Long Live the King

[Roma_Victrix]

To be honest, Australians would probably hardly notice the difference if the monarchy was ditched or not and they would still fawn over the royal family like we do in the US anyway. Not that I'm against that. The British monarchy is endlessly entertaining. There's even that whole show about it, The Crown! Good stuff.

Her apparent association with British imperial glory across the world decades after its collapse is a testament to her historic reign.

I know she visited the Republic of Ireland and made nice with them and everything, but I can't help but respond to your post with the following:

Come out, you black and tans,
Come out and fight me like a man,
Show your wife how you won medals down in Flanders,
Tell her how the IRA,
Made you run like hell away,
From the green and lovely lanes of Killeshandra

Come tell us how you slew them ol' Arabs two by two
Like the Zulus, they had knives and bows and arrows
Of how bravely you faced one with your sixteen-pounder gun
And you frightened all the natives to the marrow

Nonetheless, the ascension of Charles the Third may prompt many a misgiving.



But maybe not. Let's see how the old duffer fares.

I could care less since I'm an American with a term-limited president elected as my head of state and view the British monarchy as a quaint antique tradition, but I'll say this: your King Charles III is one entertaining goofball and even his face is a source of amusement. LOL. It's like if a troll face meme ascended to the highest office of the land and became your liege lord. How can you stay mad at this guy, with a face like that? Well, so long as you ignore that Charles bailed out his brother Prince Andrew over the latter's involvement in the whole Epstein underage sex scandal stuff.

Yesterday was a very sad day for not just the British but for a lot of people all around the world when Queen Elizabeth ll passed away. It is written that every ruler is there only because God ordained it and this woman certainly carried that blessing throughout her long reign and I have no doubt that she will be much missed all across this world. Was she a Christian? Yes I believe on good authority that she was indeed born again of the Spirit of God and now rests in the arms of her Lord. I can only pray that her successor may also be guided by the same Saviour that she so loved and followed. So the saying now is God save the King and I hope that He does.

-Similar threads merged. ~Abdülmecid I

Ah yes, I see the antiquated idea of divine right has entered the chat. All current heads of state were also ordained by the big G-man himself, God above. That means President of the United States Joseph R. Biden was appointed by God to serve as his lieutenant on Earth. God be praised!

Sorry could you explain this? Wasnt she an Anglican, and so her religion was wrong according to other religions (like yours)? Or are you saying all anglicans are good?

I think the British monarchy should just go full Imperial Chinese and adopt ancient China's Mandate of Heaven, that the current ruling dynasty of the Windsors rule according to the rule of Heaven (Tian) and the balanced order of the universe per the rules of yin and yang. That means Charles III is the Son of Heaven! Neat! He should wear one of those Qing dynasty emperor robes the next time he steps outside the gates of Buckingham Palace, and grow a righteous Fu Manchu beard.

I suddenly want a fantasy show where Charles III becomes the cult leader of a Kung Fu clan that terrorizes his enemies in the night like the Foot Clan in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Blaming her for events from 1800s is crazy, but then again, modern left hasn't been known for either its erudition or rational thinking.
Having said that, even a broken clock is right twice a day - she had powers, and chose not to use them throughout 70 years of her reign. She chose not to stop Blair and other war criminal PMs. She chose to allow policies that robbed her once proud and free subjects of their wealth and freedoms. That being said, I get that we don't know what such arrangement was in reality, but she was either okay with all of those things, or she had a MI6 threaten her and her family or she simply didn't care. I wouldn't take the page out of "democratic socialist' book by dancing on her grave, but this excessive praise for her seems forced and somewhat of a coping mechanism, by millions of people that lust for some kind of tradition, and British pseudo-monarchy is the closest simulacra to it.

I don’t see the point of gatekeeping British traditions and institutions, as if it has any bearing on the degree to which British people may mourn her passing.

[Cope]

Her apparent association with British imperial glory across the world decades after its collapse is a testament to her historic reign.

