Jump to content

Queen Elizabeth DEAD...


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Kim said:

And my reply was about how Betty will be remembered.

Okay…..we’ll it might as well never of happened is not how I see it.

Of course people will care in the future generations she’s in the history books regardless of anyone’s views on monarchy. It’s part of British history. Her reign for a start being the longest will see an entry into plenty of history books.

‘To say she won’t be remembered is ridiculous.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Confessit said:

Okay…..we’ll it might as well never of happened is not how I see it.

Of course people will care in the future generations she’s in the history books regardless of anyone’s views on monarchy. 

NO ONE CARES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Kim said:

NO ONE CARES

Plenty of people care about history partially royal history. 
 

You are very narrow minded on this issue, you obviously vigorously don’t like monarchy but you can’t be that stupid to write off history that will be written and spoken about in future generations just to match your own personal opinion.

You are smarter than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Confessit said:

Okay…..we’ll it might as well never of happened is not how I see it.

Of course people will care in the future generations she’s in the history books regardless of anyone’s views on monarchy. It’s part of British history. Her reign for a start being the longest will see an entry into plenty of history books.

‘To say she won’t be remembered is ridiculous.

 

People remember De Gaule or Churchill because they were pivotal in history. This woman has been a witness in history just like any other person in their 90s. She hasn’t really done anything special. Nothing to be remembered except that she died of old age. Once you start to think what she did as queen she simply tried to survive and to pass the snobbish old ways to her children. That is her real legacy: she lived a long life at expense of others and tried to maintain the values so her children could do the same. Not a single good thing to be remembered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Confessit said:

Plenty of people care about history partially royal history. 
 

You are very narrow minded on this issue, you obviously vigorously don’t like monarchy but you can’t be that stupid to write off history that will be written and spoken about in future generations just to match your own personal opinion.

You are smarter than that. 

Well she really is part of royal history. But she is no part of history at all. Just like nobody outside the UK remembers the name of her father. At least Victoria lived through an era where decorative arts changed and middle classes arrived, so there is a Victorian era. But thst Victoria did NOTHING at all her whole life either. People crafted that era, not her. She was another witness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, karbatal said:

People remember De Gaule or Churchill because they were pivotal in history. This woman has been a witness in history just like any other person in their 90s. She hasn’t really done anything special. Nothing to be remembered except that she died of old age. Once you start to think what she did as queen she simply tried to survive and to pass the snobbish old ways to her children. That is her real legacy: she lived a long life at expense of others and tried to maintain the values so her children could do the same. Not a single good thing to be remembered. 

Maybe not good things to you, but still things she will be remembered for.

What did Queen Victoria do? Nothing really she was merely a figure head same as Elizabeth 2nd but she is very much remembered. her name defined an entire era.

It’s too early to call out how she will be remembered but they’ll be memorials popping up all the place and plenty written about her in the immediate years to come.

To say she won’t be remembered no one cares which are the comments I was replying to are simply rubbish. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, karbatal said:

Well she really is part of royal history. But she is no part of history at all. Just like nobody outside the UK remembers the name of her father. At least Victoria lived through an era where decorative arts changed and middle classes arrived, so there is a Victorian era. But thst Victoria did NOTHING at all her whole life either. People crafted that era, not her. She was another witness.

Her father hardly let the U.K the Queen was the most travelled monarch she was everywhere hence she is far more known than her father ever was.

The Queen was arguably the most famous woman in the world. Or certainly one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What’s the relevance of anybody in history ? 
 

Its  all subjective. 
 

But certain people are more catapulted to a place over others. Diana for instance for her untimely death has sealed much of her place and continued fascination in history.

The Queen for living such a long life and obtaining the longest reign of any female monarch. Might not be much to some it’s everything to others.

To some Diana was a saintly woman who tried to save the world to others she was a designer dress who married a prince. Doesn’t change her place in history and the fact she will be remembered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Confessit said:

Maybe not good things to you, but still things she will be remembered for.

What did Queen Victoria do? Nothing really she was merely a figure head same as Elizabeth 2nd but she is very much remembered. her name defined an entire era.

It’s too early to call out how she will be remembered but they’ll be memorials popping up all the place and plenty written about her in the immediate years to come.

To say she won’t be remembered no one cares which are the comments I was replying to are simply rubbish. 
 

 

People who did arts, literature and invention  defined the Victorian era. Victoria did nothing. Elizabeth doesn’t even has her name attached to an era. She will be forgotten or simply remembered as that old woman who was queen very long. In the end she was queen because she was born and her biggest accomplishment is that her father died when she was young and she managed to live a long life. Nothing of it was in her hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Confessit said:

What’s the relevance of anybody in history ? 
 

Its  all subjective. 
 

But certain people are more catapulted to a place over others. Diana for instance for her untimely death has sealed much of her place and confined fascination in history.

The Queen for living such a long life and obtaining the longest reign of any female monarch. Might not be much to some it’s everything to others.

To some Diana was a saintly woman who tried to save the world to others she was a designer dress who married a prince. Doesn’t change her place in history and the fact she will be remembered.  

People who do important things that are documented are in history. Don’t be obtuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, karbatal said:

People who do important things that are documented are in history. Don’t be obtuse.

You said yourself Victoria did nothing, which in essence is true, 

But she existed as a Queen and had a mighty long reign. That was enough. Let’s not pretend just people who do important things are remembered. Kim Kardashian will be remembered. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Confessit said:

You said yourself Victoria did nothing, which in essence is true, 

But she existed as a Queen and had a mighty long reign. That was enough. Let’s not pretend just people who do important things are remembered. Kim Kardashian will be remembered. 

She did nothing except being born and living long. I think you really don’t respect the effort of every day people if you think those two Mathusalems did anything except dying at old age and giving children to pass the crown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, karbatal said:

People who did arts, literature and invention  defined the Victorian era. Victoria did nothing. Elizabeth doesn’t even has her name attached to an era. She will be forgotten or simply remembered as that old woman who was queen very long. In the end she was queen because she was born and her biggest accomplishment is that her father died when she was young and she managed to live a long life. Nothing of it was in her hands.

The world has totally changed in Elizabeth’s reign. The country or Britain has totally changed beyond recognition. She reigned over that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, karbatal said:

She did nothing except being born and living long. I think you really don’t respect the effort of every day people if you think those two Mathusalems did anything except dying at old age and giving children to pass the crown.

I have not once said I respect her or love her none of the sort in any of my posts.

I don’t believe in elitism or that people are born better! But we are discussing historic relevance and people in history books here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Confessit said:

The world has totally changed in Elizabeth’s reign. The country or Britain has totally changed beyond recognition. She reigned over that.

Read what I wrote several times. She has done nothing during those years except that she witnessed those decades. NOTHING 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Confessit said:

I have not once said I respect her or love her none of the sort in any of my posts.

I don’t believe in elitism or that people are born better! But we are discussing historic relevance and people in history books here. 

:rotfl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, karbatal said:

Read what I wrote several times. She has done nothing during those years except that she witnessed those decades. NOTHING 

Victoria did NOTHING in her years she was merely a witness as well. There’s the example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, karbatal said:

That’s what I said!!!!!! 
 

Ok you are either incredibly stupid or you are pulling my leg. Bye.

I’m not stupid I was just replying and making the point Victoria did nothing but is very much remembered today Elizabeth did nothing and ….. will be remembered as well (in my humble opinion).

Im not pulling your leg I was genuinely replying hun. 😚

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, karbatal said:

Well she really is part of royal history. But she is no part of history at all. Just like nobody outside the UK remembers the name of her father. At least Victoria lived through an era where decorative arts changed and middle classes arrived, so there is a Victorian era. But thst Victoria did NOTHING at all her whole life either. People crafted that era, not her. She was another witness.

I have to disagree. It is usually not the strong suit of people to predict how their time is seen in the future. It’s particularly hard for us, who are part of a very unprecedented time of peace and prosperity in Europe after the two world wars. And I’m not speaking of individual hardships or local conflicts, they have always been part of every era in history. So we definitely can’t tell now whats going to be part of history or not. So many things factor into it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Lolo said:

I have to disagree. It is usually not the strong suit of people to predict how their time is seen in the future. It’s particularly hard for us, who are part of a very unprecedented time of peace and prosperity in Europe after the two world wars. And I’m not speaking of individual hardships or local conflicts, they have always been part of every era in history. So we definitely can’t tell now whats going to be part of history or not. So many things factor into it. 

No king or queen is in history books after parliamentary society was established. They can be named but since XX century history is explained through presidents and prime ministers. Nobody will explain Brexit naming this woman just like nobody will explain the 2008 economic crisis in Spain naming the King. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, karbatal said:

No king or queen is in history books after parliamentary society was established. They can be named but since XX century history is explained through presidents and prime ministers. Nobody will explain Brexit naming this woman just like nobody will explain the 2008 economic crisis in Spain naming the King. 

Then why movies and TV shows are made about them? Endless documentaries, mass tourism based on current and former Monarchy’s? It’s one thing to be in books as a political player and a complete other thing to be in the public consciousness. You might be right about the Monarchies in Scandinavia or Netherlands or Spain or Belgium. no one cares for those, that’s true. 😆
 

I mean even M made a movie about Monarchy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Lolo said:

Then why movies and TV shows are made about them? Endless documentaries, mass tourism based on current and former Monarchy’s? It’s one thing to be in books as a political player and a complete other thing to be in the public consciousness. You might be right about the Monarchies in Scandinavia or Netherlands or Spain or Belgium. no one cares for those, that’s true. 😆
 

I mean even M made a movie about Monarchy. 

