendly match anyway," the statement, issued on Saturday, read.
"This is after we specifically and separately confirmed friendly matches could not be played.
"The SDFPL Management Team would like to put on record that we absolutely do not condone this disrespectful and despicable behaviour.
"There will be an investigation into this matter, in conjunction with the Sheffield & Hallamshire County FA, and these two teams will be dealt with in the strongest possible terms.
"Our league has honesty, integrity and fair play as cornerstones, and we will not accept such behaviour from within our ranks."
"We would like to thank our 37 other clubs that followed the instructions and showed their respects with honour," the statement added.
League chairman Danny Taylor added: "Queen Elizabeth II ruled, served and led with integrity and humility for more than seven decades. It is a terrible shame that these two teams could not emulate this even for a single Saturday, despite our clear instructions.
"We may or may not agree with the mass cancellation of football, but this was decided as a mark of respect and should therefore have been adhered to. This sort of behaviour is disrespectful, unacceptable and flies in the face of the core values of our League. It will not be tolerated."
The plan to play a friendly divided opinion on social media, with some suggesting it was in bad taste and disrespectful to the Queen's memory and others insisting that the games should not have been postponed in the first place.
Sheffield International FC have been approached for comment.
At least no one got arrested this time. :P
Quote from: Syt on September 14, 2022, 04:20:07 AMAt least no one got arrested this time. :P
Just wait until both teams and their boards are rounded up and deported to Australia. :P
What about cricket and rugby then? Or is it only the lower class sport of football that must show respect to its betters?
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2022, 05:13:02 AMWhat about cricket and rugby then? Or is it only the lower class sport of football that must show respect to its betters?
Quite right too; England on cracking form against South Africa btw :bowler:
Quote from: Tamas on September 14, 2022, 05:13:02 AMWhat about cricket and rugby then? Or is it only the lower class sport of football that must show respect to its betters?
Depends on which football teams are involved, apparently. :P
QuoteEton accused of breaking no grassroots football rule following Queen's death
A game between Eton and Rossall - two fee-paying institutions - took place on Saturday afternoon when no grassroots football fixtures were allowed to be fulfilled
The grassroots stuff is insane - same with British cycling who've u-turned.
I have a bit of sympathy for the FA on this though because I think they were the first to announce. I think they were terrified of getting it wrong and went for the biggest, broadest pause. And I suspect as the biggest sport they were being hounded by the press for an update. The general consensus since then has been that they got it wrong.
Slight caveat is the Premier League because I'm not sure what they were told by the police. It seems striking that with the Premier League back this weekend there's only two games in London: Spurs and Brentford. The Chelsea game and the Brighton-Palace have been postponed which suggests to me there might limits on the number/size of events in London.
Edit: I suspect if they waited an hour or two and saw the public and press response to the cricket and rugby announcement, they would have taken a different decision.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2022, 05:54:17 AMSlight caveat is the Premier League because I'm not sure what they were told by the police. It seems striking that with the Premier League back this weekend there's only two games in London: Spurs and Brentford. The Chelsea game and the Brighton-Palace have been postponed which suggests to me there might limits on the number/size of events in London.
According to what I heard it depends on the risk assessment for each match and the availability of police resources to address them. Thus, low risk games will be played and high risk ones won't. For instance, the Leeds - Man United won't be played either, as police from all over the UK have been deployed in London for the funeral. This also covers European competitions, as the Arsenal - PSV has also been postponed, while other games like the Chelsea - Salzburg were allowed to be played.
Yes, I was just thinking that a full football programme would require a lot of police and they will be needed for the funeral.
Quote from: The Larch on September 14, 2022, 06:09:11 AMAccording to what I heard it depends on the risk assessment for each match and the availability of police resources to address them. Thus, low risk games will be played and high risk ones won't. For instance, the Leeds - Man United won't be played either, as police from all over the UK have been deployed in London for the funeral. This also covers European competitions, as the Arsenal - PSV has also been postponed, while other games like the Chelsea - Salzburg were allowed to be played.
That makes sense. Brighton-Palace is basically a bit of a derby so even though it's in Brighton I imagine it needs a lot of police including from London (I think forces cooperate for football games - but I'm not sure how it works). Chelsea-Liverpool also strikes me as a higher risk match requiring more policy, than the other London games. Brentford-Arsenal is not a major derby in the calendar :lol:
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2022, 06:25:24 AMQuote from: The Larch on September 14, 2022, 06:09:11 AMAccording to what I heard it depends on the risk assessment for each match and the availability of police resources to address them. Thus, low risk games will be played and high risk ones won't. For instance, the Leeds - Man United won't be played either, as police from all over the UK have been deployed in London for the funeral. This also covers European competitions, as the Arsenal - PSV has also been postponed, while other games like the Chelsea - Salzburg were allowed to be played.
That makes sense. Brighton-Palace is basically a bit of a derby so even though it's in Brighton I imagine it needs a lot of police including from London (I think forces cooperate for football games - but I'm not sure how it works). Chelsea-Liverpool also strikes me as a higher risk match requiring more policy, than the other London games. Brentford-Arsenal is not a major derby in the calendar :lol:
One of the factors taken into account is how many away fans will travel for the game, it seems. I guess they were expecting plenty of Palace fans to make the trip to Brighton for the game, and police have to monitor them, so the more away fans are expected, the more police is needed. Maybe this is not taken into account for intra-city matches?
Ok, this is getting creepy.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcnYOvTXkAEDWt_?format=jpg&name=small)
That strikes me as fairly sensible - just to have a livestream. Not least because the lying at rest in Edinburgh was for 24 hours and there was always a queue. The London lying in state will be for more days but the plans allow for a queue of up to 10 miles (with coloured and numbered wristbands so people can go to the loo etc).
So an online alternative for those so inclined seems like a sensible option.
I find the protocol shaped mourning/grieving for the family very weird though. I think in Scotland they did a "vigil of the princes" were the Queen's four children stood around her coffin for an hour - but there's still the lying at rest so members of the public shuffling past. But then I noticed that Princess Anne put out a statement yesterday and it clicked that of course it's all about precedence - so Charles did his on Friday, William on Saturday, Harry on Monday (with an eye on the US he didn't want to issue a statement on 9/11). Now it's Anne next, presumably (and awkwardly), will be Andrew and then Edward. It is all so weird.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2022, 07:47:01 AMThat strikes me as fairly sensible - just to have a livestream.
A livestream of a coffin? :huh:
QuoteI find the protocol shaped mourning/grieving for the family very weird though. I think in Scotland they did a "vigil of the princes" were the Queen's four children stood around her coffin for an hour - but there's still the lying at rest so members of the public shuffling past. But then I noticed that Princess Anne put out a statement yesterday and it clicked that of course it's all about precedence - so Charles did his on Friday, William on Saturday, Harry on Monday (with an eye on the US he didn't want to issue a statement on 9/11). Now it's Anne next, presumably (and awkwardly), will be Andrew and then Edward. It is all so weird.
Slight vibes of the Death of Stalin scene with all the Politburo juggling for positions around the coffin.
(https://cdn.sanity.io/images/z2aip6ei/production/1905b7f64003a781037180e7532e495bcdd40515-1588x1060.jpg)
-Did Coco Chanel take a shit on your head?
-No, he did not.
Quote from: The Larch on September 14, 2022, 07:54:12 AMA livestream of a coffin? :huh:
Doesn't strike me as any weirder than waiting for hours to walk past a coffin, just online.
QuoteSlight vibes of the Death of Stalin scene with all the Politburo juggling for positions around the coffin.
:lol: I suppose that's where the precedence helps out, unless Princess Anne is Khrushcheving on the side :o :ph34r:
Although it also reminds me of Diana's funeral when I think they did that vigil. It's odd because at the time I think the public felt absolutely entitled to be furious at the lack of recognition of public grief by the royals ("SHOW US YOU CARE"). I think there's now a fair degree of shame at making children display their grief to sate our appetites.
Always reminds me of that amazing Hilary Mantel essay form when William got married and the pandas line:
QuoteI used to think that the interesting issue was whether we should have a monarchy or not. But now I think that question is rather like, should we have pandas or not? Our current royal family doesn't have the difficulties in breeding that pandas do, but pandas and royal persons alike are expensive to conserve and ill-adapted to any modern environment. But aren't they interesting? Aren't they nice to look at? Some people find them endearing; some pity them for their precarious situation; everybody stares at them, and however airy the enclosure they inhabit, it's still a cage.
