The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

[aurelius]

Yes Elizabeth really was a lot like Hitler when you think about it.

My main point here is not Queen Elizabeth II. Who was a self-serving monarch that always put the interest of the Crown (her) above any other concern. Her main achievement is simply surviving at all cost. A notable achievement for a monarch in the modern age. She likely had little to no role in UK's Igbo genocide policy. Certainly could have spoken out against it. But let's be honest, decisions similar to the Igbo genocide were routine for the British Empire. But having never had genocide committed against me and mine, I'm not going to tell someone who has who and what it is unreasonable for them to hold a grudge against.

My main point is you reframing this to fit your narrative. It doesn't. And it has put you in the odd position of defending genocide. Okay. Keep at it if you want. I'm gonna go drink beer.

[dw]

Yes Elizabeth really was a lot like Hitler when you think about it.

My main point here is not Queen Elizabeth II. Who was a self-serving monarch that always put the interest of the Crown (her) above any other concern. Her main achievement is simply surviving at all cost. A notable achievement for a monarch in the modern age. She likely had little to no role in UK's Igbo genocide policy. Certainly could have spoken out against it. But let's be honest, decisions similar to the Igbo genocide were routine for the British Empire. But having never had genocide committed against me and mine, I'm not going to tell someone who has who and what it is unreasonable for them to hold a grudge against.

My main point is you reframing this to fit your narrative. It doesn't. And it has put you in the odd position of defending genocide. Okay. Keep at it if you want. I'm gonna go drink beer.

Ah but you already did, in your very first post.

And that stuff about me "defending genocide", come now aurelius.

[aurelius]

And that stuff about me "defending genocide", come now aurelius.

You are correct. You did not defend genocide. My bad. Responding to quickly.

You have attempted to downplay the British role in the Igbo genocide in an inane attempt to discredit this professor. I have asked you to defend that position. You haven't, made a Hitler reference, and are now trying to appear reasonable.

Even Jeff Bezos is getting eye rolled right now. You are not Jeff Bezos. I'm sure there is some other tweet or opinion you can try to falsely represent to continue fighting your glorious culture war.

[Hardartery]

Not to get into what you and @aurelius have going on, but I fail to understand what the Queen had to do with the genocide. It's not like she actually gave orders or had any real power in the situation. As a Canadian that grew u in Canada, I never equated anything Britain did with the Queen's direction, she pretty obviously wasn't in charge of any of that stuff.

Just a handful of posts above a post praised her for remaining silent throughout the entirety of her reign. Elizabeth remained silent while the country she led committed genocide. If she had spoken out against the genocide that would have shaped the UK's policy. But she chose security and self-preservation. Can't have it both ways. She is either the sovereign monarch of the UK or not.

And Elizabeth intentionally cultivated this idea of Royals as homegrown celebrities that do not have special privileges and authority. You do know she met with the Prime Minister once a week? Let's flip that to the US. Imagine if the Kardashians/Kennedys/whomever had an obligatory weekly meeting with the President of the United States. Where the President of the United States went to them!

You have a very American view of it, and you are very incorrect. Saying something would have helped nothing, but caused many problems. She did not make policy decisions or perform any actual governance, which is what a Constitutional Monarchy is. This was not invented by her, but was exemplified by her. Saying something may have drawn attention to the situation, but would have made no difference to the policy or anything else. It would, however, put her in the precarious position of being some sort of arbiter judging the actions of others. Much like many residents of the peanut gallery today, she would have been reduced in many ways. Given that the judgement of time is fickle, and that the public likes to judge things out of context and purely from the context of their limited knowledge of a situation and purely from the viewpoint of their extremely biased and limited personal experience, her policy prohibiting controversy or political discourse seems very prudent. Talking accomplishes very little anyway, except to provide rope with which to hang yourself in the eyes of history when you are in her position. The harsh judgement belongs with those actually responsible, not with people with no control over the situation that largely spend their efforts at charity and boosting morale.
And yes, I know that she met with Prime Ministers regularly, as does most of the world I would guess. It's featuredd in enough movies and television programs. Ex-presidents get a daily intelligence briefing if they want it, that doesn't mean they are making policy decisions.

[FredM]

You have a very liberal American view of it,

Give him a few weeks, dude. Liberal OS v8.2.47 will be pro Royal Family when Charles lets Harry back in and our enemies want Megan to help them destabilize the US through our “allies.”

