Queen Elizabeth II Has Died - Ruled for Nearly 7 Decades; World's Longest-Reigning Monarch (bbc.com) 483
Queen Elizabeth II, the UK's longest-serving monarch, has died at Balmoral aged 96, after reigning for 70 years. BBC: Her family gathered at her Scottish estate after concerns grew about her health earlier on Thursday. The Queen came to the throne in 1952 and witnessed enormous social change. With her death, her eldest son Charles, the former Prince of Wales, will lead the country in mourning as the new King and head of state for 14 Commonwealth realms. In a statement, Buckingham Palace said: "The Queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon. "The King and the Queen Consort will remain at Balmoral this evening and will return to London tomorrow." All the Queen's children travelled to Balmoral, near Aberdeen, after doctors placed the Queen under medical supervision. Her grandson, Prince William, is also there, with his brother, Prince Harry, on his way.
Queen Elizabeth II's tenure as head of state spanned post-war austerity, the transition from empire to Commonwealth, the end of the Cold War and the UK's entry into - and withdrawal from - the European Union. Her reign spanned 15 prime ministers starting with Winston Churchill, born in 1874, and including Liz Truss, born 101 years later in 1975, and appointed by the Queen earlier this week. She held weekly audiences with her prime minister throughout her reign. At Buckingham Palace in London, crowds awaiting updates on the Queen's condition began crying as they heard of her death. The Queen was born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, in Mayfair, London, on 21 April 1926. Further reading: OBITUARY -- A Queen for the Ages
Queen Elizabeth II's tenure as head of state spanned post-war austerity, the transition from empire to Commonwealth, the end of the Cold War and the UK's entry into - and withdrawal from - the European Union. Her reign spanned 15 prime ministers starting with Winston Churchill, born in 1874, and including Liz Truss, born 101 years later in 1975, and appointed by the Queen earlier this week. She held weekly audiences with her prime minister throughout her reign. At Buckingham Palace in London, crowds awaiting updates on the Queen's condition began crying as they heard of her death. The Queen was born Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, in Mayfair, London, on 21 April 1926. Further reading: OBITUARY -- A Queen for the Ages
God Save the Queen (Score:2, Insightful)
The fascist regime
They made you a moron
Potential H-bomb
God save the Queen
She ain't no human being
There is no future
In England's dreaming
Don't be told what you want to want to
And don't be told what you want to need
There's no future, no future
No future for you
God save the Queen
We mean it, man
We love our Queen
God saves
God save the Queen
'Cause tourists are money
And our figurehead
Is not what she seems
Oh, God save history
God save your mad parade
Oh, Lord, God have mercy
All crimes are paid
When there's no future how
Charles is now officially King (Score:5, Informative)
FYI, for anyone who doesn't know, Charles officially became King the moment Queen Elizabeth took her final breath. His coronation won't be for quite a while, and it's still not a given that "Charles" will actually be his regnal name (he's rumored to be considering "George"), but the coronation itself is merely a public ceremony.
Camilla is NOT Queen. She's officially "Queen Consort". Charles could, in theory, change that status in the future... but it's entirely up to him.
Re:Charles is now officially King (Score:4, Interesting)
If they toss out the monarchy before the coronation, then it is up in the air what history will record.
When a monarch is coronated, their reign began when the previous monarch died. But what if the order of succession is disputed? Then too, once somebody wins the fight, they're retroactively recognized to that point. But in actual existential fact they were not yet.
If they haven't been recognized yet, they don't have the powers yet.
Re: (Score:3)
You made a completely incorrect point using the wrong terminology, thereby demonstrating ignorance of the subject matter.
Your only excuse is that you annoyed me, which... No not really, I enjoy being pedantic and I enjoy arguing with idiots. I'm creating certainly leaning into the latter right now.
Re:Charles is now officially King (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Terry Prachett:
The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.
From Mort, Terry Prachett
I don't understand why anyone cares (Score:3)
Re:I don't understand why anyone cares (Score:5, Insightful)
You will never not have a ruling class. The ruling class just happens to be those with power. People don't support being ruled over, they support ceremony. It's a neat and utterly irrelevant thing to celebrate.
As far as ruling classes go who has done worse to the common person: the Queen of England vs literally any career politician.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not what a ruling class means. It means that some people are born into circumstances that often lead to them having power, where as most of us are not.