Re livestreams, there is one of the graphic of how long the queue is :lol:
https://youtu.be/9NpZuGxSgZY
Edit: Also -
Too much 49%
About right 41%
Too little 2%
I am in awe of the 2%.
Quote from: The Larch on September 14, 2022, 07:20:09 AMOk, this is getting creepy.
I don't know. We have people lay in state as well. I saw Lady Bird Johnson laying there in 2007. Maybe it is just something we do here in the English speaking world.
Actually even more amazed by the Queue. The main infrastructure is for 7 miles, with an additional 3 miles in Southwark Park. At its longest it will be more than two hours - at a good pace:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Fcm3Y9dX0AAe_BA?format=jpg&name=medium)
There are over 1,000 volunteers, stewards, marshals and police at any time. 750 professional stewards per shift, 100 volunteer civil servants, 30 members of the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry charity (wut?), plus the police and military. There's also 10 members of the Red Cross, 30 multifaith pastors (coordinated by Lambeth Palace/the Archbishop of Canterbury), six trained Samaritans, two BSL interpreters.
There's also volunteers from the Red Cross, Scouts, Samaritans, St John Ambulance for the wider events. The National Theatre (on the route) is open to people for the loos and to buy refreshments while they wait from 10am to 11am - and they're opening an area 24 hours with kiosks for refreshments.
There's a site (Back of the Queue) which is sourcing its info from social media and is more accurate than the DCMS tracker. It's already 3 miles long. There are water points, loos, wristbands so you can leave get refreshment or go to the loo. But you can't take, say, a sleeping bag or chair because it's always shuffling forward.
It is simultaneously deeply, deeply mad, but somehow weirdly kind and considerate.
I will normally join absolutely any crowd I see, but there is absolutely no way I'll be going anywhere near this :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 10:59:26 AMQuote from: The Larch on September 14, 2022, 07:20:09 AMOk, this is getting creepy.
I don't know. We have people lay in state as well. I saw Lady Bird Johnson laying there in 2007. Maybe it is just something we do here in the English speaking world.
It's the livestreaming that I find creepy, not the laying in state.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2022, 11:01:48 AMI will normally join absolutely any crowd I see, but there is absolutely no way I'll be going anywhere near this :lol:
Ah man. You gotta go and tell us how weird it is. When are you going to have the next chance to see something like this?
Quote from: The Larch on September 14, 2022, 11:02:22 AMIt's the livestreaming that I find creepy, not the laying in state.
Ah. Is that weird? It just seems normal in the 2020s :lol:
Every thing gets freaking livestreamed.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 11:04:01 AMAh man. You gotta go and tell us how weird it is. When are you going to have the next chance to see something like this?
I'm very worried that if you accidentally join you won't be let out until, ten miles later, you've seen the coffin :ph34r:
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 11:05:23 AMAh. Is that weird? It just seems normal in the 2020s :lol:
Every thing gets freaking livestreamed.
:lol: Yeah I really enjoyed the day on the British internet when 500k people were watching a livestream of a big puddle.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2022, 11:06:41 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 11:04:01 AMAh man. You gotta go and tell us how weird it is. When are you going to have the next chance to see something like this?
I'm very worried that if you accidentally join you won't be let out until, ten miles later, you've seen the coffin :ph34r:
There will be beefeaters with halberds blocking every exit :lol:
I don't need to see Her Majesty's body in order to show respects, but I would be tempted to get in line to do so just for the sheer experience of it.
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 11:10:17 AMI don't need to see Her Majesty's body in order to show respects, but I would be tempted to get in line to do so just for the sheer experience of it.
Oh yeah if I was in London I would absolutely be there.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 14, 2022, 10:18:12 AMRe livestreams, there is one of the graphic of how long the queue is :lol:
https://youtu.be/9NpZuGxSgZY
Edit: Also -
Too much 49%
About right 41%
Too little 2%
I am in awe of the 2%.
It's going to stretch into the next hemisphere soon.
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 11:15:16 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 11:10:17 AMI don't need to see Her Majesty's body in order to show respects, but I would be tempted to get in line to do so just for the sheer experience of it.
Oh yeah if I was in London I would absolutely be there.
I would too. Not because I care too much about the woman they are mourning - but I love being involved in community events. City wide arts festivals are better for that though. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2022, 11:35:24 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 11:15:16 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 11:10:17 AMI don't need to see Her Majesty's body in order to show respects, but I would be tempted to get in line to do so just for the sheer experience of it.
Oh yeah if I was in London I would absolutely be there.
I would too. Not because I care too much about the woman they are mourning - but I love being involved in community events. City wide arts festivals are better for that though. :)
I mean you care a little. We are at least all familiar with her and what she stood for. The world's most famous corgi fan.
City wide art festivals happen every year though. I really only need to go once. Same with this. If Charles died next year I probably wouldn't go.
It does go against my natural instinct to join any crowd I see (led to me going on some accidental demonstrations :ph34r:).
But waiting in a queue for up to 30 hours is a bit beyond me :lol:
Given the route of the queue I think it should at least go through Borough Market and Tate Modern so you can see some sights on the way.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on September 13, 2022, 01:53:50 PMThat's why you pay taxes, and everything you own has already been taxed. No need to tax it a second time (or in case of Belgium: a second, third, fourth and fifth time)
But you are dead, so you have no objection to having goods taxed a second or third time.
In Sweden the full old-style royal ceremonies fell out of use in the 20th century. For instance, the latest Swedish king to have a coronation was Oscar II in 1873. And the latest Swedish king to be buried in the traditional Riddarholm Church was Gustaf V in 1950.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2022, 12:15:02 PMIn Sweden the full old-style royal ceremonies fell out of use in the 20th century. For instance, the latest Swedish king to have a coronation was Oscar II in 1873. And the latest Swedish king to be buried in the traditional Riddarholm Church was Gustaf V in 1950.
What's the point of having a monarch if you aren't going to have old-style royal ceremonies?
Quote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 11:45:06 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on September 14, 2022, 11:35:24 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 14, 2022, 11:15:16 AMQuote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 11:10:17 AMI don't need to see Her Majesty's body in order to show respects, but I would be tempted to get in line to do so just for the sheer experience of it.
Oh yeah if I was in London I would absolutely be there.
I would too. Not because I care too much about the woman they are mourning - but I love being involved in community events. City wide arts festivals are better for that though. :)
I mean you care a little. We are at least all familiar with her and what she stood for. The world's most famous corgi fan.
City wide art festivals happen every year though. I really only need to go once. Same with this. If Charles died next year I probably wouldn't go.
There are a bunch of good reasons why Charles (or any other monarch) would not be mourned in the same way
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 12:17:01 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 14, 2022, 12:15:02 PMIn Sweden the full old-style royal ceremonies fell out of use in the 20th century. For instance, the latest Swedish king to have a coronation was Oscar II in 1873. And the latest Swedish king to be buried in the traditional Riddarholm Church was Gustaf V in 1950.
What's the point of having a monarch if you aren't going to have old-style royal ceremonies?
(https://i.ibb.co/zr2WrGw/Madeleine.jpg)
Here's an honest question. IF the Queen died at the height of COVID, during the lockdowns...would there still be a state funeral, and all this pomp and ceremony?
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2022, 12:32:21 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 12:17:01 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 14, 2022, 12:15:02 PMIn Sweden the full old-style royal ceremonies fell out of use in the 20th century. For instance, the latest Swedish king to have a coronation was Oscar II in 1873. And the latest Swedish king to be buried in the traditional Riddarholm Church was Gustaf V in 1950.
What's the point of having a monarch if you aren't going to have old-style royal ceremonies?
(https://i.ibb.co/zr2WrGw/Madeleine.jpg)
She's now 40, married mother of three living in London.
Quote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 01:29:55 PMShe's now 40, married mother of three living in London.
Stop drooling.
Quote from: Josephus on September 14, 2022, 01:22:14 PMHere's an honest question. IF the Queen died at the height of COVID, during the lockdowns...would there still be a state funeral, and all this pomp and ceremony?
No. I think it'd probably be like Philip's funeral - with everyone watching online. Not least because the Queen's message during covid has been talked about a lot in the last week so that'd almost lock us in, I think, even more.
