Queen Elizabeth II of the UK dies.

MrsGrey

I have the same level of insight as you do, and it's what I'm basing my opinion on.

Moojor

DJ Hammer said:

MrsGrey said:

Who's scoffing?
Not me. I have no time for the insincerity and sentimentality I see in responses to the fact that a woman died.
How many 96 year old grandmothers died today?

Are they getting the same treatment? No. Why not?

Bottom line - a rich and privileged woman died at a good old age after a lifetime of ease and doing a really not very hard job. She enjoyed luxury, power, and opportunities through no merit of her own.

If course it's sad for her family, but that's it.

I care not a jot, and resent how much public money will be spent on the ensuring circus.

“A really not very hard job”?? So you’ve inside knowledge of the role? A terribly naïve comment. She did an incredible job for this country for over 70 years and I for one am proud to have called her my Queen.

Without insider knowledge, I'm pretty sure that having your every single whim catered for by an army of servants, your job basically involving going on holidays to various countries where you again have your every single whim catered for and not having to make any decisions which actually have any effect because you don't have any power makes it a pretty easy job.

IronHerb

So you do have inside knowledge then DJ?

Moojor

From the BBC

What does the Queen do?
The Queen is a constitutional monarch - while she is the UK head of state, her powers are symbolic and ceremonial, and she remains politically neutral.

She receives daily dispatches from the government in a red leather box, such as briefings ahead of important meetings or documents that need her signature.

Liz Truss will be the 15th prime minister under her reign. The prime minister usually meets the Queen on a Wednesday at Buckingham Palace to keep her informed on government matters.

These meetings are completely private and there is no official record of what is said.

The Queen also performs a number of Parliamentary functions:

Appointing a government - the leader of the party that wins a general election is usually called to Buckingham Palace, where they are formally invited to form a government. The Queen also formally dissolves a government before a general election

State opening and the Queen's Speech - the Queen begins the Parliamentary year with the State Opening ceremony, during which she sets out the government's policy plans, in a speech delivered from the throne in the House of Lords. Prince Charles delivered the 2022 Queen's Speech on her behalf

Royal Assent - when a piece of legislation is passed through Parliament, it must be formally approved by the Queen in order to become law. The last time Royal Assent was refused was in 1708

In addition, the Queen has regular audiences with members of the Privy Council, hosts visiting heads of state, and meets foreign ambassadors and high commissioners based in the UK. She also normally leads the annual Remembrance event at the Cenotaph in London.

So she has no actual powers, so doesn't have to make decisions which have any actual effect

She reads and signs some papers, but her powers are symbolic and ceremonial, so those papers she signs will have no effect

Talks to the PM but is politically neutral and as can be seen with how Boris acted that she never actually said anything to help the people while he was in charge and if she did say something, nothing happened.

Her Parliamentary functions are ceremonial as she has NO POWER

Then she hosts parties and goes on freebie trips around the world. Yes, let us be sad that a mother and a grandmother passed away, but that happens every single day. But not pretend that we need a monarchy

So yeah, it's an easy job.

MrsGrey

Moojor, I would add the caveat of ' queen's consent ' which is distinct from royal assent.
There's lots of info online but it's essentially a privilege the monarch has ( and she used) to influence legislation for personal gain. It's called crown consent in Scotland. She used it to secure exemptions from laws which apply to everyone else.

Moojor

Ah you mean like the exemption from the law about returning stolen works of art back to the countries they were stolen from.

Moojor

She did also, provide a large sum of money to Andrew to pay off the young lady that he sexually abused. Which was nice of her.

alderz

Moojor said:

Ah you mean like the exemption from the law about returning stolen works of art back to the countries they were stolen from.

Or to refuse to employ non white staff in the palaces.

And let’s not forget the treatment of her disabled first cousins. Or the fact that palace staff earn less than the recommended living wage for the UK.

Yesterday a news anchor described the energy crisis as “insignificant” because of this. Imagine thinking that a crisis and policy affecting millions upon millions of people is less significant than one person dying, just because they have been in a position of enormous privilege their entire life.

Moojor

alderz said:

Moojor said:

Ah you mean like the exemption from the law about returning stolen works of art back to the countries they were stolen from.

Or to refuse to employ non white staff in the palaces.

And let’s not forget the treatment of her disabled first cousins. Or the fact that palace staff earn less than the recommended living wage for the UK.

Yesterday a news anchor described the energy crisis as “insignificant” because of this. Imagine thinking that a crisis and policy affecting millions upon millions of people is less significant than one person dying, just because they have been in a position of enormous privilege their entire life.

Good grief, I did not know that.

In the 1960s government ministers sought to introduce laws that would make it illegal to refuse to employ an individual on the grounds of their race or ethnicity.

The Queen has remained personally exempted from those equality laws for more than four decades. The exemption has made it impossible for women or people from ethnic minorities working for her household to complain to the courts if they believe they have been discriminated against.

So of course, Charles will now request that all of these exemptions be removed from the royal household. Because that's what you would do if you're "for the people"

adecoker

How on earth are television, radio and print media going to stretch this out for two whole weeks?

Meanwhile in other news:
90% of Pakistan is under 2 feet of flood water
Donald Trump leads an armed coup in the USA
Russia launches multiple nuclear strikes against Ukraine

Back to the studio, where Nick Robinson is speaking to Hamish Auchermuchty, under-ghillie at Balmoral in 1971.