British "imperial glory" was long gone by the time ERII ascended to the throne, as were the political functions of the monarchy (beyond ceremony and symbolism). If anything, ERII's reign was charactertized by the remission and collapse of empire, not the reverse. India, Pakistan, over a dozen African states et al cemented their ties with the UK by becoming members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which transformed imperial ties to consensual ones. Seemlessly bridging the gap between the the old world and the new was probably the Queen's greatest achievement.

[Heathen Hammer]

British "imperial glory" was long gone by the time ERII ascended to the throne, as were the political functions of the monarchy (beyond ceremony and symbolism). If anything, ERII's reign was charactertized by the remission and collapse of empire, not the reverse. India, Pakistan, over a dozen African states et al cemented their ties with the UK by becoming members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which transformed imperial ties to consensual ones. Seemlessly bridging the gap between the the old world and the new was probably the Queen's greatest achievement.

I wouldn't call cementing of those ties as something strictly positive, due to mass immigration, outsourcing and general loss of purchasing power throughout her rule. Nor would I say that this cementing itself is her accomplishment and not of the political regime she was attached to as a symbol. At the end of thE day, all of those ties were cemented at the expense of average people, essentially combining worst of both old and new world.
I mean Americans have their corrupt and unaccountable "deep state", but that swamp is barely comparing to festering Nurglian cesspit that is the political establishment of most commonwealth regimes, which she oversaw and wasn't on record for being critical about.

I don’t see the point of gatekeeping British traditions and institutions, as if it has any bearing on the degree to which British people may mourn her passing.

Its not gatekeeping, its understanding what it actually means.
I think subconsciously people yearn for some sort of return to tradition and order, that were gradually eroded as the monarchy itself became a simulacra of its actual purpose.

[EmperorBatman999]

British "imperial glory" was long gone by the time ERII ascended to the throne, as were the political functions of the monarchy (beyond ceremony and symbolism). If anything, ERII's reign was charactertized by the remission and collapse of empire, not the reverse. India, Pakistan, over a dozen African states et al cemented their ties with the UK by becoming members of the Commonwealth of Nations, which transformed imperial ties to consensual ones. Seemlessly bridging the gap between the the old world and the new was probably the Queen's greatest achievement.

Hence why the sadistic rhetoric of many on the international far-left that Elizabeth II was an agent of genocide and colonialism makes no sense. There were the Troubles in Ireland, of course, but the seed of this conflict was at least 300 years old before she even came to the throne.

Another example of far-left iconoclasm, expressed by the need to deface the legacy of any sort of institutional symbol.

[Muizer]

International far left? Whatever it is, it's a profoundly American kind of leftism. It's spreading to other countries is itself a manifestation of American cultural imperialism!

[Roma_Victrix]

International far left? Whatever it is, it's a profoundly American kind of leftism. It's spreading to other countries is itself a manifestation of American cultural imperialism!

Not exactly. Black Twitter and Irish Twitter have been firmly united in mocking Elizabeth II yesterday and today. Not everyone is on Twitter, though, and for the most part it is for the terminally online folk who don't go outside much. Well, except for that huge group of Irish football stadium lads who were chanting "Lizzie's in a box" in unison.

Elizabeth II is obviously not responsible for the Irish Potato Famine of 1845-1849 or the British India's Jallianwala Bagh Massacre of 1919, but people are taking out their frustrations on the British monarchy by taking it out on Liz. For the Irish this is recent history given The Troubles in Northern Ireland and the fact that Elizabeth II knighted a bunch of dudes responsible for killing Irishmen in Derry and Belfast. For the most part, though, the Irish didn't mind her and she visited the Republic of Ireland. I think they just like sticking it to the Brits whenever they get the chance.

Hence why the sadistic rhetoric of many on the international far-left that Elizabeth II was an agent of genocide and colonialism makes no sense. There were the Troubles in Ireland, of course, but the seed of this conflict was at least 300 years old before she even came to the throne.