They’ll be plenty of things coming up regarding the Queen. The Crown itself is one of Netflix’s biggest shows followed by people globally and it’s all about Elizabeth’s reign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, karbatal said:

No king or queen is in history books after parliamentary society was established. They can be named but since XX century history is explained through presidents and prime ministers. Nobody will explain Brexit naming this woman just like nobody will explain the 2008 economic crisis in Spain naming the King. 

I’m sure The Queens national address when covid happened will be written in the history books in Britain when the time comes and it’s written about.

The Spanish monarchy isn’t written or followed half as much as the British monarchy. It never has been.

I highly doubt the King of Spain’s funeral will get 11 millions viewers in America or that Netflix’s would do a series about the King of Spain’s reign.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Lolo said:

Then why movies and TV shows are made about them? Endless documentaries, mass tourism based on current and former Monarchy’s? It’s one thing to be in books as a political player and a complete other thing to be in the public consciousness. You might be right about the Monarchies in Scandinavia or Netherlands or Spain or Belgium. no one cares for those, that’s true. 😆
 

I mean even M made a movie about Monarchy. 

But that’s not history that’s entertainment 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Confessit said:

I’m sure The Queens national address when covid happened will be written in the history books in Britain when the time comes and it’s written about.

The Spanish monarchy isn’t written or followed half as much as the British monarchy. It never has been.

I highly doubt the King of Spain’s funeral will get 11 millions viewers in America or that Netflix’s would do a series about the King of Spain’s reign.

 

Again with the charts of viewing.  I don’t care :lmao: If British royals are wide known  is because tabloids published their mess about tampons and Diana and the dysfunctional sons.  They are like the Monaco royals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, karbatal said:

No king or queen is in history books after parliamentary society was established. They can be named but since XX century history is explained through presidents and prime ministers. Nobody will explain Brexit naming this woman just like nobody will explain the 2008 economic crisis in Spain naming the King. 

actually, the historic periods are a lot of times defined by symbolic actions more than other thing. I´m thinking for example about taking the Bastille (in that moment they din´t finish with the absolutism, the monarchy...but it´s what we use to start the contemporay era). So it wouldn´t surprise me if they use queen dying as the beginning /end of something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, karbatal said:

But that’s not history that’s entertainment 

How do you draw the line? If people would differentiate between the two, there would be no history because nothing would have ever been written down eloquently, with some luck you would have bullet points of who went where. We would not know of the Tudors, of Caesar and Cleopatra and Marc Antony, AS IF all history wasn’t partly the juiciest scandalist entertainment that people loved to talk about or write down. To the point of faking events in order to make some people look good or bad. That’s the history books you so weirdly cling to, it’s all interpretations of what other people wrote down and trying to figure out what’s true or not. 
 

There is no absolute ,history’. What we know today, might be overthrown tomorrow. It’s very subjective to each time and society and of course to whatever sources you choose to believe or not. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Confessit said:

I’m sure The Queens national address when covid happened will be written in the history books in Britain when the time comes and it’s written about.

The Spanish monarchy isn’t written or followed half as much as the British monarchy. It never has been.

I highly doubt the King of Spain’s funeral will get 11 millions viewers in America or that Netflix’s would do a series about the King of Spain’s reign.

Hold on a fucking minute. The royals went MIA during Covid then someone decided Betty should eventually say something months later. What WILL go down in history is the 200 THOUSAND deaths, worst death toll in Europe and the rampant cronyism/ moneymaking by the govt of the time....not some old codger popping up to utter some pathetic platitudes.

Oh and now it's the "my royals are more famous than yours" nonsense? Really?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lolo said:

How do you draw the line? If people would differentiate between the two, there would be no history because nothing would have ever been written down eloquently, with some luck you would have bullet points of who went where. We would not know of the Tudors, of Caesar and Cleopatra and Marc Antony, AS IF all history wasn’t partly the juiciest scandalist entertainment that people loved to talk about or write down. To the point of faking events in order to make some people look good or bad. That’s the history books you so weirdly cling to, it’s all interpretations of what other people wrote down and trying to figure out what’s true or not. 
 

There is no absolute ,history’. What we know today, might be overthrown tomorrow. It’s very subjective to each time and society and of course to whatever sources you choose to believe or not. 
 

 

History is taught and there’s history books. How do you mean where is the line drawn? It is a university degree.

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

×
×
  • Create New...