An official ceremony and then post-covid a big state memorial service for heads of state etc.
This really is the Briitish at their best, no not the pomp and ceremony, but the queueing, it's magnificent.
I notice the two women interviewed on the news last night, who were at the head of the then unofficial queue, were indeed the first two people to pass by the coffin; no one had attempted to jump the queue. :Brit:
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2022, 01:33:28 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 01:29:55 PMShe's now 40, married mother of three living in London.
Stop drooling.
Not that this is Victoria, but I always wondered what could have been had Prince William married Princess Victoria of Sweden. Could their kid legitimately have inherited both the thrones of Sweden and the UK, as used to happen in the olden days, or would the modern UK/Swedish governments have tried to block that?
Quote from: Caliga on September 14, 2022, 04:07:32 PMQuote from: The Brain on September 14, 2022, 01:33:28 PMQuote from: Barrister on September 14, 2022, 01:29:55 PMShe's now 40, married mother of three living in London.
Stop drooling.
Not that this is Victoria, but I always wondered what could have been had Prince William married Princess Victoria of Sweden. Could their kid legitimately have inherited both the thrones of Sweden and the UK, as used to happen in the olden days, or would the modern UK/Swedish governments have tried to block that?
Well, I read what the Swedish constitution has to say on it. I suggest you go read the Br... OH SNAP
The Swedish constitution says that a royal prince or princess needs the approval of both the Monarch and the
Riksdag to become head of state of a foreign country. I couldn't see any requirement for the Monarch to get permission from the
Riksdag. Worth noting is that the Swedish Monarch has to be of the Evangelical faith as described in the Augsburg Confession and the Uppsala Synod. Also, royal princes and princesses must be raised in this faith, and raised in Sweden. So, basically, from the Swedish perspective it's certainly possible AFAICT.
There was a change in 2013 and my understanding is that any marriage is allowed (six down in the line of succession) with the monarch's consent - obviously monarch's consent with a foreign royal would probably involve the civil service and the cabinet as well as the palace.
If the monarch doesn't consent then the marriage is still allowed and perfectly valid, but they're removed from the line of succession.
The monarch has to be head of the Church of England. But weirdly there's no requirement that they're actually Anglican themselves - only that they're not Catholic :lol:
Something I'm noticing is that King Charles stands out way less in official events than Liz did. All of the trappings of these state affairs are heavily masculine, Charles is always in either black morning dress or some form of ceremonial military uniform and he really just kinda...blends in with the various other elderly royals and high ranking military leaders etc.
The Queen occasionally was in military regalia, but not frequently that I saw, and she was very often dressed in brightly colored dresses that stood out pretty dramatically.
Quite impress that the Emperor of Japan will go to the funeral. When's the last time the Japanese emperor left Japan?
Queuing in Britain is indeed magnificent and possibly the greatest cultural invention of the island. When nobody jumps the queue, everyone can stay calm and relaxed, you can just sort of reduce your brain activity in to a zen-like state while waiting.
Getting used to that and then queuing in Eastern Europe puts you at an immediate disadvantage :lol:
Quote from: Grey Fox on September 14, 2022, 09:57:24 PMQuite impress that the Emperor of Japan will go to the funeral. When's the last time the Japanese emperor left Japan?
Wasn't his dad at the Royal wedding a decade or so ago?
I'm sure they do leave Japan a fair bit in normal times. First time since covid certainly.
More pressing is the emperor going to a Christian funeral. That's weird. They normally don't go to funerals at all as it's impure.
Yeah as I say despite my views on royalty here, I find it weirdly impressive that the Japanese Emperor is visiting :ph34r: :blush:
Quote from: Tamas on September 15, 2022, 03:50:19 AMQueuing in Britain is indeed magnificent and possibly the greatest cultural invention of the island. When nobody jumps the queue, everyone can stay calm and relaxed, you can just sort of reduce your brain activity in to a zen-like state while waiting.
Getting used to that and then queuing in Eastern Europe puts you at an immediate disadvantage :lol:
This Twitter thread on The Queue (capitalized) is magnificent. :lol:
https://twitter.com/curiousiguana/status/1570067806028464128 (https://twitter.com/curiousiguana/status/1570067806028464128)
QuoteRight, everyone. I need to be serious for a moment. Because the greatest thing that ever happened is happening right now.
I don't particularly care either way about the Queen. But the queue? The Queue is a triumph of Britishness. It's incredible.
Just to be clear: I don't mean the purpose of the queue. I don't mean the outpouring of emotion or collective gried or the event at the end and around the queue or the people in the queue. I mean, literally, the queue. The queue itself. It's like something from Douglas Adams.
It is the motherlode of queues. It is art. It is poetry. It is the queue to end all queues. It opened earlier today and is already 2.2 miles long. They will close it if it gets to FIVE MILES. That's a queue that would take TWO HOURS TO WALK at a brisk pace.
It is a queue that goes right through the entirety of London. It has toilets and water points and websites just for The Queue.
You cannot leave The Queue. You cannot get into The Queue further down. You cannot hold places in The Queue. There are wristbands for The Queue.
Once you join The Queue you can expect to be there for days. But you cannot have a chair and a sleeping bag. There is no sleeping in The Queue, for The Queue moves constantly and steadily, day and night. You will be shuffling along at 0.1 miles per hour for days.
There is a YouTube channel, Twitter feed and Instagram page, each giving frequent updates about The Queue. Because the back of The Queue, naturally, keeps moving. To join The Queue requires up to the minute knowledge of where The Queue is now.
The BBC has live coverage of The Queue on BBC One, and a Red Button service showing the front bit of The Queue.
NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD JOIN THE QUEUE AND YET STILL THEY COME. "Oh, it'll only be until 6am on Thursday, we can take soup".
And the end of the queue is a box. You will walk past the box, slowly, but for no more than a minute. Then you will exit into the London drizzle and make your way home.
Tell me this isn't the greatest bit of British performance art that has ever happened? I'm giddy with joy. It's fantastic. We are a deeply, deeply mad people with an absolutely unshakeable need to join a queue. It's utterly glorious.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2022, 09:19:22 PMSomething I'm noticing is that King Charles stands out way less in official events than Liz did. All of the trappings of these state affairs are heavily masculine, Charles is always in either black morning dress or some form of ceremonial military uniform and he really just kinda...blends in with the various other elderly royals and high ranking military leaders etc.
The Queen occasionally was in military regalia, but not frequently that I saw, and she was very often dressed in brightly colored dresses that stood out pretty dramatically.
I assure you Charles would stand out if he carried a handbag. :P
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 14, 2022, 09:19:22 PMSomething I'm noticing is that King Charles stands out way less in official events than Liz did. All of the trappings of these state affairs are heavily masculine, Charles is always in either black morning dress or some form of ceremonial military uniform and he really just kinda...blends in with the various other elderly royals and high ranking military leaders etc.
The Queen occasionally was in military regalia, but not frequently that I saw, and she was very often dressed in brightly colored dresses that stood out pretty dramatically.
Yeah she famously colour blocked so that she would stand out in the crowd. It was part of her general view that the monarchy needed to be seen to be believed.
Charles stands out less - but it is striking he's done a lot more "walkabouts" than the Queen every really did just in the last week. Like when he first arrived at the palace the car stopped outside the gates, he spent a few minutes with the crowd and then walked into the palace. I suspect there'll be a lot more of that from him while he's able.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 15, 2022, 05:40:33 AMYeah as I say despite my views on royalty here, I find it weirdly impressive that the Japanese Emperor is visiting :ph34r: :blush:
It becomes cooler when you think of it as the heir of Amaterasu at the funeral of the heir of Woden.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1570146903798546433?t=igX1joBz9p2jIokfKyOPew&s=19
QuoteTwo football teams who played the weekend after the Queen died are being investigated and will be "dealt with in the strongest possible terms"
The UK is a totalitarian state.
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 15, 2022, 09:11:40 AMhttps://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1570146903798546433?t=igX1joBz9p2jIokfKyOPew&s=19
QuoteTwo football teams who played the weekend after the Queen died are being investigated and will be "dealt with in the strongest possible terms"
The UK is a totalitarian state.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/_XFv58YaCe5Q/S_8FNJUZO6I/AAAAAAAAEWw/vhF3leKZa38/s400/tobg_dover_470x355.jpg)
Bring forth the traitors!
