...that soon, the Queen of England will pass away.

Well considering she is 85 there's a good possibility you're right.

I'm thinking that the time is at hand.

I'm not saying I want it to be the case...

(And no offense, Doctor)

The Royals dont bother me either way. At 85, the Queen could last another ten years.

Sure would have loved to have spent some time with Princess Diana though.

What a knockout gorgeous woman she was. Prince Charles must have rocks for brains.

Yes she was beautiful, I kinda had a thing for her as well.

The queen's mother made it to 102, right?

Just saying. Those royals probably have great health cover.

4/20 ended a long time ago, Hardliner.

She's coming down our way this week, though I probably won't see her due to working. It will truly be a sad day when she goes. One of the last decent politicians alive. Shame she never had any real power. Though I did try to give it back to her, but our stupid 'democracy' never allowed me to.

Reptilian scum.

^How come EdgeOfDarkness ended up with the "David Icke" tag?

As someone who was born and raised in a constitutional republic with democratic elections, I always figured that I would never have the psychological capacity to understand why one would prefer to be a subject, ruled by someone born into the position...but then, I saw someone comment on a distinct advantage of monarchy: passing the crown down through their own family, they have an incentive to do right by their heirs and keep the place up, whereas elected officials usually don't give a shit and will pillage and plunder to their hearts content, leaving any kind of mess for the next generation to clean up (look at the US national debt). Does that idea hold water? Maybe...maybe there is something to it. Where did I hear this idea? From, of all people, a neo-confederate; a successionist from South Carolina...this guy. Of course, even though I may understand it a little better, I don't think I could embrace a ruler...

That's the reason I'm a royalist. It's like getting an ornamental wardrobe made. Would you go to the guy who decided to take up carpentry after being a failed rock musician? Or to the guy who learned the trade from his father, who learned it from his father? No country is a true democracy anyway, we get to choose from a shortlist compiled by none other than the government. So what's to lose? The only real benefit of democracy is that if a ruler ends up being tyrannical, he can be put out of office less than four years. But even that isn't always true. Another benefit of a monarchy is that the ruler is able to implement a five year plan, which, if anyone knows business, is what you need if you want someone to invest in you. Let's say they need six months or so to get the hang of the job, and six months at the end of their term to prepare for the next election; that's only around three years. Not nearly enough to try anything and see if it works. If you don't get instant results, then the next candidate will declare it a failure and try something different, maybe even the opposite, and that may fail as well.
Add to this that I personally have very little faith in a government who seem to always be arguing like children, blaming everything that's wrong with the country on the current or previous ruling power. Nine times out of ten, the party political broadcasts end up just slagging the other side off instead of saying why their party would be better. I can't see the Queen doing any of that, but she just hasn't even been given a chance. She isn't even legally eligible for voting. Heck, I even think Prince Charles or Harry would be better rulers than the ones we got. The royal family seem to actually care about the country.

Speaking of failed musician turned carpenter, the first genesis drummer is one. Guess he didn't fit in music...

Ahem...

Anyway, I like her a lot, too. Shame that people have to get old and die.

Actually, I was referring to Tony Blair who used to have dreams of being a musician before politics.

But...

There's another side of that coin also (caution: this is going to make you think I don't know anything about British politics, but keep in mind that my points here are more about principle that practical matters). You are born into bondage. One family runs that country (and several more) and no one else, no matter how qualified or deserving, will ever get a shot at it...and those who did get to wear the crown didn't have to do anything but be born into it. Doesn't seem very fair. It doesn't compare at all to the mere difference between those born poor and those born rich, either. As a British subject, you have to give a portion of money you earned to those who rule over you, and they give you nothing in return...except to boss you around. Seems almost tantamount to bullying that lasts from cradle to grave, doesn't it? Now of course I've heard all about how the crown doesn't have the power it used to, but it's the principle of the matter: they own you like livestock, and their children will own your children like livestock. You may not feel the bite until you get someone like Henry VIII in there, but still...has none of that ever bothered you, even just for a moment? I mean hey, it would be a different story if you were bowing down to a deity or superior species or something, but you're bowing down to mere human beings, like you, but who just happen to have the upper hand...and not even an upper hand that they got over you, but one that their ancestors got over your ancestors, 954 years ago, and has been maintained ever since.

I think that idea would drive me nuts, as someone who was born in a republic...I just don't think I could get into that head-space. The queen is the sovereign; the only one in the whole Commonwealth of Realms who is truly free; everyone else is her subject. Here in my country, we are a sovereign people; it may be a shared reign, and more in principle than in practice, I'll agree (look at the dynasty families like Kennedy, Clinton, Bush, Roosevelt, Rockefeller, and hell, even the Paul family) but there is something special about the fact that I am a sovereign; those in the government are sovereigns; the farmer in Kansas is a sovereign; the bum on the street is a sovereign... We are a sovereign people, and (in principle at least) we don't answer to anyone who doesn't also answer to us.

Now, if you want to do a side-by-side comparison of actual results, then your mileage may vary.
I guess it depends on which is more important: principle, or practical results...
Well, we in America have been living pretty good, I'd say, although...

If Barack Obama is re-elected...
I think I might become a Royalist too, and advocate returning the U.S. to the Crown.
Obama's re-election will be a sign of ultimate national failure.
Everything our forefathers fought for...
Everything that John Locke dreamed of...
Will, in essence, be lost.

I have more respect for George Washington than people will ever realize, and I still salute him, no matter what happens to this country...
But a re-election of Obama will be a reflection of the electorate.
It will be a sign that America, "the great experiment" (I hate that epithet) will have been a failed one.

in a system of election, only those who desire power the most get into office. handing down the throne through family at least gives a reasonable chance that the heir will be a decent person.