[Unthinking Majority]

She has the powers. It is by custom that she chooses to not use them - this is not the same as not having them.

Her powers have been stripped from her through a millennia of common law and constitutional conventions, many of which aren't written down anywhere.

Which is something you admit perfectly well here - why would it be a constitutional crisis? Because she has these powers, on paper, that it is customary/expected for her not to use, but which are still, legally, hers.

Because yes she has the power but also by constitutional convention she is supposed to act on the advice of Parliament. The Prime Minister and their role/powers are also not listed anywhere in writing in the constitution because of the common law.

Nonetheless, government policies are within the UK monarch's role of influence. The UK monarch has a bully pulpit and can be a powerful advocate.

LOL no they aren't, this is nonsense.

Lizzie was silent, and complicit. She's a cute old woman and I love her corgies, but the offense some here take to not everyone liking her and not falling over themselves to be nice is weird.

If you don't like her that's fine. But to state that she sucks because she has all this power that she doesn't actually have is nonsense.

Then nothing is lost through its abolition - except maybe monarchs not using $12,000,000 in taxpayer funds to bail out their pedophile children.

All monarchies should be abolished, mind - I'm not particularly against the British monarchy. The Spanish Borbouns can head on out too. Hereditary, aristocratic monarchy is bad on principle. People are fundamentally equal, no one's blood is special, and fuck the divine right of kings.

The UK and the Commonwealth nations are democracies and they could get rid of the monarchy if they wanted but the people don't want to. I can only assume you don't have a vote on that one. This isn't the 1400's, the people rose up a long time ago and stripped the monarchy of all of its power in favour of representative liberal democracy. People aren't ruled by the monarch in any tangible way, the monarch is an overpaid celeb as head of state who waves to crowds and makes politically neutral Christmas messages and people like the tradition enough to choose to keep it around. If you want to get rid of a monarchy, or completely de-power it like the UK, then complain about Saudi Arabia or something.

[Unthinking Majority]

96 year old lady does her job for 70 years, job duties were waving to people and signing documents she had no understanding of, and some people hiss at her for it when she dies. Weird.

[Fasces]

Because yes she has the power but also by constitutional convention she is supposed to act on the advice of Parliament. The Prime Minister and their role/powers are also not listed anywhere in writing in the constitution because of the common law.

OK. So it's a legitimate criticism to criticize her for not forcing the issue by using the powers she has but "shouldn't" use. She could have done a lot and chose not too because of "convention". She could have forced a constitutional crisis to end the Troubles, but instead chose to live a life of luxury in her castles and honor criminals, smiling sweetly and saying nothing. She could have publicly demanded the resignation of Churchill, Macmillan, or even the Governor-Generals in Kenya or Rhodesia during the Mau Mau Rebellion - even if she wouldn't have gotten them.

It is fair to criticize her decisions. Melania got a lot of criticism for not being an active First Lady in the vein of Obama or Bush also, despite their ceremonial role.

LOL no they aren't, this is nonsense

Even Taylor Swift tweeting about something is "influence on politics" and using her bully pulpit. You honestly are telling me if the Queen called a press conference or made a phone call into the BBC about XYZ issue, it wouldn't immediately become a matter of public debate? That the Queen going on TV and saying "The British Museum should give back the Parthenon Stones and return the Benin artifacts" wouldn't mean anything? That the Queen threatening to abdicate if decision XYZ isn't made wouldn't do anything?

When did she do it to challenge Her government's policies on colonialism, or other human rights abuses? She had influence. She did not use it properly. She received and honored war criminals, and stood silently complicit in the crimes of the government which governs IN HER NAME. It is fair to criticize her for her decisions while she served in that role. She doesn't need, nor do I think she'd give a fuck about, any of this white knighting and mock outrage at the idea that some folks think she wasn't that great - a sweet old lady paraded around to mask an archaic and unnecessary institution and give a friendly face to an imperial government.

If you guys want to mourn her, sure, go nuts - but its not weird that some folks don't give a fuck or don't see her as a public figure worth mourning.

[Drlee]

@Pants-of-dog Fuck off. The Queen doesn't control the States, nor does she make decisions for them. Your victimhood BS and slander is tiresome. Why don't you blame the Queen for things that happened hundreds of years ago, too? it's just as relevant, and stupid.

