Queen Elizabeth II has passed away - keep posts civil and respectful

It's almost certainly inaccurate but I have this notion that Queens have often led during periods of immense positive change and that Kings have often wrecked the country.

So I'd rather the male heir's just abdicate until another Queen is elected.
 
StriderX said:
It's almost certainly inaccurate but I have this notion that Queens have often led during periods of immense positive change and that Kings have often wrecked the country.

So I'd rather the male heir's just abdicate until another Queen is elected.
Click to expand...
There's no election.

The first female in the line of succession is Princess Charlotte of Cambridge. I believe she's recently celebrated her seventh birthday.
 
StriderX said:
It's almost certainly inaccurate but I have this notion that Queens have often led during periods of immense positive change and that Kings have often wrecked the country.

So I'd rather the male heir's just abdicate until another Queen is elected.
Click to expand...
We’ve only had 4 and the last two ruled during times when monarchs had very little to do with the running of the country
 
robfosters said:
We’ve only had 4 and the last two ruled during times when monarchs had very little to do with the running of the country
Click to expand...

And the first was such a murderous tyrant that she was called "Bloody", the only monarch in Britain's very bloody history to be named so. But the second ended up killing more people than the first, although only because she ruled for much longer and there genuinely were multiple plots to kill her. Many of the people she had killed might well have been guilty. Probably. But in both cases the driving force behind the killing was religion, not the sex of the monarch. The sex of the monarch is, unsurprisingly, completely irrelevant. Also, not really the same country as the UK didn't exist until ~100 years after the second of those two queens died.

You might possibly count 5, if you include Matilda of Anjou (who called herself an empress, though she wasn't). Who invaded England with an army from her country(*), which was an enemy of England at the time. She was never crowned because the civilians of London revolted and prevented the coronation taking place. But she probably did have a legitimate claim to the throne. The claim that the king named Stephen as his heir before dying is plausible but very far from proven and if he didn't then Matilda was the legitimate heir. Not that legitimacy really mattered - the true basis for claiming a throne in those days was force. If it wasn't, for example, the king of England would have become the king of France ~1300 as he was the legitimate heir to the throne of France.

Or maybe the count is 6, if you count Lady Jane Grey. Who was technically queen of England for, IIRC, 9 days. Before being killed so Bloody Mary could take the throne. Force was what counted.


So yeah, the idea that any male monarch must be bad and any female monarch must be good therefore only female monarchs should be allowed is just sexist drivel with a ludicrous pretence at justification requiring absolute ignorance of history.




* While technically a duchy of France, I think it's reasonable to say that at that point in time Anjou was a de facto country.
 
Angilion said:
And the first was such a murderous tyrant that she was called "Bloody", the only monarch in Britain's very bloody history to be named so. But the second ended up killing more people than the first, although only because she ruled for much longer and there genuinely were multiple plots to kill her. Many of the people she had killed might well have been guilty. Probably. But in both cases the driving force behind the killing was religion, not the sex of the monarch. The sex of the monarch is, unsurprisingly, completely irrelevant. Also, not really the same country as the UK didn't exist until ~100 years after the second of those two queens died.

You might possibly count 5, if you include Matilda of Anjou (who called herself an empress, though she wasn't). Who invaded England with an army from her country(*), which was an enemy of England at the time. She was never crowned because the civilians of London revolted and prevented the coronation taking place. But she probably did have a legitimate claim to the throne. The claim that the king named Stephen as his heir before dying is plausible but very far from proven and if he didn't then Matilda was the legitimate heir. Not that legitimacy really mattered - the true basis for claiming a throne in those days was force. If it wasn't, for example, the king of England would have become the king of France ~1300 as he was the legitimate heir to the throne of France.

Or maybe the count is 6, if you count Lady Jane Grey. Who was technically queen of England for, IIRC, 9 days. Before being killed so Bloody Mary could take the throne. Force was what counted.


So yeah, the idea that any male monarch must be bad and any female monarch must be good therefore only female monarchs should be allowed is just sexist drivel with a ludicrous pretence at justification requiring absolute ignorance of history.




* While technically a duchy of France, I think it's reasonable to say that at that point in time Anjou was a de facto country.
Click to expand...
Actually, I missed one. I forgot the fruitcake that was Queen Anne.
 
robfosters said:
Actually, I missed one. I forgot the fruitcake that was Queen Anne.
Click to expand...

So did I!

The only thing I remember about her was that she was the last monarch of this country to openly and officially use royal power (she vetoed a law in, IIRC, 1708). William the something effectively used royal power to coerce the House of Lords into passing the Great Reform Act in 1832, but that wasn't open and official use. He told them that if they didn't vote in favour of the act he'd appoint a multitude of new lords who'd vote in favour of the act so it was going to pass anyway.
 
