global news: the new king.
chris jonadicus
Dear friends, hello.
This time, we have some real life news to address, here in the ''Fighting Independent''.
The queen of england is dead, and her son, charles, will be the new king of england.
As they say,
The Queen is dead. Long live The King.
Despite the sadness of ones death, this is certainly a unique and interesting time for the history of england, as a new king rises, and charles will most likely abdicate and give the throne to his son william in a few years, just like king juan carlos of spain did in favor of his son.
One might ask : is monarchy important or useful in the 21st century anymore?
The short answer? no.
Its old, and obsolete, it was a system that worked well during the medieval years when chaos existed in every part of the world, and nations needed a king in order to keep things in order and to fight in wars for the defence (or for the expansion) of the nation.
But for the british, its a part of their old history, and an interesting relic of their past.
The british empire might not exist anymore, but their old customs and traditions certainly do.
And their old monarchy is one of those old traditions.
Let me know what you think about this, or what your thoughts are on various historical/monarchic/traditional things...
Thats all for now, take care and have a nice day.
plz let me know your thoughts and opinions in the comments section, and please comment/vote/endorse+subscribe to my newspaper.
as for subscriptions: plz subscribe to my newspaper+ tell it to other people too...
(i sub for subs, so lets help eachother to reach the 1000+ subs achievement!)
until then,
-chris j. an old player.
Comments
v!
thank you!!
and here's a different view on the same topic :
https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/an-unfortunate-day-the-queen-has-passed-09-08--2758778
V+ and SUB!
Yet another view: from Canada
Is the monarchy all that important? Less than the romantics want, more than the cynics imagine.
As I edge up on 70, I have long perceived a world sorely in need of compassion, calmness and good example. The late queen was all that. Others in her family (like so many of ours) were anything but. Unfortunately the new king has demonstrated a colossal failure in terms of personal fidelity ( big thing to old folks like me). So, a crown is a good thing in the longer run. In the shorter run, I will not be pledging any oaths to incumbent. I suppose we could follow a Trump, Johnson or Putin. 🤯
Now as an indigenous North American, one more symbol of invasion and assimilation isn’t going to make things any better or worse. But that would be another article …
well, thats a very interesting point of view.
our world definitely needs more compassion, calmness and setting good example.
while the queen of england appeared as a good model for her nations crumbling monarchy, it still seems as a useless and obsolete system for a modern democracy.
(especially since it uses the taxpayers money for its own survival, no less)
as for charles, the new king of england, indeed, he might had some serious issues with personal fidelity, and with being a slightly shaken ideal for a nations king, but i think that he will do a good job at it, as he is moderate and a reasonable person more or less.
but i will stick to the old queen once more : despite what you sat about her being a good queen for england (UK), she did some bad things too : the way that the british exploited, tortured and killed native people from the british colonies under her rule is just brutal.
a few examples : ireland, cyprus, many african nations, various pacific islandid nations, and before her reign, india. (but the harsh/unfair treatment of the indians (hindu) people still continued, even during her reign, and despite india's independence on 1947. (due to intentionally bad formations and border settings in indias borders with pakistan)
not to mention the many problems in the (intentionally) bad borders of former british colonies in the middle east too.
so its a big issue, and the queen openly allowed those bad things to happen.
colonialism, bad planning and the oppression of native people in favour of the colonists.
[removed]
you want exploiting? wait til Megan/Oprah gets on a roll.
It has gone through some modernisation and still needs updating. The Diana and now Megan fiasco are glaring examples of the need for reformation.. QEII has demonstrated a stable and calm front and so it should be.
Royalty does not hold that kind of power in these times.
It does cost to run a monarchy and we should get value for money!
v + c
while the monarchy seems to be in use of modernization, i still think that it is a useless and obsolete system for a modern democracy.
monarchy might worked well during the medieval years when it was needed for a king to unite and to organize a nation under a dynamic command system, but after the arrival of democracy and of parliamentary rule in most progressive nations in the early/mid 1800's, the monarchy quickly became a tired and dysfunctional system of ruling a nation.
the diana and megan fiasco are indeed glaring examples of the system going bad, and its another sign why the monarchy of england (UK) needs dismantling, and not just reformation.
(and if it should get reformation, it should be a drastic one)
ofcourse, just like i said to haroj above, our world definitely needs more compassion, calmness and setting good example.
and while the queen of england appeared as a good model for her nations crumbling monarchy, it still seems as a useless and obsolete system for a modern democracy.
(especially since it uses the taxpayers money for its own survival, no less)
as for charles, the new king of england, indeed, he might had some serious issues with personal fidelity, and with being a slightly shaken ideal for a nations king, but i think that he will do a good job at it, as he is moderate and a reasonable person more or less.
but i will stick to the old queen once more : despite what you say about her being a good queen for england (UK),and being a stable and calm front, she did some bad things too : the way that the british exploited, tortured and killed native people from the british colonies under her rule is just brutal.
a few examples : ireland, cyprus, many african nations, various pacific islandic nations, and before her reign, india. (but the harsh/unfair treatment of the indians (hindu) people still continued, even during her reign, and despite india's independence on 1947. (due to intentionally bad formations and border settings in indias borders with pakistan)
not to mention the many problems in the (intentionally) bad borders of former british colonies in the middle east too.
so its a big issue, and the queen openly allowed those bad things to happen.
colonialism, bad planning and the oppression of native people in favour of the colonists.
Even if there were no monarchy, the class distinction/colonialism would still have happened but I take on board what's said and as I am no royalist hope that this situation will change for the better.
EOKA
σε αυτο, θα συμφωνησω.
εξου και ο λογος μου περι αγγλικης αποικιοκρατιας και κακομεταχειρισης των νοτπιων πληθυσμων απανταχου σε ''περιοχες'' των ''αγλικων αποικιων''.