The Queen is Dead, Long Live the King

[Hardartery]

Charles is actually going to be King, I thought Elizabeth would outlive him. Condolences to the Brits that may be sad over her passing.

[BenM]

Not just the Brits. I think even amongst people who dislike the Monarchy / Monarchs in general, she was almost universally admired for the way she did her job with such dignity and grace. I don't mind saying I'm a bit sad this morning. And I'm sure the debates about Australia becoming a republic will fire up again with Charles on the throne.

Double whammy, my wife's grandmother bore a passing resemblance to the Queen, and she passed away about six weeks ago. And now the Queen herself is gone.

[GlasgowJock]

Swore my oath of allegiance to HMQEII over a decade ago when enlisting. 70 years is some period of reign.

Honestly thought they should have bypassed Charles and went straight to William to usher in a period of 'modernity' in reigning most of the 21st century but that's a hereditary monarchy for you.

I'm pleasantly surprised at the overall positive commentary from 'across the pond'.

[SnakePlissken]

Swore my oath of allegiance to HMQEII over a decade ago when enlisting. 70 years is some period of reign.

Honestly thought they should have bypassed Charles and went straight to William to usher in a period of 'modernity' in reigning most of the 21st century but that's a hereditary monarchy for you.

I'm pleasantly surprised at the overall positive commentary from 'across the pond'.

I think because she never made her opinions and politics well known; otherwise, our opinions would be pretty split. It's crazy to think she reigned during the admins of people like Thatcher and Tony Blair, yet we never really heard what her thoughts on their policies were in public. She's from an era where people didn't trumpet their opinions which must have been hard considering the press is asking you questions about The Troubles, the Falklands, joining the US invasion of Afghanistan, etc.

[omaniphil]

I'm pleasantly surprised at the overall positive commentary from 'across the pond'.

I'm not surprised. The Queen has managed to psychically colonize the US. British royal family news is almost always a front page news item here. I don't quite understand the intensity of it, but even I, a republican, recognize that she was special and will be missed.

[dw]

No place for such bourgeoise pieties on the front lines of the struggle...

https://news.yahoo.com/carnegie-mellon- ... 50070.html

[FredM]

No place for such bourgeoise pieties on the front lines of the struggle...

https://news.yahoo.com/carnegie-mellon- ... 50070.html

I went to a thanksgiving party with a bunch of liberal friends after Trump was elected. One of the very liberal guests (associate college professor) wanted to talk about Trump. Specifically she wanted to know why no one had "put a fucking bullet in his head, yet."

Super nice people.

On topic, condolences to the UK citizens here (and the rest of us). Unfortunately, Charles isn't 1/10th the monarch of his mother and the timing couldn't be worse. People claiming the monarchy has no power probably have never worked in a big company. The culture of the world just took a big hit.

[Cellist]

Charles is actually going to be King

That’ll be a tough act to follow.

[aurelius]

I think because she never made her opinions and politics well known; otherwise, our opinions would be pretty split. It's crazy to think she reigned during the admins of people like Thatcher and Tony Blair, yet we never really heard what her thoughts on their policies were in public. She's from an era where people didn't trumpet their opinions which must have been hard considering the press is asking you questions about The Troubles, the Falklands, joining the US invasion of Afghanistan, etc.

Nothing to do with an era and all about survival. Elizabeth had the wisdom to recognize her limited role and the precarious nature of the British monarchy. Pissing off a popular Prime Minister and that would be it for the Royals in England. The current Prime Minister has previously supported abolishing the monarchy...Charles better play it safe.

Elizabeth in fact enforced a very strict gag order on all Royals that prevented them from commenting on any worldly topics. Royals were not allowed to enter politics or high profile roles (celebrity or mogul). Their charities have to be as non-controversial as they get. Example: Princess Diana's charity was land mines. And press is not given access to the Royals that they do not allow.

[aurelius]

No place for such bourgeoise pieties on the front lines of the struggle...

What struggle are you referring to?

That professor and her family are survivors of the British supported genocide in Nigeria (Igbo genocide). That happened under Elizabeth's reign. She is justified in her hate of England and Elizabeth.

[dw]

No place for such bourgeoise pieties on the front lines of the struggle...

What struggle are you referring to?