Quote from: FunkMonk on September 15, 2022, 09:11:40 AMhttps://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1570146903798546433?t=igX1joBz9p2jIokfKyOPew&s=19
QuoteTwo football teams who played the weekend after the Queen died are being investigated and will be "dealt with in the strongest possible terms"
The UK is a totalitarian state.
All the more fucked up as Eton and some other private school had a game that weekend too.
Quote from: Josquius on September 15, 2022, 09:56:49 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on September 15, 2022, 09:11:40 AMhttps://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1570146903798546433?t=igX1joBz9p2jIokfKyOPew&s=19
QuoteTwo football teams who played the weekend after the Queen died are being investigated and will be "dealt with in the strongest possible terms"
The UK is a totalitarian state.
All the more fucked up as Eton and some other private school had a game that weekend too.
What do you want? This is a monarchy, by law and custom there are people who born into a superior status. This is how that supposed to look.
Hey man you decided you wanted part of that action. You could have moved to La République Française and enjoyed the benefits of all that liberté, égalité, and fraternité that Duque is always raving about.
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2022, 04:31:34 PMWorth noting is that the Swedish Monarch has to be of the Evangelical faith as described in the Augsburg Confession and the Uppsala Synod.
Oh thank God. :pope:
Quote from: Josquius on September 15, 2022, 09:56:49 AMQuote from: FunkMonk on September 15, 2022, 09:11:40 AMhttps://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1570146903798546433?t=igX1joBz9p2jIokfKyOPew&s=19
QuoteTwo football teams who played the weekend after the Queen died are being investigated and will be "dealt with in the strongest possible terms"
The UK is a totalitarian state.
Not sure the Sheffield Football Asssociation's jurisdiction reaches as far as Berkshire.
All the more fucked up as Eton and some other private school had a game that weekend too.
Via Popbitch an enjoyably insane tabloid royal obsession. Hope there's some truth to this :lol:
Quote>> Line of recession <<
Mail pattern baldness
In among all the batshit coverage of the new King, the Economist ran a piece this week suggesting we could expect a stable reign from Charles III because "his hair has been parted in the same place since childhood".
It's weird, but the Economist isn't the only publication to be fascinated with Charles's hair. The royal barnet has been a source of endless interest to Daily Mail supremo Paul Dacre too.
As both he and Charles were born on the same day (14th Nov 1948), Dacre has long been obsessed with comparing his own ageing to that of Charles, and would regularly ask employees which of them they thought looked better for their age.
Part of the reason the Mail has followed the balding of Princes William and Harry so closely in recent years, isn't because he cares about the boys' hairlines especially. It's because he's obsessed with Charles's. Dacre believes Charles has had secret work done and is absolutely convinced the King has a weave.
Russia is annoyed they're not invited to the funeral. What a shame:
QuoteThe Russian foreign ministry said it is "profoundly immoral" that the country was not invited to send a delegate to the Queen's state funeral on Monday.
It said: "We view this British attempt to use a national tragedy that has touched the hearts of millions of people around the world for geopolitical purposes to settle scores with our country during the days of mourning as profoundly immoral.
"This is especially blasphemous to the memory of Elizabeth II, who is known to have served during World War II in the territorial defence ranks of the British Armed Forces fighting the Nazis and their Ukrainian collaborators Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevich.
"Now the British elites are on their side."
most successful nazi collaborator was Stalin... you know, before the "falling out" :ph34r:
So sad for poor Putin. :cry:
Turns out there's also a row with China :lol: We've managed to piss off both China hawks and the Chinese state.
China hawks are annoyed because Xi was invited by the government/palace to the funeral at Westminster Abbey. He isn't attending but someone from the Chinese leadership is.
At the same time China is apparently furious because the Chinese delegation is not being allowed into Westminster Hall for the lying in state. This is because it's part of the parliamentary estate, which is run by the Speaker and Lord Speaker who have banned any Chinese state officials from any part of parliament until China lifts its sanctions on MPs and members of the House of Lords.
Want to buy a few more Tridents real quick?
Sky News live stream of The Queue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSQKC6X0Z2I
On queues I found the one in Hong Kong to place flowers or sign the book of condolence on quite sad. I read that at times on Monday it was 3-4 hours long and it's hard not to read that as primarily being about what's happening in Hong Kong now.
Rather than any sympathy for the Queen or British rule, more a general mourning for a past Hong Kong that is being changed by the Chinese state :(
In 87 I lined up for 11 hours to get Pink Floyd tickets.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 16, 2022, 05:49:18 AMOn queues I found the one in Hong Kong to place flowers or sign the book of condolence on quite sad. I read that at times on Monday it was 3-4 hours long and it's hard not to read that as primarily being about what's happening in Hong Kong now.
Rather than any sympathy for the Queen or British rule, more a general mourning for a past Hong Kong that is being changed by the Chinese state :(
I think there's lot of that here in the UK as well.
Quote from: Josephus on September 16, 2022, 08:50:14 AMIn 87 I lined up for 11 hours to get Pink Floyd tickets.
In '07 or '08 the White Stripes were doing a Canadian tour, including appearances in every province and territory. So that included them having a show at a 400 seat venue in Whitehorse, YT. So for the only time in my life I lined up overnight. I slept in a camping chair (that had a built in footrest) covered in a tarp for when it lightly rained. It was 30 year old me along mostly with a bunch of high school and college students.
When tickets went on sale I was about 5 from the front when tickets were sold out.
Also, found it weirdly touching that David Beckham waited 12 hours in the queue for his turn.
I've seen lots of reports of people having a great time chatting to their queue-neighbours and some exchanging numbers after they've paid the respects. It's very nice. Saw one Muslim guy on Twitter say this was the "English Hajj", which seems fair :lol:
They also closed the formal queue today for the first time as it reached its maximum length - so there were queues to join the Queue. Expectec queuing time right now is over 24 hours :blink:
Lovely piece by the Washington Post on this:
QuoteThe British love queues. The queen's death brought one for the ages.
By Karla Adam
Updated September 15, 2022 at 6:04 p.m. EDT|Published September 15, 2022 at 11:06 a.m. EDT
LONDON — It is the queue to end all queues.
The line to see Queen Elizabeth II lying in state stretched from Westminster Hall, across the River Thames and then onward, past the London Eye Ferris wheel and the Tate Modern museum and Tower Bridge. On Thursday evening, it reached as far as Southwark Park in Southeast London.
A government tracker on YouTube said Thursday night it was nearly 5 miles long. That was an underestimate, though. A government spokeswoman confirmed to The Washington Post that the distance measured was "as the crow flies" and didn't include the labyrinthine zigzag section in the home stretch.
But the mourners have been undeterred. Their beloved monarch has died, and they are determined to pay their respects. If they have to wait eight hours? Ten hours? They would prefer sooner rather than later, but they are fully committed.
After all, forming a queue is what the British do. Americans like to call it a "line," but that word doesn't quite encompass the almost holy rule-bound nature the British have developed of waiting patiently behind someone to achieve a goal.
Asked to explain the concept of British queuing, Robin Wight, 78, launched into an impassioned speech.
"The queue is something that we have in Britain. ... We're used to being obedient in that way," said Wight, who was about a five-minute walk — or more than two hours away — from the front. "But this queue is different to all other queues I've ever been in. Because everybody here is here for a purpose: to see the queen."
"If you go to Stansted Airport, you're in a queue for your holiday. Well, that's fine," he continued. "But here, this is not a queue, this is a magical moment we're all sharing together."
When he finished, thousands around him broke into (polite) applause.
This reporter joined the queue around 6 p.m. on Wednesday evening, meeting people who were planning to stay up all night if they had to see the queen's coffin, which is lying in state — draped in the imperial standard and bearing the imperial state crown on a purple velvet pillow — until the funeral Monday morning.
I was quickly educated in queen queue decorum. Get a wristband with a number and obey that number. Stay in the queue. Do not push or shove. Do not cut.
There was a rumor that someone, six snaking rows in front of us, tried to jump the queue. But then someone else pointed out that this was unverified, as if to suggest the very notion was slightly scandalous.
Later it emerged that lawmakers had been given passes to jump to the front of the queue along with four guests of their choosing — which has, unsurprisingly, caused a stir. "Revolutions have been sparked by less," wrote the Telegraph's Tom Harris.
For context: In a major speech on Brexit in 2018, then-Prime Minister Theresa May called Europeans in Britain queue jumpers. That was considered a serious insult.
In line for the queen, people formed little queuing families. As they hours stretched on, they banded together and offered comfort. They shared biscuits and tea and, sometimes, stronger drinks. Strangers who would normally never talk to each other in public situations were suddenly fiercely loyal. If you needed to use the toilet — there were portable "loos"; this was a well-planned queue, after all — then your queuing family held your place in line.
Everyone had a story about the queen: about times they saw her or met her or received a medal from her or had her as a boss. Surveys show that about a third of Britons met or saw the queen in person during her 70-year reign.
"The queen personally put this around my neck. It was a magic moment," said Wight, the philosopher of queues, about his Royal Victorian Order medal for raising millions for charity. "I really want to come and say goodbye to her, with all these people here. ... I'd stay here for 30 hours if I had to."
Hilary Beckley worked as a chef for Princess Margaret, the queen's sister, and Beckley's husband, Gary, worked as a palace carpenter.
"We met through the royal family. We have been married for 31 years," said Beckley, 61. "We couldn't not come."
After many hours of waiting, people in a long line for the visitation in Westminster Hall finally reach the Palace of Westminster. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)
Of course, the queen was not just head of state of United Kingdom, but of 14 other countries — and head of the Commonwealth, which covers a third of the planet. Her death has stirred conflicted feelings in places scarred by the legacy of British colonialism. And several Commonwealth realms are reassessing their relationships with the crown.
But Queen Elizabeth II also had fans around the world, with many people explaining that they separated her as an individual from imperial rule. The queue for the queen has been a testament to her international appeal.
The first three ladies were from Sri Lanka, Wales and Ghana. The Washington Post also interviewed people from India, Bangladesh, Ireland, Germany, Sierra Leone, the United States, Spain, Italy, Hong Kong, China, Australia — to name a few countries. They spoke of her mostly scandal-free life, which made her a model, and her children's scandalous lives, which made her seem human. They referenced her devotion to country, sense of humor, work ethic, travels abroad, longevity.
Joyce Skeete, 74, a retired nurse, has lived her adult life in London but was born and raised in Barbados, where she was a star netball player. As a 14-year-old, she was invited to have a meal with the queen, who was visiting one of her realms. "She has given her whole life to this country and all the other countries," she said. "I think, for her, it is worth queuing."
The queen queue has become a thing of its own. This isn't the "mother of all queues" — that title can be retired. This is "The Queue."
"I don't particularly care either way about the Queen. But the queue? The Queue is a triumph of Britishness. It's incredible," wrote one social media user in a post that went viral. #QueueForTheQueen was trending on social media.
Another pointed out that "queue" is a beautiful word: "The actual important letter, and then four more silently waiting behind it in a line."
For those of us joining the queue Wednesday night, it started off well enough. We moved forward at a decent clip — offering a false sense of optimism about how it would all unfold. About four or five hours in, things started looking bleak, as we hit the zigzag section, reminiscent of a bad day at the airport.
We learned that a royal guard standing next to the queen's coffin fainted around 1 a.m., putting everything on pause for a bit.
Then, finally, we were inside. After 7-1/2 hours of leisurely chattiness in the queue, the scene inside Westminster Hall was starkly different.
Mourners entering the hall, with its cavernous hammer-beam roof, were met with silence.
Still in an orderly line, we were guided past the queen's coffin, on its raised platform, guarded by soldiers wearing bearskin hats. Some mourners bowed and curtsied or nodded or whispered "thank you." Anyone inclined to linger was urged along by officials motioning that it was time to go.
"It's a whole other atmosphere in there, the world around you stops and you're in the moment," said Megan Foy, 35, after leaving the hall.
She was there with her husband and their 9-month-old daughter and said they had "only" queued for six hours, reaching the hall around 2 a.m. "We got to skirt around a little bit because of the buggy situation," she said, referring to her stroller.
But for our portion of the queue, the waiting wasn't quite over. A funeral rehearsal was underway in the wee hours of the morning, and no one was allowed to walk through the area around Westminster while the soldiers practiced their marching.
And so, together with everyone else who had just exited the hall, we were back in another queue.
Edit: Interesting the reporter who wrote that piece said she was genuinely surprised how many people had previously met or seen the Queen. I suppose that is the bit of the "working" royals that means there is this sort of reaction - all the ribbon cuttings, walkabouts, garden parties, honours ceremonies etc mean a crazy number of people have a personal story about the royals.
Edit: Incidentally Charles won't be "Defender of faith" but he did have a meeting with faith leaders today and spoke of his "duty to protect the diversity of our country" and his responsibility as sovereign to defend the practising of all "religions, cultures, traditions and beliefs". In line with his view of Britain as a "community of communities". In a way what you'd expect from a King who's spent time learning Arabic so he can read the Quran and is a big fan of the Sufi tradition as well as Greek Orthodoxy - but I think an early sign (along with discussing climate change with Macron) of how the monarchy will subtly change under Charles.
Not great that I think an inherited sovereign has a better grasp on modern Britain ("community of communities" is a great description - often overlapping etc) than the elected government ("muscular unionism" etc) <_<
Props to David Beckham for spending 12 hours in the queue to see the lying in state, I'm sure he could have pulled some strings if he wanted to.
BBC map of the queue, which I prefer as it's better suited to webpages:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/13B0C/production/_126725608_newqueuegraphic-nc.png.webp)
I always found it odd that the British monarch still uses the title "Defender of the Faith", as I understand it, that is a Catholic honorary title the Pope gave King Henry VIII when he published a pamphlet attacking critics of the church.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2022, 01:16:38 PMI always found it odd that the British monarch still uses the title "Defender of the Faith", as I understand it, that is a Catholic honorary title the Pope gave King Henry VIII when he published a pamphlet attacking critics of the church.
They never gave it back :lol:
The funeral is traditionally organised by the Dukes of Norfolk who are the most senior recusant, Catholic aristocracy for an Anglican monarch, who swears to protect the "true" Protestant and Presbyterian church in Scotland - and worships as a Presbyterian in Scotland (by all accounts the Windsors prefer the Presbyterian church and are very low church in their tastes).
Reality is it just refects the complicated and compromised legacy of the Reformation and the civil war.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 17, 2022, 01:16:38 PMI always found it odd that the British monarch still uses the title "Defender of the Faith", as I understand it, that is a Catholic honorary title the Pope gave King Henry VIII when he published a pamphlet attacking critics of the church.
It goes well with a multi-faith pluralistic society.
Not.
He also wants the title defender of the faiths, so, inclusivity I guess. Unless you're an atheist, then fu :D
Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2022, 02:20:37 PMIt goes well with a multi-faith pluralistic society.
Not.
And yet, the last Chancellor and almost PM is a practicing Hindu. His two predecessors were Muslim. The Home Secretary is Buddhist and her predecessor was a Hindu. The leader of the opposition and possible next PM affirms his oath because he's an atheist.
Not perfect (I suspect a hijab wearing woman would face far more challenges), but I'm not convinced that suggests a problem for a multi-faith pluralistic society. Particularly when he's also head of state of, say, Canada.
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 17, 2022, 02:43:42 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 17, 2022, 02:20:37 PMIt goes well with a multi-faith pluralistic society.
Not.
And yet, the last Chancellor and almost PM is a practicing Hindu. His two predecessors were Muslim. The Home Secretary is Buddhist and her predecessor was a Hindu. The leader of the opposition and possible next PM affirms his oath because he's an atheist.
Not perfect (I suspect a hijab wearing woman would face far more challenges), but I'm not convinced that suggests a problem for a multi-faith pluralistic society. Particularly when he's also head of state of, say, Canada.
Exactly. It's a silly thing to be still brandishing that title around.
Quote from: Tamas on September 17, 2022, 03:45:22 PMExactly. It's a silly thing to be still brandishing that title around.
The death and proclamation of a new monarch is literally the only time they "brandish" it :P
But as with the oath about the Scottish church, I'm sure it'd be relatively easy to change it's just a bit political ask for a government to justify spending parliamentary time on the Act of Union (both parliaments) or royal titles or the establishment of the CofE. Especially when they don't seem to have blocked the development of a pluralistic, multi-faith society.
