I Am A Swede

There are some similarities. They both ascended to the throne at roughly the same age (Elizabeth at 26, our King at 27) and they were both affected at a young age by outside circumstances. In Elizabeth's case her uncle's abdication, which consequently made her an heir to the throne, and for our King the death of his father when he was less than a year old. That could have caused a problem since his grandfather was already 64 years old at the time. But he lived to the age of 90, so the young prince had grown up by the time of his accession to the throne in 1973. But there the similarities end. I don't think our King has the same authority as Elizabeth had. Of course, being King of Sweden is not quite the same as being Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth of Nations. He was a bit of a playboy in his youth, and doesn't command the same respect Queen Elizabeth did. But I do think that he is quite popular in his own right nowadays, and his longevity (he is now the longest reigning monarch in Swedish history) has helped his popularity I think.

^^ I guess it can be difficult for someone who's never experienced monarchy first hand, and I think it is even slightly puzzling for those of us who has. I have some mixed feelings about it myself. One the one hand, it's not exactly in line with modern society to have someone born into a position and not earn it. That's what the modern, democratic part of me says. But on the other hand, monarchy is so ingrained in our society, in our history and in our culture that it's become a part of our national identity. And sometimes, in a crisis, it can actually be a positive thing to have an apolitical head of state who can serve as a "leader". When the big tsunami hit Indonesia all those years ago and many Swedes died, it was our king who stepped up and spoke to the people and acted as a father to the nation. To be fair, I think that many people here don't care all that much either way about the monarchy. They neither like nor dislike it, but there has never been any serious talk about abolishing the monarchy as far as I know. They connect us to our history, and they bring a sort of gravitas to our society. And as for the subject of us (the taxpayers) paying for them, well, we would have to pay for the upkeep and maintenance of the castles and royal buildings anyway even if there was no monarchy, and they do bring in money as well, through tourism etc. And our current king has streamlined the monarchy down to only himself, the queen, crown princess Victoria and her family. The other royal children are no longer supported by the state. I suppose that Charles is planning something similar in the UK.

No, of course they are not the norm, thank god. And as I said noone is obliged to mourn her or feel anything about it really. I guess it's simply another aspect of the toxic times we live in that this even became an issue. I sincerely wish that social media would have a wait-before-you-post feature that required you to think at least twice before posting anything. Here I agree completely. And if there is one positive thing about Elizabeth's death it's that the chance of Andrew getting his royal duties back are almost certainly gone. From everything I've heard both Charles and William opposes that.

Discussions about colonialism or the history of Britain and Ireland are one thing, but posting celebratory tweets of people dancing and rejoicing, tweets comparing Elizabeth to Adolf Hitler, or, as one woman apparently did (although she had to delete it) tweet that she hoped Elizabeth would die in excruciating pain is crossing the lines for common decency. Especially when done less than a day after her death. Noone is obliged to mourn her, or even care about her death, but celebrating the death of a 96-year old woman like that is something that I find slightly distasteful. Britain has a long and definitely chequered past, to say the least, but she wasn't personally responsible for it.

I will miss her terribly' - tributes to the Queen

Oh my god! Queen Elizabeth II has died, Buckingham Palace announces

That may be, but Amazon doesn't have the rights to use any of that. They only have the right to use The Appendices, and in those it clearly states, in the section "The Tale of Years" under "The Third Age": When maybe a thousand years had passed, and the first shadow had fallen on Greenwood the Great, the Istari or Wizards appeared in Middle-Earth.

That was beautiful and touching.