[GlasgowJock]

Was the academic in question during the 1960s - which is when I'm lead to believe this genocide occurred - alive then?

If not then 'Grrr Elizabeth/ Monarchy' for the Highland Clearances too, ma poor (great great great great grand) family!

[aurelius]

You have a very American view of it, and you are very incorrect. Saying something would have helped nothing, but caused many problems.

I do have an American view of it. That is correct.

The very fact that the monarchy CAN shape public policy is why the Royals do everything they can not to. As that would almost certainly put them in opposition to Parliament. Which you admit as much. If the Royals had no power, then sharing their opinions on worldy matters would not matter.

Elizabeth chose not to wield it for survival. As I have previously stated, that was likely wise. Charles and William should be very careful in their quest to modernize the Monarchy that they remember Elizabeth's greatest lesson: seen but not heard.

Give him a few weeks, dude. Liberal OS v8.2.47 will be pro Royal Family when Charles lets Harry back in and our enemies want Megan to help them destabilize the US through our “allies.”

Wow. What a silly comment.

[SnakePlissken]

Talking accomplishes very little anyway, except to provide rope with which to hang yourself in the eyes of history when you are in her position.

This becomes more true as time goes on. She's the personification of "no comment" to a reporter's question because bad news travels 10x faster than good news. Her staying quiet on all public and foreign relations was the best thing for someone to do when they hold no actual power, but has the ability to ruin a national reputation with just one quote.

Sort of on topic. The last time England and Scotland had a King Charles, England was in Civil War, his dad had been executed by a tribunal, and he had to go into exile in Europe after being beaten in battle by a religious nut job. It will be intriguing to see how the 3rd Charles does.

[KOTJ]

[JonA]

I knew nothing about the Igbo massacres before today, but a casual reading of Wikipedia says that the anti-Igbo sentiment grew because they were the favored ethnic group under the colonial authorities.

That seems to fly in the face of the idea of a murderous queen flying into a rampage and murdering Igbo families.

[dw]

I knew nothing about the Igbo massacres before today, but a casual reading of Wikipedia says that the anti-Igbo sentiment grew because they were the favored ethnic group under the colonial authorities.

That seems to fly in the face of the idea of a murderous queen flying into a rampage and murdering Igbo families.

A casual reading of Wikipedia is equivalent to a PhD in this thread.

[GlasgowJock]

Had a rummage around the interwebs as claims of fleeing genocide piqued my interest. Parents met at uni while in (tyrannical oppressive matriarchal) England and her father was certainly a fan of women:

https://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2020/8/ ... ids-2.html

[dw]

Had a rummage around the interwebs as claims of fleeing genocide piqued my interest. Parents met at uni while in (tyrannical oppressive matriarchal) England and her father was certainly a fan of women:

https://www.lindaikejisblog.com/2020/8/ ... ids-2.html

What strikes me about this is how Twitter fluent she is "in the feels", "side chicks". She has the memespeak down pat, like a teenager rather than a college professor.

[JonA]

Regardless of anything else, her mom's story is incredible. I hope she does write a book about her, I'd definitely read it.

[Hardartery]

Yes Elizabeth really was a lot like Hitler when you think about it.

My main point here is not Queen Elizabeth II. Who was a self-serving monarch that always put the interest of the Crown (her) above any other concern. Her main achievement is simply surviving at all cost. A notable achievement for a monarch in the modern age. She likely had little to no role in UK's Igbo genocide policy. Certainly could have spoken out against it. But let's be honest, decisions similar to the Igbo genocide were routine for the British Empire. But having never had genocide committed against me and mine, I'm not going to tell someone who has who and what it is unreasonable for them to hold a grudge against.

My main point is you reframing this to fit your narrative. It doesn't. And it has put you in the odd position of defending genocide. Okay. Keep at it if you want. I'm gonna go drink beer.

