The Queen and the British Monarchy's Colonialist, Abusive Legacy

[Debater Slayer]

I have been off most social media for over a year, but after checking my social media feeds out of curiosity following the Queen's passing, it has been quite interesting to observe the divide in the reactions from most Asians, Africans, and Arabs on my feed as opposed to most Western people. The former are mostly either indifferent or critical of her, while the latter are mostly mourning her. This is one of the posts I saw linked today by an Arab friend:

https://twitter.com/aldanimarki/status/1567861763219116032

If you're a supporter of the Queen or someone who likes her, what are your thoughts on her actions toward African, Asian, and Arab colonies (among others) as well as some of their abusive regimes? I would hope most of her supporters stood against the atrocities committed or enabled under the British monarchy, but I'm also unsure how they would view her actions if so. Was she entirely innocent or not, in your opinion?

 

[Revoltingest]

I have been off most social media for over a year, but after checking my social media feeds out of curiosity following the Queen's passing, it has been quite interesting to observe the divide in the reactions from most Asians, Africans, and Arabs on my feed as opposed to most Western people. The former are mostly either indifferent or critical of her, while the latter are mostly mourning her. This is one of the posts I saw linked today by an Arab friend:

https://twitter.com/aldanimarki/status/1567861763219116032

If you're a supporter of the Queen or someone who likes her, what are your thoughts on her actions toward African, Asian, and Arab colonies (among others) as well as some of their abusive regimes? I would hope most of her supporters stood against the atrocities committed or enabled under the British monarchy, but I'm also unsure how they would view her actions if so. Was she entirely innocent or not, in your opinion?

How much actual power do you believe she had?

 

[Debater Slayer]

How much actual power do you believe she had?

I believe she was perhaps the least powerful monarch out of all until her accession. However, "least powerful" doesn't mean powerless, hence the question of whether she could have done better in order to amend or distance herself from the British monarchy's blood-stained heritage.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find it hard to "mourn" the death of anyone who has managed to live into his or her mid-90s. I also acknowledge a significant ignorance when it comes to "constitutional monarchy." But, while I'm unwilling to mourn and unable to fully understand, I do believe that Elizabeth II was, on balance, a remarkable example of a monarch who exhaustively focused on duty rather than personal gain.

Shakespeare has Marc Anthony observe: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” It is an observation that typically comes to mind when I think of LBJ -- the butcher of Viet Nam and champion of the Civil Rights Act. What with social media and our 24/7 news cycle, just the opposite may be seen in response to the Queen's death.

Perspective takes time. For now, I allow myself the opportunity to respectfully acknowledge the remarkable, and, to the limited extent possible, respectfully empathize with those monarchists and non-monarchists who are feeling a sense of loss.

And, as I do so, I will assiduously refrain from declaring: "God Save the King."

 

[Debater Slayer]

I find it hard to "mourn" the death of anyone who has managed to live into his or her mid-90s. I also acknowledge a significant ignorance when it comes to "constitutional monarchy." But, while I'm unwilling to mourn and unable to fully understand, I do believe that Elizabeth II was, on balance, a remarkable example of a monarch who exhaustively focused on duty rather than personal gain.

Shakespeare has Marc Anthony observe: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” It is an observation that typically comes to mind when I think of LBJ -- the butcher of Viet Nam and champion of the Civil Rights Act. What with social media and our 24/7 news cycle, just the opposite may be seen in response to the Queen's death.

Perspective takes time. For now, I allow myself the opportunity to respectfully acknowledge the remarkable and, to the limited extent possible, respectfully empathize with those monarchists and non-monarchists who are feeling a sense of loss.

And, as I do so, I will assiduously refrain from declaring: "God Save the King."

A piercingly thought-provoking response. I greatly appreciate your input, my friend.

 

[Augustus]

If you're a supporter of the Queen or someone who likes her, what are your thoughts on her actions toward African, Asian, and Arab colonies (among others) as well as some of their abusive regimes? I would hope most of her supporters stood against the atrocities committed or enabled under the British monarchy, but I'm also unsure how they would view her actions if so. Was she entirely innocent or not, in your opinion?