That professor and her family are survivors of the British supported genocide in Nigeria (Igbo genocide). That happened under Elizabeth's reign. She is justified in her hate of England and Elizabeth.

The rhetorical struggle of affluent first world college professors against the tyranny of the first world, of course.

I find the concept of justified hatred interesting though. How do you know it's justified? Is the non-hatred of other British Nigerians also justified? Or should they be reproached for their lack of fervor?

[hsilman]

No place for such bourgeoise pieties on the front lines of the struggle...

What struggle are you referring to?

That professor and her family are survivors of the British supported genocide in Nigeria (Igbo genocide). That happened under Elizabeth's reign. She is justified in her hate of England and Elizabeth.

The rhetorical struggle of affluent first world college professors against the tyranny of the first world, of course.

I find the concept of justified hatred interesting though. How do you know it's justified? Is the non-hatred of other British Nigerians also justified? Or should they be reproached for their lack of fervor?

[dw]

I don't understand the reference.

You think publicly wishing a torturous death upon the Queen and characterizing England as a genocidal empire represents benign meliorism?

[Hardartery]

I don't understand the reference.

You think publicly wishing a torturous death upon the Queen and characterizing England as a genocidal empire represents benign meliorism?

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.

[lheugh]

Over a decade ago she did, however, attempt to use the state's poverty fund to heat Buckingham Palace. It was claimed the 15 million pound government grant was insufficient, not even counting the 38 million pounds taxpayers contribute to the family. I, and many others, have mixed feelings about her passing. I'm reminded of what James Connolly said of King George V (and by extension the monarchy): "We will not blame him for the crimes of his ancestors if he relinquishes the royal rights of his ancestors; but as long as he claims their rights,by virtue of descent, then, by virtue of descent, he must shoulder the responsibility for their crimes."

[aurelius]

@dw You are trying to hard too be clever and not achieving it. This is not some academic exercise of a college professor. But a survivor of genocide that was supported and enabled by the UK to protect their interests in Nigeria. Elizabeth was the sovereign of UK during the genocide making her complicit. Someone tries to kill you, your family, and your people; you get to hate them.

[aurelius]

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!

[dw]

@dw You are trying to hard too be clever and not achieving it. This is not some academic exercise of a college professor. But a survivor of genocide that was supported and enabled by the UK to protect their interests in Nigeria. Elizabeth was the sovereign of UK during the genocide making her complicit. Someone tries to kill you, your family, and your people; you get to hate them.

I notice your characterization of English involvement is a bit inconsistent in this and subsequent posts. "Supported and enabled" to "tried to kill" to "committed genocide".

Were not the acts in question performed by Nigerians when Nigeria was no longer a colony? Do you think the anti-colonialist theory of the tweet author (notice her casual references to "the oppressor" in her follow up comments) might make her tweet less the cry from the heart you take it to be and more the partisan rhetoric of the opinionated?

Or you really think she's been burning with rage all these years because Elizabeth killed her family? Like the setup for a revenge movie?

[aurelius]

I notice your characterization of English involvement is a bit inconsistent in this and subsequent posts. "Supported and enabled" to "tried to kill" to "committed genocide". Were not the acts in question performed by Nigerians when Nigeria was no longer a colony?

Just trying to point out the inconsistencies in the less than 100 words I have written about it on my phone. Yawn. What a boring tactic. The UK played a signifcant role in the Igbo genocide. Defend that.

Do you think the anti-colonialist theory of the tweet author (notice her casual references to "the oppressor" in her follow up comments) might make her tweet less the cry from the heart you take it to be and more the partisan rhetoric of the opinionated?

UK was a colonizing oppressor. Queen Elizabeth grew up and began her reign at the height of the British Empire. It is not a theory.

This is comment against a British Royal from British policy in Nigeria enacted in the 1970's. Is Queen Elizabeth Republican or Democrat? What partisan position did this tweet take?

Or you really think she's been burning with rage all these years because Elizabeth killed her family? Like the setup for a revenge movie?

Yes. I talked with an individual who escaped the Holocaust that would 100% put a bullet in a Nazi if given the chance.

I am simply pointing out your blatant shoehorning attempt to characterize this person’s post as part of your little partisan culture war is fucking lame. Feel free to start a thread on the Igbo genocide and why it is unreasonable for anyone to hold the UK responsible.

[dw]

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