The notion of genocide is fairly modern, it was standard practice historically speaking. While that does not make it right, or okay, it does indicate context. The statement you made earlier indicates a general ignorance of the British Empire, it was by no means at it's height for the childhood or reign of Elizabeth 2, not even close. What had been common practice by the great majority of conquering peoples, which frankly was most of those that are recorded in history, is in no way indicative of Elizabeth or her decisions. Her main concern did not appear to be survival, she could quite easily have ended the monarchy as a thing and gone into quiet private life comfortably with no serious concerns or pressures. She was a billionaire of a magnitude that Donald Trump couldn't even pretend to be, even without the support of public monies. She actually seemed to have devoted a great deal of time to actual public service, and offering political opinions would serve to roil up some of the public and piss off people in the government, but not much else other than lower her down to the fray. She chose to stay above that stuff, something that a lot more people could do and in so doing make the world a better place. I frankly don't give a damn what some mis-informed celebrity thinks and everyone could do without the general turmoil and misinformation they stir up amongst the idiots that do care.
Technically speaking, being of largely Scottish descent, and MacGregor is part of it, I have place to be more upset with Royal decisions than Igbo descendants. Hell, the US government technically owes me reparations from the War of Independence, and that is actual law, and I will never see those or any justice for the mistreatment of my ancestors by the Colonies back in the day. It's just piss poor form to throw shit at a dead woman just because she was connected to people that may have done your family wrong.

[Culican]

'I cannot mourn': Former colonies conflicted over the queen

[dw]

Yes Elizabeth really was a lot like Hitler when you think about it.

My main point here is not Queen Elizabeth II. Who was a self-serving monarch that always put the interest of the Crown (her) above any other concern. Her main achievement is simply surviving at all cost. A notable achievement for a monarch in the modern age. She likely had little to no role in UK's Igbo genocide policy. Certainly could have spoken out against it. But let's be honest, decisions similar to the Igbo genocide were routine for the British Empire. But having never had genocide committed against me and mine, I'm not going to tell someone who has who and what it is unreasonable for them to hold a grudge against.

My main point is you reframing this to fit your narrative. It doesn't. And it has put you in the odd position of defending genocide. Okay. Keep at it if you want. I'm gonna go drink beer.

The notion of genocide is fairly modern, it was standard practice historically speaking. While that does not make it right, or okay, it does indicate context. The statement you made earlier indicates a general ignorance of the British Empire, it was by no means at it's height for the childhood or reign of Elizabeth 2, not even close. What had been common practice by the great majority of conquering peoples, which frankly was most of those that are recorded in history, is in no way indicative of Elizabeth or her decisions. Her main concern did not appear to be survival, she could quite easily have ended the monarchy as a thing and gone into quiet private life comfortably with no serious concerns or pressures. She was a billionaire of a magnitude that Donald Trump couldn't even pretend to be, even without the support of public monies. She actually seemed to have devoted a great deal of time to actual public service, and offering political opinions would serve to roil up some of the public and piss off people in the government, but not much else other than lower her down to the fray. She chose to stay above that stuff, something that a lot more people could do and in so doing make the world a better place. I frankly don't give a damn what some mis-informed celebrity thinks and everyone could do without the general turmoil and misinformation they stir up amongst the idiots that do care.
Technically speaking, being of largely Scottish descent, and MacGregor is part of it, I have place to be more upset with Royal decisions than Igbo descendants. Hell, the US government technically owes me reparations from the War of Independence, and that is actual law, and I will never see those or any justice for the mistreatment of my ancestors by the Colonies back in the day. It's just piss poor form to throw shit at a dead woman just because she was connected to people that may have done your family wrong.

Her words were a bit more remarkable than that. Not going to dig it up on mobile but she said something like she hopes Elizabeth suffers terribly on her deathbed.

Assuming she was sincere she sounds like either a psychopath or someone literally in a state of rage. I'm inclined to rule out both and think she's more likely just playing the anti-colonialist demagogue on Twitter.

Or as hsilman would put it "trying to improve society".

[Hamburgerfan]

Yes Elizabeth really was a lot like Hitler when you think about it.

This, but unironically.

[aurelius]

Read this comment online. Made me giggle:

Some irish thoughts about the monarchy:

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.

[convergentsum]

Yes Elizabeth really was a lot like Hitler when you think about it.

This, but unironically.

Nah. You could make a fairly reasonable comparison between the British Empire and the third Reich (genocide is highly correlated with imperialism). But whereas Hitler was invovled in the actual execution of the holocause, Elizabeth was not in charge of administrating any aspect of the empire: she was a purely ceremonial figure-head, the mascot in a funny costume leading the cheers. And she was doing it at a time when the empire was dismantling itself anyway. Now, she was young but an adult when she accepted the gig, so she is responsible for her part in holding up the glorious white-washed myth of Empire, but she's nothing like as responsible for eg partition of India as Churchill.
Also, it's not as if she was on active duty but it's worth remembering that she lived through and made her own contribution to Britain's ww2 effort; I expect someone with that experience would take a Hitler comparison more personally than eg I would.