Another example of far-left iconoclasm, expressed by the need to deface the legacy of any sort of institutional symbol.

The Troubles are an obvious example, but there are plenty outside of Europe. I'm not sure how much of a role Liz played in it if any given the ceremonial powers of the monarchy in the British government (albeit with the ear of the Prime Minister for advice), but they blame Liz and British economic imperialism more broadly for the UK's role in the Nigerian Civil War of 1967-1970 against the Biafra separatists following the 1966 Igbo massacre. The UK was safeguarding its oil interests by siding with the Nigerian government. As usual, control of fossil fuels are the root cause of a lot of evil. Again, this can't exactly be dropped at Liz's doorstep at Buckingham Palace, but she's the convenient national symbol for people to lash out at whenever the UK is in the news. The monarchy represents the country abroad. It's obviously going to be the target of detractors.

[skh1]

When one thinks about it, a measure of a people's greatness is how much of an occasion for evil they are.

[Cyclops]

Hence why the sadistic rhetoric of many on the international far-left that Elizabeth II was an agent of genocide and colonialism makes no sense. There were the Troubles in Ireland, of course, but the seed of this conflict was at least 300 years old before she even came to the throne.

Another example of far-left iconoclasm, expressed by the need to deface the legacy of any sort of institutional symbol.

Yes she herself was well behaved but is the shibboleth of the most rancid bigotry. For example when the RUC was disbanded she wore orange to the final parade. That's understandable as it was a force that defended her person, her family and her realms from Irish terrorists, many of them left wingers perforce (that's where they got their training and weapons). The RUC was a symbol and an instrument of boigoted and racist oppression, not 300 years ago but down to the end of the 20th century, and disbanding it was a necessary element for a just an lasting peace: that is, it was an instrument of violence and injustice.

Likewise her husband was head of the Grand Lodge, and freemasonry is strongly connected to the UK's "state-within-the-state". Detractors will point to freemasonry's penetration of the army, judiciary, and police, and the protection of paedophile rings allegedly within Parliament and the Royal Family itself, as well as domestic terrorism and racism.

She was not a neutral player in politics. As queen she stood for Empire and control by a narrow group. Personally her political conduct was faultless, she was a very great leader. The institution should be dashed to pieces, and Charles glum and uncharismatic arrogance will speed that process I feel.

Suggesting the Governor of the Church of England was a pentecostalist or other enthusiastic innovative recent form of Christian is not correct. She lived an died an orthodox High Church Anglican of the non-reconciling strain, of the same make as burned many a Dissenter or Catholic.

[mishkin]

She was part of an abominable, totally anachronistic institution and her greatest achievement was the survival of said institution. She personally took advantage of tax havens, made sure that her pedophile son kept his freedom, and probably a long etcetera. of activities of doubtful morality, if legal.

Regarding those who speak of colonialism, massacres and forced/selective famines, they are an intrinsic part of the crown that you inherit.

If someone is offended by these comments, they seem to me a very necessary counterpoint so that people do not have the impression that she was an endearing granny.

[Cyclops]

Id add she runs the tax havens, whose defence is paid for by UK tax payers.

Thats not inconsistent with being a loving granny, but oeople have real reasons for hating her and wanting her family out of power.

[Heathen Hammer]

International far left? Whatever it is, it's a profoundly American kind of leftism. It's spreading to other countries is itself a manifestation of American cultural imperialism!

To be fair it came into America with the influx of marxist pseudo-academic hacks and charlatans from Europe in early XX century. I don't think modern leftism itself has any profound ethnic characteristics, since its more of a religious cult that is funded by the very capitalist financial elite via variety of NGOs and creepy alphabet agencies. Ironically, British state under E2 played quite the role in backing neo-marxist theocrats, who now demand complete abolition of Windsor monarchy. Oh the irony...

She was part of an abominable, totally anachronistic institution and her greatest achievement was the survival of said institution. She personally took advantage of tax havens, made sure that her pedophile son kept his freedom, and probably a long etcetera. of activities of doubtful morality, if legal.