In the UK, most Prime Ministers and most cabinet members were privately schooled and from wealthy backgrounds. One school in particular, Eton, is known for producing high ranking politicians. It's much harder for anyone without that background to get into government.
The Queen is dead... (Score:2)
May the king abdicate real soon now, so my namesake gets the throne.
And may the King Emeritus live a long happy life afterwards with Camila.
I hope England (Score:4, Funny)
Louis XIV. (Score:2)
is the longest reigning monarch,
Re: (Score:2)
The modern British royalty is... not that.
Re: (Score:3)
The modern British royalty is... not that.
Not that in principle or not that legally? As far as I was aware all power resides in the monarchy, the fact that they chose to play the passive figurehead by not exercising it is not withstanding.
Quexit. (Score:2)
The Quexit will probably mark the end of an era more than brexit did.
Rest in Peace, Elizabeth II (Score:5, Insightful)
Rest in Peace, Elizabeth II
The world has lost one of the last links -- if not the last link -- to a much different world, a much different time.
I'm not shocked to discover no Funny (Score:3)
...going on in here. With the usual apologies to Captain Renault.
Or is it too soon?
So I'll try to repeat the recent sort-of-funny sort-of-unjoke:
What do you get when you cross Queen Elizabeth and Prince Charles?
Re:I'm not shocked to discover no Funny (Score:4, Funny)
Executed?
As a reminder (Score:5, Informative)
Queen Elizabeth served in the military longer than the entire Trump family combined.
Re:As a reminder (Score:5, Informative)
Harry flew copters in combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan. He wasn't shielded from being injured or killed. He served for 10 years in the military [esquire.com]. Also longer than the entire Trump family combined.
Re: (Score:3)
So no-one knew who he was and his parents didn't pull any strings for him ?
Ridiculous to even consider the possibility that that did not happen.
And he's a cunt.
https://www.express.co.uk/news... [express.co.uk]
To be fair that article could be summarized as the army treated Harry differently because he was so connected, and he then used those connections to stop them from treating him differently.
Whatever other issues he has he did seem to treat the army seriously and try to avoid special treatment.
Re: (Score:3)
No. His position was a carefully-guarded secret. Having a platoon of special forces camping there would have given away his position.
Re:As a reminder (Score:4, Insightful)
You need a reminder of what she led? OK, I can do that.
England. By example. During WWII, especially. Rather than leaving for the safety of the countryside, the royal family stayed at Buckingham Palace during the Blitz, right in the middle of London, offering a two-finger salute to the Nazis and the genocidal prick you chose to name yourself after.
Does the Queen Read Slashdot? (1999) (Score:3)
Interview: Queen Elizabeth II's Webmaster Answers [slashdot.org]: Q. The obvious question: Does the Queen read Slashdot? A. No. The Queen's interest in Internet matters is non-technical, although she sees on her visits to a wide variety of organisations the increasingly imaginative uses for the Internet.
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Insightful)
Tourism.
Re:Liz Truss, new P.M.: Monarchy is "disgraceful". (Score:5, Insightful)
Liz Truss, the new U.K. Prime Minister, branded monarchy 'disgraceful'. [itv.com]
That was 28 years ago, when she was 18, so it may no longer be relevant. I had a VERY different political orientation in my mid-40s than I had at 18.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Liz Truss, new P.M.: Monarchy is "disgraceful". (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent "too soon"? And I'm a bad person for chuckling.
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent "too soon"? And I'm a bad person for chuckling.
Yes but we're all doing it.
In the UK, we generally maintain a bit of humour around our leaders (elected or figurehead). When I found out the Queen had taken poorly yesterday I quipped "no one let Charles hand her a pillow". This wasn't to imply that I honestly believed Charles would smother his mother to death.
The Queen and royals have often been the subject, if not the butt of jokes for many British and specifically British comedians (especially Prince, now King Charles, although his sweaty brother h
Re:Liz Truss, new P.M.: "White pride Britain-wide" (Score:4, Insightful)
The way forward: Treat everyone as better than yourself.
Re: (Score:3)
That was 28 years ago, when she was 18, so it may no longer be relevant. I had a VERY different political orientation in my mid-40s than I had at 18.
That's a shame, because if she really said that, it would be one thing she's ever said that wasn't idiotic.
