• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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?

I think many in America may have a certain fondness for the British Royal Family, but since our founding involved throwing out the British monarchists, there has always been a strong anti-monarchist bent. Some may have loved the Queen from afar, but that's as far as it went.

Of course, many of the worst atrocities occurred before she became Queen, even before she was born. Britain had actually started to become more liberal, and most of Britain's colonies were granted independence. By that time, the U.S. had taken a more prominent and leading role in geopolitics, with the U.S. also favoring independence, as long as they could establish pro-Western and/or anti-communist governments. That would also appear to align with the interests of Britain, since US, British, and Western interests overall had become quite interconnected at that point.

I don't know how much the Queen knew or whether she had the power to make any difference in the course of world events. If she is to be judged according to the actions of her government during her reign, then one might still give mixed reviews. Americans might view it from an American point of view where Britain is considered our closest ally. Places where Britain occupied and committed atrocities may hold a different viewpoint, and that's fair. Americans also have a checkered past, much of it is indefensible.
 

rational experiences

Veteran Member
Are any humans living today innocent of being informed about past atrocities?

Yes.

We live now. We cannot change the past.

We change now in the present. By behaviour practice choices.

To heal mind conscious human behaviours by believing in family human rights. Legality is no argument mutual equal. It's natural law order.

Rich human. Are any of you living as a mutual equal?

Yes we are born babies by human sex.

Okay you Inherit riches?

Yes.

Why?

Implemented civilisation governing over family tribal communities natural status. Known.

The warning king's of old humans slavery ....includes lords of trade as included. Each vying always to be. Rich man king too. Same behaviours.

Was it fairly acquired?

No.

Legal position now. Equality family rights. World populous community.

Can we remove civilisation?

No but also yes.

Constructive removal is to impose fair trade by family members to begin again. Then rich will dwindle away naturally. Lords of trade rich and in governing will dwindle too.

As only governing like a human business is legal. Lords gained monetary governing benefits to be rich. Personally. Aren't honest either.

Rich say no. Want to fight wars to remain rich. Blow up buildings and homes in civilisation structure. To say now I'll begin again.

Is their behaviour history known to family.

Is our human family aware warning about the rich human behaviour.

To govern. Is a role. The dignity of the role is family rights. Not a paycheck.

Family fair trading all roles support any other role. All is important as everything is important.

If you don't believe in fair trade. You only believe in self wealth.

Is only about human behaviour. We're all human...we are all family.

To be honest means you've learnt being rich is false behaviour and self destructive past history.

To learn you agree you know past behaviour incorrect.

Wisdom was families fair trade. Order was families aging by natural mutual hierarchy only.

Rich lineage says parent gives riches to child continues hierarchy.

Lords do the same to their children. Rich remain rich.

Family not given mutual Inheritance kept in slavery our advice.

Lords try to oust King queen just to takeover same behaviour.

Hence the legal world fair trade application has to change to bring about change.

Change cannot be forced instant compliance. As instant means destructive.

It needs to be gradual where the rich are given allowed less by fair equal rights law whilst the lower life standards are brought into mutual equity by processes.

That theme says tribal nation family cares for their own. Then share glut with families unable to nation care for self.

So nations families tribal community come together to action for world family.

To over ride man's inability to not reward himself with a greedy lifestyle based on human family suffering. As false leadership. As leadership was only ever a wise older human.

As we are human family first.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
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.)

Thanks for the insightful reply.

One part I'm unsure about is just how much she helped some of her PMs remember history. Tony Blair aided Bush in the invasion of Iraq, and she knighted Blair after. I would have hoped he would have avoided such military aggression, if only due to how destructive and brutal it was before we even consider any historical aspects or precedents.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

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.

Does the monarch have no influence, though, or only limited influence? Specifically, this ties into my next question:

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?

1) Could she have denied royal assent or at least tried to steer her country clear of certain courses of action? If yes, then that would have been something I think she should have done. For instance, averting her country's involvement in the Tripartite Aggression or the Iraq War would have been far better than simply granting both acts of military aggression royal assent.

This is assuming that she was not entirely and absolutely helpless. Put differently, if she had granted royal assent to, say, the establishment of concentration camps, would we have also said that she was entirely powerless to do otherwise?

2) That would depend on the specific situation and circumstances. Going back to my hypothetical about concentration camps, a supposedly apolitical monarch would, in my opinion, be commendable for trying to pursue aversion of such a thing—regardless of their own politics. Some issues go beyond partisan politics and touch on basic human rights and values, as far as I can see, and invading other countries like the US and UK did to Iraq or Russia did to Ukraine seems to me one such issue where personal politics becomes secondary to humanitarian values.