The Queen's job was to be an apolitical head of state with no power of government policy.

If your job is to be an apolitical head of state, then making personal political statements to influence policy or that may impact diplomatic relations is not your job.

Many of the same people who criticise her for not "doing more" about colonialism also think having an unelected head of state is terribly undemocratic. Yet they also hold it against her that the unelected "undemocratic" head of state didn't try to interfere more in political affairs.

This is one of the posts I saw linked today by an Arab friend:

https://twitter.com/aldanimarki/status/1567861763219116032

He seems to think the Queen was a political leader deciding on policy. I guess some people from some cultures might find the idea of an apolitical head of state conceptually challenging.

Happened to see this linked online too, although I'd be very surprised if this was a massively representative view, and Gulf media certainly has its own agendas:

Despite the clear negatives of colonialism in the country, Yemen’s current destruction and devastation has left some longing for the era of British control.

“The Aden which Queen Elizabeth visited in 1954 doesn't exist today,” Mr Khalil said.

Historian Nagmi Abdulmajid said during British control of Aden, the region was cosmopolitan and contained the second busiest harbour in the world. The queen’s visit even sparked a construction boom.

“This is why people miss the British not just in Aden but in the other countries colonised by them in the East " he said.

Platinum Jubilee: Yemen remembers Queen Elizabeth's visit and a lost era of hope

 

[Debater Slayer]

The Queen's job was to be an apolitical head of state with no power of government policy.

If your job is to be an apolitical head of state, then making personal political statements to influence policy or that may impact diplomatic relations is not your job.

Many of the same people who criticise her for not "doing more" about colonialism also think having an unelected head of state is terribly undemocratic. Yet they also hold it against her that the unelected "undemocratic" head of state didn't try to interfere more in political affairs.

[...]

He seems to think the Queen was a political leader deciding on policy. I guess some people from some cultures might find the idea of an apolitical head of state conceptually challenging.

It's not that the idea is conceptually challenging; it's that there are questions over whether the head of the British monarchy is entirely apolitical, or whether she was back then.

My primary question, personally, is whether she, as the nominal head of a constitutional monarchy, could have still done better within the boundaries of her position. Did she really have no influence whatsoever, even in her ceremonial position? I suppose the answer to that is a focal point here.

Happened to see this linked online too, although I'd be very surprised if this was a massively representative view, and Gulf media certainly has its own agendas:

Despite the clear negatives of colonialism in the country, Yemen’s current destruction and devastation has left some longing for the era of British control.

“The Aden which Queen Elizabeth visited in 1954 doesn't exist today,” Mr Khalil said.

Historian Nagmi Abdulmajid said during British control of Aden, the region was cosmopolitan and contained the second busiest harbour in the world. The queen’s visit even sparked a construction boom.

“This is why people miss the British not just in Aden but in the other countries colonised by them in the East " he said.

Platinum Jubilee: Yemen remembers Queen Elizabeth's visit and a lost era of hope

I would definitely be surprised if this were a common view, too. At least in Egypt, the British era is considered a dark period in our history, but I'm unsure exactly how Yemenis might view their own era of being colonized by the British in terms of the extent to which it was negative for them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I guess some people from some cultures might find the idea of an apolitical head of state conceptually challenging.

... and we all know how conceptually challenged some people from some cultures are.

 

[pearl]

If you're a supporter of the Queen or someone who likes her, what are your thoughts on her actions toward African, Asian, and Arab colonies (among others) as well as some of their abusive regimes? I would hope most of her supporters stood against the atrocities committed or enabled under the British monarchy, but I'm also unsure how they would view her actions if so. Was she entirely innocent or not, in your opinion?

It raises the question, how powerful was Queen Elizabeth II, before her coronation there was already a prime minister, which as I understand, rightly or wrongly, held the political power.

 

[Augustus]

... and we all know how conceptually challenged some people from some cultures are.

Europeans and Americans never misunderstand aspects of others' cultures for example. Just doesn't happen. Everyone always understands the nuances of different cultures perfectly and it is ludicrous to say otherwise

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe she was perhaps the least powerful monarch out of all until her accession. However, "least powerful" doesn't mean powerless, hence the question of whether she could have done better in order to amend or distance herself from the British monarchy's blood-stained heritage.