We've been governed by an unpleasant faction of an unpleasant party for the past 6 years as if they had overwhelming support. Putting that right has far higher priority imo.
Until we get a mad monarch I don't think the republican movement will get anywhere at all. But we can lay the groundwork for it by reforming the electoral system for the Commons and replacing the Lords with something more democratic.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on September 18, 2022, 12:14:37 AMWe've been governed by an unpleasant faction of an unpleasant party for the past 6 years as if they had overwhelming support. Putting that right has far higher priority imo.
Until we get a mad monarch I don't think the republican movement will get anywhere at all. But we can lay the groundwork for it by reforming the electoral system for the Commons and replacing the Lords with something more democratic.
Indeed.
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2022, 09:46:53 PMProps to David Beckham for spending 12 hours in the queue to see the lying in state, I'm sure he could have pulled some strings if he wanted to.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/13B0C/production/_126725608_newqueuegraphic-nc.png.webp)
Yes, I'm sure there was a VIP entry, he could have got.
Quote from: Josephus on September 18, 2022, 05:48:02 AMQuote from: mongers on September 16, 2022, 09:46:53 PMProps to David Beckham for spending 12 hours in the queue to see the lying in state, I'm sure he could have pulled some strings if he wanted to.
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/13B0C/production/_126725608_newqueuegraphic-nc.png.webp)
Yes, I'm sure there was a VIP entry, he could have got.
Jos, but not for the likes of us. :D
And I'm now regretting not having gone and queued, but the trains would have been packed.
I was thinking today.
The scenes when the new king was proclaimed at st james and the crowd shouted god save the king...
Its so very post-modern. People weren't organically doing this. Rather they showed up just to do it as they had seen it in the movies and thought it was the thing to do.
After 8 years here, this will clearly be something I'll never understand about Britain. This being desiring to stand in that queue.
So it seems that Bolsonaro is using his attendance to the funeral as an electoral campaign stunt.
QuoteBolsonaro uses visit to London for Queen's funeral as 'election soapbox'
Speaking from the balcony of his ambassador's home, Brazilian president rounds on leftists, abortion and 'gender ideology'
Brazil's far-right president Jair Bolsonaro has been accused of using the Queen's funeral as a political soapbox after he flew into London to deliver a speech to supporters about the dangers of leftists, abortion and "gender ideology".
Speaking from the balcony of the Brazilian ambassador's 19th-century Mayfair home on Sunday, the South American populist voiced "profound respect" for the royal family and UK citizens and claimed that honouring Queen Elizabeth II was the "main objective" of his visit to London.
But Bolsonaro – who looks poised to lose next month's presidential election in Brazil – then switched immediately into campaign mode, despite the moment of mourning.
"We're on the right path," Brazil's president told hundreds of yellow-clad supporters who had rallied outside the building – less than two miles from Westminster Hall where the Queen was lying in state.
"We are a country that does not want to discuss the legalisation of drugs, that does not want to discuss the legalisation of abortion and a country that does not accept gender ideology," Bolsonaro went on. "Our slogan is: God, homeland, family and freedom."
Bolsonaro's politically charged comments delighted the hardcore supporters who had come to hear him in central London but sparked anger in the UK and Brazil.
(...)
Reports in the Brazilian media claimed Bolsonaro's team saw the Queen's funeral as a golden opportunity to boost his flagging re-election campaign by rubbing shoulders with world leaders who have largely shunned him since he came to power in 2019.
"Sources close to the president say [the decision to attend] was influenced by the opportunity to record footage for his campaign propaganda," the conservative Estado de São Paulo reported last week.
One presidential aide told Brazil's O Globo newspaper that Bolsonaro saw the funeral as a chance to outdo his leftist rival, the former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who is leading the race to become Brazil's next leader.
In his balcony address, Bolsonaro claimed he was on track for victory on 2 October. "There's no way we aren't going to win in the first round," he said to loud cheers and wolf whistles.
However, polls suggest Lula – who boasts a lead of between 12 and 15 points – will prevail when 156 million Brazilians vote.
So passes one of the very last post-war certainties, the Queen in UK public life.
Tomorrow the focus has to return to Climate Change, the war in Ukraine, cost of living crisis and preparing for the next pandemic.
Meanwhile TV coveage moves from blanket royal coverage to a full blown soporific daytime tv schedule.
Quote from: mongers on September 16, 2022, 09:46:53 PMProps to David Beckham for spending 12 hours in the queue to see the lying in state, I'm sure he could have pulled some strings if he wanted to.
BBC map of the queue, which I prefer as it's better suited to webpages:
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/13B0C/production/_126725608_newqueuegraphic-nc.png.webp)
Perhaps for the next funeral, they could simply float the royal down the Thames...
Down the Thames, on a Royal Train - and incorporate this solution:
https://twitter.com/_RichardParry_/status/1570706799975862272?s=20&t=au39yR3wutgomEW7oO_HdA
One way this relentless two-weeks media mourning worked, I guess, is that now it is hard to imagine there was a time the Queen was alive. Being sorry for her death and remembering her life has some become the constant background noise.
Quote from: OexmelinPerhaps for the next funeral, they could simply float the royal down the Thames...
I like it. Viking funeral style.
Oh dear, the care of the Queens last two corgis has been entrusted to Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah. :-(
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1460B/production/_126776438_corgi1000x563.jpg)
Monarch's funeral procession 1952 vs 2022.
(https://preview.redd.it/6uhh9svg2uo91.png?width=899&format=png&auto=webp&s=97ca5e82ebb35a6414ba37c4a466a5a0835ac4fe)
(https://preview.redd.it/6qjlyi4h2uo91.png?width=899&format=png&auto=webp&s=b86ab30b70341fcb485c23959fd9a2e0d34ab516)
Wow so much has changed since then.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2022, 03:32:28 PMWow so much has changed since then.
Which is an interesting generic point and I don't necessarily mean it applies to the UK in any negative way - what determines when a society prefers to embrace new instead of the traditional?
Those uniforms, that arrangement were once brand new. At some point, society was not afraid to try a new thing for a funeral.
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2022, 03:38:05 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 19, 2022, 03:32:28 PMWow so much has changed since then.
Which is an interesting generic point and I don't necessarily mean it applies to the UK in any negative way - what determines when a society prefers to embrace new instead of the traditional?
Those uniforms, that arrangement were once brand new. At some point, society was not afraid to try a new thing for a funeral.
Umm, the hats on top pic weren't white.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2022, 03:51:47 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 19, 2022, 03:38:05 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 19, 2022, 03:32:28 PMWow so much has changed since then.
Which is an interesting generic point and I don't necessarily mean it applies to the UK in any negative way - what determines when a society prefers to embrace new instead of the traditional?
Those uniforms, that arrangement were once brand new. At some point, society was not afraid to try a new thing for a funeral.
Umm, the hats on top pic weren't white.
Ok, I stand corrected. :lol: I guess that how it happens: one cap-colour at a time.
I believe that they changed out the body inside the coffin.
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2022, 03:38:05 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 19, 2022, 03:32:28 PMWow so much has changed since then.
Which is an interesting generic point and I don't necessarily mean it applies to the UK in any negative way - what determines when a society prefers to embrace new instead of the traditional?
Those uniforms, that arrangement were once brand new. At some point, society was not afraid to try a new thing for a funeral.
Apparently the whole show was invented by Victoria's son and has no tradition before Victoria's funeral.
Quote from: Zanza on September 19, 2022, 04:13:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on September 19, 2022, 03:38:05 PMQuote from: Valmy on September 19, 2022, 03:32:28 PMWow so much has changed since then.
Which is an interesting generic point and I don't necessarily mean it applies to the UK in any negative way - what determines when a society prefers to embrace new instead of the traditional?
Those uniforms, that arrangement were once brand new. At some point, society was not afraid to try a new thing for a funeral.
Apparently the whole show was invented by Victoria's son and has no tradition before Victoria's funeral.
The Royal Family as we know it is basically a Victorian invention anyway.
No great surprise as the Queen was present at both events and probably designed her own funeral with her vision firmly set on that of her father.
I'd note some differences, the grenadier guards, gentlemen thingys and the 'beefeaters' are all wearing great coats, it was a very cold day, yet in 1952 the Navy were still tough enough to go without.
Also the royal family walked behind the Queens coffin, where as in 1952 they either rode or I think in the Queen's case rode in a carriage (?) .