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.

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.

My above questions and points are in response to this argument. If the British head of state is entirely powerless to influence their country's military involvement in other countries, then I agree. If not, I don't see a convincing reason not to hold them at least partially responsible for granting assent to said involvement and not using their available influence to pursue a more peaceful approach and prevent large-scale bloodshed.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Does the monarch have no influence, though, or only limited influence? Specifically, this ties into my next question:



1) Could she have denied royal assent or at least tried to steer her country clear of certain courses of action? If yes, then that would have been something I think she should have done. For instance, averting her country's involvement in the Tripartite Aggression or the Iraq War would have been far better than simply granting both acts of military aggression royal assent.

This is assuming that she was not entirely and absolutely helpless. Put differently, if she had granted royal assent to, say, the establishment of concentration camps, would we have also said that she was entirely powerless to do otherwise?

2) That would depend on the specific situation and circumstances. Going back to my hypothetical about concentration camps, a supposedly apolitical monarch would, in my opinion, be commendable for trying to pursue aversion of such a thing—regardless of their own politics. Some issues go beyond partisan politics and touch on basic human rights and values, as far as I can see, and invading other countries like the US and UK did to Iraq or Russia did to Ukraine seems to me one such issue where personal politics becomes secondary to humanitarian values.





My above questions and points are in response to this argument. If the British head of state is entirely powerless to influence their country's military involvement in other countries, then I agree. If not, I don't see a convincing reason not to hold them at least partially responsible for granting assent to said involvement and not using their available influence to pursue a more peaceful approach and prevent large-scale bloodshed.
It seems to me this has now been answered at some length.
 

Debater Slayer

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

1-631b2f1eac117__700.jpg


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

Saudi Arabia's ban on driving was lifted primarily owing to the courage of activists such as Loujain al-Hathloul who put their lives at risk and helped generate international pressure on Saudi Arabia to remove the ban, not a fleeting gesture from the monarch of a global power.

As for hiding in a bush to avoid talking to Ceausescu and his wife, the Queen talked to numerous dictators during her reign, which is something I don't blame a head of state for (since it is part of their duty). I'm not sure how that specific instance with Ceausescu says much, if anything.

Still, I'm more interested in what, if any, influence she could have exerted to help prevent major human rights violations (e.g., the invasion of Iraq and subsequent war crimes related to it) rather than individual and relatively minor gestures.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
It seems to me this has now been answered at some length.

I haven't yet seen a response to the point about whether a monarch is entirely powerless and can do nothing but grant royal assent to governmental measures no matter how abusive or hostile they may be. That's the crux of the thread topic, in my opinion, since the answer to it is what would determine whether a monarch should be held accountable, partially or otherwise, for their country's actions.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
C2ED9D4E-C985-47FD-976F-F28CC239D14D.jpeg
I haven't yet seen a response to the point about whether a monarch is entirely powerless and can do nothing but grant royal assent to governmental measures no matter how abusive or hostile they may be. That's the crux of the thread topic, in my opinion, since the answer to it is what would determine whether a monarch should be held accountable, partially or otherwise, for their country's actions.
Basically Liz rubber-stamped what the government put on her desk. Frinstance she probably thought Johnson was a complete tosser (Partygate and funeral springs to mind*) but couldn't do anything it.

* "In January 2022, reports emerged of an event with drinks on 20 May 2020 in the garden of 10 Downing Street during the first national lockdown. Johnson said that he attended and apologised for doing so. Downing Street apologised to Queen Elizabeth II for two events on 16 April 2021, the day before Prince Philip's funeral, during a third lockdown across England."

- Partygate - Wikipedia
 
Last edited:

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Basically Liz rubber-stamped what the government put on her desk. Frinstance she probably thought Johnson was a complete tosser (Partygate and funeral springs to mind) but couldn't do anything it.

I know; the question is whether she could have done otherwise in specific cases. If she had been able to do so, then we wouldn't have entirely absolved her of responsibility for, say, approving a significantly inhumane act such as, hypothetically, the establishment of a concentration camp or the initiation of a genocide.
 

Secret Chief

nirvana is samsara
I know; the question is whether she could have done otherwise in specific cases. If she had been able to do so, then we wouldn't have entirely absolved her of responsibility for, say, approving a significantly inhumane act such as, hypothetically, the establishment of a concentration camp or the initiation of a genocide.
Officially no. Unofficially I suppose we'll never know what went on behind closed doors.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
Thanks for the insightful reply.