I don't care about other shows. I'm talking about this show, and the knee-jerk reaction of media and Amazon to use the term misogynist about people who complain about Galadriel. "Oh, they object to the show having a strong female lead. Who cares what they think, they're all just a bunch of misogynists who can't stand seeing strong women on screen" Because the criticism here is not about having a strong, female lead. It's about how that strong, female lead is depicted. I think most people expected Galadriel to have a major part in this show, but they object to the way she's portrayed. That's not misogynistic Of course it's not professional reviewers. I'm talking about ordinary people who are just as outrageous in their praise as undoubtedly some are in their criticism. But it's only the critical ones who are being called names and whose reviews are (at times probably correctly, but not always) deleted. Did I say that I was speaking for the entire fanbase? Even you can hardly deny though that there has been a massive outpouring of criticism towards this show? Or are you going to do what the media seem to do and try to label most, if not all of it, as the ravings of trolls, racists and misogynists? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Most of the critical reviews I've seen have been far more eloquent than most of the positive ones. They mostly seem to consist of a number of variations on "This is awesome and the bestest tv-show ever, and the people who say otherwise are simply sad trolls" And that's both ordinary people and professional critics. Now, I don't think that you and I are ever going to see things the same way regarding this, so I see no need to keep this discussion going and bore everyone else. Let's just agree to disagree and move on. At least that's what I intend to do.

I used to dream about that, re-introducing the Skilbecks.... But not anymore. Not unless this show is rebooted from top to bottom and 90% of the current cast removed.

What's feminist about turning Galadriel into something she never was by saddling her with traditionally "masculine" characteristics? I don't think you can find a Tolkien-fan who would argue against Galadriel being one of the most important and major characters on this show. She is the most powerful elf left in Middle-Earth after the end of the First Age. But her strength and power does not lie in sword fighting. That is not how Tolkien ever wrote her. And I think it shows a lack of imagination from the writers if they can't make her a strong, feminine heroine unless they put a sword in her hand and turn her into some sort of Xena, warrior princess. That is implicitly stating that those characters traits are more worth than strength of spirit, wisdom and intelligence. Galadriel is the foe that Sauron fears the most, not because she's skilled with a sword, but because she can see through him, she can read his thoughts and mind. That was one of the things that Peter Jackson got right in The Hobbit movies. And if criticizing this show for altering this in favour of turning her into a impulsive, hotheaded swordfighter is misogyny then so be it. And as for mass spamming with negative reviews... I have seen a vast number of reviews which are glorifying this show to such an extent that it makes a former poster here seem subdued in his praise of Jean Passanante and Shelley Altman. Don't tell me that those are made in good faith. But this is not something that anyone seems to be willing to talk about. No, let's all just focus on the reviews that criticize the show and label them incel, misogynists, racists etc. Do those reviews exist? Sadly yes, and that sucks. The worst thing is that their existence has given Amazon the perfect excuse to ignore the genuine criticism that this show has received. "Who cares what they think, they're all just a bunch of misogynistic racists" You say that you don't care about LOTR, and that's fine. But a lot of us do, we care a lot, and we're upset about this show and the way it twists Tolkien's characters and his world into something unrecognizable. They could have created something of their own, but they wanted to use the Tolkien name and take advantage of the fanbase that already existed. A fanbase that is very protective of Tolkien and his world. And now they are offended that we didn't just silently accept the way they treated Tolkien and his creation, so they resort to labeling any criticism the work of right wing trolls. This show will, in all likelihood, still be a success, so Amazon won't care one way or the other. The thing that is sad though is that this show will now attach itself to the Tolkien name, and maybe it will be the first thing with his name on it that some people will experience. And that might lead them to think that this is actually something that he would have written, and that is a tragedy. That doesn't alter the fact that it was an incredibly stupid plot point and it makes Galadriel look even more stupid.

It's so strange how they never even mentioned something about Sandie keeping in touch with Robert. He is her half-brother after all. She's only been mentioned two times or something like that in the last 30+ years.

No, they just delete reviews that are negative. And why is it only "review bombing" when the reviews are negative? It can work both ways. Some of the reviews out there are so over-the-top positive that it's bordering on the ridiculous. I don't think for a moment all of them are legitimate. Is it really that difficult for Hollywood to understand that sometimes people just don't like the product they put out? Tolkien's world is the origin of the fantasy genre as we know it. It has been around for 70 years and counting, and has acquired a large, loyal fanbase. Is it really that surprising that when someone bastardizes the world they know and love they are upset and critical? 🤔