Saw a clip of the Mounties, they looked cool at least.
Quote from: HVC on September 19, 2022, 05:33:15 PMSaw a clip of the Mounties, they looked cool at least.
Yeah plus the Royal Company of Archers.
Quote from: mongers on September 19, 2022, 01:34:53 PMOh dear, the care of the Queens last two corgis has been entrusted to Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah. :-(
How does that work? Does Andrew get custody on the weekends?
Quote from: Legbiter on September 19, 2022, 06:08:00 PMQuote from: HVC on September 19, 2022, 05:33:15 PMSaw a clip of the Mounties, they looked cool at least.
Yeah plus the Royal Company of Archers.
Just read that it's a purely ceremonial unit from the XIXth century. So, more Victorian era pageantry. :P
Quote from: Tamas on September 19, 2022, 03:54:27 PMOk, I stand corrected. :lol: I guess that how it happens: one cap-colour at a time.
Change in the monarchy is slow. Give it time. When Charles dies, they're gonna change the bearskin hats to polar bear hats.
Quote from: Valmy on September 19, 2022, 06:35:10 PMQuote from: mongers on September 19, 2022, 01:34:53 PMOh dear, the care of the Queens last two corgis has been entrusted to Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah. :-(
How does that work? Does Andrew get custody on the weekends?
They live together.
He lives with his ex-wife?
Huh. Well I guess their house is probably really big or something.
So. There were representatives of the militaries of the commonwealth in the procession. But only from the big countries she was queen of, namely Australia, UK, Canada and NZ. Which means that of the 15 states that were mourning 11 had no representation in the funeral procession.
How come?
Quote from: The Larch on September 19, 2022, 07:28:17 PMJust read that it's a purely ceremonial unit from the XIXth century. So, more Victorian era pageantry. :P
I'd go further.
They are the royal bodyguard in Scotland and are created for the 1822 trip to Edinburgh by George IV. I think the first time a monarch had been in Scotland since Charles I - and between them you have 1688, the Hannoverian succession and two Jacobite revolts.
But he gets Sir Walter Scott to manage proceedings and I think there's a genuine case that betweeen this and his novels Scott creates the image of modern Scotland and, in large part, the UK too. Scott covers everything in tartan - which until then was associated with the Highlands, not all of Scotland and also with Jacobitism. He gets everyone wearing kilts (including George IV) while they'd been banned before.
He infuses the whole thing with a sort of Waverley spirit of being romantically inclined to the Highlands and Jacobitism, but rationally proceeding with union and the Hannoverians. They're there with a Hannoverian monarch, but everyone dresses up as if they're in the court of Bonnie Prince Charlie. Off the top of my head Edinburgh Waverley is the only train station named after a fictional character (and he has an incredible monument in Edinburgh too) but the whole castles and lochs and tartans as the image of Scotland (as opposed to, say, Edinburgh of the Scottish Enlightenment) is an invention of Scott and particularly 1822.
So it's not just the Archers, but the massed pipes and drums of the funeral and the lone piper that are relatively modern creations.
QuoteWow so much has changed since then.
Surely you could do the same of, say, inaugurations of American Presidents. All that's changed in about 100 years is the hats and outfits people wear. Or, of the Bastille Day parade. As I say I love proper republican pagaentry but like all ceremony it tends to follow a form, no?
QuoteWhich is an interesting generic point and I don't necessarily mean it applies to the UK in any negative way - what determines when a society prefers to embrace new instead of the traditional?
Those uniforms, that arrangement were once brand new. At some point, society was not afraid to try a new thing for a funeral.
Zanza's right it's a relatively modern creation - the coronation is similar. But it does the thing that the Victorians do a lot of creating something new and pretending it's ancient.
You have reforms of the courts and parliament and voting, as well as huge social shifts and it is dressed in neo-Gothic. All of the trappings are often new, but designed to look (like a Victorian idea of the) Medieval.
With the royals in particular while I don't go fully 'The Invention of Tradition' (though it's great) - I think it is really striking that at the start of the 19th century when they have genuine political power (basically at the level of a US President) there's very little ceremonial. Funerals go wrong, Victoria's coronation is a disaster (the Archbishop of Canterbury repeatedly loses his place, tries to put the "sovereign's ring" on the wrong finger etc). At the start of the 20th (and 21st) century - they have no political power but a lot of ceremonial at least for big events. It's very visual Lampedusa - everything must change for everything to stay the same.
In part and this gets to the weird personal-state element of monarchy - a lot of the funeral would have been decided by the Queen. I think it will be at least a little different with Charles because he grew up at a different point. Although I did think there was something weird about Charles, William and his son sat there watching a ceremony that will basically happen for them - I suppose we all have that at funerals.
But also I think there's something about iteration. Change happens when we repeat something often enough, if there's 70 years between events and nothing underlying it has changed then I don't think it's likely to change?
Why archers in Scotland? Longbow was more of a English and Welsh thing, no? William Wallace didn't even have any bowmen AFAIK.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 20, 2022, 04:09:41 AMWhy archers in Scotland? Longbow was more of a English and Welsh thing, no? William Wallace didn't even have any bowmen AFAIK.
This is purely Wiki but again it's sort of Sir Walter Scott-ish.
Apparently it's from the traditional "wapinschaw" (weapon show) or muster of local militias, which was something the Stuarts were big on and was part of the mobilisation of the Jacobites. It was discontinued following the Glorious Revolution, plus the Hannoverians and then the Napoleonic Wars but brought back for 1822. So it's again an appropriation by a new "British" crown of something traditionally associated with Jacobitism - like the tartan etc.
And with that appropriation creating a new symbol that is simultaneously distinctively Scottish and yet wholly British.
Edit: But I also think the interest in Wallace - you get the Wallace monument a few decades later - is another legacy of Scott on the imagination because he wrote stories about Wallace and a sort of mythic medieval Scotland of the Bruce and Wallace. Again I think there's a displacement there of identity from the politically threatening Stuart's and Jacobitism to more distant heroes - plus the wider medieval romanticism of Scott which is hugely influential in 19th century Britain.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdDPdfpX0AI3QQN?format=jpg&name=large)
Anyone seen a seating map about?
I'm really curious about who sat next to who what with it being a whose who of world leaders
It was funny seeing that CNN section on which ex-Presidents Biden should invite, as if it was just up to him - when from a UK perspective I don't see how you invite former American Presidents without also inviting former German, French, Irish etc presidents.
While other countries with the Queen as head of state should clearly have larger groups (I think Ireland's the only country outside that group to have more than one representative). I imagine they all had better seats because it's the funeral of their head of state. But I read somewhere that it was just alphabetical - but I think, because royal, other monarchs got better seats too. I kept seeing I think the King of Sweden on what looked like the front row (separately the clip of Queen Margethe almost in tears at the lying in state was really moving).
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2022, 06:01:17 AMIt was funny seeing that CNN section on which ex-Presidents Biden should invite, as if it was just up to him - when from a UK perspective I don't see how you invite former American Presidents without also inviting former German, French, Irish etc presidents.
While other countries with the Queen as head of state should clearly have larger groups (I think Ireland's the only country outside that group to have more than one representative). I imagine they all had better seats because it's the funeral of their head of state. But I read somewhere that it was just alphabetical - but I think, because royal, other monarchs got better seats too. I kept seeing I think the King of Sweden on what looked like the front row (separately the clip of Queen Margethe almost in tears at the lying in state was really moving).
The European royals are all family too, which helps.
Quote from: Josquius on September 20, 2022, 05:48:45 AMAnyone seen a seating map about?
I'm really curious about who sat next to who what with it being a whose who of world leaders
I've seen comments that Biden was the only Head of State allowed to use his own motorcade, and that he got stuck in traffic. Seating was apparently based on time of arrival, going from front to back.
I didn't know this, but they said during the ceremony that our king spent a summer at Balmoral in his youth. To learn English and to get to know the Windsors.
Lots of other stuff also, the bond is actually surprisingly strong.
Spain sent a 4 people delegation, the current King and Queen, as well as the former ones. It was a bit of a conundrum at first because apparently only the current ones had been officially invited, and Juan Carlos (who everyone is mostly embarrassed by nowadays) threw a fit to get invited too. The guy wouldn't miss a party solemn event for anything.
