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

sidis

sidis 10020

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

You obviously don't spend enough time on Twitter.

And as far as reconciliation, a "sorry" speech is really all she can do.  She doesn't have any political authority to do that.  And even that speech has to be approved by the government.

as a guiding principle in life, i do not get on twitter.  99% of my twitter consumption comes from the @HenryJames imo aggregation service on this site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rimbo

Rimbo 27304

Posted
Posted
39 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Bob Stoops called the plays.  Elizabeth couldn't constitutionally call the plays; she couldn't even vote for the play-caller.

It don't make a shit.

She's the (former) head of state for the hated English. They don't need another reason.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90802

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Nicole44 said:

I thought maybe she had died in her sleep last night and they were just gathering everyone together because…Charles taking over. Weird coincidence that Meghan and Harry happened to be across the pond. Most of us havent seen anything like this so it will be interesting

Don’t forget the time difference, and Harry was in Germany.

 I figured she was dead this morning (maybe 9:30 or 10am our time) when the tv stations and websites switched to black menus and banners, and the talking heads put on black, which is why I was posting the Mr. Bean gifs.  Actually, the PM’s message about folks being saddened about the news from Buckingham Palace was a huge tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHOOTER12

SHOOTER12 8896

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Js1 said:

He *should* abdicate and let William rule for 40+ years.  But he's been waiting for his mom to die so he could finally be King and feel all the things he thinks he deserves from the British public (who seem to like Kate and William 1000x more, so....) 

 

8 hours ago, South Austin said:

Charles seems like he sucks.

Granted, I'm an old and my memory sucks but I thought many years ago people saying he could never be king due to past indiscretions, his divorce, his affair with Camelia Bowels and others 

Anyone hear/remember anything along those lines?

Edited by SHOOTER12
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90802

Posted
Posted

Pro tip.

If you get on your roof, and start firing off a small signal cannon, even if you are using blanks, and you are shouting through a bullhorn “THE QUEEN IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE ANARCHY” you should expect to have a long conversation with APD (or whoever your relevant local LEOs are), and get the cannon confiscated and a bunch of paperwork and fines.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 35679

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Dunking on QEII for the sins of imperialism and colonialism is a weird take since the UK decolonized itself on her watch. It’s true that she didn’t MAKE those decisions, but it’s equally true that an obstreperous sovereign could have thrown more wrenches in the process.  The UK managed its imperial unwinding with a lot more grace and less direct bloodshed than some OTHER, Republican empires (cough, France and Algeria). Probably their biggest failing was giving too much, too soon to India and Pakistan— where the colonized killed each other. And it was a mistake to give Hong Kong back.

And in a real way, QEII was part of that unwinding, since the Commonwealth was her pet project. The Commonwealth made the bitter pill of loss of empire easier to swallow.  No less than Nelson Mandela immediately applied to rejoin, as they had kicked South Africa out for apartheid. 

6 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Henry Kissinger might be it, but not sure he fits the title.

Jimmy Carter is still our greatest ex-President ever. 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Js1

Js1 87401

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, SHOOTER12 said:

 

Granted, I'm an old and my memory sucks but I thought many years ago people saying he could never be king due to past indiscretions, his divorce, his affair with Camelia Bowels and others 

Anyone hear/remember anything along those lines?

Church of England allows marrying after divorce.  Plus QE2 gave Charles permission to marry CPB, per the Royal Marriages Act.  Plus the approval from the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Edward was way different because both the Church said no (he was already King, unlike Charles) and the government was going to resign if he married Wallis Simpson.   Plus times are different - it was pretty taboo to marry a twice-divorced woman then, especially while already King, versus Charles marry a divorcee while just a Prince in modern times. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deej

Deej 78027

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Pro tip.

If you get on your roof, and start firing off a small signal cannon, even if you are using blanks, and you are shouting through a bullhorn “THE QUEEN IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE ANARCHY” you should expect to have a long conversation with APD (or whoever your relevant local LEOs are), and get the cannon confiscated and a bunch of paperwork and fines.

