Queen mum died in United Kingdom

[SysLord]

Is there anyone who doesn't feel sorry - apart from the personal tragedy - to see an anacronism like hers go? I hear no other opionions that she was a historical, compassionate and close-to-her-people leader? But why does that sound awkward to me knowing that she was a remaining symbol of the utter elitarian old-english class society and that she was a convinced thatcherite?

I feel sorry for those who knew her closely but would not consider it a loss for the nation.

I am sure I will get flamed for this one :)

[Jake]

To be honest, I sure don't know much about the Royals. I do remember the old woman liked a beer and to watch the Horse races, so she's alright in my book. Anyone that makes the Royals seem more down to Earth is a great loss when they die.

[Sterling]

It's obviously a personal tragedy for the family and friends when someone dies, but I don't think in this case it's really a loss for the nation.

If a great poet, or scientist, or author dies, then it's a loss for the nation. If an anachronistic sponger kicks the bucket, then I don't think the nation is really any worse off.

Sure, she liked beer and horseracing (on which she spent millions of taxpayer's money). So do the bums that hang around the bookies down the street, but you don't notice them getting state funerals.

As a British citizen, I can honestly say that I'd be happy to see the monarchy abolished tomorrow.

[aussie]

As a monach and a leader you dont think she contributed? Tell us more? Why do you consider her a sponger? MOST of all I want to know why some fucking stupid poof poet or an author might be considered a loss to any one

[Sterling]

How exactly does the monarch contribute? He or she is there for ceremonial functions that basically don't serve much purpose, or that could be done by a real elected official (like a President).

And she didn't even do all that - she was only Queen because she was married to the King. The King did all the state-ceremonial stuff, she just pranced around spending taxpayer's money.

You're obviously just trolling with the "fucking stupid poof poet or an author" thing...

[SysLord]

I'd have to agree with Sterling on this one. Staying in your own country during war time is not enough to be called a historic person. It was her duty period. Our king fled abroad and he had to suffer the consequences afterwards. How many commoners had the chance to go abroad you think? By the way, I know this is probably a matter of semantics but I would not call the Queen mom a commoner as she was scottish aristocracy. Quite different from your average john and mary if you ask me.

That reminds me of another discussion on this board: the one about the ID cards. The United Kingdom is one of the few industrialized countrues *without* a constitution - even though they basically invented the parliamentary system. So strictly speaking people living in the UK (and I think that still includes Australia and Canada etc, but please correct me if I am wrong!) are not citizens but subjects to the queen. Now that's something I would consider a 'lack of freedom' even though in reality it doesn't make much difference. But it makes a difference in the minds of the royals, that I am sure of!

[GLADIATOR]

The queen mother was an OK person. Yes she stayed through the blitz, so did millions of others.

The fact remains, when her husband died she inherited @ $115m.
Some 50 yrs later she got an overdraft of @ $14M. That does not take account of her 'civil pension' of $1.1m/year (times 55 yrs) Thats $183m in @ 55 yrs!

She wasted money on servants, castles, horses parties and booze. Well to be honest, I would hang around for all that.

Good riddance, and thats from a loyal brit.

[SysLord]

Let's get the dirty laundry out :D

[GLADIATOR]

Originally posted by SysLord
Let's get the dirty laundry out :D

Sorry mate. I do no not mind scraping up the dirt, but I draw the line in getting out the QMs nickers. ;)

[SysLord]

LOL, I am sure some people would love to know what brand of washing powder the royals use :)

[Jake]

As much as I would just love to have that much money to play with as I please, I'd feel guilty if it were on the taxpayer's bill. How much do the "subjects" pay to the royals? I'd be quite peeved if I were paying for someone to live the lavish lifestyle.

I can say that the irony is that the 'non' royals hold more class than the royals do, for the most part.

[Sterling]

The difference between Americans paying for Presidents and Brits paying for the Royals is that at least Americans get to choose their president (by the simple scheme of electing the desired candidate's brother to the governership of Florida).

Furthermore, the American President is a real politician that makes policy and conducts the executive functions of government. The Queen just rubberstamps bills passed by parliament, and otherwise has purely ceremonial functions. She doesn't actually do any of the governing.

No-one complains that the taxpayer pays the salary of the Prime Minister, which is a more appropriate comparison.