Re:True cause of death.. (Score:4, Funny)
I heard that she got green bubbles on her iphone that created the despondency.
Re: (Score:3)
The display like the "Changing of the Guard" in itself was not that impressive and seemed really pointless.
The point is they've been doing it that way for hundreds of years.
It's literally the changing of the guard. Some soldiers arrive, some others leave. What exactly would you do to make it more "impressive"? Get the soldiers to dance to loud music?
PS: I hope you're not posting from the country where the world's biggest rubber band ball would be considered a tourist attraction.
Re: (Score:3)
BTW the UK is never going to abolish the royal family because it contributes to the UK's GDP via tourism.
Re:monarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does the UK still have a royal family? Makes no sense in 2022. Because we've always done it this way is as lame as ever.
Because it's fun, it's part of history, and she was a nice person who did her absolute best not to be a burden to anybody.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the monarchy actually has scary powers though at present not used. Monarchy should have been done away with long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why Queen Elizabeth had the policy of doing nothing, saying nothing, being an empty crown. If the public believed the powers were real, they'd remove the monarchy almost instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why Queen Elizabeth had the policy of doing nothing, saying nothing, being an empty crown.
Being a figurehead, representing the country.
Re: (Score:2)
This is exactly why Queen Elizabeth had the policy of doing nothing, saying nothing, being an empty crown.
Right, she was a very expensive mascot.
Re:monarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Right, but the monarchy doesn't actually even pay for itself as stated above, so it's certainly not profitable from that standpoint. So... from what standpoint is it profitable?
Re: (Score:3)
we told them and made them to screw off 250 years ago.
No you didn't. A lot of French soldiers did much of the work for you!
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Informative)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It was the Governor-General that took the action, but he was using powers delegated by the Queen.
Re: (Score:3)
Does the UK Monarch still have the power to dissolve Parliament? To appoint ministers?
Actually, yes, though this has since WWII at least been exercised with great discretion. The 'Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Act 2022' actually restored the Crown's power to dismiss Parliament revoked in 2011. Ministers have, in modern times, been named by Parliament and the Crown's appointment a formality. Other powers have been similarly exercised quietly and almost perfunctorily.
Turns out the British, even their
Re: monarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually I see this as a useful check on elected powers. Being elected isn't an assurance of logical or ethical decisions. Most elected governments are assumed to be trustworthy, but in practice many are mobs, driven by emotion and lust.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the UK still have a royal family? Makes no sense in 2022. Because we've always done it this way is as lame as ever.
Because it's fun, it's part of history, and she was a nice person who did her absolute best not to be a burden to anybody.
If I were my namesake, I'd take action to, slowly but surely, diminish the size and priviledges of the monarchy, with an eye towars eliminating it, but that is just the 2 cents of this peasant.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why does the UK still have a royal family?"
Why is this news for nerds?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is stuff that matters
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Insightful)
"Why does the UK still have a royal family?"
Why is this news for nerds?
This is not "news for nerds", this fall into the category of: "Stuff that Matters"
It matters to nerds in Canada, Britain, scotland, whales, australia, India, and a bunch of other places under the commonwealth.
Re:monarchy (Score:4)
Why is this news for nerds?
It's almost as if you've never seen the part that comes after the comma.
Tradition (Score:5, Insightful)
It is mostly Tradition, just like how the US solutes and has reverence towards the American Flag. GB prides itself on not being conquered in nearly a thousand years. While the governance structure has became a parliamentary democracy, the Monarchy is a still looked on as part of the longevity of the British empire. Dismantling the Monarchy could be seen as Great Britain being conquered for a new government.
I am sure to many other countries the US Debates around burning American Flags, Saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, having a proper way to fold the flag, how to dispose of ruined flag.... really would seem like we are just a bunch of nutters.
Re: (Score:3)
It is mostly Tradition, just like how the US solutes
Look, I know the US has had some domestic issues, as is tradition, but we’re not dissolved yet!
Re: (Score:3)
GB prides itself on not being conquered in nearly a thousand years. ... Dismantling the Monarchy could be seen as Great Britain being conquered for a new government.
Oliver Cromwell has joined the chat.
Re: (Score:3)
The most commonly celebrated holiday on the planet is independence from Great Britain.
What on earth has led you to that conclusion?