One part I'm unsure about is just how much she helped some of her PMs remember history. Tony Blair aided Bush in the invasion of Iraq, and she knighted Blair after. I would have hoped he would have avoided such military aggression, if only due to how destructive and brutal it was before we even consider any historical aspects or precedents.

Unfortunately the honours list wasn’t decided by Queen Elizabeth or even the Queens speech,Blair the liar was put forward for a peerage and a place in the House of Lords but was rejected so he ended up with a knighthood,the list wasn’t decided by her but by the cabinet office who twice yearly hand out investitures to some deserving and some not deserving recipients.
 

Debater Slayer

Vipassana
Staff member
Premium Member
Unfortunately the honours list wasn’t decided by Queen Elizabeth or even the Queens speech,Blair the liar was put forward for a peerage and a place in the House of Lords but was rejected so he ended up with a knighthood,the list wasn’t decided by her but by the cabinet office who twice yearly hand out investitures to some deserving and some not deserving recipients.

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info!

It's tragic how some of the British PMs in recent years have been so utterly undeserving of leading a country with such a rich heritage and global presence. Tony Blair and Boris Johnson are disgraceful.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Does the monarch have no influence, though, or only limited influence? Specifically, this ties into my next question:



1) Could she have denied royal assent or at least tried to steer her country clear of certain courses of action? If yes, then that would have been something I think she should have done. For instance, averting her country's involvement in the Tripartite Aggression or the Iraq War would have been far better than simply granting both acts of military aggression royal assent.

This is assuming that she was not entirely and absolutely helpless. Put differently, if she had granted royal assent to, say, the establishment of concentration camps, would we have also said that she was entirely powerless to do otherwise?

2) That would depend on the specific situation and circumstances. Going back to my hypothetical about concentration camps, a supposedly apolitical monarch would, in my opinion, be commendable for trying to pursue aversion of such a thing—regardless of their own politics. Some issues go beyond partisan politics and touch on basic human rights and values, as far as I can see, and invading other countries like the US and UK did to Iraq or Russia did to Ukraine seems to me one such issue where personal politics becomes secondary to humanitarian values.





My above questions and points are in response to this argument. If the British head of state is entirely powerless to influence their country's military involvement in other countries, then I agree. If not, I don't see a convincing reason not to hold them at least partially responsible for granting assent to said involvement and not using their available influence to pursue a more peaceful approach and prevent large-scale bloodshed.
The monarchy was utterly powerless over guiding its country with Brexit. That is a strong indication the English Monarchy holds very little power as there was practically nothing it could do regarding the future of England.
Seems more appropriate to blame those leading the charge. The Queen didn't like Thatcher, for example, but Thatcher still left her mark on British and Irish society.
 

England my lionheart

Rockerjahili Rebel
Premium Member
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info!

It's tragic how some of the British PMs in recent years have been so utterly undeserving of leading a country with such a rich heritage and global presence. Tony Blair and Boris Johnson are disgraceful.

I would add Thatcher too to those,in fact I’m struggling to remember a truly deserving leader.
 

pearl

Well-Known Member
After all the pros and cons I think she deserved the admiration she was given. Considering the times in which she reigned, she 'made a pledge and kept her promise'. I think understood her time not as a privilege but a duty.
But I think now the possibility of the monarchy's end might be serious consideration.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the info!

It's tragic how some of the British PMs in recent years have been so utterly undeserving of leading a country with such a rich heritage and global presence. Tony Blair and Boris Johnson are disgraceful.
That "rich heritage" also had many disgraceful aspects.
But I've not seen evidence that she dirtied her hands in those.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Thanks for the insightful reply.

One part I'm unsure about is just how much she helped some of her PMs remember history. Tony Blair aided Bush in the invasion of Iraq, and she knighted Blair after. I would have hoped he would have avoided such military aggression, if only due to how destructive and brutal it was before we even consider any historical aspects or precedents.
The monarch has the authority to offer the award of Knighthood (for a man) and Damehood, but in this modern era, the Queen relies on the Awards Intelligence Service for candidates for the award. The criterion is that a candidate must have made a major contribution to the country, be an inspiration to others, and can be a citizen of the U.K., or anyone who meets the criteria. I think it obvious that (for good or ill) all PMs make a major contribution!

Not all prime ministers of England and the U.K. receive Knighthoods, but in modern times, most are offered. There have been 49 out of 77 British prime ministers that have been knights. Some are not offered because they already have titles such as Baron or other peerage titles which gives them noble status. However, others have been seemingly snubbed for political reasons, notably Tony Blair (1997–2007) and Gordon Brown (2007–2010).

Notice that the knighthood for Blair is brand new, 14 years after he left office.
 
Top