Yup, agreed.
Queen Elizabeth II | 1926-2022 | Rest in Peace
- Thread starter horsechoker
- Start date
She was big enough to shake hands with the supposedly head of the IRA which murdered her cousin that was really something and a state visit to Ireland.
The impacts of colonialism are still seen today. There are many ways which the Queen could have used her influence (Perhaps she wouldn't have the power) to make a more active contribution to this in terms of repatriation etc. She has benefited by being head of the commonwealth and head of state of many places which is an active role and sees her in a position of extreme privilige, one which she could have taken the initiative to remove herself from, the immense property within the UK which has been purchased with slave money etc. She is part of the monarchy. It's all well and good deflecting blame to the institution but she is part of it and is the bloody symbol of it. Does the monarchy as an institution take more blame than her as an individual? Yes. Should she be absolved of any? No.
She spoke the Irish language on that visit as well, if I remember correctly.
and she was also big enough to meet with gaddafi and putin and a dozen others. she met any and all heads of state which were deemed to be in the national interest by the government of the day. that's sort of the point. she did as told. that's the arrangement of constitutional monarchy. there's a very narrow spectrum for asserting the independence of the crown in practice.
And played hurling.
I think it’s better to just accept some can’t separate the two in their own minds.
Some of what I’ve read on the Caf has been pretty disgraceful really but I expected it would be as online people have no filter or consideration for the feelings of others. Some also enjoy the ‘image’ they feel it portrays.
Personally I’m not upset. I have my own thoughts on the Monarchy and the more shameful parts of British history. That said I can be diplomatic, respectful of others and recognise there’s a time and a place for those discussions and arguments, especially given the emotion involved on both sides.
Unless Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams were lying, her making that visit was a big deal to them.
don't doubt it. but unless the arrangement of constitutional monarchy has ceased to exist since its imposition, it wasn't a decision she made herself.
This is nonsense, she didn’t just do as she was told. She took a very brave stance on something that was easily very hard to do to reconcile with the people of Ireland.
I disagree. I am of the mindset that she's a figurehead, filling a role in which she wields very little practical power. If she started going rogue and playing politics she'd be accused of interfering in the government's running of the country. If you're going to blame anyone for the colonial interests 'the crown' retains, blame the British government. The monarchy has a bloody legacy, no doubt there, but I just don't agree that she had the power to interfere in areas like that.
and you know this how? i'm basing my claim on everything we know about constitutional monarchism in the uk for the past couple of hundred years. you're basing yours on some unfounded idea that she did this of her own volition or something.
alternatively, if you think she didn't just do as she was told then you must charge her, as head of state, with the problems which brought the troubles into their worst condition during the 60s onward to begin with. and a million other things like the iraq war and so many others where technically she could have dissolved government but practically she could or would do nothing.
Liz Truss and the energy market will kill us all of off way before then.
She did work very hard to cover up her pedo son, to be fair. Also put a lot of effort into wearing stolen jewellery from colonies her country treated like utter shit. But most of all, she really put some time into changing absolutely nothing about the ridiculous level of inequality in her 'queendom', perpetuated by her family of dossers that milk the place, while doing absolutely nothing for it.
The complexity or otherwise is irrelevant as it will never happen. Too many Brits love being ruled by toffs who hate them and exploit them.
Last edited:
i don’t know why the plebs don’t see it for the blessing it is when a family, appointed by god don’t forget, decides to have any kind of interaction with them, whether they deem that interaction pleasant or not.
I wouldn't be too surprised, also given how much time we'll have to be surprised if Trump and Johnson get back in. One of them will want to play with a nuclear football.
Probably because she'd be afraid of losing the little power she held/the wealth she had inherited. She could have done things but didn't.
Or that.
Last edited by a moderator:
nah, according to stormy daniels, that’s trump’s dick and the sign that he’s coming back to feck us all for a second term.
If someone murdered a member of your family would you feel compelled to shake their hand just because your boss asked you to? No you wouldn’t but if you seen it as for the greater good you just might.
Will you still be working at 96 Conor?
Sad to see her go. She was a good egg I think .
That really makes no difference to me or to my point that it was well received by the likes of Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams.
if the ritual head of state exists to give a ritual blessing to events which the government demands, or requests, be blessed, and said head of state does not do that, then constitutional monarchy does not work. so yes, i'd say she felt compelled to shake their hand because that's what the job title implies.
It was but she also had little choice.
nor does it make any difference to my point that she didn't decide to do it of her own volition.
Not a fan of a monarchy and my personal wish has been that once she passes so should go the institution. However I didn't dislike her at any point. She was there years before I was born and my entire lifetime since. And yet she was still someone who kept herself private. That one constant in a world of total change and upheavel was in a way something simple to step back and take everything in its stride.
David Attenborough once said the allure of the monarchy was that it was like a mysterious tribe whom nobody on the outside should be allowed to see on the inside. Because once they do the mystery is gone and people see they do all the things everyone else does. So there goes the enigma. The queen did her best to keep the institution private. It will not be the same now the man whose life has played out in the tabloids for four decades will be king. That's something I think will hasten the demise of the institition.
David Attenborough once said the allure of the monarchy was that it was like a mysterious tribe whom nobody on the outside should be allowed to see on the inside. Because once they do the mystery is gone and people see they do all the things everyone else does. So there goes the enigma. The queen did her best to keep the institution private. It will not be the same now the man whose life has played out in the tabloids for four decades will be king. That's something I think will hasten the demise of the institition.
You don’t know that though? Whilst the comments about it being well received are factual?
I don’t care if she did or didn’t
This sums up exactly how I feel.
You may disagree with them but calling them tits is a bit much.
Of course she did, her son was a nonce.
i do, though, because that's how the system of constitutional monarchy works.
then why bother getting involved? is there a point to it? they were happy she visited. great. that's really turned everything we knew about the institution of monarchy upside down.I don’t care if she did or didn’t
An Irish poster said she played a role in the peace process. You questioned it. I pointed out that Sinn Fein’s leadership alluded to the role she played and praised her. Not hard to figure out.
Why are you bothering to get involved?
They were happy she visited as was @Deery and probably many others. You oddly seem to have issue with this.
let's recap. my entire point is that the queen had little to no decision making power, or agency, in matters of state affairs. others want to credit her with the peace process. i'm saying she had no real tangible role in this beyond a symbolic appearance. others say she decided to go there. i'm saying she went because she was head of state and it was expected of her to do what the government of the day demanded.
in other words, i've outlined how constitutional monarchy tends to work and others have outlined scenarios in which the queen solved the northern ireland problem, presumably in-between freeing mandela from prison and whatever else was on the other side of her post-90s agenda. unfortunately she was asleep when 9/11 happened.
Literally nobody has said that until just now, when you did.