BubblesNeverDies

Alderz, perhaps you can enlighten us on the treatment of her disabled first cousins and how the Queen was in any way responsible for it.

alderz

BubblesNeverDies said:

Alderz, perhaps you can enlighten us on the treatment of her disabled first cousins and how the Queen was in any way responsible for it.

It was actually her mothers cousins, so that’s my bad. But if you want to be enlightened then do feel free to use google to read up about it.

Moojor

BubblesNeverDies said:

Alderz, perhaps you can enlighten us on the treatment of her disabled first cousins and how the Queen was in any way responsible for it.

She became queen in 1953, first one died in 1986 and the other in 2014. What did she do as head of the royal house hold to remove them from mental institutes and have them recognised as member of the royal family that they deserved?

Pearces_Left_Foot

I am not a Royalist or even that fond of the Royal family but i feel this is a football website and not a political one and this thread is not really in line with what I thought this website was about it starting to feel divisive even slightly toxic and does not add anything. I get everyone has opinions and are free to express them but i feel this was a website to talk about West Ham and this was not really the place for these sort of discussions.

buffybegood

PLF, that's why I suggested a separate thread as I could see it was likely to be a very devisive issue, so people could simply ignore the subject if they wished to.

Ravel49

BubblesNeverDies

Alderz, I had of course already done so. Perhaps you should have done the same before posting your remark.
Moojor, I suggest you do the same, it's not as simple as you may think. Also, your remark about "have them recognised as member of the royal family that they deserved" is a little weird seeing as you're anti-monarchy. Why would you want two severely mentally and physically handicapped people to be added to the RF. You'd then be asking why are we supporting them, what function are they performing?

IronHerb

Pearces_Left_Foot said:

I am not a Royalist or even that fond of the Royal family but i feel this is a football website and not a political one and this thread is not really in line with what I thought this website was about it starting to feel divisive even slightly toxic and does not add anything. I get everyone has opinions and are free to express them but i feel this was a website to talk about West Ham and this was not really the place for these sort of discussions.

But we have a Wordle thread. ☺️

PrestonHammer

I'm pretty sure things don't get heated over wordle though hahaha

Moojor

BubblesNeverDies said:

Alderz, I had of course already done so. Perhaps you should have done the same before posting your remark.
Moojor, I suggest you do the same, it's not as simple as you may think. Also, your remark about "have them recognised as member of the royal family that they deserved" is a little weird seeing as you're anti-monarchy. Why would you want two severely mentally and physically handicapped people to be added to the RF. You'd then be asking why are we supporting them, what function are they performing?

Please enlighten me as to why the Queen or the current monarchy couldn't have had them removed from the mental institutes and recognised as part of the royal family with all the trimmings?

It's not weird, I don't think you should just cut away part of your family because they don't fit in with the public image you want to portray.

MrsGrey

Pearces_Left_Foot said:

I am not a Royalist or even that fond of the Royal family but i feel this is a football website and not a political one and this thread is not really in line with what I thought this website was about it starting to feel divisive even slightly toxic and does not add anything. I get everyone has opinions and are free to express them but i feel this was a website to talk about West Ham and this was not really the place for these sort of discussions.

We also have a film/TV thread. We've had one about tennis players, and the Olympics.

Slacker

I seem to remember a transfer window thread at some point, but that may be my memory playing tricks again.🤷🏻‍♂️

BubblesNeverDies

Moojor, if you have the time, do some reading about their situation.
I'll not be commenting any more on this thread as I think PLF's point is a valid one. There's already way too much to argue about concerning West Ham without arguing over the monarchy.

MrsGrey

BubblesNeverDies said:

. Why would you want two severely mentally and physically handicapped people to be added to the RF. You'd then be asking why are we supporting them, what function are they performing?

I didn't read the original comment as asking for them to be added to the civil list.

MrsGrey

Anyone can carry on, or opt out, as they wish.

Thanks to Buffy it got its own thread, which makes that easier.

Can I just remind people that nobody gets modded for disagreeing, and there's no party line that has to be toed.

If you are being critical of a post/ opinion please make sure that you word your criticism that it's clear you are applying negative terms to a comment and not to the person who made it.

If it's ambiguous, well mod strictly and take it out. A few early comments are borderline but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Also, no swearing ( I've modded one comment so far).

Moojor

MrsGrey said:

Also, no swearing ( I've modded one comment so far).

Sorry.

Fortuneseeker

So are we now saying we can't refer to the team in North London who play in Red & White as there is a swear word in their name?

BubblesNeverDies

Fortune, "nal" is a swear word? Who knew?

chicagohammer

I cannot help but feel that there exists an irony in that we are discussing how easy a job may be for the rewards on offer, when we all inherently and actively support the payment structure within the Premier League.

I get it is not public funds etc but there are Premier League players who “earn” close to half a million pounds each and every week.

Recognizing that it is not just a EPL phenomenon, When you really sit down and think about it, it is truly amazing how much we are willing to reward those whose principle job is to simply entertain us.

chicagohammer

Oh and for the record, I think my views are pretty clear re the Royal Family but I think it ridiculous to cancel the league program.

I am actually in the UK for a family funeral and was hoping to visit Billericay vs the mighty Urchins but they cancelled that as well.

Fly the flags at half mast, hold a respectful two minute silence (none of this applause nonsense) and get on with it.

one of the more ridiculous comments I heard on the tele was some talking head solemnly stating that millions of us are going to struggle with the transition…….. seriously…….struggle?