Angilion said:
And the first was such a murderous tyrant that she was called "Bloody", the only monarch in Britain's very bloody history to be named so. But the second ended up killing more people than the first, although only because she ruled for much longer and there genuinely were multiple plots to kill her. Many of the people she had killed might well have been guilty. Probably. But in both cases the driving force behind the killing was religion, not the sex of the monarch. The sex of the monarch is, unsurprisingly, completely irrelevant. Also, not really the same country as the UK didn't exist until ~100 years after the second of those two queens died.

You might possibly count 5, if you include Matilda of Anjou (who called herself an empress, though she wasn't). Who invaded England with an army from her country(*), which was an enemy of England at the time. She was never crowned because the civilians of London revolted and prevented the coronation taking place. But she probably did have a legitimate claim to the throne. The claim that the king named Stephen as his heir before dying is plausible but very far from proven and if he didn't then Matilda was the legitimate heir. Not that legitimacy really mattered - the true basis for claiming a throne in those days was force. If it wasn't, for example, the king of England would have become the king of France ~1300 as he was the legitimate heir to the throne of France.

Or maybe the count is 6, if you count Lady Jane Grey. Who was technically queen of England for, IIRC, 9 days. Before being killed so Bloody Mary could take the throne. Force was what counted.


So yeah, the idea that any male monarch must be bad and any female monarch must be good therefore only female monarchs should be allowed is just sexist drivel with a ludicrous pretence at justification requiring absolute ignorance of history.
Click to expand...

Lady Jane Grey was never crowned either. You could also add Aethelflaed to that list she was de facto ruler of the Mercian kingdom after her husbands death and reconquered large parts of the north which had been under viking rule - the title queen didn't exist then she's refered to as Lady of the Mercians (Murcia Hlaedige) a title which essentially had to be invented for her

robfosters said:
Actually, I missed one. I forgot the fruitcake that was Queen Anne.
Click to expand...

She wasn't a fruitcake thats just bad stereotyping for a recent film. If you really want to go to town you could also include Mary II - wife and joint ruler with the dutch William of Orange (William III)
 
englishpremier said:
He could still get a decade and a half. I don't think he'd pass up the opportunity. I wouldn't mind him as monarch as he likes to meddle and isn't as passive as some. Should lead to some interesting controversies.
Click to expand...

I would like to see the monarch actually use their power to deny royal assent to democracy destroying legislation, the Queen is way too passive in this respect.

omnomnom said:
There will be a queen though? Camilla.
Click to expand...

In some respects it actually seems like she's the most sane one in the family tbf.
 
Last edited:
Energize said:
I would like to see the monarch actually use their power to deny royal assent to democracy destroying legislation, the Queen is way too passive in this respect.
Click to expand...
They don't exercise it because they have no logical qualifications. Interfering will bring attention to that fact along with the fact that the people can vote out the monarchy if they upset enough of them through interference.
 
Hotwired said:
They don't exercise it because they have no logical qualifications. Interfering will bring attention to that fact along with the fact that the people can vote out the monarchy if they upset enough of them through interference.
Click to expand...

I just don't see any role for Charles if he doesn't do anything to stop bonkers Boris and protect the British people though. Voting out the monarchy would just be a cherry on top. :p
 
chrismscotland said:
She's rapidly becoming Monarch in name only
Click to expand...
it's this - how many monarchs (male & female) have had a long periods of non appearances - if anything the republican viewpoint will resurge ...

those colonial visit faux-pas's and the recent request for colonial apology , need to be addressed, the commonwealth (colonial) games, upcoming too, warrants some speech.
 
jpaul said:
it's this - how many monarchs (male & female) have had a long periods of non appearances - if anything the republican viewpoint will resurge ...

those colonial visit faux-pas's and the recent request for colonial apology , need to be addressed, the commonwealth (colonial) games, upcoming too, warrants some speech.
Click to expand...
Has there ever been a Monarch, who has gotten so old though, and had deteriorating health?

I'm assuming that they are desperately hoping she clings on for the jubilee, and then will wheel her out for that. Then she will rapidly depart this world.
 
Alice In Wonderland said:
Has there ever been a Monarch, who has gotten so old though, and had deteriorating health?

I'm assuming that they are desperately hoping she clings on for the jubilee, and then will wheel her out for that. Then she will rapidly depart this world.
Click to expand...

Looks like she might be attending the opening of Parliament next week but will ”see on the day”…. I expect Charles will end up doing it
 
Can't tell if she's unwell enough that she can't tolerate reading the Queen's Speech or just doesn't want to sit there being insulted by the government's latest drooling nonsense after the last few months.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom