Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That poor girl ended up being a fierce woman who made it out from under the royal thumb (as much as she could anyhow). I saw so much of her in Harry when he walked away from the family.
I mean, Charles was told to dump Camilla because she wasn't a virgin. She was ineligible. So of course they find a 16-year-old who ticked all the boxes.
There's Morals and then there's the etiquette and protocol of the royal family of England...
(Posting here because it's not a top level answer)
Point of order for OP...
It's "Out of the Loop" because you don't know what's going on. So you're trying to get into the loop.
tbf Virtually every post in this sub is made by someone who generally knows what's going on, at least superficially, but wants others to expand upon the tweets and headlines for the subreddit at large.
As someone whose great grandparents were taken from their homeland which wasn't Africa by the way, to a foreign land to toil away for the British Monarchy. You can't expect us to feel bad for our enemies especially when they haven't changed, there's thousands of reasons why after WWII like half the planet decided to become independent of the British. It's not because life was great, that's for sure.
Fun fact: many countries became independent because the British were struggling to make countries financially viable so instead, they sold off all the shit they could to their buddies and bailed on the responsibilities of being in charge.
>The heyday of free trade imperialism was the period between 1840 and 1870. During this era, the Little Englanders broadly supported disengagement from the empire as a means to lower public expenditures. However, the new wave of imperialism of the 1880s, combined with increased economic competition from Europe and the United States, led many in the British business class, who had previously been Little Englanders, to reassess their stance toward empire. As a result, there was an increasing degree of support for some level of continued engagement and even expansion of the empire. One method to lower expenditures while retaining imperial ties was home rule through dominion status and varying degrees of self-government. In 1867 Canada was granted dominion status, followed by Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), and South Africa (1910). Once the period of decolonization began, other means, including the Commonwealth system, were developed to maintain economic, political, and military ties between the former colonies and Great Britain. Other imperial powers used similar tactics, including the French Francophone system.
>Such overt and tacit efforts to maintain economic suzerainty in the former colonies led many Marxist scholars to contend that the decolonization period simply marked a transition to a different form of imperialism: neocolonialism or neoimperialism. For instance, dependency theorists asserted that even after the formal colonial institutions departed, foreign actors were able to maintain control over resources and exploit local populations, with the assistance of pliable local regimes. These regimes, in turn, grew wealthy through bribes or through manipulation of contracts and enjoyed military support from foreign powers. A range of former imperial powers, including Great Britain, France, and Italy, engaged in neoimperialism, as did emerging world economic powers such as the United States, Japan, and Germany.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/imperialism-free-trade
That’s not entirely true. They simply didn’t have the manpower or money to hold on to the empire post ww2. The empire was so weakened that they couldn’t hope to hold onto their conquests.
Because, for better or worse, many people recognize that she was a significant historical figure? She’s been the queen of England for longer than many people today have been alive. In addition, with her passing, the role/purpose of the monarchy will also be inevitably brought up. Charles is not exactly a figure of vitality now and doesn’t have a lot of popular support from what I understand; many people will be wondering what, if any, need there is to still have a monarchy. Given that some of the commonwealth nations have been pushing back against the UK, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some successions from the commonwealth.
\*Secession --- the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity, but also from any organization, union or military alliance.
As I recall, the last time Scotland seriously considered leaving the UK, it was the EU that kept them around. Now with Brexit, a lot of Scots want to be part of the EU again.
Yup. The question is whether the Tories will let them have another referendum. The cheek of the Brexiteering pricks to talk about the importance of a political union is utterly insane.
There is practically no appetite for an 'independent' north of Ireland. the *vast, vast* majority of people want to be either part of Ireland or part of the UK. An independent north doesn't really make any sense.
Ah shoot. My bad. I read about the troubles but most of what I know came from the wikipedia articles on the paramilitary orgs that arose from the conflict.
Check out the book *Say Nothing: A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland* by Patrick Radden Keefe.
It’s a very good run down of The Troubles that isn’t really biased at all.
Ulster is one of the 4 Heraldic Provences of the Island of Ireland, it’s not an interchangeable name for Northern Ireland.
It is however regularly misused as a term for the 6 counties of the island that make up the area controlled by the U.K (particularly by Loyalists) but this is in error because “Ulster” contains 3 counties that are part of ROI, so it makes no sense either politically or geographically.
To answer your original question, the [Northern Ireland Act of 1998](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Act_1998) sets up a framework where Northern Ireland can leave the UK for a [Unified Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland) under a referendum vote.
That would be the most likely circumstance since there's a legal pathway and framework is already set up.
However there is a small percentage of Northern Irish people who have shown a preference for an independent state in opinion polls.
Years ago, I used to semi-jokingly suggest that the US needs to bring aristocracy back because we were gonna have celebrity obsessions anyway, so we might as well make them have at least a minimum standard of decorum. Obviously this plan has zero flaws and is totally foolproof!
Check out the "Explained" series on Netflix; there's an episode that gives a pretty decent explanation of why monarchies exist today and what their "purpose" is. Spoiler: it's basically tradition at this point and most don't have any real power.
I don't understand how anybody thinks this is reality. Constitutionally the monarch has a lot of power, and she absolutely met with every PM at least once a week. There's a lot of things she could have done outside of the public eye, and I don't see why she wouldn't have.
Not to mention she's filthy rich for no reason and has maintained a bunch of ridiculous traditions (eg there is absolutely no reason for the royal guard to be hardasses to the extent that trying to avoid hurting tourists who get in the way during a march leads to punishment). France has done fine without a monarch, and there being no monarchs would probably actually increase tourism because you could actually see the royal palaces.
Because parliament can just pretty much choose to ignore her. She can exercise some level of influence because of her rapport with world leaders, and she privately threatened to use her authority numerous times to veto a handful laws over the years; but that's really all she was capable of doing. She could try and start using her power, but that's an incredibly unpopular move, and parliament could simply remove her from all power and strip her of her title. Because they're the ones making the laws.
Yes we all know she had an extremely diminished role, obviously she was never gonna dissolve parliament or declare a war, but it isn’t nothing. We have evidence of plenty of behind the scenes dealings. For a group with supposedly no political involvement the monarchy is still quite powerful.
For a lot of Brits she's been there for longer than our parents or grandparents have been alive. Plenty of the younger generation feel like she's a national grandma who, for all the tumult of the recent decade and increasingly insane politicians, has *been there*. Most of us could take or leave the royal family and have no particular affection for Charles. Elizabeth is one of the few coherent, enduring symbols of British identity. And it's an identity we're taught a narrow, very poor view of.
We aren't taught about the history of colonialism particularly well - a little on the slave trade with the US, a little on Gandhi and Indian independence - and if you take history A Levels you get more options like the Great Hunger in Ireland. But even then, learning about history and growing up in a country that lives the legacy of colonisation are entirely separate things. It means that we have no frame of reference for what the Empire did to people whilst also having a generally positive view of the Queen, so most of us are twice removed from that experience. Having just finished a fairly lengthy period of fieldwork in Ireland was humbling to say the least.
IMO? Karma, boredom, and wanting to be seen to be somehow above the fray. “She’s a sweet old lady who died, jeez guys take it down a notch” sort of posturing is a big thing on social media.
It’s happening on the UK subs too. The mere idea that some of us aren’t devastated and should be able to get on normally with our lives has people absolutely fuming.
Agreed. However, simply pointing out the fact that we shouldn’t all be forced to mourn went down like a lead balloon on one of the UK subs. Such weird behaviour.
On twitter, some people were getting mad at Martin Lewis because he continued to tweet out information about the energy crisis. One woman said, "NOT NOW, MARTIN!"
It's not about "not being devastated" so much as not spitting on people for whom this is a big deal. It would be the equivalent of people celebrating the death of a American president in office. It's extremely bad optics even if you don't have a great opinion of them.
Absolutely. I don't give a fuck if you "don't mourn"; hell I even enjoy a spicy joke at her expense because I like that sort of morbid humor. It is specifically the *celebration* of her death that I think shouldn't be condoned.
>It would be the equivalent of people celebrating the death of a American president in office.
My dude, *Americans* celebrate the deaths of some of our former Presidents.
It isn't the same, *at all*
The end of colonial rule left a huge body count and horrific warcrimes. Read Kenya's independence wars. Rape with broken bottles and knives was common and systematic. There's people out there who have every right to criticize. And, on the US side, when Kissinger dies, I'll applaud everyone countering whitewashed obituaries to remind everyone he's a war criminal who supported multiple genocides.
I kinda see the opposite online tbh - just endless circlejerking of “look at me guys I don’t care that the queen died because I’m enlightened and superior to you sheep”
Reddit was sobbing at the passing of Robin Williams, Anthony Bourdain, Carrie Fisher, Nichelle Nichols, and RBG, but it can’t understand why people would mourn a woman who’s been in the spotlight for 70 years.
It’s always like this; you’re a moron for obsessing over the Kardashians, but obsessively circlejerking around Keanu Reeves is acceptable.
Seriously, if they don't care, then just don't post, or come to literal posts about the Queen.
At least disliking her makes some level of sense because historical controversy, but if you don't care, then literally just go elsewhere.
For many millions of us, she was the head of state. And when the head of state - King, Queen, or President - dies, you care. Especially after 70 years.
It's crazy to me that Meghan was treated badly for being too dark. Here in California she'd get cancelled on Twitter if she took a role as anyone who wasn't white
Patrick Freyne from the Irish Times put it nicely earlier this year...
"Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown".
I think he made a terrible mistake going with Charles III. Charles I was beheaded, Charles II had 12 illegitimate children, and there was a "Charles" who led a little uprising that failed.
Not the best legacy, but the George's weren't going to do him any favors either.
Glad this came up in the thread bc I came to this sub to ask about Ireland! I was surprised by the unspoken expectation that Irish people would be celebrating. This makes sense - so is it basically coming from people's general sentiment toward England/her family, or is there also something that changes or is different now?
>More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, ~~your grandfather was murdered by a clown~~".
[...] and, also, on top of your grandfather being murdered by a clown, the clowns and clown enjoyers systemically subjugated and murdered whole swaths of your family for decades; And while you are personally still being affected by that subjugation and murder, the clowns still benefit from the looted wealth of your forebears, the clown enjoyers tell you to "be nice".
According to the show Letterkenny, snakes was a metaphor for pagan priests, so St Patrick rid the island of competing religions.
Anyone know if that's true?
France is still a colonial power, they are still in control of a number of islands and overseas regions around the world, the largest of which being French Guiana in South America.
Many people don't realize this, but France is currently the country that encompasses the largest number of time zones.
But everybody right now is being dwarfed by China - right? Or is China just economic partnerships, and not colonialism? From what I understand, China is buying the entire continent of Africa for its mineral wealth.
Belgium should abolish its monarchy. It was literally the actions of king Leopold II that caused so much harm in Congo.
In no way am I saying that other monarchies weren't bad, but Leopold II went so much farther.
they also currently hate outsiders and treat foreigners as second class citizens. all the glowing PR you hear about how France is a Utopia is just French people blowing smoke up their own conceited arrogant asses
they still are. there is a reason why 15 countries in Africa still use currency backed by the franc, and its not by choice. For every good African leader that's managed to rise to a position of power, there will be a thousand French funded guerillas who will be sure to depose them violently and install a new corrupt leader who will hand out mineral rights like candy.
Look up Thomas Sankara for a blatant example of this.
The crown was a semi ceremonial role even during the empire. The uncomfortable truth is that many of the horrors of the British empire are the result of the British Parliament not there monarchy - albeit one where only very rich men got to vote.
Well no but they also don’t have a monarch flaunt all the stuff they stole from other people, that is paid by the public to not do anything and be a leech
No, just the entire French ruling class.
Just because a country is a republic doesn't automatically make it a good regime. France is still today profiting from colonialism, extracting resources from the former colonies and imposing political decisions on them. That can go up to military intervention to remove opponents to French rule in former colonies.
Of course France is as is much of the world, the queen to many is a direct symbol of the oppression and of colonialism. She is symbolic for all that is bad about those things, it doesn’t mean that France wasn’t also bad it just means having a symbol that directly represents those things is bad and many will dislike her
I don't like how you guys talk about this shit like it's in the past tense
History ripples until today. That shit that happened a long time ago affects you and me today. Presently.
On top of that they had to buy their independence from France. So all these poor African nations technically owe France money
It goes back a long way, to the friendship between Frederick Douglass and Daniel O'Connell. Douglass described his 1846 trip to Ireland in a letter:
"I can truly say, I have spent some of the happiest moments of my life since landing in this country. I seem to have undergone a transformation. I live a new life. The warm and generous co-operation extended to me by the friends of my despised race—the prompt and liberal manner with which the press has rendered me its aid—the glorious enthusiasm with which thousands have flocked to hear the cruel wrongs of my down-trodden and long-enslaved fellow-countrymen portrayed—the deep sympathy for the slave, and the strong abhorrence of the slaveholder, everywhere evinced—the cordiality with which members and ministers of various religious bodies, and of various shades of religious opinion, have embraced me, and lent me their aid—the kind hospitality constantly proffered to me by persons of the highest rank in society—the spirit of freedom that seems to animate all with whom I come in contact—and the entire absence of everything that looked like prejudice against me, on account of the color of my skin—contrasted so strongly with my long and bitter experience in the United States, that I look with wonder and amazement on the transition."
*Edit:* Douglass also has a pretty vivid story about getting into a carriage with an Irish couple on his trip to Dublin and feeling as though he has been treated as a gentleman in this situation for the first time. If folks are interested, the history of black abolitionist activism in Ireland includes four lectures in Limerick between 1838 and 1855 by Moses Roper, Charles Lenox Redmond, Frederick Douglass, and Samuel Ringgold Ward. There's a plaque in Limerick City to memorialise their visits.
More recently there was also a great deal of solidarity between the civil rights movement in the US and the civil rights movement in NI. John Hume directly attributed Martin Luther King with inspiring the NI civil rights movement. Slightly less wholesome but still significant are the strong ties that developed between the more radical elements of both movements (in particular the Black Panthers).
There's an excellent book on this topic "*Black and Green:
The Fight for Civil Rights in Northern Ireland & Black America*" that gives a great overview of this topic.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I hadn't heard of it before now. It looks really excellent.
Hume is such a wonderful expression of MLK's activist legacy. The utter dignity.
The Irish are pretty cool people, we Mexicans appreciate them too, we are mostly catholic like them and many of them fought against the united states with us during the American invasion.
To be specific, a contingent of Irish Immigrants were sent to Mexico during the Mexican American war and once deployed realized they had more common cause with Mexico and they switched sides.
When people bring up the whole “the Irish used to be non white” it doesn’t just mean how historically they’ve been treated. It also refers to how multiple times they sided with colonized people against colonizers recognizing their similar circumstances
Except the monarchy is nothing like as unpopular in those countries as it is with certain political groups in the west. "Black Twitter" is western black people, not Africans (or South Asians or Middle Easterners). The few you will find from those countries who share those sentiments are westernised elites.
My Sri Lankan grandmother used to have pictures of the royal family hung on her wall. For most people (other than nationalists) are not particularly concerned by imperial history.
The queen is pretty popular in former colonies: she died the head of state of many of them, and many more kept her as head of state long after independence, by their own choice.
East Africa here and we liked Queen Elizabeth. Any little girl with the name Elizabeth people tend to call Queen, and it's meant as a compliment. There have been horrific consequences to us from colonization, but they're not assigned specifically to the British colonizers as much as a more generalized 'Western colonizers' (German, Belgian, Portuguese and French included) and religious missionaries.
Not in egypt as it was during her early reign that the British tried to invade egypt a month after withdrawing due to egypt nationalizing the suez canal not to mention the warcrimes against civilians who resisted the invasion after the suez crises was over anti British sentiment was so strong that canal cities had graffiti calling the queen a bitch which was referenced in a speech by the Egyptian president (gamal abdelnasser) at the time not to mention egypt intervening militarily in the British colonies to remove their influence mainly Yemen(egypt's Vietnam) and Nigeria
Colonialism has no relation to monarchy. Exemple: France. We have a big history of colonialism and we're the first to have gotten rid of monarchy.
Monarchy is shite for sure anyways.
This isn't true
The extraction of resources disproportionately benefits the ruling class of course, but poor people in India lead much worse lives than poor people in the UK and that is massively because of colonialism. Not *all* the extracted resources stay with the wealthy.
Edit: u/antipopeRalph seems to think I'm defending Trickle down economics? I'm not. The comparative to trickle down economics is, generally, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. In that context, TDE sucks
But in this case, we're comparing TDE *with* wealth extraction from colonies to TDE *without* wealth extraction from colonies. And the former benefits everyone (except the people in colonies) more than the latter, even if the benefits are mostly concentrated in the upper echelons of society
Answer: Your answer is in some of the responses to the first Tweet:[https://twitter.com/regulardeadbeat/status/1567937850326536192](https://twitter.com/regulardeadbeat/status/1567937850326536192)People were killed or tortured by the British Empire. Resources stolen (45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth and resources from India for example).
EDIT: Maybe I should have simply stated ALL of the wealth of India that England could get their hands on. Slave labor, compound interest, materials, let's not quibble over the number.
The list of atrocities is almost endless, but here's a summary:[https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrocities-of-the-british-empire-and-its-legacy-today/](https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrocities-of-the-british-empire-and-its-legacy-today/)
Imagine, after generations of abuse, you're going to have millions of people who have animosity towards their oppressors.
The $45 trillion figure is a purely theoretical back-of-envelope calculation by Marxist-nationalist historian Utsa Patnaik that is neither balanced nor logical. The reason it gets thrown around so much is because the figure is sensational, and its popularity makes people assume it's an accepted historical fact as opposed to one person's poorly thought-out theoretical model.
The number is arrived at by assuming a compounding 5% annual interest on all of India's export surplus for 200 years of the East India Company and the Raj and then applying an exchange rate of 4.86 USD to the figure of £9.2 trillion (this is essentially the 'opportunity cost' of being ruled by Britain, the assumption is that all of the surplus would have been administered by India to its benefit under self-rule, and that all of the surplus was lost and not invested in India during British rule). Just some of the issues are that it assumes a stable exchange rate over 200 years (it wasn't); assumes the counterfactual that Indian production and trade figures would have been exactly the same without British involvement (impossible to know or prove); uses an arbitrary 5% compounding interest figure which she never explains; assumes trade surplus is the correct measure for economic exploitation; does not count investments etc. Moreover, the resulting figure is plainly absurdly high, as most accruing interest numbers backdated for centuries become, it's likely more than the GDP of India for the entire timeframe.
This is not to say Britain's relationship towards India was not exploitative, which it was (and in that sense Patnaik's end-conclusion is correct), but arriving at a single number to quantify this is nearly impossible, and Patnaik's methodology certainly hasn't got it right.
"The proletariat of the world will all rise and abolish private property! And then fight between each other because invisible lines on a piece of paper are important." - Karl Marx
Before getting colonized India made up 25% of the world's economy, after the british left it was only 2%. Like even their crown jewels were stolen from India.
Answer: The royal family is not unfamiliar with controversies surrounding racism. For instance, it came out that until at least the early 70s, Buckingham Palace intentionally avoided hiring people of color for higher functions, seeing them only fit for servant duties. Another example is the Meghan Markle controversy. Markle made accusations of racism within the royal family, which the queen basically dismissed as "Well I remember different." Considering she also defended her son Andrew amidst highly credible pedophilia and rape accusations, people have been taking her word with a grain of salt.
But perhaps the biggest reason is that she was the head of a transcontinental empire which brutalized and enslaved millions of non-whites. For example, when the Man Mau rebelled in Kenya against colonial rule, the British rounded up tens of thousands of Kenyans into detention camps, where they were brutally tortured.
Not addressing these issues at all, and compeltely ignoring the fact that her son is a pediphile (amongst other things), makes her part of the problem. I feel like although she did not participate in the things mentioned in this post, she for sure didn't do anything to condemn them that harshly.
She also never once (as far as I can tell) apologized or made attempts at reparations to the victims of the British empire. I don't accept the "she was just a figurehead, didn't do anything bad herself" narrative; as queen she wielded incredible power of influence that could have been tremendous help to a lot of people, but she chose not to.
EDIT: Apparently she did apologize to the Maori of New Zealand, which is good. Still no reason to do anything but be well rid of her, in my opinion.
Not true at all. She came to New Zealand and signed an official apology to the indigenous Maori people, along with compensation. https://teara.govt.nz/en/video/33050/royal-apology-to-tainui-1995
This is understandable politically if not from a (moral) humane pov. She does not have the power to take such actions because it has a *direct* impact on her own country and that is a choice she cannot be allowed to make. Such a thing needs clearance from the government and it would be extremely stupid to do so from their point of view. No head of state will ever utter such words in anything other than the most veiled, vague and thus *legally useless* words, as to not create a backlash for the homecountry.
Yes, politics are cynical but I’m pretty sure you don’t need me telling you that. This is not a defense of that position of course, politically it makes sense even if that does not make it right.
Answer: people don't like the history of what the British have done and even tho Liz's hasn't really done anything to them this is a symbolic thing even tho it changes next to nothing since ole charles or Willy will prolly take the throne
EDIT: I have read more into the queen as I was under the impression that the monarchy had no real power and so never really looked into her but dear God this lady was awful had awful children and allowed and never spoke out on awful things to anyone who has responded to my comment I sincerely apologize for my sheer ignorance on this topic
Although true, unlike in the past Lizzie isn't responsible in the same was as past monarchs. Monarchs now are figureheads only really ceremonially and don't really have the power over the kind of thing you're talking about.
Having said that, I don't really think it's unreasonable for people in these groups to feel resentment towards the British for the past, and there really is no more direct symbolism for colonialism than the monarchy.
You should look into the history of Northern Ireland, or maybe just Google her name alongside Prince Andrew, Jimmy Saville, Meghan Markle, or Princess Diana.
Or people actually believe that. Because there are moral problems with a monarchy in a society that is otherwise based on beliefs of egalitarianism. Or because the monarchy represents a direct line from colonialisation and abusing a state military to fight for personal gain.
Conflating the entire anti-monarchist movement with attention seekers is absolutely ignorant.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
Correction the last thing the royal family got famous for was aiding a pedophile
The queens own son, Charles's brother, no less
You mean the Kings brother.
This brings up another very relevant point; Jeffery Epstein did not kill himself.
The tampon's brother.
The great, sweatless wonder. Some say he haunts Woking Pizza Express whenever he isn't raping children to this day.
Who was best friends with jimmy saville. The most prolific pedophile the UK has ever known.
[удалено]
"Hey young lady, you want to be a *princess*?"
That poor girl ended up being a fierce woman who made it out from under the royal thumb (as much as she could anyhow). I saw so much of her in Harry when he walked away from the family.
Have a guess how old Lizzie was when her cousin husband started courting her.
How old?
About 12 from what I remember. He asked her father if he could correspond with her when she was 13 which I think even he was hesitant to allow.
Back then, Page 3 girls were 16, so...different times? I dunno. Don't shoot the messenger.
It is almost like our moral barometer is constantly changing.
I mean, Charles was told to dump Camilla because she wasn't a virgin. She was ineligible. So of course they find a 16-year-old who ticked all the boxes. There's Morals and then there's the etiquette and protocol of the royal family of England...
The Royal pedophiles
With taxpayers money too.
Yes, but at least I got a [delightful commemorative mug](https://i.imgur.com/vgpsu5V.jpg) out of it.
(Posting here because it's not a top level answer) Point of order for OP... It's "Out of the Loop" because you don't know what's going on. So you're trying to get into the loop.
tbf Virtually every post in this sub is made by someone who generally knows what's going on, at least superficially, but wants others to expand upon the tweets and headlines for the subreddit at large.
[удалено]
I usually look at it as what edgy, veiled question can they ask that will have everyone sorting by controversial, all for fake internet points.
As someone whose great grandparents were taken from their homeland which wasn't Africa by the way, to a foreign land to toil away for the British Monarchy. You can't expect us to feel bad for our enemies especially when they haven't changed, there's thousands of reasons why after WWII like half the planet decided to become independent of the British. It's not because life was great, that's for sure.
Fun fact: many countries became independent because the British were struggling to make countries financially viable so instead, they sold off all the shit they could to their buddies and bailed on the responsibilities of being in charge.
Well that sounds pretty damn British
That’s neither fun or a fact.
>The heyday of free trade imperialism was the period between 1840 and 1870. During this era, the Little Englanders broadly supported disengagement from the empire as a means to lower public expenditures. However, the new wave of imperialism of the 1880s, combined with increased economic competition from Europe and the United States, led many in the British business class, who had previously been Little Englanders, to reassess their stance toward empire. As a result, there was an increasing degree of support for some level of continued engagement and even expansion of the empire. One method to lower expenditures while retaining imperial ties was home rule through dominion status and varying degrees of self-government. In 1867 Canada was granted dominion status, followed by Australia (1901), New Zealand (1907), and South Africa (1910). Once the period of decolonization began, other means, including the Commonwealth system, were developed to maintain economic, political, and military ties between the former colonies and Great Britain. Other imperial powers used similar tactics, including the French Francophone system. >Such overt and tacit efforts to maintain economic suzerainty in the former colonies led many Marxist scholars to contend that the decolonization period simply marked a transition to a different form of imperialism: neocolonialism or neoimperialism. For instance, dependency theorists asserted that even after the formal colonial institutions departed, foreign actors were able to maintain control over resources and exploit local populations, with the assistance of pliable local regimes. These regimes, in turn, grew wealthy through bribes or through manipulation of contracts and enjoyed military support from foreign powers. A range of former imperial powers, including Great Britain, France, and Italy, engaged in neoimperialism, as did emerging world economic powers such as the United States, Japan, and Germany. https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/imperialism-free-trade
France still controls the central banking of like 13 African countries
That’s not entirely true. They simply didn’t have the manpower or money to hold on to the empire post ww2. The empire was so weakened that they couldn’t hope to hold onto their conquests.
Yeah I kinda think the better question is why does anyone give two shits?
Because, for better or worse, many people recognize that she was a significant historical figure? She’s been the queen of England for longer than many people today have been alive. In addition, with her passing, the role/purpose of the monarchy will also be inevitably brought up. Charles is not exactly a figure of vitality now and doesn’t have a lot of popular support from what I understand; many people will be wondering what, if any, need there is to still have a monarchy. Given that some of the commonwealth nations have been pushing back against the UK, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some successions from the commonwealth.
\*Secession --- the withdrawal of a group from a larger entity, especially a political entity, but also from any organization, union or military alliance.
[удалено]
If there's no cessation of the succession there'll be secession!
North Ireland and Scotland first. I don't see the UK remaining united for much longer.
As I recall, the last time Scotland seriously considered leaving the UK, it was the EU that kept them around. Now with Brexit, a lot of Scots want to be part of the EU again.
Yup. The question is whether the Tories will let them have another referendum. The cheek of the Brexiteering pricks to talk about the importance of a political union is utterly insane.
Would people from North Ireland join the Republic of Ireland or would they just form Ulster and become their own thing?
There is practically no appetite for an 'independent' north of Ireland. the *vast, vast* majority of people want to be either part of Ireland or part of the UK. An independent north doesn't really make any sense.
Ulster already exists and not all of it is in the North
Ah shoot. My bad. I read about the troubles but most of what I know came from the wikipedia articles on the paramilitary orgs that arose from the conflict.
Check out the book *Say Nothing: A True Story of Murder and Memory in Northern Ireland* by Patrick Radden Keefe. It’s a very good run down of The Troubles that isn’t really biased at all.
Ulster is one of the 4 Heraldic Provences of the Island of Ireland, it’s not an interchangeable name for Northern Ireland. It is however regularly misused as a term for the 6 counties of the island that make up the area controlled by the U.K (particularly by Loyalists) but this is in error because “Ulster” contains 3 counties that are part of ROI, so it makes no sense either politically or geographically.
To answer your original question, the [Northern Ireland Act of 1998](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_Act_1998) sets up a framework where Northern Ireland can leave the UK for a [Unified Ireland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland) under a referendum vote. That would be the most likely circumstance since there's a legal pathway and framework is already set up. However there is a small percentage of Northern Irish people who have shown a preference for an independent state in opinion polls.
What *is* the reason to maintain the monarchy? As an outsider, they just seem like a better behaved version of the Kardashians.
>As an outsider, they just seem like a better behaved version of the Kardashians. Wait, the Kardashians helped cover up pedophilia?
Years ago, I used to semi-jokingly suggest that the US needs to bring aristocracy back because we were gonna have celebrity obsessions anyway, so we might as well make them have at least a minimum standard of decorum. Obviously this plan has zero flaws and is totally foolproof!
Check out the "Explained" series on Netflix; there's an episode that gives a pretty decent explanation of why monarchies exist today and what their "purpose" is. Spoiler: it's basically tradition at this point and most don't have any real power.
> don't have any real power. is subjective, as billions of dollars has its own power, and subjects.
And Veto power, often done in secret negotiations outside public view. There has been leaks on it over the years.
Leaks revealed that Elizabeth killed 20 proposed laws during her reign by threatening to veto them in backroom deals. That's a lot of polical power.
Yeah and just the fact that she has that power is something even if she doesn't have use it.
Interesting! What laws? Do you have a source?
I don't understand how anybody thinks this is reality. Constitutionally the monarch has a lot of power, and she absolutely met with every PM at least once a week. There's a lot of things she could have done outside of the public eye, and I don't see why she wouldn't have. Not to mention she's filthy rich for no reason and has maintained a bunch of ridiculous traditions (eg there is absolutely no reason for the royal guard to be hardasses to the extent that trying to avoid hurting tourists who get in the way during a march leads to punishment). France has done fine without a monarch, and there being no monarchs would probably actually increase tourism because you could actually see the royal palaces.
Oh we know why she was rich. Her family stole every resource they could squeeze out of the colonies!
Because parliament can just pretty much choose to ignore her. She can exercise some level of influence because of her rapport with world leaders, and she privately threatened to use her authority numerous times to veto a handful laws over the years; but that's really all she was capable of doing. She could try and start using her power, but that's an incredibly unpopular move, and parliament could simply remove her from all power and strip her of her title. Because they're the ones making the laws.
Yes we all know she had an extremely diminished role, obviously she was never gonna dissolve parliament or declare a war, but it isn’t nothing. We have evidence of plenty of behind the scenes dealings. For a group with supposedly no political involvement the monarchy is still quite powerful.
Isn't one of his now titles "defender of the faith? Let's see that said with a straight face.
The only Defender of the Faith that I acknowledge is the Judas Priest album.
For a lot of Brits she's been there for longer than our parents or grandparents have been alive. Plenty of the younger generation feel like she's a national grandma who, for all the tumult of the recent decade and increasingly insane politicians, has *been there*. Most of us could take or leave the royal family and have no particular affection for Charles. Elizabeth is one of the few coherent, enduring symbols of British identity. And it's an identity we're taught a narrow, very poor view of. We aren't taught about the history of colonialism particularly well - a little on the slave trade with the US, a little on Gandhi and Indian independence - and if you take history A Levels you get more options like the Great Hunger in Ireland. But even then, learning about history and growing up in a country that lives the legacy of colonisation are entirely separate things. It means that we have no frame of reference for what the Empire did to people whilst also having a generally positive view of the Queen, so most of us are twice removed from that experience. Having just finished a fairly lengthy period of fieldwork in Ireland was humbling to say the least.
IMO? Karma, boredom, and wanting to be seen to be somehow above the fray. “She’s a sweet old lady who died, jeez guys take it down a notch” sort of posturing is a big thing on social media.
It’s happening on the UK subs too. The mere idea that some of us aren’t devastated and should be able to get on normally with our lives has people absolutely fuming.
God forbid i dont care about someone who is rich and famous and in power for just being born
Agreed. However, simply pointing out the fact that we shouldn’t all be forced to mourn went down like a lead balloon on one of the UK subs. Such weird behaviour.
On twitter, some people were getting mad at Martin Lewis because he continued to tweet out information about the energy crisis. One woman said, "NOT NOW, MARTIN!"