Do you think she encouraged or opposed the British
empire being dissolved into the Commonwealth?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I find it hard to "mourn" the death of anyone who has managed to live into his or her mid-90s. I also acknowledge a significant ignorance when it comes to "constitutional monarchy." But, while I'm unwilling to mourn and unable to fully understand, I do believe that Elizabeth II was, on balance, a remarkable example of a monarch who exhaustively focused on duty rather than personal gain.

Shakespeare has Marc Anthony observe: "The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones.” It is an observation that typically comes to mind when I think of LBJ -- the butcher of Viet Nam and champion of the Civil Rights Act. What with social media and our 24/7 news cycle, just the opposite may be seen in response to the Queen's death.

Perspective takes time. For now, I allow myself the opportunity to respectfully acknowledge the remarkable, and, to the limited extent possible, respectfully empathize with those monarchists and non-monarchists who are feeling a sense of loss.

And, as I do so, I will assiduously refrain from declaring: "God Save the King."

In 1961, when racial segregation was still a big deal in the US, Her Majesty caused gasps around the world by dancing with then-President of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah. Ghana was in turmoil at the time, and there were very real fears that it might leave the Commonwealth and and fall into the Soviet orbit. Her Majesty's visit really did help Ghana to remain in the Commonwealth.

We have to remember, England is a Constitutional Monarchy. The monarch, although head of state, has very little power -- mostly only covering which party will form a government. What the monarch does do, however, is to advise her PM (she's had 15 since Winston Churchill) every week without fail. Remember, she met practically every leader of the world over the past 7 decades. Think about that. And remember that because she sits aloof from politics, she has a sort of 30,000 foot level view -- and she remembers. As we know, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. She helped her PMs remember history.

One final little note: although she must remain above politics, it was pretty well-known that Her Majesty supported Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in sanctioning South Africa at a Commonwealth Conference in 1987. Those sanctions helped to end the racist apartheid system in South Africa, and led to the freeing of Nelson Mandela. Mandela was forever grateful to both Mulroney and Her Majesty. His first oversees visit was to Canada, to speak to our Parliament, and in 1998 he was an honoured guest, staying at Buckingham Palace and riding in a carriage through London side-by-side with the Queen. The called each other "friends."

(I had some assistance with the above from a guest opinion in the Toronto Sun Newspaper by Christina Blizzard.)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

(I had some assistance with the above from a guest opinion in the Toronto Sun Newspaper by Christina Blizzard.)

Be that as it may, your post was very helpful and much appreciated.

P.S.: Sorry to have missed you during our delightful week in Stratford. Perhaps next year.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks to @Evangelicalhumanist for the following ...

Queen Elizabeth's remarkable life and legacy​

 

[Altfish]

As a Brit, I'm not proud of our past. Countries with Empires rarely have a good history.

Not sure Queen Elizabeth could have done much more

 

[Augustus]

It's not that the idea is conceptually challenging; it's that there are questions over whether the head of the British monarchy is entirely apolitical, or whether she was back then.

I think many people do find it difficult conceptually. It's often very hard for any of us to think outside of our own cultural frames of reference.

I know from experience that differences in power distance between cultures are one of the hardest things to grasp even for people who have lived in another country for decades. People may be able to verbally explain differences, but they often can't think intuitively from the other perspective (and I certainly include myself in that).

The idea of the person with the highest status but no influence is incongruous.

My primary question, personally, is whether she, as the nominal head of a constitutional monarchy, could have still done better within the boundaries of her position. Did she really have no influence whatsoever, even in her ceremonial position? I suppose the answer to that is a focal point here.

Hypothetically, what kind of thing do you think she could/should have done?

And assuming she had wanted to do something, should a nominally apolitical monarch use their influence as monarch to pursue their own politics if they believe that it is the right thing to do and given the public elects a government to govern?