He is a broken record. A one-issue, one trick pony.

It is typical of the dickless left these days to blame a 96 year old woman for shit that happened forever ago in far away.

There is no making him happy. His sense of self is anchored in being a victim. NO WHINING ON THE YACHT POD.

I can see the handwriting on the wall. The real vultures are circling. The UK will abolish the monarchy and derive some sort of ultra controllable republican mess. And freedom as they know it will be over.

They wish to replace a stable constitutional monarchy, providing wonderful personal freedom and a safe and effective nanny state with the folks who brought the nation what must be the most idiotic move in the history of misguided politics,"Brexit". Those are the people they want as the symbol of their national government.

Well. I am just tired of stupid people. I am tired of self destructive people. So they get what they deserve.

I have never heard it discussed but I believe that every society needs special people to represent how important every person is. I some odd way the monarchy does that. Every subject of the King can legitimately say, "I am just as important as that guy". And that is pretty damned important.

The UK has a democracy that works. So did the US at one time not long ago. We broke it. The UK can too. And they probably will.

[AFAIK]

I don’t know many families, that, at the height of their grief, have to share their most private moments with total strangers. It’s unfathomable. But there they were, Charles, Anne, Edward and Andrew standing guard at their mothers coffin. It was a perfectly sad and genuine spectacle.

Charles was in such a rush to become King that he scrambled atop the throne whilst his mother's body was still warm. If they wanted some privacy they could have delayed that and avoided the scrutiny and criticism that comes with it.

Without the Royal Family, England would be exactly what it is...Belgium with nukes.

Does Belgium have a seat on the UNSC and G7? Didn't think so.

[Potemkin]

@Potemkin



I don't know if I necessarily agree with that assumption. The wealthy are using their capital to make money. They are giving up being able to use their capital for other things so they should be compensated for it. However in cases of obscene wealth it could very well be justified that such people with such out of this world wealth pay more in taxes who make much of their money off passive income. That being said, you have to give people an incentive to invest their hard earned capital to improve the economy and increase innovation as well.

This is just another way of saying that capitalism, uniquely among economic modes of production, requires free riders in order to function at all.

[ingliz]

The UK has a democracy that works.

If you look closer, you will see that Britain is not governed through parliamentary democracy but by executive fiat. The UK is a democracy only in the weakest and shallowest sense.

It's what Lord Hailsham called an elective dictatorship.

[Igor Antunov]

[Rich]

OK. So it's a legitimate criticism to criticize her for not forcing the issue by using the powers she has but "shouldn't" use. She could have done a lot and chose not too because of "convention". She could have forced a constitutional crisis to end the Troubles, but instead chose to live a life of luxury in her castles and honor criminals, smiling sweetly and saying nothing. She could have publicly demanded the resignation of Churchill, Macmillan, or even the Governor-Generals in Kenya or Rhodesia during the Mau Mau Rebellion - even if she wouldn't have gotten them.

It is fair to criticize her decisions. Melania got a lot of criticism for not being an active First Lady in the vein of Obama or Bush also, despite their ceremonial role.

Yeah what happened to Laura Bush's "No Afghan school girl left behind"?

In regard to the Mau Mau Its a legitimate criticism, but a mistaken one.

The Western allies committed massive, massive "human rights" abuses in WWII. There's no getting away from it, the bombing campaigns conducted against Germany and Japan by both the British and American air-forces were genocide. If this wasn't enough. As if we hadn't committed enough human rights abuses on our own account we were allied with Stalin and Al Saud, two men that had already committed genocide before the second world war started with Mussolini's, (remember him, he was the one that got installed because, not despite of, but because of the checks and balances of the constitutional monarchy) invasion of "Black Lives" Semites Ethiopia.

Note the excuse of we committed genocide in order to stop a greater genocide, won't wash in the case of Germany, because when the bombing campaign started Hitler's long term extermination plans towards Jews, Gypsies and Slavs were not known.

So most people understand that these vast human rights abuses need to be judged in the context of the overriding need to defeat the Nazis and the Showa Fascists at all costs. The same applies to human rights abuses committed within the cold war.

[Pants-of-dog]

The human rights abuses committed under QE2’s reign were not about the Cold War, per se.

They were mostly about stopping anti-colonialist struggles.

[Negotiator]

Note the excuse of we committed genocide in order to stop a greater genocide, won't wash in the case of Germany, because when the bombing campaign started Hitler's long term extermination plans towards Jews, Gypsies and Slavs were not known.

Fun fact: Wikipedia still doesnt know the genocide against slaws.

Poles, yes. Russian prisoners of war, yes. Russian civilians, who have been murdered in far greater number (about 13 to 17 million, depending upon source) ... nope ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_g ... death_toll

Just one of these places when you realize that Wikipedia is shit and useless as a source of information.

[Drlee]

The human rights abuses committed under QE2’s reign were not about the Cold War, per se.

They were mostly about stopping anti-colonialist struggles.

Colonialism is mostly a myth for the past 100 or so years. It is a hackneyed term that discontented leftists haul out when they find it inconvenient to blame some groups for their own lot in life. Particularly those who, for what I think may be very good reasons, do not sprint into the 21st century. Must be they can't because of "colonialism". Rather it may be that they just look at modern life in the 21st century and shy away from it like a horse at a tall fence.

There is an irony here. According to a study at Berkeley conservatives are about 20% happier than liberals.

Here is an off topic article that you can feel free to ignore. But it is filled with wisdom for folks on all sides of the political spectrum:

“When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.” —Lao Tzu

Internally, deep down, many people have the experience that they are damaged, broken, or simply “not enough.” Such thoughts and the beliefs that fuel them usually have their origins in the messages they received from others starting early in life. How we react in the present is strongly influenced by childhood experiences and internalized beliefs.

These beliefs and the resulting feelings are often so distressing that we protect ourselves by keeping them unconscious. Occasionally, there may be some vague awareness of their existence, but due to the discomfort they generate, they tend to remain hidden—from oneself as well as from everyone else. They also affect (or perhaps infect) most all ongoing relationships.

One way in which beliefs and feelings of inferiority are disguised and kept at a distance is through the defense mechanism of reaction-formation. Reaction-formation protects against too-painful thoughts and feelings by turning them into their opposites—for example, presenting an attitude of arrogance to compensate for underlying feelings of inadequacy—I’m not “less than” others because I am “better than” others!

This occurs whenever we judge others in a negative way: we are implicitly putting them down, making them inferior, and by comparison elevating the way we see ourselves by virtue of being “superior” to them—in a given circumstance, related to a particular quality, or in general.

Feelings of superiority often manifest in the need to be in control over people and situations. The need to control can also be a way of unconsciously compensating for feeling out of control. Attempts to control exist on a broad continuum, from aggressive and overt—threatening, intimidating, arguing, demanding, and asserting, to indirect—manipulating, steering, suggesting, and cajoling.

Frequently, the need to be in control takes the form of a need to “be right.” For some personalities (most of us know at least one), it is standard procedure to exert control through the need to be right, believing and acting as if they know what’s best, regardless of the situation.

For someone who is emotionally attached to the need to be right, all divergent perspectives, ideas, suggestions, and actions must be “wrong.” The need to be right convinces him or her of the correctness of his or her approach, while attachment to this end serves to justify the means used to facilitate it. When this dynamic is acted out, it creates suffering for those caught in its wake—most often partners and family members, including children.

Obviously, words can inflict considerable harm, but there are also many nonverbal ways of making clear that others are wrong. A disapproving glance or an exasperated tone of voice expresses dissatisfaction and sends a clear message that can be hurtful, and that hurt can have staying power. Especially for children, these kinds of experiences damage their developing sense of self—they cut like a jagged piece of glass, bleeding off self-worth.

Every such glance and utterance is an act of subtle (and sometimes not-so-subtle) emotional rejection and abandonment; a psychological betrayal of parent to child—though it also does serious damage to intimate partners and other adult relationships. The need to be right can go horribly wrong.

However, the suffering caused by this behavior also extends to the perpetrator. Acting on the incessant drive to be right requires considerable energy—it can be exhausting. Attachment to being right is a form of mental and emotional slavery. There is tremendous stress inherent in having to be right all the time. Even when those invested in control have an inkling that this is unhealthy, even if they feel guilt or shame subsequent to acting out their need to be right, they are nonetheless compelled to repeat it.

Because this pattern occurs automatically and habitually, the key to changing it is to become consciously aware of the need to be right and one’s attachment to it. Through the practice of mindfulness, suffering can become an experience that indicates where one is stuck. It is in letting go of the attachment that we can unchain ourselves from the need to be right.

Several years ago, I was told the story of an ongoing argument between a husband and wife. The actual subject of the argument is much less important than the process. As was often the case, the husband was certain he was right but couldn’t get his wife to back down and agree. The only thing they could agree on in this matter was to seek the counsel of their pastor.

The husband knew that the pastor would side with his position and designate him as “right.” As they shared their dramatically different perspectives, the husband made mental preparations to declare victory. To his considerable surprise, the pastor didn’t take sides, gracefully sidestepping the dichotomy of right/wrong, and the zero-sum game that goes with it. Rather, he asked matter-of-factly, “Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy?”

The elegant simplicity and remarkable depth of that question is stunning. It unlocks the door to an awareness that this can be a conscious choice. While being right is sometimes accompanied by happiness, in many scenarios the goals of being right and being happy are mutually exclusive. The need to be right, and by extension, to control people, situations, and outcomes, regularly obstructs the ability to be happy—insofar as happiness is a function of contentment and peace of mind, also known as serenity.

As the Tao Te Ching describes in verse 74: Trying to control things / is like trying to take the master carpenter’s place. / When you handle the master carpenter’s tools, / chances are that you’ll cut yourself.

And then blood gets all over the place and it’s a big mess!

Do you want to be right or do you want to be happy? Which is more important? Which is healthier? Which brings you closer to those you love and care about? Which moves you toward the person you are meant to be—your true self? Looking at the two options through this lens can make the choice very simple.

[Pants-of-dog]

If colonialism did not exist in the last 100 years, there would.be no anti-colonial uprisings.

Since there have been anti-colonial uprisings (against the British, no less) in the last 100 years, colonialism must have existed during the last 100 years.

[ness31]

Did anyone else watch the somber march from the Palace to Parliament?

[Rich]

The human rights abuses committed under QE2’s reign were not about the Cold War, per se.

They were mostly about stopping anti-colonialist struggles.

Decolonisation, its speed and its manner were deeply entwined with conflict between Communists and the anti Communist West. You see when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark and Norway it was pretty straightforward to decolonise them when the German Army was ejected. But in much of the world it not at all clear cut the nature of the regime that should replace the European Empires.

Take the question of Vietnam, who should lead? Should it be the Catholic Vietnamese elite, should be some sort of Mahayanan Buddhist nationalists, or should it be Ho Chi Ming's Communist party. Various groups were making different claims for legitimacy, and there was no established democratic culture to arbitrate between the competing claims even if the groups had been willing to abide by genuine democratic decisions. Or India. Should the Muslims have their own state or states? If so what boundaries should they have? Self determination is a good principle, but what it means in practice can be a very fraught and complex matter.

The key question here is do we want supposedly non political figures like the Queen or Laura Bush, with her no Afghan School Girl left behind, making well intentioned interventions into the political process. I would suggest no.

The Queens only job within the constitution is stop her families members from abusing their Royal privileges. From my view she hasn't done an exactly brilliant job on that score.

[Drlee]

If colonialism did not exist in the last 100 years, there would.be no anti-colonial uprisings.

Since there have been anti-colonial uprisings (against the British, no less) in the last 100 years, colonialism must have existed during the last 100 years.

Nonsense.

[Pants-of-dog]

FYI:

QE 2 became queen in 1952, so the following occurred during her reign:

The Mau Mau rebellion (1952–1960), also known as the Mau Mau uprising, Mau Mau revolt or Kenya Emergency, was a war in the British Kenya Colony (1920–1963) between the Kenya Land and Freedom Army (KLFA), also known as the Mau Mau, and the British authorities.[5]

…

Suppressing the Mau Mau Uprising in the Kenyan colony cost Britain £55 million[16] and caused at least 11,000 deaths among the Mau Mau and other forces, with some estimates considerably higher.[17] This included 1,090 executions by hanging.[17] The rebellion was marked by war crimes and massacres committed by both sides.