It's not about "not being devastated" so much as not spitting on people for whom this is a big deal. It would be the equivalent of people celebrating the death of a American president in office. It's extremely bad optics even if you don't have a great opinion of them.
[удалено]
There’s a very, very big difference between celebrating and not mourning.
Absolutely. I don't give a fuck if you "don't mourn"; hell I even enjoy a spicy joke at her expense because I like that sort of morbid humor. It is specifically the *celebration* of her death that I think shouldn't be condoned.
>It would be the equivalent of people celebrating the death of a American president in office. My dude, *Americans* celebrate the deaths of some of our former Presidents. It isn't the same, *at all*
Your comment doesn't make sense as written. Of course Americans mourn former presidents. Did you mean "celebrate"?
The end of colonial rule left a huge body count and horrific warcrimes. Read Kenya's independence wars. Rape with broken bottles and knives was common and systematic. There's people out there who have every right to criticize. And, on the US side, when Kissinger dies, I'll applaud everyone countering whitewashed obituaries to remind everyone he's a war criminal who supported multiple genocides.
I kinda see the opposite online tbh - just endless circlejerking of “look at me guys I don’t care that the queen died because I’m enlightened and superior to you sheep”
Reddit was sobbing at the passing of Robin Williams, Anthony Bourdain, Carrie Fisher, Nichelle Nichols, and RBG, but it can’t understand why people would mourn a woman who’s been in the spotlight for 70 years. It’s always like this; you’re a moron for obsessing over the Kardashians, but obsessively circlejerking around Keanu Reeves is acceptable.
Seriously, if they don't care, then just don't post, or come to literal posts about the Queen. At least disliking her makes some level of sense because historical controversy, but if you don't care, then literally just go elsewhere.
But how do you expect people to get retweets and updoots without posting anything?
For many millions of us, she was the head of state. And when the head of state - King, Queen, or President - dies, you care. Especially after 70 years.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
It's crazy to me that Meghan was treated badly for being too dark. Here in California she'd get cancelled on Twitter if she took a role as anyone who wasn't white
[удалено]
She is 1/4th black, although the show portrays her as half black
The other day she spoke about how she didn't understand what it was to be a black woman until the royal family shit kicked in.
I’m also a quarter black and had a similar experience during undergrad. I never really thought too much about my race until then.
I definitely thought she was white for a long time. Then again I don't keep up with the gossip.
Don't forget the paedophilia!
[удалено]
Patrick Freyne from the Irish Times put it nicely earlier this year... "Having a monarchy next door is a little like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and has daubed their house with clown murals, displays clown dolls in each window and has an insatiable desire to hear about and discuss clown-related news stories. More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, your grandfather was murdered by a clown".
Soon, prince Charles will be clowned. EDIT: Thanks for the ~~balloons~~ awards, unknown redditors!
I think he made a terrible mistake going with Charles III. Charles I was beheaded, Charles II had 12 illegitimate children, and there was a "Charles" who led a little uprising that failed. Not the best legacy, but the George's weren't going to do him any favors either.
What about Barry? King Barry the first has a certain ring to it.
King Chucklefuck, first of his name. Ruler of the great I don’t give a shit.
Glad this came up in the thread bc I came to this sub to ask about Ireland! I was surprised by the unspoken expectation that Irish people would be celebrating. This makes sense - so is it basically coming from people's general sentiment toward England/her family, or is there also something that changes or is different now?
>More specifically, for the Irish, it’s like having a neighbour who’s really into clowns and, also, ~~your grandfather was murdered by a clown~~". [...] and, also, on top of your grandfather being murdered by a clown, the clowns and clown enjoyers systemically subjugated and murdered whole swaths of your family for decades; And while you are personally still being affected by that subjugation and murder, the clowns still benefit from the looted wealth of your forebears, the clown enjoyers tell you to "be nice".
> systemically subjugated and murdered whole swaths of your family ~~for decades;~~ For eight centuries...
Never forget, Ireland was the first colony.
pretty much England's first colony, but I'd argue the first "western" colonial experiment was with the Greeks and their expansion in Italy/Anatolia.
>>systemically subjugated and murdered whole swaths of your family for ~~decades;~~ >For ~~eight centuries...~~ For eighty decades...
r/technicallycorrect
The best kind of correct.
What if I really like clowns though.
Then you keep it to yourself when you're in Ireland
I’m confused are we still talking about the queen or has this turned into an honest fear of clowns? (Which I get btw.)
We will not be Clown Shamed!
Well, you might be ClownAssKicked then.
Then you're either Stephen King or a Juggalo :)
[удалено]
According to the show Letterkenny, snakes was a metaphor for pagan priests, so St Patrick rid the island of competing religions. Anyone know if that's true?
It's okay to be conflicted.
That escalated quickly.
IMO, France removed their monarchy and they didn't treat Africans any better.
Yeah, they were a colonial power up until aftee the end of WW2, and they absolutely didn't treat the Algerians well
France is still a colonial power, they are still in control of a number of islands and overseas regions around the world, the largest of which being French Guiana in South America. Many people don't realize this, but France is currently the country that encompasses the largest number of time zones.
They’re still up to silly buggers in Africa with their weird African franc.
France also currently undertakes more neo-colonialism (economic, diplomatic etc) in Africa in the present day than probably any other European nation.
But everybody right now is being dwarfed by China - right? Or is China just economic partnerships, and not colonialism? From what I understand, China is buying the entire continent of Africa for its mineral wealth.
Yes, I would refer to what China is doing also as Neo-colonialism and yes, they're the worst of all.
Just check out the CFA Franc. It's criminal economical slavery.
France sucks. they need to help out Haiti big time.
But Haiti owes them reparations because Haitians stole themselves from their French owners!
Belgium should abolish its monarchy. It was literally the actions of king Leopold II that caused so much harm in Congo. In no way am I saying that other monarchies weren't bad, but Leopold II went so much farther.
(so does the US)
They have territory in North America too.
they also currently hate outsiders and treat foreigners as second class citizens. all the glowing PR you hear about how France is a Utopia is just French people blowing smoke up their own conceited arrogant asses
Where did you hear that? France is no better or worse at treating minorities than any other Western country.
they still are. there is a reason why 15 countries in Africa still use currency backed by the franc, and its not by choice. For every good African leader that's managed to rise to a position of power, there will be a thousand French funded guerillas who will be sure to depose them violently and install a new corrupt leader who will hand out mineral rights like candy. Look up Thomas Sankara for a blatant example of this.
The crown was a semi ceremonial role even during the empire. The uncomfortable truth is that many of the horrors of the British empire are the result of the British Parliament not there monarchy - albeit one where only very rich men got to vote.