It is celebrated by nearly 4.5% of humanity. I think Christmas is much more widely appreciated and I could list many others not just limited to the USA.
Re: (Score:3)
So what is a nation? it's when a group of people agree on a set of shared language, history, and values. The very reason the Scots are not English, but all are B
Re: (Score:3)
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does the UK still have a royal family? Makes no sense in 2022. Because we've always done it this way is as lame as ever.
Because it is a part of history. Conservatism is "change to preserve" - not the right wing populist madness that masquerades as conservatism in the US these days - and if something works, don't change it. Gradual evolution of society has been the UK way.
It should mention that some of the world's best functioning countries are constitutional monarchies - Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the UK. The US doesn't exactly serve as an ad for "let's replace a symbolic figurehead with an elected figure" these days.
Re: (Score:3)
Because that is how we like it and if foreigners disagree we don't give a fuck. And in practical terms, as evidenced by even a brief understanding of history, a constitutional monarchy at the head of a democracy is the most stable form of government yet devised. See also Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Canada etc.
Re:monarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
Have a look at those countries which have evolved from absolute monarchy to constitutional monarchy within a democracy. They are incredibly stable. We get the "non-rational" instinctive preference for tradition and time honoured custom, but also the chance to kick out our government every 4 or 5 years. It works. Btw The Queen's reign constituted a quarter of the existence of the USA. Come back and claim you're right in a thousand years and we might start to take you seriously.
It's not a monarchy. Do your homework. (Score:4, Informative)
The name of the political system in the UK is "Parliamentary Monarchy". Yes, we do have a royal family, but their function has been completely diminished through a series of legal acts established over the past couple centuries and currently is purely ceremonial. It's the prime minister and the government who wield the actual power.
Next time do your homework before posting a comment.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong the *ACTUAL* power is wielded by Parliament. Surely the events of the summer and autumn of 2019 should have made that crystal clear. When you hear the term "Parliament is sovereign" what it means is the ultimate power in the UK is yielded by Parliament, not the Monarch and not the "government". They do the bidding of Parliament.
It's shocking really how poorly understood the UK constitution is understood by Charles III's subjects.
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Interesting)
I have a very good MP. Getting rid of the monarchy will not make that any better.
The main weakness in our democratic system (and yours) is that it is not some form of proportional representation. This is nothing to do with the fact that our monarchs don't need to tell lies to get the job. They don't need to make promises, not even ones they don't intend to keep.
Yes, over 250 years ago or so, backstabbing was not unknown in becoming king. By the time of Queen Victoria, all it needed was the right ancestors which is still how you get most of your presidents.
In the 1950s, the KGB was sure that the UK would have a military coup. I suspect they hoped to help it to happen. The existence of the Queen is a big reason this never happened. The UK is based on loyalty. Other countries are founded on betrayal and subsequent worship of a historical document.
I am thankful that we had a good hard working queen and I hope Charles follows her example!
No Better Idea Yet (Score:3)
Why does the UK still have a royal family? Makes no sense in 2022.
If you want to replace monarchy you need to come up with a better idea. All political power rests in the elected government and the UK monarchy is almost purely ceremonial. How is having an elected politician as head of state going to make things better? They will be divisive and inspire far less loyalty and respect simply because they are a politician.
It's an even better deal for Canada and the other commonwealth nations. We get a head of state that is paid for by the UK and only have to pay for a gove
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe because the British don't have guns? Here in the United States, we are armed to the teeth. Much harder to wage a War of Independence if all you have are butter knives.
Um, they just fought one. It was called "Brexit".
Even if they had more guns I don't think they'd try to shoot the royal family.
PS: Modern gun ownership has nothing to do with your war of independence. That was hundreds of years ago. Get back to your Ninja Ammo magazines.
Re: (Score:3)
... Independence...
..."Brexit"...
Until we've seen the Russia Report, we won't really know whose independence was achieved...
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Informative)
"Even if they had more guns I don't think they'd try to shoot the royal family."
Of course not. The proper way to take care of a British King is with an axe. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Well the next one is named Charles, so cheers to that.
Re:monarchy (Score:4, Insightful)
PS: Modern gun ownership has nothing to do with your war of independence. That was hundreds of years ago. Get back to your Ninja Ammo magazines.
There's a few million Ukrainians that would strongly disagree right now.
