Jump to content

The London Bridge Has Fallen - The Legacy of Queen Elizabeth II

956 Worldwide

By 956 Worldwide
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 848
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Celery Man
Celery Man
DaysOff
DaysOff

Get fucked weirdo. Nobody in that country is a Christian anymore. All their churches are tourist attractions; we'd be wise to follow.

CooterBrown
CooterBrown

Can brisket fly to Moscow next before it’s all out of his system?

Posted Images

Bateshorn

Bateshorn 9927

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Texas Jeff said:

Volunteered to be a truck driver and jeep mechanic at age 18 during WWII.  Only female royal to have served in the military.

She loved tinkering with vintage Land Rovers and spent much of her country time until she got too old in the garages with the repair men overhauling trucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21813

Posted
Posted

‘Tis but a scratch. That bitch will outlive us all. Her body isn’t just attacking Covid it’s killing the shit out of it. Seriously though it would be a big deal. I don’t think Charles or even William can save this dumb tradition. I thought it was cute that a grandma was queen. The two successors seem douchy af.  Make Charlotte a child monarch instead. That would be interesting. It’s not like they have any real responsibilities but to spread money and take photos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 85325

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Sandman said:

Why? Because some people don't like him? He's been training for this his entire life. I'd tell everyone to fuck off as I put that crown on my head. 

The popularity of and support for the monarchy has steady declined in the past decade.  Brits are already split on who should succeed QE2, but William is generally seen as more likely to do a good job compared to Charles (by 20 points), especially for younger Brits, who are already way less likely to think the monarchy needs to even exist anymore.  Even anti-Monarchists have more faith in William than Charles. 

In my opinion, William is better for the future and credibility of the monarchy.  The British public has less confidence in Sausage Fingers and he's already 73.  

Edited by Js1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HenryJames

HenryJames 66049

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Regardless of thoughts on the monarchy, she has spent her life doing a mostly excellent job in a position she did not choose and might have rejected if she knew what it meant.  She still means something to even the Republican Anglo-phone world and we will sense something missing when she is gone. 

Best Fuck That Steve Buscemi GIFs | Gfycat

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nice Guy Eddie

Nice Guy Eddie 13512

Posted
Posted (edited)

I don't see why Charles should refuse or quickly abdicate. It's not like he's that unpopular and his popularity will rise with the death of his mom and subsequent coronation.

Also the story is that his mom has refused abdication because it's their families' service to accept the role they have and not run away from it. That's his role model for his role as king. 

Still he's 73 and won't last forever.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
statsman

statsman 5463

Posted
Posted

It’s a constitutional monarchy, which has the added twist of the constitution not being written down anywhere, but rather a collection of traditions. It works if the monarch stays out of policy, observes political neutrality, and blindly follows the traditions. 
 
The monarch has two key roles to play-

1. They open parliament after an election. That makes the parliament official. 
2. they accept and receive the Prime Minister. That makes the government official. (Similarly, they accept when a PM dissolves a government). 
 
If you do away with the monarch, the UK probably has a lot of work to do to codify how things work. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21813

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, statsman said:

It’s a constitutional monarchy, which has the added twist of the constitution not being written down anywhere, but rather a collection of traditions. It works if the monarch stays out of policy, observes political neutrality, and blindly follows the traditions. 
 
The monarch has two key roles to play-

1. They open parliament after an election. That makes the parliament official. 
2. they accept and receive the Prime Minister. That makes the government official. (Similarly, they accept when a PM dissolves a government). 
 
If you do away with the monarch, the UK probably has a lot of work to do to codify how things work. 

That sounds really stupid for a country that once ran half the damn planet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 21813

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I don't see why Charles should refuse or quickly abdicate. It's not like he's that unpopular and his popularity will rise with the death of his mom and subsequent coronation.

Also the story is that his mom has refused abdication because it's their families' service to accept the role they have and not run away from it. That's his role model for his role as king. 

Still he's 73 and won't last forever.

Sounds like her dad shit talking his brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, hornbri said:

I guess the BBC anchors have all changed to black which is a indication operation London bridge has started. 

my london colleague said that there haven't been any anchors sighted for awhile, just shots of the airport and gates at balmoral.

they are probably changing though. it looks like she may have already passed. and there's a special news program on at 6pm UK time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31463

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, 'stache said:

That sounds really stupid for a country that once ran half the damn planet.

Well, thinking on it, it makes a certain amount of sense.  The monarch isn't elected and so isn't subject to political expediency in the same way as elected leaders.  The monarch has kind of a consulting role with a Prime Minister, at least, and has the opportunity to be the "conscience" of the nation, or to urge leaders to do the right thing instead of the expedient thing.

But if the monarch is a raving orange lunatic, can also be conveniently ignored.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...