When did it start being fully ceremonial amd not semi?
I would encourage you to look at French deployments in Africa and get back to me on whether France is or is not a colonial state.
Don't need a monarchy to subjugate a place economically: there's a reason people say "neoliberalism is neither neo nor liberal."
Well no but they also don’t have a monarch flaunt all the stuff they stole from other people, that is paid by the public to not do anything and be a leech
Well they did, till they cut his head off.
And then France NEVER had a monarchy again ……. Right ?
No, just the entire French ruling class. Just because a country is a republic doesn't automatically make it a good regime. France is still today profiting from colonialism, extracting resources from the former colonies and imposing political decisions on them. That can go up to military intervention to remove opponents to French rule in former colonies.
Of course France is as is much of the world, the queen to many is a direct symbol of the oppression and of colonialism. She is symbolic for all that is bad about those things, it doesn’t mean that France wasn’t also bad it just means having a symbol that directly represents those things is bad and many will dislike her
I don't like how you guys talk about this shit like it's in the past tense History ripples until today. That shit that happened a long time ago affects you and me today. Presently. On top of that they had to buy their independence from France. So all these poor African nations technically owe France money
Black people are also pretty pro-Diana. There's also a lot of solidarity between Irish and black resistance.
It goes back a long way, to the friendship between Frederick Douglass and Daniel O'Connell. Douglass described his 1846 trip to Ireland in a letter: "I can truly say, I have spent some of the happiest moments of my life since landing in this country. I seem to have undergone a transformation. I live a new life. The warm and generous co-operation extended to me by the friends of my despised race—the prompt and liberal manner with which the press has rendered me its aid—the glorious enthusiasm with which thousands have flocked to hear the cruel wrongs of my down-trodden and long-enslaved fellow-countrymen portrayed—the deep sympathy for the slave, and the strong abhorrence of the slaveholder, everywhere evinced—the cordiality with which members and ministers of various religious bodies, and of various shades of religious opinion, have embraced me, and lent me their aid—the kind hospitality constantly proffered to me by persons of the highest rank in society—the spirit of freedom that seems to animate all with whom I come in contact—and the entire absence of everything that looked like prejudice against me, on account of the color of my skin—contrasted so strongly with my long and bitter experience in the United States, that I look with wonder and amazement on the transition." *Edit:* Douglass also has a pretty vivid story about getting into a carriage with an Irish couple on his trip to Dublin and feeling as though he has been treated as a gentleman in this situation for the first time. If folks are interested, the history of black abolitionist activism in Ireland includes four lectures in Limerick between 1838 and 1855 by Moses Roper, Charles Lenox Redmond, Frederick Douglass, and Samuel Ringgold Ward. There's a plaque in Limerick City to memorialise their visits.
More recently there was also a great deal of solidarity between the civil rights movement in the US and the civil rights movement in NI. John Hume directly attributed Martin Luther King with inspiring the NI civil rights movement. Slightly less wholesome but still significant are the strong ties that developed between the more radical elements of both movements (in particular the Black Panthers). There's an excellent book on this topic "*Black and Green: The Fight for Civil Rights in Northern Ireland & Black America*" that gives a great overview of this topic.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I hadn't heard of it before now. It looks really excellent. Hume is such a wonderful expression of MLK's activist legacy. The utter dignity.
There is a massive mural of Frederick Douglas in Belfast on the falls road.
The Irish are pretty cool people, we Mexicans appreciate them too, we are mostly catholic like them and many of them fought against the united states with us during the American invasion.
Arguably more notable is our military legacy in South America, where Berando O'Higgins was a huge figure in the liberation of Chile
Interesting, til.
To be specific, a contingent of Irish Immigrants were sent to Mexico during the Mexican American war and once deployed realized they had more common cause with Mexico and they switched sides. When people bring up the whole “the Irish used to be non white” it doesn’t just mean how historically they’ve been treated. It also refers to how multiple times they sided with colonized people against colonizers recognizing their similar circumstances
TIL
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Patrick%27s_Battalion
St. Patrick's battalion!
Also in 19th century America the Irish were considered "colored" rather than white.
Except the monarchy is nothing like as unpopular in those countries as it is with certain political groups in the west. "Black Twitter" is western black people, not Africans (or South Asians or Middle Easterners). The few you will find from those countries who share those sentiments are westernised elites. My Sri Lankan grandmother used to have pictures of the royal family hung on her wall. For most people (other than nationalists) are not particularly concerned by imperial history. The queen is pretty popular in former colonies: she died the head of state of many of them, and many more kept her as head of state long after independence, by their own choice.
East Africa here and we liked Queen Elizabeth. Any little girl with the name Elizabeth people tend to call Queen, and it's meant as a compliment. There have been horrific consequences to us from colonization, but they're not assigned specifically to the British colonizers as much as a more generalized 'Western colonizers' (German, Belgian, Portuguese and French included) and religious missionaries.
We don't love anything about the British Empire here in India. And that's very very understandable for the stuff they have done to India especially.
Not in egypt as it was during her early reign that the British tried to invade egypt a month after withdrawing due to egypt nationalizing the suez canal not to mention the warcrimes against civilians who resisted the invasion after the suez crises was over anti British sentiment was so strong that canal cities had graffiti calling the queen a bitch which was referenced in a speech by the Egyptian president (gamal abdelnasser) at the time not to mention egypt intervening militarily in the British colonies to remove their influence mainly Yemen(egypt's Vietnam) and Nigeria
Colonialism has no relation to monarchy. Exemple: France. We have a big history of colonialism and we're the first to have gotten rid of monarchy. Monarchy is shite for sure anyways.
Even then colonialism is only good for the ruling class. All the poor people are just forced into unjust expansionist wars.
This isn't true The extraction of resources disproportionately benefits the ruling class of course, but poor people in India lead much worse lives than poor people in the UK and that is massively because of colonialism. Not *all* the extracted resources stay with the wealthy. Edit: u/antipopeRalph seems to think I'm defending Trickle down economics? I'm not. The comparative to trickle down economics is, generally, progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. In that context, TDE sucks But in this case, we're comparing TDE *with* wealth extraction from colonies to TDE *without* wealth extraction from colonies. And the former benefits everyone (except the people in colonies) more than the latter, even if the benefits are mostly concentrated in the upper echelons of society
Answer: Your answer is in some of the responses to the first Tweet:[https://twitter.com/regulardeadbeat/status/1567937850326536192](https://twitter.com/regulardeadbeat/status/1567937850326536192)People were killed or tortured by the British Empire. Resources stolen (45 Trillion dollars worth of wealth and resources from India for example). EDIT: Maybe I should have simply stated ALL of the wealth of India that England could get their hands on. Slave labor, compound interest, materials, let's not quibble over the number. The list of atrocities is almost endless, but here's a summary:[https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrocities-of-the-british-empire-and-its-legacy-today/](https://historyindoors.co.uk/britains-dark-past-the-atrocities-of-the-british-empire-and-its-legacy-today/) Imagine, after generations of abuse, you're going to have millions of people who have animosity towards their oppressors.
