Queen Elizabeth has died at the age of 96.

The Koh-i-noor has been talked about for years.

I don't think anything will change in the near future.

Well, you would know better than me, that's for sure. I was just kinda surprised from some of the resentment that's been coming out since the queen's death. Or at least showing up on some US news articles and such.

It's always been there, it just becomes a bit more vocal at this time.

There's been plenty of stuff coming from the other side.

I'm just grateful it's over.

It's one of those terrible issues surrounding death, it brings out the worst in some people.

It's also a time to be heard.

One thing I read was from a Kenyan academic who pointed out that shortly after becoming queen in Treetops Kenya, the Mau Mau rebellion was brutally suppressed.

Now reparations for thst have been paid, I remember starting a thread about it, so money is not the issue.

I think she wanted to point out some culpability.

Despite all the handshakes with Sinn Fein, lots of Irish still hold the crown personally responsible for what went down in Ireland.

I have to admit, I have been becoming thoroughly disgusted with the Royal family and their treatment of Harry and his family.

I mean, either Harry is a legitimate son of Charles or he is not. This should have been made plain long ago. As such right he is a legitimate son of a King no matter where he lives or whether he is a "working royal." . The latest I have read is Charles is considering whether to let Harry's children have their titles on if Harry writes his memoir.

I think King Charles 111 must be a pretty petty, vindictive sort.

(I hope you don't take too much offense and as an American it's really none of my business, but that's never stopped others from commenting on US's affairs)

Archie and Lilibet Getting Royal Titles 'Depends a Lot' on Harry's Memoir

I'm not that bothered about the Royals to be honest. Most people aren't.

I have never seen an episode of The Crown, and I never will.

And everyone's entitled to an opinion.

They are affected by hundreds of years if tradition Edward VIII's kids lost succession shen he married Wallace Simpson.

Me, neither, to your first two. I couldn't care less about the kids' titles, either. If they've dropped out of their duties and country, they don't deserve them. They're basically just like commoners. So what about the royal blood? Millions upon millions have royal blood and either don't know or don't care. My family is descended from Robert I of Scotland, for example, and I don't go around asking to be called Princess Mame I really dislike that they didn't have to pay death taxes. I consider it highly unfair that anyone has to pay them but when you're worth that much, really not fair.

It always chafed me that they didn’t voluntarily pay taxes. I know other royalty did so in the past. Why not them? And, as written previously, they don’t have to pay inheritance tax.

{edit: I read just now, Queen volunteered in 1992 to pay taxes voluntarily. Charles had already been paying taxes prior to this. Admittedly I didn’t reasearch this very much.}

I believe the Queen volunteered to pay income tax a number of years ago, but maybe izzy can correct or confirm this.

"Inheritance Tax (IHT) is a tax on the estate of someone who has died, including all property, possessions and money. The standard Inheritance Tax rate is 40%. It's only charged on the part of your estate that's above the tax-free threshold which is currently £325,000."

vs Canada

"The truth is, there is no inheritance tax in Canada. Instead, after a person is deceased, a final tax return must be prepared on income they earned up to the date of death. Any monies owing are paid out from the estate assets before the remaining funds are transferred to the various beneficiaries."

I don't know the exact dates, but it was when a few events made the Royals less popular.

I think it was when we were expected to pay the bill for the Windsor Castle fire that news of her income tax status became front page stuff.

It was afted that she started paying.

Just as an aside: the now deceased Queen Elizabeth II did not pay inheritance tax to the British state on her inheritance from the private estate of the Queen Mother, who died at the end of March 2002, nor did her grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

And another aside: the UK's "inheritance tax" is a tax on the assets of the deceased, and is therefore an estate tax.

For some reason, I have been all caught in the drama surrounding the Queen's death.

Americans always seem more interested in them than us.

In my opinion, both Charles and Harry have been treated unreasonably unfairly by both the British and American media. Charles has been a hard working royal his entire life. In my opinion, the Charles/Diana dynamic was always unfair to him.

Right now there is too goddam much negativity being thrown at Harry and Megan...no matter how much anyone thinks they have asked for it.

I am an unabashed anglophile...and have been so since my two year stay over the pond. My sense of things is that the Royal family brings more to the UK than they take from them.

I don't want to get into a back and forth, but how do you figure Charles to have been treated unfairly by both medias?

Was the last few weeks' attention to the royals by the British media mostly just due to the unique occasion of the Queen's death? That is really the only time I have been paying so much attention or even reading about them in regular US media sources so much.

Well yes, some tabloids, express and the mail go a bit overboard but the rest don't bother.

I have been trying to avoid paying them much attention.

Prince Edward had been here in my neighbourhood today.

The main reason was actually his visit as Honorary Colonel to the Royal Wessex Yeomanry ("Nato Forward Holding Base", ad-hoc material for 10,000 British soldiers) as part of the Royal Mourning for the late Queen.

Some hundred people gathered outside the Paderborn town hall, and he talked to them unscheduled for almost half an hour.

No need for a back and forth. That simply is my opinion.

The reason for that opinion is that Charles has been a hard working royal from the time he got out of school until now. He has worked his ass off as a royal...and been an advocate for tons of very reasonable, needed charities.

But he continues to get a lot of **** thrown his way because of the Diana element.

First of all...as Prince of Wales...Charles had a mistress. The title "Prince of Wales" was created in the 12th Century...since the 14th Century, it has been held by the heir to the throne...bestowed, not inherited.

MY GUESS...EVERY ONE OF THEM HAVE HAD MISTRESSES. "MISTRESSES" MORE THAN ONE. Charging Charles with having had a mistress...is like charging Charles with wearing clothes in public.

Diana was an attractive woman (not my type at all)...but she just was not what Charles wanted in a companion. She was not into the intellectual interests that he had...and quite honestly, was not a particularly mature individual. She knew what she was getting into. Several previous women had refused the job, because they realized the work it entails. She ACCEPTED...and then played the "oh, he loves someone else" card.