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

MatsyLR said:
There comes a time when someone is just taking resources away from others for no benefit to society and it should become a question of...why are you still around?
Click to expand...
When we are babies and children we are all taking resources from others with no benefit to society. What is your suggestion to fix that?
 
Mint8 said:
Struggling to understand how you can (or should) "worry" about someone you havent met -let alone someone of her advanced age.

She has had a good innings - a fantastic, extremely privilidged life. "Work" has consisted of travelling the World meeting people, having lunches and dinners - the best food and drink, waited on literally hand foot and finger every waking moment of her life. Not to mention the best medical care etc etc etc A lot of it hugely tedious no doubt - but hardly "hard work".

Shes done a mostly fantastic job as Queen - a truly awful job as a parent and now belongs in a by-gone era.

Would imagine Chas will come in and do a few years before handing over to "Wills" - the future is safe for the Monarchy unless he does a Harry and self -destructs as well..
Click to expand...
I met her, she was great. She certainly isn't "by gone" though. Unbelievably switched on and forgotten more than you or I will ever know. Respect.
 
Mint8 said:
Struggling to understand how you can (or should) "worry" about someone you havent met -let alone someone of her advanced age.
Click to expand...
I think it's one of those things, we live in a country obsessed with celebrity.

99% here will only ever have seen her on TV, won't really know anything about her (beyond her public persona), or even take much interest in what she does. And yet, for some unfathomable reason, (some) will claim to care about her.

I find it odd. I wish her no harm, but I don't care about her. She's lived a life I could not imagine nor relate to in any way, shape or form. By all accounts she's been a good servant of the country. So I can respect her, but I find it impossible to care more about her than any other person I've never met.
 
RoboCod said:
Yeah, imagine caring for strangers. Awful :D thankfully, we don't live in that kind of world and instead everyone doesn't give a flying **** about one another
Click to expand...
That's the thing. I said I couldn't care "more about her than any other person I've never met". I chose those words semi carefully.

I highlighted the fact that people "care" about her because she's a celebrity/in the public eye. Which is pretty meaningless and/or shallow.

How many of those people who "care about the Queen" actually give a moment's thought about their neighbours, or the people they share a street with, or the people who live five miles away (but in the same postcode) etc etc etc.
 
FoxEye said:
That's the thing. I said I couldn't care "more about her than any other person I've never met". I chose those words semi carefully.

I highlighted the fact that people "care" about her because she's a celebrity/in the public eye. Which is pretty meaningless and/or shallow.

How many of those people who "care about the Queen" actually give a moment's thought about their neighbours, or the people they share a street with, or the people who live five miles away (but in the same postcode) etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
Are you suggesting that people who care about the Queen can't care about their neighbours? :)

I don't think that people who respect/adore/care for the Queen do it because they regard her as a celebrity. I believe it's more to do with the respect for her as a person and the acknowledgement of the amazing things she has done. I agree though, anyone who regards her in celebrity terms are probably imbeciles.
 
2 Holidays for sure one for the funeral the other for the coronation. Although they could be proper mean and hold both on Sundays.
 
FoxEye said:
That's the thing. I said I couldn't care "more about her than any other person I've never met". I chose those words semi carefully.

I highlighted the fact that people "care" about her because she's a celebrity/in the public eye. Which is pretty meaningless and/or shallow.

How many of those people who "care about the Queen" actually give a moment's thought about their neighbours, or the people they share a street with, or the people who live five miles away (but in the same postcode) etc etc etc.
Click to expand...

Hmm, perhaps you just lack the mental capacity to form such bonds?
 
englishpremier said:
What would you replace it with? Having a president of head of state isn't much different. The monarchy at least draws in tourists and money.

Or you could make Bojo head of state. What's your preference?
Click to expand...

This old chesnut, you think people would stop coming to visit because we got rid of the monarchy, of course they wouldn't.

Obviously it would be replaced with a secular republic.
 
Johno please? said:
This old chesnut, you think people would stop coming to visit because we got rid of the monarchy, of course they wouldn't.

Obviously it would be replaced with a secular republic.
Click to expand...

So no head of state or the PM as head of state? The UK is already a secular country just not a republic.

As to the money the Royals bring in. The Royal sites would be slightly less interesting without a sitting monarch. There would be lost revenue from the issue of Royal Warrants. It's estimated that Harry and Megan's wedding added $1.5bn to the economy in television rights. There's the free media coverage of the UK estimated to be worth $400m in 2017, plus an additional $70m worth to news and other media. Then there are other actitivies, and contributions to charitable causes etc.. it's worth looking into if you are interested.

Their total contributions to the UK economy are estimated in the region of $2.5bn

Then there are the jobs. Buckingham Palace employs 1,200 people. You aren't going to need that many if you have the PM as head of state, or an anonymous president. Similar with security deals for the various Royals.

The Queen has actively been trying cut down and cut off minor Royals, so you only have few in the family representing.
 
Last edited:
When she does go...the outpouring of hatred & vitriol from the left wing, anti monarchy goons on social media, will be something to behold, that's for sure.
 
englishpremier said:
So no head of state or the PM as head of state? The UK is already a secular country just not a republic.

As to the money the Royals bring in. The Royal sites would be slightly less interesting without a sitting monarch. There would be lost revenue from the issue of Royal Warrants. It's estimated that Harry and Megan's wedding added $1.5bn to the economy in television rights. There's the free media coverage of the UK estimated to be worth $400m in 2017, plus an additional $70m worth to news and other media. Then there are other actitivies, and contributions to charitable causes etc.. it's worth looking into if you are interested..
Click to expand...

Uh no, the queen is head of state and head of the church for which we pay for both.

You obviously think its good value for money, I don't. Apparently it costs us all about £1 a yr iirc? I'd take a refund if I could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom