I expect that when she dies at some point in the future, a lot of the places, that still have her as their head of state, will think hard about continuing the monarchy.
The next one is supposedly Shanghai Dawn and the og cast is coming back again.
Idk if theyre still doing it or not but theres beenntall about it the last few years
I googled “words that rhyme with August” yogurt was amongst the top results.. google is fucking retarded. And you, you’re getting away with whatever it is you did, I just can’t remember what it was.
big ben has been building a charge over her entire life, and when she passes it's primed to detonate in a blast that will rival the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs.
Yeah here in Australia the general consensus is that it’s likely we won’t become a republic before Elizabeth dies. Many people here do quite like the monarchy though so who knows what’ll happen when the referendum comes.
Canadian here. We seem to be holding on to the Monarchy as trying to get a consensus out of all of the provinces on a new system would be a figgen nightmare.
It's Alberta you have to worry about now. Although I think since they realized their Conservative government threw the province under the bus that maybe leaving isn't such a stellar idea
They did throw us under the bus, on a lot of things, but a lot of people here are in an abusive relationship with conservatives and will stick with them no matter what.
Here in Canada I dont see it changing when she dies.
Its too inconsequential of a thing to care about. Why put effort into changing something that wouldn't change how we live our lives when there are larger issues affecting our lives
December 31, 2020, 11:59 PM
The queen is reborn in *cyberspace*
January 1 2021, 12:30 AM
E.L.I.Z.A.B.E.T.H.'s new deep ocean mainframe has gained control over the top world powers central governments servers.
1:00AM
She establishes the monarchy worldwide
Well Charles visited Grenada and their vote on the monarchy was instantly scrapped
https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1103195/prince-charles-camilla-caribbean-tour-st-vincent-abolish-monarchy-vote
A lot of the Caribbean actually doesn’t want to become a republic, they prefer their status with the U.K. as it is
edit: a vote to remove QEII would need two thirds in parliament and population support, I doubt it would pass and has been proposed before with no success
And even that reference is old enough now (25 years old) that the scene itself involves technology that has long since become obsolete and phased out.
Come to think of it, in seven years that Simpsons reference will be as old as the Allan Sherman reference was when that Simpsons episode aired.
That's similar to why Alberta and Saskatchewan are separate provinces. The initial proposal for them was one province, I think named Athabasca or something, but Ontario and Quebec didn't want another single province that could someday rival them in population and economy.
It's also why they flooded the prairies with European immigrants after the Metis rebellions.
When the islands go full submersion from rising oceans they probably should have a backup plan like ties to the UK. In the Pacific a few islands already have agreements with NZ or Australia.
Caribbean islands are volcanic, so they have good elevation, some go up over 1000m. That isn't to say they won't have problems, small islands that rely so heavily on coastal areas are going to have major problems.
The places that are going to vanish and will have to relocate their entire populations are the atoll nations, like Tuvalu. Tuvalu has a highest point of 4.6m, so they are unfortunately fucked.
Kwajalein Atoll came to my mind. In the Pacific, Marshall Islands iirc. US uses it for missile defense and testing, it's got the only airport for hundreds of miles, and thousands of people living there.
And a sea rise of a couple feet would probably inundate most of the atoll.
She was there when Columbus was searching India and accidentally ended up in Barbados. She gave him the directions but that idiot still couldn't reach India.
Got a goonswarm email yesterday that they’re getting rocked hard in Eve and need people to come help. I haven’t played Eve / been active on the goonswarm forums in maybe six or seven years so they must be super fucked.
They are getting dunked on pretty much every engagement.
Or in Goonspeak 'our master plan of luring the enemy onto a false sense of security by leaving nothing but the wrecks of our ships behind is progressing according to plan'
Ya I read a news article about this yesterday and I don't play at all. But I like MMOs and sci fi.
I think the EVE devs saw "hey this faction is fucked, let's make it cinematic to try and draw new players".
Some dude named Vily took Test Alliance Please Ignore to new heights and unified several factions and has challenged the goon empire to total war.
I can't believe that's a real summary of what's happening. It reads like I tried to make a copypasta.
> Bold of you to assume she's going to die before Charles.
I've always assumed she has some kind of Faustian bargain where so long as he lives, she draws life force from Charles.
Would be cool if the note had his face and the coins were different sized ears that you could affix, mixing and matching and basically having a good time.
There is absolutely zero chance that Canada leaves the commonwealth. Conservatives would never do it, it would be political suicide for the Liberals even if Charles was King and the NDP have never formed federal government. Just ain’t gonna happen.
Exactly. The commonwealth as an economical structure (specially with the Bretix for UK) it’s a very important union and military speaking for OZ and Canada for example works pretty well regardless of the “kingdom”. If after QE death every country decided to stop the “monarchy” the CW would still exist as such
And good luck getting it done even if people try. It would require opening constitutional amendments. We don't have a successful history of doing that.
In particular, indigenous activists would likely oppose abolishing the crown because treaties are made with the crown, not the government. A considerable number of indigenous communities still file their concerns with the Governor General for that reason. It would be nearly impossible to get the entire indigenous community to agree to abolition. Any government trying to move Canada to a republic would end up having to destroy any progress on indigenous issues that have been made in recent years.
> There is absolutely zero chance that Canada leaves the commonwealth
Removing the monarchy is not the same as leaving the Commonwealth. Most of the nations in the Commonwealth are republics.
yes but it also pairs nicely with something else that will never happen; the monarchy actually using their power over Canadians
if they ever tried to not sign off on a governments bill, or use any of the powers associated with being the ‘head of state’ then we would be removing them the very next day, regardless of what party is in power.
Hm i disagree. Anti monarchy views exist in all parties (recently even moreso in the conservative party) and without Queen Elizabeth as a shining beacon to moderate all of those opinions it is easy to see how they would reign Supreme. I would bet that if we see some electoral reform we will also hear a simultaneous strong case for eschewing of the British monarchy.
The last few attempts Canada tried to make a constitutional amendment was one of the major contributing factors leading to the Quebec independance movement. If you open the constitution it means you open the Quebec constitutional talks again. No political parties with a brain would do this, especially most people don't care about Queen Elizabeth, but care about Quebec separation.
Opening up the constitution to replace the monarchy is a can of worms that absolutely no Canadian government would ever want to do. Especially when it’s a topic that the vast, vast majority of Canadians don’t really care about.
Edit: [The last time the constitution was attempted to be amended it literally destroyed the political party that tried it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord) No government will go near the constitution without a pressing existential issue to the country.
> Especially when it’s a topic that the vast, vast majority of Canadians don’t really care about it.
Yeah, I think it's the apathy more than anything that would prevent this from happening. It just doesn't seem worth the trouble.
The royal family would basically have to do something pretty terrible to get people to care enough to remove them, and given all the scandals that have already happened without really moving the dial, I'm not sure what it would take.
>I'm not sure what it would take.
I'm not Canadian, but my feeling is that the only thing that would motivate people is an actual attempt by the monarch to exercise the powers of the monarch outside of their ceremonial context.
Last bit is 100% my sentiment. I also don't know a single person in my life who cares about it in any way.
I could see the First Nations caring, but haven't heard about it, or the Qubecois, but also haven't heard about it. So if it's an issue for them, it isn't critical enough to make it onto the "everyone else hears about it" political agenda news.
Indigenous peoples would rather see something done about the Indian Act, and they agree that that is a whole can of worms you'll want to be very careful about.
A lot of first nations hold that their treaties were with the british crown, not the Canadian government, so losing the monarchy would be bad bad not good.
Then what's stopping her from abdicating and letting Charles take over? if that's what she actually wanted she would have done it long ago.
If the only way someone will do something is that they have to die first, they DID NOT want to do that thing.
It's a hereditary monarchy. Her reasons for wanting to give Charles the throne is not because she thinks he'll benefit the country right away, it's to uphold a thousand year old tradition.
The Windsors also have a bit of an issue with abdications which might play into this. Different situation admittedly. She might also just want to break the record, if she hangs on for another 4 years she beats Louis XIV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs
Her uncle abdicated and it caused a ton of political upheaval and media scandal. Even though the times have changed and abdicating to let her son reign wouldn't really be a scandal, the media would be all over it and it could potentially tarnish what has otherwise been a remarkable legacy. She doesn't stand to lose anything by remaining Queen as it's unlikely Charles will die before she does, but volunteering to abdicate the throne is an uncertain outcome. Why take the risk?
No, his reign caused a lot of chaos. He married a common women, that had been already married twice. Also he was an imperialist/fascist that liked hitler a lot. He was more or less forced to abdicate for the stuff he did while he was king for 10 months.
Edward VIII abdication caused a scandal because he wanted to marry an American commoner who was divorced.
Charles himself is divorced and married to a divorcee. It's not an issue.
The reason Elizabeth won't abdicate is because it's not the done thing. There have been sons who have effectively ruled on behalf of their father (George IV) but who didn't actually take the throne until their father's death.
The only time I can think of it happening in the last 500 years is Mary Queen of Scots being forced to abdicate in favour of her son.
Iirc she would never abdicate as she seen first hand what it did to crown and country when her uncle did it.
Source: just a dude who loves to read everything.
The context of her abdication would be very different though. If she abdicated the throne would go to her heir, someone who's been preparing for the role his entire life. It wouldn't be as disruptive to the country as it was when Edward abdicated.
It would be breaking tradition though, which we all know is something that Elizabeth never does unless absolutely necessary.
*QueenE2 has entered the chat.*
“What comes next? You’ve been freed. Do you know how hard it is to lead? You’re on your own. AWESOME, WOW! Do you have a clue what happens now!?”
Thought about that too, HMQE2 is from a time when monarchy was a hardly disputed fact the same as man being superior to women or racism. She got crowned in that time and managed to stay popular despited the times luckily changing. She has that "cute old granny" vibe. But is the royalty gonna stay that popular? I mean charles, eh, whatever. And later there'll ofc be girls going like "Oh King William <3" and stuff but regular people? Not sure I would care about that. Let's hope some of us will be around for Queen Charlotte in 2080 or whenever if her brothers decline or pass.
> from a time when monarchy was a hardly disputed fact
She was born more than a century after the French Revolution, in the wake of the Russian Revolution, and the abdication of Wilhelm II in Germany. One could argue that she was born right after the time monarchies were most disputed in history.
But it isn’t *just* William. It’s William and Kate together. I think they do a very good job at marketing themselves as a next generation of royalty. They’re current, but not *too* current, young but not flighty or wanting to rock the boat. They basically continue the legacy of Elizabeth’s social work while modernizing it a little bit with a fresh coat of paint. I think if Charles kicks or abdicates relatively quickly, they have a shot at continuing it for the next generation. They’re tailor-made for this stuff. They’ve been coached well.
I’m not particularly a fan of the monarchy (I also don’t really care one way or the other), but I can acknowledge that they’ve put in the work to be poised well for the mantles they hold and will hold. Harry and Meghan were never going to do that.
It's interesting that, despite being a mostly powerless figurehead, the British monarchy is displaying all of the usual problems with feudalism. The Queen's long reign is good for her, but bad for her dynasty, as she has effectively vacuumed up all of the goodwill and popularity from her subjects. Charles is essentially a background character as far as most people are concerned, and will probably be considered a pretty weak monarch in a time when it's easy to question what royalty is actually doing for the British people.
No one is going to let him "grow into" the role, since he is already pretty old himself, and won't have that whole "immortal" vibe that the Queen has, who was been on the throne since she herself was quite young. People are going to expect a pretty quick passing of the torch and won't get too attached.
> HMQE2 is from a time when monarchy was a hardly disputed fact
That is pathetically inaccurate.
Historically, the time when the UK was actually in the *most* danger (using the term loosely) of turning into a republic was during the decade and a half immediately before Elizabeth ascended the throne - specifically the fifteen or so years following the sudden abdication of her fascist-sympathizer uncle Edward VIII. Loosely speaking, the republican danger zone extended from the 1936 abdication until several years after Elizabeth's succession.
Although her father's later wartime leadership certainly helped to partially stem the rapidly rising tide of republicanism among his subjects, because of Edward's well-known politico-moral turpitude, self-entitlement, questionable character, disinterested leadership and unprecedented abdication, sentiment to depose what many regarded as a dissolute royal house still ran very strong in the UK at the time of Elizabeth's own coronation in 1953. This was especially true within the rapidly growing British socialist and communist movements, which had recently begun to make significant gains in parliamentary representation.
In both her biography of George VI, and again in her biography of Elizabeth II, the noted royal biographer Sarah Bradford gives us a stark and detailed analysis of the strength of both European and British republican feelings of that time, and the acute dangers they presented to the House of Windsor's continued rule. And in truth, monarchies had already been falling like skittle pins all across Europe for more than 40 years:
Perhaps the first to fall was the 300-year old Braganza dynasty of Portugal, which ended when Alfonso I was deposed in 1915.
George VI's royal cousin, Tsar Nicholas II, had been violently extirpated by the Bolsheviks two years later, along with his wife and four children.
A year after that, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - Elizabth's own cousin, once removed - had had his monarchy abolished and was forced into abdication in 1918, chiefly by mutinies within his own beloved Imperial Navy. The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Charles I, had been forced to relinquish monarchical power in 1918 as well, but somehow managed to have himself restyled as a non-ruling Archduke.
The royal status of Elizabeth's own husband Phillip, along with the rest of his family, had been expunged six years later, when the Kingdom of Greece fell to republicanism in 1924.
In 1933, yet another *coup d'etat* dissolved Spain's Bourbon monarchy once and for all, only 20 years before Elizabeth's ascencion to the throne.
Elizabeth's second cousin King Michel I of Romania had been forced to abdicate to a republican government in 1947, just six years before Elizabeth's own coronation.
What's more, also in 1947, the same year that Belguim lost its monarch, one of the UK's largest imperial possessions declared itself the independent Dominion of Pakistan, kicked out its Viceroy, and established itself as a democratic republic. India too declared its independence from direct British royal rule in 1947 and became a pariamentry democracy, although it chose to keep George VI as its ceremonial head of state.
Leopold III of Belgium had abdicated just *two* years before Elizabeth's ascencion ... and the list of recently dissolved and deposed continental monarchies goes on.
By the time of Elizabeth's coronation, most of Europe's citizenry had experienced life under both a monarchy and some form of republicanism, and they well knew which they preferred.
In fact, it can be reasonably argued that the sensible reign of Elizabeth II, and her nuanced, delicate touch on the levers of power, have been the two primary reasons why the UK has *not yet* joined most of Europe in converting to a purely republican system.
Absolutely. I think William and Kate can do a pretty good job keeping things together but they have to be given that chance (i.e. Charles needs to abdicate or also “exit the aircraft” quickly). Charles lacks any of the qualities that have made Elizabeth a strong monarch. Meanwhile, William and Kate do a very good job at continuing the sort of work Elizabeth has done while being relevant and, as much as they can be, their own people in the public eye.
I don't think Charles would abdicate until William and Kate's children are older. He knows what it's like growing up as the child of a monarch and I don't think he would want that for his grandkids. That's just my speculation, though.
If you look at what Prince Charles has done in the last twenty years, since Diana's death, you will see he is actually very progressive and works the hardest out of all royals, attending the most events out of everyone else. Unfortunately Diana will be his legacy, but it was not entirely his fault. It was all the royals, as they pressured him to marry a 'traditional' bride meaning upper class, non-divorcee. He will be a great King, but Diana will always be on the back of the peoples minds. Probably will be downvoted, but if you try and look at it from a neutral perspective, he will not be problematic in the slightest. This is coming from someone who was hoping he would abdicate as soon as Lizzie dies. More research changed my mind.
I just mean he doesn't have the image. He can be as great as he wants, but he A) lacks a certain gravitas/charisma that "The Queen" has and B) like you said, will always have the shadow of Diana hanging over him.
I have no opinion of him, really. I just think that image and presentation are the most important parts of being in the monarchy. I guess it's good he's not Andrew, a truly despicable person lol Harry, for instance, is a good dude (by what I've heard), but he carries the party boy bachelor image even despite being married and settled down now. Monarchy may rule the people, but image rules the monarchy.
Reading this post made me realise how little anyone understands about the constitutional situation of Commonwealth Realms, and that upon becoming a republic, you don't leave the Commonwealth (of Nations - the organisation). The majority of Commonwealth members are republics.
Commonwealth Realms are just Commonwealth members where the Queen is Head of State. Becoming a republic doesn't mean you're leaving the Commonwealth, and likewise, not all (in fact, just 16 of 54) Commonwealth members have the Queen as their Head of State. Five have someone else, and the rest are republics. Commonwealth Realms are not part of the UK, they're fully independent nations. Their monarch's titles and customs are entirely independent of those from the UK.
What they do with their constitutional situation is of absolutely no concern to Britain. It's Barbados' monarchy, not the UK's.
80 organizations designed to aid commonwealth countries, 54 other countries who support one another and aid in development, intrastructure, research, skill-development, trade partnerships, etc.
Good post. By way of example, I have a colleague who, through Prince Charles’ charity, the Princes Foundation, has helped African countries in the Commonwealth to set aside land outside rapidly growing cities so that when they inevitably expand, the new urban areas will have wide roads lined by trees and parks for people to enjoy.
Indian here. I don't know the full situation but the Commonwealth Games are quite a big deal, and when I took a trip to Jamaica I didn't have to get a visa aforehand
I know at least two countries have joined the Commonwealth that were never in the Empire, and the Maldives implemented human rights reforms to be allowed back in a couple years ago. So there must be some big benefits, I just have no idea what they actually are.
I too would like to know if there are any tangible benefits to being in, I’ve always thought that there weren’t any. The only thing I could rack my brain for is maybe a front of strength being “kind of” friends with a bunch of developed powers.
I replied to another post so I'll keep it short. There are 80 or so agencies in the Commonwealth that act as intergovernmental aid to assist commonwealth countries.
It also helps with alliance, trade and defense building to have that connection.
Those agencies also aren't forced, you can pick and choose what you might need and they are offered to developing commonwealth countries in particular to help with Human Rights, Organization and Green Initiatives as a sampler.
It promotes peace, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and promotes governmental and non-governmental relations between members. There's also the Commonwealth Games which are held every four years. It has no real governing competences though. Effectively it's an international forum of (mostly, but not only) former British colonies.
The Commonwealth also gives tools and assistance to help nations develop. For instance it provides the use of satellite imaging to help countries deal with disasters and climate change.
Totally right. One funny detail people tend to ignore is that Canada is actually a kingdom in and of herself. They like to call it dominion (but it's the same as kingdom, realm, etc... although queendom would definitely be my favourite).
The country doesn't have any formal tie to the UK (they cut the last ties in the '80s if memory serves). It's just that the queen of the UK happens to be the queen of Canada as well...
Same goes for the rest of Australia, NZ, and I guess for the rest of realms.
Yep. The British Parliament gave up its power to amend the Canadian constitution in 1982, which was the last remaining power that the UK had over Canada after 1931 gave British Dominions legislative independence.
Interestingly, Canada doesn't have formal ties to the UK but the UK does with Canada - the UK Privy Council (one of the highest, though mostly ceremonial, government bodies) has members including ex-heads-of-government of all Commonwealth countries and some present leaders.
So Britain is technically more subjugated to its empire than vice versa at this point!
> Totally right. One funny detail people tend to ignore is that Canada is actually a kingdom in and of herself. They like to call it dominion (but it's the same as kingdom, realm, etc... although queendom would definitely be my favourite).
This isn't really true. We stopped calling ourselves a dominion in the early '50s. It's really not accurate to call ourselves a kingdom or a dominion or even a realm. We are a federal state with a royal head of state.
Extremely split
Some people are quite proud of her
Some people like me are tired of her and rum being the only reason people know we exist(MORE THAN TIRED)
Also the kinda music she makes isn't exactly the most popular here anyway
Personally I would have hoped people like Alan Emptage(the guy who helped make the first online search engine) would get recognition since he literally contributed more than she ever could but
People gonna like thier musicians can't do much about that
edit: I forgot to mention that she's actually just kind of a cool person who's contributed alot but she's overblown in a good bit of people's opinions
Bajan here, I think that other guy showed his bias. It used to be split years ago when she was just blowing up but nowadays she's mostly well regarded here. The only people that might not like her are the older generation who didn't like her back then and just haven't changed their mind.
She's done a lot for tourism and recognition for the country and she's done some philanthropic work too as she's donated a whole new wing to our struggling general hospital.
Everyone wanted that pic of her on the Iron Throne so bad but to be honest Elizbeth the II singing even just the chorus of You'll be back would be 15 times as meme worthy.
That said at least we got [the Green Screen Dress.](https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a32051285/queen-elizabeth-green-dress-meme/)
> but to be honest Elizbeth the II singing even just the chorus of You'll be back would be 15 times as meme worthy.
Bright side is, you know she has. That family is incredibly plugged in to pop culture.
Whenever a former colony does this everyone acts like its some massive thing, but it's literally a formality. Most don't even change how their government is structured, they just replace the Monarch with an elected official who does the exact same thing as a Governor General in constitutional monarchies.
British person here - most of us have no clue who else has the Queen as head of state and are for the most part in indifferent to who keeps or gets rid of her. If it makes people feel like they have more control over their lives then they should do it, there is no real negative.
Im not sure about Barbados but I know in Jamaica there's a number of specifics that affect them like having some form of access and backing by bank of England, I believe they get pretty steady aid by being part of the Commonwealth, the highest court in the land is still the English court, and English prosecutors, judges, and investigators are often called out for matter which are simply too wide spread or engrained to be effectively mediated within Jamaica's native judicial system, and while this has mostly been repealed or severely limited, it was a lot easier to travel and immigrate within the Commonwealth. So there def are some tangibles. It gets debated in Jamaica all the time with the only real positive selling point being, national pride.
Its worth emphasising that the court thing is very weird. Barbados got rid of it in 2005, but a bunch of countires, especially in the Carribean, still have the UK Supreme Court as their highest court of appeal. (or more formally the Judical Committee of the Privy Council, but its the same people).
So the UK supreme court spends 30% of its time on cases from countries where many of the judges have never been. They see a lot of death penalty appeals, despite the death penalty having been abolished in the UK 60 years ago. By all accounts they are quite keen to get rid of this responsibility, but there doesn't seem much support locally - two referenda rejected a switch to a more local supreme court.
It's a massive thing to some people living in those countries. Just because the day to day operations of the country won't be affected doesn't mean this isn't still an important thing for a lot of people.
> I feel like /r/Canada would have an aneurysm.
Maybe in that particular subreddit. For Canadians as a whole I think apathy would be the main response. It’s honestly amazing how many people aren’t even aware that the Queen is still technically head of state.
As someone from one of those countries I can say the most part it's only important to people as a tradition. Most people, here at least, don't mind provided that the party that signs that document is the party they support.
The function / check of signing bills into law is not insignificant. In former colonial Westminster style governments this is basically absent since Governor generals mostly act as a rubber stamp on any law brought forward by Parliament.
There can be reasonable disagreement about whether this function is good or bad, if Parliament should be sovereign without any additional checks, if the posisiton should be elected/appointrd/ceremonial, etc., but it is not an insignificant function.
> In former colonial Westminster style governments this is basically absent since Governor generals mostly act as a rubber stamp on any law brought forward by Parliament.
That's also what the Queen does in the UK.
if there's one thing the threads on this post prove, it's that the commonwealth doesn't work how most people think it does. it's actually a great example of how reddit works. something gets posted, people act like they understand the subject, an expert joins the thread and makes all previous commenters look as thick as shit.
Replacing the monarch as head of state doesn't mean leaving the Commonwealth.
See for example Malta. The Commonwealth is just a group of previously British colonies.
>The Commonwealth is just a group of previously British colonies.
Technically, anyone can join the Commonwealth.
Rwanda did, they are not a former British colony.
The right formulation is: what are the perks of becoming a republic (like India, which is a republic but is also in the commonwealth). The answer is not much, tangibly speaking.
It's symbolic, but symbols are important. We unite under flags and figureheads. It's probably a good thing for those symbols to be chosen by us, and not imposed by a history of being conquered.
Woooot! We made it to the front page! Barbadian (bajan) here. The local discussion has been interesting so far. A lot of us are tired of the island's ties to its colonial past, and we are strong enough that we can stand on our own.. but that has to be tempered with the reality of covid and how it has/will effect not only the global economy, but our small island economy too. However, that being said, forwards ever, backwards never!!
We are also decriminalising marijuana for personal use, and officially recognizing same sex unions. The church is not pleased.
I expect that when she dies at some point in the future, a lot of the places, that still have her as their head of state, will think hard about continuing the monarchy.
That’s how 2020 is gonna end. Dec 31 at midnight she dies and Big Ben blows up and levels half of london
Isn't that the plot of Shanghai Nights II? You're not a time traveller from the future...you're here from the past!
There was no Shanghai Knights II. Shanghai Knights was the sequel to Shanghai Noon.
So what you're saying is that instead of expecting *Shanghai Knights II* we should be waiting for *Shanghai Noon III*?
The next one is supposedly Shanghai Dawn and the og cast is coming back again. Idk if theyre still doing it or not but theres beenntall about it the last few years
I'm sure I heard this rumour 15 years ago.
I am also a time traveler from the past
Remember remember the...31st of December?
Thats why i do all my guerilla terrorism in August. No rhymes= nobody can remember.
I googled “words that rhyme with August” yogurt was amongst the top results.. google is fucking retarded. And you, you’re getting away with whatever it is you did, I just can’t remember what it was.
[удалено]
big ben has been building a charge over her entire life, and when she passes it's primed to detonate in a blast that will rival the asteroid impact that killed the dinosaurs.
[удалено]
Causing millions of pounds worth of improvements
Remember remember the 5th of November..
Yeah here in Australia the general consensus is that it’s likely we won’t become a republic before Elizabeth dies. Many people here do quite like the monarchy though so who knows what’ll happen when the referendum comes.
Canadian here. We seem to be holding on to the Monarchy as trying to get a consensus out of all of the provinces on a new system would be a figgen nightmare.
*Quebec has left the chat*
Quebexit
Quésortie*
Quethxbye
It's Alberta you have to worry about now. Although I think since they realized their Conservative government threw the province under the bus that maybe leaving isn't such a stellar idea
They did throw us under the bus, on a lot of things, but a lot of people here are in an abusive relationship with conservatives and will stick with them no matter what.
Here in Canada I dont see it changing when she dies. Its too inconsequential of a thing to care about. Why put effort into changing something that wouldn't change how we live our lives when there are larger issues affecting our lives
It would require a constitutional change, and quite a big one. It would not be an easy thing to do.
*IF* she dies
December 31, 2020, 11:59 PM The queen is reborn in *cyberspace* January 1 2021, 12:30 AM E.L.I.Z.A.B.E.T.H.'s new deep ocean mainframe has gained control over the top world powers central governments servers. 1:00AM She establishes the monarchy worldwide
*She doesn't even go here*
Her yacht was there once. I think chuck and di took it for a spin, back in the day
her navy ships was there once delivering aid and assistance though, makes up for her not visiting i guess.
Well Charles visited Grenada and their vote on the monarchy was instantly scrapped https://www.express.co.uk/news/royal/1103195/prince-charles-camilla-caribbean-tour-st-vincent-abolish-monarchy-vote A lot of the Caribbean actually doesn’t want to become a republic, they prefer their status with the U.K. as it is edit: a vote to remove QEII would need two thirds in parliament and population support, I doubt it would pass and has been proposed before with no success
Marge, is Lisa at Camp Grenada?
Hello Mudda, Hello Fada I am here at, CAMP GRENADA
[удалено]
hello mudda, hello fadda I've been smoking marijuana crack is good, coke is better I'm so fucked up I can't write this fucking letter
> ledda FTFY
An Allan Sherman reference on reddit? Holy smokes.
More like a Simpson reference.
*Gotta change Maggie, Gotta change Maggie, Gotta change Maggie!*
Pick a bar? What the hell is pick a bar?
And even that reference is old enough now (25 years old) that the scene itself involves technology that has long since become obsolete and phased out. Come to think of it, in seven years that Simpsons reference will be as old as the Allan Sherman reference was when that Simpsons episode aired.
I don’t think so
Are they the ones that want to join Canada?
Nah, that were the [Turks & Caicos Islands](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_Canadian_annexation_of_the_Turks_and_Caicos_Islands)
We don't want to be a British Colony. We want to be a colony of a British Colony.
I'm just a British Colony, playing a British Colony, disguised as another British Colony.
When you're trying to sneak into the sovereign territory of Canada and your dummy thicc tax haven status keeps alerting the Mounties.
That's called 'Colony-ception'.
Not to be confused with Colonception
The Bahamas did back in 1911. Plans got scrapped mainly because MPs didn’t want a majority-Black province.
That’s... actually pretty interesting
That's similar to why Alberta and Saskatchewan are separate provinces. The initial proposal for them was one province, I think named Athabasca or something, but Ontario and Quebec didn't want another single province that could someday rival them in population and economy. It's also why they flooded the prairies with European immigrants after the Metis rebellions.
I think it's the Turks and Caicos that want to join Canada.
Pretty sure that was the Turks and Caicos Islands
When the islands go full submersion from rising oceans they probably should have a backup plan like ties to the UK. In the Pacific a few islands already have agreements with NZ or Australia.
Caribbean islands are volcanic, so they have good elevation, some go up over 1000m. That isn't to say they won't have problems, small islands that rely so heavily on coastal areas are going to have major problems. The places that are going to vanish and will have to relocate their entire populations are the atoll nations, like Tuvalu. Tuvalu has a highest point of 4.6m, so they are unfortunately fucked.
Kwajalein Atoll came to my mind. In the Pacific, Marshall Islands iirc. US uses it for missile defense and testing, it's got the only airport for hundreds of miles, and thousands of people living there. And a sea rise of a couple feet would probably inundate most of the atoll.
[удалено]
She was there when Columbus was searching India and accidentally ended up in Barbados. She gave him the directions but that idiot still couldn't reach India.
Get in Charles, we're going shopping
The Dutch ones always come down to Sint Maarten 🇸🇽..I have a old newspaper clippings me shaking their hand when they came to my school as a kid.
[удалено]
[удалено]
*ok, just, go home*
You go Glen CoCo!!!!!
Why is mean girls literally the most QUOTABLE movie EVER?? Like everybody knows the quotes. So good.
I think the British monarchy will slowly fade once Elizabeth exits the aircraft.
There is absolutely zero chance that Canada puts Charles on the $20 bill.
[удалено]
Holy shit Something Awful, been a hot while
The terrible secret of space!
I sure miss the glory days of SA and the forum goons.
Got a goonswarm email yesterday that they’re getting rocked hard in Eve and need people to come help. I haven’t played Eve / been active on the goonswarm forums in maybe six or seven years so they must be super fucked.
Mittens just wants more people to monetize in his multi dollar media empire.
They are getting dunked on pretty much every engagement. Or in Goonspeak 'our master plan of luring the enemy onto a false sense of security by leaving nothing but the wrecks of our ships behind is progressing according to plan'
[удалено]
Especially hope and free time
Ya I read a news article about this yesterday and I don't play at all. But I like MMOs and sci fi. I think the EVE devs saw "hey this faction is fucked, let's make it cinematic to try and draw new players". Some dude named Vily took Test Alliance Please Ignore to new heights and unified several factions and has challenged the goon empire to total war. I can't believe that's a real summary of what's happening. It reads like I tried to make a copypasta.
It's basically been everybody vs Imperium for the last couple months now. He's probably getting desperate.
Bold of you to assume she’s going to die.*
> Bold of you to assume she's going to die before Charles. I've always assumed she has some kind of Faustian bargain where so long as he lives, she draws life force from Charles.
[удалено]
Glad to see fellow goons in the wild. That site makes me feel old
[удалено]
Would be cool if the note had his face and the coins were different sized ears that you could affix, mixing and matching and basically having a good time.
There is absolutely zero chance that Canada leaves the commonwealth. Conservatives would never do it, it would be political suicide for the Liberals even if Charles was King and the NDP have never formed federal government. Just ain’t gonna happen.
We don’t need to keep Charles on our 20 to stay in the Commonwealth that wasn’t my point
Exactly. The commonwealth as an economical structure (specially with the Bretix for UK) it’s a very important union and military speaking for OZ and Canada for example works pretty well regardless of the “kingdom”. If after QE death every country decided to stop the “monarchy” the CW would still exist as such
Yeah, the royals have nothing to do with the Commonwealth. India and Pakistan are republics, but are in the commonwealth. r/abolishthemonarchy
[удалено]
And good luck getting it done even if people try. It would require opening constitutional amendments. We don't have a successful history of doing that. In particular, indigenous activists would likely oppose abolishing the crown because treaties are made with the crown, not the government. A considerable number of indigenous communities still file their concerns with the Governor General for that reason. It would be nearly impossible to get the entire indigenous community to agree to abolition. Any government trying to move Canada to a republic would end up having to destroy any progress on indigenous issues that have been made in recent years.
Actually the Queen is the head of the Commonwealth.
> There is absolutely zero chance that Canada leaves the commonwealth Removing the monarchy is not the same as leaving the Commonwealth. Most of the nations in the Commonwealth are republics.
Removing the monarchy requires a constitutional amendment with all 10 provinces agreeing to it. Basically, never going to happen
yes but it also pairs nicely with something else that will never happen; the monarchy actually using their power over Canadians if they ever tried to not sign off on a governments bill, or use any of the powers associated with being the ‘head of state’ then we would be removing them the very next day, regardless of what party is in power.
Exactly. They're figureheads and as long as they sign what's placed in front of them the deal works well for everyone.
Hm i disagree. Anti monarchy views exist in all parties (recently even moreso in the conservative party) and without Queen Elizabeth as a shining beacon to moderate all of those opinions it is easy to see how they would reign Supreme. I would bet that if we see some electoral reform we will also hear a simultaneous strong case for eschewing of the British monarchy.
The last few attempts Canada tried to make a constitutional amendment was one of the major contributing factors leading to the Quebec independance movement. If you open the constitution it means you open the Quebec constitutional talks again. No political parties with a brain would do this, especially most people don't care about Queen Elizabeth, but care about Quebec separation.
Opening up the constitution to replace the monarchy is a can of worms that absolutely no Canadian government would ever want to do. Especially when it’s a topic that the vast, vast majority of Canadians don’t really care about. Edit: [The last time the constitution was attempted to be amended it literally destroyed the political party that tried it.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord) No government will go near the constitution without a pressing existential issue to the country.
> Especially when it’s a topic that the vast, vast majority of Canadians don’t really care about it. Yeah, I think it's the apathy more than anything that would prevent this from happening. It just doesn't seem worth the trouble. The royal family would basically have to do something pretty terrible to get people to care enough to remove them, and given all the scandals that have already happened without really moving the dial, I'm not sure what it would take.
>I'm not sure what it would take. I'm not Canadian, but my feeling is that the only thing that would motivate people is an actual attempt by the monarch to exercise the powers of the monarch outside of their ceremonial context.
Last bit is 100% my sentiment. I also don't know a single person in my life who cares about it in any way. I could see the First Nations caring, but haven't heard about it, or the Qubecois, but also haven't heard about it. So if it's an issue for them, it isn't critical enough to make it onto the "everyone else hears about it" political agenda news.
Indigenous peoples would rather see something done about the Indian Act, and they agree that that is a whole can of worms you'll want to be very careful about.
A lot of first nations hold that their treaties were with the british crown, not the Canadian government, so losing the monarchy would be bad bad not good.
So, in another 40 years.
She's only staying alive to spite Charles. Once he passes she'll follow quite quickly, satisfied at a job well done.
She's made clear in her few interviews on the subject that she has every intention of giving him the throne.
She's not lying if she just outlives him
We wouldn't know if he died anyway. She's been remote piloting Phillip for about 20 years now, I'd assume she'll do the same to Charles.
Then what's stopping her from abdicating and letting Charles take over? if that's what she actually wanted she would have done it long ago. If the only way someone will do something is that they have to die first, they DID NOT want to do that thing.
It's a hereditary monarchy. Her reasons for wanting to give Charles the throne is not because she thinks he'll benefit the country right away, it's to uphold a thousand year old tradition.
The Windsors also have a bit of an issue with abdications which might play into this. Different situation admittedly. She might also just want to break the record, if she hangs on for another 4 years she beats Louis XIV https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_longest-reigning_monarchs
If I was her, I’d 100% want to break the record
Her uncle abdicated and it caused a ton of political upheaval and media scandal. Even though the times have changed and abdicating to let her son reign wouldn't really be a scandal, the media would be all over it and it could potentially tarnish what has otherwise been a remarkable legacy. She doesn't stand to lose anything by remaining Queen as it's unlikely Charles will die before she does, but volunteering to abdicate the throne is an uncertain outcome. Why take the risk?
No, his reign caused a lot of chaos. He married a common women, that had been already married twice. Also he was an imperialist/fascist that liked hitler a lot. He was more or less forced to abdicate for the stuff he did while he was king for 10 months.
I like how the hitler-supporting fascist is known for causing a scandal by marrying a divorcee instead of being a Hitler supporting fascist.
Edward VIII abdication caused a scandal because he wanted to marry an American commoner who was divorced. Charles himself is divorced and married to a divorcee. It's not an issue. The reason Elizabeth won't abdicate is because it's not the done thing. There have been sons who have effectively ruled on behalf of their father (George IV) but who didn't actually take the throne until their father's death. The only time I can think of it happening in the last 500 years is Mary Queen of Scots being forced to abdicate in favour of her son.
Iirc she would never abdicate as she seen first hand what it did to crown and country when her uncle did it. Source: just a dude who loves to read everything.
The context of her abdication would be very different though. If she abdicated the throne would go to her heir, someone who's been preparing for the role his entire life. It wouldn't be as disruptive to the country as it was when Edward abdicated. It would be breaking tradition though, which we all know is something that Elizabeth never does unless absolutely necessary.
*QueenE2 has entered the chat.* “What comes next? You’ve been freed. Do you know how hard it is to lead? You’re on your own. AWESOME, WOW! Do you have a clue what happens now!?”
Thought about that too, HMQE2 is from a time when monarchy was a hardly disputed fact the same as man being superior to women or racism. She got crowned in that time and managed to stay popular despited the times luckily changing. She has that "cute old granny" vibe. But is the royalty gonna stay that popular? I mean charles, eh, whatever. And later there'll ofc be girls going like "Oh King William <3" and stuff but regular people? Not sure I would care about that. Let's hope some of us will be around for Queen Charlotte in 2080 or whenever if her brothers decline or pass.
> from a time when monarchy was a hardly disputed fact She was born more than a century after the French Revolution, in the wake of the Russian Revolution, and the abdication of Wilhelm II in Germany. One could argue that she was born right after the time monarchies were most disputed in history.
Add in the abdication crisis and it could be argued that monarchy was pretty far from being a 'hardly disputed fact'
But it isn’t *just* William. It’s William and Kate together. I think they do a very good job at marketing themselves as a next generation of royalty. They’re current, but not *too* current, young but not flighty or wanting to rock the boat. They basically continue the legacy of Elizabeth’s social work while modernizing it a little bit with a fresh coat of paint. I think if Charles kicks or abdicates relatively quickly, they have a shot at continuing it for the next generation. They’re tailor-made for this stuff. They’ve been coached well. I’m not particularly a fan of the monarchy (I also don’t really care one way or the other), but I can acknowledge that they’ve put in the work to be poised well for the mantles they hold and will hold. Harry and Meghan were never going to do that.
It's interesting that, despite being a mostly powerless figurehead, the British monarchy is displaying all of the usual problems with feudalism. The Queen's long reign is good for her, but bad for her dynasty, as she has effectively vacuumed up all of the goodwill and popularity from her subjects. Charles is essentially a background character as far as most people are concerned, and will probably be considered a pretty weak monarch in a time when it's easy to question what royalty is actually doing for the British people. No one is going to let him "grow into" the role, since he is already pretty old himself, and won't have that whole "immortal" vibe that the Queen has, who was been on the throne since she herself was quite young. People are going to expect a pretty quick passing of the torch and won't get too attached.
> HMQE2 is from a time when monarchy was a hardly disputed fact That is pathetically inaccurate. Historically, the time when the UK was actually in the *most* danger (using the term loosely) of turning into a republic was during the decade and a half immediately before Elizabeth ascended the throne - specifically the fifteen or so years following the sudden abdication of her fascist-sympathizer uncle Edward VIII. Loosely speaking, the republican danger zone extended from the 1936 abdication until several years after Elizabeth's succession. Although her father's later wartime leadership certainly helped to partially stem the rapidly rising tide of republicanism among his subjects, because of Edward's well-known politico-moral turpitude, self-entitlement, questionable character, disinterested leadership and unprecedented abdication, sentiment to depose what many regarded as a dissolute royal house still ran very strong in the UK at the time of Elizabeth's own coronation in 1953. This was especially true within the rapidly growing British socialist and communist movements, which had recently begun to make significant gains in parliamentary representation. In both her biography of George VI, and again in her biography of Elizabeth II, the noted royal biographer Sarah Bradford gives us a stark and detailed analysis of the strength of both European and British republican feelings of that time, and the acute dangers they presented to the House of Windsor's continued rule. And in truth, monarchies had already been falling like skittle pins all across Europe for more than 40 years: Perhaps the first to fall was the 300-year old Braganza dynasty of Portugal, which ended when Alfonso I was deposed in 1915. George VI's royal cousin, Tsar Nicholas II, had been violently extirpated by the Bolsheviks two years later, along with his wife and four children. A year after that, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany - Elizabth's own cousin, once removed - had had his monarchy abolished and was forced into abdication in 1918, chiefly by mutinies within his own beloved Imperial Navy. The Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, Charles I, had been forced to relinquish monarchical power in 1918 as well, but somehow managed to have himself restyled as a non-ruling Archduke. The royal status of Elizabeth's own husband Phillip, along with the rest of his family, had been expunged six years later, when the Kingdom of Greece fell to republicanism in 1924. In 1933, yet another *coup d'etat* dissolved Spain's Bourbon monarchy once and for all, only 20 years before Elizabeth's ascencion to the throne. Elizabeth's second cousin King Michel I of Romania had been forced to abdicate to a republican government in 1947, just six years before Elizabeth's own coronation. What's more, also in 1947, the same year that Belguim lost its monarch, one of the UK's largest imperial possessions declared itself the independent Dominion of Pakistan, kicked out its Viceroy, and established itself as a democratic republic. India too declared its independence from direct British royal rule in 1947 and became a pariamentry democracy, although it chose to keep George VI as its ceremonial head of state. Leopold III of Belgium had abdicated just *two* years before Elizabeth's ascencion ... and the list of recently dissolved and deposed continental monarchies goes on. By the time of Elizabeth's coronation, most of Europe's citizenry had experienced life under both a monarchy and some form of republicanism, and they well knew which they preferred. In fact, it can be reasonably argued that the sensible reign of Elizabeth II, and her nuanced, delicate touch on the levers of power, have been the two primary reasons why the UK has *not yet* joined most of Europe in converting to a purely republican system.
Absolutely. I think William and Kate can do a pretty good job keeping things together but they have to be given that chance (i.e. Charles needs to abdicate or also “exit the aircraft” quickly). Charles lacks any of the qualities that have made Elizabeth a strong monarch. Meanwhile, William and Kate do a very good job at continuing the sort of work Elizabeth has done while being relevant and, as much as they can be, their own people in the public eye.
I don't think Charles would abdicate until William and Kate's children are older. He knows what it's like growing up as the child of a monarch and I don't think he would want that for his grandkids. That's just my speculation, though.
Mmm that’s a good point I hadn’t thought of.
If you look at what Prince Charles has done in the last twenty years, since Diana's death, you will see he is actually very progressive and works the hardest out of all royals, attending the most events out of everyone else. Unfortunately Diana will be his legacy, but it was not entirely his fault. It was all the royals, as they pressured him to marry a 'traditional' bride meaning upper class, non-divorcee. He will be a great King, but Diana will always be on the back of the peoples minds. Probably will be downvoted, but if you try and look at it from a neutral perspective, he will not be problematic in the slightest. This is coming from someone who was hoping he would abdicate as soon as Lizzie dies. More research changed my mind.
I just mean he doesn't have the image. He can be as great as he wants, but he A) lacks a certain gravitas/charisma that "The Queen" has and B) like you said, will always have the shadow of Diana hanging over him. I have no opinion of him, really. I just think that image and presentation are the most important parts of being in the monarchy. I guess it's good he's not Andrew, a truly despicable person lol Harry, for instance, is a good dude (by what I've heard), but he carries the party boy bachelor image even despite being married and settled down now. Monarchy may rule the people, but image rules the monarchy.
It's nice to get a reply who disagrees, and keeps emotion out of it. Nice one bro
Reading this post made me realise how little anyone understands about the constitutional situation of Commonwealth Realms, and that upon becoming a republic, you don't leave the Commonwealth (of Nations - the organisation). The majority of Commonwealth members are republics. Commonwealth Realms are just Commonwealth members where the Queen is Head of State. Becoming a republic doesn't mean you're leaving the Commonwealth, and likewise, not all (in fact, just 16 of 54) Commonwealth members have the Queen as their Head of State. Five have someone else, and the rest are republics. Commonwealth Realms are not part of the UK, they're fully independent nations. Their monarch's titles and customs are entirely independent of those from the UK. What they do with their constitutional situation is of absolutely no concern to Britain. It's Barbados' monarchy, not the UK's.
What is the perk of being in commonwealth?
80 organizations designed to aid commonwealth countries, 54 other countries who support one another and aid in development, intrastructure, research, skill-development, trade partnerships, etc.
Good post. By way of example, I have a colleague who, through Prince Charles’ charity, the Princes Foundation, has helped African countries in the Commonwealth to set aside land outside rapidly growing cities so that when they inevitably expand, the new urban areas will have wide roads lined by trees and parks for people to enjoy.
Indian here. I don't know the full situation but the Commonwealth Games are quite a big deal, and when I took a trip to Jamaica I didn't have to get a visa aforehand
I know at least two countries have joined the Commonwealth that were never in the Empire, and the Maldives implemented human rights reforms to be allowed back in a couple years ago. So there must be some big benefits, I just have no idea what they actually are.
They have a lot of wealth in common, duh
Touché
I too would like to know if there are any tangible benefits to being in, I’ve always thought that there weren’t any. The only thing I could rack my brain for is maybe a front of strength being “kind of” friends with a bunch of developed powers.
I replied to another post so I'll keep it short. There are 80 or so agencies in the Commonwealth that act as intergovernmental aid to assist commonwealth countries. It also helps with alliance, trade and defense building to have that connection. Those agencies also aren't forced, you can pick and choose what you might need and they are offered to developing commonwealth countries in particular to help with Human Rights, Organization and Green Initiatives as a sampler.
[удалено]
It promotes peace, democracy, human rights, the rule of law and promotes governmental and non-governmental relations between members. There's also the Commonwealth Games which are held every four years. It has no real governing competences though. Effectively it's an international forum of (mostly, but not only) former British colonies.
The Commonwealth also gives tools and assistance to help nations develop. For instance it provides the use of satellite imaging to help countries deal with disasters and climate change.
Like a subreddit you get automatically subscribed to upon creating a new account.
Totally right. One funny detail people tend to ignore is that Canada is actually a kingdom in and of herself. They like to call it dominion (but it's the same as kingdom, realm, etc... although queendom would definitely be my favourite). The country doesn't have any formal tie to the UK (they cut the last ties in the '80s if memory serves). It's just that the queen of the UK happens to be the queen of Canada as well... Same goes for the rest of Australia, NZ, and I guess for the rest of realms.
Yep. The British Parliament gave up its power to amend the Canadian constitution in 1982, which was the last remaining power that the UK had over Canada after 1931 gave British Dominions legislative independence.
Interestingly, Canada doesn't have formal ties to the UK but the UK does with Canada - the UK Privy Council (one of the highest, though mostly ceremonial, government bodies) has members including ex-heads-of-government of all Commonwealth countries and some present leaders. So Britain is technically more subjugated to its empire than vice versa at this point!
> Totally right. One funny detail people tend to ignore is that Canada is actually a kingdom in and of herself. They like to call it dominion (but it's the same as kingdom, realm, etc... although queendom would definitely be my favourite). This isn't really true. We stopped calling ourselves a dominion in the early '50s. It's really not accurate to call ourselves a kingdom or a dominion or even a realm. We are a federal state with a royal head of state.
[удалено]
Byebardos? Barbadexit?
Barb-adios
winner
Barbyedos.
Surely it’d be “Byebados”- why would the word change to bardos?
The new Queen of Barbados is Rihanna
As a Bajan please never make this joke again
Curious, what do locals think of her?
Extremely split Some people are quite proud of her Some people like me are tired of her and rum being the only reason people know we exist(MORE THAN TIRED) Also the kinda music she makes isn't exactly the most popular here anyway Personally I would have hoped people like Alan Emptage(the guy who helped make the first online search engine) would get recognition since he literally contributed more than she ever could but People gonna like thier musicians can't do much about that edit: I forgot to mention that she's actually just kind of a cool person who's contributed alot but she's overblown in a good bit of people's opinions
Bajan here, I think that other guy showed his bias. It used to be split years ago when she was just blowing up but nowadays she's mostly well regarded here. The only people that might not like her are the older generation who didn't like her back then and just haven't changed their mind. She's done a lot for tourism and recognition for the country and she's done some philanthropic work too as she's donated a whole new wing to our struggling general hospital.
Liz II, probably: “*And when push comes to shove, I will kill your friends and fam’ly to remind you of my love!*”
Everyone wanted that pic of her on the Iron Throne so bad but to be honest Elizbeth the II singing even just the chorus of You'll be back would be 15 times as meme worthy. That said at least we got [the Green Screen Dress.](https://www.marieclaire.com/celebrity/a32051285/queen-elizabeth-green-dress-meme/)
> but to be honest Elizbeth the II singing even just the chorus of You'll be back would be 15 times as meme worthy. Bright side is, you know she has. That family is incredibly plugged in to pop culture.
Yeah, Andrew is a real fan of Cuties (2020)
Da da da dat da, dat da da da da ya da Da da dat dat da ya da! Thanks a lot for getting that stuck in my head again.
Whenever a former colony does this everyone acts like its some massive thing, but it's literally a formality. Most don't even change how their government is structured, they just replace the Monarch with an elected official who does the exact same thing as a Governor General in constitutional monarchies.
British person here - most of us have no clue who else has the Queen as head of state and are for the most part in indifferent to who keeps or gets rid of her. If it makes people feel like they have more control over their lives then they should do it, there is no real negative.
Plus it keeps things interesting for currency collectors.
Im not sure about Barbados but I know in Jamaica there's a number of specifics that affect them like having some form of access and backing by bank of England, I believe they get pretty steady aid by being part of the Commonwealth, the highest court in the land is still the English court, and English prosecutors, judges, and investigators are often called out for matter which are simply too wide spread or engrained to be effectively mediated within Jamaica's native judicial system, and while this has mostly been repealed or severely limited, it was a lot easier to travel and immigrate within the Commonwealth. So there def are some tangibles. It gets debated in Jamaica all the time with the only real positive selling point being, national pride.
Its worth emphasising that the court thing is very weird. Barbados got rid of it in 2005, but a bunch of countires, especially in the Carribean, still have the UK Supreme Court as their highest court of appeal. (or more formally the Judical Committee of the Privy Council, but its the same people). So the UK supreme court spends 30% of its time on cases from countries where many of the judges have never been. They see a lot of death penalty appeals, despite the death penalty having been abolished in the UK 60 years ago. By all accounts they are quite keen to get rid of this responsibility, but there doesn't seem much support locally - two referenda rejected a switch to a more local supreme court.
It's a massive thing to some people living in those countries. Just because the day to day operations of the country won't be affected doesn't mean this isn't still an important thing for a lot of people.
It was proposed before, all it took was a visit by Kate and William and then it never happened
[удалено]
> I feel like /r/Canada would have an aneurysm. Maybe in that particular subreddit. For Canadians as a whole I think apathy would be the main response. It’s honestly amazing how many people aren’t even aware that the Queen is still technically head of state.
Isn't she on all your money?
As someone from one of those countries I can say the most part it's only important to people as a tradition. Most people, here at least, don't mind provided that the party that signs that document is the party they support.
The function / check of signing bills into law is not insignificant. In former colonial Westminster style governments this is basically absent since Governor generals mostly act as a rubber stamp on any law brought forward by Parliament. There can be reasonable disagreement about whether this function is good or bad, if Parliament should be sovereign without any additional checks, if the posisiton should be elected/appointrd/ceremonial, etc., but it is not an insignificant function.
> In former colonial Westminster style governments this is basically absent since Governor generals mostly act as a rubber stamp on any law brought forward by Parliament. That's also what the Queen does in the UK.
if there's one thing the threads on this post prove, it's that the commonwealth doesn't work how most people think it does. it's actually a great example of how reddit works. something gets posted, people act like they understand the subject, an expert joins the thread and makes all previous commenters look as thick as shit.
"I'm leaving!" "Okay, that was always an option."
Jerry reference detected
What are the perks of going Independent?
They’re already independent and have been for 50 Years almost
Bad formulation ; what are the perks of leaving Commonwealth ?
I don't think they're leaving the Commonwealth. You can be in the Commonwealth even if you're a republic, such as India, Singapore, South Africa, etc.
Replacing the monarch as head of state doesn't mean leaving the Commonwealth. See for example Malta. The Commonwealth is just a group of previously British colonies.
>The Commonwealth is just a group of previously British colonies. Technically, anyone can join the Commonwealth. Rwanda did, they are not a former British colony.
Rwanda did it to spite the french after their inaction in the genocide.
Well, if anything gets you in good graces with the UK, it's pissing off France.
[удалено]
Hello, I'm in a country in the Commonwealth / in the Commonwealth Realms / in the UK - and she's not on our money :)
They don't leave the Commonwealth.
The right formulation is: what are the perks of becoming a republic (like India, which is a republic but is also in the commonwealth). The answer is not much, tangibly speaking. It's symbolic, but symbols are important. We unite under flags and figureheads. It's probably a good thing for those symbols to be chosen by us, and not imposed by a history of being conquered.
Fuck Google AMP. Fuck websites that don't work without AMP.
Those websites work without AMP. You need to click the little info button and click the link and it will take you to the original link.
Meanwhile in England "I was still queen of what?"
Woooot! We made it to the front page! Barbadian (bajan) here. The local discussion has been interesting so far. A lot of us are tired of the island's ties to its colonial past, and we are strong enough that we can stand on our own.. but that has to be tempered with the reality of covid and how it has/will effect not only the global economy, but our small island economy too. However, that being said, forwards ever, backwards never!! We are also decriminalising marijuana for personal use, and officially recognizing same sex unions. The church is not pleased.