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

[Shadow Wolf]

Still one of my favorite Far Sides.

 

[rational experiences]

Civilisation wrong. We know it is.

Family first and not slavery. Given away. Bad choice. Didn't listen to father's spiritual please. Too late it was chosen.

Life's scenario. The battle of humanity to try to reclaim equal rights.

So awareness said I will start to try to share a common Wealth.

Yet you own the hierarchy of civilisation. As it's destruction is not a positive outcome for family. So you are made aware. You structure trying to achieve it.

Aware that if you aren't rich like evil brothers lords...then you have no say about choices in the group rich man contrivances.

So you do your best. Based on past organisational we must try to stop Satanism science occult destruction on earth. Remembering secret orders once were involved. Going to war the last resolve.

So heads of state would visit evil men and try to convince them of being otherwise.

As a human I don't lie that family had a mother father grand parents hierarchy which the queen in family had tried to succeed. The overseeing role play.

Old ways as being rich inheritance yet Rich began as Christian hypocrites if you realise the confession.

It is what it is. See it in its reality before you allow those nasty men full control. And life's destruction based on thesis technology power using power in thoughts total annihilation of life.

As it was theoried in the minds of men already. The too late scenario is right now.

 

[Revoltingest]

Still one of my favorite Far Sides.

Many people were quite angry at Larson for that'n.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Many people were quite angry at Larson for that'n.

Those many can shut up--very thoroughly shut the hell up--because Jane Goodall herself loves it.

 

[Revoltingest]

Those many can shut up--very thoroughly shut the hell up--because Jane Goodall herself loves it.

She does.

 

[Augustus]

Does the monarch have no influence, though, or only limited influence?

Anyone who speaks to the PM regularly has influence, including their spouse, kids, driver, cronies, etc.

The extent to which this unofficial influence is used or is effective is unknown (although I imagine it wasn't used extensively), but, just as with their kids or driver, the PM can ignore it.

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.

Technically she can, but it hasn't been done for 300 years or so AFAIK.

No monarch who accepted they had a historical duty to the role would do such a thing as it is basically them trying to alter the political/constitutional order.

Her refusal to do this would be her challenging common law precedent and she would undoubtedly lose any legal challenge as Parliament is long established to have primacy.

So, basically she couldn't.

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.

Then she is not apolitical.

Saying someone should be apolitical except on certain issues that they deem important enough says they are a political figure, which is not their job.

In matters of war, and purported national security, like Iraq she has even more reason to keep her thoughts to herself.

The Royals don't exactly strike me as being among the finest and most erudite strategic visionaries in the land after all.

Politicians are elected to make decisions, and are accountable for these, the Queen is a ceremonial and symbolic figurehead who is not accountable and so should keep out of it.

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.

As noted, technically she could, practically she couldn't, and it would have been an egregious, and ultimately futile, dereliction of duty.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Given the Queen died only a few days after seeing Liz Truss, she probably thought, 'Oh no, not another Thatcher, I'm orff!'

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Given the Queen died only a few days after seeing Liz Truss, she probably thought, 'Oh no, not another Thatcher, I'm orff!'

Yeah, Truss made the poor woman think she saw a ghost, lol.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 hear if she wanted to, she could actually reestablish the monarchy in England in dire circumstances.

I think there is a Fixed Term Parliament Act however.

 

[Augustus]

I hear if she wanted to, she could actually reestablish the monarchy in England in dire circumstances.

I think there is a Fixed Term Parliament Act however.

The monarch can provoke a constitutional crisis by ignoring parliament and asserting their legal powers, but would lose any legal challenge based on 3 centuries of precedent.

 

[JIMMY12345]

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?

India had a bank holiday as a mark of respect of her passing and all the Commonwealth sent representatives to the funeral. The Queen danced with Ghanian Nkrumah and ordered a place at table for Nelson Mandela. This was part of her message that in the emerging new world order all countries were equals. To some extent its age. The youngsters do not appreciate how much she did as Head of the Commonwealth. She can't be held responsible for historic injustices way back in the past.