Regarding those who speak of colonialism, massacres and forced/selective famines, they are an intrinsic part of the crown that you inherit.

If someone is offended by these comments, they seem to me a very necessary counterpoint so that people do not have the impression that she was an endearing granny.

I resoundingly disagree. She was just a mascot, so excessive praise or hate of her both miss the mark.
As I pointed out in other thread, there are real functioning dynasties of politicians, bankers and industrialists that deserve all the hate, curses and death wishes far more then a bunch of geriatric inbred, but de-facto powerless monarchs - Kennedys, Rothschilds, Trudeaus, Clintons, Bushes, Rockefellers, the list is long and gross.

[Cope]

The Queen did not "run tax havens"; she was the head of state for self-governing former territories of the empire (British Overseas Territories) which manage their own tax affairs. Profits from the Crown Estate are turned over to the Exchequer, from which a stipend is returned to fund official functions and maintain residences. In 2020 alone, the Crown Estate returned a profit to the Treasury of £345m, which was greater than the Queen's net worth. The monarch's private income is managed through the Duchy of Lancaster estate which has benefited from above board off-shore investments, from which a voluntarily tax is paid.

[Sir Adrian]

The Queen did not "run tax havens"; she was the head of state for self-governing former territories of the empire (British Overseas Territories) which manage their own tax affairs.

About that

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[swabian]

oh come on guys. old people die. it's hard when it comes, but this is the continuation of an office.

i also never liked her stupid face. good night sweetness.

[Ludicus]

THE QUEEN AND HER LEGACY: 21ST CENTURY BRITAIN HAS NEVER LOOKED SO MEDIEVAL

(..) If the Queen’s job was to rebrand empire as Commonwealth, transmuting the Mau Mau massacre into gold medals for Kenyan long-distance runners, Charles’ job will be to rebrand as a Green Renewal the death march led by transnational corporations.

[Cope]

THE QUEEN AND HER LEGACY: 21ST CENTURY BRITAIN HAS NEVER LOOKED SO MEDIEVAL

Let's address some of the article's claims:

1

The author says that representative democracy and accountable leadership in Britain are illusions.

Anyone in the UK who imagined they lived in a representative democracy – one in which leaders are elected and accountable to the people – will be in for a rude awakening over the next days and weeks.

In reality, the UK (and its constituent nations) are governed by elected parliaments (Westminster, Holyrood, the Welsh Assembly and Stormont) over which the monarch does not exert a partisan will. EIIR's death and the ascension of Charles III will not change that. I have also been reliably informed that the UK is classified as a "full democracy" (not a "flawed democracy" like the US republic).

2

The author says that, as a result of the Queen's death, issues such as the war in Ukraine and climate change are "no longer of interest or relevance" to the press.

The world’s urgent problems – from the war in Europe to a looming climate catastrophe – are no longer of interest or relevance. They can wait till Britons emerge from a more pressing national trauma.

In reality, these issues continue to be covered and discussed widely in British media, have been treated as priorities for months/years and will almost certainly return to priority coverage after the funeral on Monday.

3

The author accuses the BBC of treating the suffering of British citizens as "insignificant".

Domestically, the BBC has told those facing a long winter in which they will not be able to afford to heat their homes that their suffering is “insignificant” compared to that of the family of a 96-year-old woman who died peacefully in the lap of luxury.

In reality, the BBC presenter (Clive Myrie) claimed that the PM's policy announcement regarding the energy crisis was insignificant compared to the news of the Queen's death. The policies themselves will not be effected by the succession.

4

The author implies that the monarchy is a financial drain on taxpayers.

The Royals’ loss is public in every sense. There will be a lavish state funeral, paid for by the taxpayer. There will be an equally lavish coronation of her son, Charles, also paid for by the taxpayer.

In reality, the Crown Estate (which is not personally owned or controlled by the monarchy) generates a very considerable profit for the Treasury (i.e. for taxpayers).