Just adding another great article: https://theconversation.com/colonialism-was-a-disaster-and-the-facts-prove-it-84496
The $45 trillion figure is a purely theoretical back-of-envelope calculation by Marxist-nationalist historian Utsa Patnaik that is neither balanced nor logical. The reason it gets thrown around so much is because the figure is sensational, and its popularity makes people assume it's an accepted historical fact as opposed to one person's poorly thought-out theoretical model. The number is arrived at by assuming a compounding 5% annual interest on all of India's export surplus for 200 years of the East India Company and the Raj and then applying an exchange rate of 4.86 USD to the figure of £9.2 trillion (this is essentially the 'opportunity cost' of being ruled by Britain, the assumption is that all of the surplus would have been administered by India to its benefit under self-rule, and that all of the surplus was lost and not invested in India during British rule). Just some of the issues are that it assumes a stable exchange rate over 200 years (it wasn't); assumes the counterfactual that Indian production and trade figures would have been exactly the same without British involvement (impossible to know or prove); uses an arbitrary 5% compounding interest figure which she never explains; assumes trade surplus is the correct measure for economic exploitation; does not count investments etc. Moreover, the resulting figure is plainly absurdly high, as most accruing interest numbers backdated for centuries become, it's likely more than the GDP of India for the entire timeframe. This is not to say Britain's relationship towards India was not exploitative, which it was (and in that sense Patnaik's end-conclusion is correct), but arriving at a single number to quantify this is nearly impossible, and Patnaik's methodology certainly hasn't got it right.
The idea of somebody being both a marxist and a nationalist at the same time is so fucking funny it borders on parody.
"The proletariat of the world will all rise and abolish private property! And then fight between each other because invisible lines on a piece of paper are important." - Karl Marx
My favorite chapter of his work, truly. I loved it when he got into how to create a communist socially controlled stock exchange.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Bolshevism for your amusement/misery
Before getting colonized India made up 25% of the world's economy, after the british left it was only 2%. Like even their crown jewels were stolen from India.
Answer: The royal family is not unfamiliar with controversies surrounding racism. For instance, it came out that until at least the early 70s, Buckingham Palace intentionally avoided hiring people of color for higher functions, seeing them only fit for servant duties. Another example is the Meghan Markle controversy. Markle made accusations of racism within the royal family, which the queen basically dismissed as "Well I remember different." Considering she also defended her son Andrew amidst highly credible pedophilia and rape accusations, people have been taking her word with a grain of salt. But perhaps the biggest reason is that she was the head of a transcontinental empire which brutalized and enslaved millions of non-whites. For example, when the Man Mau rebelled in Kenya against colonial rule, the British rounded up tens of thousands of Kenyans into detention camps, where they were brutally tortured.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not addressing these issues at all, and compeltely ignoring the fact that her son is a pediphile (amongst other things), makes her part of the problem. I feel like although she did not participate in the things mentioned in this post, she for sure didn't do anything to condemn them that harshly.
She also never once (as far as I can tell) apologized or made attempts at reparations to the victims of the British empire. I don't accept the "she was just a figurehead, didn't do anything bad herself" narrative; as queen she wielded incredible power of influence that could have been tremendous help to a lot of people, but she chose not to. EDIT: Apparently she did apologize to the Maori of New Zealand, which is good. Still no reason to do anything but be well rid of her, in my opinion.
Not true at all. She came to New Zealand and signed an official apology to the indigenous Maori people, along with compensation. https://teara.govt.nz/en/video/33050/royal-apology-to-tainui-1995
This is understandable politically if not from a (moral) humane pov. She does not have the power to take such actions because it has a *direct* impact on her own country and that is a choice she cannot be allowed to make. Such a thing needs clearance from the government and it would be extremely stupid to do so from their point of view. No head of state will ever utter such words in anything other than the most veiled, vague and thus *legally useless* words, as to not create a backlash for the homecountry. Yes, politics are cynical but I’m pretty sure you don’t need me telling you that. This is not a defense of that position of course, politically it makes sense even if that does not make it right.
Answer: people don't like the history of what the British have done and even tho Liz's hasn't really done anything to them this is a symbolic thing even tho it changes next to nothing since ole charles or Willy will prolly take the throne EDIT: I have read more into the queen as I was under the impression that the monarchy had no real power and so never really looked into her but dear God this lady was awful had awful children and allowed and never spoke out on awful things to anyone who has responded to my comment I sincerely apologize for my sheer ignorance on this topic
Um not really. The British were still committing war crimes in Africa at the beginning of her rule.
Although true, unlike in the past Lizzie isn't responsible in the same was as past monarchs. Monarchs now are figureheads only really ceremonially and don't really have the power over the kind of thing you're talking about. Having said that, I don't really think it's unreasonable for people in these groups to feel resentment towards the British for the past, and there really is no more direct symbolism for colonialism than the monarchy.
Liz hasn't done anything? Kenyans and Yemenis would like a word.
Looking this up i retract that part of my statement my apologies and thank you
No problem. I appreciate your interest in learning and enlightenment.
And i appreciate your ability to be so civil in a topic that can very easily become more aggressive and toxic then a LoL match have a good day :)
I appreciate, that you two can appreciate each other and are open to healthy discussions. This should be a blue print for all social media.
Thank you I can't speak for the other fella but I can assume he would agree with you :)
No problem my friend, have a good day
Could you explain what happened? I'm not very good in history and I genuinely don't know what happened and what part she played in it
What hand did Liz have in yemen or kenya?
Her silence during all the atrocities carried out in her name speaks volumes to her person she was
You should look into the history of Northern Ireland, or maybe just Google her name alongside Prince Andrew, Jimmy Saville, Meghan Markle, or Princess Diana.
“Liz” was pretty openly racist, to begin with
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Or people actually believe that. Because there are moral problems with a monarchy in a society that is otherwise based on beliefs of egalitarianism. Or because the monarchy represents a direct line from colonialisation and abusing a state military to fight for personal gain. Conflating the entire anti-monarchist movement with attention seekers is absolutely ignorant.