 

[Augustus]

If you're a supporter of the Queen or someone who likes her, what are your thoughts on her actions toward African, Asian, and Arab colonies (among others) as well as some of their abusive regimes? I would hope most of her supporters stood against the atrocities committed or enabled under the British monarchy, but I'm also unsure how they would view her actions if so. Was she entirely innocent or not, in your opinion?

May be of interest too

From the leader of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland (formerly the political wing of the IRA), so obviously not a particularly fervent monarchist:


It’s with deep regret that I learned of the passing of Queen Elizabeth II. The British people will miss the leadership she gave as monarch. I would like to offer my sincere sympathies and condolences to her children, and wider family as they come to terms with their grief 1/4

I wish to especially acknowledge the profound sorrow of our neighbours from within the unionist community who will feel her loss deeply. Personally, I am grateful for Queen Elizabeth’s significant contribution and determined efforts to advancing peace and reconciliation 2/4

between our two islands. Throughout the peace process she led by example in building relationships with those of us who are Irish, and who share a different political allegiance and aspirations to herself and her Government. 3/4

Having met Queen Elizabeth on a number of occasions alongside my colleague, the late Martin McGuinness, I appreciated both her warmth and courtesy. 4/4
https://twitter.com/moneillsf/status/1567931681662697472


The IRA killed one of her relatives, Lord Mountbatten, and we would usually praise someone for putting the greater good above their own feelings.

 

[sun rise]

Today on Bored Panda: this which to me shows how someone with no real power can make a very important point.

And these

Her Joy Upon Giving Same-Sex Marriage Her Royal Assent

In 2015, Queen Elizabeth II Decided To Not Breed Anymore Corgis So That She Would Not Leave Any Behind When She Died. Her Last Corgi Died In April 2018

Queen Elizabeth Once Hid In A Bush With Her Corgis To Avoid Talking To Romanian Dictator Nicolae Ceaușescu And His Wife

45 Unforgettable Times When Queen Elizabeth II Reminded Everyone Who Was In Charge

 

[exchemist]

I have been off most social media for over a year, but after checking my social media feeds out of curiosity following the Queen's passing, it has been quite interesting to observe the divide in the reactions from most Asians, Africans, and Arabs on my feed as opposed to most Western people. The former are mostly either indifferent or critical of her, while the latter are mostly mourning her. This is one of the posts I saw linked today by an Arab friend:

https://twitter.com/aldanimarki/status/1567861763219116032

If you're a supporter of the Queen or someone who likes her, what are your thoughts on her actions toward African, Asian, and Arab colonies (among others) as well as some of their abusive regimes? I would hope most of her supporters stood against the atrocities committed or enabled under the British monarchy, but I'm also unsure how they would view her actions if so. Was she entirely innocent or not, in your opinion?

The British monarchy is a constitutional one in which the role of the monarch is ceremonial. Queen Elizabeth II was not in any way responsible for the policies pursued by the British government, either domestic or foreign. Britain is not and was not Saudi Arabia. So it is quite misguided to judge her on what Britain did or did not do in its overseas relations, and wholly inappropriate to speak of atrocities being committed "under the British monarchy". That is not how it works.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I have been off most social media for over a year, but after checking my social media feeds out of curiosity following the Queen's passing, it has been quite interesting to observe the divide in the reactions from most Asians, Africans, and Arabs on my feed as opposed to most Western people. The former are mostly either indifferent or critical of her, while the latter are mostly mourning her. This is one of the posts I saw linked today by an Arab friend:

https://twitter.com/aldanimarki/status/1567861763219116032

If you're a supporter of the Queen or someone who likes her, what are your thoughts on her actions toward African, Asian, and Arab colonies (among others) as well as some of their abusive regimes? I would hope most of her supporters stood against the atrocities committed or enabled under the British monarchy, but I'm also unsure how they would view her actions if so. Was she entirely innocent or not, in your opinion?

It makes more sense to blame those like Churchill or Thatcher who actually drove the direction of England seeing as how it's a Constitutional Monarchy and the reigning monarch doesn't have the power or abilities of someone like the Prime Minister.
Or, think of Brexit and how it was BoJo's thing, not the Elizabeth's. That's how it works there.