….

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_rebellion

Look up the Hola Massacre for added information.

[Rich]

FYI:

QE 2 became queen in 1952, so the following occurred during her reign:

Look up the Hola Massacre for added information.

I know a lot of people fantisise that I'm some sort of closet reactionary or secret Nazi, but actaully I've really been an Uber liberal for most of my life and my social attitudes might well have been described as looney left.

I opposed conventional sexual mores before I even fully understood what sex was. When I was told that God said "Thous shallt not commit adultery", it was very simple for me, God was wrong. From young adulthood

I opposed corporal punishment in Schools.
I oppossed capital punishment.
I opposed corporal punishment in prisons.
I supported the right of women to nearly all jobs, with the exceptions of things like front line soldiers.
I supported the right of people to be homosexual and did not think they should be discriminated.
My only objection to Gay marriage was that tax exemptions for marriage needed to be reduced not expanded.
I supported public nudity on beaches and in parks.
Decriminialisation of pornography.
I was opposed to racial discrimination and thought people of non European race should be able to be Prime Minister<and take other top positions of status.

Now by the standards of 2022, this might sound very un-radical. Things that don't even need to be said. But it wasn't that long ago that this was radical. The reason I bring this up to try and get people to understand how different people were in their attitudes back in the nineteen fifties. Was the treatment of the Mau Mau by the British state and British soldiers racist? I've no doubt it was, but complaining about it is kind of pointless. Or it would be if the Royalists weren't trying to portray Elizabeth II as the guardian of some unchanging values of decency.

So I guess I'm in agreement with @Pants-of-dog as long as the monarchists continue to portray Elizabeth as a moral paragaon it is totally legitimate to bring this up. if they mean that we should be ashamed of our history then I disagree. It would be absurd as suggesting someone should be ashamed of being descended from Genghis Khan.

[ingliz]

descended from Genghis Khan

He was quite prolific.

An international group of geneticists studying Y-chromosome data has found that nearly 8 percent of the men living in the region of the former Mongol empire carry y-chromosomes that are nearly identical. That translates to 0.5 percent of the male population in the world, or roughly 16 million descendants living today.

— Genghis Khan a Prolific Lover, DNA Data Implies, National Geographic, Feb 2003

[Deutschmania]

RIP Queen Elizabeth.

Monarchies remain, in many cases, a check and balance within modern democracies, and so DO have a purpose, even if it was different from the original one. It has nothing to do with "class".

It's a very complex thing:
How Our Canadian Monarchy Works Within the Constitution
https://www.monarchist.ca/index.php/stu ... rchy-works

While I personally would agree with the idea that a parliamentary system is preferable to a presidential system, I do not think that a country necessarily has to be a constitutional monarchy in order to function in such a manner. For instance, the Federal Republic of Germany has a governmental polity, such as you described, yet instead of a monarch, it has a president to serve this function. Ever since the aftermath of World War 1 , in which the respective nation states of the grandsons of Queen Victoria, King George V , and Kaiser Wilhelm II made war upon each other , Germany deposed their crown head of state . Also, isn't it the role of the Supreme Court of Canada to judge the constitutionality of proposed laws? If so, I would think that the role of the Monarch, and his representative, the Governor General , would be redundant. P.S. In response to what @Tainari88 has mentioned, there really is nothing particularly unique about being of royal descent. I myself am, as a descendant of both the English King Edward III , on my mother's side , and of the Scottish King Robert III . Yet , though you might expect that I would enjoy hereditary privilege as such, my personal background is as common as it comes. There are actually more people like me than some might think, as royal lineage is not all that uncommon. It has more to do with mathematics than politics. https://nigerianscholars.com/tutorials/structure-and-systems-of-government/advantages-of-parliamentary-system/ , https://www.dw.com/en/the-role-of-the-german-president/a-3880008 , http://theworcesterjournal.com/2014/08/22/family-feud-the-three-cousins-who-led-europe-into-the-first-world-war/ , https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/supreme-court-of-canada