Quote from: Syt on September 20, 2022, 05:31:39 AM(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FdDPdfpX0AI3QQN?format=jpg&name=large)
Nothing says respect like a giant pig balloon.
In Stockholm the Queen's coat of arms as a member of the Order of the Seraphim was taken from the palace and hung in the Riddarholm Church.
Quote from: mongers on September 19, 2022, 01:34:53 PMOh dear, the care of the Queens last two corgis has been entrusted to Prince Andrew and his ex-wife, Sarah. :-(
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/1460B/production/_126776438_corgi1000x563.jpg)
Apparently, he's the one who gave them to her. Their job done they now can enjoy retirement.
Quote from: Syt on September 20, 2022, 06:07:42 AMI've seen comments that Biden was the only Head of State allowed to use his own motorcade, and that he got stuck in traffic. Seating was apparently based on time of arrival, going from front to back.
I've seen some comments that a few other Heads of State pitched a fit and were allowed to skip the buses as well. I've also read some bitchy comments on reddit complaining about Biden getting special accommodation. The reality is though, the POTUS typically is exempt from such schemes at any number of other large international gatherings. He certainly isn't the only Head of State that pushes for exemptions, but he may have the best justification in that the threat profile for the POTUS is far different from someone like the Grand Duke of Luxembourg who probably can walk down any street in the world with a near-zero chance of being recognized.
And while distasteful to point it out, the POTUS is also just a lot more important than the Grand Duke, too. Whatever drama and discredit Trump has brought to the office, it is still seen as the leader of the "free world" and is still the world's dominant power in most international organizations, militarily etc.
Well yeah. Here's the Austrian president riding the subway, and tram.
(https://media.kleinezeitung.at/images/thumb/1600x900/focal0x0-0x0/9/7/8/5560696/-HANDOUT--BUNDESPRSIDENT-VAN-DER-BELLEN-IST-U-BAHN-FAN_154747386264820_v0_h.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eao68tQXsAQCfWZ.jpg)
I used to run into his predecessor at my local supermarket a couple of times.
Quote from: Syt on September 20, 2022, 08:28:16 AMWell yeah. Here's the Austrian president riding the subway, and tram.
[...]
I used to run into his predecessor at my local supermarket a couple of times.
Yeah. I saw David Cameron when he was PM with what looked like very little security - similarly living in the far north near her home you'd see the Queen Mother and Prince Charles without much security. I've seen Johnson as mayor many times and had Sadiq Khan sit next to me on the Tube while he's mayor.
Obviously it's vastly different when you've got several hundred heads of state and government in central London. But I was in Rome when John Paul died and I remember people laughing at the US convoy going past because it was so extraordinarily long :lol:
Edit: And actually there was that video doing the rounds this summer of Johnson in a Greek supermarket.
People here occasionally run into the Finnish President walking the dog.
There's actually a decent bit of logic to the silly motorcade. There are typically a few "decoy" beasts, so it is not clear which vehicle the POTUS is in. Then there are multiple "tactical" SUVs, essentially filled with ready to go, tactical geared Secret Service agents who are ready to get involved in a fire fight at the drop of a hat to provide cover for a Presidential escape if an attack occurred. Then there are a few medical support vehicles, including ones that carry the President's blood type at all times, to provide emergency on site medical care if he's wounded.
A lot of it seems a bit much, but look at it from the converse. Someone like Lee Oswald was able to, at the height of the Cold War, kill the leader of one of the two superpowers at the time with a cheap Italian rifle he ordered through the mail for like $20, on his lunch break. There's a lot of things that went in to making that possible, and almost none of those vulnerabilities exist in modern Presidential protocol.
While it is quaint these other officials can be seen out shopping and such, imagine if you are Russia, or Iran, and the U.S. President did that? You would have a decent chance of killing him at almost no cost, basically all it takes is a couple dedicated extremists who aren't nationals of your country that you can get decent separation from, and pay for their training / arming and set them loose. And unfortunately the only way to defend against vectors like that is to have pretty elaborate to the point of absurdity security.
Incidentally poll on the monarchy showed about 80% support which is basically unchanged from the last time the poll was done.
So I imagine for the palace and the BBC etc that was a job well done. Especially given all the speculation over the years about Charles - admittedly it's in his hands now.
In a way there's no bigger indication to me of Britain's fundamental monarchism than that the person most popular as a suggested "President of Britain" is David Attenborough. It seems to me that if you basically want to replace one broadly apolitical and well-liked 96 year old who likes animals for another then there's not really much urgent desire for the principle of republicanism :lol:
That anti-Monarchist Canadian Youtuber BB doesn't like said something to the effect that once he saw the humble and gracious way Charles has handled the situation he doubts him coming to the throne presents any new opportunities to detach Canada from the Monarchy. So yeah well done Chuck, you seem to be doing your job so far.
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgKF2ZYBc2o
Quote from: Sheilbh on September 20, 2022, 09:37:46 AMIncidentally poll on the monarchy showed about 80% support which is basically unchanged from the last time the poll was done.
So I imagine for the palace and the BBC etc that was a job well done. Especially given all the speculation over the years about Charles - admittedly it's in his hands now.
In a way there's no bigger indication to me of Britain's fundamental monarchism than that the person most popular as a suggested "President of Britain" is David Attenborough. It seems to me that if you basically want to replace one broadly apolitical and well-liked 96 year old who likes animals for another then there's not really much urgent desire for the principle of republicanism :lol:
To me that shows the opposite. :P I think nominating a figurehead based on lifetime achievements in the public eye is far, far, far above declaring one based on birth.
EDIT: I mean that in general. As far as the British monarch is considered, Long Live the King!
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on September 20, 2022, 09:23:51 AMLee Lee Oswald was able to, at the height of the Cold War, kill the leader of one of the two superpowers at the time with a cheap Italian rifle he ordered through the mail for like $20, on his lunch break. There's a lot of things that went in to making that possible
Now I get why the lunch break has steadily vanished from the US workplace.
Quote from: Tamas on September 20, 2022, 09:45:01 AMTo me that shows the opposite. :P I think nominating a figurehead based on lifetime achievements in the public eye is far, far, far above declaring one based on birth.
EDIT: I mean that in general. As far as the British monarch is considered, Long Live the King!
Almost lost your citizenship there Tamas.
To me it shows that the British don't want a President, they want a mascot. Fair enough.
Tamas the Oath-breaker has a nice ring to it :D
Quote from: Valmy on September 20, 2022, 09:43:57 AMThat anti-Monarchist Canadian Youtuber BB doesn't like said something to the effect that once he saw the humble and gracious way Charles has handled the situation he doubts him coming to the throne presents any new opportunities to detach Canada from the Monarchy. So yeah well done Chuck, you seem to be doing your job so far.
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgKF2ZYBc2o
I never said I didn't like JJ. :huh:
I mean I've watched several of his videos, so I can hardly say I don't like him. He just has some very odd views and I wouldn't remotely hold him as being representative of typical Canadians. I mean: he's a gay conservative republican - good luck finding many of those!
(conservative and republican meant in a traditional sense, not referring to political parties)
Obviously he came into the firm due to birthright, but in terms of "qualifications for the role", Charles III is probably the most qualified monarch in Britain's history of constitutional monarchs, at least. Prince of Wales basically does a "Junior" version of most of the jobs of the real monarch, and he was that for 50+ years, and the last 10 years he has taken on progressively more of the Queen's previous jobs.
Quote from: Barrister on September 20, 2022, 10:11:54 AMQuote from: Valmy on September 20, 2022, 09:43:57 AMThat anti-Monarchist Canadian Youtuber BB doesn't like said something to the effect that once he saw the humble and gracious way Charles has handled the situation he doubts him coming to the throne presents any new opportunities to detach Canada from the Monarchy. So yeah well done Chuck, you seem to be doing your job so far.
Here is the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgKF2ZYBc2o
I never said I didn't like JJ. :huh:
I mean I've watched several of his videos, so I can hardly say I don't like him. He just has some very odd views and I wouldn't remotely hold him as being representative of typical Canadians. I mean: he's a gay conservative republican - good luck finding many of those!
(conservative and republican meant in a traditional sense, not referring to political parties)
Fair enough. The guy BB introduced me to without being entirely positive about him.
Quote from: garbon on September 19, 2022, 03:51:47 PMUmm, the hats on top pic weren't white.
And the spats were more prominent in 1952.