Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has died

If we’re honest the Queen doesn’t just represent modern colonialism, the Queen is probably the number one symbol of white supremacy in the entire world


Not my comment but a Birmingham university professors

 

The Queen’s courtiers banned “coloured immigrants or foreigners” from serving in clerical roles in the royal household until at least the late 1960s, according to newly discovered documents that will reignite the debate over the British royal family and race.

The documents also shed light on how Buckingham Palace negotiated controversial clauses – that remain in place to this day – exempting the Queen and her household from laws that prevent race and sex discrimination

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ic-minorities-from-office-roles-papers-reveal

 

In London, where the majority of royal workers are based, just under 40% of the population is from an ethnic minority - but 8.5% of the royal staff are - Jonny "Mr. Royal fam" Dymond.

 

Houston, we have a problem.

 

Cricket is still on TV though

 

I tend to agree. Rumor has it that Australia is already working on a vote of some sort.

 

It’s up to the people to decide. Be sure to vote. I don’t have a vote and have no skin in this game.

 

Nothing has begun officially here. We have a very new government that has a LOT on its plate. It is true that the new PM supports a Republic as does his political party. He has even appointed an assistant Minister for the Republic, who has stated that the government will work toward holding a vote in its second term (if it gets one). Based on everything else that is going on that will probably mean the second half of 2026 or first half of 2027.

 

Vote on what?

 

Where are you on it, personally? Honestly, after some of the clowns we elect to be both partisan and a head of state, I’m not opposed to a second job here in the States. Except for the primogeniture aspect, I think a separate head of government and head of state is compelling.

 

?? You have a very strong opinion against something you clearly don’t understand. Which vote re monarchy is confusing?

 

I can't accept a system where a citizen of my nation can NEVER be its head of state. There are a bunch of other issues, but that is fundamental to me. My nation's head of state should be someone who is Australian & will always represent Australia first. The English monarch can never be or do that, so the English monarch should not be Australia's head of state..

I agree that having a separate head of state & head of government has its advantages. We already have that and I would not support a system where that changed. There are various models that allow us to choose our own head of state who remains separate from government. Numerous nations already have this, we can too.

Just a clarification on my previous post. We will likely have a two stage process. Stage one will be 'do you want a republic?'. If we vote yes there wil lbe a constitutional convention that will put forth a couple of models for people to choose from at a second vote.

 

I agree with you. Outside of England, I don’t see anyone personally benefiting from the monarchy. With QE2 gone, anything is possible. She was a huge hurdle. She does have huge respect, from me, for devoting her life to service, when she wasn’t raised knowing that. For me, tough pill to swallow. I don’t envy any of them.

 

Voting for a monarchy? Wtf! Lmao.

 

UK citizens don't benefit at all from it.

 

This is pretty unprecedented. Will everyone honor the 12 day mourning period and wait for his coronation before taking up the topic? I don’t know many Canadians, but those I do know are mixed on the monarchy. I wonder their opinion post Elizabeth, though.

 

You know this, how? Are you accusing my friends from the UK of being liars?

 

We had a referendum about 15 years ago and it didn’t get up. Don’t know about now though. Immigration may have influenced things a bit.

 

That bit should be read in context with my previous post suggesting a vote will likely take place closer to 2026. A first vote might come a bit earlier than that, but it will be after the 2025 election. Possibly the government might move up the timeline, but that would mean getting the first vote done by late 2024. There are other national issues they want to take to a vote in that timeframe, so I'm not sure it will happen.

I'm not sure anyone here feels bound by what Britain does when it comes to mourning. Most public figures have stayed on topic thus far, though the leader of the Greens Party did tweet about the Republic in the same post as he talked about the Queen dying. He has been widely panned for that, including by other Republicans. Once she has been buried I expect more public discussion on moving toward a Republic, but how much and what sort of traction it gets is unclear. Perhaps there will be a big momentum swing and the government will move to a vote sooner, but I'm not betting on it.

 

I’m looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out. It seems completely unprecedented, at least in our lifetimes.

 

Probably depends what precedent you are citing. Plenty of nations have dropped the British monarchy as their head of state over the past century.

 

No, that’s true. I just see some interesting potential for dramatic change.

 

IMO it is perfectly understandable why any country outside the actual UK would consider becoming à republic. Their history and culture, while having to include the UK, is primarily independent of it.
Not so the UK itself. Some of the procédures for introducing à new monarch go back to times before 1066 when William the Conqueror changed so much of what we know as the Constitution.
And this is deeply important to the sense of identity and cohésion that is part of "Britain" "being British".
The monarch is the embodiment of the continual artery of history that forms the British identity.
Today the monarch still represents the nation, its présence , its "being and existence". Its identity as a people with a long common history.
Elected heads of state can't do that. They represent only à tiny moment in the life of the country and that itself is only part of the whole population.
I grew up in the US and didn't understand this until I moved back to the UK and spent almost 40 years there. The monarchy is always there, quietly, as the one who embodies the sense of "British" .
Of course this is not interesting to Australians or anyone else for that matter. Other than history has given the country à very British identity , it should IMO shape it's own future and make its own history. I mean, the British share the historical connection with, say, Richard III but it means very little elsewhere.

Finally it is unhelpful that there is so much misinformation about how the monarchy interacts with the elected government. It doesn't Make Laws or Allow Things to Happen since the Civil War. The monarch may advise, but cannot overrule democratic process except to shut down Parliament.
S/he is not responsible for the shaping of the nation's moral compass (other than being à rôle model) . Or whether it moves to various points on the political scale. Or what the population feel about the changing demography. The monarch can only REFLECT that as part of the whole dynamic of the country that stretches back over 1000 years. It is the strong spine that holds the country together as one living being.

 

A few observations.
The Monarchy has more power, albeit ‘soft’ power than people think. However in any possible time of (political) crisis it could become more significant. The Monarch grants or approves seals of office to certain ministers, if they’re not granted, ‘legally’ or technically those people don’t have proper authority and it would be possible to forcibly restrain if the courts (the Monarchs courts) so decided.
It would be what is known as a constitutional crisis.
Which brings me to the unwritten organic and flexible constitution in the United Kingdom. Not having a written rigid constitution allowed for a certain flexibility and an ability to change with the times. In America the constitution is sacred and revered, amendments are a very big deal if they happen, but it is fixed. Now that has a certain reliability about it, but it might also be regarded as restrictive and outdated in certain circumstances, the debate about gun control shines a light on that.
Finally I wish people were able to use the correct terms with regard to the British isles. England is one country on those islands, but the Monarch is Monarch of four countries. Known as the ‘United Kingdom’, the clue is in the name to help folk get it right. England is the largest, but not the only country in the UK.

 

How about you ask your friend who knows somebody who has a UK friend how it benefits them personally, maybe he will give us a straight answer instead of being super cryptic like he's down with the master masons