Re: (Score:3)
PS: Modern gun ownership has nothing to do with your war of independence. That was hundreds of years ago. Get back to your Ninja Ammo magazines.
There's a few million Ukrainians that would strongly disagree right now.
Which would have nothing to do with the millions of Dollars/Pounds of weapons they're receiving from the UK/US and other allies.
Basically few Ukrainians kept an assault rifle before (farmers kept rifles and shotguns if needed), almost none had an NLAW under their bed. We sent those over, same with the 8 odd years of military advisors and trainers we'd been providing.
Get back to masturbating over to your comic book gun fantasies and leave the adults to deal with the real world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen up you little troll... never forget that goat herders armed with rifles, and rice farmers armed with rifles (and some artillery help from friends) gave the US an ass-kicking we still talk about today.
Those same goat herders also happened to kick out the Soviets out of the same patch of land, before they did it to us. Before our barely-warm-corpse of a President (biden) gave it back to them along with a long list of military hardware they should not have.. It's like we didn't learn from that, did we
Re: (Score:3)
I don't remember if King George had an airforce or...
He had a pretty good navy, which was meddled with pretty cleverly in preparation for Yorktown, and consequently skwered by the equally-up-to-the-task French Navy. I mean they paid for that at Trafalgar later on, but.. the point remains.
I know you're trolling, but even an air force doesn't guarantee victory: See Vietnam. Further, see USSR in Afghanistan. And the US in Afghanistan.
Why should having an air force lead to the rout of a rebel insurrection here? How do you know every there won't be defections?
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Informative)
Well, you can do like the Taliban in Afghanistan, and start with your AKs, fight for years and years....and then acquire all that and more when former vice-president Biden leaves it all behind in a botched withdrawal.
...negotiated by Donald Trump.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it was pretty lame. I myself have complained about it here. But there is plenty of lame to go around on that one.
Re:monarchy (Score:5, Informative)
At the very least...why didn't they rig everything left behind and blow it to fucking kingdom come?
Because it didn't belong to us. We had given it to the Afghan government. That was a bipartisan effort.
Re:The queen is dead! Long live the king! (Score:4, Funny)
... Well, I think her goal was to outlive her sons, but the NHS finally defeated her!
Perhaps her goal was simply to outlive BoJo's Prime Ministership and sign off on his successor.
Re: (Score:3)
Bruce: That's a strange expression, Bruce.
Bruce: Well Bruce, I heard the Prime Minister use it. 'It's hot enough to boil a monkey's bum in here, your Majesty,' he said and she smiled quietly to herself.
Bruce: She's a good Sheila Bruce, and not at all stuck up.
I can't think of a better obit.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, they are not "his" .. he has no authority there. He is symbolic. It's like saying Mickey Mouse owns Disney.
Re: (Score:3)
not quite [wikipedia.org]
The royal family really only literally owns a number of high-dollar properties with historical buildings on them that are maintained at the public's expense, so that part was wrong. But the monarchy also retains a number of its powers, which are only delegated to others by convention.
Re: (Score:3)
The conventions are so entrenched, and the current attitudes towards the royals are such that if the royal family ever tried to actually exercise them, the elected government would refuse, the police would refuse, the military would refuse, and it would trigger a constitutional crisis, with the end result being the royals not being royals anymore.
The Queen being able to order Canada around is theoretically true, but in practice even more fanciful an idea than the Vice President being allowed to just decide
Re:monarchy (Score:4, Informative)
The British royal family, to no one's surprise, has a massive real estate portfolio. According to the Independent, their property investments are held by the appropriately named Crown Estate. As of 2018, the Crown Estate owns 14 retail centers in England in addition to almost the whole of Regent Street, a famous London shopping hub known for its Christmas Lighting, as well as half of the buildings in the bordering St. James district.
Of course, what would royals be without a few palaces and castles? The British royal family has five in England alone. This is thanks to a combination of the Crown's holdings and the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, which are counties whose land is passed onto the current British monarch. In addition to Buckingham Palace, St James's Palace, Kensington Palace, and Windsor Castle, the Queen also owns Sandringham Estate, which fans of "The Crown" might note is her annual Christmas stomping ground.
