[Torus34]

marks more than the end of a British monarch's reign. That reign encompassed the end of the British Empire and its transformation into the British Commonwealth.* How that was accomplished, leaving Great Britain as a nation still of world importance today, bears serious study by those of us who live in the United States of America.

The American Century, begun during World War i, has reached its peak and is now in decline. Other nations are vying for primacy. How well the US will cope with its change of status and how well its government will resist forces inimical to its present structure remains to be seen. We are witness to history unfolding.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

* A word worth parsing.

[Negotiator]

Also, a bear pooped in the forest.

[Negotiator]

Also, a bear pooped in the forest.

For the record, I've never been so wrong.

The crucial news however is not that Elizabeth II died.

The crucial news is that her son Charles is now king ...

[Rich]

The crucial news however is not that Elizabeth II died.

The crucial news is that her son Charles is now king ...

The Royal family is not one big happy family neither is the establishment of which the Royal family is a part. The relationship between the Royal family and the Press is not a happy one. For a large part of the press, the Royal family's job is to sell newspapers and that is a job that they've been very good at. The press want drama and there more than happy to sow division within the Royal family and to even sow the winds of Republicanism. This is why I'll not be taking any lectures on loyalty and treachery from the establishment or the establishment's cheer leaders.

So the press love their dramas and their contrasts. The Queen was just to boring on her own. We had good George VI vs bad Edward the VIII, good girl Eizabeth and bad girl Margarete and so on. For much of the press Diana was the bad girl, although initially she was a good girl and then she died, the Press turned on a six pence and she became a saint. There was some toying with whether Charles could be cut out and jump straight to William, but it was realised that this wouldn't work. Since then its been all about getting Charles bum firmly and securely on the Throne. Even the Guardian and Independent seem to have fallen in line with operation install Charles. This is why Andrew had to be sacrificed. You had to give some red meat to the Guardian readers.

The rest of the press knew they had to behave or they could lose the Royal goose that lays the Golden press eggs. For a while now its been all about contrasting the good dutiful Elizabeth, Charles, Camillia, William and Kate with the baddies. The hope is that by the end of this endless mourning,the endless repetition of vacuous platitudes everyone will be so exhausted and so wanting to move on that no one will be bothered to put any energy into getting rid of Charles.

[ingliz]

There was some toying with whether Charles could be cut out

He could not.

His bum was always going to be on the throne - Primogeniture rules.

and jump straight to William

It wasn't going to happen as you'd have to change the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 or have Charles abdicate for this to be possible

[Rich]

He could not.

His bum was always going to be on the throne - Primogeniture rules.


It wasn't going to happen as you'd have to change the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 or have Charles abdicate for this to be possible

You're absolutely correct, but the fact that intelligent people toyed with the idea shows just how appalling he is.

Now a lot of the online comments said, his mother's just died, he's had a very stressful week. That's all very well, but this is his one job for which he's trained his whole life, to act gracefully in public. This is a pretty sad situation. Unlike some Republicans I have no wish to hang the monarchy. Its stupid to blame them for a life they were born in to and in which so much of the British public have been complicit. I have no wish to see them humiliated, I don't really bear them any ill-will. I'd like to see the Royal family abolished, but I think they should be pensioned off with a comfortable income. I think it would be unfair to force them to go down the job centre.

Given public attitudes, sentiments and culture it would have made no sense to abolish the monarchy in 1952. And maybe it also makes no sense to try and abolish the monarchy in the immediate aftermath of Elizabeth's death, but once the dust has settled isn't it time to think long term about putting this institution out of its misery.

[Negotiator]

I think it would be unfair to force them to go down the job centre.

You would have to take their immense wealth away, too, for that to happen. The royals are estimated to own 28 billion US dollar in total. Assuming they would live modest, would keep a reasonable number of people, there would be no inflation and they would not work or have any income, they could easily live a couple 100,000 years from that wealth. Of course these are unrealistic assumptions, but still.

Other than that I agree, mostly because I find job centres demeaning and dont want anyone to having to go down there.


https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/13/worl ... ealth.html

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.