Should have just flown a banner that said "The Monarchy is Not Our Standard"

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90802

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, F250 said:

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Irish but they have a biological imperative to hold a grudge.

It’ll be interesting to see the responses from the Irish going forward, given that Charles has worked to mend ties with them, even though they killed his uncle, and back in ‘83 they came close to planting a bomb that would have killed he and Diana.  Like I said, he’s the Roger Waters of the British monarchy, but he’s actually worked hard to mend the cross-species grudges with the Irish.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
F250

F250 29266

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

It’ll be interesting to see the responses from the Irish going forward, given that Charles has worked to mend ties with them, even though they killed his uncle, and back in ‘83 they came close to planting a bomb that would have killed he and Diana.  Like I said, he’s the Roger Waters of the British monarchy, but he’s actually worked hard to mend the cross-species grudges with the Irish.

Maybe he will facilitate a United Ireland.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SHOOTER12

SHOOTER12 8896

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Church of England allows marrying after divorce.  Plus QE2 gave Charles permission to marry CPB, per the Royal Marriages Act.  Plus the approval from the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Edward was way different because both the Church said no (he was already King, unlike Charles) and the government was going to resign if he married Wallis Simpson.   Plus times are different - it was pretty taboo to marry a twice-divorced woman then, especially while already King, versus Charles marry a divorcee while just a Prince in modern times. 

That's what I'm talking about. Thanks Js1.

Wanna learn shit? Wanna better yourself? Read the mother fucking Surl. All knowledge in the universe is right.fucking.here.

I ain't kidding neither.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13052

Posted
Posted
56 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Church of England allows marrying after divorce.  Plus QE2 gave Charles permission to marry CPB, per the Royal Marriages Act.  Plus the approval from the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Edward was way different because both the Church said no (he was already King, unlike Charles) and the government was going to resign if he married Wallis Simpson.   Plus times are different - it was pretty taboo to marry a twice-divorced woman then, especially while already King, versus Charles marry a divorcee while just a Prince in modern times. 

IIRC, there was also something about if the former spouse (of the divorcee) was still living, which in the case of the now King Charles case would be a no. In the recent past with Wallis Simpson, I believe both of her former spouses were still living while she was with Edward and that was problematic from the POV of the Church.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
'stache

'stache 22203

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

IIRC, there was also something about if the former spouse (of the divorcee) was still living, which in the case of the now King Charles case would be a no. In the recent past with Wallis Simpson, I believe both of her former spouses were still living while she was with Edward and that was problematic from the POV of the Church.

I heard on the radio that Parliament threatened to quit if he followed through with the wedding which would have violated the norm that the monarch be politically neutral. He stated it as the core of why it was a "constitutional" crisis. Abdication was the only real option for him to go through with the marriage.

Edited by 'stache
Link to comment
Share on other sites
conVINCEd

conVINCEd 21478

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

IIRC, there was also something about if the former spouse (of the divorcee) was still living, which in the case of the now King Charles case would be a no. In the recent past with Wallis Simpson, I believe both of her former spouses were still living while she was with Edward and that was problematic from the POV of the Church.

Churches do more harm than good.  Their viewpoint needs to be removed from the equation.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Ace of Aces

The Ace of Aces 5417

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

perspective: 

When Elizabeth ascended to the throne in 1952, Churchill and Truman and Stalin were leaders of the UK, U.S., and USSR, respectively

She was in power during all these tenures 

Truman
Eisenhower
Kennedy
LBJ
Nixon
Ford
Carter
Reagan
GHWB
Clinton
GWB
Obama
Trump
Biden

St. Laurent
Diefenbaker
Pearson
P. E. Trudeau
Clark
P. E. Trudeau
Turner
Mulroney
Campbell
Chrétien
Martin
Harper
J. Trudeau

Churchill
Eden
Macmillan
Douglas-Home
Wilson
Heath
Wilson
Callaghan
Thatcher
Major
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May
Johnson
And for a day, Truss

  • Hook 'Em 3
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...