5

The author implies that the royal family is demanding an exemption from scrutiny.

They have no right to claim an exemption from scrutiny just when scrutiny is most needed – as the anti-democratic privileges of monarchy pass from one set of hands to another.

In reality, the royal family is likely the most scrutinized in the UK. The author is later forced to acknowledge that the royals are "fair game for the paparazzi" and that their "scandals [sell] newspapers". He even makes specific reference to Charles' marriage to Camilla and the Virginia Giuffre allegations, both of which were widely reported by the mainstream press and were damaging to the monarchy.

6

The author accuses the Queen of complicity with various alleged crimes committed by the British state since 1952.

The start of her reign in 1952 coincided with her government ordering the suppression of the Mau Mau independence uprising in Kenya...At the height of her rule, 20 years later, British troops were given a green light to massacre 14 civilians in Northern Ireland...And in the twilight years of her rule, her government rode roughshod over international law, invading Iraq...It was her Royal Armed Forces that killed Johnny Foreigner.

In reality, (as mentioned above) the Queen did not exercise authority over British policy or the military. The author is forced to concede that EIIR was not responsible for any of the alleged crimes, instead accusing her of guilt via her association with the state.

7

The author accuses the Commonwealth of being repackaged empire.

It was her Commonwealth that repackaged the jackbooted British empire as a new, more media-savvy form of colonialism.

In reality, member states of the Commonwealth associate with one another freely and willingly elected Charles III to be the Commonwealth's new head.

[AqD]

She was part of an abominable, totally anachronistic institution and her greatest achievement was the survival of said institution. She personally took advantage of tax havens, made sure that her pedophile son kept his freedom, and probably a long etcetera. of activities of doubtful morality, if legal.

Regarding those who speak of colonialism, massacres and forced/selective famines, they are an intrinsic part of the crown that you inherit.

I wanted to say she was merely a placeholder who inherited the position, not raised to it through any capability or merit. To praise that is like to call a puppy cute, simply because puppies are born that way.

But given the purpose of that enterprise, it's probably a blessing her achievement stopped at waving hands and evading tax. Billions of people were freed thanks to her not being a capable monarch.

[Cyclops]

I wanted to say she was merely a placeholder who inherited the position, not raised to it through any capability or merit. To praise that is like to call a puppy cute, simply because puppies are born that way.

But given the purpose of that enterprise, it's probably a blessing her achievement stopped at waving hands and evading tax. Billions of people were freed thanks to her not being a capable monarch.

I disagree. To my limited knowledge she has not actively fanned the flames of conflict. Her family is a symbol for violent elements in the UK (and therefore a target for other violent groups).

Her birth is an accident but her ability is unquestioned. Its widely considered she saved the monarchy from being abolished by making herself useful, and working herself and her family like dogs.

I suspect Megan Markles harsh treatment stens from racism but also perhaps she doesnt have the appetite for self sacrifice in the name of "the family". Not saying shes lazy, she wants to control her life, and not have it scripted like Charles did.

In regard to Australia her role has been played faultlessly. If all monarchs were as able we'd all live in monarchies.

Decolonisation happened more under he father and uncle, and was the result of other factors than the Kings ability.

My own feeling is our US friends wanted access to the Empire, and decolonisation was often actually handing bits over (eg the Saudi client state), or spoiling them so the US wouldnt get them (eg India, which I think was also spoiled for India by Britain favouring partition).

Exhaustion from 2 world wars was another factor.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I suspect Megan Markles harshvtreatment stens from racism but also perhaps she doesnt have the appetite for self sacrifice in the name of "the family.

I would say Markle’s classic American compulsion to slander the monarchy into a public spectacle for her own celebrity interests doesn’t sit well with anyone in the UK who is pro-monarchy. The injection of American cultural race hustling into what was supposed to be an apolitical institution has inflicted the same sort of damage done to American institutions. Harry is a doofus.