Beyond castles,the Duchy of Lancaster, the Independent reported, covers 18,433 hectares (each of which consists of 2.47 acres) of land in England and Wales as well as the luxury hotel, the Savoy Estate. The Duchy of Cornwall grants Elizabeth 53,000 hectares of land, most of which is in South West England, which includes Highgrove, the home of Prince Charles and Camilla Bowles. Whew — maybe this is really why Meghan Markle called the royal family "the firm!"
Re: (Score:3)
The current political powers of the monarch are very watered down, and even then Elizabeth watered it down with custom a bit more. Used to be she would choose the new prime minister from the party in power because the Conservatives for some time did not hold internal elections over this. Now that they have the elections the queen accepts whoever they ask her to. Her other major power is to dissolve parliament if asked to, and she has always acceded to this. Essentially the last political monarch was her
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because Charles (now) owns the British Isles, Canada, North Ireland, Australia, and a few other places around the world. They're his.
Um, no. The Royal family owns a few palaces and castles, that's it. They're not even allowed to order anybody to be taken to the dungeons any more.
Re: monarchy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
govener general.... Who is tightly bound in their behaviour in the constitution.
Until this current jackass.
Secretly appointing ScoMo to ministery's everywhere; the Future Leader's fund (again either abetting or aiding ScoMo). This guy needs to go. He is as much a cancer on democracy as ScoMo was.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry...
What/Who is "ScoMo"?
The previous Prime Minister, Scott Morrison. ScuntMo was another name floating about, too.
Re: (Score:3)
Wikipedia doesn't agree with much of what you wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't really true. Charles is the Head of State now and the state owns the crown land and sovereign estate.
Charles owns Cornwall. That's his personally, although he will probably give it away now.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a subject of a monarch and will probably never be but I'm actually saddened to see this news. The British loved their Queen and my heart goes out to them.
Re: (Score:2)
the first original journalism on Slashdot, created by a journalist CmdrTaco hired, was covering school shootings.
Well School Shootings were originally a massive threat to video games. To distract from the access to firearms issue, there was bipartisan blame for Doom and Postal and other violent video games.
(But I do think the Queen of England dying is Slashdot News Worthy).
Re: (Score:3)
what does the queen have to do with technology?
While the death of the queen does not fall into the "News for Nerds" part, it definetily fall into the "Stuff that Matters" part.
Remind me again: What language does this site uses?
After people from the USoA, what are the 2nd and 3rd nationalities reading this site?
Need "moar"?
Re: (Score:2)
Why is anything non-tech related on Slashdot?
Because it's stuff that matters... even to us nerds as well.
Re: (Score:3)
And clearly, this is stuff that matters. The fact that it may not matter to you or possibly even nerds in the USA in general is likely to be entirely irrelevant to the nerds that it *DOES* matter to.
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is this on slashdot ? She built an app or something ?"
She had the top-role in the Royal Family Reality-TV show, the longest running of the planet.
Read the eulogy and have the script to 'The Crown'.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why is this on slashdot ? She built an app or something ?"
She had the top-role in the Royal Family Reality-TV show, the longest running of the planet.
Read the eulogy and have the script to 'The Crown'.
This is on Slashdot because, while it is not news for nerds, it is stuff that matters.
It matters to nerds in the Commonwealth (UK, canada, india, australia and some other places...)
Re: (Score:2)
The royal line, is a predominant theme in Doctor Who. A popular Sci-Fi show. (news for Nerds)
Re: (Score:3)
My thought immediately. Liz Truss was just a bridge too far for the old gal.
Re:Well who'd have though that... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm British, and her death is one of the very least important events in my life."
Her death is an end to an era, and may not be all that "important", but her life is beyond remarkable, and even as largely ceremonial and symbolic as it was, is certainly newsworthy.
An elder statesperson, who survived 2 world wars, met 13 US presidents, 5 popes, countless foreign heads of state. She was an active Royal Princess during Hitler's rise and fall. She ascended the throne when Stalin was the leader of the Soviet Union, Chairman Mao led China, and Franco ruled Spain. The people she interacted with, her peers on the world stage ... Ghandi sent her a cloth woven from yarn he spun himself as a wedding present. Its really quite unbelievable really who she met, corresponded with, and the circles she would have moved in.
Re: (Score:3)
It's traditional to ask them "who is the monarch" and "who is the prime minister".
Right, you have to just remind them of how depressing their government is, and they'll return to the natural dreary state of the Englishman.