Thank you.
Sure, if we were designing an entire database-driven government from the ground up, this would be the way to go.
Still, it’s not as bad as you suggest. They would have to go through every file (e.g., document templates) and replace every occurrence of the text “His” or “Her” (and other similar gendered pronouns) with references to the data field, like {SubjPronoun} and {PossPronoun} (Subject pronoun and possessive pronoun).
But they wouldn’t have to change any field names. The caption on the data entry dialog does not have to match the field name. So the field could be called “SubjectPronoun” but the caption on the data entry from could say “Subjective Case Pronoun”.
Already covered: “We / Us”.
But law firm databases are all separate; they’re private. And, you wouldn’t want to link them, because of solictor-client privilege.
I don’t believe for a second that Elizabeth has any wish to deny Xharles the throne. That’s a fantasy dreamed up by readers of gossip rags
Aha! The Statutes of Lower Canada / Statuts Provinciaux du Bas-Canada were cited to William the Fourth in English, Guillaume Quatre en français:
Activist monarchs of the past:
*Charles I
*James II/VII
*Edward VIII
I see a pattern emerging.
Cite, please?
I would have been surprised if the current Monarch was ever mentioned during the Constitutional Convention except statements that QEII has proved an exemplary constitutional monarch. Certainly some of those voting may have considered her as a personality a determinative factor in how they cast their vote. IMHO those voters fundamentally missed the whole point of the plebiscite.
As one of the world’s longest service public figures, QEII knows her onions. If she’d said anything else (which would have been both improbable and improper) it might have swung the election.
I believe the overwhelming majority of Australians are comfortable with the country becoming a republic, provided that the new Constitutional model it is politically status quo, rather than an invitation for the barbarians to take over.
Assuming the most probable context, that Charles performs his duties as a constitutional monarch with the same integrity as his mother, then absolutely not.
And QEII (and her heirs and successors) is the Australian Monarch, not the Australian Head of State.
I don’t have a cite. I thought it was commonly known that Elizabeth thinks her son is a bit of a flake. From what happened with Diana, to Camilla, and even today with her objections to him not living at Buckingham Palace as King (he said he’ll stay where he and Camilla currently live). I recall some snarky-sounding comments she’s made about him as well.
But maybe I’m wrong. But it doesn’t matter anyway, as the Queen has said repeatedly she has no plans to retire and intends to remain Queen until she dies. I’m not sure that would be the case if she thought her son would make a good King. But that’s just me reading the tea leaves. YMMV.
After what happened with her Uncle, there is no way she would ever abdicate even if Charles would be the best King ever.
+1
Every time a subject along these lines comes up, I’m astonished by the willingness of people to make wild assumptions, assumptions for example about Charles’s character or about Elizabeth’s attitude towards him, based on some combination of gossip and wishful thinking. Some people have decided to take a dislike to Charles and this have let their personal dramatic license color their views it seems anyway.
Prince Philip was known for saying blatantly offensive things and the Queen never acted to remove him from his job. I don’t recall Charles having given offense to even that degree.
What I suspect is that Charles will or won’t ascend to the throne according to the rules and if he does he will look to his mother as a model. I doubt very much he will deliberately do anything to encourage people to dislike the monarchy more than they already do.
Personally I don’t see why any modern people would put up with the idea of monarchy but even to the extent that Charles is less popular than Elizabeth, the monarchy itself seems even more popular than either of them. It would take quite a catastrophe for the public to agitate for any major changes in the rules—maybe if there hadna been several people between Andrew and the throne.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it, basically.
The monarchy in the UK doesn’t do any noticeable harm. They don’t hold any actual power. On the positive side they do good work raising money for charity, stimulate the economy in various ways, enhance relations with other countries, and so on.
If I were in charge of setting up a colony on Mars, I wouldn’t say “let’s have a ceremonial monarchy”, but since we’ve already got one there is no pressing reason to abolish it.
Many people are saying that on the day of Charles’ coronation he will order mass arrests and expose Boris Johnson’s secret cabal of blood-drinking pedophiles.
I did say “personally” and personally none of that would be anywhere even close to justifying preserving the idea of hereditary privilege and such an obvious endorsement of a hierarchical class system. To me personally it’s an outrage on human dignity. Of course personally I think even our democratic government preserves too many symbols of status, such as titles of office, anthems, etc. I don’t believe our president should be addressed as “Mr. President” nor have a flag or seal of office nor a band that plays es own tune.
It’s interesting that you mention her, because I wasn’t even sure how Elizabeth was supposed to be spelled in French. The French Wikipedia claims it’s “Élisabeth” and doesn’t even mention “Élizabeth” as a possible variant (unlike “Elizabette” which looks ridiculously goofy), but has articles about many French women nevertheless called “Élizabeth”. So I assume the “correct” or traditional spelling of this given name is “Élisabeth”, but “Élizabeth” is now also an accepted spelling.
As for the accent on the capital E, that’s another issue. It used to be the case that capital letters didn’t take accents in French, and it’s still the case in some French-speaking countries, but in Quebec we usually put them. This is actually personally relevant to me, since I recognize as correct two different spellings of my last name. The “correct” spelling of my last name should have an accent on its first letter, but my father never put one and didn’t teach me to put one, so I always write my name without the accent. But other people do write it with an accent, and since that’s technically how it should be written I also recognize it as correct. Back when I lived with my parents, we occasionally received official documents (like voter identification cards) with my father’s last name spelled without accent, and mine spelled with the accent.
Both the names George/Georges and Elizabeth/Élisabeth only present minor differences between the English and French versions, so maybe nobody cared enough about it to make an official ruling about the monarch’s name. And Charles is exactly the same in both languages. We’ll see what happens with William.
I’d love a monarchy in the US. It’d be great to blame all this political fuckery on in-breeding. Even if we just did the Beeblebroxing the current monarchies do, might be nice.
Aren’t they/them pronouns historically used by the monarchy? Certainly the royal “we” is.
Why would the Queen object to that? Remaining at Clarence House and only using Buckingham Palace as an office is exactly what she wanted to do after her own accession.